Download Major Theoretical Approaches in Mainstream Criminology (Sociological) and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
Major Sociological Theoretical Approaches in Criminology Anomie Theories Emile Durkheim and “Anomie” Merton’s Theory of Anomie Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) Subcultural Theories Cohen’s “Lower Class Reaction” Theory Cloward and Ohlin’s “Differential Opportunity” Theory Social Process Theories The Chicago School Shaw and McKay’s “Social Disorganization” Theory Crime Files 6.1 Designing Out Crime
Sutherland’s Theory of “Differential Association” In the News 6.1 CAP Index, Inc.., Crime Vulnerability Assessment Miller’s “Focal Concerns” Matza’s “Delinquency and Drift” Social Control Theories Reckless’s “Containment” Theory Hirschi’s “Social Bond” Theory Gottfredson and Hirschi’s “General Theory of Crime” John Hagan’s “Power-Control” Theory Developmental and Life Course (DLC) Theories Farrington’s “Antisocial Potential” (AP) Theory Sampson and Laub’s “Life Course” Criminality
CHAPTER 6
SOCIOLOGICAL
MAINSTREAM THEORIES
Positive criminology accounts for too much delinquency. Taken at their terms, delinquency [crime] theories seem to predict far more delinquency than actually occurs. If delinquents were in fact radically different from the rest of conventional youth... Then involvement in delinquency would be more permanent and less transient, more pervasive and less intermittent than is apparently the case. Theories of delinquency yield an embarrassment of riches, which seemingly go unmatched in the real world. —David Matza, Delinquency and Drift(1964)
T
he early classical, biological, and psychological traditions in criminology theory were similar in their relatively conservative view of society (the consensus model) as well as in their search for the cause of crime in either lack of fear of deterrence, defective individual genetics, or the psyche. The individual criminal was the unit of analy- sis. The only departures from this deviant behavior approach to criminality were found in the writings of the eco- nomic theorists (Marx and Bonger) and the ecologists (Quetelet and Guerry). Economic and ecological theories constitute the groundwork for the preeminence of sociological approaches to criminological theory beginning in the 1930s in the United States. Societal conditions, groups, social disorganization, and conflict have become addi- tional units of analysis. Crime is perceived as a status (definition) as well as behavior (pathology), and sociological criminology in general takes a more critical stance toward the society itself as generator of criminal conduct.
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
Major Sociological Theoretical
Approaches in Criminology
Table 6.1 is a more detailed outline of the sociological theories that were briefly presented in Table 4.1, Major Theoretical Approaches in Criminology. These include mainstream sociological theories: anomie, social process, social control, and developmental and life-course theories. Discussion will begin with the mainstream tradition and the views of late nineteenth- century sociologist Émile Durkheim and the “anomie theories” that he inspired. Other representa- tives of this approach are Robert Merton, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, and Albert Cohen.
Anomie Theories
Émile Durkheim and “Anomie”
The writings of French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) were in sharp contrast to the Social Darwinist, individualist, and psychological and biological positivist theories dominant in the
Durkheim Merton
Cloward and Ohlin Cohen
Shaw and McKay Cohen and Felson Sutherland
Miller Matza
Reckless Hirschi
Gottfredson and Hirschi Farrington Blumstein Sampson and Laub
“crime reflects consensus mode”
“anomie (normlessness) lessens social control” “anomie (gap between goals and means)creates deviance” “differential social opportunity” “lower class reaction to middle class values”
“social disorganization and social conditions” “routine activities” “crime is learned behavior, culturally/subculturally transmitted” “local concerns of lower class” “subterranean values, drift techniques of neutralization” “containment theory” “social bonds weakened reducing individual stakes in conformity” “low self-control and self-interest”
“antisocial potential” “longitudinal studies” “life course criminality”
Sociological Mainstream
Anomie Theory
Social Process
Social Control
Developmental/ Life Course
Table 6.1 Major Theoretical Approaches in Mainstream Criminology (Sociological)*
*See Table 7.1 for other theoretical approaches in criminology.
