CR4001 Week 7 Lecture Slides 2024 PDF

Week 7 – Sociological Positivism This week…  This week, we start to examine sociological explanations for crime:  Sociological explanations for crime are explanations/theories that focus on the social environment in which we live as explanations for...

Week 7 – Sociological Positivism This week…  This week, we start to examine sociological explanations for crime:  Sociological explanations for crime are explanations/theories that focus on the social environment in which we live as explanations for crime.  It may not be the only factor, but the social environment matters in explaining crime and how we respond to it. In week 1 we identified that criminological theories can be categorised into 4 groups:  Rational Actor Explanations  Pre-Destined Actor Explanations  Victimised Actor Explanations  Integrated Explanations Sociological Explanations for Crime  Essential Reading for week 6: Tim Newburn’s book: ‘Criminology’ Third Edition, Part 2: Chapters 9 & 10. Available online via the module reading list Functionalism, anomie and strain  Functionalism  Durkheim was the first sociologist to really explore how social factors might influence crime  For Durkheim, crime is a social construction. Our collective moral framework determines what we define as crime.  Functionalists, such as Durkheim, argue that crime is NORMAL and FUNCTIONAL  There will always be individuals who deviate from collective norms and values  Crime enables deviancy to be punished which reinforces collective values, norms and behaviours – enabling society to function. Emile Durkheim  Crime can have an important ‘boundary  Functionalism & Crime: Anomie  Durkheim argues that earlier, pre- industrial societies, had high levels of regulation via mechanical solidarity which acted to control crime. Features of mechanical solidarity:  Common attitudes, behaviours and beliefs that bound their members tightly to their group.  Verylittle scope for individuality, personal identity and uniqueness  Rigid and shared sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.  Severepunishment of anything that challenges mechanical solidarity – which thus maintains this solidarity.  Functionalism & Crime: Anomie  Durkheim argued that modern societies instead rely on organic solidarity - it is held together by differences among people – they have different tasks and responsibilities and rely on each other  Modern societies can experience ‘anomie’.  Durkheim defines anomie as a breakdown in norms and common understandings due to rapid economic and social change which results in insufficient limits on individual desires.  Constant economic and social change can lead to inadequate regulation – people may react to this via crime. Anomie & Strain Robert Merton developed Durkheim’s concept of anomie He developed ‘strain theory’ Merton’s key ideas: A functioning society is one that is able to balance approved goals and approved means for achieving these goals. Durkheim’s Anomie occurs when the relationship between approved goals and approved means for achieving these goals is broken. Anomie & Strain Modern capitalist societies focus on success and socialise us to aspire achievement and success. Approved Approved means: goals: Activities and behaviours that Financial Success & Security are deemed legitimate and legal by society: Financial independence Education Ownership Employment Consumption of goods and services Entrepreneurship Approved goals are learned Anomie & Strain  Merton argued that in modern  Furthermore…… societies there is more focus on  Modern societies contain groups that are: approved goals (that is being  Socialised to have high expectations financially successful) and less focus on approved means (how BUT we become successful).  Are blocked from legitimate means to  This causes Durkheim’s Anomie - realise these expectations (e.g. ways to a breakdown in norms and lawfully achieve financial success) due common understandings due to to their place in the social structure rapid economic and social change.  This leads to ‘Strain’ which can take a  variety of forms…. Can lead to crime. Adaptation s to Strain Functionalism/Anomie/ Strain: Limitations  Exaggerates focus on making money. People have other aspirations too – and some people actively opt out materialism.  How effectively do Anomie and Strain explain the crimes of the rich and powerful (e.g. white collar crime?). These people are successful but commit crime.  Little to say about gender/age and crime.  Not all those people who are marginalised commit crime.  Struggles to explain crimes other than for economic gain… General Strain Theory The criticisms and limitations associated with strain theory led to modifications of the theory General Strain Theory -Developed by Robert Agnew  Goals are not just about economic success/achievement of middle class status.  