CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENT SUBCULTURES
The child’s most important early learning experi- control and help weaken the influence of subcul-
ences take place in the family, but other influences tures that encourage criminal and delinquent
quickly assert themselves, especially as children behavior.
associate with age and gender peers. With the
beginning of adolescence, the latter become espe- (SEE ALSO: Crime, Theories of; Criminology; Juvenile Delin-
cially powerful as young people experience impor- quency and Juvenile Crime; Juvenile Delinquency, Theories
tant biological and social changes. It is at this point of)
that youth subcultures become especially significant.
REFERENCES
Subcultures are dynamic and ever changing,
influenced by both external and internal forces Anderson, Elijah 1999 The Code of the Streets. New York:
and processes. Substantial knowledge gaps exist at W.W. Norton.
each level of explanation; precisely how they relate
to each other is not well understood, however. By ——— 1990 Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an
documenting the ongoing interaction among gang Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chica-
members and between gang members and others, go Press.
group processes help to inform the nature of the
relationship in ways that are consistent with what is Bandura, Albert 1986 Social Foundations of Thought and
known at the individual and macro levels of expla- Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
nation. Both intragang and intergang fighting of- N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
ten serve group purposes, for example, by demon-
strating personal qualities that are highly valued by Chin, Ko-lin 1996 Chinatown Gangs: Extortion, Enterprise,
the gang or by reinforcing group solidarity (see and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Geertz, and Cutter 1961; Jansyn 1966).
Gang conflict often occurs when a gang believes its Chirot, Daniel 1985 ‘‘The Rise of the West.’’ American
‘‘rep,’’ its ‘‘turf,’’ or its resources (for example, its Sociological Review 50:181–195.
share of a drug market) are threatened by another
gang. Threats to individual or group status often Cloward, Richard A., and Lloyd E. Ohlin 1960 Delin-
result in violent or other types of criminal behav- quency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs.
ior (Short 1997). New York: Free Press.
CONCLUSION Cohen, Albert K. 1955 Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the
Gang. New York: Free Press.
The rich research materials that have accumulated
regarding criminal and delinquent subcultures sug- Coleman, James S. 1988 ‘‘Social Capital in the Creation
gest two conclusions: (1) there is a great variety of of Human Capital.’’ American Journal of Sociology 94
such adaptive phenomena, and (2) they are of an (Suppl.):S95–S120.
ever-changing nature. Because they both effect
social change and adapt to it, subcultures—includ- ———, Robert H. Bremner, Burton R. Clark, John B.
ing criminal and delinquent subcultures—contin- Davis, Doroty H. Eichorn, Zvi Griliches, Joseph F.
ue to be important theoretically, empirically, and Kett, Norman B. Ryder, Zahava Blum Doering, and
practically (that is, as a matter of social policy). John M. Mays 1974 Youth Transition to Adulthood.
Robert Sampson and his colleagues (1997) find Report of the Panel of the President’s Science Advi-
that willingness to intervene on behalf of the com- sory Committee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
mon good, together with collective efficacy (social
cohesion among neighbors), is associated with Cressey, Donald R. 1983 ‘‘Delinquent and Criminal
lower rates of violent crime in Chicago neighbor- Subcultures.’’ In S. E. Kadish, ed., Encyclopedia of
hoods. This suggests that developing ways to en- Crime and Justice. New York: Free Press.
courage identification of neighbors with each oth-
er and encouraging them to help one another in Eron, Leonard D. 1987 ‘‘The Development of Aggres-
their common interests will enhance local social sive Behavior from the Perspective of a Developing
Behaviorism.’’ American Psychologist 42:435–442.
Fagan, Jeffrey 1996 ‘‘Gangs, Drugs, and Neighborhood
Change.’’ In C. Ronald Huff, ed., Gangs in America,
2d ed. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Glaser, Daniel 1971 Social Deviance. Chicago: Markham.
Hagan, John, Gerd Hefler, Gabriele Classen, Klaus
Boehnke, and Hans Merkens 1998 ‘‘Subterranean
Sources of Subcultural Delinquency Beyond the
American Dream.’’ Criminology 36:309–341.
514
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
Hagedorn, John M. 1998 ‘‘Gang Violence in the Post- Tilly, Charles 1981 As Sociology Meets History. New York:
Industrial Era.’’ In Michael Tonry and Mark H. Moore, Academic Press.
eds., Youth Violence, vol. 24, Crime and Justice. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press. Whyte, William Foote 1943 Street Corner Society. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press.
———, with Perry Macon 1987 People and Folks: Gangs,
Crime, and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago: Williams, Terry 1989 The Cocaine Kids: The Inside Story of
Lake View Press. a Teenage Drug Ring. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Herbert, Steve 1998 ‘‘Police Subculture Reconsidered.’’
Criminology 36:343–369. Wilson, William Julius 1987 The Truly Disadvantaged:
The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chica-
Jansyn, Leon R. 1966 ‘‘Solidarity and Delinquency in a go: University of Chicago Press.
Street-Corner Group.’’ American Sociological Review
31:600–614. Yinger, Milton 1960 ‘‘Contraculture and Subculture.’’
American Sociological Review 23:625–635.
Klein, Malcolm W. 1995 The American Street Gang. New
York: Oxford University Press. ——— 1977 ‘‘Countercultures and Social Change.’’
American Sociological Review 42:833–853.
Klockars, Carl B. 1974 The Professional Fence. New York:
Free Press. JAMES F. SHORT, JR.
Messner, Steven F., and Richard Rosenfeld 1994 Crime CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
and the American Dream. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
The quality and quantity of normative sanctions
Miller, Walter B. 1958 ‘‘Lower Class Culture as a Gener- have been viewed as a reflection of the nature of
ating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.’’ Journal of Social social solidarity (Durkheim 1964; Black 1976). In
Issues 14:5–19. simple societies where the level of willing con-
formity is high, normative sanctions tend to be
———, Hildred Geertz, Henry S. G. Cutter 1961 ‘‘Ag- informal in nature, substantive in application, and
gression in a Boys’ Street-Corner Group.’’ Psychiatry limited in use. In complex societies where levels of
24:283–298. willing conformity are lower, normative sanctions
are more likely to be formal in nature, procedural
Sampson, Robert J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls in application, and frequent in use (Michalowski
1997 ‘‘Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel 1985). The increasing stratification, morphology,
Study of Collective Efficacy.’’ Science 277:918–924. and bureaucracy of modern society have given rise
to the predominance of formal justice in the form
Schwartz, Gary 1987 Beyond Conformity or Rebellion: Youth of criminal law and criminal sanctions (Black 1976).
and Authority in America. Chicago: University of Chi- Consequently, the nature of crime has been trans-
cago Press. formed from an offense committed by one indi-
vidual against another in the context of communi-
Schwendinger, Herman, and Julia Siegel Schwendinger ty to an offense committed against the society as a
1985 Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency. New York: whole (Christie 1977). Behaviors considered harm-
Praeger. ful to the moral, political, economic, or social well-
being of society are defined as criminal and there-
Short, James F., Jr. 1998 ‘‘The Level of Explanation by worthy of formal state sanctions (Walker 1980).