Theoretical School Major Themes/Concepts Major Theorists
structures provided differential access. Merton wanted to look at deviance in addition to conform- ity in society and explain differential rates. Functionalism had concentrated on positive functions of things, and so he wanted to explore their dysfunctions. Robert Merton’s theory of “anomie” first appeared in 1938 in an article titled “Social Structure and Anomie.” Modifying Durkheim’s original concept, Merton (1957, pp. 131–94) viewed anomie as a condition that occurs when discrepancies exist between societal goals and the means available for their achievement. This discrepancy or strain between aspirations and achievement has resulted in Merton’s conception being referred to as “strain theory.” According to this theory, U.S. society is firm in judging people’s social worth on the basis of their apparent mate- rial success and in preaching that success is available to all who work hard and take advantage of available opportunities. In reality the opportunities or means of achieving success (“the American dream”) are not available to all. Merton (1938) states:
It is only when a system of cultural values extols, virtually above all else, certain common symbols of success for the population at large while its social structure rigorously restricts or completely eliminates access to approved modes of acquir- ing these symbols for a considerable part of the same population, that antisocial behavior ensues on a considerable scale. (p. 78)
Thus according to Merton’s theory of anomie, antisocial behavior (crime) is produced by the very values of the society itself in encouraging high material aspirations as a sign of individual suc- cess without adequately providing approved means for all to reach these goals. This discrepancy between goals and means (strain) produces various “modes of personality adaptation,” different combinations of behavior in accepting or rejecting the means and goals. Given this high premium placed on individual success without concomitant provision of adequate means for its achieve- ment, individuals may seek alternate (nonapproved) means of accomplishing this goal. American fiction, the Horatio Alger stories of “rags to riches,” the media, and literature constantly pound home the theme of success. “Social Darwinism” (the theme that the capable or fit will succeed) and the “Protestant ethic” (the attachment of religious value to work) have been persistent philoso- phies. These values are generally accepted by persons of all social classes. One of the essential premises of this approach is that organization and disorganization in society are not mutually exclusive, but rather that many of the cultural values that have desirable consequences (“manifest functions”) often contain within them or produce undesirable conse- quences (“latent functions”; Merton, 1961).
Modes of Personality Adaptation Merton describes five possible modes of personality adaptation that represent types of adjust- ments to societal means and goals: the conformist, the innovator, the ritualist, the retreatist, and the rebel. All except the conformist are deviant responses. The conformist accepts the goal of suc- cess in society and also the societally approved means of achieving this status, such as through hard work, education, deferred gratification, and the like. Acceptance of the goals does not indicate that all actually achieve such satisfactory ends, but that they have faith in the system. The innovator accepts the goal of success, but rejects or seeks illegitimate alternatives to the means of achieving these aims. Criminal activities such as theft and organized crime could serve as examples, although societally encouraged activities such as inventing could also provide illustra- tions. An interesting example is the case of Fred Demara, Jr., well known through the book The Great Imposter (Crichton, 1959). A high school graduate, Demara was disappointed that people had to spend much of their lives preparing—usually for only one occupation. Forging credentials and
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
identities he launched into careers as a college professor, Trappist monk, penitentiary warden, and surgeon in the Canadian Navy, to mention just a few. The ritualist is illustrated by the “mindless bureaucrat” who becomes so caught up in rules and means to an end that he or she tends to forget or fails to place proper significance on the goal. This individual will compulsively persist in going through the motions with little hope of success- ful achievement of goals. The retreatist represents a rejection of both societally approved means and ends. This adap- tation might be illustrated by the advice of Timothy Leary, the prophet of psychedelic drugs in the sixties, who preached, “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” Chronic alcoholics and drug addicts may eventually reject societal standards of jobs and success and choose the goal of “getting high” by means of begging, borrowing, or stealing. The rebel rejects both means and goals and seeks to substitute alternative ones that would represent new societal goals as well as new methods of achieving them, such as through revolu- tionary activities aimed at introducing change in the existing order outside normal, societally approved channels.
A Critique of Merton’s Theory Merton’s theory, very well received in sociology and in criminology, became the basis of a number of subcultural theories of delinquency to be discussed shortly. Criticisms of the theory include that:
- His assumption of uniform commitment to materialistic goals ignores the pluralistic and heterogeneous nature of U.S. cultural values.
- The theory appears to dwell on lower class criminality, thus failing to consider law breaking among the elite. Taylor et al. (1973, p. 107) express this point: “Anomie theory stands accused of predicting too little bourgeois criminality and too much proletarian criminality.”
- The theory is primarily oriented toward explaining monetary or materialistically oriented crime and does not address violent criminal activity.
