Sociological theories Containment Theory
Containment Theory asks the question, “In a deviant society, why and how do people avoid deviance?” One of the most popular criminological theories in the 1950‟s and 1960‟s was Walter Reckless‟ Containment Theory. It is a theory that says all humans are su bject to criminal behavior, but many of us can resist this deviant behavior with the 2 buffers of inner and outer containment, and also that the probability of deviant behavior increases when the internal and external constraints weaken (Social Control Theories.) He suggested that people can be “insulated from crime if properly socialized by their parents and peers, and control himself” (Containment Theory.) This is to say that the person will prevent himself or herself from committing criminal or unjudicial behavior by containing their impulses. If the individual fails at containing this impulse, then the second buffer, of families or peers, will attempt to dissuade them by counseling and talking to them. Reckless believed that in society there is are external or outer factors, and internal or inner social factors. .. The outer society factor holds society and individuals in line and the inner factor is there to protect against deviation. The external factor is provided by groups in society, the state, tribes and villages, family and other nuclear groups of that manner. It is in place to provide scope for the individual and show how large the community is in comparison to their small self. There has to be certain responsibilities and guidelines for the individual, and these are provided by the external containment. It depends very heavily on the certain social roles that apply to people all over (Dodder.) There needs to be a sense of belongingness and being able to identify with other members. Also, having a chance to achieve a certain status is necessary. There needs to be joint cohesion in the group and togetherness, as well as consistent moral values and role models to show these behaviors. There must also be “reasonable limits and responsibilities” (Containment Theory.) Inner containment is thought to be the more powerful force. For the inner factors, it is important that one has a favorable image of oneself in comparison to others members of the groups and persons. It is necessary that the person is able to follow the norms and rules of society to better understand the big picture. For the inner factors to function correctly one must have very strong morals and ethics, must be very goal oriented and focused, and have a well developed ego and super ego. These qualities help one to hold up under pressures from the outside world and handle frustration and adversity. Being able to manage your frustration shows high control and focus. These two factors, the inner and outer, serve as buffers against crime. They are non causal, and merely try to show what can help to prevent crime.
Reckless said that we are all put through pushes and pulls that push or pull an individual into deviant behavior. “We can see such pushes when children are threatened by other children t o join a gang. An example of a pull is when a child sees that, in order to get money to buy things, he or she can join a gang and reach their objective. They are pulled into the gang by its attraction as a way of earning status and making money” (Containme nt Theory.) Some examples of pushes are unhappiness with living conditions and family issues or conflicts, overt aggressiveness, anger, and hostility, socioeconomic problems, frustration, boredom and racism. Some pulls can be delinquent peers, family members, subcultures, and groups ("Social Control Theory".) Containment Theory comes from Social Control Theory, which maintains that all humans have the capacity and potential to violate the law and that in society they are presented with many opportunities for deviant behavior. Reckless did a series of studies with youths conducted in school settings and found that nondelinquent youths are
better able to maintain a positive self concept when faced with societal and environmental pressures towards deviant behavior. Another study, conducted by Dr. Richard A. Dodder, of Oklahoma State University, and Janet R. Long, of Oklahoma City University. In this study, they operationalized all seven variables of Containment Theory, in order to determine which combination of them related beset to self-reported delinquency and to official involvement with the law (Dodder.) It was done by administering questionnaires in 4 high schools and 3 state correctional facilities in the state of Oklahoma. The seven compononets that were being used are as follows: for outer containment, you must have internalization of rules and limitations, meaningful role models, and group reinforcement; and for internal containment there must be a favorable self concept, goal orientation, frustration tolerance and retention of norms(Dodder.) The study was done with male youths and found when young males have a favorable self concept it tends to insulate them from crime, while at the other end of the spectrum a poor self concept provides little insulation to delinquent subcultures, peers, and deviant behavior. There have not been very many studies conducted to test the theory of Containment, and this is its major problem.
