Don't forget that next week Essay II is due (on Thurs. 11/5) and we will be wrapping up our family activity on (Tues. 11/3). Both of these things are described in the previous blog post (Wed. 10/21).
Below is the description of the short paper assignment mentioned in the Course Outline. I will NOT be handing out a hard copy of this description, so please refer to this blog for the details of this assignment.
PAPER TOPIC DESCRIPTION
Sociology 220
Paper Topic
10/30/09
A. I want you to find and read TWO articles about A particular type of crime which you are both interested in investigating more and is discussed somewhere in either Chapters 4, 5, or 6 of our text. Those chapters cover three broad types of crime: violent, property, and white collar crime; but, rather than focus on one of those broad catergories, I want you to focus more specifically on ONE particular type of crime such as motor vehicle theft, for example, which is covered in Chapter 5 on property crime.
I believe the best sources for these articles would be popular magazines or newspapers, and AS A LAST RESORT, academic journals. The articles should be fairly recent (within the last 5 years or so) and they should each be AT LEAST TWO PAGES LONG. In your paper, I want you to discuss what insights these articles contain, as well as discuss how they relate to the analysis of that type of crime in the text. Do the articles support, not support, contradict, or offer new insight into the treatment of that type of crime in the text? Finally, I want you to address the question of the implications of what you've learned about this type of criminal behavior for policies to better control or reduce it.
B. The paper should be roughly 6-7 pages (double-spaced typewritten). PLEASE TURN IN XEROX COPIES OF BOTH ARTICLES ALONG WITH YOUR PAPER. Be sure to indicate the page number and source of any passages from the articles or text which you quote in your paper. No bibliography is required since you will be turning in your outside sources (the articles) along with the paper.
C. This paper is due on THURSDAY, NOV. 19TH, at which time everyone will be called upon to give a brief summary of your findings to the rest of the class (5 minutes, tops). The paper is worth 50 points and the presentation 5 points.
***ONCE YOU FINISH "GANG LEADER FOR A DAY" YOU SHOULD START READING THESE CHAPTERS AND SEARCHING FOR ARTICLES.***
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"Gang Leader for a Day" Essay & New Family Activity
Now, with the midterm exam behind us, it is time to move on. As I noted yesterday, we are going to take a break from the text and read and discuss "Gang Leader for a Day." Try to read through Chapter 1 for Thursday 10/22, and just continue reading over roughly the next week and a half until you finish it. You'll find it a much more enjoyable and interesting read than the text. Below are descriptions of two things we are going to do with this book. First, is a description of our second out-of-class essay and second, is a family activity in connection with this book. PLEASE READ THESE OVER CAREFULLY AND KEEP THEM IN MIND AS YOU READ THE BOOK.
ESSAY II
In a review of an old criminology text published in the 1950s, Prof. E.A. Ahrens outlines a broader understanding of crime which he contends is rooted in a disordered world and not in any particular biological, psychological, or sociological variables which the theories in our text are based on. In this regard, I believe Prof. Ahrens has some valuable insight to offer in terms of understanding crime in the spirit of what the author of our text refers to as "Integrative Theories of Crime." (p. 98)
For this next out-of-class essay, I want you to address broadly how aspects of "Gang Leader for a Day" relate to the following passage from Prof. Ahrens' review. More specifically, I want you to make THREE such connections between the book and the passage below. Those connections can be fairly broad or more specific, but in either case it would be helpful if you can either quote a relevant passage from "Gang Leader" or at least indicate the chapter from which you are drawing these points. In this context, BE SURE TO CITE PAGE NUMBERS FROM WHICH THE QUOTES OR OTHER REFERENCES COME. Your essay should be roughly 3 pages, and it is due on THURSDAY, NOV. 5TH.
AHRENS' PASSAGE: "Actions do not take place in a vacuum, but in a world of ordered objects. A familiar fact in life is to find ourselves in situations in which no intelligent act is possible. At such times we are at the mercy of those situations. We are not responsible for what happens then. This does not mean that no such thing as responsibility exists. It is not some absolute in the individual possessed at all time and under all conditions. Rather, it is a question of our world and our relation to it. In a rightly ordered world, to whose objects we have access, we gain the capacity for intelligent action. Responsibility itself is a condition achieved through a right ordering of our world. Conversely, it is lost with its disorganization. An individual will plan to avoid situations in which he cannot live and act. But the power in this direction on the part of individuals is limited. Each exists within a societal frame which he cannot modify. This frame may be such that at some point in it some individuals can't even exist, let alone act intelligently. This means that responsibility is not merely individual, as the common view has it, but corporate as well. These disordered areas of our life in which human life inevitably suffers, grows peverse, degenerates are the creations of a society lacking intelligence and possessing wrong aims in life. And, we suggest, that it is our corporate life and its failure,...where the explanation (of crime) lies."
As you reflect on this passage, do not worry about comprehending every sentence necessarily. Think of the broader point he is making, which I believe you'll see has relevance to "Gang Leader for a Day." One specific point of vocabulary that you should find helpful is Ahrens' use of the term "corporate." He is using this term in its original Latin meaning, which is "to embody." So "corporate life" is an embodied life, in which we have access to the objects necessary to our survival and cultural development as human beings. He is NOT using corporate as a synonym for business.
______________________________
FAMILY ACTIVITY ON "GANG LEADER FOR A DAY":
As we work our way through "Gang Leader for a Day," I want each of the families to address the questions listed below. I will give you some class time for you to confer with your family members and come up with your responses to each of those questions. At the conclusion of our discussion of the book, I will call on each of the families to present their findings to the class, in which you should state your answer to each question along with a brief defense in NO MORE THAN A LONG PARAGRAPH. We will try to collectively decide what the best answers are. I will, then, post these "best answers" on the blog and this will constitute the material from which I may make up questions for the final exam on this book. All participants will earn 6 activity points for this exercise, and for each answer selected to represent the best of the class that family will earn a bonus point, so it is possible to earn up to 3 bonus points for this exercise.
You will need to get on this soon. Hopefully, by next week you will be well along in your reading of "Gang Leader for a Day," and I will give you time on both Tues. 10/27 & Thurs. 10/29 to confer. I'd like to wrap this up on TUESDAY, NOV. 3RD, WHICH WILL BE THE DATE I WILL EXPECT EACH FAMILY TO HAVE FORMULATED YOUR RESPONSES AND BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THEM IN CLASS.
HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:
(1) What did you find was the MOST SURPRISNG FACT OR OBSERVATION?
(2) What do you believe is the MOST INSIGHTFUL PASSAGE IN THE BOOK (no more than a paragraph)?
(3) What do you believe is the MOST IMPORTANT LESSON to be drawn from the book in terms of understanding and dealing with gangs?
__________________________________
ESSAY II
In a review of an old criminology text published in the 1950s, Prof. E.A. Ahrens outlines a broader understanding of crime which he contends is rooted in a disordered world and not in any particular biological, psychological, or sociological variables which the theories in our text are based on. In this regard, I believe Prof. Ahrens has some valuable insight to offer in terms of understanding crime in the spirit of what the author of our text refers to as "Integrative Theories of Crime." (p. 98)
For this next out-of-class essay, I want you to address broadly how aspects of "Gang Leader for a Day" relate to the following passage from Prof. Ahrens' review. More specifically, I want you to make THREE such connections between the book and the passage below. Those connections can be fairly broad or more specific, but in either case it would be helpful if you can either quote a relevant passage from "Gang Leader" or at least indicate the chapter from which you are drawing these points. In this context, BE SURE TO CITE PAGE NUMBERS FROM WHICH THE QUOTES OR OTHER REFERENCES COME. Your essay should be roughly 3 pages, and it is due on THURSDAY, NOV. 5TH.
AHRENS' PASSAGE: "Actions do not take place in a vacuum, but in a world of ordered objects. A familiar fact in life is to find ourselves in situations in which no intelligent act is possible. At such times we are at the mercy of those situations. We are not responsible for what happens then. This does not mean that no such thing as responsibility exists. It is not some absolute in the individual possessed at all time and under all conditions. Rather, it is a question of our world and our relation to it. In a rightly ordered world, to whose objects we have access, we gain the capacity for intelligent action. Responsibility itself is a condition achieved through a right ordering of our world. Conversely, it is lost with its disorganization. An individual will plan to avoid situations in which he cannot live and act. But the power in this direction on the part of individuals is limited. Each exists within a societal frame which he cannot modify. This frame may be such that at some point in it some individuals can't even exist, let alone act intelligently. This means that responsibility is not merely individual, as the common view has it, but corporate as well. These disordered areas of our life in which human life inevitably suffers, grows peverse, degenerates are the creations of a society lacking intelligence and possessing wrong aims in life. And, we suggest, that it is our corporate life and its failure,...where the explanation (of crime) lies."
As you reflect on this passage, do not worry about comprehending every sentence necessarily. Think of the broader point he is making, which I believe you'll see has relevance to "Gang Leader for a Day." One specific point of vocabulary that you should find helpful is Ahrens' use of the term "corporate." He is using this term in its original Latin meaning, which is "to embody." So "corporate life" is an embodied life, in which we have access to the objects necessary to our survival and cultural development as human beings. He is NOT using corporate as a synonym for business.
______________________________
FAMILY ACTIVITY ON "GANG LEADER FOR A DAY":
As we work our way through "Gang Leader for a Day," I want each of the families to address the questions listed below. I will give you some class time for you to confer with your family members and come up with your responses to each of those questions. At the conclusion of our discussion of the book, I will call on each of the families to present their findings to the class, in which you should state your answer to each question along with a brief defense in NO MORE THAN A LONG PARAGRAPH. We will try to collectively decide what the best answers are. I will, then, post these "best answers" on the blog and this will constitute the material from which I may make up questions for the final exam on this book. All participants will earn 6 activity points for this exercise, and for each answer selected to represent the best of the class that family will earn a bonus point, so it is possible to earn up to 3 bonus points for this exercise.
You will need to get on this soon. Hopefully, by next week you will be well along in your reading of "Gang Leader for a Day," and I will give you time on both Tues. 10/27 & Thurs. 10/29 to confer. I'd like to wrap this up on TUESDAY, NOV. 3RD, WHICH WILL BE THE DATE I WILL EXPECT EACH FAMILY TO HAVE FORMULATED YOUR RESPONSES AND BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THEM IN CLASS.
HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:
(1) What did you find was the MOST SURPRISNG FACT OR OBSERVATION?
(2) What do you believe is the MOST INSIGHTFUL PASSAGE IN THE BOOK (no more than a paragraph)?