Problem Revisited—The American Society of Crimi- Criminal behaviors include transgressions of both
nology 1997 Presidential Address.’’ Criminology 36:3–36. the prohibitions and obligations that define a
particular society. Behaviors come to be defined as
——— 1997 Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime. Boul- crimes through the process of criminalization,
der, Colo.: Westview. which includes the calculation of proportional
sanctions for each crime.
———, and Fred L. Strodtbeck 1965 Group Process and
Gang Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chica- Criminal sanctions include capital punishment,
go Press. imprisonment, corporal punishment, banishment,
Sullivan, Mercer L. 1989 ‘‘Getting Paid’’: Youth Crime and
Work in the Inner City. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Universi-
ty Press.
Sutherland, Edwin H. 1937 The Professional Thief. Chica-
go: University of Chicago Press.
Thrasher, Frederic M. 1927 The Gang: A Study of 1,313
Gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
515
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
house arrest, community supervision, fines, res- the criminalizing process, the empirical assess-
titution, and community service. The type and ment of the effectiveness of particular sanctions,
severity of criminal sanctions are prescribed by and the analysis of the relationship between social
criminal law (Walker 1980). The quality and quan- structural changes and the evolution of criminal law.
tity of criminal penalties are determined by both
the perceived seriousness of the offense and the Critique of the Criminalization Process. The
underlying philosophy of punishment. Punishment question of which behaviors become defined as
by the state on behalf of society has tradition- criminal and deemed worthy of punitive sanctions
ally been justified on either consequential or has been central to the study of crime and law. The
nonconsequential grounds (Garland 1994). functional perspective of criminal law suggests that
Consequentialism justifies punishment as a means the criminalization of a particular behavior is the
to the prevention of future crime. The utilitarian result of a consensus among members of a society
approach, for example, allows society to inflict (Durkheim 1964). In the consensus view criminal
harm (by punishment) in order to prevent greater law encompasses the behaviors that have been
harms that would be caused by future crimes. The determined to be most threatening to the social
utilitarian approach to criminal sanctions is gov- structure of society and the well-being of its mem-
erned by a set of limiting principles (Beccaria bers (Wilson 1979).
1980). According to utilitarianism criminal sanc-
tions should not be used to penalize behavior that According to the functionalist perspective,
does not harm, the severity of the penalty should criminal law adapts to changes in the normative
only slightly outweigh the benefit derived from the consensus of society. As society evolves, behaviors
criminal behavior, and alternatives to punishment once considered criminal may be decriminalized
should be utilized when they prove to be as effec- while behaviors that had previously been accept-
tive (Bentham 1995). able may become criminalized. In this context
criminal law and its accompanying sanctions are
Nonconsequentialism, on the other hand, jus- viewed as the collective moral will of society. Pun-
tifies punishment as an intrinsically appropriate ishment is viewed as serving the essential function
response to crime (Duff and Garland 1994). The of creating a sense of moral superiority among the
retributive approach, for example, mandates pun- law-abiding members of society, thereby strength-
ishment as a way of removing the advantage origi- ening their social solidarity (Durkheim 1964). There-
nally gained by the criminal behavior or as a means fore, crime is considered to be inevitable in the
of restoring the moral balance that was lost as a functionalist view because the pressure exerted
result of a crime. According to the retributivist against those who do not conform to normative
perspective crime separates the offender from the expectations is necessary to reinforce the willing
community and it is only through punishment that conformity among members of society. Solidarity
the separation can be repaired (Morris 1981). results from the social forces directed against trans-
While the utilitarian and retributivist justifications gressors, with the most powerful of these forces
have dominated the philosophical discussion of being criminal sanctions (Vold 1958). Criminal
punishment, more recent justifications such as sanctions enable societies to distinguish between
rehabilitation (Rotman 1990) and incapacitation behaviors that are simply considered unacceptable
(Morris 1982) have also been viewed in terms of and those behaviors that are considered truly
their consequential and nonconsequential nature. harmful.
From a sociological perspective these philosophies
of punishment represent ideal types against which Conversely, the conflict perspective suggests
the actual practice of punishment must be examined. that the designation of behaviors as criminal is
determined within a context of unequal power.
THE SOCIOLOGY OF CRIMINAL Although various forms of the conflict perspective
SANCTIONS identify different sources for this power imbal-
ance, they are in general agreement as to the
Several lines of inquiry comprise the sociology of results of the criminalizing process. According to
criminal sanctions including the examination of the conflict view, society is made up of groups with
conflicting needs, values, and interests that are
516
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
mediated by an organized state that represents the criminology. Contemporary, penological research
needs, values, and interests of groups that possess serves as the empirical foundation for policy devel-
the power to control the state. Such control in- opment (Bottomley 1989). Despite its more recent
cludes the capacity to determine which behaviors criminological grounding, penological research is
are considered to be criminal and which behaviors still viewed as primarily evaluative rather than
are not. As a result behaviors more likely to be critical. Penology assumes an exclusively punitive
committed by the less powerful are defined as perspective toward transgressions of criminal law,
criminal while behaviors more likely committed by therefore, it is primarily concerned with the rela-
the powerful are not defined as criminal (Bernard tive effectiveness of the various punitive responses
1983; Reiman 1998). Furthermore, the conflict to criminal transgressions. The critical dimension
view suggests that the application of both criminal of penology is limited to identifying problems
law and criminal sanctions are skewed in favor of within existing institutions and suggesting ways to
those with power. Within the conflict perspective more efficiently achieve the goal of punishment.
