emile durkheim the “chicago school” + social disorganization anomie/strain theories

SOCIAL STRUCTURAL THEORIES

Emile DurkheimThe “Chicago School” + Social DisorganizationAnomie/Strain 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

DURKHIEM’S LEGACY

Rapidly Changing Society

“Industrial Prosperity”

Anomie (Norms are Weakened)

Human Nature asInsatiable; 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)

ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

• Population turnover• Poverty / inequality• Divorce rates • Single parents

SOCIAL CONTROL• Street supervision• Friendship networks • Participation in organizations

Using British Crime Survey Data (BCS)

CRIME (VICTIMIZATION)

SAMPSON FRIENDS (1997-PRESENT) VERSION

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

Data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods

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 +/- +/-

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

1. Failure to achieve valued goals2. Removal of valued stimuli3. Can’t escape noxious stimuli

AGNEW (GST)

StrainNegative Affective States Anger, fear, frustration, depression

In lieu of “Coping Mechanisms,” anger and frustration can produce delinquency

StrainNeg EmotionalDelinquency

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

CULTURE

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

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”

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

Criminal Acts…

Provide immediate gratification of desires

Are risky/thrilling

Are easy/simpleRequire little skill/planning

Provide few/meager long termbenefits

Result in pain/discomfort to a victim

People with low self-controlare therefore…

Impulsive

Risk-taking

Physical (as opposed to mental)Low verbal ability

Short-sighted

Insensitive

GOTTFREDSON AND HIRSCHIFamily

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

ContextParenting• Supervision• Discipline Social Bonds• Family• SchoolDelinquent Peers

Childhood Adolescence Adulthood

Individual Differences

Delinquency

Social Bonds• Marriage• Good Job

Length ofIncarceration

Adult Crime

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 initialbehaviors

Positive ornegative

reinforcement

DA Definitions BehaviorsRole models

R(+/-)

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

▪ Policy implications▪ 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 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”)