SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für subculture

subculture

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

Differential association theory (Sutherland)

In his differential association theory Edwin Sutherland proposes that criminal behaviour is learned. A person will be delinquent if there are prior attitudes that favour violations of the law, as opposed to attitudes that negatively evaluate violations of the law.

Main proponent

Edwin H. Sutherland

Theory

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association assumes that criminal behavior is learned through contact with individuals who are themselves criminal.

It is therefore also called the “theory of differential contacts”. The term “association”, however, refines this idea by the realization that it is not sufficient to merely contact criminal persons, but that during these contacts the criminal definitions and attitudes must also be successfully conveyed.

The basic thesis here is that criminal behaviour is learned when more attitudes are learned that favour violations of the law than those that negatively evaluate violations of the law. Conversely, learning criminal attitudes, motives and definitions becomes all the more likely the more contact there is with people and groups who violate the law and the less contact there is with people and groups who live according to the rules.

In simple terms, one could say that contact with criminals leads to one’s own criminal behaviour by learning the corresponding behaviour in a model manner. This becomes even more likey when there is fewer contact to non-criminals.

 

Schaubild: Theorie der differentiellen Kontakte nach Sutherland

Sutherland’s theory of differential contacts (see diagram) is based on nine theses which summarize the theory of differential association:

  1. Criminal behaviour has been learned.
  2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a communication process.
  3. The learning processes take place primarily in small and intimate groups (and thus less through (mass) media, for example).
  4. The learning of criminal behaviour includes the learning of techniques to commit a crime as well as specific motives, rationalisations and attitudes that favour criminal behaviour.
  5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned by defining laws positively or negatively.
  6. A person becomes delinquent as a result of the predominance of attitudes that favour the violation over those that take a negative view of the violation.
  7. Differential contacts vary according to frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
  8. The process of learning criminal behaviour includes all the mechanisms involved in any other learning process.
  9. Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by them. Non-criminal behaviour can also infer from exactly the same values and needs (e.g. sexual urges).

Implication for criminal policy

Sutherland’s theory of differential association stands for a rehabilitative ideal. Since criminal attitudes and activities can be learnt, these can be logically deduced and re-learned, or compliant behaviour, attitudes and rationalisation can be achieved in the first place.

In the sense of the ultimately decisive imbalance in theory between associated attitudes that favour violations of the law and attitudes that evaluate violations of the law negatively, it must therefore be the goal of justice and society to surround criminals with non-criminals or to dissolve social spaces in which predominantly people with deviant motives and patterns of action live.

Furthermore, criminal law must build on the ideal of rehabilitating offenders.

Critical appreciation & relevance

In the past, Sutherland was often accused of theoretical gaps in his concept, for which other theories or theoretical extensions were developed.

Thus Sutherland himself drew attention to the different needs and preferences of learning individuals, who significantly contribute to deciding whether deviant actions and attitudes are accepted or not.

Glaser pointed out, however, that it is not the number of people with deviant attitudes that is decisive for learning crime, but rather the degree of identification with one or a few people.

Cloward & Ohlin pointed out that access to illegitimate means or exclusion from legitimate means is a decisive factor.

Akers (and also Eysenck) extended Sutherland’s theory to include a detailed analysis of the learning processes taking place (conditioning, social learning/ observing a model, etc.).
Despite this, Sutherland’s crime-related learning theory has to struggle with the accusation of partial tautology, since the existence of delinquency must already exist for it to be passed on at all.

Furthermore, the theory of differential associations does not take into account instinctive and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the fact that the cognitive abilities of different individuals can also be varying.

Sutherland’s thesis also assumes a purely behaviorist view: The human being reacts automatically and reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not sufficiently considered here, yet Sutherland’s theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-biologistic theory. According to Sutherland, the consideration of social processes in the search for the causes of crime has only really taken its course and has certainly long since become predominant in criminological research alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime can be learned has turned the previously very perpetrator-oriented perspective into a sociological and socio-psychological one.

Literature

  • Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. Auflage von 1966, mit Donald R. Cressey, Philadelphia.

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

Career model (Hess)

According to German sociologist Henner Hess, the emergence and consolidation of criminal behaviour can be explained by careers. The actor glides processually, pushed through the outside world and situation, but ultimately individually chosen, into a delinquent role.