- If Merton is correct, why does the United States now have lower property crime rates than many other developed countries?
While many writers (Hirschi, 1969; Johnson, 1979; Kornhauser, 1978) have concluded that Merton’s theory does not hold up empirically, more recent research by Farnworth and Lieber (1989) argues in favor of its durability. They indicate that strain (anomie) theory combines psy- chological and structural explanations for crime and thus avoids purely individualistic explana- tions, and that the research of the critics failed to examine the gap or strain between economic goals and educational means. Farnworth and Lieber found this a significant educational predictor of delinquency in their sample of juveniles, and concluded that the theory is “... A viable and prom- ising theory of delinquency and crime” (1989, p. 273). Classic strain theory (as it is sometimes called given the strain or discrepancy between goals and means) has had additional conflicting support. Research did not find higher delinquency among those with the greatest gap between aspirations and expectations. Those with low aspira- tions and low expectations had the highest offense rates. Other studies, however, have shown support (Agnew et al., 1996; Cullen & Agnew, 2003, p. 119).
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
Subcultural Theories
Merton’s modification of Durkheim’s notion of anomie began the “anomie tradition” in U.S. crim- inology, with further influential theoretical work by writers such as Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin and Albert Cohen, which directed itself toward subcultural theories of delinquency. Merton’s theory had a major impact on many of the more sociologically oriented theories of crime and delinquency. A major area of theoretical focus from the thirties through the sixties in U.S. criminology related to juvenile gangs, as studies of citations in recent criminology textbooks (Schichor, 1982) and frequently cited books and journal articles (Wolfgang, 1980b) show.
Cohen’s “Lower Class Reaction” Theory
Albert Cohen was an undergraduate student of Robert Merton and later a graduate teaching assis- tant for Edwin Sutherland at Indiana University. In the “Oral History Project” tapes (American Society of Criminology, 2004), he explains that, despite having been a 1939 Phi Beta Kappa grad- uate of Harvard, he had been turned down for aid in graduate schools because he was Jewish. He even received a letter from a department chair of a state university saying it was not their policy to hire Jews. Fortunately, Sutherland had offered him a teaching assistantship at Indiana. Albert Cohen’s (1955) Delinquent Boys presents a theory about lower class subcultural delin- quency. According to his theory, delinquency is a lower class reaction to middle class values. Lower class youth use delinquent subcultures as a means of reacting against a middle class–dominated value system in a society that unintentionally discriminates against them because of their lower class lifestyles and values. Unable to live up to or accept middle class values and judgments, they seek self-esteem by rejecting these values. Cohen (1955, p. 25) carefully qualifies his remarks by indicating that this theory is not intended to describe all juvenile crime. He views much lower class delinquency as nonutilitarian, malicious, and nega- tivistic. Much theft, for instance, is nonutilitarian, performed for status purposes within the gang rather than out of need. Maliciousness is expressed in a general dis- dain for middle class values or objects and a negative reaction to such values. The delinquent gang substitutes its own values and sources of self-esteem for the middle class values it rejects. Some examples of middle class values include: ambition, individual responsibility, verbal skills, academic achievement, deferred gratification (postponement of rewards), middle class manners, nonviolence, wholesome recre- ation, and the like. The gang subculture, as depicted in the accompanying photo, offers a means of protection and of striking back against values and behavioral expec- tations the lower class youth is unable to fulfill.
A Critique of Cohen’s Theory Major criticisms of Cohen’s theory relate to:
- His overconcentration on lower (working) class delinquency.
- His assumption that lower class boys are interested in middle class values (Kitsuse & Dietrick, 1970).
- Cohen, like other subcultural theorists, fails to address ethnic, family and other sources of stress as well as the recreational (“fun”) aspects of gang membership (Bordua, 1962).
- By emphasizing the nonutilitarian nature of many delinquent activities, Cohen tends to underplay the rational, for-profit nature of some juvenile criminal activities.
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
Photo 6.1 Many anomie theories of crime directed themselves to explaining gang behavior. Source: © Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis
Cohen’s theory fits into the “anomie tradition” in that he views lower class delinquency and gang membership as a result of strain or a reaction to unfulfilled aspirations. A related subcultural theory by Walter Miller disagrees with this strain hypothesis and argues instead—in the social process tradition of Shaw, McKay, and Sutherland—that lower class delinquency represents a process of learning and expressing values of one’s membership group. Miller’s theory will be dis- cussed in detail shortly.
