Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV

Transcription

1 UNIT IV STUDY GUIDE Social Theories Reading Assignment Chapter 6: Social Structure Theories Chapter 7: Theories of Social Process and Social Development Chapter 8: Social Conflict Theories Supplemental Reading See Information Below Learning Activities (Non-Graded): Click here to access a PDF of the Unit IV Learning Activities. This is a non-graded activity, so you do not have to submit it. Key Terms 1. Androcentricity 2. Anomie 3. Broken windows thesis 4. Control ratio 5. Desistance 6. Distributive justice 7. Illegitimate opportunity structure 8. Impression management 9. Life course perspective Course Learning Outcomes for Unit IV Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Define and discuss criminology terms introduced in Unit IV. 2. Identify and compare analytical perspectives of social organization that address the relationship between law and social order. 3. Recall how social interaction can contribute to criminal behavior. 4. Recall and discuss social structure, social process, social development, and social conflict theories of criminality, their key concepts, and their shortcomings. Unit Lesson As the United States began the twentieth century, contemporary thinking shifted toward belief that individual behaviors, including delinquency, were a social byproduct. As the majority of the theorists rejected the individualistic explanations of criminal behavior in support of the social explanation, sociological theories began to take a forefront in criminological theory. These theories claim that society provides unequal advantages to particular groups. Individuals within groups that are disadvantaged many resort to criminal activity in an attempt to reach their socioeconomic goals. Age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, education, environmental, and situational factors are all considerations in sociological theories (Bartol, 2005). The key to understanding and controlling criminal activity is to understand and control the social issues contributing to the inequalities (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 1995). Utilizing the sociological paradigms, crime control is better achieved through social programs and rehabilitation versus mere incarceration. The sociological theories can be classified into three general explanations of criminality: social structure theories, social process/social development theories, and conflict theories. The social structure theories argue that crime is the result of an individual s position within the structure of society. The social process/social development theories believe that criminal behavior is a result of various social processes. The conflict theories assert that criminality is the product of class struggle. Social Structure Theories The Chicago School: The Chicago School of Criminology can be credited with the institution of the sociological explanation of crime. They were the first to reject the attribution of criminal behavior to individualistic characteristics and shift the focus to the external factors propagating crime throughout America. The Chicago School argued that the conditions of the American city contained the necessary forces to promote criminality. Those individuals within the cities were often poor and disadvantaged, and the inequalities of their environment pushed them into criminal behavior. The Chicago School holds that it is flawed to assume that rational choice and free will are capable of explaining behaviors that are primarily exhibited by the socially and economically disadvantaged (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 1995). BCJ 2501, Criminology 1

