Essay on Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association

Introduction

In 1947, Edwin Sutherland hypothesized that individuals learn the motives, approaches, outlooks and values of criminal behaviour through their interactions with others. This proposition forms the distinctive concept of differential association, which highlights on how people acquire techniques on deviance to become criminals, although, it disregards the reasons why they develop immoral and illegal demeanours. Moreover, individuals are inclined to engage in delinquent activities when their rationale for law-breaking surpasses that for conforming to the known ethos and legislation. Through these perspectives, nine behavioural propositions define the differential association theory. This essay focuses on these propositions with the aim of expounding Sutherland's thoughts on the basis of criminal conduct, validity and possible shortcomings of his theory.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Siegel (2010) brings forth the idea of the sociology of law that underwrites the correlation between social forces and criminal laws, which equally affect one another. To this end, criminologists are interested with defining the causative effects of social interactions on delinquency, particularly how past experiences drive someone into breaking cultural norms and regulations and whether earlier demeanours are reliable predictors of future deeds. For that reason, some criminologists concentrate on the individual to discern the relationship between antisocial attitudes, biological and psychological features, and decision making. The psychological perception brings about a sense that criminality is a function of social learning, character development or cognizance while the biological viewpoint relates misconduct to neurological, genetic and biochemical causes. On a different note, Siegel (2010) purports that a sociological dimension stresses on the social predispositions that spawn wrongdoings such as group interaction, socialization, poverty and neighbourhood settings. From these angles, sociologists perceive people as being products of their environs, where crime breeds in poor living conditions.

The theory of differential association has its basis on the above sociological perspective with the claim that a person learns two forms of definitions that determine their actions. Sutherland, Cressey and Luckenbill (1995) argue that an individual can either acquire positive descriptions from others that incline them towards committing the act or can learn undesirable explanations that lower their chances of participating in certain doings. In the felonious context, when people absorb more positive meanings that call for breaching the law than those disapprove illegal conduct, such people will probably be drawn into crime. Furthermore, IResearchNet (n.d.) presumes that members of a society assimilate favourable or pro-criminal characterizations for engaging in unlawful deeds from offenders and, conversely, espouse definitions that condemn misconducts from law-abiding folks.

With that in mind, Sutherland delineated nine principles, or rather theories of behaviour, which are ingrained in the overarching notion of differential association as described below. First, an illegitimate behaviour is learned. Matsueda (1988) cites the two aspects of learning allied to criminalities as the skills and methodologies of perpetuating transgressions, and the particular attitudes, rationalizations and motives for complying with legislation or violating them. Techniques for law-breaking range from simple practices that almost the entire society recognizes to intricate procedures known by only a small faction in the community.

Similarly, people are surrounded by both persons who delineate laws and norms unfavourably and those who define them favourably owing to the existence of a normative conflict. This deduction shapes the second principle, which reaffirms the role of interactions through communication in spurring deviant behaviours. Matsueda (1988) continues to hold that crime coins from the passage of immoral beliefs through communication between members of an intimate but less powerful group who coerce newcomers into embracing deviant deeds which the State proscribes. These recruits will then personally learn the lawless elements mentioned in the preceding section, as indicated in the third principle that views intimacy in groups crucial to the acquisition of delinquent demeanours.

The fourth proposition draws its tenets from the first hypothesis, whereby acquiring antisocial mannerisms requires technical know-how on planning and executing crime irrespective of the simplicities and convolutions involved, as well as the outlooks and drives to impel one into offending others. Siegel (2010) highlights the findings from studies on terrorism that show the need for belonging and identity as one of the chief motives behind those who opt to become terrorists or extremists. Moving on, the fourth and fifth principles correlate in that the later conception maintains that drives and motives towards illegitimacies are adopted from both positive and negative meanings of pre-set regulations. To this end, Matsueda (1988) pinpoints two types of society members, one of whom desist from aberrations irrespective of being persuaded by felons into joining them and others who persist in perpetuating crime.

On another note, the sixth theory affirms that an individual will develop deviant manners due to an excess of explanations supporting unlawful deeds over those reproving them. Some groups will describe certain statutes as doctrines which people should conform to under any condition while others will perceive these laws as just provisions to be breached under specific situations or even almost all circumstances (Matsueda, 1988). Such normative conflict conditions are likely to instigate high crime rates. The seventh behavioural proposition affirms that not all of these explanations take equal weights, however, with each being weighted according to their intensity, duration, frequency, and priority (Matsueda, 1988). Consequently, in the differential association course, those delineations presented more often, earlier in one's life, for a lengthier period, and from deeper interactions or more prominent sources exhibit greater implications on an individual's behaviour (IResearchNet, n.d.).