(3) What do you believe is the MOST IMPORTANT LESSON to be drawn from the book in terms of understanding and dealing with gangs?
__________________________________
Friday, October 16, 2009
Reminders & Note About Text's Treatment of Labeling Theory
First, don't forget to check out the previous post (for Oct. 15) which contains the family questions and answers that will be on the midterm exam coming up next Tuesday 10/20. Also, as I believe we agreed yesterday in class, I will make myself available for any questions you might have about the midterm on Monday 10/19 from roughly 1:00-2:30. Come by my office (Main 121). If several people show up at once, we may move to a nearby classroom, in which case I will put a note on my office door. Also, you can email me questions, but make sure to do so by Monday morning at the latest, and I'll try to respond as quickly as I can.
Second, in checking out the text's treatment of labeling theory last night again, I was a bit dismayed to discover that some of my classroom and blog comments were unwarranted. Hagan actually does a better job than I gave him credit for. He does address labeling as an independent variable (or causal factor). He also references Becker and the distinction between primary and secondary deviance. Although I would still argue he could have done a better job on that theory, I was off-base to accuse him of missing things he did not miss. Nonetheless, I believe the account of labeling theory I gave in my lecture notes on the blog is the one you should focus on for the midterm and it is still better than what is in the text.
AGAIN, CHECK OUT THE FAMILY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE MIDTERM IN THE PREVIOUS POST FOR OCT. 15TH. See you next Tuesday.
Second, in checking out the text's treatment of labeling theory last night again, I was a bit dismayed to discover that some of my classroom and blog comments were unwarranted. Hagan actually does a better job than I gave him credit for. He does address labeling as an independent variable (or causal factor). He also references Becker and the distinction between primary and secondary deviance. Although I would still argue he could have done a better job on that theory, I was off-base to accuse him of missing things he did not miss. Nonetheless, I believe the account of labeling theory I gave in my lecture notes on the blog is the one you should focus on for the midterm and it is still better than what is in the text.
AGAIN, CHECK OUT THE FAMILY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE MIDTERM IN THE PREVIOUS POST FOR OCT. 15TH. See you next Tuesday.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Family Questions for the Midterm Exam
Below are the family questions and answers which will be part of the midterm exam next Tuesday 10/20. I did do some editing, as you'll see.
GREEN FAMILY: (Sara, Aubrey, Maya, Melanie, Jeremy) 5pts +1 bonus point
1. In your own words, explain the difference between actions that are MALA IN SE and actions classified as MALA PROHIBITA. (2)
ANSWER: MALA IN SE are acts "bad in themselves," or forbidden behaviors for which there is wide-scale consensus on the mores of prohibition. MALA PROHIBITA are acts that are "bad because they have been prohibited," or not viewed as bad in themselves but are violations because the law defines them as such.
2. Identify and describe any ONE of the five modes of adapting to the strain of anomie, according to Merton's Anomie Theory. (2)
ANSWER: any ONE of the following: (a) CONFORMIST: accepts the situation; strives for success through conventional, legitimate channels which these individuals obviously have access to. System works for them. (b) INNOVATOR: this is the primary criminal response. One accepts the goal of success, but being blocked from legitimate means, this person turns to illegitimate means (in a sense, innovates or creates his/her own means). Engaged in mostly by lower class (a point Hagan does not mention). (c) RITUALIST: person gives up on the struggle for success as society defines it, lowers his/her expectations to the point where they can be satisfied through conventional means. He considered this "deviant" or abnormal, although I would contend that it is a rational response to living with scarcity. (d) RETREATIST: this is the escapist response. Person gives up on both the goal of success and the means -- turns to alcohol and/or drugs to, in the words of Timothy Leary, "tune in, turn on, drop out." Of course, taking illegal drugs is a crime, not to mention the fact that to support a drug habit one often has to resport to crime -- theft. (e) REBEL: rejects both the ends and the means; that is, rejects the "system" altogether and seeks to overturn it, which would include violent means which would obviously be criminal.
3. Why are the biological and psychological theories of crime not adequate? (2)
ANSWER: Because the individual is not a separate and distinct biological or psychological being. The individual is also a social and cultural being, so the social and cultural dimension must be taken into account. Indeed, what constitutes crime itself is a matter of social definition.
RED FAMILY: (Skylar, Kevin, Wilson, John, Catherine) 5pts.
1. In Charles Goring's book, "The English Convict," how did he challenge Lombroso's biological theory of crime? (2)
ANSWER: He used a much broader, more representative sample of the normal population and found no significant differences in physical appearance between them and a sample of convicted criminals in prison.
2. Briefly explain the difference between UNDERCRIMINALIZATION and OVERCRIMINALIZATION. (2)
ANSWER: UNDERCRIMINALIZATION is where the criminal law fails to prohibit acts that many feel are "mala in se" or bad in themselves. Whereas OVERCRIMINALIZATION involves the overextension of criminal law to cover acts that are inappropriately or not responsibly enforced by such measures.
BLUE FAMILY: (Marie, Kit, Meredith, Jessica) 5pts + 1 bonus point.
1. In the article, "Phantom Numbers Haunt the War on Drugs," what quote did I cite in class which referred to statistics, politicians, and lampposts? (1)
ANSWER: "Politicians are said to use statistics the way drunks use lampposts, for support rather than illumination."
2. Describe the difference between CRIME and DEVIANCE. (2)
ANSWER: DEVIANCE is any act that is considered outside the "norms of behavior," whereas CRIME is a violation of law and a subset of deviance.
3. What theory does Hagan discuss under the MISTAKEN heading: "Social Process Theory?" (1)
ANSWER: Social Disorganization theory.
BLACK FAMILY: (Thomas, Matt, Natalie, Grant) 5pts.
1. Identify any TWO reasons why international comparisons of crime may be inaccurate. (2)
ANSWER: Any TWO of the following: (1) Varying definitions, legal codes -- define crimes in different ways; (2) Recording practices may differ -- different police departments record things differently; (3) Operating practices -- in some countries only crimes reaching court are recorded.
2. Briefly describe Lombroso's theory of atavism. (2)
ANSWER: Criminals were seen as "throwbacks" to an earlier and more primitive evolutionary period. Such born criminals could be identified by certain physical stigmata -- outward appearances, particularly facial, which tended to distinguish them from noncriminals.
__________________________________
That's it. Remember, these will be on the exam. Each will be placed in the appropriate chronological order on the exam.
GREEN FAMILY: (Sara, Aubrey, Maya, Melanie, Jeremy) 5pts +1 bonus point
1. In your own words, explain the difference between actions that are MALA IN SE and actions classified as MALA PROHIBITA. (2)
ANSWER: MALA IN SE are acts "bad in themselves," or forbidden behaviors for which there is wide-scale consensus on the mores of prohibition. MALA PROHIBITA are acts that are "bad because they have been prohibited," or not viewed as bad in themselves but are violations because the law defines them as such.
2. Identify and describe any ONE of the five modes of adapting to the strain of anomie, according to Merton's Anomie Theory. (2)
ANSWER: any ONE of the following: (a) CONFORMIST: accepts the situation; strives for success through conventional, legitimate channels which these individuals obviously have access to. System works for them. (b) INNOVATOR: this is the primary criminal response. One accepts the goal of success, but being blocked from legitimate means, this person turns to illegitimate means (in a sense, innovates or creates his/her own means). Engaged in mostly by lower class (a point Hagan does not mention). (c) RITUALIST: person gives up on the struggle for success as society defines it, lowers his/her expectations to the point where they can be satisfied through conventional means. He considered this "deviant" or abnormal, although I would contend that it is a rational response to living with scarcity. (d) RETREATIST: this is the escapist response. Person gives up on both the goal of success and the means -- turns to alcohol and/or drugs to, in the words of Timothy Leary, "tune in, turn on, drop out." Of course, taking illegal drugs is a crime, not to mention the fact that to support a drug habit one often has to resport to crime -- theft. (e) REBEL: rejects both the ends and the means; that is, rejects the "system" altogether and seeks to overturn it, which would include violent means which would obviously be criminal.
3. Why are the biological and psychological theories of crime not adequate? (2)
ANSWER: Because the individual is not a separate and distinct biological or psychological being. The individual is also a social and cultural being, so the social and cultural dimension must be taken into account. Indeed, what constitutes crime itself is a matter of social definition.
RED FAMILY: (Skylar, Kevin, Wilson, John, Catherine) 5pts.
1. In Charles Goring's book, "The English Convict," how did he challenge Lombroso's biological theory of crime? (2)
ANSWER: He used a much broader, more representative sample of the normal population and found no significant differences in physical appearance between them and a sample of convicted criminals in prison.
2. Briefly explain the difference between UNDERCRIMINALIZATION and OVERCRIMINALIZATION. (2)
ANSWER: UNDERCRIMINALIZATION is where the criminal law fails to prohibit acts that many feel are "mala in se" or bad in themselves. Whereas OVERCRIMINALIZATION involves the overextension of criminal law to cover acts that are inappropriately or not responsibly enforced by such measures.
BLUE FAMILY: (Marie, Kit, Meredith, Jessica) 5pts + 1 bonus point.
1. In the article, "Phantom Numbers Haunt the War on Drugs," what quote did I cite in class which referred to statistics, politicians, and lampposts? (1)
ANSWER: "Politicians are said to use statistics the way drunks use lampposts, for support rather than illumination."
2. Describe the difference between CRIME and DEVIANCE. (2)
ANSWER: DEVIANCE is any act that is considered outside the "norms of behavior," whereas CRIME is a violation of law and a subset of deviance.
3. What theory does Hagan discuss under the MISTAKEN heading: "Social Process Theory?" (1)
ANSWER: Social Disorganization theory.
BLACK FAMILY: (Thomas, Matt, Natalie, Grant) 5pts.
1. Identify any TWO reasons why international comparisons of crime may be inaccurate. (2)
ANSWER: Any TWO of the following: (1) Varying definitions, legal codes -- define crimes in different ways; (2) Recording practices may differ -- different police departments record things differently; (3) Operating practices -- in some countries only crimes reaching court are recorded.
2. Briefly describe Lombroso's theory of atavism. (2)
ANSWER: Criminals were seen as "throwbacks" to an earlier and more primitive evolutionary period. Such born criminals could be identified by certain physical stigmata -- outward appearances, particularly facial, which tended to distinguish them from noncriminals.
