SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für emotions

emotions

Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite)

Shaming describes any form of reaction to deviant behaviour that causes shame in the deviant. Braithwaite assumes two different forms of shaming. Disintegrative shaming has a stigmatizing effect and excludes a person from the community. It thus provides for the emergence of secondary deviance and is thus related to the labelling approaches on a theoretical level. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, involves not only disapproval of deviance but also signs of forgiveness and a willingness to reintegrate the offender into the community.

Main Proponent

John Braithwaite

Theory

Based on the labeling approach, control theories and theories of social disorganization, Braithwaite distinguishing between two forms of shaming to explain the different ways in which penalties work. Braithwaite understands shaming as “all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming” (Braithwaite, 1989: 100).

According to Braithwaite there are two forms of shaming:

The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. These gestures of reacceptance will vary from a simple smile expressing forgiveness and love to quite formal cere-monies to decertify the offender as deviant. Disintegrative shaming (stigmatization), in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)

Disintegrative Shaming

Disintegratives Shaming: the British priest Titus Oates at the pillory

In disintegrative shaming, the focus is not only on the actual act committed, but on the person as a whole. The shamed person is degraded in his/her entire person. The stigmatisation that goes along with this has an effect on the social interactions of the ashamed person. For example, access to the labour market is denied and other measures are taken that contribute to social marginalisation. As a consequence, the ashamed person is now denied the opportunity to participate in mainstream culture. This ultimately leads to the formation of subcultural structures in which those so excluded join together.

Integrative Shaming

The negative consequences of punishment, however, are not inevitable. In reintegrative shaming, the act of shame is combined with an offer of reintegration into the community. Braithwaite assumes that this reintegrating shame is particularly promising when people from the perpetrator’s social environment are involved.

It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.

(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)

How and why does shaming work?

Braithwaite (1989: 81 ff.) lists the following points that explain the effectiveness of shaming:

  1. Deterrence works more for fear of shame than for fear of punishment.
  2. Shame also functions as an instrument of negative general prevention, since other members of society who experience the shame of a perpetrator would be deterred by this experience from committing crimes themselves.
  3. Both the special and general preventive effect of shame has the strongest effect on socially integrated members of society.
  4. A stigmatising form of punishment, on the other hand, weakens social control and strengthens the cohesion of stigmatised offenders.
  5. Shame is a social process that illustrates the harmfulness of certain actions. The effect of shame is more effective than that of deterrent punishment.
  6. Reintegrative shaming has a greater positive effect than stigmatizing shaming. The repentance of the perpetrator and the forgiveness of the community would strengthen criminal law through the symbolic power of community-wide consciousness building.
  7. Shame is a participatory form of social control in which citizens – in contrast to formal sanctioning – are participating in the events and become both instruments and goals of social control.
  8. The cultural process of the formation of shame and repentance leads to pangs of conscience. This guilty conscience is the most effective punishment for committing crimes.
  9. Feelings of shame have a double function: they are both the social process that strengthens the conscience and the most important support that must be used if the conscience does not contribute to conformity. The fear of formal sanctioning is also an inhibition threshold, but not so effective.
  10. Gossip about perpetrators and their crimes has an important function. Gossip promotes the development of a conscience and morality even outside the social circles in which the perpetrators operate.
  11. Another important function is public shaming, which replaces private shaming when children and adolescents escape the sphere of influence of family and school. It would therefore be up to the courts to provide for public humiliation of the perpetrators of crimes committed primarily by adults (e.g. environmental crimes).
  12. Public shaming generalises familiar principles into unknown or new contexts and integrates new categories of misconduct into existing moral concepts. Public shaming could, for example, “transform” the loss of a human life into a war crime or massacre.
  13. Cultures with a strong emphasis on reintegrative shaming create a smoother transition between socialisation practices in the family and socialisation in wider society. Within the family, social control shifts from external to internal control as the child grows older. In punishment-oriented cultures, this process is reversed. However, internal control is the more effective form of crime control – which is why families are the more effective control agents than police forces.
  14. Shaming that is excessively confrontational complicates the social reintegration of the ashamed. Even without becoming targets of direct humiliation, members of society may be aware when they become the subject of gossip. Here, special gestures of acceptance are needed to promote reintegration.
  15. The effectiveness of feelings of shame is often increased by the fact that shame is directed not only against the individual perpetrator but also against his family or – in cases of white-collar crime – against the company. Within these collective relationships, the individual is exposed both to humiliation by society and to strengthening informal control by the family/company. A negative and defiant attitude of the individual towards his critics and thus a stronger identification with the deviant role would also aggravate the consequences of the shame for the family or the company, which is why this would encourage the individual in the acceptance of the shame.