Cloward and Ohlin’s
“Differential Opportunity” Theory
An extension of the works of both Merton and Sutherland (to be discussed) appeared in Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity. A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. According to their theory of differential opportunity, working-class juveniles will choose one or another type of subcultural (gang) adjustment to their anomic situation depending on the availability of illegitimate opportunity structures in their neighborhood. Borrowing from Merton’s theme, Cloward and Ohlin view the pressure for joining delinquent subcultures as originating from dis- crepancies between culturally induced aspirations among lower class youths and available means of achieving them through legitimate channels. In addition to legitimate channels, Cloward and Ohlin stress the importance of available illegitimate opportunities, which may also be limited, depending on the neighborhood. Neighborhoods with highly organized rackets provide upward mobility in the illegal opportunity structure. Individuals occupy positions in both legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures, both of which may be limited. Illegitimate opportunities are dependent on locally available criminal traditions.
Delinquent Subcultures Cloward and Ohlin identified three types of illegitimate juvenile subcultures: criminal, conflict, and retreatist. The criminal subculture occurs in stable slum neighborhoods in which a hierarchy of available criminal opportunities exist. Such a means of adaptation substitutes theft, extortion, and property offenses as the means of achieving success. Disorganized slums (ones undergoing invasion- succession or turnover of ethnic groups) are characterized by a conflict subculture. Such groups, denied both legitimate and illegitimate sources of access to status, resort to violence, “defense of turf,” “bopping,” and/or “the rumble,” as a means of gaining a “bad rep” or prestige. The retreatist subculture is viewed by Cloward and Ohlin as made up of “double failures.” Unable to succeed either in the legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures, such individuals reject both the legitimate means and ends and simply drop out; lacking criminal opportunity, they seek status through “kicks” and “highs” of drug abuse. These subcultures become the individual’s reference group and primary source of self-esteem. According to this theory, delinquent gang members do not generally reject the societal goal of success, but lacking proper means to achieve it, seek other opportunities.
A Critique of “Differential Opportunity” Theory Cloward and Ohlin’s theory, building as it had on other respected theories, was well received in the field of criminology. Criticisms of the theory have generally involved:
- This theory focused exclusively on delinquent gangs and youths from lower and working-class backgrounds, ignoring, for instance, middle class delinquent subcultures.
- It is doubtful that delinquent subcultures fall into only the three categories they identified. In fact, much shifting of membership
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
specialized functions. They are called “natural” since they are unplanned and serve to order the functions and needs of diverse populations within the city. Natural areas provide institutions and organizations places to socialize its inhabitants and to provide for social control. Such natural areas include: ports of embarkation, Burgess’s “zone of transition,” ghettos, bohemias, hobohemias, and the like. Burgess’s (1925) “concentric zone theory,” which views cities as growing outward in concen- tric rings, served as the graphic model for the Chicago school’s theory of human ecology. Figure 6. presents Burgess’s “concentric zone” theory. Wirth’s (1938) theory of “Urbanism as a Way of Life” viewed the transition from the rural to the urban way of life as producing social disorganization, marginality, anonymity, anomie, and alienation because of the heterogeneity, freedom, and loneliness of urban life. The “Chicago school” expressed an antiurban bias in its analysis and a nostalgia for the small Midwestern towns in which most of its theorists had originated. Using Park’s concept of natural areas as a building block, Chicago school students were enjoined to perform case studies of these areas in order to generate hypotheses as well as, it was hoped, generalizations. Park (1952) expressed the hope:
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
Figure 6.1 Burgess’s Concentric Zone Theory
ZoneV^ •^ Suburbs
Zon
eIV^ •
BetterResidentialAr eas
Zo
ne
III^ •
Indu
stryand
WorkingP eopl e’s Ho me s Zo
ne
II^ •^ Z
oneofTrans itio n
Zone I Economic Center (Central Business District)
Source: Figure is based upon theoretical presentations in “The Growth of the City” by Ernest W. Burgess inThe City (pp. 47–62), edited by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and Robert D. McKenzie, 1999, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
The natural areas of the city, it appears from what has been said, may be made to serve an important methodological function. They constitute, taken together, what Hobson has described as “a frame of reference,” a conceptual order within which statistical facts gain a new and more general significance. They not only tell us what the facts are in regard to conditions in any given region, but insofar as they characterize an area that is natural and typical, they establish a working hypothesis in regard to other areas of the same kind. (p. 198)
This empirical orientation, as opposed to armchair theorizing, was the chief contribution of the Chicago school. Among the students inspired to perform field research were Clifford Shaw and David McKay, and Edwin Sutherland.