__________________________________
That's it. Remember, these will be on the exam. Each will be placed in the appropriate chronological order on the exam.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Family Activity: Making Up Midterm Exam Questions
With our midterm exam coming up on Tuesday, Oct. 20th, you need to start making up some short-answer questions, as we did yesterday (Thurs. 10/8) toward the end of class. Below are the details of what I want each of the families to do:
Drawing on anything we've covered in class, including handouts and blog material, since the beginning of the semester, I want each of the families to come up with FOUR short-answer questions. Keep in mind some of the samples I have given in class as well as what you came up with in class after our first brainstorming session yesterday. I do NOT want any True/False or Multiple-Choice questions. After the families submit these questions to me, I will review them and try to select at least TWO from each family. If I decide to use more than two, that family will earn a bonus point for each additional question I choose. So, you may earn a maximum of two bonus points for this exercise. Please keep in mind that I will be looking for questions that deal with fairly significant points, not relatively insignificant facts. When you submit the questions, also include the answers as well.
I will give you some more class time on Tuesday 10/13 to consult with your family members. Each family should designate someone to be responsible to email me your four questions NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY, OCT. 14TH BY 1PM. If you finish on Tuesday, you may just hand them in on a sheet of paper, or you could drop off a sheet of paper with your family's questions sometime Wed. morning. I need to have them then so I can make my selections and then post them on this blog, as well as make up the test itself.
All particpating family members will earn 5 activity points for this exercise.
_________________________
Finally, do not forget to check out the lecture notes on Chapter 3 that I have posted on this blog over the past week. Remember, you will need to study that material for the midterm, regardless of how far I am able to get in class lecture by the end of next week.
Drawing on anything we've covered in class, including handouts and blog material, since the beginning of the semester, I want each of the families to come up with FOUR short-answer questions. Keep in mind some of the samples I have given in class as well as what you came up with in class after our first brainstorming session yesterday. I do NOT want any True/False or Multiple-Choice questions. After the families submit these questions to me, I will review them and try to select at least TWO from each family. If I decide to use more than two, that family will earn a bonus point for each additional question I choose. So, you may earn a maximum of two bonus points for this exercise. Please keep in mind that I will be looking for questions that deal with fairly significant points, not relatively insignificant facts. When you submit the questions, also include the answers as well.
I will give you some more class time on Tuesday 10/13 to consult with your family members. Each family should designate someone to be responsible to email me your four questions NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY, OCT. 14TH BY 1PM. If you finish on Tuesday, you may just hand them in on a sheet of paper, or you could drop off a sheet of paper with your family's questions sometime Wed. morning. I need to have them then so I can make my selections and then post them on this blog, as well as make up the test itself.
All particpating family members will earn 5 activity points for this exercise.
_________________________
Finally, do not forget to check out the lecture notes on Chapter 3 that I have posted on this blog over the past week. Remember, you will need to study that material for the midterm, regardless of how far I am able to get in class lecture by the end of next week.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
More Lecture Notes: Chapter 3
I left off yesterday (Wed. 10/7) having finished social control or bonding theory (p. 92 in the text). So, let me pick up there:
5. DEVELOPMENTAL/LIFE COURSE THEORY (DLC) -- I am unfamiliar with this. From Hagan's references it appears to be fairly recent, and I would say that many of those 10 assumptions are fairly self-evident. I would stress the youth factor -- peaks 15-19 and begins to decline in 20s. Also, the earlier you begin committing crime, the more likely you will have a long criminal career. And perhaps #9: "Prior to age 20, revenge, excitement, or anger may motivate offenders, while after this age, utilitarian motives predominate." (p. 93)
6. Finally, I do not see that Farrington's "AP Theory" or Sampson & Laub's "Life Course" Criminality contributes much of any significance.
CRITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
A. Whereas the theories we've looked at so far accept the status quo and try to explain why individuals deviate from existing laws, these critical theories call into question the status quo -- suggesting that society or the law may be the real problem.
1. LABELING THEORY (OR SOCIETAL REACTION) -- the author does not do a terribly good job on this. One of the main problems in his presentation is that he does not clearly distinguish between treating labeling as a dependent vs. an independent variable, as we'll see. What he sees as the critical aspect of labeling theory has mainly to do with labeling as a dependent variable. So, let me take a whack at this.
a. This is an unusual theory which does not focus on anything in the criminal's background, but rather on how society (especially the criminal justice system) treats the criminal -- that is, LABELS, STIGMATIZES him, and how this societal reaction in turn tends to reinforce the behavior.
b. Labeling can be treated as both CAUSE (INDEPENDENT VARIABLE) and EFFECT (DEPENDENT VARIABLE).
(1) As DEPENDENT VARIABLE OR EFFECT: the question examined is why certain behavior is socially defined as wrong or bad and certain people or groups are selected for stigmatization (i.e., how labels develop).
(a) One basic answer offered -- "The powerful (or so-called moral entrepreneurs) in society decide which behavior will be banned or discreditied as deviant or illegal." More likely that the lower class and minorities will be labeled, and that the label will stick. (This seems to be your author's focus and where the critical aspect comes in -- eg., the criminalization of drug abuse, or certain kinds of drug abuse, has a lot to do with class/racial politics. But he does not explain this very well at all.)
(2) But the heart of the theory focuses on labeling as an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE OR CAUSAL FACTOR, exploring the question of how these discrediting labels can lead to a continuation of the criminal and deviant behavior. Or, literally create a criminal or deviant identity in a person.
c. Labeling theory (like differential association) is largely based on the SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST view of the self -- Cooley's "looking glass self" notion, that our self is really a reflection of what others think of us. Society, and especially the primary groups we connect with, are like a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected. The image in the mirror creates a "SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY" -- that we strive to live up to the attitudes and expectations of others.
(1) To quote one of the leading labeling theorists, Howard Becker, from his 1963 book, "The Outsiders":
"One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of BEING CAUGHT AND PUBLICLY LABELED AS A DEVIANT. WHETHER A PERSON TAKES THIS STEP OR NOT DEPENDS NOT SO MUCH ON WHAT HE DOES AS ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO...being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one's further social participation and self-image." (Akers, p. 124) -- No hint of this in your authors' treatment of this theory.
(2) So, society imposing labels such as criminal, dope addict, sexual predator, crazy, etc. (perhaps note Scheff's "Being Mentally Ill") tends to foster such a self concept and behavior in those so labeled.
(3) Chambliss's "Saints and Roughnecks" also provides a good illustration, and it adds an important element -- how one responds to the label. (Intro. text handout -- "The Power of Labels: The Saints and the Roughnecks")
(4) Labeling theorists would also emphasize that this theory is designed to explain SECONDARY DEVIANCE, NOT PRIMARY DEVIANCE (or the initial act), and herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of this theory.
d. Prof. Ronald Akers (who Hagan does cite), among many others, has been a long-time critic of labeling theory. He objected to the notion that we disregard the actual behavior of the deviant (in favor of society's reaction), and he noted that even powerless people are able to resist applicaion of the label. (that is, as Hagan observes, the "theory may be overly deterministic." p. 95)
(1) It is the factors that led to the initial act of deviance (which labeling theorists ignore, by their own admission) that may be the most important in explaining the perpetuation of the deviant behavior.
(2) As Prof. Akers comments -- "People are labelled as delinquent, criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, drug addicts, child molesters, and so on largely on the basis of overt acts they have committed or are believed to have committed. Therefore, the deviant behavior itself is prior to and forms the basis for the stigmatizing label. THE BEHAVIOR CEATES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CREATES THE BEHAVIOR; AND SUBSEQUENT DEVIANT BEHAVIOR CONTINUES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CONTINUES THE BEHAVIOR."
(a) Indeed, research appears to show that those who have committed primary deviance and have NOT been detected (and labeled) are just as likely as labeled offenders to develop deviant careers. (which is part of the message of the so-called DEVELOPMENTAL/LIFE COURSE THEORY.)
e. A later variation on the labeling thesis, John Braithwaite's "Crime, Shame, and Integration" (1988) (brought out in the text) suggested the possibility of a POSITIVE role for labeling. He distinguished between DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING (negative) and REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING (positive).
(1) Reintegrative shaming is where shaming is designed to create genuine remorse and bring the person back into the community (rather than ostracize him). Eg., restorative justice (apologies to victims), restitution, even drug courts. Famous recent example would be South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
f. Back in the '70s the labeling thesis did have some impact on criminal justice system policy, inspiring so-called "juvenile diversion programs" -- avoid stigmatizing juvenile offenders and thereby locking them into a life of crime (according to the theory). Unfortunately, studies of such diversion programs have not demonstrated much effectiveness in stopping juveniles from continuing to commit crimes (most likely because nothing is done to substantially alter their often dead-end life circumstances).
(1) Nonetheless, (as I believe Hagan agrees), I believe avoiding the criminal justice system (prisons especially) whenever possible makes sense (as drug courts do, for example). Most non-violent offenders and drug abusers need help more than punishment and the stigma attached to punishment.
g. Labeling theory may have been a product of its time -- it became popular in the '60s to criticize the criminal justice system (just as the so-called "establishment" was under attack) -- to see it as part of the problem, which I believe was important to recognize. But by the late '70s it was beginning to be rejected in part because a more conservative mood took hold.
h. Finally, I like Prof. Akers' summation of the PRINCIPAL STRENGTH and PRINCIPAL WEAKNESS of labeling theory: "The principal strength of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the unintended consequences of social control. Its principal weakness is that it essentially ignores primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variables have on behavior in the first place and continue to have on its future occurrence."
2. CONFLICT THEORY, LEFT REALISM AND PEACEMAKING, RADICAL (OR MARXIST) THEORY, FEMINIST THEORY
a. These perspectives not only represent "critical sociology" but also are among the more contemporary theories in criminology. To my mind, none of them represents much of an improvement over the traditional "social process" or "structural" theories we covered. They tend to be more IDEOLOGICAL, concerned with exposing biases in our criminal justice system.
(1) Conflict theory -- biases based on class and race
(2) Marxist theory -- biases based on class
(3) Feminist theory -- biases based on gender, in particular the subordinate position of women in our society.
b. CONFLICT THEORY -- goes back to Marx; several theorists are mentioned and there are some differences among them. But GENERALLY they see law and its enforcement as a product of the more powerful segments of society imposing upon the less powerful or powerless. Social order is achieved through coercion rather than consensus.
(1) Of course, inequality in society is manifest not just along class lines but along RACIAL lines. Although I do NOT see W.E.B. DuBois as an early "critical criminologist," he certainly did expose racial bias and inequality in American society during his long career.
