Relative Deprivation by John Lea and Jock Young - Book Report/Review Example

Relative Deprivation Introduction Early studies in crime and deviance had focussed on zero tolerance towards criminals. The right realist approach had been the basis for this type of criminal evaluation among early law and order agencies. As a result the penal system used corporal and capital punishments as deterrent measures for crimes prevalent in the society. However, despite policies and measures, crime continued to rise. For this reason a new group of left realists had emerged in sociology discourse as a response to the right realism. Two of the members had been John Lea and Jock Young. Their seminal work "Relative Deprivation" (1984) had gained considerable attention in the debate between left and right realism approach to crime alleviation. In the following section the researcher shall evaluate this article with emphasis on understanding the concepts proposed by the authors. Synopsis: Relative Deprivation by John Lea and Jock Young In their work Lea and Young (1984) address the concept of relative deprivation, and explain that it is not a new phenomenon but an old left realist concept. They explain that crime is the by product of material deprivation and poverty. However, they are of the view that relative deprivation occurs where individuals and groups feel they are deprived of social amenities when compared to fellow group members of similar settings and outlook. Relative deprivation is the term they use to categorize criminal behaviour of individuals in groups who may be considered relatively economically sound but due to other causes and factors, motivate them to engage in criminal or deviant behaviour. This explains the behaviour of religious uprising, social movements, disputes, and similar radical movements. Relative deprivation is unlike absolute deprivation which is a biological deprivation phenomenon. Moreover, they explain that relative deprivation helps explain the criminal behaviour of individuals within an otherwise economically sound environment. Riots, uprising and social movements etc. are the collective responses of relative deprivation. This is different than individual crime and, collective criminal activities. Relative deprivation helps one to understand social, religious and political disorders; but more importantly it helps sociologists and policy makers to understand and respond to crime and deviance from a multi-causal perspective. Lea and Young are of the view that there is no single factor which accounts for criminal behaviour. Instead, criminal behaviour comprises of subculture behaviour, relative deprivation and marginalization. When these are linked with other factors such as economic, social or religious etc., then the significance of the crime is explanatory under relative deprivation theory. The authors emphasize on the complexity of human behaviour, and that people do not respond automatically to unemployment and economic disparity by resorting to crime. Instead, they make rational choice which is governed by their position in society, their subjective feeling relative to deprivation, and their marginal status within the group. Crime is likely to occur if all three of these factors are combined, and does not occur if only one factor is associated with the individual. To counteract criminal behaviour resulting from relative deprivation, Lea and Young propose the authority to devise policies based on left realism approach. Firstly, attempts for de-marginalization should be made to alleviate victimization, widespread criminal behaviour and immoral behaviour by establishing community bond, community service and restitution schemes. Secondly, pre-emptive deterrence approach should be used to control crime before they are committed. And finally prisons should only be reserved for the most dangerous of criminals to guard the safety of the community. Even then, prisons should be stylized to reflect normal community life. This humane approach is critical for curbing further personality destruction of criminals who already feel deprived. Terms In the course of reading Lea and Young's extract, the researcher has come across terms which otherwise have different meanings in general discussion but have deeper connotation in criminal discourse. These are discussed as follows: - Relative Deprivation: Deprivation refers to a state of extreme poverty, in economical terms. It also refers to the disadvantaged position of an individual in terms of rights, shelter or food. Relative deprivation in this context should mean an individual is relatively at a disadvantage in terms of poverty or social relation. However, when Lea and Young used the term "relative deprivation" they refer to an individual's condition of poverty or wealth, subjective to social categories. This means that relative deprivation is a psychological perception of the individual of his/her own position in relation to the environment. Hence, the individual may not actually be poor but relative to peer feels deprived. From this explanation one understands that relative deprivation is not a realistic condition but rather a psychological one. Thus, even if an individual owns millions he/she may feels deprived if socialize among a group of billionaires. This would motivate them to become inclined towards earn more, or resort to criminal behaviour to overcome their deprived status. - Marginalization In social context, marginalization refers to a condition in which individuals are working hard to meet their needs. This is as much an economic reality and a sociological condition. People are constantly involved in the rate race of earning more in order to fulfil their economic, sociological, and/or political motivation. However, when they are unable to achieve this marginal status in the society, they feel deprived. According to Lea and Young, members of social groups feel deprived when they do not progress economically or politically and hence resort to criminal endeavours to extricate them from their marginal status. From this explanation one understands that if individuals do not have the status they desire in their community, they are likely to become criminals. They are marginalized from their group. However, this rationale is limited and cannot be used to explain criminal behaviour alone. Perhaps it is for this reason that Lea and Young use it in conjunction with the other two concepts. Moreover, marginalization is a sociological perception of one's position in groups and it need to be understood with the subculture prevalent within the group. - Subculture Subculture is a common concept in sociological term which refers to a subset of a dominant culture in a community, society or such social groups. Groups are formed because they appeal to the members' motivation, aspiration and achievement. Thus groups can be religious, political, economic status, culture etc. Lea and Young, however use this term to denote the subculture relating to wealth, power or economic status among groups. Subculture has its own rules, expectations and power pressure norms. One can assume that participants of subculture groups are expected to demonstrate certain type of behaviour perhaps out of fear, peer pressure or threat of their status within the group. Nevertheless, subculture plays an important role in determining sociological behaviour in groups which may or may not relate to criminal activities. Consequently, one may understand that subculture is an explication for group behaviour but not criminal behaviour that one observes in society. Subculture is a normal framework for socialization among groups of individuals, and cannot be used as a concept for studying criminal behaviour. Instead, one needs to understand it in the context of the previous two concepts of marginalization and relative deprivation. Clearly from the above explanations, except for the concept of relative deprivation, marginalization and subculture cannot stand on their own and need to be evaluated within the context they are used. Assessment and Conclusion Much of Lea and Young's theory is based on a combination of sociological and psychological perspectives. Clearly, the authors support pre-emptive measures of deterrence, unlike their predecessors and the right realists who prefer the punishment approach to crime alleviation. Lea and Young's discourse can be categorized as left realism as it addresses crime as a problem of normal people with normal social behaviour and economic aspiration. The authors assume that individuals exist in groups, and the marginalized groups with relative deprivation often resort to crime perhaps based on peer pressure from subculture or economic marginalization. Their premise is based on the hypothesis that real crime are underestimated, and that sociologists base their criminal deterrent philosophy on typical criminal behaviours whereas individuals without criminal tendency are just as liable to commit crime as any other. Moreover, Lea and Young do not stereotype criminal profile or personality, and offer a dynamic rationale for the tendency towards criminal behaviour existing in the society. While these aspects of the authors' arguments make sense and could be considered to be humanitarian, one cannot ignore the fact that there are hard core criminals who conform to the typical criminal behaviour as described by right realists. For example the stereotype of blacks, working or lower working class as more likely to be criminals is commonly placed and have often proven true. Nevertheless, one can ignore this bias, and consider Lea and Young's arguments as rational and objective in their approach to criminal discipline. Indeed, Lea and Young’s rationale is revolutionary, which has given rise to the current practice of treating criminals humanely, and create environments conducive to redeem their behaviours. Reference Lea, John and Young, Jock (1984) "Relative Deprivation", in McLaughlin et al. (2005) Criminological Perspectives, London and California: sage, pp142-150. Read More