Perspectives On Criminology: Travis Hirschi's Social Bond Theory

Perspectives on Criminology

I Introduction

Why some individuals commit crime and others do not is a question that criminologists have been troubled with for centuries. Criminologists have studied almost all the possible avenues and reasons why some people follow the guidelines in society and others drift away from this normality and commit crimes. Notable theorists like Travis Hirschi and Michale Gottfredson focussed particularly on control and the social development of people when they are of an early age and what interrupts this development and causes individuals to commit crime. Travis Hirschi was a control theorist, they believe all people have a natural motivation to commit crime and without strong social bonds they will resort to crime.

Unlike most criminologists, control theorists don’t focus on why individuals commit crime but rather why don’t they commit crime. Hirschi particularly focussed on the relationships with family and peers, and how if these relationships were unstable or non-existent, the probability of crime being committed was very high. Hirschi stated ‘’why don’t we do it? There is much evidence that we would if we dared.’’ (Hirschi, 1969) His social bond and self -control theories were revolutionary in the criminology field and still to the present day remain some of the most notable and cited criminological theories ever. This essay will examine both Hirshchi’s theories on social bonding and self-control. It will also examine which of these opinions is better and more effective as a way of understanding why crime is committed.
II Hirshchi’s Theory on Social Bonding
Travis Hirschi was arguably the most prominent and influential control theorist, he is most well-known for his first theory of social bonding. This theory proceeded the earlier prominent control theories of Albert Reiss and Ivan Nye. (Intravia, 2009) It was a control theory that provided for individuals to commit criminal or delinquent acts, their ties or bonds to society must have been broken or weakened. The theory assumes that individuals are naturally motivated to deviate and will do so unless they are restrained by these bonds. (Hirschi, 1969) In most people, these bonds to society are strong which means an individual will be deterred from committing crime. However, for individuals who have weak or shallow bonds, the likelihood of deviance and crime increases. (Chriss, 2007) Hirschi noted four different elements of social bonding, these were attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. Hirschi described the attachment element as the relationships that one has with other people. These include relationships with parents, peers and school. Essentially, the closer the relationships to others are, the less likely they are to engage in delinquent behaviour as individuals will take their relationship with others into consideration before committing a criminal act. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) A healthy relationship between parents and their child is important in controlling and monitoring crime. (Intravia, 2009) Hirsch outlined the meaning of the commitment element as an individual’s investment in societal conformity (Ronald L. Akers, 2003). Specifically, their investment in conventional activities which can be educational and occupational. Essentially, an investment in these activities deters individuals from committing crime as they do not want to jeopardize what they have achieved. (Intravia, 2009) For the involvement element, it refers to the idea that an individual involved heavily in conventional activities such as a job or education simply does not have time to engage in delinquent behaviour. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) In contrast, if an individual feels like ‘’he has nothing he wishes to do’’ the more likely they are to commit crime. (Travis Hirschi, 1990) Finally, Hirschi outlined the belief element as having acceptance of general norms, values and rules. It suggests that individuals will not break laws in which they believe and respect. (Intravia, 2009) Ultimately, individuals at a developing age who adopt the general values of their parents, the law and society are unlikely to go on to commit crime. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) These four elements are what Travis Hirshchi’s Social Bonding Theory rely on. Unlike his later self-control theory, the social bond theory shows that the more intensively individuals are bonded to society, through their family, the law and friends, the more likely they are to conform to the societal norms and ultimately avoid deviant or criminal behaviour. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003)
III Hirschi’s Theory on Self- Control
Hirschi’s social bond theory was the subject of a large amount of debate from other criminologists.

Due to the short comings of the social bond theory’s ability to explain delinquency, Hirschi in collaboration with Michael R. Gottfredson devised the theory on self-control. (Parent, 2003) The self-control theory became recognised as ‘the general theory of crime’. The theory states ‘’individuals with high self-control will be substantially less likely at all periods of life to engage in criminal acts while those with low self-control are highly likely to commit crime.’’ (Travis Hirschi, 1990) Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson provided that the theory ‘’explains all crime, at all times, and, for that matter many forms of behaviour that are not sanctioned by the state.’’ (Travis Hirschi, 1990) The self-control theory was created with the idea of being an ‘’all inclusive’’ theory, which relates to everyone regardless of age, race or ethnicity. (Parent, 2003) Hirschi explained that those with an elevated self- control would be ‘’substantially less likely at all period of life to engage in criminal acts.’’ (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) And that those with low self-control, when the opportunities to commit crime arise, will be substantially more likely to commit criminal acts. Overall, Hirschi hypothesised that low self-control was responsible for all forms of delinquency and criminal behaviour. As for the cause, self-control is either developed or not developed at a young age and once developed, it remains stable throughout the individual’s life. (Intravia, 2009) Self -control sometimes cannot be developed as a result of ineffective childhood socialization, where parents have failed to monitor behaviour appropriately, did not recognise misbehaviours and failed to punish these misbehaviours. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) Similarly, to his social bond theory, Hirschi and Gottfredson devised numerous elements of low self-control. These elements were: impulsivity, preference for simple

