Social Ecology Theory and Strain Theory of Criminal Behaviour - Research Paper Example

Social Ecology Theory and Strain Theory of Criminal Behaviour Introduction The study of social divisions is integral to the sociological endeavour. Traditionally, sociologists concentrated mostly on one major structure of social division: economic- and socially related inequalities (Ferri, 2008). Such an emphasis examines how individuals are structured in terms of their power, prestige, and economic condition. It highlights social class. This essay will discuss a form of deviance that is commonly discussed in relation to individuals’ economic situation: property crime, or more specifically, robbery. Two criminology theories will be applied in analysing the nature and implication of robbery, namely, (1) social ecology theory and (2) strain theory. The strong and weak points of these theories in explaining the crime of robbery will be compared and contrasted to one another. Generally speaking, robbery includes stealing and deceitfully acquiring another’s property, regardless if it is intangible or tangible property (Brown, Esbensen & Geis, 1996). All this may appear quite simple. Nonetheless, the difference between what is culturally accepted behaviour and what is clearly criminal is not always that simple (Downes & Rock, 2007). For instance, the fraudulent possession of another’s property is not constantly viewed as ‘robbery’ by the victim or by the criminal. Pickpocketing is viewed as intolerable and unlawful, whilst fast food staffs stealing food or cash and customers stealing condiments, plates or spoons from their tables may be tolerated by the victim or defended as ‘souvenirs’ by the doer (Tunnell, 1992). Likewise, people have a tendency to relate ‘fraud’ with major financial crimes (Ferri, 2008). But it is not always simple to differentiate between ‘fraudulence’ and ‘enterprise’, or between deceitful behaviour that is obviously ‘unlawful’ and the scams, hustles and con-merchant’s confidence tricks, pyramid schemes or deceitful advertising, and the behaviour of numerous others engaged in regular commercial transactions (Tunnell, 1992). Several historians have elaborated the evolving level of robbery by referring to the concerted impacts of major changes in British economic and social life: capitalisation of industry and urbanisation; changing unemployment levels and economic difficulties; and population growth (Brown et al., 1996). Historians who applied a class conflict perspective of society viewed robbery as a component of the deepening struggle between labour and capital (Einstadter, 2006). They claimed that emerging work practices created by industrialisation, and adjustments in wages and in concepts of property ownership, implied that long-established rural mainstream practices, such as hunting wild game, gathering wood for cooking, and collecting pieces of materials, were gradually criminalised (Einstadter, 2006). Viewed in this perspective, the robbery of poor people might be interpreted as opposition to new work practices and capitalism. On the other hand, other historians consult social and court information that demonstrates a connection between labour and capital more complicated than a plain class conflict perspective might propose (Tunnell, 1992). They highlighted the importance of changes in the criminal justice administration, such as the formation of the new police forces, a declining fear about the criminal classes, and a complementary slump in the reporting and condemnation of petty theft, particularly in the mid-nineteenth century (Tunnell, 1992). Court documents reveal that most robberies included ordinary items of quite negligible value and that numerous of the victims were comparatively poor people (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). Eventually, the adjustments in the economy suggested that individuals had more disposable or passive income and more mobile property, and stores had more products and services for consumers, which consequently encouraged changes in the occasion for and method of robbery (Tunnell, 1992). The prevalence of robbery persisted into the twentieth century. Traditional and new types of robbery were widespread during the World War II although it was generally considered as a golden age of national pride and community strength (Einstadter, 2006). The war generated vast opportunities for crime for everybody, from professional mobsters and organised groups to ‘commonplace’ and ‘reputable’ individuals (Einstadter, 2006). Bombed buildings and power failures made robbery particularly effortless; due to rationing, lots of people turned to cheating and falsifying their clothes, petrol and food vouchers; and the black market and exploitation flourished (Tunnell, 1992). The gradual escalation of crime rates throughout the inter-war and post-war periods could perhaps mirror the economic hardships brought about by the Depression as well as the enticements generated by the earliest indications of the consumer society (Tunnell, 1992). For particular social classes and in particular neighbourhoods of Britain, consumer booms prompted more goods for people with disposable earnings and the craving for more goods, which