Download Major Sociological Theoretical Approaches in Criminology: Cloward and Ohlin’s Differential Opportunity Theory and more Study notes Sociological Theories in PDF only on Docsity!
144 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
Major Sociological Theoretical Approaches in Criminology Anomie Theories Émile 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 Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association Crime File 6.1 Designing Out Crime Miller’s Focal Concerns Theory Matza’s Theory of 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 The Theory–Policy Connection Summary Key Concepts Review Questions Web Sources Web Exercises Selected Readings
c h a p t e r
Émile Durkheim 144
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 sim- ilar 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 analysis. The only departures from this devi- ant behavior approach to criminality were found in the writings of the economic 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 additional 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. 145
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 147 In his works, which included The Division of Labor in Society (1964), originally published in 1893, and Suicide (1951), first released in 1897, Durkheim insisted on the primacy of groups and social orga- nizations as explanatory factors of human misconduct. As we said in Chapter 1, he viewed crime as a normal phenomenon in society because group reactions to deviant actions assist human groups in defining their moral boundaries. In his doctoral dissertation, The Rules of Sociological Method (1950), which was completed in 1893, Durkheim defined the sociologist’s role as that of systematic observers of “social facts,” empirically observable group characteristics that affect human behavior. Durkheim’s analysis of suicide clearly demonstrated his hypothesis of group influences on individual propensity to suicide. In Suicide (1951), he identified several types, which included altruistic (“selfless” suicide), egoistic (self-centered suicide), and anomic (suicide due to “anomie” or a state of normlessness in society). The latter concept is Durkheim’s principal contribution to the field of criminology. The term anomie appeared in the English language as early as 1591 and generally referred to a disregard for law (Fox, 1976, p. 115). Anomie, from the Greek anomia (“without norms”), as used by Durkheim involves a moral malaise; a lack of clear-cut norms with which to guide human conduct (normlessness). It may occur as a pervasive condition in society because of a failure of individuals to internalize the norms of society, an inability to adjust to changing norms, or even conflict within the norms themselves. Social trends in modern urban-industrial societies result in changing norms, confusion, and less- ened social control over the individual. Individualism increases and new lifestyles emerge, perhaps yielding even greater freedom but also increasing the possibility for deviant behavior. The close ties of the individual to the family, village, and tradition (what Durkheim calls “mechanical solidarity”), though confining to the individual, maintained social control. In modern societies (characterized by “organic solidarity”) constraints on the individual weaken. In a theme that would influence many later criminological theories, Durkheim viewed anomie in modern societies as produced by indi- vidual aspirations and ambitions and the search for new pleasures and sensations that are beyond achievement even in times of prosperity (Durkheim, 1951, p. 256). This notion of anomie would influence a number of criminological theories, constituting a theo- retical school of thought within mainstream or conventional criminology that began with the work of Robert Merton in the late thirties and continued with Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin and Albert Cohen in the post–World War II period. Chronologically preceding these later developments in the anomie tradition were the work of “the Chicago school” of sociology and another major approach, the social process school of thought. These theories were less concerned with the origin of crime in society and concentrated instead on the social process (learning, socialization, subcultural transmission) by which criminal values were transmitted to individuals by groups with which they were affiliated.
Merton’s Theory of anomie
As part of the jointly sponsored American Society of Criminology and Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ Criminology and Criminal Justice Oral History Project, Robert Merton described how he developed some of his theories (American Society of Criminology, 2004). He was interested in exam- ining “what is it about our society and cultural institutions, not just individual characteristics such as feeblemindedness, that causes deviance?” There is a dysfunction between the American dream (a cultural value) of success and social structure (means of achieving). Class and ethnic structures pro- vided differential access. Merton wanted to look at deviance in addition to conformity 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. 131–194) 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
148 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY in judging people’s social worth on the basis of their apparent material 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 acquiring 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 success 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 combina- tions 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 achievement, 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 work ethic” (the attachment of religious value to work) have been persistent philosophies. 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 many of the cultural values that have desirable consequences (“manifest functions”) often contain within them or produce undesirable consequences (“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 success in society and also the societally approved means of achieving this status, such as through hard work, Photo 6. The American Dream is not available to all. This pregnant woman sits on the sidewalk with a sign asking for help while passersby shop near Beverly Hills, California. Video link 6. View a video of drugs and “the American dream.”