tasks, risk seeking, preference for physical activities and self-centred. Impulsivity refers to the tendency to act on impulse without regard to the long-term consequences of an action. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) Preference for simple tasks refers to individuals with low self-control usually tending to avoid complex tasks and opt for tasks that are much more easily accomplished. These individual also prefer tasks that are physical rather than cognitive (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) Additionally, those with low self-control are risk seekers, adventurous and tend to avoid exercising caution. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) Hirschi and Gottfredson noted that those with low self-control also tended to be self-centred and insensitive to the feelings of others. Finally, and possibly most significantly, they noted that individuals with low self-control were characterised by short temper and would resort to physical rather than verbal to resolve conflict. (Ronald L. Akers, 2003) Hirschi’s self-control theory aims to demonstrate the relationship between an individual’s level of self-control and delinquency. The essential practicality of Hirschi’s theory is that individuals with high self-control consider the long-term consequences of their behaviour whereas those with low self-control do not. (Travis Hirschi, 1990)
IV Comparison of Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory and Self-Control Theory
When weighed up, Hirschi’s social bond theory and his self-control theory share a lot in common and have differences. Specifically, the social bond theory focusses on individuals when they are already at a developed age as it considers education, jobs and interactions with the law. Where the self-control theory focusses more individuals when they were at a developing age as it factors in the ineffective childhood socialization and their parent’s response to misbehaviour. A major difference between the self-control theory and the social bond theory is that the latter provides that people will commit criminal acts if they are lacking social bonds in their lives. (Parent, 2003) Whereas the self-control theory details that in the early years of one’s life, people are ineffectively socialized which develops an individual characterized by low self-control, a trait which stays with them for the rest of their lives. (Parent, 2003) A point of interest is that while Hirschi proposed his theory of self-control as a development of his theory of social bonding. The theory of self-control does not actually have any relation to the four social bonds of attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. 24 years after proposing his theory of self-control, Hirschi moved back to his social bond theory in 2004. (Intravia, 2009) Hirschi altered his self-control theory so it would link more closely to the He did this after having problems with the self-control theory and criticism from other criminologists. Whilst Hirschi returned to the four elements found in social bonding theory; (Intravia, 2009) He also indicated that both his self-control and social bond theories are the same. With this he indicated that the best measure would be counting the number of social bonds that deter individuals from committing criminal behaviour. (Intravia, 2009) Where originally, how strongly bonded an individual was to societal norms, friends and peers was the primary factor in the likelihood of that individual committing deviant acts in their lifetime.
V Conclusion
In conclusion, it is quite clear that Travis Hirschi’s work was pioneering in the field of criminology. Both his social bond theory and self-control that have been discussed in this essay remain some of the most cited and reliable criminological theories ever. When the two theories are compared, and contrasted it becomes quite unclear as to what the superior theory is. Hirschi’s work in 2004 makes the superior theory unclear as he says that the social bond theory and the self-control theory are one and the same. If a decision had to be made, Hirschi’s social bond theory would most likely be chosen as the better theory. Simply because the measures that it uses like attachment to peers, family and friends and commitments and investments to jobs and education seem much more plausible as things that will prevent individuals from committing crime. While the self-control theory is effective in explaining criminal and delinquent behaviour, its idea of individuals with low self-control committing crime while valid, is not entirely applicable to all criminal behaviour. Whereas the elements of attachment, commitment, involvement and belief in the social bond theory are much more applicable to individuals who are committing criminal acts. It seems much more plausible that individuals will be deterred from committing crime by taking their family, achievements and goals into consideration rather than simply having low self -control. Overall, while both of Hirschi’s theories were pioneering in the criminology field, his first theory on social bonding is superior and assured that Travis Hirschi would go down as one of the most cited and notable criminological theorists in history.