various theories are differentiated according to Because penology is limited to the study of punish-
their identified source of group conflict. Among ment systems any questions concerning alterna-
the major conflict theories are those that identify a tive models of crime control such as compensation
conflict of cultural groups (Sellin 1938), those that or conciliation are addressed by the sociological
identify a conflict of norms (Vold 1958), those that study of punishment (Garland 1990).
identify a conflict of socioeconomic interests (Marx
1964), and those that identify a conflict of bureau- Unlike penology, the sociology of punishment
cratic interests (Turk 1969). Despite their differ- raises more fundamental questions concerning
ent origins, conflict theories are united in their the relative effectiveness of both punitive and
assessment that criminal law and criminal sanc- nonpunitive responses to normative transgressions.
tions are utilized to support the average best inter- Within the context of the sociology of punishment
est of those with power. As a result the state is special attention is directed to the way in which
assumed to apply criminal sanctions in such a society organizes and deploys its power to respond
manner that they are not perceived as overly coer- to transgressions (Duff and Garland 1994). It is
cive while at the same time preserving the existing primarily concerned with the relationship between
power arrangements thereby maintaining the le- punishment and society. Punishment is examined
gitimacy of criminal law (Turk 1969). as a social institution that reflects the nature of
social life. The sociology of punishment is funda-
An Empirical Context for Criminal Sanctions. mentally interested in why particular types of so-
Empirical assessments of criminal sanctions have cieties employ particular types of criminal sanc-
been primarily carried out within the contexts of tions (Garland 1990). In addition, the sociological
penology and the sociology of punishment. Penology is analysis of punishment examines the social condi-
a practically oriented form of social science that tions that necessitate certain styles of normative
traces and evaluates various practices of penal sanctioning such as the use of penal sanctions in
institutions and other punitively oriented institu- social situations that are characterized by high
tions of the modern criminal justice system (Duff levels of inequality, heterogeneity, and bureau-
and Garland 1994). Penology began as an exten- cratic interaction (Black 1976). The sociology of
sion of the prison itself thats sole purpose was to punishment also includes the study of correlations
evaluate the objectives of the institution and devel- between the application of various sanctions (e.g.
op more efficient ways of achieving these institu- imprisonment, probation, fines, etc.) and demo-
tional objectives. More recently penology has ex- graphic variables such as class, race, gender, occu-
panded its inquiry to include the assessment of the pation, and education (Reiman 1998; Zimring and
entire criminal sanctioning process (studying the Hawkins 1990). Because of the dominance of im-
prosecution, the court process, as well as alterna- prisonment as the preferred sanction for serious
tive sanctions such as probation, fines, electric criminal transgressions in Western societies much
monitoring, community service, and restitution). attention has been directed to the effect of penal
Increasingly, penology has been guided by the confinement on prisoners. Sociological inquiries
major theories of crime causation thus becoming a into the inner world of the prison have examined
recognized area of study within the discipline of the social adaptation of prisoners to the unique
517
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
requirements and relationships that characterized and criminal sanctions it is possible to compare
‘‘The total institution’’ (Goffman 1961; Sykes 1958). both the type and the amount of law utilized by
The sociological study of punishment suggests one society versus another. The quantification of
that the adoption and application of criminal sanc- law can then be correlated to the nature of social
tions are better understood as a reflection of life. The type and amount of criminal law can
social, political, and economic reality than as the either be correlated to individual aspects of social
product of moral consensus (Garland 1990). life or the collective integration of all the variables
of social life. Social life consists of five variable
The Evolution of Criminal Sanctions. Soci- aspects: stratification is the vertical aspect of social
ologists have paid considerable attention to the life (the hierarchy of people relative to their pow-
qualitative evolution of criminal sanctions. Special er), morphology is the horizontal aspect of social life
attention has been directed to the relationship (the distribution of people in relation to each
between changes in the socioeconomic structure other), bureaucracy is the corporate aspect of social
and the evolution of criminal law in modern West- life (the capacity for collective action), culture is the
ern societies (Mellosi and Pavarini 1981). Within symbolic aspect of social life (the representation of
the more general discussion of law and society, the ideas, beliefs, and values), and social control is the
study of punishment and social structure emerged normative aspect of social life (the definition of
(Rusche and Kirchheimer 1939). The sociology of deviance and the response to it). The first four
penal systems argues that the transformation of aspects of social life collectively determine the
penal systems cannot primarily be explained by style of social control.
the changing needs of crime control. Instead, the
sociological analysis of shifts in the systems of Comparative legal studies have identified five
punishment and criminal law are best understood styles of social control; penal control, compensatory
in terms of their relationship to the prevailing control, therapeutic control, educative control and con-
system of production (Sellen 1976). Each society ciliatory control (Fogel 1975). The response to nor-
generates criminal law practices and types of pun- mative transgressions under each style is consis-
ishments that correspond to the nature of its tent with the general standard of behavior recognized
productive relationships. Research on punishment by society at large. Transgressions of the prohibi-
and social structure has focused attention on the tion standard of the penal style of control require a
origin and evolution of penal systems, the use or punitive solution in order to absolve the guilt of
avoidance of specific punishments, and the inten- the transgressor. Violation of the obligation stand-
sity of penal practices in terms of larger social ard of the compensatory style requires payment in
forces—particularly economic and fiscal forces order to eliminate the debt incurred by the viola-
(Rusche and Kirchheimer 1939). For example, in tion. Behaviors that fall outside the standard of
slave economies where the supply of slaves was normality that characterizes the therapeutic style
inadequate, penal slavery emerged; the emergence require treatment to restore predictability to so-
of the factory system decreased the demand for cial interaction. Failure to meet the knowledge
convict labor, which in turn led to the rise of standard of the educative style requires reeducation
reformatories and industrial prisons (Melossi and in order to attain a full understanding of society’s
Pavarini 1981). Although the economic analysis of norms and underlying values. Disruption of the
criminal sanctions dominated the early literature harmony standard of the conciliatory style re-
on the sociology of punishment, later analysis has quires resolution in order to reestablish the rela-
focused more broadly on all five aspects of social tionships among members of the community
life (i.e., stratification, morphology, bureaucracy, (Fogel 1975).
culture, and social control).
Criminal law and punitive sanctions are in-
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND THE ASPECTS versely correlated to other forms of social control.