150 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY explanations for crime and thus avoids purely individualistic explanations, and that the research of the critics failed to examine the gap or strain between economic goals and educa- tional 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 promising 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 conflict- ing support. Research did not find higher delinquency among those with the greatest gap between aspirations and expectations. Those with low aspirations and low expectations had the highest offense rates. Other studies, however, have shown support (Agnew, Cullen, Burton, Evans, & Dunaway, 1996; Cullen & Agnew, 2003, p. 119). There have been a variety of efforts to revise strain theory. One revision involves using the concept of relative deprivation, one’s felt sense of deprivation relative to others, such as a reference group. Another alteration is to view adolescents as pursuing a number of goals besides those involving money and status. These might include popularity with peers and romantic partners, good grades, athletic prowess, and even positive relationships with parents (Agnew et al., 1996; Cullen & Agnew, 2003).
Robert agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST)
A persistent writer in the strain tradition has been Robert Agnew (1992, 1995, 1997). He views strain as due to negative relationships in which individuals feel that they are being mistreated. These negative relationships may take a variety of forms: others preventing the achievement of goals such as monetary success; activities that threaten to remove valued relationships such as the loss or death of a significant other; and the threat of negatively valued stimuli such as insults or physical assault. For some, such activities increase the likelihood for anger and frustration, as well as the likelihood that crime becomes a means of resolving these emotions. Agnew and White (1992) claim that delinquency was higher among those experiencing negative life events, for example, parental divorce or financial problems. It was also higher for those with interactional problems with teachers, parents, and others. Why some react to the strain by committing crime and others do not needs to be specified. Agnew (1992, 1994) has revised traditional anomie (strain) theory by going beyond Merton’s pre- sumed economic strain and identifying other sources of strain. His general strain theory (GST) views strain as a more general phenomenon than the discrepancy between aspirations and expectations. Strain can also take place when others take something of value from us or when one is confronted with negative circumstances. A psychological state of negative affect is critical and includes disap- pointment, frustration, and anger. Delinquency becomes a means to regain what one has lost or been prevented from obtaining (instrumental), or retaliatory (a means of striking back), or escapist (a means of getting away from anger and strain). Thus, Agnew identifies three major types of strain. In addition, other types of strain may: Photo 6. Fred Demara, Jr., known as “the Great Imposter,” masqueraded as a civil engineer, a doctor of applied psychology, a lawyer, and a sheriff’s deputy, in addition to many other positions.
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 151
- Prevent one from achieving positively valued goals.
- Remove or threaten to remove positively valued stimuli that one possesses.
- Present or threaten to present one with noxious or negatively valued stimuli. In a test of GST, Paternoster and Mazerolle (1999) obtained mixed findings. Negative relation- ships with adults, dissatisfaction with friends, and school life and stress were related to delinquency. Such strain may, however, be managed by other strategies such as drug use, compensatory success in school, athletics, or after-school jobs. Strain does weaken conventional social bonds and strengthen unconventional bonds. An extension of Merton’s theory has been offered by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld in their Crime and the American Dream (1994) and their institutional anomie theory. The hunger for wealth is viewed as insatiable, and all social institutions become subservient to the economic struc- ture. Culturally induced pressure to accumulate material rewards combined with weak controls by noneconomic institutions produces an institutionalization of anomie (Chamlin & Cochran, 1995) and an institutionalization of the use of deviant means for success. The unimpeded pursuit of mon- etary success is the “American dream.” Economic institutions predominate, subordinating all other institutions such as the family, church, or school, reducing their power particularly in the socializa- tion of children.
Subcultural Theories
Merton’s modification of Durkheim’s notion of anomie began the “anomie tradition” in U.S. crimi- nology, with further influential theoretical work by writers such as Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin and Albert Cohen that 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. crimi- nology related to juvenile gangs, as studies of citations in recent criminology textbooks (Schichor,
- and frequently cited books and journal articles (Wolfgang, 1980) show.