There are four ways to assess a theory, and Containment Theory can be tested both on the internal factors and the external factors. According to Reckless, the theory is not to be applied at the extremes of deviant behavior and is best suited to look at cases where legal and social norms have been neutralized (Hamlin.) The first aspect that one must use to assess a theory is internal consistency. There are clear inner and outer containment factors that seek to explain how to control delinquency. This theory is very sound logistically because it has very well defined factors and structures. However this theory, to me, is a very obvious answer to society. Of course it makes sense: if young people are left with no rules, no positive role models, low socioeconomic benefits, and no positive self image, then they are going to get into trouble because they‟ve never been taught anything else. On the other hand, if a child is raised in an environment where they are taught love and respect, are well taken care of and have positive role models and well enforced rules and limitations, then they have a much better chance of growing up with a clean slate and staying out of trouble. Another is by testing the scope. This theory is relatively wide in scope because it tries to examine why people do deviant things and the ways in which this behavior can be prevented. The scope consists of all theories of crime, because it is competing with these to be the operating crime deterrence model. A third judge of validity is parsimony, which says that one should use the least complex explanation for observations. Containment Theory is very parsimonious, because it is succinct in its explanations. There are very clear explanations of inner and outer containment, as well as the pushes pulls one experiences in society. However, I don‟t necessarily think that it is a clear in its explanations as it could be. The theory suggests that by having a positive self image one will be able to steer clear of deviant behavior. But does it take into account that some people may just have urges to commit criminal behavior? Or that some criminals have very positive self images, and committing crimes boosts that ego? Or that youths that were raised without the benefits of a strong outer containment like role models and rules, may still be able to escape crime? Finally, the theory must be testable. This is where Containment Theory gets harder to defend. There hasn‟t been very much testing done to decipher the results of the theory. The studies that have been done show there is correlation between a strong inner containment and the ability to abstain from crime, but there is simply not enough empirical evidence to be a true believe. One critical assessment of containment theory is the principles of the theory Psychology of Mind. “POM views Reckless's control mechanisms (e.g., pushes, pulls, inner, and outer containments, selfconcept) as having no constant meaning outside of personal interpretation. They are not, as
containment theory suggests, the expressions of fixed inner psychological impulses and drives, just negative feeling habits kept alive moment-to-moment by believed conditioned thought” (Kelley.) Also, there is a severe lack of empirical evidence concerning the relative importance of the seven variables making up inner and outer containment in their relationships to illegal behavior(Dodder.) Another critique is that the data gathered was all on young males and a lot of evidence suggests that there are major socialization differences between males and females and thus, they may act completely different in regards and methods to delinquency.
There are a few intervention programs that have merit for Containment Theory. One that has been met with great success is the program Head Start, which began in the 1960‟s by President Lyndon B. Johnson. In its beginnings, Head Start was a summer program for children about to enter formal schooling, to help give them a boost. It was a program that “embraced the whole child” (Office of Head Start.) including education, health, parental involvement, and social services. The children were provided with education and toys designed to enrich their environment that middle class children receive without even thinking about it, but lower class children miss out on. In addition to education, they were given free healthcare, including immunizations, dental work, nutritional services, and mental health evaluations. Head Start also attempted to get the parents of the children more involved in their educations. They educated the parents on many aspects of their childrens lives. Lastly, Head Start provided social services to the families like community outreach and the recruitment of more children for the program, as well as emergency crisis intervention and assistance. The program continues today and has an annual budget of $6.5 billion. It educates parents on many things and provides important socialization for children. The results for children that participate in Head Start are very encouraging and show beneficial academic results in comparison to their non Head Start peers. This success can be linked to lack of criminal behavior in children who have attended the program (Office of Head Start.) Another intervention program is the diversion programs that are aimed at removing juvenile and adult offenders from the normal channels of the justice system. Diversion programs place these offenders in programs designed to rehabilitate them and avoid the stigma that comes from jail time (Siegal 241.) Restitution allows offenders to pay back the victims of the crime they committed or do some type of community service or useful community activity instead of jail time.