OF SOCIAL LIFE In addition to law, social control is found in many
intermediate social institutions, including family,
The comparative study of law has identified crimi- churches, schools, occupations, neighborhoods,
nal law and criminal sanctions as quantifiable vari- and friendships. In societies where such interme-
ables (Black 1976). By quantifying criminal law diate institutions are dominant, the need for law
518
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
and formal criminal sanctions is limited. Con- sanctions (Paternoster and Iovanni 1986). It has
versely, in societies where intermediate institu- been suggested that sanctions imposed by groups
tions are less dominant informal social control is with emotional and social ties to the transgressor
less effective, thereby necessitating the expansion are more effective in deterring criminal behavior
of formal social control that typically takes the than sanctions that are imposed by a bureaucratic
form of criminal law and punitive sanctions. The legal authority (Christie 1977). Although the em-
quantity of criminal law increases as the quantity pirical evidence comparing the deterrent effect of
of informal social control decreases (Black 1976). informal versus formal sanctions is limited, it has
The primary measurement of the quantity of crimi- consistently shown that there is a greater concern
nal law is the frequency and severity of criminal among transgressors for the social impact of their
sanctions. arrest than for the punishment they may receive
(Sherman and Berk 1984). Perceptions of the
The relative quantity of criminal law and other certainty and severity of formal criminal sanctions
forms of social control have been linked to the appear to have little effect on the considerations
relative presence or absence of the other aspects of that lead to criminal behavior. Whatever effect
social life. At the extremes, societies characterized formal criminal sanctions do have on deterring
by significant stratification, morphological diversi- future criminal behavior is primarily dependent
ty, bureaucratic interaction, and cultural multi- on the transgressor’s perception of informal sanc-
plicity will employ a more penal style of social tions (Tittle 1980).
control while societies characterized by general
equality, homogeneity, face-to-face interaction, and Deterrence theory is predicated on the assump-
cultural consensus will employ a more conciliatory tion of fear (Zimring and Hawkes 1973). It has
style of social control. The therapeutic, educative, been assumed that deviants and especially crimi-
and compensatory styles of social control are to be nal offenders fear the loss directly related to for-
found in societies somewhere between the ex- mal sanctions (e.g. loss of liberty, loss of material
tremes. In Western societies the increase in strati- possessions, etc.). Research on formal sanctions
fication, morphology, bureaucracy, and cultural that are coupled with informal sanctions suggests
multiplicity have combined to lower the level of to the contrary that to the extent transgressors
willing conformity and diminish the effectiveness would be deterred by fear, the fear that is most
of informal mechanisms of social control (Garland relevant is that their transgression will result in a
1990). The decline of informal social control has loss of respect or status among their family, friends,
been traced to the less efficient use of shaming. or associates (Tittle 1980). In the cost-benefit analy-
Literature on the effectiveness of various norma- sis that is central to the ‘‘rational actor’’ model of
tive sanctions has suggested that shame can be crime causation, loss of respect and status weighs
either reintegrative or disintegrative in nature de- much more heavily for most individuals than the
pending on the strength of intermediate institu- direct loss of liberty or material.
tions and the level of willing conformity (Braithwaite
1994). Although the phenomenon of shame is Deterrence is considered to be irrelevant to
found in both formal and informal systems of the majority of the populace, therefore, most peo-
social control it is a more central feature of infor- ple are believed to comply with the law because of
mal social control. their internalization of the norms and values of
society (Toby 1964). For the majority of the popu-
FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL SANCTIONS lace failure to abide by the norms and values would
call into question their commitment to that socie-
Shaming is the central deterrent element of most ty. For the well-socialized individual, moral con-
informal mechanisms of social control. Its use in science serves as the primary deterrent. The con-
formal mechanisms of social control has until the science delivers an anxiety response each time an
1990s been limited due to the concerns related to individual transgresses the moral boundaries of
labeling (Becker 1963; Braithwaite 1994). Deter- society. The anxiety response fulfills the three
rence research has shown a much stronger shaming requirements of deterrence: it is immediate, it is
effect for informal sanctions than for formal legal certain, and it is severe. Formal criminal sanctions
on the other hand may be severe but they are not
always certain nor swift (Braithwaite 1994).
519
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
Criminal sanctions represent a denial of confi- stigmatization might enhance crime control be-
dence in the morality of the transgressor. In a cause the thought of being a social outcast serves
criminal law system norm compliance is reduced as a stronger sanction and more effective deter-
to the calculus of cost versus benefit. Conversely, rent than being shamed and eventually reintegrated
informal sanctions can be a reaffirmation of the (Silberman 1976). The potential effectiveness of
morality of the transgressor by showing disap- sanctions is dependent upon whether deterrence
pointment in the transgressor for acting out of is more effectively achieved through the fear of
character. The shaming associated with the disap- social marginalization associated with formal sanc-
pointment is reintegrative because its ultimate tions or the fear of community disapproval associ-
goal is the restoration of the transgressor to full ated with informal sanctions (Braithwaite 1994).
membership in the group, community, or society.
Shaming in the informal context is reintegrative CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND DUE
because of its view of the transgressor as a whole PROCESS
and valued member of society and its goal of social
restoration. Criminal sanctions, on the other hand, Despite the lack of conclusive evidence in support
define the transgressor strictly in terms of his or of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, the
her transgression thus causing a disconnection frequency and severity of such sanctions have
between the transgressor and society (Garfinkel significantly increased over the past quarter-centu-
1965). Criminal sanctions lack both the incen- ry (Stafford and Warr 1993). The dramatic rise in
tive and mechanism for reintegration. Without both the prison population and persons under
reintegrative potential, criminal sanctions stigma- probationary supervision is a reflection of the
tize rather than shame. Stigmatization is exclusive- increase in the age of the population most at risk
ly concerned with labeling while reintegrative to engage in criminal acts as well as a renewed
shaming is equally concerned with delabeling. In commitment to the nonconsequential philosophy
the context of most informal sanctions community of punishment. A number of observers have point-
disapproval is coupled with gestures of reacceptance. ed to the growing use of criminal sanctions as a
The reintegrative character of informal sanctions sign of an increased emphasis on crime control;
ensures that the deviant label be directed to the however, the increasing use of criminal sanctions
behavior rather than the person thus avoiding the has coincided with the expansion of legal protections
assignment of a master status to the person for the accused. The limitations of criminal sanc-
(Braithwaite 1994). tions in the form of due process guarantees have
produced a hybrid criminal process that legitimates
In the study of criminal sanctions much atten- the widespread use of punitive responses to nor-
tion has been directed to the effects of labeling on mative transgressions by constraining the power
the sanctioned transgressor. Labeling theory argues of state-sponsored agents of control. The criminal
that the deviant characteristic (e.g., drug addict, process in the West includes both a strong crime-
criminal, etc.) assigned to a person may become a control component and a strong due process com-
status such that the ‘label’ will dominate all posi- ponent (Packer 1968). The process is perceived as
tive characteristics (e.g. parent, teacher, church a contest between relatively equal actors, which
member, etc.) that might otherwise characterize helps to legitimate the pain associated with the
the person. Such a deviant master status is be- imposition of criminal sanctions. The criminal
lieved to limit and in some cases preclude the process satisfies both society’s demand for crime
reintegration of the transgressor. For those pre- control and its desire to protect the liberty of the
vented from reintegrating, the label becomes a individual. Criminal sanctions are shaped by these
self-fulfilling prophecy eventually leading to sec- competing demands of society. On the one hand
ondary deviance, namely deviance caused by the the crime-control component is based on the as-
label itself (Becker 1963). The possibility of sec- sumption that the suppression of criminal con-
ondary deviance as a result of the stigmatization of duct is by far the most important function of the
the transgressor has been included by some label- criminal process, while the due process compo-
ing theorists in their assessment of the relative nent is based on the assumption that ensuring that
effectiveness of criminal sanctions (Gove 1980).
