The Eternity of Freuds Theory: the Traits of Criminality - Research Paper Example

 The all time great philosopher Aristotle in his famous treatise ‘Politics’ wrote that the great crimes of the society occur not due to necessity but due to excess. The apparently simple but deeply philosophized statement encompassed various aspects in it, starting from microcosmic to macrocosmic dimension. Delving more into the essence of the statement, we may recall Aristotle’s perception in this context. According to him as people would receive more, they would expect more and the sense of increasing expectation would lead them to undertake ethically or morally wrong path. Finally, to satisfy the growing sense of need they would deprive other men from their rights. It is quite striking that standing on his philosophical grounds, more than 2000 years back this great philosopher commented about the future of mankind. More importantly, he provided certain indications to the stains of criminal behavior in an individual. It was not Aristotle alone, the great writers of Greek tragedies, namely, Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus, in their works have repeatedly emphasized on personality traits of an individual. Based on these traits, they have churned out criminal behaviorist aspects of an individual. In the modern age also it is widely considered that the modern personality theories are greatly dependent over reference from the Greek tragedies and the most convincing proof of such argument can be cited in the statements of Sigmund Freud, one of the great psychologists of our time. Since the late 18th century the arena of psycho analysis from a very individualistic perspective was revolutionized by introduction of various theories from different psychologists. Theories developed by them have become famous in today’s context as Personality Theories. Existentialist philosophy and literature are also included among the list of personality theories and it is regarded as one of the strong grounds, without which explanation of a person’s behavioral approaches will remain unfulfilled. The theories of personality, if we analyze, emphasize on human characteristics. According to psychological terms, these human characteristics or personality traits from behaviorist perspective predisposes an individual to indulge in criminal activities. Great personalities like Carl Jung (1875-1961), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Alfred Adler (1870-1937), Erik Homburger Erikson (1902-1994), Otto Rank (1884-1939) and Carl Rogers (1902-1987) have come up with their respective personality theories. If we try to get the core essence of their respective theories, various characters of an individual will become poignant. In the context of modern criminology we will find see that those characteristics are very much responsible for leading an individual for committing certain crimes. Once these personality traits are combined, in terms of psychology, it is known as criminal personality. The theories of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud have opened new horizon in the field of personality theories and their development. According to Carl Jung, an individual always strives to attain selfhood. He opines that selfhood is nothing but a perfect balance between conscious and unconscious mind of a person. Jung says that main features, which dominate nature of a person, are his ego, ‘personal unconscious’, ‘collective unconscious’, ‘archetypes, and ’‘attitudes of the psyche and functions of thought’. (“Personality”, n.d.) As a person becomes mature conflict between his ego (his conscious mind) and personal unconscious increases. Jung says that personal unconscious consists of those aspects that are not accepted by the society. If a person fails to attain the selfhood, then he starts depending over his personal unconscious mind and that initiates his criminal behavior. Sigmund Freud, perhaps the most important figure among other creators of personality theories takes another step ahead of Carl Jung and he divides a human mind in three parts, Conscious, Preconscious and Unconscious. According to Freud conscious mind deals with the external or the apparently real world and the preconscious mind is constituted of those materials that care easily carried into conscious mind. But, Freud gives most emphasis to the unconscious mind and traces out certain features of the unconscious mind, such as it does not follow any logical approach due to its unorganized nature. The unconscious mind cannot distinguish between time and the core premise of such mind is dependent over Pleasure Principle. Like Carl Jung’s personal unconscious, the unconscious mind is always engaged in continuous conflict with the social norms and it acts the main ‘source of motivation’ for an individual. Freud’s theory, from a very simplistic level, can be explained in terms of conflict between ‘Id’ (“cauldron of seething expectations”/instincts) and ‘Ego’ (capability to deal with the external world). Freud thinks that when in the battle between Ego and Id, the later triumphs over the previous, immediately the seeds of criminal behavior germinate in the human psychology. Socially the features of are Id are not acceptable, thus actions generated from Id are always considered as criminal behavior. In the context of Id, one of its ingredients attracts our attention that is the Pleasure Principle. Freud explains that the Pleasure Principle can said to be the attempt of an individual, ‘to maximize instinctual gratification (feel good) without regard to external reality’. (“Sigmund Freud”, n.d.) When a person becomes so obsessed about experiencing the taste of ‘feel good’ without being bothered about anything else in his surrounding, he is actually ready to attain that pleasure at any cost and in that quest of his, if he breaches both social and humane laws the proves to be a criminal in the eyes of the society and its inhabitants. Theories of the other social scientists, psychologist and philosophers of this age, including existentialists, have spoken more or less in the same line and their individual theories or approaches are known as the personality theories. All these theories focus over certain human features that in a combined way form criminal personality of a person. There is no denial of the fact that personality theories since late 19th century to mid 20th century predominated the field of psycho analysis across the globe and at the same time these theories quite correctly pointed out the important psychological aspects that constitute criminal behavior in an individual. But these features or characteristics are not only reasons that are responsible for giving birth to criminal traits in the character of a person. With the introduction of Social Strain theories