Goals (and associated strain) can also be linked to achievement of:  Respect/masculine status  Autonomy and personal independence  Excitement  A number of issues can lead to the individual being unable to achieve these goals and therefore lead to strain and criminality:  Parental rejection and abuse  Negative school experiences including being bullied  Unemployment  Discrimination  Living in socially disadvantaged area General Strain Theory  The importance of negative emotions – e.g. anger at situations that leads to crime  Strain may weaken relationships with others and lead to poor social control, lack of support network as an alternative to crime – could help explain the higher offending rate among young people  Discusses gender- different genders experience different kinds of strain and respond to these strains in different ways. Male experiences and responses more likely to lead to crime. Strain theory – Policy implications  Improving group and individual opportunities – e.g. education, employment, etc.  Exploring alternative goals.  Learning from international evidence that societies which protect members from the worst excesses of free-market economics have lower crime rates, e.g. spending on welfare.  Ensure expectations are realistic - reduces strain Chicago School Theories  Chicago School Theories  Sociologists such as Walter Reckless, Robert Park, Edwin, Ernest Burgess, Sutherland and Henry McKay studied Chicago, USA  During a time of rapid economic and social change:  Rapid industrialisation  Rapid population increases 1860: 10,000 1910: 2 million  City characterised by poor living and working conditions  Academics at the University of Chicago were interested in the details and consequences of this rapid change – and if such change could explain crime Chicago School Theories Shaw & McKay  Focused on spatial patterns of criminal behaviour  Areas experiencing higher levels of socio-economic deprivation tended to have higher rates of crime and delinquency. The Zonal Hypothesis (Ernest Burgess)  Cities evolve into different zones as a result of social and economic change and development  As people become more affluent they move into the outer zones. Chicago School Theories Transitional Zone  Supervision of children and Transient population and adolescents difficult: population change/churn  Schools, churches, families Crime remains constant regardless of who resides in function poorly compared the area to more affluent areas Socio-economic deprivation  Few legitimate alternatives to Poor infrastructure criminality and deviance in Poor housing conditions Zones of Transition. Social problems A different value system (norms and standards) that supports crime and deviancy  Chicago School CHICAGO SCHOOL Theories - evidence THEORIES - CRITIQUE Data showed that crime was highest in  Over-emphasises structural issues ‘disorganised’ neighbourhoods – the Zone of and place Transition  Under-emphasises individual agency.  Did social disorganisation cause Crime rates remained higher in these Zones crime or did crime cause social regardless of the zones ethnic mix over time. disorganisation? – not clear  Doesn’t focus sufficiently on the crimes of the affluent/powerful – When people left the Zone of Transition and moved to more organised zones, their focus on the crimes of the socio- criminality stopped or decreased - economically poor suggesting ‘place’ (zone) is important to help us understand criminality.  These zones potentially don’t apply to cities outside of Chicago   Intervene in communities. Make positive Chicago changes to the social environment (Broken windows?) school   Improving community cohesion. Encouraging individual ties to the community. Policy &  Chicago School research led directly to the Practice creation of the Chicago Area Project. Creation of a series of neighbourhood centres to co-ordinate community resources (schools, Implicatio churches, clubs, associations) to tackle local problems. Recreational projects established. ns Physical improvements to neighbourhoods. Mediation. Mentoring by local people.  Cultural and Subcultural Theory Cultural/Sub-Cultural Explanations for Crime Draw on Draw on Anomie, Strain and Chicago School ideas Focus on socio-economic environment and Focus on achievement of goals. Focus on Focus on regulation of behaviour Culture and Subculture If ‘culture’ is e.g. Durkheim’s ‘collective conscience’ (shared norms and values) then ‘subculture’ is: Any system of beliefs, values and norms which is shared and actively participated in by an appreciable minority of people within a particular culture. The relationship of the subculture to the dominant culture is one of subordination and relative powerlessness. Example subcultures include skinheads, Mods, Rockers, hoodies, graffiti writers, hipsters, hippies, hackers, goths. Subcultures are not necessarily ‘criminal’, but how do we explain those that might lead to criminality? Culture and Subculture Approaches to explaining deviant subcultures: Strain Theories (Anomie) – see earlier. Culture Conflict Theories – you are deviant/criminal because your community or neighbourhood’s ‘normal, expected’ ways of behaving conflict with society’s rules. Class Conflict Theories – you are deviant/criminal because goals of mainstream society are meaningless to you. Your identity and purpose is provided by your leisure activities, which may be seen as deviant or delinquent. 2. Culture Conflict Theories Thorsten Stellin (1938) Culture Conflict Theory – building on Chicago School ideas we covered earlier:  Explored why beliefs, values and norms of neighborhoods (such as the transitional zone) can be in conflict with legal rules and norms of wider society.  