Emile Durkheim The “Chicago School” + Social Disorganization Anomie/Strain Theories.
-
Upload
mervin-casey -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 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”)