To conclude, Containment Theory is a branch of social control theory founded by Walter Reckless. It contends that there are two components to prevent criminal behavior in society. One is the outer containment, which is about community socialization and the application of social norms and rules. The inner contaiment is the controlling of the self, by a favorable self concept frustration tolerance and the ability to follow norms. This theory was born in the 1950‟s and was very popular then, but research and acceptance of the theory dropped of and it is now not really applied in modern social science. There has not been much empirical research done, and what has been done has proven succesful in testing the theories points. As the researchers Dodder and Long stated, “the substantial relationships found in this research also indicate that Containment Theory, whether it is ideologically pleasing or not, may correspond, even to a considerable extent, to the world of reality. Few exsisting theories have been researched and found to relate as strongly to delinquency as did Containment theory in this research. In any case, Containment theory has been prematurely laid to rest” (Dodder.) I
believe this quote expresses most researchers feelings about the theory-it has very strong correlations but hasn‟t been studied enough to truly understand the results. Social Learning Theory Criminal Justice and criminological theories have a complicated and intricate past that many researchers have delved deep into to discover mysteries and causes of crime. The Social Learning Theory is just one of many that have marked a lasting impact on society and the field of criminology. Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers were the first to dig even deeper into the theoretical ideas of criminology and portray the aspects and importance of the Social Learning Theory and its application to deviance in society. As Akers describes this, “ social learning is complementary to other sociological theories and could be used to integrate extant formulations to achieve more comprehensive explanations of deviance.” (Akers, 2008, p. 637). The ability for social learning to be diverse and understandable to multiple aspects of criminology is what makes this an appealing theory to be researched. However, it was not the original theory to be researched based on this outlook into the causes and choices of crime. Akers‟ ideas stemmed from a past well -known yet sometimes criticized theory called the differential association theory. The first criminologist to research this was Sutherland, who described the differential association theory as, “the process by which persons experience these conflicting definitions about appropriate behavior. Thus, definitions favorable and unfavorable to delinquent or criminal behavior are learned through interaction in intimate personal groups” (Matsueda, 1982, p. 489). This is very similar to the well-known social learning theory we all know today just less detailed and less proven experimental research to reinforce the idea. Delinquent and criminal behavior is rooted in the idea of interaction with others and the frequency, duration, and the environment that it is seen in. It states that if individuals encounter crime-beneficial messages in associations with intimate group members, they are likely to learn definitions favorable to crime (Matsuenda, 1982). Therefore, those who pick up on and learn the patterns and stigmas related to crime will be more likely than those unfavorable to crime to commit such heinous events. This theory starts the basis of what Akers was able to take into a whole new level with new factors and research to explain his criminological ideas of criminal behavior. Sutherland‟s theory however, was the basis of much criticism due to lack of relatable explanations and empirical validity. Akers stated that Sutherland never explained how people learn these “patterns” of crime, only the idea that they are “learned.” This was a huge factor into the reasoning that Akers came to further explain the social learning theory and the specific facts needed for definitions through differential reinforcement and the ever-important principles of operant conditioning (Brauer, 2012).
Leading further into the social learning theory, the mere capability to be out in public people watching and enjoying a beautiful sunny day can have influence over someone and his or her proneness to committing a criminal act. The social learning theory relays back to modeling and operant conditioning and basic models that behavior stems from each and every person. Consequences, rewards, and punishments all can take part in such a broad but very important theory. “Differential association with others, shapes the individual‟s definitions of one‟s own attitudes or meanings that one attaches to given behavior” (Pratt, 20120, p.767). Who you hang out with and who you associate with fully influences your attitudes, behavior, and thought processes more than one might think. When dealing with society and crime, this is where social learning comes into play to analyze why crime rates
are still holding steady and how they vary from place to place. Arguing the idea that people learn deviant behavior in the same manner and fashion as they would learn non-deviant behavior can lead researchers to question the theory and explore different options. There are quite a few factors that are also required in order to interpret this theory, “the four major concepts of the theory — differential association, differential reinforcement, modeling, and definitions” (Brauer, 2012, p. 158). These four begin to inquire into the thoughts of criminal behavior patterns and criminal stimuli and the balance of rewards and punishment, and the balance that is taught between the consequences or praise that comes after. (Brauer , 2012). Although all of these ideas of modeling, punishment and consequences may sound repetitive, each factor looks into more depth of why people choose to behave this way and the internal and many times unconscious ways criminal behavior can be formed and interpreted. There is a process that the social learning theory follows stating “differential associations are important because groups expose one to definitions, present models to imitate, and provide differential reinforcement for criminal behavior.” (Brauer, 2012, p. 160). Definitions of criminal behavior and stimuli, lead to the idea of imitating those with criminal intentions and getting reinforcement for their actions once they see it being approved with rewards and disapproved with consequences. These individuals begin to outweigh the benefits they may receive from the punishments they may face through the onset of preset examples. Many factors clearly are used to comprise this theory, such as modeling, imitation, and self-concepts and perspectives. Akers does a great job of combining a plethora of ideas and putting them into a well formulated theory. Crime throughout history and into the present is a huge problem our society has had to face, and researchers and criminologists such as Akers have made a lot of progress to try and give some answers to how and why crime continues to persist. With a little background knowledge on the social learning theory, it is easier to delve deeper into experiments and the validity of a theory such as this one. Before the positive value of this theory is looked upon, there are also a few negative issues that occur with the social learning theory that gives criticism to not only Akers but also other researchers using this theory. In the article it states, “scholars continue to debate the interpretations or exact causal mechanisms underlying these empirical relationships” because of the continual denial and questioning of “peer associations and participation in deviant behavior, or between cognitive attitudes (definitions) and participation in deviant behavior” (Brauer, 2012, p. 9). A theory such as this has many different factors and resources that are encompassed, which causes many problems when it comes to explaining various variables or experimental conclusions. Another issue that has been brought up with this theory is the idea that maybe there are outside and external reasons that differential association is used and not necessarily criminal behavior that caused the effects the social learning theory claims to have. “Some argue that causal interpretations of this correlation, like those outlined in learning theories, are misleading, since the correlation is possibly due to „faulty measurement and the tendency of people to seek the company of others like themselves‟” (Brauer, 2012, p. 7). This idea along with the thought of delinquents wanting to get away from family stress or school problems and isolate themselves into a life of crime and violence is also a hard criticism but one that is completely viable. This criticism can be a good thing however because it even further strengthens the importance of the research when it fails to falsify results and leads to truthful valid research that can be used in articles, papers, and an additional understanding of the research.