In a complex diagram Braithwaite summarizes the effects of reintegrative shaming as well as stigmatization (click to enlarge). This illustrates the hybrid character of the theory that makes use of other crime theories. In the upper left corner there is a reference to control theories. To the right, the reference to theories of social disorganization is illustrated. In the lower right half of the picture, Braithwaite sketches the consequences of criminalization from the perspective of labelling approaches (also with reference to anomie and subculture theories). In contrast, in the lower left half of the diagram, Braithwaite presents the consequences (or consequences without consequences) of a re-integrating embarrassment.

Schaubild: Zusammenfassung der Theorie des reintegrative shaming (eigene Darstellung nach: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Figure: Summary of the theory of reintegrative shaming (based on: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)

Implications for Criminal Policy

Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as an answer to just deserts philosophy, i.e. a criminal policy that is primarily oriented towards the retaliatory character of punishment and negative general prevention. At the beginning of the 1970s, a change in criminal policy in the USA (but also in other countries) had to be taken into account. A rehabilitative ideal in which the reintegration of the offender into society has top priority is increasingly receding into the background. It is replaced by the just desert paradigm (“Everyone gets what he deserves”), which can be understood as a kind of retaliation. According to this doctrine, punishment should be adapted and standardized to the seriousness of the crime, measured by the damage inflicted and the seriousness of the offender’s guilt. So-called “sentencing commissions” have developed guidelines for criminal judges for many US states, whose discretion in the sentencing of criminals has been severely restricted (cf. Sebba, 2014).

Braithwaite’s Restorative Justice approach is to be understood as a clear criticism of this development and as his draft of a Restorative Justice approach.

Literature

  • Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press. [Volltext]
  • Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer Reference, S.  3481-3490.

Further Information

  • Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1), 1-15.

Video/ Podcast

A summary of the various theories on which Restorative Justice is based can be found here: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_10VE_Braithwaite2.pdf

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Cultural Criminology

Cultural criminology is not a crime theory in the narrower sense. Rather, it is a theoretical current that has emerged in the English-speaking world and, based on cultural studies and critical theories of criminality, understands deviance and phenomena of crime control as an interactionist, symbol-mediated process and analyses them with recourse to primarily ethnological research methods.

Main proponents

Jeff Ferrell, Mike Presdee, Keith Hayward, Jock Young

Theory

Cultural Criminology examines and describes crime and forms of crime control as cultural products. Criminality and actors in crime control are understood as creative constructs that find expression in symbolically mediated cultural practices. Members of subcultures, control agents, politicians, state and private security agencies, media producers and recipients, commercial enterprises, and other social actors attribute meanings to these cultural practices that become the meaningful and justifying basis for their own actions. Cultural criminology sees its task in the analysis of this never-ending process of interpretation, reinterpretation and de-construction. Cultural Criminology does not see itself as a theory of crime in the narrower sense, but rather as a paradigm or perspective approach to phenomena of crime and criminalization, paying particular attention to images, symbols, representations and self-staging.
In analogy to Cultural Studies’ claim to point out and analyse the reciprocal, symbol-mediated relationships between actors, Cultural Criminology is located as a qualitatively oriented social science that draws on the methods of ethnography and textual and content analysis (see: Ferrell, 1995):

