Social StructuRAL THEORIES Emile Durkheim The “Chicago School” + Social Disorganization Anomie/Strain Theories Social StructuRAL THEORIES

Emile Durkheim (late 1858-1917) French Scientist Suicide Humans nature: selfish and insatiable Effective Societies able to “cap” desires Socialization & Social Ties Special concern with “Industrial Prosperity” Coined the Term “Anomie”: Institutionalized norms lose ability to control human behavior and human needs

“Industrial Prosperity” therefore cap or control Durkhiem’s Legacy Rapidly Changing Society “Industrial Prosperity” Anomie (Norms are Weakened) Human Nature as Insatiable; must therefore cap or control Social Ties Important The Anomie/Strain Tradition The Social Disorganization and “Informal Control” Tradition

Park & Burgess (1925) How does a city growth and develop? Concentric Zones in Chicago Industrial zone Zone in transition Residential zones

Shaw and McKay Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas 1942. Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records) Zone in transition stable and high delinquency rates over many years Implications of these findings: 1. Stable, despite multiple waves of immigrants!! 2. Only certain areas of the city Something about this area causes delinquency

Social Disorganization What were the characteristics of the zone in transition that may cause high delinquency rates? Population Heterogeneity Population Turnover Physical Decay Poverty/Inequality Argue that these things impede informal social control One started, crime becomes stable because delinquent values are transmitted?

Sampson and Groves (1989) Using British Crime Survey Data (BCS) ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Population turnover Poverty / inequality Divorce rates Single parents SOCIAL CONTROL Street supervision Friendship networks Participation in organizations CRIME (VICTIMIZATION)

Sampson Friends (1997-Present) Version Data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Concentrated Disadvantage (Ecological) Population turnover Poverty / inequality Race composition Family disruption Physical decay Collective Efficacy Willingness to supervise/confront in neighborhood Mutual trust and willingness to help neighbors CRIME Homicide Violence as “problem” Victimization

RETURN OF THE “CULTURAL TRANSMISSION” William J. Wilson (Concentrated Poverty) The “Underclass” or “Truly Disadvantaged” Cultural Isolation no contact with “mainstream” individuals/institutions Little respect for “life” Hyper materialism, violence as “normative” Some believe recent “crime drop” reflect move away from these values

S.D. as an explanation for high rates of African American offending William Julius Wilson and Robert Sampson High proportion of the current members of the “Zone in Transition.” Public Policy made matters worse (high rise “projects” of the 1950s-60s) Why do African Americans not “move out” like prior ZIT residents (immigrants)? Housing Segregation Loss of Manufacturing Jobs The irony of “Black Flight”

Policy Implications? Build neighborhood “collective efficacy” How do you do this? Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility

Robert K. Merton Social Structure and Anomie (1938) From Durkheim: Institutionalized norms are weakened in societies that place an intense value on economic success Applied this to the United States The “American Dream”

Strain Theory (Micro Level) MODES OF CULTURAL INSTITUTIONALIZED ADAPTATION GOALS MEANS 1. Conformity + + 2. Innovation + - 3. Ritualism - + 4. Retreatism - - 5. Rebellion +/- +/-

Criticisms of Merton’s Strain Theory Is crime a “lower class” phenomena? Cannot explain “expressive” crimes Weak empirical support Why do people “adapt” differently?

Agnew: General Strain Theory Overhaul of Merton’s Strain Theory Three sources of strain Failure to achieve valued goals Removal of valued stimuli Can’t escape noxious stimuli

Agnew (GST) StrainNegative Affective States Anger, fear, frustration, depression In lieu of “Coping Mechanisms,” anger and frustration can produce delinquency StrainNeg EmotionalDelinquency

CRIME AND THE AMERICAN DREAM Messner and Rosenfeld

Elements of the “American Dream” Achievement Individualism Universalism The “fetishism” of money These elements encourage “Anomic conditions”

Institutions in Society Social institutions as the building blocks of society. The Economy The Polity The Family Education

Culture, Social Structure, and Crime Rates The American Dream ANOMIE SOCIAL STRUCTURE Economic Dominance Weak Institutional Controls HIGH CRIME RATES

Informal Social Control Theories Hirschi (social bond) Gottfredson and Hirschi (low self-control) Sampson and Laub (age graded social control)

Assumptions about “Motivation towards crime” Strain theory: motivation from some sort of strain (e.g. blocked opportunity) Learning theory: motivation from delinquent peers Control theory: there is enough natural motivation towards crime No need to “build in” extra motivation Real question? Why aren’t we all criminal?

