Emile Durkheim, considered to be the father of sociology, has had a major impact on the entire field of behavioral studies. However, his impact on criminology can be seen in almost all theories that have followed him. Using Durkheim’s incredibly dense work, many theorists have created their own theories using his arguments as a basis. He changed the field of criminology when he claimed that crime is a product of society not one of the individual himself. He shifted the focus from individual to society. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Merton’s Theory of Anomie, Social Control Theory, and Labelling Theory from a Durkheimian perspective. In doing so, it will show how large of an impact Emile Durkheim has made on the field of criminology …show more content…
Merton who followed directly in Durkheim’s footsteps. Merton borrowed Durkheim’s ‘Anomie’ and applied it to a strictly American society. Merton’s theory is based on the American Dream. The American Dream says that anyone who works hard can achieve ultimate happiness and accumulate wealth. Merton agreed with Durkheim in the sense that criminal behavior was a result of cultural and social factors, not biological or individual factors. He believed that the cause to crime was the inability to achieve the American Dream (Lily et al, …show more content…
While this theory does still focus on the social aspects of crime (rather than strictly individual or biological) it takes a much different approach. Social Control Theory looks at the reasons why people do not commit crime. All other theories before it, including Merton and Durkheim, are focused on what causes people to commit crime. Travis Hirschi is the main theorist in Social Control Theory. He came up with two theories, Social Bond Theory and Self-Control Theory (Topak, Lecture 8). Durkheim would fancy Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. He would agree with all types of bonds mentioned; attachment, commitment, involvement and beliefs. Durkheim would say that this social integration into society is most definitely a factor into the prevention of crime. He would say that within these bonds, the collective consciousness is important. Any violation of conduct within the bond would then violate collective consciousness and that would result in alienation from the group. No one wants to feel excluded, therefore, that is why most people conform to the norms of
Merton recognised that individuals receive messages from society, which set acceptable behaviours to follow. He noted that a majority of citizens abide the acceptable behaviours, though there are numerous pressures that associate with the American Dream and the importance of the economy, which leads individuals to participate in deviant behaviours. Merton associated criminality and deviance with the American Dream goals, and how people attempt to achieve them, particularly the wealth component (Murphy & Robertson, 2008). Merton argued in 1938 that within unbalanced societies, the discrepancy between success goals and the endorsement of the means to achieve the goals, combined with limited opportunities manufactured the state of anomie. Further, Merton suggested that the anomic conditions in society were likely to tempt strain upon individuals, forming criminal behaviour adaptations. Particularly, the strain theory emphasised that those with high monetary aspirations are likely to innovate, resorting to unlawful activities, with the desire to channel success (Antonaccio, Gostjev & Smith, 2014). The strain theory connects to social causes, linking criminality with selfishness and egoism as the desire to
The two theories that are being analyzed in this paper are Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory. Hirschi's social bonding theory is one of many control theories which all take on the task of explaining the core cause of crime; however, this particular theory seems to be the most popular and able to stand the test of time. The Social Bond theory contains four elements that explain what criminals lack that causes them to be more prone to illegal activity, these elements are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. On the other end of the spectrum is Akers’ Social Learning Theory, which attempts to explain the correlation between and individual's social environment and their behavior depending on what is praised or punished in an individual's specific social organization. (Walsh & Hemmens)
The two theories I have decided to merge are Agnew’s General Strain Theory and Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. I picked General Strain Theory because it does a good job at discussing some of the things that can trigger the release of a person’s negative emotions which in turn may lead to deviant behavior. I also decided to write about Social Bond Theory because it describes some of the factors that keep people from committing crime. Both of the theories have strengths and weaknesses individually, but when merged they help fill in each other’s gaps. (Agnew, 2011; Hirschi, 2011) +1 (888) 295-7904
Labelling theory: The theory that the terms crime, deviance, or punishment are labels, variously applied by act of power and not some natural reflection of events – American criminologist Howard Becker
Robert Merton’s Theory of Anomie It is rightfully argued that crime, whether or not in a contemporary society, is an extremely complex and multi-faceted Phenomena that has puzzled academics for many years. Theories that aim to rationalise the causes of crime and understand the origin of criminal behaviour are often criticised for being too biased or deterministic in their research studies. Many have been of great influence and seen to explain (to an extent) the cause of crime but none has fully decoded the mystery of why people commit crime. Merton’s anomie theory aimed at explaining deviance from a sociological perspective as opposed to previous academic theories on crime and criminals.
