Positivist Theories Notes PDF

Positivist Theories Notes After Midterm 2: Lecture 1: Biological and Psychological Applications and Assessments (Thurs, Nov. 14th) Earlier Biological Positivist Solutions: 1. Treatment (complex power): ➔ Difference had hopeful belief that once differences were figured out, they could...

Positivist Theories Notes After Midterm 2: Lecture 1: Biological and Psychological Applications and Assessments (Thurs, Nov. 14th) Earlier Biological Positivist Solutions: 1. Treatment (complex power): ➔ Difference had hopeful belief that once differences were figured out, they could be treated and this would help fight against crime ➔ Treatment in many forms: intrusive, harmful ➔ Rehabiliatative was aimed to restore the individual in a healthier way to adapt in society ➔ Psychological counseling was common, other forms were intrusive surgeries, experimental treatment ➔ Harms lead to death from experiments ➔ Mental health institutions were expanding- away from families, segregated ➔ Informed of treatments and lots of problems related to consent ➔ Rehabilitation - More harmful, and against human rights than rehabilitative 2. “Eugenics” (problematic power): ➔ Elimination: - Limited as human being - Disabilities, racial could be eliminated from - Physical, emotional, intellectual ➔ Sterilization: - Proactive reproduction surgery to prevent woman labeled as inferior from giving birth - Living being’s vs others - Certain populations were targeted as sterilized Assessment of Biological and Psychological Positivism: 1. Focus on individual/micro level (attributions within the person- isolates deviance in that sense as the fault is within the person) 2. Ignore situations (ignore wider situations and factors at marco level) 3. Individual = too passive ➔ Overly deterministic element: does not account for choice/ agency or change - Overly deterministic elements are too passive, not recognizing degrees of choice or ability or awareness of decision making  - Individual as to passive - Permanency of individual 4. Subjective science- based, fueled with presumptions/ stereotypes, discrimination, labeling tactics, negative towards people- people on pedestal us vs them dichotomy- inferior vs others 5. Discriminatory (labeling) ➔ Problematic assumptions of “difference” linked to “causality” - Created more harm, tortured 6. Intrusive- against body without consent, little consent 7. Abuses of science (power to prevent) ➔ Intertwined with abuse by the state ➔ Constructive connotations of punishment, prevention of crime was used as a rationale used to justify on the state and science as presenting a solution ➔ Worked in collaboration with each other ➔ Crimes of the powerful against those victimized in these circumstances 8. Abuses by the state (power to prevent) Cases- Critiques Biological and Psychological Positivism: ➔ Application (complex) ➔ Not criminally responsible (NCR) - Case of Mathew de Grood- killed 5 friends in final year of uni ➔ Mis- application (problematic) ➔ MAOA/ warrior gene- controversial ➔ “Difference” imposed in residential schools ➔ Coerced and non-consensual sterilizations ➔ Problematic pre-natural diagnoses 21st Century Controversies- NCR: ➔ Mathew de Grood stabbed and killed 5 young people at a house party in Calgary in 2014 - NCR verdict = controversial for victims’ relatives - De Grood father is a police officer - (Mis)perceptions of bias vs impartially within the CJS ➔ Parents statements after NCR verdict - Balancing understanding, accountability support with concern for victims and their relative q - Cleared to transition to a group home (fall 2012) -Appeals  ➔ Note: - Critique: we often don’t focus on the victims’ relatives which makes family involvement complicated 21st Century Controversies - NCR: ➔ Sean Clifton ➔ Stabbed Julie Bouvier at a mall in Cornwall (1999) ➔ NCR verdict ➔ Process of healing ➔ Story of understanding and forgiveness What Micheal Stewart Did - NCR: ➔ Forgiveness is alluded but was a twist ➔ Diagnosis of schizophrenia ➔ Killed his mother during a psychotic state in Renfrew, ON (2002) ➔ NCR verdict ➔ Reatlives (brother) = forgiveness is not relevant - when speaking of mental health awareness ➔ Became mental health advocates (family) 21st Century Controversies: ➔ Brown et al 2017 ➔ Scientists establish link the MOA “warrior gene” and aggression/violence ➔ Monoamine oxidase A gene on X chromosomes ➔ MAOA gene encodes MAOA enzyme ➔ Linked to aggression and antisocial behavior 21st Century Controversies: ➔ Lea and Chambers (2007) researchers at Victoria university NZ ➔ Reported