Lecture 11 Flashcards
Skyes and Matza - Delinquency and Drift (differential association theories): what are the neutralization techniques they suggest?
• 1) Denial of Responsibility
• 2) Denial of the injury/victim
• 3) Condemnation of the condemners
• 4) Appealing to higher loyalties
Ingram and Hinduja
- an empirical demonstration of neutralization techniques when violating property rights
- Also be used to justify more minor deviant acts. Ie: Look into uni students downloading and using illegal streaming website
- How do you justify this type of behaviour: either deny responsibility (pirating - no financial means to buy), does not cause any harm, denial of victims (companies make a lot of money already), condemnation of members (these companies do bad to others anyways)
What are the main ideas of the learning theories?
1) Deviance is learned
2) We learn deviance in the same way that we learn normative behaviours – through interactions with others.
3) Learning is done in intimate groups
4) We learn both techniques and attitudes
- Techniques of deviance (learn these techniques to carry out deviant acts)
- Attitudes and rationalizations ( learn how to justify that what we are doing is okay)
5) There is a competition between deviant and non-deviant behaviors and norms.
- These are not polar aspects: deviance and normative. We are always aware of deviant and normative norms and sometimes we engage in them and sometimes we dont
- Ie: chatgpt, Stealing - people justify in different ways (ie: stealing from rich is okay, need it to feed the family).
We learn deviant behaviours exactly in the same way that we learn other forms of behaviours.
For learning theories, the strain theory is not enough to explain deviance. We need to know about the tools,environment and techniques available to learn these deviant acts.
Sutherland vs Skyes & Matza
Sutherland is under learning theories. Sutherland assumes there is a deviant system out there. Skyes and Matza think there is no deviant system out there. But they do believe that you learn these behaviours.
Becker: Becoming a marijuana user
- Example of learning theory
- There is no immediate addiction; you need to learn to enjoy it.
- So there are no essential urges there. It’s about being a part of a culture/community - they tach you how to enjoy it and do it for fun.
- If addiction was inherent then we wouldnt have as many people starting and stopping
How do you become marijuana user?
- Learning to smoke
- Learning to identify the sensations
- Learning to enjoy it
- The first experience is often meaningless.
- You also need to learn why to buy drugs.
Learn the techniques of rationality, making it legal does not remove all the stigma of it being bad. Rationalize the use of marijuana - how we rationalize that this is norma
Advantages to learning theory
- Generated a lot of research, parsimonious
- Association with delinquent peers is the most predictable outcome of becoming deviant.
- Accounts for differences in the rate of deviance
- Account for a wide range of deviant behaviours (mild-severe)
Critiques to learning theories
1) Not paying enough attention to individual characteristics and personal choices
- They all neglect individual characteristics and motivation. Why do some choose to comply and some deviant behaviours
2) Focus on lower-working-class, male, urban adolescents
- Stepped away slowly from this
3) Time order and causality
- Do people interact with deviant people first or engage in deviant behaviours first
4) The importance of complementary explanations
- Need to consider it in combination with other theories
Does crime pay?
- 10-20% of people who commit theft/robbery are caught.
- Rape: low level of capture and imprisonment → crime that pays off (easy get away with)
- Most crimes are not punished. So why are people not committing crime in a world of limited resources and desires?
- Comforted by rules and structure
- Empathy and social acceptance
- Norms, avoiding guilt.
Control theory
Control theory : what keeps us from committing a crime? (instead of why people commit crime)
We should question the baseline. Why are we avoiding profitable behaviours (like crime)
Control theory: formal control vs informal control
Formal Control – Control that is regulated by laws and the legal system
- Jail, legal system
- Has statistical merit, might deter people from committing crime but enable to process most of the felonies around us. So informal control becomes more important.
Informal Control – Control that takes place through interaction with other people.
- This is better at explaining why most of us dont engage in crime.
Reckless - containment theory
External commitment - external commitment to people and institutions keeps us from being deviant
Inner commitment - the willingness of a person to follow social norms and expectations (having aspirations). This type of inner commitment is more important in having people not commit crime.
Travis Hirschi and Social Bonds Theory
- Created a testable theory of social behaviour.
- Important to him - various forms of social bonds with others
- “The more weakened the groups to which the individual belongs, the less he depends on them, the more he consequently depends only on himself and recognizes no other rules of conduct than what are founded on his private interests” (Durkheim, Suicide).
What are the four components of bonding?
1) Attachment - respect, affection, empathy. We dont want to be caught doing something bad. Not the action itself but we care about the reaction of people that are close to us.
2) Commitment - the degree to which someone is committed to a purpose.
- You invested into becoming a child (pay for school, apply for the school, high stakes). You have an accumulation of commitment to this.
- What do you have to lose? The more they have to accumulate, the less they will engage in deviant behaviours.
3) Involvement - the more involved you are in other activities, the less deviant
-Straighten your attachment to the gorup you are associated to
- Less time and energy to engage in deviant acts
4) Belief - rules that work the most, are rules and norms that we actually believe in.
Ie, you chose to be at uni, you believe in this process = more engagement and conformity
If you have these 4 principles, you have stakes in conformity and are less likely to be deviant.
Advantages of bonding theory
- This theory created this idea of a healthy/good society. More mainstream approach.
- Gave rise to aspects of criminology that look at control
- Breaks from conventional theory.
- New approach to deviance
Critique of social bond theory
- A basic assumption that all of us are motivated to commit deviant acts (assumes equal innate motivation to engage in normal and deviant acts)
- Assumes we are all selfish, need social bonds to stop us from engaging in these acts.
- But we don’t necessarily need such strong social bonds, we see that individuals are naturally empathetic. - An assumption of underlying rationality
- Ie: athletes that are very bonded individuals, yet still use drugs to reach higher performance. How do you account for this? - Hard to account for deviant acts by those who are highly connected to others and have a lot to lose
- We see people with all these bonds that still engage in deviant acts. - Mixed empirical support
- Statistically people from 16-25 engage in more crime.- Age group, does not account for not having social bonds.
- Less empirical support between involvement and attachment- Ie: Attachment to family but if family is deviant/criminal acts – could lead to deviant acts/
- Age group, does not account for not having social bonds.
Social Disorganization theory (ecological perspective) by Shawn and McKay
- People in disandvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour
- People’s actions are more influences by their social relationships and physical environment than by rational thought.
- Communities with high residential mobility (constant moving in and out of neighboorhod, never stay long, constant flux), ethnic heterogeneity, socioemconomic status are less able to organize to achieve shared goals
- These areas were termed neighborhoods of social disorganization
- There were no social bond to the specific place, no community = more crime - The breakdown of communal institutions, such as schools, families and local officials, leads to increased crime
Broken Windows Theory
- Even minor infractions will create a sensation in a community that no one cares about the community and area which signals to criminals that no one cares about social order in this neighbourhood and attracts criminals
- Need to act quickly - need to police these neighbourhoods in a timely manner to stop these criminal behaviours.
Social Disorder
Neighborhoods in disorder - cue that no one cares about the neighborhood.
- Withdrawal of residents from action.
- Attracts offenders
- Symptoms of a larger social problem that drives both crime and the disorder.
Collective Efficacy
- Collective efficacy - capacity for informal social control and social cohesion
- Social efficacy will prevent people from commiting crime. Ie: religious ties, social cohesion and bonds are a buffer to crime. - The linkage of mutual trust and the shared willingness to intervene dor the public good
- In poor neighborhoods collective efficacy is a buffer for crime.
