Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime

Michael Bamberg; Owen Linden

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Methodology Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime

Michael Bamberg^*

, Owen Linden

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 9, Issue 4)

Received: 30 September 2026 Accepted: 14 October 2026 Published: 29 October 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

We put forth the argument that the criminal, as a recognizable social figure, is a narrative construct, produced through the positioning work performed in interactional settings where legal institutions operate. Taking courtroom closing arguments as the analytical site, we apply positioning analysis to two closing arguments from American legal drama television: a closing in Law & Order (Season 21, Episode 1), and a second from For the People (Season 1, Episode 10), with a third, a mercy killing trial, as methodological anchor and comparative baseline. The comparison yields three analytically distinct positions that extend the care-versus-justice dyad. The argument in the Law & Order case absorbs the care narrative into the prosecutorial stance and subordinates it, making the alignment with the traditional McCoy-era prosecutorial epistemology invisible to thematic readings alone. The defense argument in For the People goes further: it does not contest a competing ethical content but the justice framework's authority to frame. We describe this as a delegitimizing narrative, a third position in comparison. The finding has implications for narrative criminology, where contesting the construction of the criminal may require a different account of the institution doing the constructing, and for positioning analysis as a method, where it demonstrates the approach's capacity to distinguish moves that look structurally similar on the surface but are doing opposite work at the level of master narrative alignment.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 9, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
Page(s)	489-502
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Narrative Criminology, Closing Arguments, Positioning Analysis, Law & Order, Master Narrative, Counter Narrative