higher % of MAOA among Maori, Chinese, Africans ➔ Beaver (2009) Florida SU: increase % among gang members ➔ Real world consequences claims about human genetics (scientific American - cross check) ➔ Racist implications and misuses: WARNING MAOA Gene: ➔ Racist - Abuses - Miuses ➔ Research - Problematic applied Inappropriate Medical Diagnosis: ➔ Prenatural down syndrome diagnosis referred to as ‘Mongolism’ in 21st century ➔ Assumed mother wanted to terminate the baby rather than asking if she wanted support ➔ Mom was taken a back from her treatment - Elly (daughter) and Lorelei (mom) - Racist and ableist Shifts to Inclusion: ➔ Accessibility and accommodation ➔ Advancements: universities for individuals of different capacities ➔ Learn at different pace but stay inclusive ➔ Rather than isolating them in the past we shift towards the individual needs and are much more inclusive within society as a whole (changes, advancements, health care, mental health care, etc.) ➔ The range of need for inclusion, change, accommodations, etc. ➔ Special Olympics: recreation opportunities, more inclusive activities, wide range of sports ➔ Discrimination via positivist notions of differences in Canada in the following contexts ➔ Imposed implications in residential schools Positivist Biases → Discrimination: ➔ Moses testimony as a survivor ➔ Critiquing positivist biases and their impacts ➔ Colonialism - Determinism/ difference vis hierarchies/ us vs them - Institutionalism, discrimination, exclusion - Residential schools, othering, marginalization Coerced Sterilizations (past/present): ➔ Leilani Muir ➔ Sterilized ➔ 21st century forced sterilization ➔ 14 year old ➔ Fallopian tubes removed without her knowledge/consent ➔ 2022 - senate report calls for practice to be criminalized Lecture 2 Notes: Social Control Theories (Tue, Nov. 19th) Class Midterm Notes: ➔ First hour of exam only focuses on lectures after midterm 2 ➔ Second half, tying in first lectures in regards to lectures after midterm 2 Article 40- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: ➔ Children in conflict with the law - protections in criminal proceedings - Diversion (alternatives to institutionalization) - Right to treatment (vs punishment) Social Context: ➔ What is prioritized/emphasized in this lecture is socialization!! ➔ 1960’s - Challenge of values and rules - Defense of values and rules ➔ What makes people conform? - Changes the question asked (vs deviate) → deviance is a given ➔ Trying to make sense of this society (why people choose to be conformist?) - Why do people break rules or follow rules? (functionalist lens) Reckless’ Containment Theory: (Walter Reckless): ➔ Inner containment - Components of the “self”  - Refers to self-regulation/ self-control (people can control themselves and make their own decisions to make the right choices and not harm others) - Healthier balanced ego, superego (moral conscious), high frustration tolerance, high responsibility (morality meter, moral compass), goal orientation (set goals to prioritize out options, lastly ability to find substitutions (maturity our preferred choices) ➔ Outer Containment - Social environment - Interpersonal social environment (includes family and others) - Socialization we benefit from and a reinforcement of norms and values we are expected to uphold from others (ex. family, caregivers, teachers, etc.) - Includes opportunities for prosocial activities (opportunities for acceptance, belonging = stronger sense of identity) (physical activities, cultural, etc., that are organized in the community) ➔ Internal form of Containment - More important/ influential - When one's self of self is compromised we are more likely to give in to deviant behaviors - Solution is to invest as early as possible to help children succeed Neutralization Techniques: ➔ Neutralize behaviors - Suspend commitment/belief to values - De-bond from conventional values - Bond to deviant values - Re-negotiate relation to values ➔ These are not fixed/rigged (for majority it is not personal or absolute) ➔ Might hold a strong connection to certain values Hirschi’s Social Control Theory: ➔ Similarity to durkheim (focusing on deviance and conformity in regards to the individual) ➔ People's commitment to conformity ➔ Importance of the social bond ➔ Varying degrees of morality (continuum)  ➔ Conformity - Strong internalized norms + our desire for approval ➔ Deviance - Broken or weakened bonds to society Social Bond: (Hirschi) ➔ Four Elements: 1. Attachment (most important) - Strength of our identification and relationships (parents, relatives, friends, also attachments to social groups ex, school, sports team, etc.) → we feel an attachment to these relationships and want to feel belonging/safe place from them - More likely to conform to social norms/rules (more likely to imitate conformity from these people/groups 2. Involvement - Related to the extracurriculars we are involved in - Overall belief that the busier kids are the less likely they will be involved in deviant behaviors 3. Commitment - The degree to which we are involved with our surroundings - Combination of personal and professional goals/commitments - Worry that we will taint our reputations or our personal failure, therefore we choose to conform to social norms/values - Ex. choice to not cheat on an exam because it could ruin our future careers, etc. 4. Belief - Foundational - If we do not agree with the laws of a society then we are more likely to turn to deviance ➔ Mutually reinforcing ➔ Weakened bonds → increase risk of deviance ➔ If even one element is compromised, it can affect the other ones as well (trickling effect) Solutions: ➔ Common sense approaches ➔ Social activities Lecture 3 Notes: Overview Part 1 (Thurs, Nov. 21st) Matza Peconsiders Positivism: ➔ Early 1960’s, matza drew on sociology even more to understand ‘delinquents’ ➔ Questions hard determinism in Positivist CRM ➔ Other social sciences have moved away from hard determinism (ex. Sociology) ➔ Modern CRM does not equal ‘modern’ ➔ Matza = contribution of sociology to demonstrate the relation between society and ‘delinquents’ - Review of biological and sociological positivism - To move criminology to a more scientific lens - Learning, subcultures, peers, maturity DETERMINISM versus DRIFT (à la Matza): DETERMINISM HARD SOFT ➔ Absolute determinism ➔ Conditional influence ➔ No choice (constraint) ➔ Choice and constraint (drift) ➔ Bio/ Psy positivism ➔ Classical + Soc positivism ➔ People here are not seen as not totally free, but also not totally bound ➔ More this notion of soft determinism forward, and drawing back on classical criminology - Brings these two things together to bring in a sense of choice, dropping the notion of free will into the mix - Freedom is relative, and can be conditioned by societal and personal factors Drift Continuum: ➔ Freedom (soft) < — > Constraint (hard) Delinquent Drift (Matza): ➔ Emphasizes SOFT determinism - Some people are freer than others - People are not wholly free to choose nor completely constrained/ compelled/ committed  ➔ Alternative Image = DRIFT - Drift = between freedom and control - Underlying influences of delinquent drifter - Conditions that make the delinquent drift possible (sociology) ➔ Free will form classical criminology ➔ Certain societal factors can constrain people's behaviors and lead them to drift towards delinquency ➔ Some people are chronic drifters (constantly drifting between the two) ➔ Some people may not drift at all (or to some extent) DRIFT (2 Layers/Examples): ➔ Freedom vs. Constraint ➔ Soft vs. Hard (Determinism) ➔ Conformity vs. Deviance ➔ Motion of drift is applicable to all of our lives ➔ Labels for delinquent individuals can become problematic - Certain people and groups are more likely to be targeted by labeling - These are labels and identities that tend to stick to people, it is difficult for some individuals to disconnect from these labels Contributions of Sociological Positivism: ➔ Explanations include community, societal and structural conditions ➔ Solutions start to recognize social and economic factors ➔ Marco and Micro - More macro level attention ➔ Biological is completely micro Theories we have learned that fall under Sociological Positivism: ➔ Ecological theories ➔ Subcultural theories  ➔ Strain/ Structural theories ➔ Learning theories ➔ Social control theory ➔ Social disorganization theory ➔ Functionalist theories (most sociological of them all) Limitations of Sociological Positivism: ➔ Consensus limits macro level changes - Solutions reinforce that status quo - Reactive and individualistic ➔ No attention to structural inequalities - No challenge to power dynamics ➔ Social factors but not societal conditions (partially macro) - Still too much determinism (causality) - Correlation is often at individual level - Limited potential of social programs aimed at individual ➔ Has not shifted too far away from the notion of determinism Lecture 4: Contexts and Critiques of Positivism (labeling and critical lenses) (Thurs, Nov. 21st) Theoretical Layers (In Order): ➔ Paradigm: Positivist ➔ Main theory: Social control ➔ Sub-theory: Bond (Hirschi) ➔ Concept: Attachment Labeling (1960’s): ➔ CRM focus changed- redefined ‘crime’, and understand it ➔ Shifted from BEHAVIOUR (positivism) to REACTION (labeling)  ➔ Labeling does not take crime for granted ➔ Depends on observer’s perception and reaction ➔ Concerned about overcriminalization Questions: ➔ Positivism: ‘Why do some people rather than others commit crime?’ ➔ Labeling: ‘What is the process by which individuals come to be defined as ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’?’ - Not longer taking for granted the label (formally and informally - Starting to problematize people and their labels Focus on All Participants: ➔ Actors + Reactors ➔ Power affects how people are defined and criminalized ➔ Focusing on moving away from discriminatory things like labeling and criminalization Labeling: ➔ Challenges the CONSENSUS ➔ Recognizes value/ interest CONFLICT ➔ ‘deviant’/ ‘criminal’ = social constructs ➔ No inherent deviance - Rather it is a response to a labeling process ➔ Criticizes Positivist Criminology for sustaining discrimination and poverty - Symptoms/ ‘drowning bodies’; rather than looking upstream ➔ By focusing on the social factors we tend to be focusing more on the symptoms - This is why it is seen as a limitation Labeling: ➔ Context: 1960’s- civil rights movement ➔ Social order: challenges CONSENSUS, considers CONFLICT ➔ ?: what is the process by which individuals come to be defined as deviant?  ➔ Crime: certain individuals are more likely to be labeled ➔ Solution: minimize interventions ➔ Micro (+ Macro): transition to critical CRM ➔ We should intervene less, we need to take a step back ➔ Wider deinstitutionalization movement, shift more into the community (more community opportunities, people more welcomes into society) Lecture 5: (Tues, Nov. 26th) Midterm Notes: ➔ First half of exam is like a mini midterm from before, and will include information from first two midterms (Understand the strengths and critiques ➔ Understand the motion of drift ➔ Second half includes theories/ concepts from lectures after midterm 2 (broader questions involving content as a whole) ➔ Understand key definition of crime ➔ What is common amongst each theory (what are their common denominators? What makes them positivist?) ➔ Understand each theories limitations ➔ Read before midterm the reading of Russ Moses (his memoir) ➔ Read the reading “Whitewashing Criminology” Wab Kinew: ➔ Premier of Manitoba ➔ Mentor for many individuals ➔ Used to work as a journalist advocating for the rights of Indigenous peoples and helped Canadians understand the history behind Canada and it’s first nations people Critical/Conflict CRM:  ➔ Macro ➔ Crime - = result of systematic inequality - Consequence of positivism in society ➔ Takes us a step further beyond labeling, focusing on the Macro level implications ➔ This paradigm is the reference we are using to understand the wider Macro level and what it entails ➔ Seeing a different side of crime, seeing it more critically, looking more at the symptoms of why crime occurs in society - Situate a person's situation in society ➔ Shifting the focus to a much wider and broader level LABELING: Transitional Approach Questions Consensus & CJS: ➔ Consensus - State = neutral - Equality ➔ Conflict - State = biased - Inequality ➔ Positivism - Classical ➔ Critical CRM - Recognizing conflicts - Understanding that inequalities have an influence and can affect the way people act, certain people are targeted because of their inequalities ➔ Labeling approach (1960’s) ➔ Critical CRm (1970’s) Critical Criminology: ➔ Looks at: - Crime = outcome of conflict & domination - Power distribution  - Socialization that reproduces distribution of power (ex. Unequal gender dynamics against women) - Relations that maintain power - Ideologies that legitimate power ➔ Seeing a major shift ➔ Seeing people as superior and inferior (Indigenous peoples) Critical Criminology Solutions: ➔ Transformative Justice: - = emancipation/ liberation = free from discrimination - = radical transformation of social structure = eliminate inequality and oppression ➔ Solutions are direct to the biases/limitations of positivism ➔ Demonstrates what positivism has not done Saul Alinsky’s Parable: “A man is walking down the riverside when he notices a body floating down stream. A fisherman leaps into the river, pulls the body Russ Moses Memoir Reading (1965): ➔ Talks about his experience as a child ➔ Residential school survivor ➔ Talks about racism, classism, etc. ➔ Retain the time of history it was written in ➔ Remember how he is situating