User:Weathersr/New Sandbox
Social structure theories[edit]
This theory is applied to a variety of approaches within the bases of criminology in particular and in sociology more generally as a conflict theory or structural conflict perspective in sociology and sociology of crime. As this perspective is itself broad enough, embracing as it does a diversity of positions.[1]
Social disorganization (neighborhoods)[edit]
Social disorganization theory is based on the work of Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw of the Chicago School.[2] Social disorganization theory postulates that neighborhoods plagued with poverty and economic deprivation tend to experience high rates of population turnover.[3] This theory suggests that crime and deviance is valued within groups in society, ‘subcultures’ or ‘gangs’. These groups have different values to the social norm. These neighborhoods also tend to have high population heterogeneity.[3] With high turnover, informal social structure often fails to develop, which in turn makes it difficult to maintain social order in a community.
Social ecology[edit]
Since the 1950s, social ecology studies have built on the social disorganization theories. Many studies have found that crime rates are associated with poverty, disorder, high numbers of abandoned buildings, and other signs of community deterioration.[3][4] As working and middle-class people leave deteriorating neighborhoods, the most disadvantaged portions of the population may remain. William Julius Wilson suggested a poverty "concentration effect", which may cause neighborhoods to be isolated from the mainstream of society and become prone to violence.[5]
Strain theory (social strain theory)[edit]
Strain theory, also known as Mertonian Anomie, advanced by American sociologist Robert Merton, suggests that mainstream culture, especially in the United States, is saturated with dreams of opportunity, freedom, and prosperity—as Merton put it, the American Dream. Most people buy into this dream, and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivator. Merton also used the term anomie, but it meant something slightly different for him than it did for Durkheim. Merton saw the term as meaning a dichotomy between what society expected of its citizens and what those citizens could actually achieve. Therefore, if the social structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realizing the dream, some of those dejected will turn to illegitimate means (crime) in order to realize it. Others will retreat or drop out into deviant subcultures (such as gang members, or what he calls "hobos"). Robert Agnew developed this theory further to include types of strain which were not derived from financial constraints. This is known as general strain theory".[6]
Subcultural theory[edit]
Following the Chicago school and strain theory, and also drawing on Edwin Sutherland's idea of differential association, subcultural theorists focused on small cultural groups fragmenting away from the mainstream to form their own values and meanings about life.
Albert K. Cohen tied anomie theory with Sigmund Freud's reaction formation idea, suggesting that delinquency among lower class youths is a reaction against the social norms of the middle class.[7] Some youth, especially from poorer areas where opportunities are scarce, might adopt social norms specific to those places that may include "toughness" and disrespect for authority. Criminal acts may result when youths conform to norms of the deviant subculture.[8]
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggested that delinquency can result from a differential opportunity for lower class youth.[9] Such youths may be tempted to take up criminal activities, choosing an illegitimate path that provides them more lucrative economic benefits than conventional, over legal options such as minimum wage-paying jobs available to them.[9]
British subcultural theorists focused more heavily on the issue of class, where some criminal activities were seen as "imaginary solutions" to the problem of belonging to a subordinate class. A further study by the Chicago school looked at gangs and the influence of the interaction of gang leaders under the observation of adults.
Sociologists such as Raymond D. Gastil have explored the impact of a Southern culture of honor on violent crime rates.[10]
Control theories[edit]
Another approach is made by the social bond or social control theory. Instead of looking for factors that make people become criminal, these theories try to explain why people do not become criminal. Travis Hirschi identified four main characteristics: "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement", and "involvement in conventional activities".[11] The more a person features those characteristics, the less likely he or she is to become deviant (or criminal). On the other hand, if these factors are not present, a person is more likely to become a criminal. Hirschi expanded on this theory with the idea that a person with low self control is more likely to become criminal. As opposed to most criminology theories, these do not look at why people commit crime but rather why they do not commit crime.[12]
A simple example: Someone wants a big yacht but does not have the means to buy one. If the person cannot exert self-control, he or she might try to get the yacht (or the means for it) in an illegal way, whereas someone with high self-control will (more likely) either wait, deny themselves of what want or seek an intelligent intermediate solution, such as joining a yacht club to use a yacht by group consolidation of resources without violating social norms.
Social bonds, through peers, parents, and others can have a countering effect on one's low self-control. For families of low socio-economic status, a factor that distinguishes families with delinquent children, from those who are not delinquent, is the control exerted by parents or chaperonage.[13] In addition, theorists such as David Matza and Gresham Sykes argued that criminals are able to temporarily neutralize internal moral and social behavioral constraints through techniques of neutralization.
Social network analysis[edit]
- ^ Hester, S., Eglin, P. 1992, A Sociology of Crime, London, Routledge.
- ^ Shaw, Clifford R.; McKay, Henry D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-75125-2.
- ^ a b c Bursik Jr.; Robert J. (1988). "Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects". Criminology. 26 (4): 519–539. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00854.x.
- ^ Morenoff, Jeffrey; Robert Sampson; Stephen Raudenbush (2001). "Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence". Criminology. 39 (3): 517–60. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00932.x.
- ^ Siegel, Larry (2015). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Cengage Learning. p. 191. ISBN 978-1305446090.
- ^ Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-921130-4.
- ^ Cohen, Albert (1955). Delinquent Boys. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-905770-4.
- ^ Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45113-8.
- ^ a b Cloward, Richard, Lloyd Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-905590-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Raymond D. Gastil, "Homicide and a Regional Culture of Violence," American Sociological Review 36 (1971): 412-427.
- ^ Hirschi, Travis (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0900-1.
- ^ Gottfredson, Michael R., Hirschi, Travis (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Wilson, Harriet (1980). "Parental Supervision: A Neglected Aspect of Delinquency". British Journal of Criminology. 20.