  1. Crime as Culture
    Deviante subcultures are characterised by a system of symbols (slang expressions, appearance, style – “stylized presentation of self” – Ferrell, 1999). Belonging to a subculture requires the ability to construct and deconstruct this system of collective codes and practices. In addition, symbolic communication often takes place outside face-to-face interactions (e.g. hackers, graffiti sprayers, drug couriers, etc.).
  2. Culture as Crime
    This thematic area includes the criminalisation of cultural products and artists. The analysis focuses on the one hand on the distinction between so-called high culture (i.e. forms of culture that are primarily popular with the dominant social classes) and popular culture on the other. The criminalization of cultural products and forms mainly affects popular culture. However, there are isolated examples where criminalization also affects art products of so-called high culture (e.g. photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe and Jock Sturges are branded as pornographic). On the other hand, this stigmatization and criminalization mainly affects artists who belong to social minorities or subcultures (e.g. punk musicians, black rap musicians, gay and lesbian artists, etc.).
  3. Media Constructions of Crime and Crime Control
    This third major thematic focus and is dedicated to the analysis of the reciprocal mechanisms of action of the media and the judicial system.Building on the works of Howard S. Becker on “Moral Entrepreneurship” (1963) and Albert Cohen (1972/1980) on his concept of moral panics and the construction of folk devils, media coverage of crime phenomena is analysed. The interdependence of the media and law enforcement agencies is at the centre of this analysis. While the media are based on statements and data provided by police and courts, the media reports resulting from this information convey the delivered (desired) reading. In addition, this relationship of dependency plays a role in relation to agenda setting, i.e. the determination of which crime phenomena are given news value and – equally relevant – to which phenomena and events no media attention is paid. As a final aspect in this thematic focus, to which cultural criminology pays specific attention, the media construction of crime as an entertainment product must be mentioned.
  4. Political dimension of culture, crime and cultural criminology
    The fourth major thematic area, Cultural Criminology, is dedicated to the analysis of power relations in which media, social control, culture and crime stand:Deviant subcultures become the object of stately surveillance and control or are subject to a process of commodification and become the object of hegemonic culture.In “cultural wars”, the alternative art establishment and established artists argue about the aesthetic value of the works, declare alternative art a crime, and take action against the artists. The censorship of politically motivated artists represents the extreme case of these arguments about the hegemonic interpretation of aesthetics.Mass media succeeds in focusing on crimes and forms of social control by focusing on or, alternatively, ignoring certain themes. In an alliance with the state system of crime control, thematic fields are trivialized or dramatized, thus supporting a desired discourse/political agenda.The television landscape constructs “hundreds of tiny theatres of punishment” (after Focault in Cohen 1979: 339) in reality shows, court documentaries and crime series, in which ethnic minorities, followers of youthful subcultures, gays and lesbians play the villains who deserve just punishment.

    Cultural Criminolgy makes the subcultural counter-movements the subject of discussion, in which social criticism and resistance are shown and which in turn are the subject of counter-movements (resistance as counter-movement to hegemonic culture but also as thrill-seeking activity).

Key terms of Cultural Criminology

Cultural Criminology: Pleasures of the body (Carneval in Rio)
“Pleasures of the body” (here: Carneval in Rio) By krishna naudin – Unidos da Tijuca, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Transgression/ Carneval of Crime/ Edgework

In almost all societies one finds ritualized and to varying degrees institutionalized forms of excess. From the celebration of Osiris in ancient Egypt, to the Greek festival in honour of Dionysus, to celebrations in ancient Rome in honour of the deities Kalends and Saturnalia, to the carnival period still celebrated today (whose direct origins date back to the Middle Ages), all these festivities have in common that an institutionalised free sphere is created. During this fixed period of time, otherwise valid norms and power relations are abolished: Class differences, gender differences and the social order are turned upside down (fool becomes king, laymen preach as bishops, women storm the town hall and take over the government, etc.). All irrational, senseless and ordinary behaviour is legitimate and the participants do not have to fear sanctions.

The time of carnival is a time of delimitation, ecstasy and excess, facing the dominant attitude of limitation and reason. The authors of Cultural Criminology argue that these ritualized times of delimitation have lost their meaning and power in modern societies and can at best serve as a commodified confirmation of the ruling order.