quite probably led to increased robbery (Siegel, 2008). The consumer boom and industrial/technological advancement of the post-war period increased the availability of a mass of high-value, movable products such as radios and televisions that offered appealing new prospects and new targets for crime. (Siegel, 2008). Car crime, for instance, increased remarkably because there were many more expensive automobiles accessible on every street all the time and usually unattended than there were prior to World War II (Einstadter, 2006). The range of property crime operations has also expanded considerably and, in several instances, broadened into advanced multinational business producing substantial profits (Tunnell, 1992). Car theft, for instance, is no longer just an activity of adolescents involved in arbitrary acts of robbery or a domestic problem. ‘Thefts to order’ (Carrabine, Iganski, Lee, Plummer & South, 2004, 133) are presently sophisticated and well-organised activities, from the robbery itself, the falsifying of documentations and plates, through to the illegal car trades across the US-Mexican boundary or to ‘remote destinations’ such as China and Russia (Carrabine et al., 2004). Advancements in telecommunications and computing technology have produced greater prospects for robbery and facilitated new or current types of deviance to be performed more widely, more swiftly, more success and with greater ease of cover up. Explaining Robbery: Social Ecology Theory and Strain Theory Criminology employs research from sociology and through this criminologists attempt to understand types of crime, prevalence of crime, and the causes and consequences of crime (Siegel, 2008). There are various theories introduced by criminologists to elucidate why robbery is perpetrated by one person and not by another. This essay will adopt the social ecology theory and strain theory. Social ecology research has discovered that crime rates are often related with poverty, numerous buildings that are deserted and other indications that are a sign of a community worsening (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2006). As communities relapse from bad to worse, the middle- and working class families abandon the community and move elsewhere. Nevertheless, a particular segment of the population is poor and does not relocate (Vito et al., 2006). The segment becomes secluded from the general population and thus becomes more vulnerable to crime. Several researchers and scholars have at least indirectly connected poverty and crime (Ferri, 2008). It is commonly thought that the poor perpetrate more of the offence, at least gang crime. Still, it is more a connection to robbery, not violent crime (Walklate, 2007). Even in the countryside or rural areas where criminal activities are less prevalent, violent acts are of same proportions, and those are usually connected to socio-economic status (Carrabine et al., 2004). The underprivileged have a greater enthusiasm to rob to satisfy their needs. They just turn to violence when crucial to carry out the larceny, such as in an armed robbery (Carrabine et al., 2004). Early investigations on economic conditions and crime were carried out by Quetelet in France almost two centuries ago. The researcher discovered that there was more robbery in affluent neighbourhoods, as there was more to steal (Tunnell, 1992). Likewise, there was negligible incidence of robbery in poor neighbourhoods because there was no socio-economic disproportion. Everybody was equally underprivileged (Tunnell, 1992). The resulting message from that study is that if poverty encourages a person to steal, they are more likely to turn to wealthy neighbourhoods to do it. However, socio-economic classes and hierarchy in society are not a manifestation of crime directly. Yet, the conditions of poor living undoubtedly provide the circumstances that generate vulnerable residents who are inclined to deviance (Brown et al., 1996). If the success of an individual is measured by status, wealth, and material ownership, the underprivileged may see criminal behaviours as the only way to acquire those properties (Walklate, 2007). Lawful or acceptable means will not permit them to acquire an education or own a home. The effort to explain crime based on the social ecology theory has a long tradition. Certainly, Vold claims that explanations of criminal behaviour developed in terms of economic issues are possibly the earliest and most completely documented of those accounts that brings into play a sociological perspective (Ferri, 2008). The social ecology theory of crime has put emphasis on two systematically distinct spheres of economic condition, ‘relative deprivation’ and ‘absolute deprivation’ (Ferri, 2008). Relative deprivation models underline the role of undesirable social relationships and the antipathy that may be prompted by having a lower income than the earnings acquired by others (Carrabine, 2004). The absolute deprivation approach, on the other hand, highlights the criminogenic implications of low incomes in the sense of being scarcely sufficient to meet the basic needs of human life (Carrabine, 2004). The absolute deprivation model of crime has motivated attempts