Acquiring deviant manners through association with either anti-criminal or criminal forms encompasses each instrument engaged in other learning processes. According to Byrne et al., (2014), learning is characterized by long-lasting behavioural changes achieved through experiences, which prompt a person to adapt to current environments. With this in mind, acquisition of criminal demeanours, as accentuated in the eighth proposition entails changes in memory, sensory and motor systems observed during normal learning procedures to customize one's actions to the felonious surroundings (IResearchNet, n.d.).

Lastly, even though misconducts are manifestations of wide-ranging ethos and necessities, they cannot explain such wrongdoings since lawful acts are also expressions of the same necessities and ideals (IResearchNet, n.d.). The degree to which Sutherland's postulations are crime specific is an experiential issue, depending on the categories of offences in question. Therefore, whereas expert felonies such as skilful robbery are perhaps described by precise explanations and methods related to those erudite illegalities only, more general criminalities such as vandalism and pick-pocketing are defined by common techniques (Matsueda, 1988). In this line, the ninth principle stated above brings forth several analogous but logically different sub-concepts of particular evil doings in the theory of differential association.

Despite the attempts of the differential association hypothesis to develop insight among its proponents on the nature and causes of crime, it still exhibits some inadequacies in detailing these divergent deeds. (Sutherland, 1973d cited in Matsueda, 1988) pinpoints two contextual variables capable of nullifying this theory, that is, objective opportunity and the existence or lack of alternative behaviours. Opportunity is a prerequisite condition for law-breaking, which is, however, an intricate notion since critical components are perceived as opposed to objective opportunities. When an objective opportunity exists, the differential association conception can clarify the rationale behind one's perception of a circumstance as being an opportunity to break the law while another individual does not perceive the situation from this angle. Also, in tricky circumstances that present crime as a possible remedy, any inclinations towards such acts will depend on the availability of legal solutions to the predicament. Furthermore, the presence or absence of practical options may depend on the learning process.

According to Kornhauser (1978), crimes are totally relative and also expressions of subcultural values. For that reason, only subcultures are aberrant rather than actions. Additionally, people lack human nature with their conducts being products of deviant subcultures or lawful customs. Based on these conjectures, the differential association theory is inadequate in explaining immoral demeanours by holding the learning process responsible for perpetuating gross conducts. Subcultural differentiation mirrors the tenets of differential association where culture and the social structure are inseparable. This theory only explains crime as an ideal socialization to influential structures and traditions that only differ in normative contents. Consequently, the differential association model falls short of explaining criminal mannerisms sociologically since it treats contexts, behaviours, social structures and beliefs as universal constants which have no specific origins.

Conclusion

From the account above, I think this theory is relatively valid in defining crime and deviance. Its postulations of the causative effects of social interactions on delinquency, particularly how past experiences drive someone into breaking cultural norms and regulations substantially corroborate the origins and course of felonious doings. However, more research is required on the normative conflict, differential social organisation, and delineations favourable to violation of rules to enhance the test and operationalization of this concept. Additionally, findings from such studies would pave way for the generation of solid projections of crime trajectories thus laying the foundations for strategic policy-making. Finally, such scholarly interventions would provide more approaches to reviewing the fundamental doctrines of this theory and give deeper meaning to its conceptualized aspects while discovering sound causal instruments.

References

Byrne, J. H., LaBar, K. S., LeDoux, J. E., Schafe, G. E., & Thompson, R. F. (2014). Learning and memory: basic mechanisms. In From Molecules to Networks (Third Edition)(pp. 591-637).

IResearchNet. Social Learning Theory (Criminology Theories). Criminal Justice. Retrieved 3 May 2018, from http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/social-learning-theory/

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Matsueda, R. L. (1988). The current state of differential association theory. Crime & Delinquency, 34(3), 277-306.

Siegel, L. J. (2010). Criminology: The Core. Cengage Learning.

Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. (1995). The theory of differential association. Deviance: A symbolic interactionist approach, 64-68....