Instead, postmodern societies have produced a series of cultural practices and activities that have a carnivalesque character (satire events on television, body modification, S&M practices, raves, consumption of soft drugs/ party drugs, gang rituals, festivals, extreme sports, partly also political demonstrations, joyrides (reclaim your streets) – activities are not originally carnivalesque but contain elements of performative pleasure and oppose the dominant attitude towards reason and sobriety.

Criminological verstehen

The concept of criminological Verstehen (Ferrell & Hamm, 1998) goes back to the German sociologist Max Weber (here: Verstehende Soziologie). At the centre of understanding (or interpretative) sociology/ criminology is social action. Social action is constitutive for social development. The focus is on the acting actors and their respective constructions of meaning that underlie their actions. The task of understanding or interpretive sociology/criminology is to analyse these subjective constructions of meaning and their deconstruction, taking into account the social and historical framework conditions.

Style

The term style refers to the sociological theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism (George H. Mead). According to symbolic interactionism, interactions are characterized by symbols that express themselves primarily in social objects, relationships and situations. The symbols have no meaning as such. Only in interaction do social actors communicate through language, gestures and facial expressions about the interpretation and assignment of meaning to the symbols. The meaning of a symbol or the interpretation of the meaning structure of this symbol is synonymous with the adoption of values and motifs, which goes hand in hand with the socially predominant meaning structure of a symbol. Both the conferring of meaning (i.e. the construction of symbols) and the perception and decoding (i.e. the deconstruction) of symbols is learned in the course of the socialization of a member of society.

Männer in Zootsuits
A soldier inspecting men in “Zoot Suits” on the sidelines of a Woody Herman’s Orchestra concert (Washington, D.C., 1942)

“Style” in the sense of Cultural Criminology could be described as a collection of symbols and their respective attribution of meaning. Above all (youthful) subcultures are characterized by a complex system of symbols and their shared attribution of meaning. Style is thus far more than just an aesthetic category. Belonging to the subculture rather requires knowledge about the meaning of the respective symbol and thus the ability to decipher this symbol according to the meaning ascribed within the subculture (e.g. the “reading” of graffiti, but also e.g. the meaning of certain sports and training jackets as a sign of a gang membership). The construction and meaning of symbols within a subculture often takes place in a conscious departure from the usual hegemonic attribution (e.g. the oversized suits of the “Zoot Suiter”, see illustration) and refers to the social situation of the subculture members and their attitudes towards systems of norms and values that are shared by the majority of society.

Implication for Criminal Policy

With the explicit reference to the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies and the tradition of (British) Critical Criminology (“New Criminology”), and not least to interactionist (American) sociology, the authors of Cultural Criminology place themselves in a left-wing political spectrum. In agreement with representatives of labeling theory, Marxist and feminist theories of crime (see: Conflict-oriented theories of  crime), Cultural Criminology understands crime and crime control as the result and consequence of attribution processes. The main implication of this analysis in terms of criminal policy is a departure from the punitive turnaround in criminal policy. Instead of increasingly criminalizing and (increasingly harshly) punishing other persons (groups) and actions, the authors of Cultural Criminology advocate an understanding of socially marginalized groups and for more social justice.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Although cultural criminology does not claim to be a self-contained theorem, it is subject to various criticisms: the program is too vague, the methodological approach too arbitrary, crimes are played down, and integration with Marxist theories is inadequate. For a detailed discussion of this criticism, see e.g. Hayward, 2016 and Ilan, 2019.

Literature

Primary literature

Secondary literature

  • Hayward, Keith J (2010): Framing crime. Cultural criminology and the image. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
  • The journal “Crime, Media and Culture: an international Journal” provides an excellent insight into the manifold topics of cultural criminology.

Further Information

The website CulturalCriminology.org, maintained by the University of Kent, contains numerous references to publications, films, conferences and websites relevant to cultural criminology.