Main proponent

Henner Hess

Theory

Hess’ basic assumption regarding crime theories is that deviant behavior cannot be explained by a single hypothesis, but that a kind of filtering process, a career model, is needed to describe the development of delinquent behavior of individuals.

Hess thus considers both the characteristics of the acting person and the characteristics of the situation in which the acting person finds himself. He pays particular attention to the constant changes to which the person and the situation are subject and which always bring with them new possibilities or constraints for (deviant) behaviour. Ultimately, however, it is always the individual decisions of the actors that determine criminal or conformal behaviour at every point in the career. Hess’ career model goes through several phases, which he illustrates using the example of “prostitution” (Hess, 1978):

  1. Motivation for deviant action and situational aggravation
    First, according to Hess, an etiological explanation is needed for the motivation to act differently. In the case of prostitution, for example, anomie, subculture and learning theories could be considered, and situational aggravations in the form of sudden deterioration in the social or economic sphere could also be present.
  2. Willingness to act through weak social controls and overcoming norms
    In a second step, internalised norms must now be neutralised, which speak against the act for which the motivation exists, and thus internal controls must be loosened; at the same time, current social ties may be weakened, according to which less integrated persons would have to successfully pass through this phase of the model more often than persons who are kept on the path of conformity by important reference persons and institutions.
  3. Deviating action after individual decision with objective opportunity
    In addition, there must be objective possibilities for action: specific characteristics and knowledge of the individual, but also contacts and opportunities relevant to the deviating action. Finally, it is important to note in Hess’ model that although there may be a motivation to deviate and weak bonds and relaxed internal controls may also be present, an individual decision by the actor is still required to actually deviate or not.
  4. Secondary Deviance, Stigmatization, Role Taking and Subsumption
    If the processes just described have led to the deviant action itself, this will be continued if the outcome is successful. This is followed by attribution processes and stigmatizations by the outside world, but also by the person himself who has become delinquent. Certain expectations of others are satisfied by the person’s own assumption of the deviant role and thus a subsumption gradually comes about: the attribution and acceptance of a new, deviant identity.
    With Hess, the prostituting person is labelled as a “whore” or something similar and then approached with certain role expectations. These are answered by further prostitution and an identity as a prostitute is taken over.

Altogether Hess thus connects etiological theories such as those of Merton, Sutherland, Hirschi and others with the penological approaches of Becker and Lemert, but at the same time emphasizes the continuous, individual possibility of nevertheless being able to decide against the external and situational determinants and factors. Thus also the rational-classical paradigm of criminology has not been forgotten by Hess.

Implication for criminal policy

Due to the very comprehensive model, which takes into account all criminological paradigms, the criminal policy implication for Hess is very complex. In addition, it is difficult to determine, since Hess explicitly describes only the micro-perspective part of a general crime theory that he considers necessary. The latter was finally developed by Hess (together with Scheerer) under the name of Social Constructivist Crime Theory (Sozialkonstruktivistische Kriminalitätstheorie), into which Hess’ career model was integrated and from which the corresponding implications for criminal policy can be derived.

Critical appreciation & relevance

The career model of Hess certainly has its strength in the combination of different basic criminological paradigms: etiological theories are associated with parts of the labeling approach, and the individual’s freedom of will is addressed as well as his determination by external factors; while the latter context is reminiscent of David Matza’s postulate of a soft determinism, the attempt to combine etiological and penological theories seems to represent criminological new territory: Hess describes both the causes of criminal acts and the consequences of labeling and stigmatization.

Critically, however, one could claim that Hess’ model is merely a supplement to Lemert’s theory of secondary deviance to explain the primary deviation. The actual statement of the labeling approach that crime is only what people call crime is not really taken into account by Hess. Likewise, there are no social structural factors that could promote or prevent motivation and the willingness to delinquency.

Once again, reference is made to Hess’ and Scheerer’s social constructivist theory of crime, in which all these factors were taken into account.

Literature

  • Hess, Henner (1978): Sexualität und soziale Kontrolle: Beiträge zur Sexualkriminologie. Heidelberg.