There are several ways that have been used to show empirical validity and reliability of this theory in order to prove to others the importance of understanding and being able to relate social learning to crime. Reinforcing the idea again Akers claims, “differential reinforcement…is the central causal mechanism in Akers‟ theory, since differential association, definitions, and imitation/modeling all affect one‟s probability of committing deviance in relation to a process of differential reinforcement” (Brau er, 2012, p. 11). Differential association allows us to figure out the amount of exposure to others with criminal behavior the person has experienced. Then, definitions are used in order to measure realizations or rationalizations that consider the situation given as criminal or socially desirable or undesirable. Lastly, differential reinforcement is assessed even deeper in regards to anticipated or expected consequences, punishment, or rewards that may result from the behavior that may arise. We therefore must learn ways to be able to test and experiment using all of these factors within this theory and use the various hypotheses that Akers has proposed in this theory through the years. Many experiments and studies have been done to prove this social learning theory and it was definitely not one formed over night. All of these conclusions and factors have been drawn and discovered due to much research in the field and in the office. Experimenting and researching have all been apart of various articles and books that can be found physically and on the Internet. A very interesting topic that is researched in relation to the social learning theory is aggression. Aggression has always been a questionable topic in relation to nature vs. nurture and whether the environment is the main predictor of this trait. Innate and biological theories have concluded that this is internal and part of your instinct, but social theories have debated otherwise. Numerous criminologists, including Bandura have intently researched this topic and have come to a few conclusions; “people learn aggressive behaviors the same ways they learn other social behaviors —by direct experience and by observing others” (Bandura, 1978, p. 25). Experiments on this range from young infants being observed in modeling situations up to adults monitored in various socio-economic environments. “If the model is rewarded for behaving aggressively, aggressive responding is strengthened in observers. If the model is punished for behaving aggressively, aggressive responding is weakened in observers” (Bandura, 1978, p. 26). Various causes of aggression are found through media, chemicals in your body such as testosterone, and culture but the basis of this research looks to experiments. Little kids may fight their toy army men because their dad watches war movies and although maybe not consciously, they see the small satisfaction and rewards he gets from this so it has to be acceptable and able to be repeated. Modeling and dissociative reinforcement are found everywhere and prime examples can be found in day-to-day living. The social learning theory can be defined, experimented with, and compared to other theories in countless ways. Differing opinions and views will always be apart of this controversy in trying to prove the social learning theory. There will always be examples and experimental research performed on this theory, that will be used prove the empirical validity and its lasting strength as a valuable and worthy criminological theory. Akers and Sutherland are just a few of the monumental individuals to take part in this progression of a theory that still is used to describe many criminological acts and events. The social learning theory is implemented in schools, businesses, and corporations worldwide and one of the most highly looked upon theories to describe crime. Programs around the country trying to fight and face violent crime have researched this theory for years and the information explained throughout this paper along with countless other articles and journals prove the valuable information it entails and its relation to outside events.