in the middle of the 20th century, several other aspects also demanded attention, which were previously ignored. In the theories of limited number of psychologists, influence of society, culture and economy in developing criminal traits at the psychological level of a person did not receive much importance, but the founders of the Social Strain theory gave special emphasis to such factors. Once we start reading their works, we realize that from the core of their theories they have never rejected the importance of personality theories that dominated earlier in the century but at the same time they equally stressed over the fact that social, cultural and economic influence cannot be ignored in germinating the seeds of criminality on the psychological ground of an individual and this proclamation was announced for the first time by the famous psychologist Robert King Merton. In history of United States of America the period 1915-1945 is very important. During these three decades the society was undergoing a metamorphosis from social, economic and cultural perspective and three consecutive events have played the most important role in order to bring forth this change, namely, the Great War I, the Great Depression and the Great War II. Due this huge thrust of immigration, the body politic of the United States of America received a huge feedback from structural perspective and the Social Strain Theory, introduced by Merton also had a deep structural connotation. Theoretical conception of Merton can be separated into two categories, a) Strain Theory of deviant or unexpected motivation (microcosmic perspective) and b) Anomie Theory that dealt with the reasons of social disorganization (macrocosmic perspective). In comparison between these two theories, the later theory is more associated with structural perspective rather than the earlier one and it has dealt with the ‘structural distribution of deviance’. The main attempt of Merton concentrated upon the attempt of explaining difference in the rate of crime in higher and lower social classes. In addition to this aspect he also mentioned that two social structures are prevailing in the whole scenario. The first structure is completely dependent over aspirations and goals of an individual and these things are determined by the culture of the society. Now, the second theory is actually an attempt to explain that certain ways must be followed in order to achieve those goals and aspiration and those ways are determined by the society and that are more commonly known as social norms. Merton’s theory is saying that criminal traits are formed inside a person when the gap between ‘cultural desire for economic success’ and ‘the legitimate possibilities for that success’ is not bridged. Merton opines that, “It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for deviance” (Merton, 1968, 199). There has been several criticism and various modifications have been attempted over this theory of Merton. Definitely with those attempts foundation of the theory has become stronger but at the same time we see a striking difference between Personal Theories and Social Strain Theory. The personality theories were mainly focused over psychological condition of an individual from microcosmic perspective but at the same time we see social strain theory opens up another horizon in the study of criminology that macrocosmic effect over microcosm can create traits of criminality in an individual and at the same time we also find if the essence of personality theory and social strain theory can be merged together, we receive answers to several questions that cannot be answered by following any particular stream of approach. There has further criticism to Merton’s theory and Albert K. Cohen came up with a very constructive criticism that claims Merton’s theory can explain the reason for rebellion in the best way but it cannot explain numerous examples of ‘purposeless crime’ or ‘crime committed just for fun’ and in the recent time number of such crimes in increasing at a scaring rate. In order to explain such incidents or criminal behavior among individuals Cohen also approached from a structural perspective but his theory is basically established over the foundation of impersonal approach. Cohen finds that, ‘The causal mechanism for crime is determined by the social variable of peer influence and the psychological variable of reaction formation. The move towards crime is not abrupt, but rather a process, with advancing, backtracking and sounding out occurring, yet it is the process of reaction formation required to complete the causal change.’ (Henderson, 2004) Criminal behavior among individuals has increased to a great extent and at the same time, the potential to commit crime has increased to a greater extent as the rate of interaction among people has also increased simultaneously. Cohen himself opines in support of this observation, “group interaction is a sort of catalyst which releases potentialities not otherwise visible” (Henderson, 2004). Robert Dubin introduced his theory on criminal behavior in the year 1959 and expanded theoretical dimension of both Merton and Cohen. According to Robert Dubin that deviance is mainly caused due to social effect and at the same time he rejects the possibility that unexpected alteration of an individual according to the demand of situations of Anomie are not always harmful, if someone is judging that action from a very social angle. Dubin clearly opined that Merton’s theory was limited and he felt that further categorization is needed when it comes to social goals, norms and regulation as every individual follows different ways to interpret these aspects. Merton’s approach mainly concentrated over three aspects, namely, Conformity, Retreatism and Rebellion and these aspects together are known as Merton’s typology, which faint hints towards Innovation and Ritualism. Dubin’s theory emphasized more over Innovation and Ritualism. Merton’s approach clearly implies that in his quest to achieve the goal an individual not only throws away the norms set by the institutions but at the same time illegitimate ways need to be invented as a substitute. This logical reference, most of time, proves to be untrue. Thus, Dubin classified Innovation into two categories, namely, Value Innovation and Behavioral Innovation. Ritualism has also been categorized into two separate categories- Behavioral Ritualism and Value Ritualism (Dubin, 1959, 147-149). While providing more clarification to the theory of Merton, Whyte in 1955 started his discussion over analyzing the words of the “corner boys” as well as the ‘street gangs’. He concluded that there is a high risk that a poor community can be disoriented and the members of street gangs or the “corner boys” will accept such disorganization of the community just as their destiny, while some of them will be indulged into criminal activism. Through this demonstration, Whyte produces his conception about increase in the rate of criminal personality among common people of the society. Depending on Merton’s as well as Whyte’s theory, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin came up with their Differential Opportunity Theory. According to this theory, flourish in ‘criminal subcultures’ basically depend on the culture of that place. The rate of flourish of such criminal subculture among people of that area will also depend on the development of three different types of gangs, namely, ‘the criminal gang,’ ‘the violent gang’ and ‘the retreatist gang.’ (Henderson, 2004) It implies that if a is simply criminal in nature then rate of criminal subculture in the area will be mediocre, if the gang is violent in nature then there will be frequent examples of violence and law braking and if members of the gang are retreaters in nature, then though stains of criminality will be there in the area but it will not be prevalent in a disturbing manner. Till this point of our discussion we have understood that both, 19th century personality theories and mid 20th century social strain theories, have interpreted the reason for criminal behavior in their respective ways and once theories of both these disciplines are brought together, we find many answers have been solved both from microcosmic and macrocosmic level. If we focus over the socio-political turmoil of 70’s and beyond we find that criminal behavior among individuals have changed drastically and it has taken such horrid form that has never been experienced before. If we try to find out answers to such change from the perspective of criminology, we find that personality theories and social strain theories conjointly fail to provide answers to such questions. In this context the sociological explanations become relevant and these explanations provide us with answers to sudden change in criminal behavior of an individual in late 20th century. Sociological approaches to criminal behavior shows us that since the post Great War II era so many gross and more number of subtle changes have taken place that revealing a judgment from any particular angle does not provide us a clear picture about change in criminal behavior in these decades. To fight against the changing forms of criminal behavior it is important that criminology must delve deep into the thinking process of criminals. Until and unless we are getting a complete portrait of a criminal mind it becomes impossible to receive the behaviorist approach of the person and cure the social body of such ailments. The social scientists have truly felt that ‘…it is not sociological variables that cause an individual to become a criminal – rather it is the result of faulty thinking patterns.’ (Henderson, 2004) Vigorous research is important to receive a clearer picture of the whole scenario and a new Criminal Personality theory needs to come up that will help the criminals to change their ways of thinking about the society and its affairs. Even few years back there was a general idea and that idea still prevail to some extent that it is best to keep the criminals away from regular social affairs but it cannot bring solution to any problem. Keep the criminals away from the society means that it will automatically increase the antagonist feeling about society in their minds. Thus, it is important that immediately we have to welcome them as a part of the society and make them realize that they are no alien bodies, rather they are also like others an integral part of the whole society and system. The sociological study over criminal behavior in an individual focuses over certain aspects, including experiences of early life of the criminal, ‘conflict and psychosexual development’ and his fancies. After a careful analysis of these aspects, we have to understand at first the real personality of the criminal. It has been observed that most of criminals in the late 20th century are victims to personality disorder. Hence, after understanding the true personality of the person it is important to introduce proper ways that would help him to revive from his personality disorder that generates criminal behavior in him and finally he understands and gets back to his true self. At the third place it is important to make the criminal understand that as he is an essential part of the society, he needs to fulfill some of his duties to the society in return, as well. This step is necessary to raise empathy in his mind for the society and its inhabitants. At the same time, humane virtues that he was deprived off due to his psychological disorder can be restored. Last, there must also be certain techniques the person must be taught so that regular practicing of those stop the recurrence of criminal behavioral traits in his mind. Criminality is not something that emerges from external factors but it is something that emerges from deep psychological level. In this context we understand the eternity of Freud’s theory that perhaps for the first time emphasized over unconscious plain in human mind. These traits of criminality get further boost due to apparent socio-politico-economic influences and drastic change in the social pattern also executes huge change at the psychological level of the criminal and criminal behavior changes its form only to become the greatest threat to the society. Fighting such problems from apparent level will not solve anything. Until and unless attempt to solve this problem from the root nothing will be better and for this urge to make things better in the society, it is a subject of dire necessity that highest importance must be provided to criminal behavior and criminal personality. References 1. Dubin, R. (1959) “Deviant Behavior and Social Structure: Continuities in Social Theory.” American Sociological Review, 24:147-163 2. Henderson, D.R.(2004) HISTORICAL CONTEXT , Yochelson & Samenow Criminal Theory, available at: http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:wdTAIXuB7HgJ:www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/drafts/Yochelson_draft.doc+The+causal+mechanism+for+crime+is+determined+by+the+social+variable+of+peer+influence+and+the+psychological+variable+of+reaction+formation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=in (accessed on February 15, 2009) 3. Merton, R. K. (1968). “Social Structure and Anomie.” Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged edition. New York: The Free Press 4. “Personality” (n.d.), available at: http://www.jkhatib-psychiatry.com/personality.pdf (accessed on February 15, 2009) 5. “Sigmund Freud” (n.d.), retrieved on February 9, 2008 from: http://psych.eiu.edu/spencer/Freud.html Read More