(2) In terms of advocacy -- "...conflict theorists think that a radical restructuring of society is necessary to eliminate inequality and get at the true causes of crime. Conflict theory argues that, minimally, we need a more 'just' justice system, where 'crimes in the suites' is treated in the same fashion as 'crime in the streets.'" (p. 96) -- but I would say much more than this would be needed to achieve a "just" justice system. (Also, has some relevance to "Gang Leader for a Day")
c. RADICAL (MARXIST) THEORY -- Hagan stresses the ideological nature of this perspective, which is a problem: that the capitalist economic system which fosters inequality it also responsible for crime. Let me add --
(1) The Marxists may have a point in suggesting that capitalist societies tend to have higher crime rates than more egalitarian socialist ones. But they have been guilty of idealizing socialist systems or just assuming they would have lower crime rates. Also, they did not seem to be aware of the obvious differences in crime rates between various capitalist countries.
(2) An interesting point some Marxist theorists have raised is -- that as the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (I would even say, China) become more capitalist (and inequality grows) their crime rates have risen dramatically. But that is a bit simplistic -- must consider how repressive the former Soviet Union was, and that other things could explain the surge in crime.
d. FEMINIST THEORY -- criminology has historically been a predominantly male enterprise, focusing on explaining male criminality. But also feminist theorists have pointed to biases in our criminal justice system based on gender inequality.
(1) Hagan does not make much of a case for this, and neither can I, but this is not to say we should not be sensitive to gender biases and stereotypes about women in criminological theory as well as the operation of our criminal justice system.
INTEGRATIVE THEORIES OF CRIME
A. Hagan notes that an integrative theory involves more than just idenitfying multiple factors -- biological, psychological, sociological. "Integrative theories combine various theoretical approaches into one theory." Eg., link them sequentially (end-to-end): strain leading to joining a subculture where learning takes place, leading to crime.
B. Neither of the two examples mentioned (Elliot and Thornberry) are very "noteworthy," based on weakenesses these theorists themselves recognized.
C. Integrating theories that are flawed to begin with is NOT the answer to understanding crime. And I believe the big flaw in these theories, as well as in the social sciences in general, is a misperception of the nature of the individual -- how our lives and characters reflect the larger institutional order. And it is in the flaws of that larger institutional order that crime originates. Some of the sociological theories vaguely recognize this, but never develop it fully.
___________________________________
That brings us to the end of Chapter 3. Let me just say, finally, that I plan to follow-up on that last critical point (C) after the midterm exam.
5. DEVELOPMENTAL/LIFE COURSE THEORY (DLC) -- I am unfamiliar with this. From Hagan's references it appears to be fairly recent, and I would say that many of those 10 assumptions are fairly self-evident. I would stress the youth factor -- peaks 15-19 and begins to decline in 20s. Also, the earlier you begin committing crime, the more likely you will have a long criminal career. And perhaps #9: "Prior to age 20, revenge, excitement, or anger may motivate offenders, while after this age, utilitarian motives predominate." (p. 93)
6. Finally, I do not see that Farrington's "AP Theory" or Sampson & Laub's "Life Course" Criminality contributes much of any significance.
CRITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
A. Whereas the theories we've looked at so far accept the status quo and try to explain why individuals deviate from existing laws, these critical theories call into question the status quo -- suggesting that society or the law may be the real problem.
1. LABELING THEORY (OR SOCIETAL REACTION) -- the author does not do a terribly good job on this. One of the main problems in his presentation is that he does not clearly distinguish between treating labeling as a dependent vs. an independent variable, as we'll see. What he sees as the critical aspect of labeling theory has mainly to do with labeling as a dependent variable. So, let me take a whack at this.
a. This is an unusual theory which does not focus on anything in the criminal's background, but rather on how society (especially the criminal justice system) treats the criminal -- that is, LABELS, STIGMATIZES him, and how this societal reaction in turn tends to reinforce the behavior.
b. Labeling can be treated as both CAUSE (INDEPENDENT VARIABLE) and EFFECT (DEPENDENT VARIABLE).
(1) As DEPENDENT VARIABLE OR EFFECT: the question examined is why certain behavior is socially defined as wrong or bad and certain people or groups are selected for stigmatization (i.e., how labels develop).
(a) One basic answer offered -- "The powerful (or so-called moral entrepreneurs) in society decide which behavior will be banned or discreditied as deviant or illegal." More likely that the lower class and minorities will be labeled, and that the label will stick. (This seems to be your author's focus and where the critical aspect comes in -- eg., the criminalization of drug abuse, or certain kinds of drug abuse, has a lot to do with class/racial politics. But he does not explain this very well at all.)
(2) But the heart of the theory focuses on labeling as an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE OR CAUSAL FACTOR, exploring the question of how these discrediting labels can lead to a continuation of the criminal and deviant behavior. Or, literally create a criminal or deviant identity in a person.
c. Labeling theory (like differential association) is largely based on the SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST view of the self -- Cooley's "looking glass self" notion, that our self is really a reflection of what others think of us. Society, and especially the primary groups we connect with, are like a mirror in which we see ourselves reflected. The image in the mirror creates a "SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY" -- that we strive to live up to the attitudes and expectations of others.
(1) To quote one of the leading labeling theorists, Howard Becker, from his 1963 book, "The Outsiders":
"One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of BEING CAUGHT AND PUBLICLY LABELED AS A DEVIANT. WHETHER A PERSON TAKES THIS STEP OR NOT DEPENDS NOT SO MUCH ON WHAT HE DOES AS ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO...being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one's further social participation and self-image." (Akers, p. 124) -- No hint of this in your authors' treatment of this theory.
(2) So, society imposing labels such as criminal, dope addict, sexual predator, crazy, etc. (perhaps note Scheff's "Being Mentally Ill") tends to foster such a self concept and behavior in those so labeled.
(3) Chambliss's "Saints and Roughnecks" also provides a good illustration, and it adds an important element -- how one responds to the label. (Intro. text handout -- "The Power of Labels: The Saints and the Roughnecks")
(4) Labeling theorists would also emphasize that this theory is designed to explain SECONDARY DEVIANCE, NOT PRIMARY DEVIANCE (or the initial act), and herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of this theory.
d. Prof. Ronald Akers (who Hagan does cite), among many others, has been a long-time critic of labeling theory. He objected to the notion that we disregard the actual behavior of the deviant (in favor of society's reaction), and he noted that even powerless people are able to resist applicaion of the label. (that is, as Hagan observes, the "theory may be overly deterministic." p. 95)
(1) It is the factors that led to the initial act of deviance (which labeling theorists ignore, by their own admission) that may be the most important in explaining the perpetuation of the deviant behavior.
(2) As Prof. Akers comments -- "People are labelled as delinquent, criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, drug addicts, child molesters, and so on largely on the basis of overt acts they have committed or are believed to have committed. Therefore, the deviant behavior itself is prior to and forms the basis for the stigmatizing label. THE BEHAVIOR CEATES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CREATES THE BEHAVIOR; AND SUBSEQUENT DEVIANT BEHAVIOR CONTINUES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CONTINUES THE BEHAVIOR."
(a) Indeed, research appears to show that those who have committed primary deviance and have NOT been detected (and labeled) are just as likely as labeled offenders to develop deviant careers. (which is part of the message of the so-called DEVELOPMENTAL/LIFE COURSE THEORY.)
e. A later variation on the labeling thesis, John Braithwaite's "Crime, Shame, and Integration" (1988) (brought out in the text) suggested the possibility of a POSITIVE role for labeling. He distinguished between DISINTEGRATIVE SHAMING (negative) and REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING (positive).
(1) Reintegrative shaming is where shaming is designed to create genuine remorse and bring the person back into the community (rather than ostracize him). Eg., restorative justice (apologies to victims), restitution, even drug courts. Famous recent example would be South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
f. Back in the '70s the labeling thesis did have some impact on criminal justice system policy, inspiring so-called "juvenile diversion programs" -- avoid stigmatizing juvenile offenders and thereby locking them into a life of crime (according to the theory). Unfortunately, studies of such diversion programs have not demonstrated much effectiveness in stopping juveniles from continuing to commit crimes (most likely because nothing is done to substantially alter their often dead-end life circumstances).
(1) Nonetheless, (as I believe Hagan agrees), I believe avoiding the criminal justice system (prisons especially) whenever possible makes sense (as drug courts do, for example). Most non-violent offenders and drug abusers need help more than punishment and the stigma attached to punishment.
g. Labeling theory may have been a product of its time -- it became popular in the '60s to criticize the criminal justice system (just as the so-called "establishment" was under attack) -- to see it as part of the problem, which I believe was important to recognize. But by the late '70s it was beginning to be rejected in part because a more conservative mood took hold.
h. Finally, I like Prof. Akers' summation of the PRINCIPAL STRENGTH and PRINCIPAL WEAKNESS of labeling theory: "The principal strength of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the unintended consequences of social control. Its principal weakness is that it essentially ignores primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variables have on behavior in the first place and continue to have on its future occurrence."
2. CONFLICT THEORY, LEFT REALISM AND PEACEMAKING, RADICAL (OR MARXIST) THEORY, FEMINIST THEORY
a. These perspectives not only represent "critical sociology" but also are among the more contemporary theories in criminology. To my mind, none of them represents much of an improvement over the traditional "social process" or "structural" theories we covered. They tend to be more IDEOLOGICAL, concerned with exposing biases in our criminal justice system.
(1) Conflict theory -- biases based on class and race
(2) Marxist theory -- biases based on class
(3) Feminist theory -- biases based on gender, in particular the subordinate position of women in our society.
b. CONFLICT THEORY -- goes back to Marx; several theorists are mentioned and there are some differences among them. But GENERALLY they see law and its enforcement as a product of the more powerful segments of society imposing upon the less powerful or powerless. Social order is achieved through coercion rather than consensus.
(1) Of course, inequality in society is manifest not just along class lines but along RACIAL lines. Although I do NOT see W.E.B. DuBois as an early "critical criminologist," he certainly did expose racial bias and inequality in American society during his long career.
