Download Deviance-LectureNotes 16-Sociology and more Study notes Sociology of Deviance in PDF only on Docsity!
SOC 3290 Deviance Lecture 16: New Directions in Theorizing About Deviance and Crime
Today we will conclude our review of theoretical approaches to deviance by considering some of the newer formulations that have been appearing over the last few decades. Specifically, we will briefly review: (1) routine activities theory; (2) left realism; (3) feminist theory; (4) power-control theory; (5) self-control theory; (6) peacemaking criminology; (7) reintegrative shaming; and (8) postmodernism. Each will be dealt with in turn.
(1) Routine Activities Theory:
Cohen and Felson's (1979) routine activity theory, one of the so-called victim-cented theories, attempts to explain variations in victimization rates independently of changes in the size of the offender population. It argues that in order for a victimization to occur, three elements must come together in time and space: (i) a motivated offender must come into contact with (ii) a suitable target; in the absence of (iii) capable guardianship (that might otherwise prevent the occurrence of victimization).
While most criminologists focus on the factors that motivate offenders, Cohen and Felson wanted to focus in on changes in the latter two factors. Specifically, they argue that since the end of WWII several changes have occurred in North American society to increase the likelihood of criminal victimization. For example, the world beyond the household has increasingly become the focus of routine activities. There has been a growth in the number of single person households, rising divorce rates and a tendency to marry later in life. All of these have shifted more routine activities away from the home. This increases the chance that people will come into contact with strangers, while leaving homes more empty and unguarded than in the past. Moreover, now there are many lightweight durable consumer goods (such as VCR's) more easily stolen than in the past. All these broad social changes have increased the likelihood that motivated offenders and suitable targets will converge in time and space in the absence of capable guardians. Thus, rates of direct contact victimization will be expected to climb. Indeed, it is argued that these changes will increase victimization levels even if the number of motivated offenders does not increase.
Routine activity theory has received a good deal of empirical support. However, it has been criticized as taking offender motivation as given and constant, and offers little insight into what propels some, but not others, under identical circumstances, to commit crimes. As well, the relative weights of the 3 central components remain unclear. Finally, this theory ignores expressive crime. While providing a good account of instrumental illegal conduct, it is of little help in crimes such as murder and assault, in which passion often plays a role.
(2) Left Realism:
Left realism is an approach that attempts to avoid several problems allegedly
characteristic of more traditional Marxist approaches when dealing with crime:
- Their idealism;
- Failing to provide for solutions to crime in a realistic way;
- Near exclusive focus on the crimes of the powerful;
- No realistic analysis of predatory crimes among the working class.
In the U.K., left realism was first formally articulated in John Lea and Jock Youngâs What is to be Done About Law and Order? (1984). Soon joining in were a broad series of Canadian, Australian and U.S. scholars. The resulting school of thought espouses the following basic principles:
First left realists argue that traditional critical theorists (a.k.a. âLeft idealistsâ) tend to downplay the extent and brutal nature of various types of inner city crime and male to female variants of domestic violence for fear of âwhipping upâ public support for conservative crime control strategies such as longer prison sentences. Left realists instead contend that street crime is a serious problem for disenfranchised people. Indeed, they argue that these devastating symptoms of broader social, political, and economic inequality exemplify individualistic values similar to those adhered to by corporate offenders and other elites who engage in crimes of the powerful (e.g. âDog eat dog; the survival of the fittestâ). Thus, to take crimes by and against the disenfranchised seriously - as does left realism - doesnât mean that they trivialize the degree of public harm done by affluent offenders (indeed, they have produced studies on it). Rather, left realists view street crime and âsuite crimeâ as equally important and contend that a âdouble thrustâ against both problems is needed to effectively cope with the crime problem.
Secondly, left realists use both quantitative and qualitative research methods to elicit rich data about crime, victims, and criminal justice processing. These data are then used in the political arena to challenge right-wing discourses about street crime, violence against women, corporate crime, and the ineffective conservative agenda aimed at curbing such problems. Left realists have conducted various local and national surveys on various types of victimization. Most of these have included measures of fear of crime and perceptions of the police as a way to contextualize the experiential realities of respondents.
Data generated by such surveys offer two potential outcomes not necessarily derived from more traditional studies. They provide disenfranchised people with a âclearer pictureâ of what they are facing than they are able to get from official police statistics and most state-sponsored surveys. As well, they allow researchers to be educated about the experiential realities of their research subjects, and to tell their stories without appropriating their lived realities or voices. Indeed, some such studies have had a positive political impact (e.g. research on the suffering of Punjabi farm workers and their children prompted the B.C. government to provide affordable child care). Hence, left realist surveys represent a vital synthesis of academic research, grassroots political activism, and the concerns of the helping professions in a way that potentially leads to practical, progressive social change. This is due to methodological innovations that help to
and victimization of both females and males).
