Social Identity Theory Analysis

Limitations

The main limitation of the social Identity theory is that it states that group memberships is one of the main contributors of creating social identity (Stets & Burke, 2000), so the lack of a group membership is one of the causal factors for crime (Brown, 2000). This is not always the case as groups exist where they internally promote negative values such as gangs (Cartwright, 2011) so the problem here is that the lack of belonging to a social group, or a community may not necessarily predicate into crime.

This is a good example of how simple-minded social identity theory is and attempts to explain a complicated matter through simple explanations (Abrams & Hogg, 2004). This simplicity of this theory is a problem since, in conjunction with the

So in theory, supportive shaming should work, but the limitation that exists here is that in reality, certain people reject these social values (Cartwright, 2011) and certain crimes are an embodiment of these rejection views, which Merton (Featherstone, 2003) demonstrates this as it clearly shows that certain crimes are caused as a result of rebellion or a rejection of the norm. Another limitation of reintegrative shaming theory is that it operates on the assumption that people are ashamed of their action. In addition, reintegrative shaming theory assumes that the offenders will feel guilty of their actions, especially if the crime causes harm to the victim and the community (Watts, 1996). This could then turn the supportive shaming, which wants to reintegrate the offender back into the community, into punishment shaming as the offender may not want to be