Cohen’s lower-Class Reaction Theory
Albert Cohen was an undergraduate student of Robert Merton and later a graduate teaching assistant 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 graduate 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 uni- versity saying it was not their policy to hire Jews. Fortunately, Sutherland had offered him a teach- ing assistantship at Indiana. Albert Cohen’s (1955) Delinquent Boys pres- ents a theory about lower-class subcultural delin- quency. According to his theory, delinquency is a lower-class reaction to middle-class values. Lower-class youths use delinquent subcultures as a means of reacting against a middle class– dominated value system in a society that unin- tentionally discriminates against them because of their lower-class lifestyles and values. Unable to live up to or accept middle-class values and Photo 6. Many anomie theories of crime directed themselves to explaining gang behavior.
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 153 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 subcul- ture 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 and activities among members appears common (Bordua, 1961; Schrag, 1962).
- The orientation and specialization of delinquent gangs, even if the analysis is restricted to the United States, appear far more complex and varied than their theory accounts for. Despite criticism, Cloward and Ohlin’s ideas were very influential in the field and comprised a broader theory than that of Albert Cohen (1955). Where Cloward and Ohlin viewed delinquency as an anomic reaction to goals, means discrepancy, and the particular form of adaptation dependent on available illegitimate opportunities, Cohen perceived delinquency as a reaction of lower-class youth to unobtainable middle-class values. The implications of Cloward and Ohlin’s theory were not lost on policymakers. By improving legitimate opportunities, delinquency could be controlled. Then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy read Delinquency and Opportunity and was impressed and asked Lloyd Ohlin to assist in drafting legislation that resulted in the passage of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of
- Such community action programs later became the basis of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002). Social Process Theories Social process theories emphasize criminality as a learned or culturally transmitted process and are presented as an outgrowth of the Chicago school of sociology in the works of Henry Shaw and David McKay, Edwin Sutherland, Walter Miller, and David Matza.
The Chicago School
In 1892 the first American academic program in sociology was begun at the University of Chicago, marking the inception of sociology’s Chicago school. Names associated with this school would constitute a virtual Camelot of sociology: Park, Burgess, Wirth, Shaw, McKay, Thrasher, Zorbaugh, Anderson, Mead, Faris, Dunham, Thomas, Znaniecki, Cressey, and Sutherland, to mention just a few. Originally begun by sociologist Albion Small, the school would have a primary influence on audio link 6. Listen to a discussion of the new gangs of New York.
154 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY the development of sociology as a distinctive American discipline in the twenties and thirties with Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Louis Wirth as the primary mentors. This group would develop a comprehensive theoretical system urban ecology that would generate a remarkable number of urban life studies (Stein, 1964). Human ecology Like Durkheim, Park (1952) saw that freedom from group constraints often also entailed freedom from group supports. While Durkheim referred to this as anomie, Park used the notion of “indi- vidualization due to mobility.” Ecology is a field that examines the interrelationship between human organisms and environment. Park’s theory was based on human ecology, looking at humans and the environment and, more specifically, at urban ecology, viewing the city as a growing organism, heavily employing analogies from plant ecology. According to Park, the heterogeneous contact of racial and ethnic groups in the city often leads to competition for status and space, as well as conflict, accommo- dation, acculturation, assimilation, or amalgamation—terms all quite similar to concepts in botany (plant biology), such as segregation, invasion, succession, and dispersion. One of Park’s key notions was that of natural areas, subcommunities that emerge to serve specific, specialized functions. They are called “natural” since they are unplanned and serve to order the functions and needs of diverse popula- tions within the city. Natural areas provide institutions and organizations places to socialize its inhab- itants 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 concentric rings, served as the graphic model for the Chicago school’s theory of human ecology. Figure 6.1 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 anti-urban bias in its analysis and 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, generaliza- tions. Park (1952) expressed this hope: 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 requirements, but they 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 Handbook article link 6. Read an article on social disorganization theory.
156 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY 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 shortcomings, 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.
- The attempt to borrow an organic analogy and adapt biological concepts, such as competition, invasion, succession, and the like, to criminology saddled the field with unnecessarily primitive concepts.
- Some of the studies tend to commit the ecological fallacy (Robinson, 1950), in which group rates are used in order to describe individual behavior. Aggregate statistics do not yield accurate estimates if the intended unit of analysis is the behavior of individuals.
- Although Shaw and McKay studied other cities, the theories and conceptions of the Chicago school (such as the concentric growth of cities) were perhaps applicable to Chicago, a city undergoing fantastic urbanization during the twenties and thirties, but may not apply to other urban communities, particularly since the post–World War II period.
- These theories assume stable ecological areas, which in fact do not exist. Such areas disappea- red in the post–World War II decentralization of urban areas (Bursik, 1988, pp. 523–524; Schuerman & Kobrin, 1986).
- Problems in operationalizing (measuring) key concepts, such as delinquency rate and disorganization, arise when there is a heavy reliance on official statistics (Pfohl, 1985, p. 167).
- There is an overemphasis on consensus in community and a lack of appreciation of political conflict (Bursik, 1988, p. 524). In defense of Shaw and McKay, Brantingham and Brantingham (1984, p. 312) point out that they were not as guilty of falling into the ecological fallacy trap as many of their followers, since they supplemented many of their statistical studies with case studies. This was illustrated by ethnographic works such as Shaw, McKay, and MacDonald’s (1938) Brothers in Crime and Shaw’s (1930) The Jack Roller. Focusing on group or social process, the urban ecologists Shaw and McKay in particular were influential in shifting criminological analysis from an overconcentration on the individual deviant and instead toward the criminogenic influences of social environments. Routine activities approach A resurgence and rediscovery of interest in the ecological and social disorganization theories of crime have been rekindled by formulations such as Cohen and Felson’s (1979) and Felson’s (1983) “rou- tine activities approach” to crime causation. This approach says, “The volume of criminal offenses will be related to the nature of normal everyday patterns of interaction.... There is a symbiotic rela- tionship between legal and illegal activities” (Messner & Tardiff, 1985, pp. 241–242). In summarizing the routine activities approach, Felson (1987) indicates: (1) It specifies three earthy elements of crime: a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian against crime. (2) It considers how everyday life assembles these three elements in space and time. (3) It shows that a proliferation of lightweight durable goods and a dispersion of activities away from family and household could account quite well for the crime wave in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s without fancier explanations. Indeed modern society invites high crime rates by offering a multitude of illegal opportunities. (p. 911) Journal article link 6. Examine literature regarding women’s stalking victimization and routine activities theory. Journal article link 6. Examine literature regarding defensible space and routine activities of place.
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 157 Koenig (1991) explains that one of the origins of this theory was the Hindelang et al. (1977) life- style 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 probabilities 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 burglary 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” explanations are needed in criminology in addition to the “kinds of people” explanations. He codifies 30 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 cynicism. While Stark’s hypotheses are too numerous to cover here, his systematic extraction of propositions from over a century of social disorganization/ecological research represents a reaffirmation and resurgence of such literature (see also Taylor & Harrell, 1996). Crime File 6.1 reports on environmental crime pre- vention and “Designing Out 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. Sutherland’s theory was strongly influenced by Charles Horton Cooley’s (1902) theory of per- sonality, the “looking-glass self.” Cooley viewed the human personality as a “social self,” one that is learned in the process of socialization and interaction with others. The personality as a social product is the sum total of an individual’s internalization of the impressions he or she receives of the evaluation of others—“mirror of alters.” “Significant others,” people who are most important to the individual, are particularly important in this socialization process. Thus, in Cooley’s percep- tion, the human personality is a social self, a product of social learning and interaction with others. Sutherland was also influenced by Shaw and McKay’s (1942) notion of social disorganization and cultural transmission of crime, as well as by French sociologist Gabriel Tarde’s (1912 [1890]) concept of imitation as the transmitter of criminal values. Similarly, in Sutherland’s explanation of criminal- ity, crime is a learned social phenomenon, transmitted in the same manner that more conventional behavior and attitudes are passed on. In explaining how he developed the theory, Sutherland indicated that he was not even aware that he had done so until, in 1935, Henry McKay referred to “Sutherland’s theory”: “I asked him what my theory was. He referred me to pages 51–52 of my book” (Sutherland, 1956b, p. 14). The first edition of Sutherland’s text was published in 1924; while the 1934 edition to which McKay referred contained the nexus of a theory, it was in the 1939 edition that Sutherland outlined its major propositions. These were slightly modified in the 1947 edition and have remained essentially the same in subsequent editions, which have been coauthored or (since Sutherland’s death in 1950) authored by Donald Cressey. Handbook article link 6. Read an article on peers and crime.
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 159 The nine propositions of the differential association theory are these (Sutherland, 1947, pp. 6–7):
- Criminal behavior is learned.
- Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
- The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
- 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 behavioristic 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 criminal 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 individual is exposed to such contacts. The sheer length and volume of association with criminogenic influences affect different people in different ways. Humans are not robots responding in a predictable 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 meaning 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 crimi- nological 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 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.) Handbook article link 6. Read an article on social learning theory.
160 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY
- 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 crimi- nality. The theory of differential association remains one of the most cited theories in modern crimi- nology 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) Akers’s theory combines Sutherland’s concept with behavioral conditioning and even classical concepts of rewards and punishments and has found considerable empirical support (Burgess & Akers, 1966, pp. 102–104).
Miller’s Focal Concerns Theory
Walter Miller’s (1958) ideas appeared in an article titled “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.” Miller limits the applicability of his theory to “members of adolescent street corner groups in lower class communities” (1958, p. 5). Unlike Cohen, who viewed such delinquency as a lower-class reaction to middle-class values, Miller views such activity as a reflection of the focal concerns of dominant themes in lower-class culture. These are “areas or issues which command widespread and persistent attention and a high degree of emotional involvement” (p. 7). Faced with a chasm between aspirations and the likelihood of their achievement, lower-class youth seek status and prestige within one-sex peer units (gangs) in which they exaggerate focal concerns already in existence in lower-class culture. Thus gang delinquency, rather than representing an anomic reaction to unobtainable middle-class goals, represents, in the tradition of social process theory, a pattern of subcultural transmission or learning of values prevalent in the local environment.
162 INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINOLOGY Miller’s theory views criminogenic influences as learned or transmitted as part of subcultural 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 Theory of Delinquency and Drift
The theories of David Matza are presented in his book Delinquency and Drift (1964) and in a coau- thored 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 postponing commitment, evading decision. Thus he drifts between criminal and conventional 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 expres- sion 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, exagger- ates society’s subterranean values and acts them out in caricature. Sykes and Matza explain (1957): The delinquent may not stand as an alien in the body of society but may represent 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.” 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 insan- ity) or by pointing to the subterranean values prevalent in society. They identify five techniques of neutralization:
1. Denial of responsibility, such as appeals based on one’s home life, lack of affection, and social class. 2. Denial of harm to anyone, such as defining stealing as “borrowing” or drug abuse as harming no one but the offender.
Chapter 6. Sociological Mainstream Theories 163
3. Denial of harm to the victim, in which the assault is justified since the person harmed was also a criminal. 4. Condemning the condemners, reversing the labeling process by claiming that authorities are more corrupt than the offender, and are hypocritical as well. 5. 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 justifications of deviant behavior techniques of neutralization; and we believe these techniques 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 indi- viduals who find themselves in criminogenic settings do not commit crime. His concept of neutral- ization 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 mis- placed and that such rationalizations are utilized after the fact only when behavior is called into ques- tion (see Minor, 1981, 1984, for additional analysis). The transitional nature of Matza’s theories with social control approaches can be found in his notion of drift, in which individuals become temporarily detached from social control mechanisms. This release from group bonds is the basic unit of analysis in social control theories. Social Control Theories The final grouping of mainstream sociocriminological theories to be discussed is referred to as social control theories and is represented by the work of Walter Reckless and Travis Hirschi.