Feminist theories, while sharing many assumptions, may be described in three broad categories:
Liberal feminism seeks to explain male-female differences in crime and victimization in terms of variations in sex-role socialization. It's goal is equality of protection and treatment in the criminal justice system.
Radical feminism is organized around the theme of patriarchy - the many and varied ways in which the male domination of women is built into the structure of society. It argues that problems such as male violence against women (or the inability or unwillingness of the justice system to address it) is actually rooted in and underwritten by social institutions such as the family or the police.
Socialist feminism seeks to explore the problem of crime and social control in terms of the intersection of gender relations and class relations (combining feminism with Marxist thought).
(4) Power-Control Theory:
Some of these feminist variants are reflected in the writings of criminologists Hagan, Gillis and Simpson. They ask why male rather than female adolescents are more frequently involved in delinquent activity. In their power-control theory, they argue that such differences are rooted in historical changes that have assigned men and women to different social realms, and have created differences in the kinds of social control to which each gender group is subjected. Specifically, as modern industrial capitalism developed, there emerged spheres of consumption and production. The sphere of consumption is best seen in the home environment to which women were largely segregated, while that of production is typified by the traditionally male dominated workplace. The growth of the criminal justice system, which coincided with these economic developments, was largely concerned with the regulation of behavior in the public sphere. Thus, criminal justice has had to do with controlling the behavior of men more than that of women (which was more subject to informal control processes). It is argued that these changes stratified social control in such a way that men more than women became both the instruments and objects of formal control, while women were more the instruments and objects of informal control. The family, responsible for early socialization, provides the means by which these differences are maintained from one generation to the next (e.g. women assigned more care of kids/encouraged to be passive; boys encouraged towards productivity and risk taking). Since much delinquency may be seen as risk taking behavior, gender differences in delinquency follow logically from these gendered processes.
Power-control theory posits that the gap separating male and female delinquency is widest in the patriarchal family and narrowest in the egalitarian family. It also suggests that this
gap is shrinking over time because of the greater equality between the sexes which itself stems from the increasing participation of women in the paid labor force.
(5) Self-Control Theory:
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have proposed a general theory of crime that builds on earlier variants of social control theory. Defining crime generally as the use of force or fraud undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest, these authors argue that the key to criminal involvement is the concept of low self-control. Individuals lacking in self-control will be attracted to crime because such behaviors often require little skill or planning, promise immediate gratification, and are risky or thrilling. They are also likely to be involved in other activities that have similar characteristics (drug use, skipping classes). Such low self-control is rooted in childhood reflecting the influence of family contexts where parents don't monitor or punish their children effectively. Hence, official initiatives aimed at deterring crime in adulthood are misplaced and doomed to failure. Instead, preventative policies must be implemented that take effect early in the life course and benefit families.
So far, this theory has accumulated limited, mixed empirical support. It certainly requires more research. Yet, because self-control is a psychological variable, its existence and levels are very difficult to measure. Indeed, self-control cannot be easily separated from propensities for criminal activity, and therefore the theory is tautological - circular in its reasoning.
(6) Peacemaking Criminology:
Peacemaking criminology is a new approach that is tied up in many respects with the growing movement in criminology towards restorative justice. Opposed to the traditional approach to crime, where agents of social control are pitted against offenders in a violent struggle for control, peacemaking criminology, with its roots in Christian and particularly Eastern philosophies, advances the notion that crime control agencies, offenders and the community should negotiate the end to this âwarâ and work together to solve human suffering, social problems, and thus reduce crime. Peacemaking criminology, which includes the notion of service, has also been called âcompassionate criminologyâ since it suggests that âcompassion, wisdom and love are essential for understanding the suffering of which we are all a part, and for practicing a criminology of nonviolence.
This approach is relatively new, popularized by the works of Harold Pepinsky and Richard Quinney beginning in 1986. Both restate the problem of crime control from one of âhow to stop crimeâ to one of âhow to make peaceâ within society and between citizens and the CJS. Peacemaking criminology draws attention to many issues, including: (1) the perpetuation of violence through the continuation of social policies based on dominant forms of criminological theory; (2) the role of education in peacemaking; (3) âcommonsense theories of crimeâ becoming official self-fulfilling prophecies; (4) crime control as human rights enforcement; and (5) conflict resolution within community settings.
which crime facts fit the theory. Moreover, a study of changes in nursing home operatorsâ compliance with regulations supports the reintegrative shaming perspective. Makkai and Braithewaite (1994) found, for example, that the interaction between inspectorsâ reintegrative ideology and their disapproval of violations produced the desired impact on the operatorsâ subsequent degree of compliance.