Anomie theory- durkheim
Crime is Necessary Crime is necessary; it serves a function in society. Although it is not preferable, with the progression and evolution of modernity and emphasis on monetary success, crime is inevitable because a perfectly stable, uniform, and able society is impossible. As the father of sociology and a functionalist, Emile Durkheim provides a variety of explanations of society‟s ills, like crime and deviance, and accounts for the punishments and repercussions that follow. He asserts that man is a product of his social environment; thus, socialization begins at birth and continues through language and interaction with other people. The basis of his theory rests on the idea that the “conscience collective of a society varies alongside the division of labor. In less complex and more primitive societies, people tended to do and think alike and there was little tolerance for difference” (Smith, 2008). According to Durkheim, one of the pivotal points in history in terms of crime and deviance was the industrial revolution. As this revolution evolved, there was a steep increase in immigrant migration into the United States. With this increase in immigration and the evolution toward a more modern society came rising levels of individualism, flexibility, and diversity amongst belief systems. This was the first sign of problems in the new society. Although these immigrants found no protest to their own belief systems, they failed to adapt them to the previously held norms the American people valued. Inevitably, there was a sense of imbalance between the previously held norms and values and the new and evolving ones. This imbalance, Durkheim deemed „anomie.‟ According to Durkheim, anomie reflects a sense of normlessness, the lack of any societal norms that spurs the tendency to act in a deviant way. In general terms, Durkheim‟s theory of anomie proposes that because of industrialization and the need for cheap labor in this newly modern society, the influx of immigrants inherently brought with them their own sets of norms and values. Thus came a temporary imbalance of norms, anomie, which enhances individual‟s propensity to commit crime in search for a stable environment. In turn, Durkheim puts forth not just a theory for the social origins of crime, but also he theorizes about the social origins of law and punishment. Before addressing Durkheim‟s explanation for crime and deviance, it is necessary to discuss his theory regarding the origins of law and punishment. In it‟s entirety, he describes “the law as a concrete and objective indicator of morality…the law is restitution rather than simply repressive” (Smith, 2008). From this comes the conclusion that law is a production of the collective society, a myriad of all beliefs of society, an embodiment of everything a society holds to be right, true, and just. This concept of the „collective conscience‟ has everything to do with where societies laws, and ills, come from. Initially, Durkheim asserted that crime holds some religious qualities. Because “religion was a reflection of the force of a shared collective conscience…early legal codes were also religious codes,” thus providing Durkheim the ability to argue, “offenses against the gods were offenses against society” (Durkheim, 1964). Crime became a deeply meaningful thing, very passionate and powerful, that ultimately prompted for very strong emotions, anger and vengeance specifically. Because of this, punishment was less about the offense or the offender and held more weight in regard to restoring the cohesion and core values of society.
So what are these social origins of crime? As previously stated, the fragmentation amongst society from the evolution to a more industrial and modern society, and the anomic division of labor, provide the basis for crime and deviance. This division of labor emerged as a result of the “needs of society which has become larger through an increase in population
and a more highly integrated interactive network” (Khorn, 1980). Durkheim theorized that there is a bundle of „social facts,‟ or empirical facts describing societal tendencies, that determine individual qualities. Drawing on statistics, he drew a correlation between suicide rates and social variables. What he deemed egoistic or anomic suicide were those that described “weak social integration and failed moral regulation” as seen through the conclusion that protestants, intellectuals, and single people had higher suicide rates than religious folk, specifically Catholics and Jews. In other words, the individual and isolated people had a higher tendency for suicide than the collective and densely networked community because of their lack of cohesion and relationship with the collective conscience of society (Smith, 2008). More rare cases of altruistic and fatalistic suicide were common when an individual was too closely bound to the group. Ultimately, this study concluded that social cohesion, or group solidarity, and the values held to be true by the collective conscience could both prevent and generate deviant activity. Of the two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic, Durkheim concluded that organic solidarity, the more complex of the two, which emphasizes a community‟s i nterdependence upon each other, is far stronger than mechanical solidarity in which there are common beliefs within society solely because the individuals are alike. This “solidarity based on the functional interdependence necessitated by and productive of the industrial revolution” would replace the dependence on the conscience collective (Krohn, 1980). Although there have been a small handful of direct examinations of Durkheim and his theories, there are a few studies that have analyzed more specific aspects of social disorganization and its effects. Theorists Gibbs and Martin, and later Miley and Micklin, focused on suicide and how the social integration enabled or inhibited such behavior. When Miley and Micklin developed the research, they theorized that “population and technological development will