Shaw and McKay’s “Social
Disorganization” Theory
Ironically, although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay are pointed to as members of the Chicago school, they never enjoyed faculty status at the University of Chicago, but performed their research while employed by the Illinois Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago. Snodgrass (1972) indicates that neither Shaw nor McKay received his doctorate because of foreign language require- ments, but worked closely with many faculty and students from the University (Carey, 1975). The lasting contribution of Shaw and McKay’s ecological studies in the thirties was their basic premise that crime is due more to social disorganization in pathological environments than the deviant behavior of abnormal individuals (Gibbons, 1979). In the tradition of the statistical school of criminological theory, Shaw and McKay made extensive use of maps and official statistics to plot the ecological distribution of forms of social disorganization such as juvenile delinquency (Shaw, 1929; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Using Burgess’s concentric zone theory as a schema, as well as Park’s notion of natural areas, they were able to document the ecological impact on human behavior. For instance, one transitional area (an area undergoing invasion/succession) was shown to exhibit very high crime rates despite considerable change in its ethnic makeup. Such areas breed criminogenic influences that predispose occupants to crime and social disorganization. In other research, Shaw utilized ethnographic and autobio- graphical field methods in order to provide case studies of criminals and delinquents (Shaw, 1930; Shaw, McKay, & MacDonald, 1938). Imposing concentric circles on mapped areas of Chicago on which rates of social disorganization had been plotted, Shaw (1930) was able to demonstrate the highest rates of truancy, crime, delinquency, and recidivism in Zone II (area of transition), while such rates declined as one moved further out from the rings. Criminal attitudes and social pathol- ogy were viewed as culturally transmitted within the social environment.
A Critique of “Social Disorganization” Theory The human ecologists’ insistence on ecological and social conditions having criminogenic impacts on otherwise normal individuals would inspire later criminologists such as Sutherland. Their stress on field studies and an empirical orientation would provide credibility to the fledgling disciplines of sociology and criminology and win them greater academic acceptance. A number of shortcom- ings, however, have been identified:
- Their theories at times border on ecological determinism: that an area or physical environment causes social pathology. Concentration on the geophysical environment tends to make the social structure and institutions secondary.
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
Koenig (1991) explains that one of the origins of this theory was the Hindelang et al. (1977) “lifestyle exposure” theory, which proposes that the probability of crime varies by time, place, and social setting. An individual’s lifestyle places him or her in social settings with higher or lower prob- abilities of crime. Other works that illustrate the reaffirmation of social disorganization theory are by Simcha- Fagan and Schwartz (1986), who include social disorganization and subcultural approaches in explaining urban delinquency. Similarly Byrne and Sampson (1986) indicate that the social- ecological model is based on the premise that community has independent impacts on crime that are not able to be separated from the individual level. White (1990) found that neighborhood bur- glary rates varied by highway accessibility; ease of entry increases both familiarity with escape routes and vulnerability. In “Deviant Places,” Stark (1987) argues that “kinds of places” explana- tions are needed in criminology in addition to the “kinds of people” explanations. He codifies thirty propositions from over a century of ecological explanations of both the Chicago school and the moral statisticians of the nineteenth century. Stark identifies five aspects of high deviance areas: density, poverty, mixed use, transience, and dilapidation. These elements create criminogenic conditions for crime. His propositions include that density is associated with interaction between least- and most-deviant populations, higher moral cynicism, overcrowding, outdoor gatherings, lower levels of supervision of children, poorer school achievement, lower stakes in conformity, and increased deviant behavior. Crowding will increase family conflict, decrease the ability to shield wrongdoing, and thus increase moral cyn- icism. While Stark’s hypotheses are too numerous to cover here, his systematic extraction of propo- sitions from over a century of social disorganization/ecological research represents a reaffirmation and resurgence of such literature (see also Taylor & Harrell, 1996). Crime Files 6.1 reports on the environmental crime prevention and “Designing Out Crime.” In the News 6.1 presents the CAP Index. This is used to assess crime vulnerability of various localities.