2 10. Negative affective state 11. Participatory justice 12. Pluralist perspective 13. Primary deviance 14. Prosocial bond 15. Reaction formation 16. Reintegrative shaming 17. Relative deprivation 18. Restorative justice 19. Secondary deviance 20. Strain theory 21. Total institution The basic assumptions of this theory are that social factors are the primary causes of crime and delinquency, social structure is inherently unstable, and these instabilities place a greater strain on the lower classes. The Chicago School encouraged fieldwork over the use of sheer statistics. They believed that cities like Chicago mirror society as a whole, and thus they are the perfect laboratory. The Chicago School of Criminology was the foundation of several criminological theories, including social disorganization theories and strain theory (Cullen & Agnew, 2011). Social disorganization theory: Social disorganization has been defined as the inability of a community structure to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective social controls (Sampson and Groves, 1989). Shaw and McKay developed the social disorganization theory in their 1942 work, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. They studied 21 socio-economically disadvantaged areas and noted that these areas persistently experienced high delinquency over a period of decades, regardless of changes in these areas racial and ethnic composition. Shaw and McKay s work demonstrated the continual contextual effects that the disadvantaged communities had on the crime rates. This research rejected the individualistic delinquency explanation, such as biological and psychological, and turned criminological theory toward the impact of community factors that lead to the apparent transmission of criminal behavior through generations residing in these depressed areas. According to Shaw and McKay, the ability of a community to supervise and control teenage peer groups is a major factor in the reduction of crime. The lack of social organization within a community leads to delinquency and criminal behavior (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999). Strain theory: The strain theory asserts that People commit crime because of the strains or stressors they experience; these strains may cause people s negative emotions, such as anger, frustration, and depression, and a crime may become a way to alleviate these negative emotions (Bao, 2008, p. 473). A strong adherence to the American dream, combined with low obtainment of such goals, increases social dissatisfaction and essentially legitimizes criminal activity due to lack of opportunity, and therefore increases delinquency. Robert Agnew reformulated the strain theory into a comprehensive perspective, developing the general strain theory. This theory expanded on the traditional strain theory by widening the focus to include all types of negative relations. It also considered the cumulative effects of strain on delinquency. Since the general strain theory provides a more comprehensive explanation of adaptations to strain, this theory more fully describes the various factors resulting in delinquent adaptations to strain (Schmalleger, 2012). Culture conflict theory: Thorsten Sellin argued that the foundation of crime is the different values of what is acceptable behavior within and between cultures. Behavioral norms are the valuative basis for human behavior. They are acquired early in life through childhood socialization and are dependent on the culture in which this socialization occurs. When established norms conflict with variously socialized groups, crime results. Expanding on this principle, the subculture theory is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the contribution made by variously socialized cultural groups to the phenomenon of crime (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 162). Criminality is learned within the context of a subculture that emphasizes criminal behavior over other forms of adaptation. Differential opportunity theory: Cloward and Ohlin (1960) combined the ideas of the subcultural thesis with strain theory. Legitimate and illegitimate opportunities are the two socially structured opportunities for success. Since BCJ 2501, Criminology 2

3 members of lower-class subcultures are routinely denied access to legitimate opportunities, they resort to the ready availability of illegitimate opportunities. Eventually, this results in the replacement of cultural norms with self-serving subcultural rules, which in turn justifies the criminal behavior (Schmalleger, 2012). Social Process Theories Differential association theory: Edwin Sutherland (1939) applied the principles of behaviorism to criminality. Sutherland argued that criminal behavior, like other human behaviors, was learned through various associations with others who convey their criminal values and promote the commission of crimes. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all mechanisms involved in any other learning (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 178). Burgess and Akers (1966) expanded Sutherland s theory. They added the component of reinforcement in continued criminal behavior to create the differential association-reinforcement theory. Social learning theory: The social learning theory of crime and deviance was originally developed by Akers, in collaboration with Burgess, as a behavioristic reconstruction of Sutherland s differential association theory of crime. Akers and Burgess expanded on the final tenant of Sutherland s theory that criminal behavior was learned and combined it with psychology s operant conditioning principle to formulate the social learning theory (Akers & Sellers, 2009). The social learning theory is comprised of four components: differential associations, definitions, differential reinforcements, and imitations. According to Akers (1985), individuals are first exposed to deviant behavior through their differential association with deviant peers. Then, differential reinforcement allows them to learn how to obtain rewards and avoid punishment by referencing the known consequences of given behaviors. Criminal knowledge is eventually gained through imitation and reflection of previous experiences. Potential offenders utilize this information and consider the possible outcomes, predict the rewards or punishments, and then decide which acts will be advantageous and which ones will be too costly. There is strong criticism of the theory regarding its sequence of differential peer associations and delinquency. Some researchers have argued that delinquency causes delinquent association, not the other way around, as proposed in the social learning theory. Although there is research showing support on either side, the importance of peer relationships to continued delinquency cannot be disputed. Social control theory: In contrast to most criminological theories, social control theory primarily explains why individuals do not commit crime. This theory asserts that strong social bonds inhibit delinquency, whereas weak bonds offer little resistance to offending (Booth, Farrell & Varano, 2008, p. 423). Labeling theory: The labeling theory of criminology is derived from the general symbolic interactionism theory of sociology. Symbolic interactionism was developed in the early twentieth century from the work of Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead. It argues that individual identities are largely constructed from social interaction with others. As an extension of this theory, the labeling theory identifies social labeling of someone as deviant or criminal as the causation of crime. Labeling theory believes that the humiliation endured by those who have been labeled as being criminal or delinquent are encouraged to commit future unlawful behavior through social constructs (Akers & Sellers, 2009). BCJ 2501, Criminology 3

