Applied Criminology Level 3 Strain theories. Strain theories: tackle the question of motivation: Why...
-
Upload
dina-mitchell -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Applied Criminology Level 3 Strain theories. Strain theories: tackle the question of motivation: Why...
Applied Criminology
Level 3
Strain theories
Strain theories:
tackle the question of motivation: Why would anyone want to commit a crime?
argue people would conform to prevailing norms & laws were it not for stress & contradictions in their lives
2 variations:
1) Anomie, leading to thwarted ambition = Durkheim & Merton
2) Relative deprivation caused by material inequalities in wealth
Durkheim Strain theories - roots in Durkheim - crime is: a SOCIAL phenomenon, normal,
functional, not parasitic
All societies are in some stage of progression
MECHANICAL Each social group isolated & self-sufficient, live in same conditions, do same work,
hold same values, social solidarity is based upon uniformity
ORGANIC The different parts of society depend on each other, social solidarity is based on
diversity of functions of the parts of society
As society becomes more ORGANIC, anomie may develop – a state of lawlessness existing at times of abrupt social change in which the factors of control are disturbed (lack of societal regulation over desires/aspirations) - can result in crime
Rapid social change due to increasing division of labour means disappearance of community life, breakdown of norms, state of self interest develops, societal imbalance produces disorder
Merton - Crime is useful to criminals! Helps them to resolve difficulties presented by their social situations – a
central feature of which is Strain
Society is organised around culturally defined goals (society defines as worth pursuing) & institutionalised means (legitimate means available to achieve goals)
Problem: Imbalance between what encouraged to ‘go for’ & what is achievable
Cultural successes set up but many ‘Non-starters’ - economic impoverishment - causes social strain awaiting some form of solution
Crime is a possible response to the strains produced by the unequal opportunities available for achieving success
Merton: Criminality arises as we are ALL led to believe there is equality of opportunity – ‘The American Dream’
Most of us - CONFORMISTS: accept goals & legitimate means
Some pursue deviant forms of adaptation/responses to strain/anomie
One of which is ‘Innovation’ - accept goals/reject accepted & pursue illegitimate means - legitimate means most restricted in lower classes
Strain is ever present, mostly affects disadvantaged, & is culturally induced
2 important theoretical developments follow on from Merton’s concern with production of deviant behaviour:
1) Cohen’s (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture 2) Cloward & Ohlin’s notion of differential opportunity (1960)
Cohen (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture For Merton, crime is solution to inability to achieve dominant cultural goals
Culture - starting point for other theories that draw upon ideas of ‘Strain’: ‘subcultural theory’
Subculture: set of values, beliefs different from dominant culture (hostile)
Cohen - ‘Middle-class mainstream norms & values’ permeate U.S. society (through media & education) & we are all judged against them
E.g. presented these at school BUT schools do not enable working class pupils to achieve
Middle class standards stressed in environment of ‘blocked opportunities’
Strain – ‘status frustration’ - problem needs a solution = delinquent subculture
Young offered alternative ‘society’/way to gain status - by doing what’s most frowned upon by dominant culture - now an activity is right because the dominant culture says it is not
Cohen (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture
Lower-class boy (‘corner boy’) - ill-equipped to compete with middle-class boys in status stakes
He organises his life around working-class values/friendship of mates - inhibits upward mobility
In early adolescence he faces a ‘problem of adjustment’ as he is denied the status given to middle-class boys - 3 responses available to him:
‘the stable corner-boy’ – resigns himself to his situation - perhaps some mild acts of delinquency
‘the college-boy’ – lower-working class boy has internalised middle-class cultural norms & aspires to improve self through educational success & compete with middle-class
‘the delinquent boy’ – joins with others in same situation & develops a delinquent sub-culture
Cohen argues Merton’s theory cannot explain day-to-day, non-utilitarian, negativistic, working-class delinquency
For Merton crime is linked to gaining money/For Cohen, it is linked to gaining cultural status (but group response)
Cloward & Ohlin – notion of differential opportunity (1960) Central themes of strain theory again evident with these theorists arguing there’s
more than 1 way to gain success – illegitimate & legitimate pathways/opportunities
Crime occurs because of blocked legitimate pathways
Middle & upper classes - greater access to legitimate opportunity structures ‘V’ Lower classes greater access to illegitimate opportunity structures
In a community where these 2 structures are poorly integrated there is greater social disorganisation (SD) & the greater the SD, the more likely that the illegitimate opportunity structure (especially organised criminal gangs) will be dominant (an alternative route to success)
Different kinds of delinquent subcultures are more common in different kinds of areas & the type of criminality arising depends on area & gang