(2) In terms of advocacy -- "...conflict theorists think that a radical restructuring of society is necessary to eliminate inequality and get at the true causes of crime. Conflict theory argues that, minimally, we need a more 'just' justice system, where 'crimes in the suites' is treated in the same fashion as 'crime in the streets.'" (p. 96) -- but I would say much more than this would be needed to achieve a "just" justice system. (Also, has some relevance to "Gang Leader for a Day")
c. RADICAL (MARXIST) THEORY -- Hagan stresses the ideological nature of this perspective, which is a problem: that the capitalist economic system which fosters inequality it also responsible for crime. Let me add --
(1) The Marxists may have a point in suggesting that capitalist societies tend to have higher crime rates than more egalitarian socialist ones. But they have been guilty of idealizing socialist systems or just assuming they would have lower crime rates. Also, they did not seem to be aware of the obvious differences in crime rates between various capitalist countries.
(2) An interesting point some Marxist theorists have raised is -- that as the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (I would even say, China) become more capitalist (and inequality grows) their crime rates have risen dramatically. But that is a bit simplistic -- must consider how repressive the former Soviet Union was, and that other things could explain the surge in crime.
d. FEMINIST THEORY -- criminology has historically been a predominantly male enterprise, focusing on explaining male criminality. But also feminist theorists have pointed to biases in our criminal justice system based on gender inequality.
(1) Hagan does not make much of a case for this, and neither can I, but this is not to say we should not be sensitive to gender biases and stereotypes about women in criminological theory as well as the operation of our criminal justice system.
INTEGRATIVE THEORIES OF CRIME
A. Hagan notes that an integrative theory involves more than just idenitfying multiple factors -- biological, psychological, sociological. "Integrative theories combine various theoretical approaches into one theory." Eg., link them sequentially (end-to-end): strain leading to joining a subculture where learning takes place, leading to crime.
B. Neither of the two examples mentioned (Elliot and Thornberry) are very "noteworthy," based on weakenesses these theorists themselves recognized.
C. Integrating theories that are flawed to begin with is NOT the answer to understanding crime. And I believe the big flaw in these theories, as well as in the social sciences in general, is a misperception of the nature of the individual -- how our lives and characters reflect the larger institutional order. And it is in the flaws of that larger institutional order that crime originates. Some of the sociological theories vaguely recognize this, but never develop it fully.
___________________________________
That brings us to the end of Chapter 3. Let me just say, finally, that I plan to follow-up on that last critical point (C) after the midterm exam.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
More Lecture Notes
Disregard the Oct. 6 post. This post will pick up where the previous post (Oct. 5th) left off. Again, I plan to post all of my lecture notes for Chapter 3, but we will also be covering them in class, as I did yesterday. Finally, especially for those of you who were absent, I handed out a write-up of our first out-of-class essay yesterday. It will be due next Tuesday (Oct. 13th).
SOCIAL PROCESS THEORY
A. I would argue that the theory discussed under this heading really does NOT belong here.
1. The Chicago School and human ecology was the inspiration for SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY which is a MACRO theory that looks at varying crime rates especially in different parts of the city and suggests that those "natural areas" of the city marked by social disorganization have higher crime rates.
a. So what were some of the social structural indicators of social disorganization that gave rise to higher crime rates? An especially crime-prone area was what they called the "zone of transition" -- an area near the commercial core which was changing from residential to commercial. It was characterized by physical decay, poor, often abandoned, housing, incomplete and broken families, high rates of illegitimate births, and an unstable, transient, heterogeneous population -- all indicators of social disorganization. What they called the "rooming house area" was another high crime area.
(1) Other characteristics identified in later versions of the theory (Sampson and Groves, 1989): lack of informal friendship networks, low participation in organizations, etc. (not mentioned in the text)
b. Hagan talks about Shaw and McKay's "Social Disorganization Theory," and stresses the shift to pathological environments as the cause of crime rather than abnormal individuals. (Which, again, underscores its MACRO focus, a point the author neglects.)
c. Let me also add to the author's inadequate treatment of this theory -- these theorists also contended that rapid industrialization and urbanization caused this social disorganization which, in turn, undermined social control exercised through traditional social order and values.
(In some ways they sound like a 1920s & '30s version of the 1980s "Moral Majority," a fundamentalist Christian political movement which decried the breakdown of the family, secularization of society, commercialization, even urbanization as giving rise to a breakdown of traditional morality, hence the higher rates of crime and deviance.)
d. Certainly, things have changed in our cities and inner cities. If anything, one could argue conditions have deteriorated even further in our inner cities especially, and crime rates are even higher today. This is brought out in books such as "The Truly Disadvantaged" by William Julius Wilson (who, as you'll read in "Gang Leader for a Day," was a mentor to Venkatesh. In fact, I believe his book could be used in defense of the social disorganization theory.)
(Hagan does not get into any of the following points on social disorganization theory)
e. Nonetheless, critics note that often research on this theory does not carefully measure social disorganization. For example, "The very fact that crime and deviance are high within an area is itself sometimes used, TAUTOLOGICALLY, as an empirical indicator that the area is socially disorganized."
(1) And even in the most socially disorganized areas only a minority of youths or adults are involved in crime. So, how would you explain the majority's law-abiding behavior?
(2) The early social disorganization theorists, as C. Wright Mills brought out in "The Ideology of Social Pathologists" (1937), had a strong anti-urban bias. They tended to see their small-town, religious upbringing as an ideal. In other words, their view is more ideological than scientific.
f. Despite its apparent bias, among other problems, I believe it makes sense and it suggests the need to address poor social conditions (indicators of social disorganization) in order to address the crime problem. (For example, this is evident in Michael Massing's "The Fix," in which he finds the drug problem most serious among the homeless, most socially disorganizaed population.)
2. ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY, I would argue, really fits more logically in the deterrence/ rational choice camp -- the calculating criminal has more opportunities to commit crime because of changes in our routine activities.
a. I prefer the following formulation, which is a bit different from what your author calls the three "earthy" (whatever that means) elements of crime:
(1) person(s) motivated to commit crime (the theory does not attempt to explain this motivation, just assumes it).
(2) suitable target or victim.
(3) absence of formal or informal control agents.
b. Our "routine activities" have changed significantly since World War II, not to mention the explosion of consumer goods -- cars, electronic devices, etc. -- that one might steal.
(1) more homes unattended during the day (both spouses working)
(2) convenience stores open 24/7
(3) ATMs
(4) identity theft/credit cards/Internet
c. This theory ties in directly to commonsense advice about crime prevention -- eg., neighborhood crime watch, environmental design such as more lighting, hedges or bushes cut back or taken out, etc. -- can get advice from local police dept. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of research evaluating the extent to which these precautions really work and help reduce the incidence of crime.
3. The next theory, Sutherland's DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY, really belongs under the SOCIAL PROCESS heading because it is primarily a MICRO-level (or "processual") theory, focusing on what leads an individual to engage in criminal behavior.
a. The original theory is stated in 9 propositions, which Hagan quotes in their entirety. But I believe just a few are really crucial:
(1) "CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS LEARNED" -- which is significant because it placed criminal behavior in the same category with other behaviors which are learned.
(2)&(3) "IT IS LEARNED IN INTERACTION WITH OTHER CRIMINALS, IN PARTICULAR CRIMINAL GROUPS, WHICH ARE INTIMATE AND PERSONAL." -- the inspiration for these propositions is to be found in the broader theoretical perspective known as SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM (NOT human ecology, as in the text), and its notion of the "looking-glass self" -- how our personalities are formed in interaction with others in primary group settings.
(6) (The heart of the theory, according to Sutherland himself) "A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions FAVORABLE to the violation of law over definitions UNFAVORABLE to the violation of law."
(7) Finally, "Differential association may vary in FREQUENCY, DURATION, PRIORITY, and INTENSITY." -- which was offered in an effort to introduce measurement, quantification; but as far as I know, no one has actually done this (i.e., put numbers to those variables).
b. Some have characterized this theory by using the old adage -- "birds of a feather flock together" -- which is NOT really accurate because it suggests that one is a criminal to begin with and then seeks to associate with other criminals. Rather, as Ronald Akers has suggested, it should be -- "a bird joining a flock and then changing its feathers" -- which is more accurate but less lyrical.
c. Speaking of Ronald Akers, your author mentions him in passing as offering a variation of differential association theory. Let me elaborate on this just a bit, since I once used Prof. Akers' book. His variation is called SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, and it basically elaborates on the learning process involved, offering a BEHAVIORIST model.
(1) DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT -- whether you refrain from or commit a crime depends on past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for one's actions. (a) POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT -- money, social approval (pat on the back), social rewards. (b) NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT -- escaping punishment. That when you commit a criminal act and are NOT punished, this also tends to reinforce the behavior (eg., a child who uses foul language and is never punished or confronted will probably continue to use it).
(2) Akers also elaborated on the role of IMITATION -- that the contact with the criminal element does not necessarily have to be face-to-face or personal.
d. I see both Miller's "Focal Concerns" (p. 90) and Matza's "Delinquency and Drift" in the context of differential association as specifying some of "the definitions favorable to the violation of law" that one learns by having contact with criminals.
(1) Take a couple examples of Sykes and Matza's "TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION" (p. 91) such as DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY or DENIAL OF INJURY -- by learning these excuses or rationalizations one is more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
e. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION (and its variants) is a popular theory. It is also one of the most generally APPLICABLE, underlying group therapy approaches to rehabilitation. I would say that, generally speaking, PROBABTION and PAROLE programs relate insofar as they seek to guarantee a person stays away from former criminal associations.
(1) Of course, one could also point out that such programs have not been terribly successful for a lot of reasons, one of which may have to do with a weakness of theory itself.
f. I contend that differential association (or its variants) does not get to the root of the problem -- where crime itself comes from. It may be ok as a theory of criminal behavior but NOT as a theory of crime.
(1) According to the theory, criminal learn from other crimnals, who, in turn, learned from other criminals, and so on, ad infinitum...... So, where did the first criminal group come from to get the ball rolling, so to speak? The devil? (really all causal explanations involve such an infinite regress.) Sutherland himself even admitted as much when he made the following remark: "Since criminal behavior is thus developed in association with criminals, it means that CRIME IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME." which is an entirely CIRCULAR argument.
(2) Ultimately, we want to understand the origin of crime itself -- how it grows out of the larger society. This point can be illustrated by use of a MEDICAL ANALOGY: ultimately we want to treat the disease and not merely the symptoms of the disease. Which is not to say, however, that we should ignore treating the symptoms, which differential association may be helpful in doing. But it is no cure.