to explain crime in terms of the socio-economic status of criminal populations. Certainly, a comparatively vast amount of research has accumulated addressing the connection between crime rates and the size of impoverished population (Einstadter, 2006). The outcomes of these studies have been highly at odds. A number of studies have recognised theoretically predictable positive connection between crime rates and poverty, whilst others have failed to identify the expected relation between these variables (Carrabine, 2004). The relative deprivation model, in contrast, is interested more with unequal incomes than with low incomes. It is mainly inequality in the allocation of economic resources, instead of plain poverty, that is supposed to bring about widespread antipathy and significant levels of criminal enthusiasm (Carrabine et al., 2004). Shaw and McKay (1942) discovered that neighbourhood had continuing patterns of criminal behaviour despite of the fact that the people residing in them were moving in and out. In sum, the social ecology of robbery can be understood in terms of urban planning and crime and community variables (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). Although several of the studies about robbery are not evidently or directly connected to ecology, it is apparent that understanding robbery by understanding the responses of people to environmental realities is integral to each of them. One of the most commonly quoted studies in the crime literature, Cohen and Felson’s (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach is intrinsically ecological due to its stress on strategy and situation. Their findings indicate that spatial, temporal, and interpersonal activities are at the core of ‘direct-contact predatory crimes’ (Cohen & Felson, 1979, 592), such as robbery, because those offences involve the union of an appropriate target, absence of competent guardians to perpetrate a crime, and a stimulated criminal in space and time (ibid). Bernard (1990), in support of the ecological view of robbery, presents a relevant analysis of impoverished communities. He links individual physiological sensitivity and resentment with highly tensed urban environment that make violence, such as robbery, widespread in such environments and clarify how a deviant culture may develop over time. Ultimately, Sampson and Wilson’s (1995) argument of the implications of intense poverty, social isolation, and criminal behaviour offers a reliable, ecological account of the relationship between socio-economic status and robbery. Similar to social ecology theory in some respects, strain theory puts emphasis on how individuals belong to the society’s economic structure and attempt to fulfil economic cultural objectives (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009).This is a suitable basis, as robbery is often regarded to be basically an economic crime. The notion of normlessness, or also referred to as anomie, was originally developed by Durkheim in 1897. From then on it has evolved as an academic field of study and other theoretical concepts have been formulated (Downes & Rock, 2007). Anomie-strain theory with an emphasis on economic conditions is specifically indebted to Robert Merton’s work. In a distinguished work he assumed that a great deal of criminal behaviour can be caused by the value American society places on economic success without constantly providing sufficient access to the acceptable means to fulfil this objective (Vito et al., 2006). Since poor individuals were more prone to confront structural constraints to legal career prospects, they were more prone to develop depression and become deviant (Vito et al., 2006), as argued by the social ecology theory. The following analysis investigates the relevance of Merton’s anomie model and/or adaptations of it for clarifying robbery. Primarily, at the societal or macro level, does robbery conform to the pattern introduced by Merton, or higher frequency of deviance in the lower class? And, at the micro or individual level, how essential are economic factors as stimulation for robbery? Whilst Merton was mainly interested with macro level accounts, it seems sensible to examine whether individual thieves express enthusiasms that mirror his/her concept of anomie. Inopportunely, inadequate methodical evidence is available to substantiate the macro level of Merton’s premise (Carrabine et al., 2004). A great deal of this is due to the dearth of reliable official robbery figures for bigger social units, such as states, cities, etc. A number of well known articles are related to the structural argument of Merton (Carrabine et al., 2004). For instance, two media accounts, founded on police data and interviews with security staffs, assumed that communities severely affected by economic hardships experienced substantial escalations in robbery. Another related case is the outbreak of robbery that took place when the Berlin Wall was opened (Mitchell, 1984). Numerous critics have challenged Merton’s argument, as well as that of the social ecology theory, that criminals are most prone to experience frustration in achieving their high level of success in the future (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). A