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
Crime Files 6.1 Designing Out Crime
Issues Our failure to bring crime under control through a wide range of modifications to the criminal justice system has blinded us to the successful efforts continuously being made by a host of private and public entities—municipalities, schools, hospitals, parks, malls, bus companies, banks, department stores, taverns, offices, factories, parking lots—to bring a wide range of troublesome and costly crimes under control. In most cases these successes are achieved by identifying ways to reduce opportunities for highly specific kinds of crime, the approach advocated by environmental crime prevention. The essential tenets of environmental crime prevention, of which Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Situational Crime Prevention are the best known examples, are to:
- Increase the difficulty of committing crime (e.g., credit card photos).
- Increase the perceived risks (e.g., burglar alarms).
- Reduce the rewards associated with criminal acts (e.g., PIN for car radios).
- Reduce the rationalizations that facilitate crime (e.g., simplify tax forms).
(Continued)
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
While the federal government gave some support to CPTED in the 1970s, interest in environmental crime prevention has languished in our country. One reason for this loss of support was the concern that blocking opportunities for crime would result in its displacement to some other target, time, or place (i.e., the net amount of crime would remain the same, although its manifestations would be different). This belief was bolstered by criminological theories that generally failed to recognize important situational determinants of crime, such as the availability of tempting goods to steal and the absence of adequate guardianship of vulnerable property and persons. In recent years, however, new criminological theories have emphasized the role of opportunities in crime causation.These theories, which include routine-activity theory and rational-choice theory, argue that as the number of opportunities for crime increases, more crimes will be committed; conversely, as opportunities are reduced, so crime will decline. Whether or not displacement takes place depends on the ease with which offenders can obtain the same criminal rewards without greatly increased effort or risks. Somebody who has developed the habit of shoplifting from the supermarket will not inevitably turn to some other form of crime, involving greater risk of detec- tion and more severe penalties, if the store takes effective preventive action. In fact, particular crimes serve spe- cial purposes for the offender. A thwarted rapist will not turn to mugging or drug dealing.
Policy Recommendations
- Federal Crime Prevention Department: A crime prevention department should be established in the Department of Justice along the lines of similar units now functioning in a number of European countries. This unit would have a research and dissemination role and would also initiate action to “design out crime” that more naturally falls to central government than to state or local agencies. For example, the department could ensure the security of the phone system, of credit cards, or of ATM cards through federal influence on manufacturers and service providers at an industry level. Important preventive initiatives that currently need federal government sponsorship include development of effective personal alarms for repeat victims of domestic violence and the use of PIN numbers for VCRs and other electronic devices that are targets for burglary.
- C rime Prevention Extension Service: A Crime Prevention Extension Service, linked to local universities, along the lines of the successful agricultural model, should be developed within the Department of Justice. Its mandate should be to deliver expert crime prevention advice to small businesses and local communities. Such a service would complement rather than compete with the work of the police, especially as community policing ideas take hold. Sources: “American Society of Criminology Task Force Report to Attorney General Janet Reno,”The Criminologist (Special Issue), 20, 6, November/December 1995. Task Force members on “Designing Out Crime” included: Ronald V. Clarke, chair; Patricia Brantingham, Paul Brantingham, John Eck, and Marcus Felson. Research Project Search the name “Oscar Newman.” What is his main thesis regarding the impact of defensible space on crime?
Sutherland’s Theory of “Differential Association”
Perhaps the most influential general theory of criminality was that proposed initially in 1934 by Edwin Sutherland (1883–1950) in his theory of differential association. Simply stated, the theory indicates that individuals become predisposed toward criminality because of an excess of contacts that advocate criminal behavior. Due to these contacts a person will tend to learn and accept values and attitudes that look more favorably on criminality.
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
- When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes: (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very simple; and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
- The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
- A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
- Differential association may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
- The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
- While criminal behavior is an explanation of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
Differential association theory is not directed at the issue of the origin of crime in society, but concentrates instead on the transmission of criminal attitudes and behavior. It is a behavioris- tic theory—“previous behavior causes subsequent behavior”—and contains elements of a “soft social determinism,” that is, exposure to groups does not cause but predisposes individuals to crim- inal activity or causes them to view it more favorably. Why, then, do not all with similar exposure become similarly criminal? Sutherland’s notion of variations in contacts provides for individual reaction to social groups and exposures.
