The first chapter asks what it means to say that criminology needs to be reflexive and examines the potential and limits of a movement from social constructionism to reflexivity. This is followed by a chapter that raises some questions for the agenda of later chapters: whether criminology is worth saving, how its "gaze" has been and could be extended, and its applicability in practical interventions. The third chapter reviews the theoretical resources of critical criminology and then questions how far these may be relevant in the various circumstances of countries that are undergoing transitions to democracy. Chapter four analyses what the authors call "the fragmentation of criminology," considers its causes, and discusses whether this should be viewed as a problem. Another chapter considers how postmodern theorizing can be used in deconstructing and reconstructing the notion of crime so as to develop what the authors call a substitute discourse. Chapter 6 emphasizes the negative features of postmodernism, followed by a chapter that offers a reading of legal and criminological discourses about the victims of crime. The final three chapters each provide accounts of current techniques of crime control enriched by the insights provided by historical and comparative perspectives. Chapter notes and references and a subject index