4 Reintegrative shaming: John Braithwaite s reintegrative shaming theory (1989) is a revision of the traditional labeling theory. In an attempt to address the empirical shortcomings of the labeling theory, Braithwaite explores the factors that lead to the development of future criminal behavior after criminal labeling occurs. In contrast to the traditional labeling theory, Braithwaite s theory offers alternatives to the perpetual criminality outcomes of labeling. The reintegrative shaming theory argues that if the shame of the social label is offered within the context of forgiveness and ultimate social approval, the goal of deterring future criminal activity will be achieved (Cullen & Agnew, 2011). Conflict Theories Conflict theories seek to explain how the disproportionate distribution of capital creates conflict between those who own and control these valuable resources and those who try to increase their access and possession of these resources. Willem Bonger was the first to apply Marx s theories specifically to criminology. He theorized that the majority of crime could be linked to the poverty created by capitalism. Poverty forced criminal activity for survival and gave rise to the subordinate classes sense of social injustice. Furthermore, Bonger felt that upper-class criminals committed crimes due to the power and reduction of morals promoted by a capitalistic society (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 1995). Radical criminology: Radical criminology, also termed critical or Marxist criminology, contests that crime is rooted in social conditions that empower the wealthy and politically organized, and marginalize the less fortunate. Richard Quinney argued that almost all crimes committed by the lower classes are necessary for survival. Under capitalist conditions, crime is inevitable, and the solution to the problem is the development of a socialist society (Schmalleger, 2012). Left-realist criminology: Left-realist criminology criticizes radical-critical criminology for romanticizing street crime, instead insisting that radical ideas must be converted into realistic social policies. It proposes reforms to the system that would address crimes, provide assistance to victims, reduce imprisonment, and reduce crime as a whole (Akers & Sellers, 2009). However, left-realism has been heavily condemned as being more of an ideological emphasis for taking crime seriously than a firm criminological perspective (Schmalleger, 2012). Feminist criminology: Feminist theory of criminology is founded in critical theory, particularly concentrating on the effect of gender on criminal behavior, victimization, and the experience within the criminal justice system (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1996). Feminist critics have argued that existing general theories of crime and the criminal justice system are a product of our male-dominated society and do not consider the female experience (Simpson, 1996). Therefore, feminist criminology has developed a diverse set of perspectives that center on women s interest within the criminal justice system, and attempts to create equality and social justice. Feminist theories of criminology has expanded into an assorted set of perspectives and agendas. Each of these variations is based on differing definitions of the problem, competing conceptions of the origins and mechanisms of gender inequality and oppression, and divergent strategies for its eradication (Simpson, 1996, p. 321). Together the liberal, socialist, racial, and Marxist feminism attempt to recognize and represent women s interests within the criminal justice system, as well as in society as a whole. BCJ 2501, Criminology 4

5 References Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and applications (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2006). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Bao, W. (2008). Book Review: Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury. International Criminal Justice Review, 18, Retrieved from Sage full-text collections database. Booth, J.A, Farrell, A,. & Varano, S. P. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and risky behavior: a gendered analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54, Retrieved from Sage full-text collections database. Cernkovich, S.A., Giordano, P.C., & Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Race, crime and the American dream, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, Retrieved from Sage full-text collections database. Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1996). Feminism and criminology. In P. Cordell & L. Siegel (Eds.), Readings in contemporary criminological theories (pp ). York, PA: Maple Press. Kawachi, J., Kennedy, B.P., & Wilkinson, R.G. (1999). Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (1995). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sampson, R.J., & Groves, W.B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology. 94, Sampson, R.J. (1995). The community. In: J.Q. Wilson, Petersilia, J. (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy. (pp ). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An integrative introduction (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Simpson, S.S. (1996). Feminist theory, crime, and justice. In P. Cordell & L. Siegel (Eds.), Readings in contemporary criminological theories (pp ). York, PA: Maple Press. Supplemental Reading Click here to access a PDF of the Chapter 6 Presentation. Click here to access a PDF of the Chapter 7 Presentation. Click here to access a PDF of the Chapter 8 Presentation. BCJ 2501, Criminology 5