References

[1]	Althoff, M., Dollinger, B., & Schmidt, H., 2021. Conflicting narratives of crime and punishment. Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47236-8
[2]	Bamberg, M., 2011. Narrative practice and identity navigation. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Varieties of narrative analysis, 99–124. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117.n6
[3]	Bamberg, M., 2020. Narrative analysis, an integrative approach – Small stories and narrative practices. In: M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), Qualitative analysis – eight traditions (pp. 243-264). Sage.
[4]	Bamberg, M., 2024. Positioning, narrative practices, and positioning theory. In M. B. McVee, L. van Langenhove, C. H. Brock & B. A. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of positioning theory, 43-56. Routledge.
[5]	Bamberg, M., & Linden, O., in press. Narrative, process, and positioning in narrative criminology. In: B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Crime as a process. Interdisciplinary perspectives on a dynamic concept. Palgrave Macmillan.
[6]	Bamberg, M., & Wipff, Z., 2020. Counter-narratives of crime and punishment. In: M. Althoff, B. Dollinger & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Conflicting narratives of crime and punishment, 23-41. Palgrave MacMillan.
[7]	Bianculli, D., 2022. On Fresh Air. Interview with Terry Gross (Host). February 23, 1: 21 PM ET: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082322040/still-ripping-from-the-headlines-law-order-reboot-continues-with-tradition
[8]	Conklin, M., 2026. Cultivating the trial myth. University of Illinois Law Review Online, 2026(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6070326
[9]	Creeber, G. (Ed.)., 2001. The television genre book. British Film Institute.
[10]	Epstein, M. M., 2003. For and against the people: Television's prosecutor image and the cultural power of the legal profession. The University of Toledo Law Review, 34(4), 817–830.
[11]	Epstein, M. M., 2004. "Separate" but not "equally important": How Law & Order devalues detective work and defendants' Fifth Amendment rights. Television Quarterly, 34(2), 4–11.
[12]	Eschholz, S., Mallard, M., & Flynn, S., 2004. Images of prime time justice: A content analysis of NYPD Blue and Law & Order. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(3), 161-180.
[13]	Gilligan, C., 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
[14]	Gilligan, C., 1987. Moral orientation and moral development. In E. Kittay & D. Meyers (Eds.), Women and moral theory, 19–33. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499463
[15]	Gilligan, C., 2018. Moral orientation and moral development [1987]. In Justice and care: Essential readings in feminist ethics, 31–46. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499463
[16]	Inside Media. Law and Order: 20 years – Ripped from the Headlines. November 16, 2009. YouTube accessed September 01, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um7QWMchGCY&list=PLD82012FD014CA72B&index=4
[17]	Keetley, D., 1998. Law & Order. In R. M. Jarvis & P. R. Joseph (Eds.), Prime time law: Fictional television as legal narrative, 33–53. Carolina Academic Press.
[18]	Maruna, S., & Liem, M., 2021. Where is this story going? A critical analysis of the emergence of narrative criminology. Annual Review of Criminal Narratology, 4, 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021757
[19]	Mishlove, A., & Stuckert, L. B., 2023. Mishlove & Stuckert, LLC Attorneys at Law: The power of storytelling in Trial Advocacy. (April 17, 2023) https://www.wisconsin-owi.com/blog/2023/04/17/the-power-of-storytelling-in-214362/
[20]	Mittell, J., 2006. Narrative complexity in contemporary American television. Velvet Light Trap, 58, 29 - 40.
[21]	Newman, M. Z., & Levine, E., 2012. Legitimating television: Media convergence and cultural status. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2012.649135
[22]	Podlas, K., 2002. Cultivating the trial myth: The impact of television on perceptions of the criminal justice system. The Illinois Law Review, 3, 20–42.
[23]	Podlas, K., 2008. Guilty on all accounts: Law & Order’s impact on public perception of law and order. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 18(1), 1–48.
[24]	Presser, L., & Sandberg, S. (Eds.) 2015. Narrative Criminology: Understanding Stories of Crime. NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479876778.001.0001
[25]	Presser, L., & Sandberg, S., 2019. Narrative criminology as critical criminology. Critical Criminology, 27(1), 131- 143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09437-9
[26]	Rader, N. E., & Haynes, S. H., 2025. Gendered fear of crime socialization and media framing. In M. Althoff, B. Dollinger, & H. Schmidt (Eds.), Conflicting narratives of crime and punishment, 87–104. Palgrave Macmillan.
[27]	Sherwin, R. K., 2001. When law goes pop: The vanishing line between law and popular culture. University of Chicago Press.
[28]	Sherwin, R. K., 2018. Visual literacy for the legal profession. Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 68, 1, 55-63.
[29]	Sherwin, R. K., Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C., 2006. Law in the Digital Age: How visual communication technologies are transforming the practice, theory, and teaching of Law. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law (B. U. J. Sci. & Tech. L.), 227- 273.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bamberg, M., Linden, O. (2026). Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. International Journal of Law and Society, 9(4), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bamberg, M.; Linden, O. Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. Int. J. Law Soc. 2026, 9(4), 489-502. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bamberg M, Linden O. Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. Int J Law Soc. 2026;9(4):489-502. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15,
  author = {Michael Bamberg and Owen Linden},
  title = {Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {489-502},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20260904.15},
  abstract = {We put forth the argument that the criminal, as a recognizable social figure, is a narrative construct, produced through the positioning work performed in interactional settings where legal institutions operate. Taking courtroom closing arguments as the analytical site, we apply positioning analysis to two closing arguments from American legal drama television: a closing in Law & Order (Season 21, Episode 1), and a second from For the People (Season 1, Episode 10), with a third, a mercy killing trial, as methodological anchor and comparative baseline. The comparison yields three analytically distinct positions that extend the care-versus-justice dyad. The argument in the Law & Order case absorbs the care narrative into the prosecutorial stance and subordinates it, making the alignment with the traditional McCoy-era prosecutorial epistemology invisible to thematic readings alone. The defense argument in For the People goes further: it does not contest a competing ethical content but the justice framework's authority to frame. We describe this as a delegitimizing narrative, a third position in comparison. The finding has implications for narrative criminology, where contesting the construction of the criminal may require a different account of the institution doing the constructing, and for positioning analysis as a method, where it demonstrates the approach's capacity to distinguish moves that look structurally similar on the surface but are doing opposite work at the level of master narrative alignment.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime
AU  - Michael Bamberg
AU  - Owen Linden
Y1  - 2026/10/29
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 489
EP  - 502
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
AB  - We put forth the argument that the criminal, as a recognizable social figure, is a narrative construct, produced through the positioning work performed in interactional settings where legal institutions operate. Taking courtroom closing arguments as the analytical site, we apply positioning analysis to two closing arguments from American legal drama television: a closing in Law & Order (Season 21, Episode 1), and a second from For the People (Season 1, Episode 10), with a third, a mercy killing trial, as methodological anchor and comparative baseline. The comparison yields three analytically distinct positions that extend the care-versus-justice dyad. The argument in the Law & Order case absorbs the care narrative into the prosecutorial stance and subordinates it, making the alignment with the traditional McCoy-era prosecutorial epistemology invisible to thematic readings alone. The defense argument in For the People goes further: it does not contest a competing ethical content but the justice framework's authority to frame. We describe this as a delegitimizing narrative, a third position in comparison. The finding has implications for narrative criminology, where contesting the construction of the criminal may require a different account of the institution doing the constructing, and for positioning analysis as a method, where it demonstrates the approach's capacity to distinguish moves that look structurally similar on the surface but are doing opposite work at the level of master narrative alignment.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Michael Bamberg

Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, USA

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-5565
Owen Linden

Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, USA

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-3884-873X

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bamberg, M., Linden, O. (2026). Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. International Journal of Law and Society, 9(4), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bamberg, M.; Linden, O. Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. Int. J. Law Soc. 2026, 9(4), 489-502. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bamberg M, Linden O. Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime. Int J Law Soc. 2026;9(4):489-502. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15,
  author = {Michael Bamberg and Owen Linden},
  title = {Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {9},
  number = {4},
  pages = {489-502},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20260904.15},
  abstract = {We put forth the argument that the criminal, as a recognizable social figure, is a narrative construct, produced through the positioning work performed in interactional settings where legal institutions operate. Taking courtroom closing arguments as the analytical site, we apply positioning analysis to two closing arguments from American legal drama television: a closing in Law & Order (Season 21, Episode 1), and a second from For the People (Season 1, Episode 10), with a third, a mercy killing trial, as methodological anchor and comparative baseline. The comparison yields three analytically distinct positions that extend the care-versus-justice dyad. The argument in the Law & Order case absorbs the care narrative into the prosecutorial stance and subordinates it, making the alignment with the traditional McCoy-era prosecutorial epistemology invisible to thematic readings alone. The defense argument in For the People goes further: it does not contest a competing ethical content but the justice framework's authority to frame. We describe this as a delegitimizing narrative, a third position in comparison. The finding has implications for narrative criminology, where contesting the construction of the criminal may require a different account of the institution doing the constructing, and for positioning analysis as a method, where it demonstrates the approach's capacity to distinguish moves that look structurally similar on the surface but are doing opposite work at the level of master narrative alignment.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Narrative Criminology and the Interactional Construction of Crime
AU  - Michael Bamberg
AU  - Owen Linden
Y1  - 2026/10/29
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 489
EP  - 502
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260904.15
AB  - We put forth the argument that the criminal, as a recognizable social figure, is a narrative construct, produced through the positioning work performed in interactional settings where legal institutions operate. Taking courtroom closing arguments as the analytical site, we apply positioning analysis to two closing arguments from American legal drama television: a closing in Law & Order (Season 21, Episode 1), and a second from For the People (Season 1, Episode 10), with a third, a mercy killing trial, as methodological anchor and comparative baseline. The comparison yields three analytically distinct positions that extend the care-versus-justice dyad. The argument in the Law & Order case absorbs the care narrative into the prosecutorial stance and subordinates it, making the alignment with the traditional McCoy-era prosecutorial epistemology invisible to thematic readings alone. The defense argument in For the People goes further: it does not contest a competing ethical content but the justice framework's authority to frame. We describe this as a delegitimizing narrative, a third position in comparison. The finding has implications for narrative criminology, where contesting the construction of the criminal may require a different account of the institution doing the constructing, and for positioning analysis as a method, where it demonstrates the approach's capacity to distinguish moves that look structurally similar on the surface but are doing opposite work at the level of master narrative alignment.
VL  - 9
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download