Criminal gang: orderly, financial goals Conflict gang: no purpose, angry, violent Retreatist gang: failed in both criminal & violent subcultures, drugs
What strain theories achieved…
…highlighted the importance of structural variables, external to the individual, as a way of understanding the nature of criminal behaviour
Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin’s theories = subcultural theories but also strain theories as they describe delinquency as a reaction to the strains imposed by unequal opportunities available to attain goals set up by U.S society
Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin draw on Merton’s strain theory to show how it can be adapted to explain crimes that are not motivated by greed
Relative Deprivation
Coined by Sam Stouffer et al (1949) & 1st used in Criminology in 1980s by Stack, Braithwaite & Left Realists
…is distinct from but strongly related to strain & refers to relative rather than absolute poverty
Relative Deprivation will increase if the gap between rich & poor increases
It is possible to be well-off & still feel relatively deprived
We are bombarded daily by media images/definitions of what IS the ‘good life’ - involves consumption - adds to unfairness felt by those who cannot afford it
Now a popular explanation for crime as it partly explains ‘rising living standards & rising crime levels’
Relative Deprivation
Unlike strain theory, it does not suggest crime is just a lower class phenomenon
Discontent can be felt anywhere where people see their rewards as unfair compared to others with similar attributes
But Relative Deprivation is likely to be felt more by those whose economic position is least secure
If Relative Deprivation is present, feelings of injustice may be present & might influence behaviour
Those that believe their situation is not likely to be addressed may
turn to other forms of redress e.g. criminality
Relative Deprivation
Redistribution of income is required through for e.g. full employment, high minimum wages
Criminality may decrease if fewer people felt politically marginalised/that something might be done
So criminality arises from unfair distribution of wealth
Box (1987) – Relative Deprivation may help to explain high crime rates in recessions when the strain to turn to criminality is stronger as the possibility of a re-distribution of wealth is even less
Currie (1985): there’s been a widening of the gap between rich & poor - the deprivations, exacerbated by the consumerism so central to a market economy, have fostered crime
Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’
Most of the above strain theories centred on economic deprivation or relative deprivation but Agnew takes a much wider view
Shifted the focus of Strain theory from idea of ‘long term aspirations’ to more ‘immediate wants’ of young:
popularity with peers, good school results, sporting success - failure to achieve, causes strain
Strain is not just about a difference between aspirations & expectations
3 particular types:
Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’
1) Strain arising from a failure to achieve desired goals/goods (inc. the areas covered by Merton & Cohen) but also strain where a personal expectation (not only economic) does not materialise; e.g. strain resulting from an unjust decision
2) Strain arising from the removal of positively valued stimuli & presentation of negatively valued stimuli – e.g. loss of a friend due to an argument
3) Strain resulting from negative stimuli e.g. physical pain, embarrassment
Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’
Any of these strains will often be reflected in fear, disappointment & anger & may give rise to criminal activity
Strain can vary in its effects on delinquency according to for example: intensity & duration
But even strong feelings of strain may not result in criminality…
Depends on cognitive abilities to reason problem through & anger coping strategies
Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’
Strain is more likely to lead to criminality if:
it arises from the deliberate actions of others person has high levels of aggressiveness & irritability & low
tolerance of adversity person has low levels of social control acting on them person has experience of criminality or association with delinquent
peers
But there are many non-criminal ways of dealing with strain
Joe & Chesney-Lind’s (1998) results: Young males often use peer groups for criminality Young females often use them to build mainly non-criminal
strategies for coping with strain
For Agnew (1992) criminal acts can be:
1) instrumental (trying to regain a loss or something which has previously been unobtainable)
2) retaliatory (hitting back at the source of strain)
3) escapist (seeking comfort from unpleasant states of anger & strain)
Agnew’s theory is arguably a more rounded concept of strain which addresses many problems of earlier theories
Agnew (1999) Macro-level (societal) Strain Theory
Extended & elaborated upon GST, presenting a version that is designed to explain community level differences in crime & delinquency
Suggests that aggregate-level variation in crime/delinquency can also be explained in terms of frustrating social conditions & combined levels of anger & frustration
The characteristics of particular communities are said to be particularly unpleasant/dislikeable
As a result these communities are inhabited by a high % of angry people & thus exhibit relatively high rates of criminal/delinquent behaviour
Another more recent Strain theory -Messner & Rossenfield (1994)
Why does the U.S. have a higher level of serious crime than any other industrial nation? What’s different about it?
