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.