However, it has been alternatively suggested that
520
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
only the guilty are punished is the most important actions (or their responsibility is significantly miti-
function of the criminal process. gated), therefore, they cannot be punished for
actions that are beyond their control. The societal
The crime-control model suggests that the response to behaviors so defined is therapeutic
failure to provide an adequate level of security for rather than punitive (Conrad and Schneider 1992).
the general public will undermine the legitimacy
of criminal law. In contrast, the due process model The trend toward the decriminalization of
suggests that the wrongful punishment of an indi- normative transgressions can be traced to the
vidual is a greater threat to the legitimacy of law emergence of deterministic criminology, which shift-
(Turk 1969). Therefore, criminal sanctions must ed the study of crime causation from rational
be severe enough to contribute to crime control action to biological, psychological, and sociologi-
and their application must be fair and consistent cal sources (Kittrie 1971). The deterministic per-
in order to satisfy due process requirements (Pack- spective was initially applied to juvenile delinquen-
er 1968). The additional constraint on criminal cy. The influence of deterministic criminology
sanctions that they be applied only in cases where grew in proportion to the expansion of the juven-
genuine intent can be conclusively determined has ile justice system. As more questions were raised
contributed to the rise of alternative systems of about the ability of criminal law and criminal
social controls. sanctions to effectively deal with transgressors
such as juvenile delinquents, alternative methods
SOCIAL CONTROL BEYOND CRIMINAL of control became more widely accepted. It has
SANCTIONS been suggested that the shift from simple to com-
plex societies has necessitated an accompanying
As the definition of what constitutes criminal be- shift from punitive to therapeutic methods of
havior is narrowed, the social control of noncriminal social control (Kittrie 1971). For example, the
normative transgression is transferred from the strength of criminal sanctions is believed to be
jurisdiction of criminal law to the jurisdictions of declining because of the increase in residential
medicine and public health. Both public health mobility coupled with the decrease in the influ-
and psychiatry have long been concerned with ence of primary institutions such as family, church,
social control (Foucault 1965), but what is more and school (Braithwaite 1994). As the influence of
significant is the dramatic expansion of their influ- primary institutions has waned, their ability to
ence and control over the past half-century. Much command conformity has declined. With the de-
of what was considered ‘‘badness’’ (and in some cline of informal social control and the perceived
cases criminal) and thereby worthy of punishment ineffectiveness of criminal sanctions society has
has been redefined as sickness that requires a increasingly turned to the promise of therapeutic
therapeutic response. Though the response is quite social control as a means of responding to norma-
different, the objective of social control is funda- tive transgressions (Conrad and Schneider 1992).
mentally the same (Conrad and Schneider 1992).
Some forms of normative transgressions have long REFERENCES
been within the medical and public health domain
(e.g., mental illness). Research has shown, howev- Beccaria, Cesare (1764) 1980 On Crimes and Punishment.
er, that an increasing number of behaviors that Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill.
had been punished in the past are now being
treated within the medical jurisdiction (e.g., sui- Becker, Howard 1973 Outsiders. New York: The Free Press.
cide, alcoholism, drug addiction, child abuse, vio-
lence, etc.). The most important implication in the Bentham, Jeremy (1823) 1995 ‘‘Punishment and Utili-
shift of the locus of social control from law to ty.’’ In Jeffrie Murphy, ed., Punishment and Rehabilita-
medicine is the determination of individual re- tion. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
sponsibility. In the context of criminal law the full
responsibility for normative transgressions is vest- Bernard, Thomas 1983 The Consensus—Conflict Debate:
ed in the individual. In the medical context trans- Form and Content in Social Theories. New York: Colum-
gressors are not considered responsible for their bia University Press.
Black, Donald 1976 The Behavior of Law. New York:
Academic Press.
521
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
Bottomley, A. 1989 Crime and Penal Politics: The Packer, Herbert 1968 The Limits of the Criminal Sanction.
Criminologist’s Dilemma. Hull, Eng.: Hull Universi- Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
ty Press.
Paternoster, Ray, and Leeann Iovanni 1986 ‘‘The Deter-
Braithwaite, John 1994 Crime, Shame and Reintegration. rent Threat of Perceived Severity: A Reexamina-
Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. tion.’’ Social Forces 64:751–777.
Christie, Nils 1977 ‘‘Conflicts as Property.’’ British Jour- Reiman, Jeffrey 1998 The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get
nal of Criminology 17:1–15. Prison. New York: Wiley.
Conrad, Peter, and Joseph Schneider 1992 Deviance and Rotman, Edgardo 1990 Beyond Punishment: A New View
Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. Philadelphia: of the Rehabilitation of Offenders. Westport, Conn.:
Temple University Press. Greenwood Press.
Duff, Anthony, and David Garland 1994 ‘‘Introduction: Rusche, George, and Otto Kirchheimer 1939 Punish-
Thinking About Punishment.’’ In R.A. Duff and D. ment and Social Structure. New York: Columbia Uni-
Garland, eds., A Reader on Punishment. New York: versity Press.