4. SOCIAL CONTROL (or SOCIAL BONDING) THEORY may also be considered a social process theory, but these theorists approach the question of explaining criminal behavior in a distinctive way. Rather than try to directly explain why people deviate from social and legal norms, these theorists ask: why does anyone conform? Why don't we all violate the rules? That is, they are interested in explaining conforming behavior first.
a. Another way of describing this theory in general would be to say -- "Conformity and crime are two sides of the same coin. It makes no meaningful difference which of the two a theory claims to explain, because to account for one accounts for the other." (True? Could you see how this statement might apply to differential association in reverse fashion?)
b. The basic answer is: we conform because certain social controls (bonds or containment) prevent us from committing crimes, by encouraging us to conform. And when these controls weaken, breakdown, or are non-existent, then deviance is likely to result.
c. Control theorists argue that people are motivated to conform because of social controls or bonds but NEED NO SPECIAL MOTIVATION TO VIOLATE THE LAW -- or, that we are all NATURALLY inclined to deviance and this natural motivation needs to be checked or controlled. That is, they assume anyone would violate the law if they could get away with it (similar to "myth of Gyges" in Book II of Plato's "Republic"), although Hirschi and others deny this assumption is crucial to their theory.
d. Travis Hirschi's SOCIAL BONDING THEORY has been one of the most popular and influential versions of control theory, which Hagan covers in just a few sentences. So, let me expand on the text's discussion, in part because I believe the theory has some important points to offer.
(1) There are FOUR elements or "BONDS" that Hirschi sees as crucial to conformity, and conversely, when weak or non-existent, open the door to criminal and deviant behavior.
(a) ATTACHMENT TO OTHERS -- family, peers (even delinquent peers in the original statement of the theory). In a sense, such attachments force you to consider others, so you are more likely to act in conventional ways. (Research evidence, however, clearly challenges this idea when it comes to attachment to delinquent others -- in this respect you could say differential association trumps social bonding theory.)
(b) COMMITMENT -- extent to which an individual has a "stake in conformity" (job, home, spouse, children, etc.) For example, stable, well-kept neighborhoods tend to be ones where most people own their homes, where they have a STAKE (financial or otherwise) in maintaining their home and surrounding neighborhood.
(c) INVOLVEMENT -- being immersed in conventional activities. Need for afterschool programs or something like "midnight basketball leagues." Relates to what I would call the "boredom theory of crime." (Relevance of article, "3:00, Nowhere to Go")
(d) BELIEF -- endorsement of conventional law and morality. Religion.
(2) To give you some idea of an index -- or how one might measure the strength of these bonds -- you could use something such as ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: high academic achievement would be indicative of one's COMMITMENT, INVOLVEMENT, BELIEF in school, as well as ATTACHMENT in terms of connections with teachers, guidance counselors, fellow students, etc.
e. Hagan mentions an update of this theory offered by Hirschi and Gottfredson (1990) -- SELF-CONTROL THEORY. Those with high self-control, developed early, are more likely to stay out of trouble compared with those who have low self-control.
high self-control -- lots of self-discipline
low self-control -- impulsive, emotional
(1) Makes sense, although they have had problems defining or distinguishing high self-control from low self-control.
(2) Also, it may be true that they are over-reaching with this theory, especially when you consider white collar crime. (But in contrast to the author, I do NOT see this as a SEVERE FLAW. p. 92)
__________________________
That brings us to the bottom of p. 92 in the text. I should be able to blog the rest of the chapter on Friday, and you want to check that out especially because it will include comments on CRITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
SOCIAL PROCESS THEORY
A. I would argue that the theory discussed under this heading really does NOT belong here.
1. The Chicago School and human ecology was the inspiration for SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY which is a MACRO theory that looks at varying crime rates especially in different parts of the city and suggests that those "natural areas" of the city marked by social disorganization have higher crime rates.
a. So what were some of the social structural indicators of social disorganization that gave rise to higher crime rates? An especially crime-prone area was what they called the "zone of transition" -- an area near the commercial core which was changing from residential to commercial. It was characterized by physical decay, poor, often abandoned, housing, incomplete and broken families, high rates of illegitimate births, and an unstable, transient, heterogeneous population -- all indicators of social disorganization. What they called the "rooming house area" was another high crime area.
(1) Other characteristics identified in later versions of the theory (Sampson and Groves, 1989): lack of informal friendship networks, low participation in organizations, etc. (not mentioned in the text)
b. Hagan talks about Shaw and McKay's "Social Disorganization Theory," and stresses the shift to pathological environments as the cause of crime rather than abnormal individuals. (Which, again, underscores its MACRO focus, a point the author neglects.)
c. Let me also add to the author's inadequate treatment of this theory -- these theorists also contended that rapid industrialization and urbanization caused this social disorganization which, in turn, undermined social control exercised through traditional social order and values.
(In some ways they sound like a 1920s & '30s version of the 1980s "Moral Majority," a fundamentalist Christian political movement which decried the breakdown of the family, secularization of society, commercialization, even urbanization as giving rise to a breakdown of traditional morality, hence the higher rates of crime and deviance.)
d. Certainly, things have changed in our cities and inner cities. If anything, one could argue conditions have deteriorated even further in our inner cities especially, and crime rates are even higher today. This is brought out in books such as "The Truly Disadvantaged" by William Julius Wilson (who, as you'll read in "Gang Leader for a Day," was a mentor to Venkatesh. In fact, I believe his book could be used in defense of the social disorganization theory.)
(Hagan does not get into any of the following points on social disorganization theory)
e. Nonetheless, critics note that often research on this theory does not carefully measure social disorganization. For example, "The very fact that crime and deviance are high within an area is itself sometimes used, TAUTOLOGICALLY, as an empirical indicator that the area is socially disorganized."
(1) And even in the most socially disorganized areas only a minority of youths or adults are involved in crime. So, how would you explain the majority's law-abiding behavior?
(2) The early social disorganization theorists, as C. Wright Mills brought out in "The Ideology of Social Pathologists" (1937), had a strong anti-urban bias. They tended to see their small-town, religious upbringing as an ideal. In other words, their view is more ideological than scientific.
f. Despite its apparent bias, among other problems, I believe it makes sense and it suggests the need to address poor social conditions (indicators of social disorganization) in order to address the crime problem. (For example, this is evident in Michael Massing's "The Fix," in which he finds the drug problem most serious among the homeless, most socially disorganizaed population.)
2. ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY, I would argue, really fits more logically in the deterrence/ rational choice camp -- the calculating criminal has more opportunities to commit crime because of changes in our routine activities.
a. I prefer the following formulation, which is a bit different from what your author calls the three "earthy" (whatever that means) elements of crime:
(1) person(s) motivated to commit crime (the theory does not attempt to explain this motivation, just assumes it).
(2) suitable target or victim.
(3) absence of formal or informal control agents.
b. Our "routine activities" have changed significantly since World War II, not to mention the explosion of consumer goods -- cars, electronic devices, etc. -- that one might steal.
(1) more homes unattended during the day (both spouses working)
(2) convenience stores open 24/7
(3) ATMs
(4) identity theft/credit cards/Internet
c. This theory ties in directly to commonsense advice about crime prevention -- eg., neighborhood crime watch, environmental design such as more lighting, hedges or bushes cut back or taken out, etc. -- can get advice from local police dept. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of research evaluating the extent to which these precautions really work and help reduce the incidence of crime.
3. The next theory, Sutherland's DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY, really belongs under the SOCIAL PROCESS heading because it is primarily a MICRO-level (or "processual") theory, focusing on what leads an individual to engage in criminal behavior.
a. The original theory is stated in 9 propositions, which Hagan quotes in their entirety. But I believe just a few are really crucial:
(1) "CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS LEARNED" -- which is significant because it placed criminal behavior in the same category with other behaviors which are learned.
(2)&(3) "IT IS LEARNED IN INTERACTION WITH OTHER CRIMINALS, IN PARTICULAR CRIMINAL GROUPS, WHICH ARE INTIMATE AND PERSONAL." -- the inspiration for these propositions is to be found in the broader theoretical perspective known as SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM (NOT human ecology, as in the text), and its notion of the "looking-glass self" -- how our personalities are formed in interaction with others in primary group settings.
(6) (The heart of the theory, according to Sutherland himself) "A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions FAVORABLE to the violation of law over definitions UNFAVORABLE to the violation of law."
(7) Finally, "Differential association may vary in FREQUENCY, DURATION, PRIORITY, and INTENSITY." -- which was offered in an effort to introduce measurement, quantification; but as far as I know, no one has actually done this (i.e., put numbers to those variables).
b. Some have characterized this theory by using the old adage -- "birds of a feather flock together" -- which is NOT really accurate because it suggests that one is a criminal to begin with and then seeks to associate with other criminals. Rather, as Ronald Akers has suggested, it should be -- "a bird joining a flock and then changing its feathers" -- which is more accurate but less lyrical.
c. Speaking of Ronald Akers, your author mentions him in passing as offering a variation of differential association theory. Let me elaborate on this just a bit, since I once used Prof. Akers' book. His variation is called SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY, and it basically elaborates on the learning process involved, offering a BEHAVIORIST model.
(1) DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT -- whether you refrain from or commit a crime depends on past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for one's actions. (a) POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT -- money, social approval (pat on the back), social rewards. (b) NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT -- escaping punishment. That when you commit a criminal act and are NOT punished, this also tends to reinforce the behavior (eg., a child who uses foul language and is never punished or confronted will probably continue to use it).
(2) Akers also elaborated on the role of IMITATION -- that the contact with the criminal element does not necessarily have to be face-to-face or personal.
d. I see both Miller's "Focal Concerns" (p. 90) and Matza's "Delinquency and Drift" in the context of differential association as specifying some of "the definitions favorable to the violation of law" that one learns by having contact with criminals.
(1) Take a couple examples of Sykes and Matza's "TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION" (p. 91) such as DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY or DENIAL OF INJURY -- by learning these excuses or rationalizations one is more likely to engage in criminal behavior.
e. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION (and its variants) is a popular theory. It is also one of the most generally APPLICABLE, underlying group therapy approaches to rehabilitation. I would say that, generally speaking, PROBABTION and PAROLE programs relate insofar as they seek to guarantee a person stays away from former criminal associations.
(1) Of course, one could also point out that such programs have not been terribly successful for a lot of reasons, one of which may have to do with a weakness of theory itself.
f. I contend that differential association (or its variants) does not get to the root of the problem -- where crime itself comes from. It may be ok as a theory of criminal behavior but NOT as a theory of crime.
(1) According to the theory, criminal learn from other crimnals, who, in turn, learned from other criminals, and so on, ad infinitum...... So, where did the first criminal group come from to get the ball rolling, so to speak? The devil? (really all causal explanations involve such an infinite regress.) Sutherland himself even admitted as much when he made the following remark: "Since criminal behavior is thus developed in association with criminals, it means that CRIME IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME." which is an entirely CIRCULAR argument.