(8) Postmodernism:
Postmodernism, finally, is an âapproachâ rooted in the writings of French post- structuralists Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Jean Bauldrillard. Of particular importance is the thought of Foucault, a writer who has focussed explicitly on both the relationship between power and knowledge, as well as on the related social control practices in various linguistic/historical contexts.
Postmodernism is basically a âperspectiveâ that expresses disenchantment with, and questioning of, all claims to truth, knowledge, power, and progress - especially claims based on the assumed superiority of rational logic. In Foucaultâs terms, the post-modernist project requires the âdisruption of smooth regimes of truth,â and is seductively critical because of its anarchistic and populist appeal centering the ordinary person as the harbinger of power and change. The radical core of post-modernism lies in its mission of shedding the illusions of the Enlightenment and its profound disenchantment with modernity (which advocates feel has simply increased oppression rather than bringing about liberation). Whereas modernity sees society in terms of an orderly totality of uniform individuals organized toward progress, postmodernism emphasises fragmentation, difference, diversity and plurality of projects. It is especially critical of any theoretical position that claims to guarantee knowledge toward a common end - or use dominant forms of âknowledgeâ it for âcommonâ purposes such as criminal âjustice.â
A pivotal concern of postmodernism is with language and its use, for it is through language that knowledge is claimed and power usurped. This concern is reflected in many influences and varieties, but, to keep it simple, letâs just say that language is both selective and selectively delimiting, and so intertwined with power as to be inseparable. This is crucial, because language structures thought. As a result, whether people know it or not, the languages used to convey meaning are not neutral, but rather support dominant world views. Such a perspective enables us to question notions of causality, free will, and responsibility, to point up the inherent vulnerability and instability of apparently stable structures. In contrast to the âprivileged,â dominating scientific discourse of objectivity, validity, and the like, it enables us to envision a relatively random, diverse world wherein subjectivity is open to reconstruction beyond the âreasonable economic man,â where language use and modes of discourse become both the prison bars and the keys to liberation through the celebration of action, and structures can be deconstructed by nothing more than the withdrawal of energy from their discursive production and the affirmation of what is different. Moreover, postmodernists attempt to identify disparaged points of view and show how they can be appreciated, along with other, more diverse points of view. Rather than attaining predominance over other emerging radical perspectives in criminology, postmodernism may thus be seen as a contributing insight to their growth as critical
tools of change.
A good example is provided by Vold, Bernard and Snipes (1998), who illustrate how victims and defendants must tell their stories to prosecutors and defence counsel, who subsequently reconstruct and reformulate their narratives into the language of the courts. Their testimony cannot deviate from this accepted language without jeopardizing the outcome of the case. Even if the case goes their way, victims or offenders may believe that their testimony bore so little resemblance to what actually happened that they too are dissatisfied. Regardless of who prevails, the process involves a ritualistic ceremony in which the dominant legal discourse (ârealityâ) of the courts has dominated the oppositional discourse (ârealityâ) of both the offender and the accused. As such, the legalistic language of the court expresses and instrumentalizes the domination of the individual by social institutions. Postmodernists object to this, and wish to transform this into a situation where many different discourses are recognized as legitimate (i.e. âreplacement discoursesâ that enable people to speak with a more authentic voice while remaining aware of the voices of others). It is felt that achieving this state will ultimately result in less victimization of people by criminals and less official punishment by agents of the state.
As a new development in criminological theory, postmodernism has much to offer, if only in integrating key themes from earlier approaches such as cultural/sub-cultural theory, ethnomethodology and phenomenology, conflict and Marxist criticism. It shows how we make order and crime while in the process order and crime-making make us. In this sense, it is a constitutive theory of crime whose greatest asset is its debunking of ideology and culture, but whose greatest danger is to be consumed by its own mode of discourse.
Needless to say, postmodernism has its critics. The âappreciative relativismâ that essentially presents all points of view as equal and treats scientific discourse as having no more validity than any other language goes to far for many criminologists who believe that, while science has problems, it does have real, practical uses. Critics also attack postmodernists penchant for using complex jargon and playing with words - itself a form of using a âprivilegedâ language. Third, postmodernism offers little practical guidance on public policy, which, depending on the variant in question, may either be characterized as being idealistic, insensitive to the real experiences of individuals, or romanticizing insurrection.
Nevertheless, postmodernism, with its emphasis on language, power and knowledge, has opened another front for exposing the pretences and illusions that emerge in the pursuit of justice and social policy. Its political stance is for the underdog, for the empowerment of victims, and exhibits an openness to consider alternative political structures. It also may be very useful in the future in developing insights into newly emerging forms of crime (e.g. there is a clear link between Bauldrillardâs idea of âhyperrealityâ and cyber-crime). This shows some potential for enhancing criminological theory.
Conclusion:
Today we have concluded our discussion of theories of deviance and crime, a review that