Oxford University Press.
Sellen, Thorsten 1976 Slavery and the Penal System. New
Durkheim, Emile (1893) 1964 The Division of Labor in York: Elsevier.
Society. New York: Free Press.
——— 1938 Culture, Conflict and Crime. New York:
Fogel, David 1975 We Are Living Proof: The Justice Model Social Science Research Council.
of Corrections. Cincinnati, Oh.: W.H. Anderson.
Sherman, Lawrence, and Richard Berk 1984 ‘‘The Spe-
Foucault, Michael 1965 Madness and Civilization. New cial Deterrent Effect of Arrest for Domestic Assault.’’
York: Random House. American Sociological Review 49:261–272.
Garfinkel, Harold 1965 ‘‘Conditions of Successful Deg- Silberman, Charles 1978 Criminal Violence, Criminal Jus-
radation Ceremonies.’’ American Journal of Sociology tice. New York: Vintage.
61:420–424.
Stafford Mark, and Mark Warr 1993 ‘‘A Reconceptuali-
Garland, David 1990 Punishment and Modern Society: A zation of General and Specific Deterrence.’’ Journal
Study in Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chica- of Research on Crime and Delinquency 30:123–135.
go Press.
Sykes, Gresham 1958 The Society of Captives. Princeton,
Goffman, Erving 1961 Asylums. Garden City, N.Y.: An- N.J.: Princeton University Press.
chor Press.
Tittle, Charles 1980 Sanctions and Social Deviance. New
Gove, William 1980 The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluating York: Praeger.
a Perspective. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Toby, Jackson 1964 ‘‘Is Punishment Necessary?’’Journal
Kittrie, Nicholas 1971 The Right to be Different: Deviance of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science
and Enforced Therapy. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins 55:332 –337.
University Press.
Turk, Austin 1969 Criminality and Legal Order. Chicago:
Marx, Karl 1964 ‘‘Theories of Surplus Value.’’ In T.B. Rand McNally.
Bottomore and M. Rubel, eds., Karl Marx: Selected
Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. New York: Vold, George 1958 Theoretical Criminology. New York:
McGraw-Hill. Oxford University Press.
Melossi, Dario, and M. Pavarini 1981 Prison and the Walker, Nigel 1980 Punishment, Danger and Stigma: The
Factory: Origins of the Penitentiary System. Totowa, N.J.: Morality of Criminal Justice. Oxford, Eng.: Basil Blackwell.
Barnes & Noble Books.
Wilson, James Q. 1979 Thinking About Crime. New York:
Michalowski, Raymond 1985 Order, Law and Crime. New Basic Books.
York: Random House.
Zimring, Franklin, and Gordon Hawkins 1990 The Scale
Morris, Herbert 1981 ‘‘A Paternalistic Theory of Punish- of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ment.’’ American Philosophical Quarterly 18:263–271.
——— 1973 Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control.
Morris, Norval 1982 ‘‘’Dangerousness and Incapacita- Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
tion’ Record of the Association of the Bar in the City
of New York’’ 34:102–128. In A. Duff and D. Gar- PETER CORDELLA
land, eds., 1994 Reader on Punishment. New York:
Oxford University Press.
522
CRIMINALIZATION OF DEVIANCE
CRIMINALIZATION OF that persons who force others to participate un-
DEVIANCE willingly in sexual relations and persons with body
odor are reprehensible. Body odor and rape seem
A 1996 household survey dealing with drug abuse an incongruous combination. What they have in
revealed that 13 percent of persons eighteen to common is that both are strongly disapproved of
twenty-five, 6 percent of persons twenty-six to by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Where
thirty-four, and 2 percent of persons thirty-five they differ is that only one (rape) is a statutory
years or older had smoked marijuana within the crime that can result in police arrest, a court trial,
last thirty days (Maguire and Pastore 1998, p. 246). and a prison sentence. The other, smelling bad,
The same survey showed that nearly a quarter of although deviant, is not criminalized. When devi-
persons eighteen to twenty-five had smoked mari- ance is criminalized, the organized collectivity chan-
juana within the past year and about half of per- nels the indignant response of individuals into
sons eighteen to thirty-four had smoked marijuana public condemnation and, possibly, punishment.
at least once during their lifetimes. (The preva-
lence of marijuana use is considerably greater Some sociologists maintain that when suffi-
among males than among females, so these statis- cient consensus exists about the wrongfulness of
tics understate marijuana use among young adult an act, the act gets criminalized. This is usually the
males.) A different population survey, also con- case but not always. Despite consensus that failing
ducted in 1996, revealed that the legalization of to bathe for three months is reprehensible, body
marijuana use enjoys considerable support among odor has not been criminalized. And acts have
young adults: 38 percent among respondents eight- become criminalized, for example, patent infringe-
een to twenty, 30 percent among respondents ment and other white-collar crimes that do not
twenty-one to twenty-nine, and 28 percent among arouse much public indignation. In short, the
respondents thirty to forty-nine (Maguire and correlation between what is deviant and what is
Pastore 1998, p. 151). Males are much more sup- criminal, though positive, is not perfect.
portive of legalization than females, and those who
claim no religion are most supportive of all. For a clue to an explanation of how and why
deviance gets criminalized, note how difficult it is
A reasonable interpretation of these data is for members of a society to know with certainty
that no clear consensus exists that smoking mari- what is deviant. Conceptually, deviance refers to
juana is wrong. Rather, American society contains the purposive evasion or defiance of a normative
a large group, probably a majority, that considers consensus. Defiant deviance is fairly obvious. If
smoking marijuana wrong and a smaller group Joe, a high school student, is asked a question in
(but a substantial proportion of young adult males) class by his English teacher pertaining to the les-
that uses marijuana, considers it harmless, and is son, and he replies, ‘‘I won’t tell you, asshole,’’
probably indignant at societal interference. Since most Americans would probably agree that he is
a nonconformist is immensely strengthened by violating the role expectations for high school
having even one ally, as the social psychologist students in this society. Evasive deviance is less
Solomon Asch demonstrated in laboratory experi- confrontational, albeit more common than defi-
ments (Asch 1955), such sizable support for mari- ant deviance, and therefore more ambiguous. If
juana use means that controlling its use is no easy Joe never does the assigned homework or fre-
task. Many other kinds of behavior in contempo- quently comes late without a good explanation,
rary societies resemble marijuana use in that some many Americans would agree that he is not doing
people disapprove of the behaviors strongly and what he is supposed to do, although the point at
others are tolerant or supportive. In short, mod- which he steps over the line into outright deviance
ern societies, being large and heterogeneous, are is fuzzy. Both evasive and defiant deviance require
likely to provide allies even for behavior that the other members of the society to make a judgment
majority condemns. that indignation is the appropriate response to the
behavior in question. Such a judgment is difficult
Yet moral ambiguity does not characterize to make in a heterogeneous society because mem-
American society on every issue. Consensus exists bers of the society cannot be sure how closely
other people share their values.