be directly related to the division of labor…and the division of labor will produce a decrease in status integration which, in turn, will increase suicide rates,” furthermore, supporting Durkheimian theory (Krohn, 1980). In contrast to Durkheim‟s emphasis on the division of labor, research and analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau and the Uniform Crime Report done by Webb, found that relationship of population size, density, and proportion of communication, did not decrease the rates of crime. However, when analyzing Webb‟s research it is necessary to recognize that he did not include the concept, or measure, of anomie (Krohn, 1980). There are various different perspectives on what anomie is and how it affects deviant behavior. On one hand Durkheim claims that anomie refers to the ill-formulated goals within the culture of an industrial society; whereas, Robert Merton relied on the Marxist explanation of anomie, which claims that there is normlessness due to the inadequate means available to fulfill society‟s goals. Ultimately, each theory revolves around the weight that the market economy holds in regards to the spirit and atmosphere of the cultural. Rather than the ethos of the culture being dependent on the values set forth by family and education, “the pursuit of self interest, attraction to monetary rewards and competition, become exaggerated relative to the value orientations of these institutions…economic dominance stimulates the emerg ence of anomie at a cultural value” (Bernburg, 2002). In regard to crime, the emphasis on competition and materialism combined with anomic ethic, as theorists have termed it, spark a disregard for the moral status of the way in which one achieves goals. This strain of anomic theory is called “Institutional anomie theory.” This position incorporates the idea that if the market economy is left unregulated by other social institutions it will ultimately be obtrusive to society. According to Merton, this notion of
anomie is a result of the “uneven distribution of opportunities in the social structure because it fails to live up to its promise of equal opportunity” (Bernburg, 2002). Durkheim, on the other hand, claims anomie is more than just one simple thing; anomie is the normlessness of goals in which the “absence of social authority causes our capacity for feeling in itself insatiable and bottomless” (Bernburg, 2002). In addition, anomie may also come forth “when socially prescribed goals are practically unattainable…to pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness, ends are not really undefined…they are limitless” (Bernburg, 2002). Ultimately, institutional anomie theory uses Merton‟s definition of anomie but brings attention to the social criticism what Durkheim‟s definition emphasizes. Merton highlights an imbalance between the components of how a society is made up; however, Durkheim focuses on the social make up itself. As Durkheim‟s theory has progressed as a basis of modern theory and policy, it has had to adapt to the values and norms of an immensely modernized and industrialized society. Institutional anomie has become the primary basis to the concept of normlessness and the basis of crime and deviance in accord with the concept of anomie that Durkheim asserted initially. In short, Institutional anomie describes a society in which economic values, like monetary success, penetrate non-economic institutions, like family, education, and policy. From there, community values and social bonds are weakened, ultimately causing social controls over self serving behavior, like deviance and crime, to be vastly reduced. Inherently in its nature, institutional anomie theory has some similarities to Robert Merton and Robert Agnew‟s strain theory of crime and deviance. Strain theory asserts that there is a discrepancy between culturally defined goals and the means available to achieve these goals. Currently, the culturally defined goals are wealth and material success and that happiness is equivalent to these goals; thus, the institutionalized means to acquire these goals that are hard work and education. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that those who do not succeed are inherently lazy or inept in some way. Through the application of Merton and Agnew‟s strain theory it is simple to see the trouble that the lower and middle class face. The institutionally defined means of education and hard work are only attainable by those who are wealthy or financially comfortable enough to access a formal education or well paying occupation. As a result, or consequence, of this inability or unrealistic goal the middle and lower classes are subject too there is strain, or anomie . Therefore, this sense of anomie, imbalance, and division of labor justify the modes of adaptation the disadvantaged resort too. The modes of adaptation are, more often than not, criminal, ultimately supporting Durkheim‟s anomie theory.
So what does the criminal justice system do to avoid this? What are the policies put forth to deal with this inevitable dependence on crime? Although difficult, it is essential to strengthen the non- economic social institutions, like church or public school educations. There must be less emphasis placed on the importance or status of private school education. In addition, it is necessary to equalize the opportunities for success. The lower level employees must have the same amount of opportunity that the upper level employees have, or once had. The lesser employees must not be alienated within the workplace or held accountable for things that the upper level employees are excused of. The current crack down on white-collar crime is an example of how the criminal justice system is working to even the playing field in the work place. Due to the fact that monetary success and status are the goals set by the collective conscience, as Durkheim would say, the criminal justice system has began to withdraw from the biased environment that causes this anomie and strive to balance the means by which success is attainable.