Video

Seductions of Crime (Katz)

The central thesis of Seductions of Crime is that situation-specific emotional and sensual sensations play a major role in the committing of crimes. It is not a complete theoretical building, but rather the sensual experiences and emotional states of the perpetrator that are brought to bear in various forms of crime – from occasional shoplifting to cold-blooded robbery.

Main proponent

Jack Katz

Theory

Instead of attributing crime to background factors such as low socio-economic status, the US sociologist Jack Katz draws attention to the positive stimuli of crime or the “experience” of crime from the perpetrator’s point of view, i.e. to the emotions and sensory impressions that lead to or arise during the crime.

Conventional categorizations of crimes follow the requirements of prosecution rather than asking how the offender experiences the crime. In “Seductions of Crime” (1988), Katz (re-)orders “criminal projects” on the basis of the emotional states that are decisive in each case:

Righteous Slaughter

The term righteous slaughter describes the motivation behind impulsive homicides, which (seemingly paradoxically) are committed because, from the perpetrator’s point of view, the later victim violates fundamental, unassailable values. The perpetrator feels challenged and humiliated by the victim and has the feeling that the most elementary social imperatives – such as respect for other people’s property or the duty to marital faithfulness – are at stake. “Banal” everyday conflicts such as a driveway blocked by a stranger or an argument between spouses can trigger a strong sense of humiliation in the perpetrator that turns into anger. The victim is attacked in the name of the values he violates and to defend “the good” (in defense of the eternal good), even sanctioned, physically marked or “sacrificed” (sacrificial violence), whereby the killing itself does not have to be a direct goal. The offence arises spontaneously from the situation, the perpetrator acts emotionally determined, is not to be deterred by severe punishments and usually makes no serious attempt to flee.

Sneaky Thrills

The sneaky thrills include property offences such as occasional shoplifting, vandalism or joyriding, which are typically committed by juveniles (theft especially by women).

In contrast to professional theft, in which the stolen goods are resold on the black market, casual theft is a widespread phenomenon among all classes and is not the result of a simple willingness to enrich oneself or material misery. Shoplifting and the associated thrill exert a special fascination, it is committed in a playful spirit. Theft is an emotional roller coaster ride: the challenge of behaving as “normal” and inconspicuous as possible despite all the excitement, the fear of being caught and finally the euphoria of having made it and successfully deceived everyone.

A central emotional moment is the act of being “seduced”: The product develops a life of its own, it exerts a special charm and stands out from the mass of goods in an inexplicable way, lures you (“take me”), and there is a complicity between the thief and the goods. The opportunity seems to offer itself in a magical way: “It would be so easy!

This playful or sexual metaphor is also supported by the fact that occasional theft does not lead to the assumption of a criminal identity. If the seriousness of the situation is made clear by uncovering it, the caught usually stop the criminal behaviour.

Ways of the Badass

Street Elites

Doing Stickup (Raub als erlerntes Verhalten)

Cold-blooded senseless murder

 

 

Implication for Criminal Policy

 

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Jack Katz criticises that in criminology the explanatory potential of psychological, social and economic background factors is overestimated. Many people who fall into the conventional risk categories never become criminals. Others, to whom the relevant circumstances do not apply, still do. Even with predisposed individuals, it is unclear what exactly is decisive for them to conform most of the time before a criminal act occurs a moment later. The background variables are therefore insufficient to explain the actual motivation to commit an offence.

Jack Katz also explicitly distinguishes himself from Robert K. Merton’s anomie theory, which can at best explain professional property crimes committed by adults. And even in this area, according to Katz, the attainment of material wealth is not the only motive for the perpetrators to act. Jack Katz’s approach can also be seen as a counterpoint to the Rational Choice paradigm, which sees the individual as an actor acting rationally in economic terms, orienting his actions towards pragmatic cost-benefit calculations. Nonetheless, it can be argued that “senseless” acts such as vandalism do seem to have a positive impact in the eye of the perpetrator (e.g. gaining respect within the peer group).

Literature

Primary literature

  • Jack Katz (1988). Seductions of crime: moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books.

