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.