Ecology of crime
This ecological approach within criminology was popular in the 1920s through the 1940s. The model is often compared to Durkheim's because of its similarity to anomie theory. Both are social disorganization models. The ecological approach was developed during the 1920s and 1930s at the University of Chicago. The model was developed by the sociology department and used to explain urban social change; of which changing crime patterns was one phenomenon under study. Robert Park and Ernest Burgess pioneered the ecological approach. The model was borrowed from the study of plant ecosystems. In nature, plants and animals seem to live together in mutual harmony and are ultimately interdependent. [Bees pollinate flowers producing seeds, etc.] Such mutual interdependence is called "symbiosis." Park believed that cities might be symbiotic environments. Park believed that the city was a super-organism (Durkheim's concept of the division of labor typical of organic solidarity was similar) that contained natural areas. Natural areas took many different forms, including [1] ethnic enclaves [2] activity related areas (e.g. business districts, shopping districts, manufacturing districts, residential areas, etc.), [3] income groupings (e.g. The Gold Coast, middle class neighborhoods, ghettos, etc.), and [4] physically separated areas (areas cut off from each other by rivers, lakes, railroad tracks, airports, etc.). While the concepts of symbiosis and natural areas might explain city life at any one point in time (a snapshot), alone they could not explain urban change, in particular, the patterns of growth, decay, and renewal which all cities appeared to follow. To explain this phenomenon Park borrowed another concept from plant ecology, invasion. While an ecosystem might remain in balance for a sustained period of time, the introduction of a new species might upset the old balance. E.g. In the early 20th century, English settlers introduced a breed of cactus into Australia that proceeded to grow everywhere and killed off a significant amount of the native vegetation. Park believed that a similar pattern occurred in cities. As the "new" invaded an established natural area a struggle for dominance was precipitated. If the invasion was successful, the new became dominant and the process of succession was complete. The "new" might be a group of people [e.g. Polish immigrants replacing Irish] or urban development. In order to explain how the process of invasion and succession worked on a large scale, Park and Burgess developed their concentric zone theory. From such an analysis it becomes quite evident that the problems of our urban slums can not be blamed on the people who live in them, but are the result of much greater social and economic forces, which those who reside in the ghettos are largely powerless to control. When critics attack Shaw and McKay's Chicago Area Project as a fundamentally inadequate response to the forces generating high rates of juvenile delinquency in low-income areas, it is to this fact that they are pointing. While the ecological theory rightly recognized the importance of socioeconomic power [making it a conflict or radical model], none of the ecological theorists were willing to openly express the obvious policy implications of their analysis. The city, state, and federal government would have to intervene on the side of the powerless against the socio-economic forces arrayed against them.
Shaw and McKay's use of the ecological model
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay applied Park and Burgess's ecological approach and the concentric zone theory to the study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago. The period in which they were doing their research--the 1920s and 1930s-was an interesting period criminologically because of such factors as Prohibition and the Great Depression. In Chicago, a number of criminal gangs had emerged in order to supply the underground economy with a contraband product--alcohol. The depression allowed criminologists to test whether criminality and economic downturns were related. Shaw and McKay used two different methods in order to test their theory that delinquency and patterns of urban growth and decay might be related. The first was statistical, the second qualitative. They used a large map of the city of Chicago and used pins to mark the home address of each and every juvenile either arrested by the Chicago police or reported to the Cooke County Juvenile Court. Through this method they discovered that delinquency rates were highest in areas characterized as: [1] being located within or immediately adjacent to areas of heavy industry and commerce (e.g. condemned buildings, decreasing population), [2] areas having residents of the lowest economic status (e.g. these neighborhoods had the highest percentage of families on welfare, highest rates of infant mortality, tuberculosis, and insanity), [3] areas which had the highest concentration of foreign-born and black heads of families. Factors [2] and [3] were shown by Shaw and McKay to be statistically related. They proved this by following over time the succession patterns of the city's poorest neighborhoods. As new immigrant groups replaced older ones, the delinquency rates within these neighborhoods remained remarkably stable over time. The other piece of evidence for their conclusion was their discovery that ethnicity did not prove to be a significant factor related to delinquency citywide. Each ethnic group produced delinquency rates that ranged from the highest to the lowest in the city depending on the type of neighborhood in which they resided. There have been a number of criticisms of Shaw and McKay's statistical approach. They depended solely on "official delinquency statistics," had no access to self-report studies, and missed entirely the existence of middle-class delinquency. (Cicourel, Chambliss). The other aspect of Shaw and McKay's methodology was qualitative, their use of oral histories. Shaw produced 3 books based on this approach, The Jack-Roller, Brothers in Crime, and The Natural History of a Delinquent Career. Shaw's use of the life history approach is discussed in James Bennett's Oral History and Delinquency. Shaw realized that those he interviewed might embellish their pasts or lie but felt that was not a problem if one recognized the importance of understanding the offenders' attitudes. That people choose to lie about or embellish is significant. How people rationalize their deviancy is an important criminological topic [e.g. Sykes and Matza's discovery of the neutralization techniques used by delinquents to excuse or justify their crimes]. Shaw used the oral histories to document both the delinquents' immediate surroundings [homelife, neighborhood, friends, schools, encounters with police, etc.] and the evolution of delinquent careers. Shaw believed that delinquents were essentially normal kids [not biological, intellectual, or psychological misfits] whose illegal activities were related to the environments in which they were living. He discovered that delinquency began in high delinquency areas at an early age as part of the children's play activities on the streets. This was the reason his Chicago Area Project was aimed at finding alternative recreational and
time-filling activities so as to prevent the early turn to delinquency. Shaw found that the neighborhoods with high rates of delinquency offered many opportunities for delinquency [junkies needed drugs, residents would purchase stolen goods, dilapidated buildings provided "club houses" where kids could avoid adult supervision, etc.] but few opportunities for successful entry into the world of work [poor schools, few successful role models, lack of jobs, etc.]. Criminal techniques such as how to hot wire cars were taught by older kids to younger ones. While such children may have been long involved in delinquent activities, it was only late in their delinquent careers that they came to identify themselves as part of the criminal world. Shaw here employs an early version of labeling theory, arguing that only after extensive contact with juvenile and adult criminals on the street and in detention centers, jails, and reform schools, plus rejection and stigmatization by the community did the youths come to identify themselves as criminals. Culture conflict
As indicated in our class discussion following the development of Social Disorganization Theory at the University of Chicago during the early Twentieth century, questions concerning the accuracy of a broad, integrated and consensual value and normative system emerged. Rather than conceptualizing deviance as a problem of the stress and strain related to a weakening of social control, the idea, rooted in a Marxist image of social inequality and competition, of the social system being constituted by diverse cultural groups with conflicting interests, values, and norms emerged. Within the Conflict perspective, deviance is conceptualized not as abnormal behavior brought on by faulty socialization or normative ambiguity, but as a normal, political process brought about by inter-group struggle for dominance. Thorsten Sellin (1938) emphasized the cultural diversity of modern industrial society. For Sellin, law embodied the normative structure of the dominant cultural/ethnic group. The criminal law contains the "crime norms," inappropriate behavior and its punishment, reflecting the values and interests of the groups successful in achieving control of the legislative process. The "conduct norms" of other, less powerful groups reflecting their specific social situations and experiences often come into conflict (Culture Conflict) with the crime norms. This leads to the production of deviant or criminal definitions surrounding the everyday behavior of the individual members of these less powerful groups. Sellin indicated that as society diversified and became more heterogeneous, the probability of growing and more frequent conflict, therefore deviance, would increase. George Vold (1958) continued to expand on these ideas. Rather than attempting to explain crime as individual law violation, Vold suggests an understanding of the social nature of crime as a product of group struggle. Humans are by nature social beings, forming groups out of shared interests and needs. The interests and needs of groups interact and produce competition over maintaining and/or expanding one groups position relative to others in the control of necessary resources (money, education, employment, etc.). This competition is expressed as a political struggle/conflict with the group most efficient at controlling political processes obtaining the authority to pass laws that limit the fulfillment of minority group needs. In 1969, Austin Turk developed a general conflict theory of crime. Turk draws on the analysis of modern society presented by Ralf Dahrendorf. Dahrendorf expanded on Marxism's emphasis on the social relations of production as a key to understanding power
and focused on the struggle in a modern industrial society for institutional authority. This is power that is embedded in the structural relations characteristic of a given society, legitimate power often divorced from ownership of productive forces, power in the social institutions that dominate everyday life; the authority vested in groups who control key positions in religious, educational, governmental, and even family relations. This authority can be linked to economic position, but it is not necessarily dependent upon it. Turk: ...examines authority-subject relationships within institutions with little concern for overarching or overlapping authority-subject relationships across institutions. Within this general framework, Turk focuses on legal conflict and criminalization. Specifically, he asks the following two questions: 1. Under what conditions are authority-subject cultural and behavioral differences transformed into legal conflict? 2. Under what conditions do those who violate laws (norms of the authorities) become criminalized? In other words, under what circumstances are laws enforced? (Liska, 1987: 178) Turk's answer to these questions is summarized a set of six propositions. (The following is taken from Liska, 1987:178-180) In answer to the first question above: Proposition 1: Conflict between authorities and subjects occurs when behavioral differences between authorities and subjects are compounded by cultural differences. Proposition 2: Conflict is more probable the more organized are those who have an illegal attribute or engage in an illegal act. Proposition 3: Conflict is more probable the less sophisticated the subjects.
The probability of enforcement can be conditionalized as: Proposition 4: The probability of enforcement of legal norms increases as the congruence between the cultural and behavioral norms of authorities increases. Proposition 5: The lower the power of the resisters (subjects), the higher the probability of enforcement. Proposition 6: The lower the realism of norm violators (resisters), the higher the probability of enforcement. (emphasis added)
Summary Turk presents a picture of crime and deviance in a modern, complex and heterogeneous society as an ongoing struggle. Equilibrium is difficult, if not completely impossible to achieve. The behavior of any group, and perhaps most importantly, the cultural meaning and significance attached to the behavior is destined to provoke a negative reaction from another group. In particular, authority groups will continuously strive to maintain and expand there
control over societal resources by defining the activity of "subject groups" as threatening (therefore deviant and/or criminal), to the existing order (implicit here is the idea that the existing order is the order, the only legitimate order). Social process theories