certain names people were calling his people ➔ Superiority and inferiority examples in reading ➔ Courageous in the last comment he makes in the memoir - When he says they are separated and seen as “different” just because the people, (Europeans), made them “different”, it had all to do with their discrimination ➔ Labels can stick to a person and can be hard to move past/not let that label effect you ➔ Russ’ Son John Moses thought it was important to acknowledge who his father was ➔ Russ Moses' memoir encompasses the ideas of superiority and inferiority by reflecting on the systemic structures and personal experiences that highlight power imbalances, particularly in the context of colonialism, racism, and cultural oppression. The memoir likely delves into:  ➔ Superiority: - Explores how dominant groups (e.g., colonial powers or institutions) imposed their values, beliefs, and systems on marginalized communities. - Demonstrates the use of policies and practices to assert control, dehumanize others, and maintain a sense of cultural or racial dominance. ➔ Inferiority: - Highlights the lived experiences of those subjected to this imposed "inferiority," including feelings of marginalization, discrimination, and the internalized belief in being "less than." - Reflects on how these systems affected identity, self-worth, and community cohesion. ➔ Through personal stories and broader reflections, the memoir captures how these dynamics shaped both societal structures and individual lives, often critiquing the harmful impact of superiority-inferiority frameworks on marginalized populations. Coerced Sterilizations (Past Present): ➔ Leilani Muir ➔ Sterilized without consent or knowledge in late 1950’s (mid 20th century) - Alberta, Canada ➔ Some women had their fallopian tubes removed without their knowledge/consent (ex. Morningstar Mercredi, who was only 14 years old) - 2022 senate report calls for this practice to be criminalized - October 2024 received third reading stage and anonymous support to pass the bill for forced sterilization to be criminalized Lecture 6: Conclusion/Review (Thurs, Nov. 28th) Positivist Perspectives: ➔ Social disorganization (ecological) ➔ Learning (processual) = what and who people learn from (influential) ➔ Functionalism = crime is necessary, normal, functional ➔ Strain (structural) = socioeconomic barriers and how it can influence people’s behaviors (relatively micro, mainly macro)  ➔ Subcultural = take into account social interactions, and geographic conditions, also recognizing people's relations to gangs ➔ Social control = healthy and consistent bonds, and the negative outcomes if bonds are weakened. Individuals more likely to conform with bonds to family and community ➔ Biological = taking into account mental health concerns, that can influence people’s behaviors. Treatments are more inclusive. Taking into consideration inclusivity. Be more inclusive and compassionate ➔ Psychological ➔ Some might be more relevant than others but they are all part of a sort of puzzle (they all stemmed from each other) ➔ Each theory can shed some light into people’s experiences Stacked View/Side Angle: ➔ Paradigm: positivist ➔ Strand: sociological ➔ Theory: social control ➔ Sub-Theory: containment ➔ Concepts: inner/outer containment ➔ Know the ones for after midterm 2 lectures, for final exam What Makes Theories ‘Positivist’?: ➔ DETERMINISM = Common denominator - Differentiation (presumed) ➔ Consensus-Based ➔ Primarily Micro (sometimes also partially macro) - Individual = explained and/or responsibilized Summary (main point): ➔ Theories are positivist because of determinism and consensus-based (limitations) ➔ Primarily Micro level (not really seeing broader macro changes) - Mricro because they are the target of the solution and individual is responsible for the act Saul Alinkey’s River Parable:  ➔ Don't need to memorize the parable but know the main idea ➔ Upstream = Macro level (proactive/preventative approach, conflict) ➔ Downstream = Micro level (reactive, consensus based) ➔ Go upstream to figure out the root cause of things floating downstream ➔ Get to the root of the problem in order to solve the issue ➔ On Midterm: applied to positivist paradigm (what are common denominators of all the positivist theories) = how they are limitations (know the critiques) - What do they all have in common (list will be short) ➔ Determinism also makes most of the theories downstream Consider: ➔ Question asked (conventional/critical) ➔ Level of analysis (micro/macro) ➔ View of the social order (consensus/conflict) ➔ Definition of ‘crime’/ ‘deviance’/ ‘conformity’ ➔ Depth of solution/intervention (individual, society) ➔ (un)intended consequences (differentiation → discrimination) ➔ “A difference that makes no differences is no difference” (William James) - Refering to change - Critical perspective - Both quotes help us understand the limits to the positivist paradigm ➔ “The more things change the more they remain the same” (Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr) - Without trying to change individuals circumstances, we tend to still try to be more reactive and corrective with people Know: ➔ The notion of drift ➔ Consequences of theories (not necessarily intentional) ➔ Quotes might be helpful in writing on the exam ➔ To this day we still turn to punishment as a solution to crime, instead of looking at the other broader (Macro) circumstances ex. Societal factors Failures of Criminology (Cohen’s 1988 Article): READ THIS  ➔ Anachronistic (means out of order [not in sinque]) ➔ Uneven progress, continuity, change ➔ Undercurrent of classical and positivist CRM ➔ Gradualism, net-widening (instead of retreat) ➔ Failures: 1. Psychological bias (less critical) 2. Clinical model (strive more towards prevention [upstream prevention]) 3. Political timidity ➔ Impossibilism vs. Optimism ➔ “We don’t have to discover the physiology of the mosquito before we think of draining the swamp” (Cohen, 1988: 53) - Micro is the criminal/offender - Swamp is the Macro level (society) - We want to look at the broader issues and not just the individual ➔ Cohen says we should not feel defeated (did not advocate to give up), also says do not be fooled (too optimistic). We need a healthy balance of the two (decisive and resilient) ➔ Never give up on the upstream proventions Final Exam Key Highlights: ➔ 3 hours ➔ 8 pages ➔ Space for notes ➔ Part A (Mini Mid-Term of last 3rd of course): - 6 pages - 10 multiple choice - 1 short answer - 5 analytical/critues questions - 5 bonus questions + 2 bonus multiple choice ➔ Part B (Cumulative Overview of Course): - 2 pages (15 marks) - limitations/strengths - Why the theories are positivist Answering Questions: Do’s and Don’ts:  ➔ Don’t: - Do not rewrite the entire question Final Exam Preparation Workshop (Tuesday, Dec. 3rd): Exam Structure: ➔ 3 hours ➔ 8 pages ➔ Part A: - 10 multiple choice - 1 short answer - 5 analytical/critical questions - 5 bonus questions + 2 MC Multiple Choice Questions: ➔ Read carefully ➔ Process of elimination ➔ Manage time effectively ➔ Look for keywords in the question Written Answers: ➔ Don’t: - Do not rewrite question - Do not describe the whole theory in detail (or at all)  ➔ Do: - Use the appropriate space to efficiently answer the question - Contextualize why you are introducing a particular concept or theory - Write actively ➔ Strategies: - Break down the question - Clarify requirements - Identify key points - Briefly plan answer before writing Answering Analytical Questions on Strengths and Limitations: 1. Understand the theory - Grasp the concepts and principles (what does each theory assume about crime and criminals ➔ Identify strengths ➔ Proactive approach - Does the theory contribute to preventative measures rather than solely punitive responses? ➔ Critical or deterministic (most positivist theories are deterministic) - They focus on biology and psychology instead of broader (macro) factors such as community to help explain crime and criminals River Parable: ➔ Upstream - Macro - Proactive - Conflict (questions the status quo) ➔ Downstream - Micro - Consensus-based (assumptions that are not questioned, status quo not questioned) ➔ Immediate reaction ➔ Persistent problem ➔ Questioning the source: the evident aspect (floating bodies) is noticed first  ➔ Upstream investigation: identify the initial problem (people drowning upstream) and think about solutions (prevent the drowning) → Proactive ➔ Conflict or consensus Applying Theories and Looking for Solutions: ➔ Read question carefully ➔ Identify key words ➔ 2 questions within the one question - First look at the limitations - Second look at as a criminology student, how might you propose solutions ➔ Think about what are the main common arguments in positivist theories ➔ Focus on determinism: gun violence = violent genetic predisposition ➔ Second section: - With limitations in mind think about the solutions (solutions considering broader structural aspects) Last General Strategy: ➔ Go over reading guides ➔ Do not have to remember all the people ➔ Know the general idea of each ➔ Parable is very important ➔ Know limitations of each theory