Types of Control Direct Control Indirect Control Internal Control Direct punishments, rewards from parents, friends Indirect Control Refrain from deviance because you don’t want to risk friends, job, etc. Internal Control Good self-concept, self-control, conscience

Social Bond Theory “Bond” indicates “Indirect Control” Attachment Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less important because delinquency occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence). Attachment Commitment (Elements of the social bond Involvement are all related to each other) Belief

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) A General Theory of Crime Same control theory assumptions If we are all inclined to be deviant, why conform? Because most of us develop “self-control” “Internal control” Developed by age 8, as the result of “direct control” from parents

Nature of Crime, Nature of Low Self-Control People with low self-control are therefore… Impulsive Risk-taking Physical (as opposed to mental) Low verbal ability Short-sighted Insensitive Criminal Acts… Provide immediate gratification of desires Are risky/thrilling Are easy/simple Require little skill/planning Provide few/meager long term benefits Result in pain/discomfort to a victim

Gottfredson and Hirschi Family Context Large family size, single parents, parental deviance Low Direct Control Inadequate supervision, recognition, punishment Low Self-Control Insensitive, impulsive, risk-taking…

“Age Graded Theory of Informal Social Control” Sampson and Laub We will cover this again in the “lifecourse” theory section Takes Hirschi’s (1969) theory and made it “age graded” The specific elements of the social bond change over the life-course Also includes elements of “direct control” Also throws in some other stuff (integrated theory)

Sampson and Laub Childhood Adolescence Adulthood Parenting Supervision Discipline Social Bonds Family School Delinquent Peers Context Delinquency Adult Crime Individual Differences Length of Incarceration Social Bonds Marriage Good Job

Policy Implications Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory Target attachment, commitment, belief Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory Must focus on early childhood prevention Train parents? Sampson and Laub Different targets for different ages Importance of adult bonds (job, marriage)

Social process theory traditions ▪ Differential association/social learning ▪ Adequate socialization toward the incorrect norms and values ▪ Informal social control ▪ Inadequate socialization ▪ Labeling theory ▪ Socialized to accept delinquent identity as result of criminal justice system

Differential Association Criminal Behavior is learned Negatively, this means it is not “invented” Communication within intimate groups Learning involves techniques and attitudes Attitudes expresses as “definitions of the situation” A person becomes delinquent because of an “excess of definitions favorable to law violation” The process involves the same learning process as all other behavior

Techniques of Neutralization ▪ Developed by Sykes and Matza ▪ First good attempt to measure Sutherland’s “definitions” Documented common rationalizations (excuses) for delinquency among a sample of delinquents

Techniques of Neutralization ▪ Denial of responsibility ▪ Denial of injury ▪ Denial of victim ▪ Condemnation of the condemners ▪ Appeal to higher loyalties

Techniques of Neutralization Definitions or Something Else?? ▪ Sociology criticism  Such attitudes do not actually cause criminal behavior. ▪ Rationalization is utilized only after the offense is committed when behavior is called into question. ▪ Psychologist (Behaviorism): To the extent that these rationalizations neutralize guilt, they reinforce behavior (Negative Reinforcement)

Social Learning Theory ▪ Developed by Ronald Akers ▪ Early version: differential reinforcement ▪ Revision of differential association theory ▪ Added concepts of operant conditioning and imitation (observational learning) to explain how behavior was learne

Social Learning Theory Key concepts ▪ Differential associations ▪ Definitions ▪ Differential reinforcement ▪ Imitation

Social Learning Theory (Akers) Exposure to definitions or different role models Balance of definitions or role models produces initial behaviors Positive or negative reinforcement Definitions Behaviors Role models R(+/-) DA

Social Learning Theory ▪ Empirical research measures ▪ Attitudes that support crime (definitions) ▪ Exposure to delinquent peers/family members (differential associations) ▪ Rewards or punishment for delinquency (differential reinforcement)

Policy Implications: Social Learning Theory ▪ Use the principles of learning to ▪ Reduce access to delinquent peers ▪ Confront and change antisocial attitudes ▪ Change the balance of reinforcement so that it supports prosocial behavior ▪ Behavioral/cognitive restructuring programs

Labeling Theory ▪ Developed by Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, and Howard Becker ▪ Key concepts ▪ Emphasis is on interactions between individuals and institutions of formal control (e.g., police, courts, prisons). ▪ Contact with police and the courts may create negative self-image. ▪ Formal interventions may increase criminal behavior.