remarkable qualification and challenge arose from the wide-ranging field research of Schwendinger (1985) on adolescent subcultures. They discovered that majority of the highly delinquent adolescent participants showed negligible concern about future employment opportunities. Rather, the Schwendingers (1985) thought that poor adolescents were creatively building illegal markets, through drug sales or robbery, to improve their urgent consumption needs in the setting of a capitalistic economy. On the individual or micro level, how essential are economic variables in stimulating individual robbery, such as petty stealing? There has been significant discussion on this issue. Scholars who emphasise that economic variables are important point to the assumption that most robbers, similar to other penny-wise individuals, are aiming to improve their financial status (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009). Aside from Merton, scholars restoring the rational choice theoretical model of crime have also cultivated this assumption. These scholars use micro-economic paradigms to examine criminal choices (Ferri, 2008). The person who considers stealing will try to evaluate: ‘(1) the rewards (economic, social, and psychological), and (2) the risks (getting caught) and costs (punishments) that might be incurred’ (Siegel, 2008, 11). People may steal because of economic requirement, or being in a low financial situation, economic greed, or in the notion of social ecology theory, relative deprivation, or merely because it is viewed to be an effortless way of acquiring valuable objects (Siegel, 2008). Both social ecology theory and strain theory have uncovered strong economic motivations in their studies of robbery. For instance, Anne Campbell (1981) interviewed offending girls in Britain. Her respondents recurrently expressed how central economic stimulations were for their participation in shoplifting. She discovered that ‘consumer fetishism’, instead of pathological behaviours, appeared to be motivating most of these young, poor girls into shoplifting. At the structural level, she reports how the media and the fashion industry encourage these working class girls into craving the ‘popular’ styles of dress, jewellery, cosmetics, and others that promise to improve their standing and romantic appeal. Campbell (1981) discovered that when these greatly wanted goods are not within reach of their available resources, they may turn to shoplifting to obtain them. Nonetheless, sociologists have been responsive to the likelihood that most individuals in an ‘acquisitve-capitalistic society’ (Carrabine et al., 2004, 168) are not contented with their accretion of material belongings. Substantiating Merton and social ecology theorists, Cameron (1964) asserted this clearly in her study of wealthy adult female thieves. She reported that: The middle-class itself cannot always achieve middle-class goals by legitimate means. The frustration is not so profound as in the lower-class, however, and the individual thefts of middle-class people are sometimes of small magnitude, but middle-class people do try theft as a means to bridge the gap between earnings and ‘needs’ and many of them are at least temporarily successful (p. 173). This also resembles the finding of Donald Cressey (1971) that ‘nonshareable financial problems’ (p. 35) heralded theft activities perpetrated by his white collar male participants. Ultimately, although the evidence is quite meagre, both social ecologists and strain theorists maintain that economic motivations are stronger for semi-professional and adult thieves (Ferri, 2008). Both of these categories are assumed to be making more premeditated economic choices than adolescents or non-professional thieves. This is quite apparent in the investigations of drug addicts that showed dependence on theft as a key means of financing their illegal and legal activities (Ferri, 2008). One of the few available explanations of a previous semi-professional thief also underlines the significance of the monetary payoff (Klokis, 1985). Klokis (1985) demonstrates the scheming strategies of his booster group, which robbed $8,000 in goods a day. The semi-professional robbers of Moore may perceive robbery as their ‘full-time’ or more possibly their ‘part-time’ occupation (Carrabine et al., 2004). Kenneth Tunnel (1992) carried out an interview with active adult robbers. He found out that economic motivations were almost generally stated to be the major reason for their criminal activities. Ultimately, in an investigation of adult thieves, Yates (1986) discovered that two-thirds were mainly stimulated by financial motivations. However, both social ecology theory and strain theory were criticised for their disproportionate focus on economic factors to explain the behaviour of stealing. Many scholars of robbery regard noneconomic variables to be more relevant than economic variables (Einstadter, 2006). These analysts specify the irrational non-utilitarian activities showed by some robbers. Psychiatrists and psychologists are particularly likely to develop non-economic accounts of robbing behaviour (Ferri, 2008). Social ecologists and strain theorists