Contacts in Differential Association Contacts in differential association vary according to frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Frequency deals with the number of contacts, duration with the length of time over which an indi- vidual is exposed to such contacts. The sheer length and volume of association with criminogenic influences impact on different people in different ways. Humans are not robots responding in a pre- dictable manner to a given number of influences. Priority refers to the preference individuals express toward the values and attitudes to which they are exposed, while intensity entails the degree of mean- ing the human actor attaches to such exposure. While Sutherland (1947) admits an inability to reach a quantitative or exact measurement of these modalities, a very general example should illustrate their operation. What explains the good child in the bad environment? Despite a great frequency and long duration of exposure to criminal attitudes, such individuals fail to prefer such values and attach greater meaning to noncriminal attitudes that, although less frequently available, may be found in “significant others,” perhaps role models such as teachers, coaches, peers, and the like.
A Critique of “Differential Association” Because it is a general theory of criminality and is relatively compatible with many other criminolog- ical explanations of crime, differential association theory enjoyed widespread acceptance in the field. It was not, however, without critics. Donald Cressey, Sutherland’s coauthor, explains that since Sutherland’s principal propositions are presented in only two pages in his textbook, the theory is
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
often misinterpreted by some critics, most notably Vold (1958, p. 194). Among these claimed errors of interpretation, Cressey (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974, pp. 78–80) mentions the following:
- The theory is concerned only with contacts or associations with criminal or delinquent behavior patterns. (It actually refers to both criminal and noncriminal behavior, as demonstrated by the use of terms such as “differential” and “excess” of contacts.)
- The theory says persons become criminals because of an excess of associations with criminals. (It actually says that criminal attitudes can be learned from the unintentional transmission of such values by noncriminals.)
- Using the 1939 version of the theory, critics believe the theory refers to “systematic criminals.” (This has been modified since the 1947 version to refer to all criminal behavior.)
- The theory fails to explain why persons have the associations they have. (It does not pretend to do so.)
Cressey (1960) also addresses other criticisms that he feels are misinterpretations; however, a number of shortcomings have been identified:
- While Sutherland traces the roots of criminality to culture conflict and social disorganization, a comprehensive theory of criminality should provide more explanation of the origin of crime.
- Since it is a general theory, it is difficult to either empirically prove or disprove it by means of research, and reformulations are necessary in order to permit testing (see Burgess & Akers, 1966; DeFleur & Quinney, 1966).
- The theory fails to account for all forms of criminality.
- The theory fails to acknowledge the importance of non-face-to- face contacts such as media influences (Radzinowicz & King, 1977 , p. 82).
Despite these and other criticisms, differential association remains important as a useful general theory of criminality even though it may fail to specify the process for each individual case of criminality. The theory of differential association remains one of the most cited theories in mod- ern criminology and will probably remain so until a more acceptable general theory of criminality appears. It has also received support in recent research (Matsueda, 1988; Orcutt, 1987), although Warr and Stafford (1991) indicate that attitude is not as important as actual peer behavior and group pressures to conform. A variation of differential association can be found in Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess’s (Burgess & Akers, 1966) “differential reinforcement” (social learning) theory.
“Differential reinforcement” refers to the balance of anticipated or actual rewards or punishments that follow or are consequences of behavior. Whether individuals will refrain from or commit a crime at any given time... depends on the past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for their action. (Akers, 1994. p. 98)
values. The pluralistic nature of U.S. society makes it quite uncertain that such a distinctive value system, solely based on class, indeed exists.
Miller’s theory views criminogenic influences as learned or transmitted as part of subcul- tural values. Similarly, the writings of David Matza present delinquency as part of a general social process of learned cultural values rather than as an anomic reaction to unobtainable goals.
Matza’s “Delinquency and Drift”
The theories of David Matza are presented in his book, Delinquency and Drift (1964), and in a coauthored article with Gresham Sykes (Sykes & Matza, 1957), titled “Techniques of Neutralization.” Matza’s theories including that of delinquency and drift are an example of soft determinism, which holds that, although human behavior is determined to some extent by outside forces, there still exists an element of free will or individual responsibility (Matza, 1964, pp. 5–7). Humans are neither entirely constrained nor entirely free, nor is the individual entirely committed to delinquent or nondelinquent behavior. Matza (p. 28) explains the drift theory of delinquency:
The delinquent exists in a limbo between convention and crime responding in turn to the demands of each, flirting now with one, now the other, but postpon- ing commitment, evading decision. Thus he drifts between criminal and conven- tional action.