Roots of the Labeling Perspective (1 of 3) ▪ View of crime and deviance as relative ▪ Deviant categorization depends on many factors ▪ Focus on how power and conflict shape society (social context) ▪ Moral entrepreneurs ▪ Importance of self-concept ▪Symbolic interactionism and “Looking-glass self”

A Critique of Labeling Theory ▪ Little empirical support ▪ Inaccurate assumptions ▪ Primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant ▪ Nature of the person predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act ▪ Effect of official sanctions on future behavior ▪ Racial bias does exist…but not sole (or most important) cause of CJ response to crime ▪ Arrest sometimes decreases future crime

Policy Implications: Labeling Theory ▪ Schur: “Radical nonintervention” ▪ Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974) ▪ Diversion programs ▪ Divert offenders away from the formal juvenile justice processing to programs run by other entities (i.e., social service programs) Deinstitutionalization (esp. status offenders) Due Process revolution in Juvenile Court

Labeling Theory in Context Labeling theory most popular in 1960s-1970s The central ideas had been around as early as the 1930s Good “fit” for the social context of 1960s Ironic Twist Government, trying to do good, actually makes people worse Good fit with the “can’t trust the government” social movement era

Labeling Extensions II ▪ Reintegrative Shaming Developed by John Braithewaite ▪ Effect of formal punishment depends upon how a person is punished. ▪ Shaming and reintegrative punishment will decrease future crime. ▪ Stigmatizing punishment will increase future crime. LEADS TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Critical Theory Central Themes Emphasis on “inequality” and “power” Crime as “political” concept CJS serves interests of powerful Solution to crime is more equitable society EXPLANATION OF LAW and CJ SYSTEM rather than crime

Variations of Critical Theory Conflict Theory Marxist/Radical Theory Feminist Criminology/Gender and Crime

Pluralistic Conflict—Explanation of the Law and Criminal Justice George Vold Group Conflict Multiple groups in society with varying levels of power ▪ Political interest groups ▪ Social movements ▪ Broad segments of society ▪ Political parties Those who win conflict get control over the law and coercive power of the state

Empirical Evidence The formulation of law The operation of the CJS Interest groups’ influence on law-making Research on consensus over laws The operation of the CJS Research on “extra-legal” variables “Legal” = prior record, offense seriousness “extra” = RACE, CLASS, GENDER Demeanor?

Where the Evidence is Clear Race and Capital Punishment Victim x Race interactions Race and Drug Prosecutions Long history of connecting drugs to “dangerous” populations Chinese  Opium Mexicans  Marijuana African Americans  Crack Cocaine e “Crack Multiplier” Enforcement patterns for drug offenses

Marxist/Radical Criminology Instrumental Marxist Position Hard line position Crime and the creation and enforcement of law the direct result of capitalism Structural Marxist Position Softer Position Governments are somewhat autonomous Over time, the direction of the law (creation and enforcement) will lean towards the capitalists

Implications for Law Capitalists control the definition of crime Laws protect the capitalists (property, $) Laws ignore crimes of the capitalists (profiteering)

Implications for the Criminal Justice System CJS is the tool of the capitalists; used to oppress (not protect) the working population Crimes of the rich treated with kid gloves Property crimes strictly enforced “Street crimes” are enforced only in poor neighborhoods Incarceration to control surplus labor

Criticisms Radical/Marxist Criminology An “underdog theory” with little basis in fact Are “socialist societies” any different? Other capitalist countries have low crime rates Most crime is poor against poor—Marxists ignore the plight of the poor.

Jeffrey Reiman ▪The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison ▪ Key point = harmful acts of the rich are often ignored (unneccesary surgery, environmental harm, etc.) White collar crime less serious and less likely to be enforced ▪ Pollution, Hazardous work conditions, Unsafe products, Insider trading, Embezzlement, Fraud ▪ Even wealthy people who engage in street crime are less likely to be formally charged and better able to avoid sanctioning

Gender and Crime Feminist Criminology Gender Ratio and Generalizability Relationships between gender, crime, and the criminal justice system

Gender-Crime ▪ Gender ratio (Gender Gap) ▪ Males account for the vast majority of delinquent and criminal offending ▪ UCR, NCVS, self-report ▪ Gender gap shrinking? Liberation hypothesis (Not supported by research) WHY is gender ratio so large? Can traditional theories explain? (Social bond, delinquent peers, etc.) Masculinity & sex roles

Gender and Crime II Generaliziblity issue Can “Male” theories explain female offending? Many theories blatantly sexist (See, Cohen) Many theories simply ignore females Mainstream theories do explain male and female offending similarly Could we do better explaining female criminality? Salience of sexual/physical abuse among delinquent girls

Daly’s Typology of female offending ▪ Street women ▪ Harmed-and-harming women ▪ Battered women ▪ Drug-connected women ▪ Other women

Gender and the Criminal Justice System ▪ Research findings ▪ When gender effects are found, females are treated more leniently Chivalry Hypothesis Paternalism Hypothesis Seriousness of offense differs in ways that most research doesn’t count Sort-of-legal-factors (“familied”)