(2) Ultimately, we want to understand the origin of crime itself -- how it grows out of the larger society. This point can be illustrated by use of a MEDICAL ANALOGY: ultimately we want to treat the disease and not merely the symptoms of the disease. Which is not to say, however, that we should ignore treating the symptoms, which differential association may be helpful in doing. But it is no cure.
4. SOCIAL CONTROL (or SOCIAL BONDING) THEORY may also be considered a social process theory, but these theorists approach the question of explaining criminal behavior in a distinctive way. Rather than try to directly explain why people deviate from social and legal norms, these theorists ask: why does anyone conform? Why don't we all violate the rules? That is, they are interested in explaining conforming behavior first.
a. Another way of describing this theory in general would be to say -- "Conformity and crime are two sides of the same coin. It makes no meaningful difference which of the two a theory claims to explain, because to account for one accounts for the other." (True? Could you see how this statement might apply to differential association in reverse fashion?)
b. The basic answer is: we conform because certain social controls (bonds or containment) prevent us from committing crimes, by encouraging us to conform. And when these controls weaken, breakdown, or are non-existent, then deviance is likely to result.
c. Control theorists argue that people are motivated to conform because of social controls or bonds but NEED NO SPECIAL MOTIVATION TO VIOLATE THE LAW -- or, that we are all NATURALLY inclined to deviance and this natural motivation needs to be checked or controlled. That is, they assume anyone would violate the law if they could get away with it (similar to "myth of Gyges" in Book II of Plato's "Republic"), although Hirschi and others deny this assumption is crucial to their theory.
d. Travis Hirschi's SOCIAL BONDING THEORY has been one of the most popular and influential versions of control theory, which Hagan covers in just a few sentences. So, let me expand on the text's discussion, in part because I believe the theory has some important points to offer.
(1) There are FOUR elements or "BONDS" that Hirschi sees as crucial to conformity, and conversely, when weak or non-existent, open the door to criminal and deviant behavior.
(a) ATTACHMENT TO OTHERS -- family, peers (even delinquent peers in the original statement of the theory). In a sense, such attachments force you to consider others, so you are more likely to act in conventional ways. (Research evidence, however, clearly challenges this idea when it comes to attachment to delinquent others -- in this respect you could say differential association trumps social bonding theory.)
(b) COMMITMENT -- extent to which an individual has a "stake in conformity" (job, home, spouse, children, etc.) For example, stable, well-kept neighborhoods tend to be ones where most people own their homes, where they have a STAKE (financial or otherwise) in maintaining their home and surrounding neighborhood.
(c) INVOLVEMENT -- being immersed in conventional activities. Need for afterschool programs or something like "midnight basketball leagues." Relates to what I would call the "boredom theory of crime." (Relevance of article, "3:00, Nowhere to Go")
(d) BELIEF -- endorsement of conventional law and morality. Religion.
(2) To give you some idea of an index -- or how one might measure the strength of these bonds -- you could use something such as ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: high academic achievement would be indicative of one's COMMITMENT, INVOLVEMENT, BELIEF in school, as well as ATTACHMENT in terms of connections with teachers, guidance counselors, fellow students, etc.
e. Hagan mentions an update of this theory offered by Hirschi and Gottfredson (1990) -- SELF-CONTROL THEORY. Those with high self-control, developed early, are more likely to stay out of trouble compared with those who have low self-control.
high self-control -- lots of self-discipline
low self-control -- impulsive, emotional
(1) Makes sense, although they have had problems defining or distinguishing high self-control from low self-control.
(2) Also, it may be true that they are over-reaching with this theory, especially when you consider white collar crime. (But in contrast to the author, I do NOT see this as a SEVERE FLAW. p. 92)
__________________________
That brings us to the bottom of p. 92 in the text. I should be able to blog the rest of the chapter on Friday, and you want to check that out especially because it will include comments on CRITICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
More Lecture Notes
This not only sounds like a broken record, it is one. All this week I will be posting lecture notes in an effort to get ahead, but also to assist you in understanding the major theories which the author presents in Chapter 3 of the text. Not only will I post these lecture notes, but I also plan to cover them in class as well to clarify them and make up for some of the shortcomings in the author's presentation of them in the text. Since you will have the notes, you won't have to be as vigilant in class in terms of taking notes, but I would also remind you that in my class presentation I will probably include some examples not in the notes and would certainly welcome questions and comments you may have. After we get beyond this chapter in the text, I do not plan to post my lecture notes and I will be asking the families (to be determined this week) for their imput as well.
Last time (Thurs. 10/1) I quoted a passage from an article entitled, "Elementary, Dr. Watson. The Neurotransmitters Did It," with reference to modern biological theories. I decided to xerox the whole article and hand it out in class tomorrow (Tues. 10/6). It makes a very good point, as I emphasized in class, that perhaps the most that biological theories can claim is that they may identify PREDISPOSITIONS or PROPENSITIES that may lead to criminal behavior but no biological factor can be regarded as THE cause of criminal behavior, as some of the early theories suggested.
We left off talking about psychological theories. After briefly going over the psychoanalytic view of Freud (see p. 80 especially), Hagan gets into PSYCHOMETRY --
C. Hagan then briefly covers a couple different theories under the heading, PSYCHOMETRY, which "is the field that seeks to measure psychological and mental differences between criminals and noncriminals." (p. 80)
1. Generally, he notes that studies have been unable to find conclusive evidence of specific personality characteristics related to criminality.
2. Mentions one study which (rather obviously) "claims the extroverted (outgoing) personality is more delinquent than the introverted (inhibited) personality." (p. 80) --as Homer Simpson might say, "Well, duh!"
3. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) apparently found an interesting link between IQ and crime. Note their findings (see top, p. 81). But the whole subject of measuring intelligence and relating it to race, as the authors of "The Bell Curve" did, is very controversial (and I would say dubious at best, as I believe Hagan also observes).
4. Also notes more recent psychological reseearch on the connection between ADHD and delinquency.
5. And the special box on the insanity defense (pp. 82-3) criteria runs through the changing standards or tests for this in court. (But it leaves out an important point -- of how rarely the insanity defense is successfully used.)
D. In line with the first criticism of psychological positivism, I would like to state an overall criticism of both the psychological and biological theories --
NEITHER THEORY BY ITSELF (OR EVEN TOGETHER) CAN OFFER A COMPLETELY ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR FOR THE BASIC REASON THAT: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEING, SO THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. INDEED, WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME ITSELF IS A MATTER OF SOCIAL DEFINITION.
I believe most biological and psychological theorists recognize the above point and do not claim that biology or psychology has all the answers.
So, this points us in the direction of the Sociological Theories --
MAINSTREAM SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Hagan begins by briefly mentioning some of the sociological theories we will be covering, which relate to various social conditions or factors. Generally speaking, sociological theories take a more critical stance toward society, suggesting that society is part of the problem (not just individuals straying from an essentially good society).
(However, the order in which he covers these theories baffles me. It is not chronological nor in any other discernable order. I will follow his lead though, but I will also be adding to and skipping over some of the theories he brings out.)
ANOMIE (OR STRAIN) THEORY
A. Hagan rightly credits Durkheim with developing the concept of "anomie," (but Durkheim did not apply it to crime in general). Durkheim argued that a general breakdown of norms and moral guidelines in society, especially in times of crisis, tends to give rise to higher suicide rates -- what he called "anomic suicide," which he argued was on the rise in modern society.
B. Robert Merton modified this concept significantly in developing what came to be known as "Anomie (or Strain) Theory. This was in the late 1940s, and it remains one of the important sociological theories to this day.
1. "...Merton viewed anomie as a condition that occurs when a discrepancy (or disjunction) exists between societal goals and the (legitimate) means available for their achievement." (p. 84) And the main goal of American society, he contended, was material success (wealth), which is how we tend to measure people's status.
2. This condition of anomie, Merton argued, is endemic to American society. Indeed, one could argue that the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is as wide as it ever has been, which would lead you to predict more criminal and deviant behavior.
3. Those individuals or groups which are blocked (for whatever reason) from legitimate means to material success feel the pressure or strain more than others and are more likely to resort to illegitimate means to achieve success.
4. Merton argued that there were actually FIVE modes (or ways) of adapting to the strain of anomie (what Hagan refers to in bold print as "modes of personality adaptation.").
(a) CONFORMIST: accepts the situation; strives for success through conventional, legitimate channels which these individuals obviously have access to. System works for them.
(b) INNOVATOR: this is the primary criminal response. One accepts the goal of success, but being blocked from legitimate means, this person turns to illegitimate means (in a sense innovates or creates his/her own means). Engaged in mostly by the lower class ( a point Hagan does not mention).
(I believe, along with David Callahan, author of "The Cheating Culture," this certainly can apply to middle or upper class individuals -- depends on how you define success, what "making it" means. There are undoubtedly higher expectations of success these days among the middle and upper classes which can exacerbate the strain of anomie. See xerox handout of pp. 172-173 from "The Cheating Culture," which is also a good general description of Merton's theory.)
(c) RITUALIST: (See Hagan's description p. 85. I do not know where he got this from or what it necessarily has to do with criminal or deviant behavior.) I believe Merton interpreted this adaptation as follows: person gives up on the struggle for success as society defines it, lowers his/her expectations to the point where they can be satisfied through conventional means. He considered this "deviant" or abnormal, although I would contend that it is a rational response to living with scarcity.
(d) RETREATIST: this is the escapist response. Person gives up on both the goal of success and the means -- turns to alcohol and/or drugs to, in the words of Timothy Leary, "tune in, turn on, drop out." Of course, taking illegal drugs is a crime, not to mention the fact that to support a drug habit one often has to resort to crime -- theft.
(e) REBEL: rejects both the ends and the means; that is, rejects the "system" altogether and seeks to overturn it, which would include violent means which would obviously be criminal.
C. In terms of a critique of Merton's theory, some of the points Hagan brings out are not terribly strong. For example, his first point about the variety of U.S. cultural values could be countered by arguing that despite this variety, it still is GENERALLY true that material success is the dominant value or goal of American culture. And I believe Merton would even concede the second point -- that it does not explain violent crime (which in fact is a weakness of most theories). The final point is a bit more serious. The fact is there is mixed support for the whole notion that there is an INVERSE relationship between social class and crime.