In criminology, researchers have constantly tried to explain why people commit crime and engage in juvenile delinquency. Many theories have emerged for over a century about why people commit these deviant behaviors. Macro-level theories focus on social structures and the effects of those structures on the human behavior. Basically, macro-level theories explains aggregate crime. Micro-level theories focuses on individuals and their interactions with various groups of people. For example, the relationship between family members, friends, and groups, that individuals interact with every-day, which explains individual criminal behavior. These interactions affect their attitudes, beliefs, and what seems normal for people. One of the most interesting theories that that tries to explain this, is Hirschi’s social bonding theory, which is based on how crime is the result of weakened bonds to society and is considered a micro-level theory.
Travis Hirschi presented a social bonding theory in 1969. The main idea of the social bonding theory is that each and every individual has a drive to act in selfish and even aggressive ways that might possibly lead to criminal behavior. Social bonding theory is somewhat have similarities with the Durkheim theory that “we are all animals, and thus naturally capable of committing criminal acts” (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 162). However, the stronger a person is bonded to the conventional society, for example, family, schools, communities, the less prone a person is to be involved in criminal activity. The great example of this would be the serial killer Nannie Doss. Since early age she did not have any bonds either to her family with an abusive father or to community she lived in. Most of the time during her childhood she was isolated from any social interactions with her schoolmates or friends.
Power-control theory of crime combines Marxist conflict theory, social control theory and feminism and was theorized by Canadian criminologist, John Hagan. A prominent theme throughout the power-control theory is that social power in society is predominantly patriarchal, or male dominated.
Robert K. Merton is a widely respected sociologist who has offered much insight in the field of criminology. In efforts to understand why the U.S has disproportionate levels of crime in comparison to similar countries Merton retouched Emile Durkheim’s form of Anomie theory (Lecture, 2016). Merton’s theory is grounded in the belief that the norms of society and their culturally defined goals (for example: The American Dream) place great pressure (or Strain) on individuals to either conform with the socially accepted behavior to attain those goals, or in its place become a player in a nonstandard subculture in attempts to achieve the same underlying goals of society (Cullen, Ch.13). With this, Merton’s Anomie theory was a macro-level approach
For sociology and crime the main thing to look to understand it is through the functionalist theoretical perspective. Crime is a learned behavior and that the surrounding environment does impact a person’s choice in committing a crime. Crime is a major part of how a society functions. With certain societies you have rules that govern what is acceptable to do and what is not either by law, or unspoken rules. (Macionis, 2015,Pages 171-188)
Social Control Theory presumes that people will naturally commit crime if there were left to their own devices (i.e. no laws in society) and people do not commit crimes because of certain controlling forces, such as social bonds that hold individuals back partaking on their anti social behavior (Bell, 2011). Examples of controlling forces are family, school, peers, and the law. Young people who are t... ... middle of paper ... ... nd delinquent are more likely to partake in committing criminal behavior (Shaefer and Haaland, 2011, p.155-156).
Labelling theory, stemming from the influences of Cooley, Mead, Tannenbaum, and Lemert, has its origins somewhere within the context of the twentieth century. However, Edwin Lemert is widely considered the producer and founder of the original version of labelling theory. This paper, not a summary, provides a brief history of labelling theory, as well as, its role in the sociology of deviance. It attempts to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual theory. In essence, the main focus of this paper besides proving an understanding of Howard Becker, is to describe and evaluate `labelling theory` to the study of crime and deviance, by way of an in depth discussion.
In conclusion, Social Bond Theory has been around for many years and has stood the test of time. The four bonds, attachment, involvement, commitment and belief are all held by individuals and play a major part in determining criminality. While it does not describe deviance perfectly, it does match what is believed to be the basic human view of why people become criminals. The view of Social Bond Theory is that all humans are basically evil and that deviance is a natural process. It is just a matter of how weak or strong these bonds are that either promotes, or deters deviance.
Labelling theory outlines the sociological approach towards labelling within societies and in the development of crime and deviance (Gunnar Bernburg, and D. Krohn et al., 2014, pp. 69-71). The theory purposes that, when an individual is given a negative label (that is deviant), then the individual pursues their new (deviant) label / identity and acts in a manner that is expected from him/her with his/ her new label (Asencio and Burke, 2011, pp. 163-182).
This theory is also known as social bond theory because it elaborates that instead of some natural inclinations toward crime, the individuals are deter from committing criminal activities due to strong social bonds. However, if the social bond of an individual is weak, the probability of involvement in a crime of increases. It is analysed from the research study of Warkentin and Willison (2009) that as per this theory individuals have natural tendency towards committing crimes if there are no social bonds. Moreover, it is also noticed that social bonds have positive influence on the reduction of criminal behaviour. This means that criminal activities within organisation can be controlled by emphasising on social bonds. The inhibitors of unwanted behaviour are divided into four types, which include belief, commitment, attachment, and