Merton’s theory given renewed attention – as ‘American Dream’ is central
‘a commitment to the goal of material success to be pursued by all in society, under conditions of open, individual competition’
But said too much emphasis put on Merton’s theory as an explanation of criminality based on individual strain
We should view it instead, as a wider theory of social organisation
Messner & Rossenfield (1994)
What is different in the U.S. society’s structure from other countries - the wielding of economic power takes precedence over other important societal institutions: political system, family & school
- crime results from a culture of prioritising wealth
A balanced relationship between these institutions is crucial if societies are to function properly
But the ‘American Dream’ places such emphasis on monetary success that this goal dominates - Money IS the currency for measuring achievement
We can always have more money – ‘American Dream’ - no stopping point
So whereas in U.S., education is seen as the way to better paid employment & is not prized as an end in itself, in other countries it is one of many influences which develops values & beliefs
Messner & Rosenfield Preoccupation with financial success interferes with ability of U.S institutions
to properly socialise people into law abiding, healthy roles
They suggest, if other aspirations were to have priority there would be less crime:
the family should be more valued & strengthened by altering working practices
education should not be so closely connected to training for work goals should be moved away from ‘the Dream’ & include more caring facets
Argue that societies which are less focussed purely on monetary values, suffer less crime
Policy implications? - much greater focus on citizenship (respect for others)
So recent developments in the area of ‘Strain’ which stand apart from others are:
1) Agnew’s GST (highlights differing personal ways & abilities of coping with strain)
2) Relative deprivation & how this can create tensions leading to criminality
The increased emphasis on personal (rather than social & cultural factors), is a new facet to strain theory
Merton’s theory is now considered not as a full explanation of crime but a flexible notion…
…an ‘evolving paradigm’ where different theorists have stressed different aspects
Whilst Agnew further examined the social-psychological impact of strain on individuals…
Messner & Rosenfield examined the societal impact of excessive concentration on the American Dream
Whilst Merton considered individual reactions to strain…
Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin considered group responses
Whilst Merton considered strain resulting from problems re: material wealth…
Cohen considered strain resulting from problems of status
Policy implications:
Provide greater educational & job training opportunities, better wages & hours
Expand the public sector to provide services to the less well-off
Promote feelings of inclusion, encourage cultural ideals which focus on community & respect
Equality of opportunity = no strain & less crime
Most strain theorists do not suggest fundamental redistribution of wealth/breaking down of class divisions – they just stress an equal opportunity to succeed or fail
As we see the gap between rich & poor widening it is likely that further interpretations of ‘strain’ will follow along the lines of relative deprivation theory
References Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30 (1) Box, S. (1983). Power, Crime and Mystification. London: Tavistock Brezina, T. (2000). Delinquent problem-solving: an interpretive framework for criminological theory & research. Journal of Research in Crime &
delinquency, 37 (1), p. 3-30. Brezina, T., Piquero, A.R. & Mazerolle, P. (2001). Student anger & aggressive behaviour in school: an intial test of Agnew’s macro-level strain theory.
Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 38 (4), p. 362-386. Broidy, L. & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender & crime: a general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 34 (3), p. 275-306. Cernkovich, S.A., Giordano, P.C. & Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Race, crime and the American Dream. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency 37 (2), p.
131-170. Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent Boys. London: Free Press Cloward, R. A and Ohlin.L.E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Macmillan. Durkheim, E. (1938). Rules of the Sociological Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Hoffman, J.P. & Su, S.S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency & drug use: a strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of
Research in Crime & delinquency, 34 (1), p. 46-78. Jones, S. (2001). Criminology. London: LexusNexus. Chapter 7, pp. 137-160. Lea, J. & Young, J. (1996). Relative Deprivation. In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin & M. Langan (Eds), Criminological Perspectives: A Reader. London:
Sage, p.136-144. Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: OUP Menard, S. (1995). A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 32 (2), p. 136-174. Merton, R. (1949). Social Theory & Social Structure. New York: Free Press Simons, R.L. &Gray, P.A. (1989). Perceived blocked opportunity as an explanation of delinquency among lower-class black males: A research note.
Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 25 (1), p. 90-101. Stiles, B.L,. Lui, X. & Kaplan, H.B. (2000). Relative deprivation & deviant adaptations: the mediating effects on negative self-feelings. Journal of
Research in Crime & delinquency, 37 (1), p. 64-90. Velmer, S., Burton, Jr., Cullen, F.T., Evans, T.D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: operalization, rival theories & adult criminality.
Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 10 (3), p. 213-239. Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J. & Snipes, J.B. (2002). Theoretical Criminology. Oxford: OUP. Chapter 8, pp. 135-153. Williams, K. (2004). Textbook on Criminology. Oxford: OUP. Chapter 12, pp. 304-327