Tuesday, November 12, 2019
On Theory Integration Essay
On Control Theory There are two founding tenets of control theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi,1990): all behavior, criminal or not, arises from the hedonistic tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain; and the behavior may be criminal – or criminally analogous – when the actor is ‘insufficiently restrained’ from resorting to force or fraud in the pursuit of interest. Control in this context refers to restraining factors in the individual, in the form of internalized norms comparable to the superego and ego, and the controlling influence and authority of social institutions, such as the family, school, or neighborhood. Reckless (1961), for example, sees conformity in terms of inner containment through a favorable self-concept, goal orientation, frustration tolerance, and commitment to norms, and outer containment which comes from the availability of meaningful roles and social acceptance. Violation of these restraints involves personal costs in the form of punishment, social rejection, or loss of future opportunities. Whether a person yields to temptation therefore depends on the balance between anticipated rewards and costs (Piliavin, Hardyck and Vadum, 1968).            One of the most significant with regards to this theory is the social control theory of Hirschi (1969, 1978, 1986), which suggests that conformity is dependent on the interrelation between the person and the environment (a â€Å"stake in conformity†), and that deviance results when the interrelation between the two is lost. The correlated elements of the bond are: (1) attachment to others in the form of conscience, internalized norms, and caring what others think; (2) commitment to conventional goals; (3) involvement in conventional pursuits incompatible with delinquent activities; and (4) belief in the moral validity of conventional values. No special motive to deviate is proposed, since everyone is exposed to temptation, and the theory is concerned with criminality in general rather than the commission of specific crimes.            The theory is silent about how bonds develop or break down, or how weak bonds produce deviant behavior other than by leaving the individual â€Å"free to deviate†(Conger, 1976; Box, 1981). Several theorists maintain that weakness of the social bond can only partially account for deviant behavior, and that individual variation in the motivation to deviate must be taken into account. This is the position taken by Elliott et al. (1985), who propose an integration of strain, control, and social learning theories.            However, Hirschi and Gottfredson have recently reaffirmed the view that no special motivation is required to explain crime, which is a natural consequence of unrestrained human tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1988; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). They emphasize the compatibility of classical choice theories of criminal acts and the positivist concept of criminality as the tendency to commit crimes, but see the latter as a function of self control. Criminal acts are held to be the immediate gratification of common human desires, and require little planning, effort, or skill. They depend on opportunities and temptations, and are closely related to other socially disapproved acts, such as drinking, smoking, drug-taking, illicit sex, and even accidents, all of which become more likely when people lack self control. Individuals who possess such generalized attributes have the tendency to be impulsive, insensible, physical (as opposed to mental), daredevil, thoughtless, and nonverbal. Low self control is preferred to â€Å"criminality†because of the positivist implications in the latter of positive causes, and hence differences between crimes in motives. Since the only common element in crimes and analogous acts is lack of self control, it is unnecessary to distinguish types of crime or criminal. On Containment Theory Since this is a study which involves both inner containment and outer containment, we are concerned with how these elements are formed within the individual and the relation of the two elements to each other. The central concepts of containment theory are: outer containment, inner containment, physiological and psychological pushes and the social stratosphere or pressures and pulls. Outer or external containment [Reckless, 1967:470] is the ability of the society, the state, the tribe, the village, the family, and other nuclear groups to hold the individual within the bounds of accepted norms and expectations. It assumes that society and particular nuclear groups contain, steer, shield, divert, support, reinforce, and limit its members. This may include norms and expectations, customs, rules and laws. The theory, therefore, assumes that individuals are presented with a set of norms for different age groups, for males and females and for various statuses. From these expectations [Reckless, 1967:470], one is presented with the â€Å"correct†model of behavior. When discussing outer containment, it is also necessary to assume that deviant, illegal and immoral behavior exists in most societies and that a society usually produces effective conformers. There are three major aspects [Reckless, 1967:470-471J of external containment for modern, mobile societies. Groups provide various rules of behavior and expect conformity to these rules. If a group can successfully get its members to internalize or conform to these rules, then external containment has occurred; violations are held at a tolerable level. Secondly, in addition to presenting the individual with rules and limitations, groups must also provide one with meaningful roles and activities. These roles may range from the family to a peer group or an educational situation. Roles