523
CRIMINALIZATION OF DEVIANCE
To be sure, from living in a society the indi- proved in order to convict a person of drunken
vidual has a pretty good idea what sorts of behav- driving in New Jersey. The codification of an act as
ior will trigger indignant reactions, but not with criminal does not depend on its intrinsic danger to
great confidence. The issue is blurred by subgroup the society but on what societal leaders perceive as
variation and because norms change with the pas- dangerous. For example, Cuba has the following
sage of time. Bathing suits that were entirely prop- provision in its criminal code:
er in 1999 in the United States would have been
scandalous in 1929. A survey might find that a Article 108. (1) There will be a sanction of
large percentage of the population disapproves deprivation of freedom of from one to eight
now of nudity on a public beach. The survey years imposed on anyone who: (a) incites
cannot reveal for how long the population will against the social order, international solidari-
continue to disapprove of public nudity. Nor can ty or the socialist State by means of oral or
the survey help much with the crucial problem of written propaganda, or in any other form; (b)
deciding how large a proportion of the population makes, distributes or possesses propaganda of
that disapproves strongly of a behavior is enough the character mentioned in the preceding
to justify categorizing public nudity as ‘‘deviant.’’ clause. (2) Anyone who spreads false news or
malicious predictions liable to cause alarm or
In short, the scientific observer can decide discontent in the population, or public disor-
that a normative consensus has been violated only der, is subject to a sanction of from three to
after first establishing that a consensus exists on four years imprisonment. (3) If the mass media
that issue at this moment of time, and that is not are used for the execution of the actions
easy. To determine this, individual normative judg- described in the previous paragraphs, the
ments must somehow be aggregated, say, by con- sanction will be a deprivation of freedom from
ducting a survey that would enable a representa- seven to fifteen years (Ripoll 1985, p. 20).
tive sample of the population to express reactions
to various kinds of behavior. Ideally, these re- In other words, mere possession of a mimeo-
sponses differ only by degree, but in a large society graph machine in Cuba is a very serious crime
there are often qualitatively different conceptions because Fidel Castro considers the dissemination
of right and wrong in different subgroups. of critical ideas a threat to his ‘‘socialist State,’’ and
in Cuba Castro’s opinions are literally law. Hence,
In practice, then, in modern societies neither possession of a mimeograph machine is a punish-
the potential perpetrator nor the onlooker can be able offense. Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who
certain what is deviant. Consequently the social used mimeograph machines to reproduce relig-
response to an act that is on the borderline be- ious tracts have been given long prison sentences.
tween deviance and acceptability is unpredictable. On the other hand, reproducing religious tracts
This unpredictability may tempt the individual to may not arouse indignation in the Cuban popula-
engage in behavior he would not engage in if he tion. It is criminal but not necessarily deviant.
knew that the response would be widespread dis-
approval (Toby 1998a). It may also restrain on- In California or New Jersey, as in Cuba, a
lookers from taking action against the behavior— crime is behavior punishable by the state. But the
or at least expressing disapproval—against per- difference is that in the fifty states, as in all demo-
sons violating the informal rules. cratic societies, the legislators and judges who
enact and interpret criminal laws do not simply
WHAT CRIME INVOLVES: A COLLECTIVE codify their own moral sentiments; they criminalize
RESPONSE behavior in response to influences brought to bear
on them by members of their constituencies. True,
Crime is clearer. The ordinary citizen may not women, children, members of ethnic and racial
know precisely which acts are illegal in a particular minorities, and the poorly educated may not have
jurisdiction. But a definite answer is possible. A as much political input as affluent, middle-aged,
lawyer familiar with the criminal code of the State white male professionals. But less influence does
of New Jersey can explain exactly what has to be not mean they don’t count at all. In a dictatorship,
on the other hand, the political process is closed;
524
CRIMINALIZATION OF DEVIANCE
few people count when it comes to deciding what and by 1975 streaking had become a historical
is a crime. curiosity. But whether deviance is self-limiting is
an empirical question. The labeling perspective
WHEN DEVIANCE IS CRIMINALIZED: ignores the logical possibility that stigmatizing the
POLITICIZATION deviant may be necessary to deter future deviance
by bringing home to the offender (as well as
As was mentioned earlier, what is deviant is intrin- potential offenders) the danger of antagonizing
sically ambiguous in a complex society whose norms the community. In point of fact, the empirical
are changing and whose ethnic mix has varied evidence supports the deterrence possibility more
values. Criminalization solves the problem of pre- than it does the amplification assumption (Gove
dictability of response by transferring the obliga- 1980; Gibbs 1975). At its most extreme, the label-
tion to respond to deviance from the individual ing perspective denies the desirability of any kind
members of society to agents of the state (the of criminalization:
police). But criminalization means that some mem-
bers of society are better able than others to ‘‘The task [of radical reform] is to create a
persuade the state to enforce their moral senti- society in which the facts of human diversity,
ments. Criminalization implies the politicization whether personal, organic, or social, are not
of the social control of deviance. In every society, a subject to the power to criminalize’’ (Taylor,
political process occurs in the course of which Walton, and Young 1973, p. 282).
deviant acts get criminalized. Generally, the politi-
cal leadership of a society criminalizes an act when Thus, the labeling perspective flirts with philo-
it becomes persuaded that without criminalization sophical anarchism. More reasonably, the issue is:
the deviant ‘‘contagion’’ will spread, thereby un- which forms of deviance can be regarded as harm-
dermining social order (Toby 1996). The leaders less diversity and which threaten societal cohesive-
may be wrong. Fidel Castro might be able to retain ness sufficiently that they require criminalization
control of Cuban society even if Cubans were in order to be contained within tolerable limits?
allowed access to mimeograph machines and word- Experience has taught us that the body odor of
processors. Nevertheless, leaders decide on crimes other people, though objectionable to most Ameri-
based on their perception of what is a threat to the cans, is tolerable. But what about consuming alco-
collectivity. According to legal scholars (Packer hol or cocaine to the point of chronic intoxication?