have also discovered proofs that more than economic concerns motivate criminal activities (Einstadter, 2006). This is quite apparent in the classic essay of Erving Goffman (1967) in which he provides a perceptive analysis of illegal and legal risk-taking activities. For instance, crime can be a means to show one’s integrity, willingness, courage, and capability of performing under stressed situations that may not be likely by legal activities (Goffman, 1967). People may hence ‘look for’ involvements like robbery due to their gameness. The single most relevant dispute to economic-oriented accounts has been formulated by Jack Katz. In his Seductions of Crime, he particularly critiques social ecologists and strain theorists’ explanations (Brown et al., 1996). He asserts that these theories that highlight background, environment and structural factors do not sufficiently explain the how and why a specific crime is carried out. To develop this concern he thinks that researchers should employ a phenomenological theory and investigate the subject’s ‘definition of the situation’ prior to and during the completion of a crime (Brown et al., 2006). Hence, he examines cases of shoplifting acquired from his mostly upper middle-class female pupils at the University of California. He maintains that, at least for his students, material requirements are usually clearly inadequate to explain participation in theft (Brown et al., 2006). To strengthen his alternative perspective, he refers to the ‘seductive power of objects,’ ‘cheap thrills,’ and the ‘profoundly moving experience’ (Brown, Esbensen & Geis, 1996, 448) that his respondents pointed to when portraying why they had robbed. More particularly, he sums up five distinct kinds of challenges or excitements expressed by his respondents (Brown et al., 1996): (1) providing a test of what and who you are; (2) a kind of game; (3) a religious (a secret defilement or black sacrament) experience; (4) a sexual experience; and (5) a vehicle for discovering charisma (a personal esthetic triumph) (p. 448). Furthermore, Richard Mitchell (1984) has stressed how deviance is usually an important experience whereby secluded people can show their individuality and resourcefulness. Robbery can be a quite engaging means of improving an individual’s experiences and learning new and alternative identities. It may be repeated to re-experience the excitement and pleasure felt in previous exploits (Mitchell, 1984). It is quite difficult to sum up the diverse substantiation on the importance of social ecology theory and anomie-strain theory for understanding robbery. A great deal of the controversy is rooted in diverse conceptualisations and interpretations of social ecologists and strain theorists ideas. However, both of these theories are excellent predictor of criminal behaviour. Similarly, the above discussion indicates that social ecology theory and strain theory at an individual and structural level can be helpful in understanding robbery. Apparently, the two levels are interrelated and usually support one another. However, it is essential to note that the substantiation for non-economic motivations is nearly as compelling. Any specific act of robbery perhaps has both non-economic and economic incentives. The usefulness of each of these forms of motivations will differ remarkably from case to case. Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Ecology Theory and Strain Theory in Explaining Robbery One of the strengths of social ecology theory is the application of biological premises in explaining the growth of poor neighbourhoods in the city, and natural sites of criminal behaviour; the implication that the residents of those neighbourhoods reside where they do due to some individual characteristics they have or due to some unavoidable aspect of human selection. Undoubtedly, several empirical studies of urban deviancy in both America and Britain, as briefly shown in the above discussion, are mainly interested with the manifestation of one or other position; even if it is difficult to transcend the technical disputes about the application of data with a view to separating their theoretical perspectives. It differs with strain theory in its focus on the struggle for housing and for space within the urban areas. However, this focus has one danger. Whilst the residents of offending neighbourhoods are not resistant of the broader society, hence the struggle for housing and for space in the urban area is not separate from the struggle for prestige, power, and material security in the larger society. The housing market is not separate from the labour market, and the reality is that the ability of people to fight for space is partly a role of their achievement in the labour market. Ultimately, cultural and social features—behaviours, morals, beliefs, and social conditions—existing in the environment can be viewed as component of human ecology. These are environmental features that influence our behaviour. Although these often express themselves in interactions, they are present as forces in the ecological context that influence behaviour. But these are continuously taken for granted in the social ecology theory of crime. On the other hand, strain theory reliably or systematically explains the effects of economic motivations in the structural and individual level. It explains robbery in a more comprehensive way than social ecology theory. However, strain theories were not able to explain the roots of strain that bring about the criminal behaviour in the first place. The claim is that criminal behaviour emerges out of an unequal distribution of opportunity in a circumstance where fairness of opportunity is ideologically emphasised. This apparently means that delinquency is concentrated in those circumstances where societal strain of the form indicated by Merton is most expected to take place, such as in the parts of society where opportunity is scarce. There is substantial evidence to indicate, thought, that delinquency is far more broadly dispersed (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2009) than social ecologists and strain theorists would allow, and that particularly the criminal act of the affluent is much more prevalent and recurrent than social ecology theory and strain theory would claim. For this reason, because these theorists limit their notion of strain to the hardship experienced by poor people, they predict inadequately the criminal activities that are in fact taking place. Conclusions Both social ecology theory and strain theory should be capable, in other words, of placing the act of robbery in terms of its broader societal origins. These structural thoughts will include understanding of the in-between structural concerns that have customarily been the sphere of sociological criminology, such as distribution of prospects for the robber, subcultural residence, and ecological areas, but it would situate these against the general social framework of inequalities of wealth, power and authority in the highly industrialised society. Likewise, there would be consideration of the issues conventionally addressed by psychologists interested in the structures favourable to criminal behaviour, specifically with an individual’s alienation from ‘commonplace’ interaction. Yet, there would be an effort to situate these psychological issues in the perspective of a society where in families is merely one component of an interconnecting but conflicting structural entirety. The attempt would be farther from the perception of man as an individual, disconnected of their families or other particular subcultural conditions, protected from the demands of existence under the current social circumstances. The broader roots of robbery could only be interpreted, this essay argues, in terms of the drastically evolving political and economic needs of highly developed society. At this point, the prescribed qualification is actually for what may be referred to as a political economy of robbery. References Bernard, T. (1990). Angry aggression among the 'truly disadvantaged'. Criminology , 73-96. Brown, S. Esbensen, F. & Geis, G. (1996). Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context. OH: Anderson Publishing Company. Cameron, M. O. (1964). The Booster and the Snitch: Department Store Shoplifting. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Campbell, A. (1981). Girl Delinquents. New York: St. Martin's Press. Carrabine, E., Iganski, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K. & South, N. (2004). Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. New York: Routledge. Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach . American Sociological Review , 588-608. Cressey, D. (1971). Other People's Money. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Downes, D. & Rock, P. (2007). Understanding Deviance. New York: Oxford University Press. Einstadter, W. (2006). Criminological Theory: An Analysis of its Underlying Assumptions. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Ferri, E. (2008). Criminal Sociology. New York: BiblioLife. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Klokis, H. (1985). Confessions of an Ex-Shoplifter. Chain Storr Age Execute , 15-18. Mitchell, R. Jr. (1984). Alienation and Deviance: Strain Theory Reconsidered. Social Inquiry , 336-45. Sampson, R. & Wilson, W.J. (1995). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In J. Hagan, Crime and Inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schwendinger, H. & Schwendinger, J.S. . (1985). Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency. New York: Praeger. Shaw, C.R. & McKay, A. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Siegel, L. (2008). Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Tunnell, K. (1992). Choosing Crime: The Criminal Calculus of Property Offenders. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers. Vito, G.F., Maahs, J.R. & Holmes, R.M. (2006). Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy. UK: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Walklate, S. (2007). Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Winfree, T. & Abadinsky, H. (2009). Understanding Crime: Essentials of Criminological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Yates, E. (1986). The Influence of Psycho-Social Factors on Non-Sensical Shoplifting. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 203-11. Read More