Criminal law reflects the values and interests of the dominant, powerful groups.  Beliefs and behaviour of less powerful groups often come into conflict (Culture Conflict) with the dominant groups.  The everyday behaviour of less powerful can become defined as deviant or criminal.  Adherence to local, community norms could lead individuals into conflict with wider social expectations and rules i.e. committing crime 2. Culture Conflict Theories  Lower-classgroup delinquency does not represent a counter-culture (to middle-class culture)…not about rebellion…Rather it is…  Anintensified expression of culture of lower-class community (e.g. stress on machismo, and refusal to defer gratification).  Engagement with these concerns involves lower-class adolescents in head-on clash with dominant society BUT only because laws are underwritten by middle- class values.  Gang delinquency – violence is rare but when occurs is ‘normal, expected’ response to perceived insults – a source of group cohesion and affirmation of group values…NOT reaction against ‘society’, ‘the adult world, or the ‘middle-class’.  2. Culture Conflict Theories Studies which explore the ‘culture of masculinity’: JohnMcVicar (armed robber, once considered the most dangerous man in UK, escaped from HMP Durham(officially known as HM Prison Durham) stated: ‘crude machismatic values’ were central to his boyhood and it was ‘prowess’ not material gain which attracted him to the delinquent subculture. PaulWillis (1978 Profane Culture) – an elaboration of masculine imagery is central to the culture of motorbike boys: impudence before authority, domination of women, humiliation of the weaker, aggression toward the indifferent – but would be the opposite of traditional middle-class expectations of ‘honour’, and labelled criminal by agents of social control 3. Class Conflict Theories Class Conflict Theories, overview:  Classconflict is inevitable in capitalist societies.  Downe’s (1966): working-class boys respond to lack of opportunity by dissociation i.e. they no longer associate with mainstream goals / society.  Goal = Leisure (e.g. styles of dress, music, cars/bikes, mates etc.) provides solution to e.g. identity, purpose, ‘belonging’ – but leisure activities may be seen as deviant.  ClassConflict studies explore links between youth groups, leisure styles and class location, e.g. ‘teddy boys’, ‘mods’, ‘rockers’, ‘skinheads, ‘punks’ etc… 3. Class Conflict Theories Phil Cohen (1972) at Birmingham University:  Focused on Mods and Skinheads in London’s East End.  1950s–1960s East End = target for redevelopment and re-housing resulting in community experiencing dislocation and social change (Chicago School’s disorganised ‘Transitional Zone’).  Undermined community solidarity, destroyed family businesses and reduced employment prospects….  Youth solution via leisure activity & adoption of a style – creation of identity and image.  BUT solution via leisure is ‘illusory’ – operates only at ideological level (imaginary or symbolic), does not confront material and economic causes of the class’s problems.  These leisure activities often come into conflict with dominant, upper-class rule- makers – e.g. think about the reaction skinheads receive. 3. Class Conflict Theories Countercultures NOT all working class:  1960s middle class countercultures – e.g. beatniks, hippies, drop-outs; represented crisis of authority within the dominant culture itself.  Middle-class youth have wider choices available – therefore countercultures = romantic attempts to achieve self-discovery through alternative life-style. Change over time, e.g. 1970s-1980s Punk… 1980s- 1990s Acid House…:  subcultures = result of collective creativity – therefore subject to historical change and transformation  but all share aim = provide ‘dissociated’ youth with identity, purpose, and sense of ‘belonging’:  not necessarily criminal, but can contain criminal activities, e.g. fighting; or produce a response from society that sees them as deviant or delinquent… Reflections on Culture and Sub-cultural explanations Over-predictsworking class delinquency – not all commit crime so must be other factors at play here Tends to select the most stylistically outrageous and unusual subcultures and ignores the more mundane and conforming youthful styles. Muchwork is gender blind – ignores women/girls Focuson crimes of the poor and marginalised NOT of the rich and powerful. Commitment to mainstream and subcultural values is more nuanced? Culture and Subculture Policy & Practice Implications  Community level support and individual role models – e.g. moving neighbourhoods towards more ‘socially acceptable’ behaviours; alternative methods of resolving problems not resorting to violence; identification of achievable goals; mentors etc.  Educate society – that youth subcultures are not necessarily ‘criminal’  Improving access to education, employment, etc.  Continuing to protect the most vulnerable in society through the provision of welfare support.   Sociological Explanations of crime Summary –  Functionalism – Anomie - theories, Strain critique  Chicago School and policy  Subcultural theories implicatio  Culture conflict ns  Class conflict