The utility and limitations of the concentric diagram of legitimacy: Commentary on Hamm and Colleagues

Abstract

Hamm et al.’s (Legal Criminol. Psychol., 27, 2022) concentric diagram of legitimacy has a lot to offer by providing order and structure to a disjointed and sometimes confusing literature. However, enthusiasm for the concentric diagram wanes when considering its potential as a catalyst for the development of an integrated theory of legitimacy. The current renaissance of legitimacy studies owes much to the efforts of scholars in pushing the envelope of this elusive concept by drawing from a broad set of perspectives – both within and outside legitimacy studies – to address an array of research questions. Scholars should engage and leverage this diversity, not curtail it.

Pushing past the plateau

“…As Jackson and Bradford note, 'some police officers might view any kind of public acceptance, support and compliance that does not involve aggression, fear, the threat of force and similar factors, as positive, irrespective of whether it is motivated by recognition of rightful authority' (p. 2). Similarly, Trinkner and Reisig (2022) leverage Bottoms and Tankebe's (2017) discussion of dystopia to, in part, highlight the need to consider whether an action that is fundamentally illegitimate to one group which could ever be a part of legitimate governance. Although we would note that the use of the word 'positive' in our conceptualization of acquiescence was intended to mirror authority as a process such that we simply meant that the audience acquiesces (i.e.…”

“…In so doing, we sought to create firm ground from which other scholars can effectively and efficiently engage with and build upon the state of the science. We are therefore excited and humbled by the engagement of six experts working in this area who responded to our work in three peer commentaries that collectively represent exactly the kind of conversation we hoped to facilitate (Blount‐Hill & Gau, 2022; Jackson & Bradford, 2022; Trinkner & Reisig, 2022). Below, we distill their rich insights into key criticisms.…”