Integrated Policy versus Integrated Science - Essay Example

Integrated Policy versus Integrated Science Introduction Whether crime is defined as the breaking of a relevant law or a more generalized type of deviant behavior does not inhibit the fundamental positivist inquiry; more specifically, the positivist school of thought seeks to explain crime and deviance as phenomena that result from certain forces that are beyond an individual's control. It is must be noted, however, that positivism is not a monolithic theory. Quite the contrary, there are positivist variants which offer different explanations for crime, which thereby suggest different types of responses to crime (both proactive and reactive), and which extend responsibility to other individuals and to society. This essay will compare and contrast two types of positivism, psychological and sociological, and argue that an attempt to create an integrated theory of criminology would do more harm than good. This is because the criminological characteristics and consequences derive from separate phenomena. This may allow for the articulation of integrated social policies. Policies, however, must be kept separate from the underlying scientific theories and methods used to more clearly understand crime and deviance. This is because, in certain ways, the two strains of positivism, while concerned with similar issues in the larger picture, are not truly compatible as scientific methods of inquiry. Psychological Positivism and Sociological Positivism: Mind and Society As a preliminary matter, both psychological positivists and sociological positivists are generally concerned with the same issues in a criminological context. These scholars are interested in determining, through application of the scientific method, the causes and the consequences of crime and deviance. Significantly, both schools of thought agree that these issues are not the fault of the individual; quite the contrary, they postulate that crime and deviance are caused by factors over which the individual has little or no control. This, however, is where the two theories begin to diverge. It is this focus, outside or uncontrollable forces, that characterize the respective types of positivism. The psychological positivists, for instance, argue that there are particular kinds of human personalities that are more likely to behave in a deviant manner or to produce criminal acts. The focus is thus the mind and it is therein that the uncontrollable forces reside. The sociological positivists, on the other hand, argue that there are particular types of social conditions and factors that are likely or more likely to influence individuals to behave in a deviant manner or to commit criminal acts. Both schools of thought agree that they are dealing with forces beyond the individual's control; the key theoretical difference is that the psychological positivists concentrate on the mind whereas the social positivists concentrate on society. For a psychological positivist, it is the condition of the mind that is of the greatest importance. The larger social context, for purposes of scientific analysis, is temporarily ignored. The question is how different individuals, different personalities, process information in different settings. How a person behaves is dependent on personality and psychological positivists tend to treat personalities as being rather stable and predictable. The implications, in the field of criminology, are important. By understanding different types of personalities, such as variations of an anti-social personality, psychological positivists believe that that they can predict which individuals will behave in certain deviant ways or commit certain types of criminal acts. It is this mode of scientific inquiry that has given rise to certain popularly known designations as the sociopath, the psychopath, and the sexual predator. In addition to identifying and classifying these types of personalities that are predisposed to certain types of behavior, the psychological positivists also attempt to find ways to tame or to control these types of personalities. The focus is on the personality itself and typically involves the introduction of some countervailing force with which to prevent the predictable forms of criminal behavior from recurring. This may be in the form of medication, therapy, or even incarceration for certain types of personalities. While it is true that personalities function socially, the psychological positivist is more concerned with how a particular personality confronts different situations, how a personality processes information, and how to create healthier personalities through various types of interventions. These interventions, be they through medication or therapy, take place at the individual level rather than as a larger social policy. For a sociological positivist, on the other hand, there are social factors beyond an individual's control that result in socially deviant behavior and criminal behavior. More specifically, certain social factors operate to predispose individuals to crime. Here, the pressures are not internal, but external. Sociological positivists have argued that such things as poverty, a low or substandard education, membership in certain types of subcultures, population density, and alcoholic consumption create a social atmosphere in which crime is inevitable. Significantly, the focus of inquiry is not on personality types within these social situations, but the social situations themselves. There is a realism that attends the sociological positivist perspective, and that realism is the assumption that crime is simply an inevitable feature of social organization; this inevitability, however, ought not to be confused with a sort of pessimistic fatalism. This is because the sociological positivists believe that crime and deviant behavior can be tamed or tempered to certain degrees by addressing such social ills as unequal access to employment and education, drug and alcohol abuse, and population density through more sensible housing policies for the poor. This type of scientific inquiry, on the pressures caused by certain types of social organization and certain consequent social phenomena, have led some sociological positivists to construct theoretical models using such terminology as social ecology. The idea is to study societies ecologically, as integrated systems of dependence, and to study the effects of different models. As certain species become extinct in the study of natural ecology, so too do some individuals behave and function differently in response to different social realities. Whereas the psychological positivist studies personality and intervenes at an individual level, the sociological positivist is concerned with society more generally and his interventions are in terms of social policy. Conclusions: Integrated Science Versus Integrated Policy In the final analysis, given the fact that individual personalities function in social contexts, there might be a strong tendency to merge these two fields of positivism into a single scientific school of thought. This would be a mistake. The problems being dealt with, deviance from social norms and overt criminal behavior, are not understood so simply. The empirical evidence suggests that both personalities and social conditions bring different types of pressure to bear on individuals. The factors are often very specific, discrete, and the scientific inquiry needs to remain very particularized. To merge the two schools of thought would complicate rather than aid the search for answers in the field of criminology. This is not to say, however, that the separate findings by psychological positivists and sociological positives should not be merged in order to formulate and implement healthier social policies, indeed this paper argues the findings should be merged. Combining insane pleas with sentencing discretion and rehabilitation programs is one such example. Both fields have something to offer the field of criminology and should be treated as discrete and valuable fields of positivist inquiry. References Siegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology 9th Edition. Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont Siegel, L. J. (2004). "Theories of Crime Causation" Criminology: The Core, pp. 72- 180 Thomson Wadsworth: Read More