1. As noted, some research found that those with low aspirations and low expectations had the highest offense rates. You would expect more strain and the resulting crime where the gap between aspirations and expectations was greatest.
2. Ronald Akers even challenges the contention that higher unemployment leads to more crime, citing a couple studies from the 1980s. Akers observes, "...there is little evidence that unemployment motivates people to commit criminal acts. Moreover, crime is as likely to affect unemployment as vice versa (especially these days with widespread drug-testing)."
3. Nonetheless, as a MACRO theory, I believe this theory highlights some of the social structural correlates of crime such as poverty and unemployment, especially in the midst of a more prosperous society. And in this context I believe the policy implications of such a theory make sense -- people without access to legitimate opportunities are more likely to turn to crime, so we need to expand legitimate opportunities, especially for young people.
(Legitimate opportunities were clearly lacking in the inner city housing projects where Sudhir Venkatesh did his field work for "Gang Leader for a Day.")
D. Robert Agnew's GENERAL STRAIN THEORY expands the sources of strain. He says strain is due "to negative relationships in which indivivduals feel that they are being mistreated." Of course, there are a lot of negative events -- divorce, financial problems, insults, or physical assaults -- which may lead to anger and frustration and increase the likelihood that one will react in a criminal manner.
E. Albert Cohen's LOWER-CLASS REACTION THEORY focused more on STATUS deprivation (rather than material deprivation) of lower class youth. Feel locked out, not accepted in middle class society. So, they turn middle class values on their head -- basically "act out."
F. Cloward and Ohlin's DIFFERENTIAL OPPORTUNITY THEORY -- the likelihood of reacting to the strain of anomie depends on the availability of illegitimate opportunites. In some neighborhoods there exist "illegitimate opportunity structures."
1. Cloward and Ohlin identified three such illegitimate opportunity structures OR illegitimate juvenile subcultures: CRIMINAL, CONFLICT AND RETREATIVE. ("Gang Leader for A Day" really exemplifies all three.)
2. "The implications of Cloward and Ohlin's theory were not lost on policy makers. By improving legitimate opportunities, delinquency could be controlled." (p. 88)-- which, as I noted above, is a policy implication of anomie theory in general.
________________________________
That brings us up to SOCIAL PROCESS THEORY, which I may pick up with tomorrow or on Wednesday. Don't forget that tomorrow I will be handing out the write-up of our first out-of-class essay.
Last time (Thurs. 10/1) I quoted a passage from an article entitled, "Elementary, Dr. Watson. The Neurotransmitters Did It," with reference to modern biological theories. I decided to xerox the whole article and hand it out in class tomorrow (Tues. 10/6). It makes a very good point, as I emphasized in class, that perhaps the most that biological theories can claim is that they may identify PREDISPOSITIONS or PROPENSITIES that may lead to criminal behavior but no biological factor can be regarded as THE cause of criminal behavior, as some of the early theories suggested.
We left off talking about psychological theories. After briefly going over the psychoanalytic view of Freud (see p. 80 especially), Hagan gets into PSYCHOMETRY --
C. Hagan then briefly covers a couple different theories under the heading, PSYCHOMETRY, which "is the field that seeks to measure psychological and mental differences between criminals and noncriminals." (p. 80)
1. Generally, he notes that studies have been unable to find conclusive evidence of specific personality characteristics related to criminality.
2. Mentions one study which (rather obviously) "claims the extroverted (outgoing) personality is more delinquent than the introverted (inhibited) personality." (p. 80) --as Homer Simpson might say, "Well, duh!"
3. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) apparently found an interesting link between IQ and crime. Note their findings (see top, p. 81). But the whole subject of measuring intelligence and relating it to race, as the authors of "The Bell Curve" did, is very controversial (and I would say dubious at best, as I believe Hagan also observes).
4. Also notes more recent psychological reseearch on the connection between ADHD and delinquency.
5. And the special box on the insanity defense (pp. 82-3) criteria runs through the changing standards or tests for this in court. (But it leaves out an important point -- of how rarely the insanity defense is successfully used.)
D. In line with the first criticism of psychological positivism, I would like to state an overall criticism of both the psychological and biological theories --
NEITHER THEORY BY ITSELF (OR EVEN TOGETHER) CAN OFFER A COMPLETELY ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR FOR THE BASIC REASON THAT: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEING, SO THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. INDEED, WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME ITSELF IS A MATTER OF SOCIAL DEFINITION.
I believe most biological and psychological theorists recognize the above point and do not claim that biology or psychology has all the answers.
So, this points us in the direction of the Sociological Theories --
MAINSTREAM SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Hagan begins by briefly mentioning some of the sociological theories we will be covering, which relate to various social conditions or factors. Generally speaking, sociological theories take a more critical stance toward society, suggesting that society is part of the problem (not just individuals straying from an essentially good society).
(However, the order in which he covers these theories baffles me. It is not chronological nor in any other discernable order. I will follow his lead though, but I will also be adding to and skipping over some of the theories he brings out.)
ANOMIE (OR STRAIN) THEORY
A. Hagan rightly credits Durkheim with developing the concept of "anomie," (but Durkheim did not apply it to crime in general). Durkheim argued that a general breakdown of norms and moral guidelines in society, especially in times of crisis, tends to give rise to higher suicide rates -- what he called "anomic suicide," which he argued was on the rise in modern society.
B. Robert Merton modified this concept significantly in developing what came to be known as "Anomie (or Strain) Theory. This was in the late 1940s, and it remains one of the important sociological theories to this day.
1. "...Merton viewed anomie as a condition that occurs when a discrepancy (or disjunction) exists between societal goals and the (legitimate) means available for their achievement." (p. 84) And the main goal of American society, he contended, was material success (wealth), which is how we tend to measure people's status.
2. This condition of anomie, Merton argued, is endemic to American society. Indeed, one could argue that the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is as wide as it ever has been, which would lead you to predict more criminal and deviant behavior.
3. Those individuals or groups which are blocked (for whatever reason) from legitimate means to material success feel the pressure or strain more than others and are more likely to resort to illegitimate means to achieve success.
4. Merton argued that there were actually FIVE modes (or ways) of adapting to the strain of anomie (what Hagan refers to in bold print as "modes of personality adaptation.").
(a) CONFORMIST: accepts the situation; strives for success through conventional, legitimate channels which these individuals obviously have access to. System works for them.
(b) INNOVATOR: this is the primary criminal response. One accepts the goal of success, but being blocked from legitimate means, this person turns to illegitimate means (in a sense innovates or creates his/her own means). Engaged in mostly by the lower class ( a point Hagan does not mention).
(I believe, along with David Callahan, author of "The Cheating Culture," this certainly can apply to middle or upper class individuals -- depends on how you define success, what "making it" means. There are undoubtedly higher expectations of success these days among the middle and upper classes which can exacerbate the strain of anomie. See xerox handout of pp. 172-173 from "The Cheating Culture," which is also a good general description of Merton's theory.)
(c) RITUALIST: (See Hagan's description p. 85. I do not know where he got this from or what it necessarily has to do with criminal or deviant behavior.) I believe Merton interpreted this adaptation as follows: person gives up on the struggle for success as society defines it, lowers his/her expectations to the point where they can be satisfied through conventional means. He considered this "deviant" or abnormal, although I would contend that it is a rational response to living with scarcity.
(d) RETREATIST: this is the escapist response. Person gives up on both the goal of success and the means -- turns to alcohol and/or drugs to, in the words of Timothy Leary, "tune in, turn on, drop out." Of course, taking illegal drugs is a crime, not to mention the fact that to support a drug habit one often has to resort to crime -- theft.
(e) REBEL: rejects both the ends and the means; that is, rejects the "system" altogether and seeks to overturn it, which would include violent means which would obviously be criminal.
C. In terms of a critique of Merton's theory, some of the points Hagan brings out are not terribly strong. For example, his first point about the variety of U.S. cultural values could be countered by arguing that despite this variety, it still is GENERALLY true that material success is the dominant value or goal of American culture. And I believe Merton would even concede the second point -- that it does not explain violent crime (which in fact is a weakness of most theories). The final point is a bit more serious. The fact is there is mixed support for the whole notion that there is an INVERSE relationship between social class and crime.
1. As noted, some research found that those with low aspirations and low expectations had the highest offense rates. You would expect more strain and the resulting crime where the gap between aspirations and expectations was greatest.
2. Ronald Akers even challenges the contention that higher unemployment leads to more crime, citing a couple studies from the 1980s. Akers observes, "...there is little evidence that unemployment motivates people to commit criminal acts. Moreover, crime is as likely to affect unemployment as vice versa (especially these days with widespread drug-testing)."
3. Nonetheless, as a MACRO theory, I believe this theory highlights some of the social structural correlates of crime such as poverty and unemployment, especially in the midst of a more prosperous society. And in this context I believe the policy implications of such a theory make sense -- people without access to legitimate opportunities are more likely to turn to crime, so we need to expand legitimate opportunities, especially for young people.
(Legitimate opportunities were clearly lacking in the inner city housing projects where Sudhir Venkatesh did his field work for "Gang Leader for a Day.")
D. Robert Agnew's GENERAL STRAIN THEORY expands the sources of strain. He says strain is due "to negative relationships in which indivivduals feel that they are being mistreated." Of course, there are a lot of negative events -- divorce, financial problems, insults, or physical assaults -- which may lead to anger and frustration and increase the likelihood that one will react in a criminal manner.
E. Albert Cohen's LOWER-CLASS REACTION THEORY focused more on STATUS deprivation (rather than material deprivation) of lower class youth. Feel locked out, not accepted in middle class society. So, they turn middle class values on their head -- basically "act out."
F. Cloward and Ohlin's DIFFERENTIAL OPPORTUNITY THEORY -- the likelihood of reacting to the strain of anomie depends on the availability of illegitimate opportunites. In some neighborhoods there exist "illegitimate opportunity structures."
1. Cloward and Ohlin identified three such illegitimate opportunity structures OR illegitimate juvenile subcultures: CRIMINAL, CONFLICT AND RETREATIVE. ("Gang Leader for A Day" really exemplifies all three.)
2. "The implications of Cloward and Ohlin's theory were not lost on policy makers. By improving legitimate opportunities, delinquency could be controlled." (p. 88)-- which, as I noted above, is a policy implication of anomie theory in general.
________________________________
That brings us up to SOCIAL PROCESS THEORY, which I may pick up with tomorrow or on Wednesday. Don't forget that tomorrow I will be handing out the write-up of our first out-of-class essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)