Sekundary literature

Control Balance Theory (Tittle)

According to the Control Balance Theory, both the probability of deviant behavior occurring and the characteristic form of deviation are determined by the relationship between the control that a person is exposed to and the control that he exercises himself.

Main proponent

Charles R. Tittle

Theory

The Control Balance Theory has its starting point in the observation that other control theories only consider forms of control that affect an individual from the outside. Charles Tittle’s Control Balance Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes that every human being is not only passively exposed to control, but also actively exercises control over others. The relationship between actively exercised and self-experienced control is important here. Tittle describes this relationship as a ‘control ratio’. This “control ratio” can be either balanced or unbalanced. For Tittle, the type of imbalance affects the specific expression of the deviance it causes. It distinguishes between three states:

  1. If the experienced and the exercised control are in balance, “Control Balance” exists. In this state, deviant behavior is unlikely.
  2. If someone exercises more control than he or she experiences, there is a control surplus. In this state, individuals tend to engage in autonomous forms of crime. This refers to acts of a more indirect nature. There are few direct confrontations with the victim.
  3. If an individual experiences more control than he or she exercises, there is a control deficit. Repressive forms of deviance occur. These are characterized by direct confrontations with the victim.

Tittle assumes that every person strives for the greatest possible degree of autonomy – in other words, wishes to influence the relationship of control in his favour. An imbalance in the control ratio therefore creates a predisposition to deviant behaviour. If there is a control deficit, an attempt is made to compensate this by deviant behaviour. If, on the other hand, there is a control surplus, there is the temptation to extend it even further.

However, a predisposition to deviant behaviour alone is not sufficient for this behaviour to occur.

Two prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the predisposition to become a motivation for deviance:

  1. An individual must perceive the control deficit or control surplus and recognize that his own control ratio can be influenced by a certain deviant behavior. The deviant behaviour must therefore be regarded as suitable to reduce the deficit or to further increase the surplus.
  2. The individual must experience a negative emotion, especially humiliation. This is perceived as provocation, which in turn justifies deviance.

Deviant behaviour occurs when a motivated individual has an opportunity to act and constraints can be overcome. Such inhibitions can be moral convictions, self-control or fear of punishment.

Tittle links very specific forms of crime to different levels of control ratio, as shown in the table below.

Control-deficit
(Repression)		 Control-Balance Control-surplus
(Autonomy)
strong medium small small medium strong
Forms of deviance „submission“Sexual submission, as a form of oppression of others „defiance“Disobedience to authorities, strikes „predation“e.g. theft, assaults, rape none

conformity

 „exploitation“e.g. targeted influence on politicians, contract killings, price agreements „plunder“e.g. environmental pollution by oil companies, arbitrary taxation of dependents „decadence“torture for sexual satisfaction, sadistic humiliation of others

Tittle integrates several other theories into his Control Balance theory. In particular, he borrowed from Agnew’s General Strain-Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.

Critical appreciation & relevance

A big advantage, but at the same time a weak point of the Control Balance theory is its complexity. Unlike most other theories, it is able to explain many different forms of crime. One of the reasons for this is that it integrates other theories and thus provides a framework in which the different factors of effect can be seen in relation to each other.

One problem with Control Balance Theory is that its complexity makes it very difficult to evaluate. Tittles focus on autonomy as a driving motivation of people can also be criticized. He does not take into account that people also have other drives and needs.

Implication for criminal policy

According to Tittle, (social) control only has an inhibitory effect on deviant behaviour if it finds a healthy mediocrity. On the one hand, social structures should be strived for in which social control and self-control can be developed in the sense of Hirschi’s Bond Theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. This would mean that the classical institutions (e.g. family, school) must be promoted to the extent that they can effectively exercise control over the individual. On the other hand, the theory also implies that this control must be limited. Oppression and steep hierarchies, which distribute power very unequally, should therefore be avoided.

According to the Control Balance Theory it is therefore not enough to address only certain target groups. It must be possible to shape the reality of people’s lives in such a way that as few control deficits and control surpluses as possible arise.

Literature

Primary literature

  • Charles Tittle (1995): Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press.

Secondary literature