Subterranean Values. Rather than being wholly committed to delinquency, most delinquents are dabbling in it and are acting out subterranean values of society (pp. 63–64) that exist alongside more conventional values in a pluralistic society such as the United States. Conventional society attempts to control the expression of these values and reserve it for the proper time and place; in a sense, it is the practice of “morality with a wink.” The delinquent, rather than being committed to goals that are alien to society, exaggerates society’s subterranean values and acts them out in cari- cature. Sykes and Matza explain (1957):
The delinquent may not stand as an alien in the body of society but may repre- sent instead a disturbing reflection or caricature. His vocabulary is different, to be sure, but kicks, big time spending and rep have immediate counterparts in the value system of the law abiding. The delinquent has picked up and emphasized one part of the subterranean values that coexist with other, publicly proclaimed values possessing a more respectable air. (p. 717)
Thus, while conventional mores disapprove of subterranean values, they often represent “hidden” patterns or themes in the culture. Illicit sexual behavior, slick business practices, a dislike of work, substance abuse, and media violence as a popular form of entertainment are examples. Delinquents simply have poor training and timing in the expression of subterranean values. The pervasiveness of subterranean values might be illustrated by the attempt of conventional members of “straight” society to appear “hip,” “with it,” and “streetwise.” “Can you dig it?”
Techniques of Neutralization Sykes and Matza’s (1957) term techniques of neutralization refers to rationalizations or excuses that juveniles use to neutralize responsibility for deviant actions. In drift situations, offenders can lessen their responsibility by exaggerating normal legal defenses (for example, self-defense or insanity) or by point- ing to the subterranean values prevalent in society. They identify five techniques of neutralization:
CHAPTER 6: Sociological Mainstream Theories
- Denial of responsibility, such as appeals based on one’s homelife, lack of affection, and social class.
- Denial of harm to anyone, such as defining stealing as “borrowing” or drug abuse as harming no one but the offender.
- Denial of harm to victim, in which the assault is justified since the person harmed was also a criminal.
- Condemning the condemners, reversing the labeling process by claiming that authorities are more corrupt than the offender, and are hypocritical as well.
- Appeal to higher authority, which claims that the offense was necessary in order to defend one’s neighborhood or gang.
As an illustration of the techniques of neutralization, the song “Gee, Officer Krupke” from the musical West Side Story has members of the Jets arguing that they are victims of “a social disease.” Sykes and Matza (1957) explain:
The delinquent both has his cake and eats it too, for he remains committed to the dominant normative system and yet so qualifies its imperatives that violations are “acceptable” if not “right.” Thus the delinquent represents not a radical opposition to law abiding society but something more like an apologetic failure, often more sinned against than sinning in his own eyes. We call these justifica- tions of deviant behavior techniques of neutralization; and we believe these tech- niques make up a crucial component of Sutherland’s “definitions favorable to the violation of the law.” It is by learning these techniques that the juveniles become delinquent, rather than by learning moral imperatives, values or attitudes standing in direct contradiction to those of the dominant society. (p. 668)
A Critique of Matza’s Theory Matza provides a transition between Sutherland’s social process theories and the social control theories to be discussed next. By combining deterministic models with the notion of free will, he avoids the overly deterministic nature of many earlier theories and explains why the majority of individuals who find themselves in criminogenic settings do not commit crime. His concept of neutralization enables him to escape the problem inherent in previous subcultural theories of delinquency, which rested on the premise that delinquent values were at variance with conventional values. Some possible shortcomings of Matza’s views include the following:
- While some research has shown offenders to be prone to rationalizing their behavior (Ball, 1980; Regoli & Poole, 1978), Hindelang (1970) found different value systems among delinquents. Obviously more research is needed.
- In order for his theory to be correct, empirical evidence must demonstrate that Matza’s neutralization takes place during the period of drift preceding the act, a concept that may be difficult to operationalize.
Hamlin (1988) argues that the notion of rational choice in neutralization theory has been misplaced and that such rationalizations are utilized after the fact only when behavior is called into question (see Minor, 1981, 1984, for additional analysis).
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