limit behavior and when there are no roles or few roles present, then the individual is left on his own to establish limits on behavior. A third component of external containment [Reckless, 1967:471] is that of group reinforcement. This includes: a sense of belonging and identity, supportive relationships and acceptance by the group. This component comes primarily from nuclear groups; the family or a peer group. This is also called incorporation or integration of the individual. If one has a sense of belonging, acceptance and support, then one is more likely to stay within the given norms of society. Inner containment [Reckless, 1967:475J is the ability of the person to follow expected norms and, therefore, to direct himself. It involves the individual personality’s need to live up to expectation of others. It may inc1ude the aspect of shaming. For example, â€Å"you ought to be ashamed of yourself†. Inner containment may also include those phenomena which may threaten the self image or make one feel guilty. It is one’s stake in conformity, or one’s moral nature. It is manifested on a continuum from strong to weak self control. Reckless [1967:475] states that the self increases in significance as a controlling agent as a society becomes more diverse, alienated and impersonal, and as the individual spends an increasing amount of time away from home base. Increased impersonalization means that the self must exert greater directional control. There are certain components of the self which strengthen it to resist deflection from societal norms. These components make it possible for the individual to contain himself in a modern, mobile environment. They are: a favorable self concept, goal orientation or aspiration level, level of frustration tolerance and retention of norms. The first component of self, according to Reckless [1967:475], is the favorable self perception. The individual who perceives his own responsibility will act responsible. A favorable self concept aids in following approved standards of behavior. The person who perceives himself as honest, reliable and helpful will most likely act that way. Goal direction [Reckless, 1967:476] is the second component of self which gives high directional capability. Capability for inner direction is the result of focusing on such approved goals as education and job improvement. This is especially true when goals involve long range planning and effort. This insures against deviance because of the necessity to conform to socially approved methods to obtain the goals. Related to goal orientation is one’s aspiration level which should consist of realistically obtainable goals. The third self factor [Reckless, 1967:476J is that of frustration tolerance. This tolerance should be able to withstand pressures, failure and disappointments. Containment theory assumes that a high frustration tolerance will insulate the individual against being diverted from his course. It enables a person to be more in control of the situation. The last component [Reckless, 1967:476J of inner containment is retention of norms. This retention is the result of adherence, acceptance, and commitment, identification with, legitimation of laws, codes, values, customs and institutions. It is, therefore, assumed that self containment is a personal internalization of models of behavior. Ordinary strength and ordinary weakness in self containment represents a normal range of self development. An abnormal manifestation would be extreme rigidity of character. This may be the result of faulty development. Integrating Theories            The divergence of control theory and containment theory is based on the maintenance of the status quo or the upholding of universal social standards. In the former theory, the curtailment of hedonistic tendencies of an individual is being elucidated to ensure that deviant behaviors will not manifest. While in the latter theory, the focal point is to provide ways on how deviant behaviors will be contained. Hence, theory A (Control Theory) provides the explanation of why a certain individual behave in a given manner, and theory B (Containment Theory) outlines different means in curbing out such given manner.            If we put this context, say for example in the case of gang delinquencies, control theory will point out that a gang member shows juvenile behavior due to peer pressure, poverty, lack of parental guidance, and etc. The concern of containment theory on this crime is to provide realizable measurements for the person such as rehabilitation, education, guidance or simply through guiding the person on understanding the concept of good self image. Summary:            In toto, both theories discuss the delinquent and deviant tendencies of an individual depending on how the environment influences him/her, and how great is the impact of such environment to the individual. Applying both theories in crime, control theory is best embodied by the natural tendencies of a person since the behavioral patterns of the criminals is subsume in the context of Freudian psychology such as the id, ego and superego. On the other hand, containment theory is best exemplified in the quantifiable means of curbing out the innate tendencies of the person to in going against the standard, or simply by being deviant of the status quo. Both control and containment theories have the same concept of inner containment but differ in external terms. Reference: (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Rebellon & Waldman, 2003) Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime: Stanford University Press Rebellon, C., & Waldman, I. (2003). Deconstructing â€Å"Force and Fraud†: An Empirical Assessment of the Generality of Crime Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), pp. 303-331.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment