Socio-Cultural Theories Of Crime

Socio-Cultural Theories Of CrimeThe sociological or socio- heathenish model provides a macro- aim synopsis of pitiful emphasis. This model examines criminal hysteria in terms of soci all toldy structured inequality, and mixer and cultural attitudes and norms regarding anti- affectionate demeanor and inter-personal relations. Besides the two sanitary-known theories, viz. the Structural-Functional surmisal and the theory of Sub-culture of fierceness, the Learning Theory, the supervene upon Theory, the Anomie Theory, and the vision Theory also come under socio-cultural analysis.1Structural TheoryThis sup define asserts that complaisant sorts differ in respect to their typical levels of stress, deprivation and frustration and in the sources at their disposal to deal with these stresses. It explicates that those individuals would be more(prenominal) ruby-red who combine high stress with low resources. This scheme thus explains an individuals execute in terms of the ship canal it is shaped or determined by social forces of one kind or a nonher. Among the possible sources of stress ar economic conditions, bad housing, relative poverty, lack of job opportunities and unfavourable and prevent work condition. Men and wo hands argon socialized into particular single-valued functions to which be accustomed a set of socially determined expectations. If structural evention prevents these expectations from existence realized, frustration results and violence may ensue. Furthermore, in a variety of ways violence is socially legitimated.CriticismOne consequence of makeing this position is that the action of individuals has nothing to do with their personalities and values, and that violence cannot be described in terms of battle, suppression, sublimation, guilt, and so on. The role of rationality also has to be jilted in social action. The structuralistic perspective, thus, leaves some perplexitys unanswered because of which it is criticized.It should also be find, however, that fleck stress resulting from poverty, inequality and various forms of deprivation may be tri scarcelyary factors in home(prenominal) violence, only a small proportion of those who jazz such conditions behave uncivilizedly and many of those who do behave knockdown-dragoutly atomic number 18 neither poor nor deprived.The identification of structural factors gives a more political flavour to historys of domestic violence. For example, a study by Straus revealed that on that point was a lower incidence of domestic violence when the inequalities between hands and women were less marked, and that weaker social bonds gave rise to increased domestic violence.2System focus and Feedback System TheoryThis possibleness was highly-developed by Straus (A General Systems Theory of violence between Family Members, 1973) to explain intra-family violence. Straus accounts for violence in the home by viewing family as a purposive goal-seeking, adaptive s ocial agreement. fierceness is seen as a system product or output or else than an individual pathology. Straus specified positive feedback in the system which can ca-ca an upward spiral of violence, and negative feedback which can maintain, dampen, or reduce the level of violence. jibe to this speculation, violence is precipitated by factors such as stress and inter-individual conflict and is followed by consequences which maintain or escalate violence in family and in parliamentary law.CriticismThis theory has been criticized on the basis that in that respect has been little inquiry specifically concerned with the learning of marital violence. It also over-emphasizes the social system and completely ignores the role of individuals personality.3Resource theoryResource theory was suggested by William Goode (1971). Women who are most pendent on the collaborator for economic well universe (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased pecuniary burden if they leave their marriage. Dependency means that they have someer options and few resources to help them cope with or change their spouses behavior.Couples that share power equally experience lower incidence of conflict, and when conflict does arise, are less believably to resort to violence. If one spouse desires have and power in the relationship, the spouse may resort to shout out.4CriticismThis theory does not explain all forms of violence against women. Various arguments can be given against this theory when apply to wife battering, dowry deaths, murders, rapes, and so on.Patriarchy TheoryThis theory developed by R.E. Dobash and R. Dobash (Violence Against Wives, 1979) maintains that by dint ofout history, violence has been systematically directed towards women. Economic and social processes operate directly and indirectly to support a patriarchal social order and family structure. Dobashs central the oretical argument is that patriarchy leads to the subordination of women and contributes to a historical pattern of systematic violence directed against females.CriticismDobashs theory, time perhaps the most macro-level approach to violence against women, has a major drawback of cosmos a theory that is essentially a single factor (patriarchy) explanation of violence (towards women).Conflict and Control TheoriesScholars like Foucault (1975), Thompson (1977), and Rothman (1980) have presented a subordination model of deviance. They have talked of rules imposed on the powerless by the powerful. fore and conflict sociologists like Quinney (1977) have argued that the purpose of controlling deviance is to cling to the interests of the dominant classes and to prevent plan of attack to their resources by outsiders. In other words, the control apparatus is created to prevent the powerless from pursuing their interests, particularly if that pursuit involves gaining access to resources m onopolized by the powerful. Imposing varied restrictions on women and compelling them to remain dependent on men economically, socially and emotionally to make them realize that they are weak and powerless in all respects, stands as an example of this argument. To the result that the agents of control belong to the dominant group, an overall system of devaluation of the powerless group (women) can easily be implemented. Schurz (1983) contends that male control of deviance labelling results in their continued dominance in most spheres of life.The constraints on womens rights can be interpreted as function of the successful definition of women as different from and inferior to men. Man talks of woman not in herself but as relative to him. She is not regarded as an autonomous being. She is differentiated with compose to man and not him with reference to her. She is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute she is the other.Sex role norms clearly differentiate men from women. When these norms become internalized, they are accepted as facts and seldom questioned. Millet (1970) has said Because of our social circumstances, male and female are really two cultures and their life experiences are utterly different. Women live in such a different economic, cultural and social world from men that their reactions cannot be understood from a police chief model developed in male society.CriticismWhat is in question is not the existence of gender differences but the extent to which such differences disengage restrictive role assignments to each gender. There is little disagreement regarding the cultural construction of gender, but there are conflicting views on the role biological factors convey in such development.Thus women are declared as different,defined as inferior, andwomen stereotypes are justified, andthey are systematically deprived of rights, andall attempts at change are restricted.Inter-actionist Devi ance TheoryThis theory, exemplified by theorists such as Erikson (1964), Becker (1963) Schurz (1971), and Lemert (1978) has three characteristicsit cites brace roles as causal factors of wherefore engage in crime and deviant behaviour,it maintains that societal expectations about assume sex role behaviour influence the diagnosis and labelling of certain actions as deviant or criminal, andit holds that gender affects the response to such (deviant) behaviours by society (Wisdom, 1984), Since women tend to be less powerful and of lower social view than men, they are easily labelled as deviant in cases of domestic violence.This theory explains family violence in terms of sex role or gender norms, i.e., differential expectations for values, attitudes and behaviours as a function of ones gender. These norms serve as important standards against which women and men are evaluated through with(predicate) application of various sanctions (Schur, 1984).According to the prevalent sex role n orms, a husband expects a vertical wife to behave in a certain manner. She has to run the kin smoothly, ensure childrens well-mannered behaviour, avoid assertiveness and remain submissive to elders in family. Any supply of independence on her part would violate sex role expectations for female behaviour. According to deviance theory, norm violations tend to instigate forces aimed at making the violator align to expected standards of behaviour. Thus, when women do not behave like the males ideal of wife, husbands use violence against them to make them conform to norms.5Social Learning TheorySocial learning theory eyepatch still concentrating on individual perpetrators, introduces a social element by attempting to explain mens violence towards women as learned behaviour. This phenomenon is seriously referred to as intergenerational contagion of violence. What it purports to demonstrate is that those who witness violence between their parent, or who themselves experience abuse as children are likely to resort to violence in adulthood.6This theory asserts that gentlemans gentleman aggression and violence are learned conduct, especially through direct experience and by observing the behaviour of others. According to this theory (Albert Bandura, Aggression A Social Learning Analysis, 1973) the individual learns violence through false. Individuals pick up the behaviour patterns of those they are taught to respect and learn from. Whether observed in the flesh or via visual media, the behaviour of aggressive models is quick imitated by individuals. Aggressive behaviour patterns learned through modelling and imitation remain part of our repertoire of social responses over time. Rewards and punishments also play a crucial role in the learning and expression of behaviour patterns. One might think that physical aggression directed against ones fellows could hardly have any rewards, actual or anticipated. But it is not so. Violence offers abundant rewards and one l earns it very early in life. This theory explains two the variations of persons and situations in their tendency to respond aggressively by reference to forward experience, reinforcement patterns, and cognitive processes. Steele and Pollock (1974) and Bennie and Sclare (1969) have maintained that disgraceful male adults are likely to have been raised in scurrilous homes. In fact, this family determinism approach maintains that all victims of childhood violence will stand up up to be violent adults.7CriticismSuch and Flit dodge reject the notion that violence is transmitted from one generation to the succeeding(a) they argue that the studies which claim to show this are methodologically flawed and show their conclusions on inadequate evidence and unsound interpretation. Widom points to methodological weaknesses in the research, including in retrospective nature and the lack of an adequate control group.Dr. Ram Ahuja apply this theory in studying a wife-batterers history of ab use as a child and found that about half of the batterers (55%) had faced conditions of demonstrate physical brutality or severe emotional rejection in their childhood. The information thus supported the social learning theory. Yet, violence which is the result of victims innervation or victims complicity, etc., cannot be explained on the basis of this simple theory.cognitive doings TheoryThe cognitive behaviour theory postulates that men batter becauseThey are imitating examples of abuse they have witnessed during childhood or in the media,abuse is rewarded,it enables the batterer to becharm what he wants, andabuse is reinforced through victim compliance and submission.This theory is same as social learning theory.Advantage and Criticism of the Cognitive Behaviour modelsOne advantage of the cognitive behavioural model is that its analysis of battering and its intervention strategy are compatible with a criminal justice response to domestic violence. The approach holds the batt erer fully responsible for his violence and fully responsible for learning and adopting nonviolent alternatives. Without trying to solve bigger issues of social inequality on the one hand, or delving into deep-seated mental issues on the other, the cognitive behavioural approach simply focuses on the violent acts themselves and attempts to change them.The feminist perspective criticises the cognitive behavioural approach for impuissance to explain why many men with thought patterns or skills deficits that allegedly explain their domestic violence are not violent in other relationships, how culture or sub-cultures influence patterns of violence, and why some men continue to abuse women even when the behaviour is not rewarded.8Exchange TheoryRechard J. Gelles feels that the Exchange Theory is the best theory of violence because it integrates the elements of the diverse theories of human violence. According to the Exchange Theory, interaction is guided by the pursuit of rewards and t he scheme of punishment and costs. In addition, an individual who supplies reward services to another obliges him to contact an obligation and thus the second individual must furnish benefits to the first. The swap does not pertain to concrete or tangible things rather, it involves intangibles such as esteem, liking, assistance and approval. If reciprocal exchange of rewards occurs, the interaction will continue, but if reciprocity is not received, the interaction will be broken off. Thus, actors expect rewards to be proportional to the investments (distributive justice). The costs and rewards are judged in the light of alternatives.9This theory explains the harvest-time of resentment, anger, hostility and violence when the principle of distributive justice is violated. In applying the principles of the Exchange Theory to explain violence in a family (in our case wife beating, dowry death and rape by a family member), we expect that multitude will use violence in a family if t he costs of being violent do not out-weigh the rewards. Goode suggests that force is used more by those in the poorer classes partly because they have less alternative resources and partly because their socialising experiences teach them to depend more on force. However, all researchers do not agree that the poor classes do use more force, though statistics show more violence in poor classes are there because of the fact that greater proportion of the population belongs to lower classes or it may be that middle classes have more resources or have greater need to hide their offences.CriticismIntra-family relations are more complex than those canvas by Exchange Theorists. A wife cannot break-off interaction with her husband and parents cannot break-off interaction with their children, even if there is no reciprocity. Goode (1971) however, believes that violence is used as a last resort to solve problems in the family. But Nye (1979) does not accept Goodes viewpoint. In applying thi s theory to intra-family violence, we find some costs for being violent. First, there could be the chance of the victim hitting back second, a violent assault could lead to an arrest and/or imprisonment and finally, using violence could lead to loss of status. Thus, since the cost greater than the reward, how does the reward, how does the Exchange Theory explain violence against women?