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.