6 The Complexity of Control Travis Hirschi 1935– University of Arizona Author of Social Bond Theory Hirschi’s Two Theories and Beyond T ravis Hirschi has dominated control theory for four decades. His influence today is undiminished and likely will continue for years, if not decades, to come (see, e.g., Britt & Gottfredson, 2003; Gottfredson, 2006; Kempf, 1993; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). Beyond the sheer scholarly talent manifested in his writings, what accounts for Hirschi’s enduring influence on criminological theory? Three interrelated considerations appear to nourish the appeal of his thinking. First, Hirschi’s theories are stated parsimoniously. This means that his theory’s core propositions are easily understood (e.g., the lack of …show more content…
His goal was to start a theoretical fight; he succeeded (see also Kornhauser, 1978). Again, as a control theorist, he argued that these two perspectives asked the wrong theoretical question: Why are people motivated to commit crimes? For differential association theory, the answer was that youths are enveloped by a deviant culture that they learn in interaction with others. This positive learning—that is, learning to value crime—is what moves them to break the law. For strain theory, the blockage of goals creates a frustration that is the engine that drives individuals into crime. Hirschi, however, asserted that these theories were explaining something that did not require explanation—motivation. If humans would by their natures seek the easy and immediate The Complexity of Control 111 gratifications inherent in crime, then they did not need to learn to want to commit crimes or be driven into crime by unbearable strains in order to break the law. In effect, such criminal cultural values and strains were redundant and thus did not explain who would be a delinquent and who would not be a delinquent. For Hirschi, of course, the proper theoretical question was: Why don’t people break the law? What differentiate offenders from non-offenders are the factors that restrain people from acting on their wayward impulses. The theoretical task thus
High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that
Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to
Strain theories of criminal behaviour have been amongst the most important and influential in the field of criminology. Taking a societal approach, strain theories have sought to explain deficiencies in social structure that lead individuals to commit crime (Williams and McShane 2010). Strain theories operate under the premise that there is a societal consensus of values, beliefs, and goals with legitimate methods for achieving success. When individuals are denied access to legitimate methods for achieving success, the result is anomie or social strain. This often leads an individual to resort to deviant or criminal means to obtain the level of success that they are socialized to pursue. This is the basic premise of strain theory. This
Strain theory and New Deviancy Theory (NDT) are mirror images of those above. Strain theory understands human nature to be socially constructed, where, committing a crime is produced by society not from individual instincts, favouring a deterministic perspective but also recognising that individuals rationalise from inside their determined position to achieve their aspirations. However, methods of innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion are not included under human rationality. Combining voluntaristic and determinacy is a main feature in NDT, although, they argue that while individuals are born free, they lose their agency in societal frameworks that manage behaviour; the state. The problem with this is that it ignores class conflict and therefore denies the basic causes of crime.
Social control/bond theory was developed by Travis Hirschi in1969. The social control approach is one of the three major sociological perspectives in understanding crime in our contemporary criminology. The theory holds that individuals will break the law as a result of the breakdown of the social bonds (Akers & Sellers, 2004, p. 16). Control theorists believe that an individual conformity to societal social values and rules produced by socialization and maintained through social ties to the people and institutions. The social bond may include family attachment, an individual commitment to social norms or institutions like school, employment, churches and mosques. The key elements of the social bonds theory are an attachment to other individuals in the society and the desire to remain committed to following rules. In addition, an individual involvement in typical social behaviours as well as one 's belief or the value systems a person ascribes. According to the theory, crime and delinquency will result when a person bond to society is weak or lose (Demuth & Brown, 2004, p.65). Moreover, as social bonds increase in strength, individual costs of crime increases as well and this ultimately act as a barrier for committing a crime.
Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by
"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw," (Kazi, 2017). The modern societies around the world put a high importance on preventing criminal activity and rectifying behavior that leads to crime. In an ongoing struggle against corruption, many sociologists, and psychologists have done in-depth research to understand what is the cause of crime in our society. Initially, in 1893, Emile Durkheim first came up with the idea called Anomie Theory to explain why offenses take place in our communities. Durkheim reported that crimes took place in our society because there was a lack of ethical norms and social standards within our communities (Walsh, 2018).However, almost half a century later, Robert K. Merton developed Merton's Strain Theory to thoroughly explain why some people in our society are more likely to commit crimes than the others who don’t. Merton’s Strain Theory argues that corruption not only occurs in our communities because we lack norms in our society, but are also caused by the strains that are present among us as individuals which influence people to commit the crime. In his explanation, people will resort to achieving success through illegitimate means when they are blocked from acquiring success through legitimate means (Walsh, 2018). After studying the classical strain theories, I think that Merton’s Strain Theory explains street crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, and drug dealing better than
Hirschi say that the key question for criminologists to answer is “Why don’t they do it?” as opposed to “Why do they do it?” is because he thinks that there is a normal society that has rules and laws that people have to follow. But there is also another society that the deviants create because they choose not to follow the rules. When this happens, it shows the difference between a deviant and somebody who follows rules. There are situations that keep a person from following rules. For example, people learn from other people. In the film “Black and Gold”, the Latin Kings childhood were not the best. They learned how to be in gangs because their parents were in gangs. But, gangs know that the rules they are breaking such as stealing and beating up people is wrong.
Control Theory is the theory of support. This theory demonstrates an individual's social bonds in relation to their performance. Since certain bonds are stronger in certain kinds of lifestyles the affects will be different in all situations. Control theorists believe “in the rationality of the criminal act that the individual behaves in a criminal manner for ordinary reasons, and this behavior arises out of the person’s own free will” (Moyer, 2001, 133). However, deviant behavior is prevalent in today’s society. It is a major problem concerning adolescents all across the world. This theory carries serious paternalistic roles.
Furthermore it states that humans, being conformists readily buy into these notions. However, access to the means for achieving these goals is not equally available to everyone. Some have the education, social network and family influence to attain these goals. The socially and economically disadvantaged do not have the opportunity, education or necessary social network for attaining material wealth and economic or political power. Thus the strain theory predicts that crime occurs when there is a perceived discrepancy between these goals and the legitimate means for reaching them. Individuals who experience a high level of this strain are forced to decide whether to violate laws to achieve these goals, to give up on the goals pushed upon them by society, or to withdraw or rebel.
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
Control theory, Anomie theory and Strain theory provide very different explanations of why people commit crimes based upon assumptions about how humans function. Control theory suggests that humans are naturally drawn to breaking the law. Humans are driven to fulfill their needs and desires. Crime provides one method by which humans can reach their goals. Control theorists would thus ask why everyone does not turn to crime to meet their wants and needs. The question shifts from the typical why do people commit crime to why do people not commit crime (Cullen and Agnew, 2011). Hirschi suggest that crime and social bonds are linked, such that crime occurs in absence of a strong social bond. The four elements of the social bonds are
Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.
Control theory as it is today, is largely a modern concept in which sociologists have come to recognize, that focuses less on the offender themselves but moreover looking at the methods of controlling deviant behaviors. Although, it can be said that much of its roots have derived from thinkers such as Aristotle, Hobbes, and Durkheim, but the focal point of surveillance in control theory was mainly examined by Michel Foucault. (Downes, Rock, & McCormick,
On the other hand, theorists have taken a different stand point to explain criminal and delinquent behaviour. Firstly, Edwin Sunderlands (1939) theory of differential