1968), the tendency in politically organized socie- What about sexual practices that shock most peo-
ties is to overcriminalize, that is, to involve the ple such as sado-masochism or intercourse with a
state excessively in the response to deviance. Politi- sheep? One way to finesse these thorny questions
cal authorities, even in democracies, find it diffi- is to define such acts as the product of mental
cult to resist the temptation to perceive threats in illness and therefore beyond the control of the
what may only be harmless diversity and to at- individual. Instead of regarding drug abuse or
tempt to stamp it out by state punishment. alcoholism or bestiality as deviant choices in the
face of temptations, society may choose to regard
Sociology’s labeling perspective on deviance them as ‘‘addictions,’’ that is to say, involuntary
(Becker 1963; Lemert 1983) goes further; it sug- (Toby 1998b). Since the ill person is by definition
gests that overcriminalization may increase devi- unenviable, he is not a role model, and therefore
ance by changing the self-concept of the stigma- the deviant contagion does not spread (Toby 1964).
tized individual. Pinning the official label of But suppose consensus does not exist that these
‘‘criminal’’ on someone stigmatizes him and there- acts are compulsive; suppose that many people
by amplifies his criminal tendencies. Furthermore, feel that the perpetrators are perversely choosing to
an advantage of ignoring the deviance is that it engage in these behaviors. Average citizens may
may be ephemeral and will disappear on its own; become demoralized when they see their norms
thus in 1974 American society virtually ignored flouted or they may be tempted to engage in
‘‘streaking’’ instead of imprisoning streakers in the deviant behavior themselves. This is why
large numbers for indecent exposure (Toby 1980), criminalization (and state-sponsored punishment)
may be necessary. Punishment serves to deprive
525
CRIMINALIZATION OF DEVIANCE
the deviant of the benefits of his nonconformity, smoking despite the likelihood that more people
and therefore he becomes unenviable in the eyes become alcoholics and get lung cancer than would
of conformists. if smoking and drinking were criminalized. On the
other hand, the tradeoff goes the other way with
Yes, society may stigmatize and perhaps im- ‘‘hard’’ drugs; the main argument against decrimi-
prison perpetrators, amid hope that imitators will nalizing the sale of heroin is that the health costs to
be rare. But criminalization arouses opposition. the general population would be too great; de-
Libertarians lean toward permitting almost any criminalization would inevitably increase experi-
nonviolent behavior except the exploitation of mentation with the drug and ultimately the num-
children. Mental-health advocates perceive steal- ber of addicts (Kaplan 1983).
ing to feed a passion for gambling as a symptom of
illness; they may perceive even predatory violence OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF
as symptomatic of a sick personality for which the CRIMINALIZATION
individual cannot be considered responsible. Prag-
matists point out that when large numbers of The absence of criminal law—and consequently of
people want to do something, such as gamble or state-imposed sanctions for violations—is no threat
use drugs, it is not practical to attempt to stop to small primitive communities: Informal social
them by criminalizing the behavior. They argue controls can be counted on to prevent most devi-
that deviants cannot all be punished, certainly not ance and to punish what deviance cannot be pre-
by imprisonment; they corrupt police forces through vented. In heterogeneous modern societies, how-
bribes and deflect police efforts into tasks that ever, the lack of some criminalization would make
cannot be accomplished instead of more feasible moral unity difficult to achieve. When Emile
deviance-control activities; and the criminal or- Durkheim spoke of the collective conscience of a
ganizations that emerge to cater to these forbid- society, he was writing metaphorically; he knew
den pleasures promote crimes that would not have that he was abstracting from the differing con-
occurred in the absence of criminalization. sciences of thousands of individuals. Nevertheless,
the criminal law serves to resolve these differences
On the other side of the ledger is the tendency and achieve a contrived—and indeed precarious—
for the absence of criminalization to encourage moral unity. In democratic societies, the unity is
individuals to engage in a behavior they would not achieved by political compromise. In authoritari-
have engaged in when faced with possible criminal an or totalitarian societies the power wielders
sanctions. The Prohibition experiment of the 1920s, unify the society by imposing their own values on
despite its perception as a failure, did succeed in the population at large. In both cases law is a
reducing the incidence of alcoholism, as reflected unifying force; large societies could not function
in reduced incidence of alcoholic psychosis and of without a legal system because universalistic rules,
cirrhosis of the liver. But the social cost of including the rules of the criminal law, meld in this
criminalizing alcohol consumption was not only way ethnic, regional, and class versions of what is
the proliferation of criminal enterprises to supply deviant (Parsons 1977, pp. 138–139).
the demand of social drinkers; criminalization also
prevented many people who wished to be social The unifying effect of the criminal law has
drinkers from having the freedom to do so. True, unintended consequences. One major consequence
some of these would go on to become alcoholics, is the development of a large bureaucracy devoted
but most would not. Thus, the criminalization to enforcing criminal laws: police, judges, prosecu-
issue always involves a tradeoff between partially tors, jailers, probation officers, parole officers,
legitimating possibly harmful behavior, such as prison guards, and assorted professionals like psy-
smoking cigarettes, or curtailing freedom by chologists and social workers who attempt to reha-
criminalizing the behavior. This judgment has to bilitate convicted offenders. Ideally, these employ-
be made on a case by case basis. Most people who ees of the state should perform their roles
drink socially do not become alcoholics and most dispassionately, not favoring some accused per-
people who smoke do not get lung cancer; hence it sons or discriminating against others. In practice,
is difficult to justify criminalizing drinking and however, members of the criminal justice bureau-
cracy bring to their jobs the parochial sentiments
526
CRIMINOLOGY
of their social groups as well as a personal interest REFERENCES
in financial gain or professional advancement.
This helps to explain why police are often more Asch, Solomon E. 1955 ‘‘Opinions and Social Pressure.’’
enthusiastic about enforcing some criminal laws Scientific American 193, November.
than they are about enforcing others.
Becker, Howard S. 1963 Outsiders. Studies in the Sociology
Another consequence of criminalization is that of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
the criminal law, being universal in its reach, can-
not make allowances for subgroup variation in Gibbs, Jack P. 1975 Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence.
sentiments about what is right and what is wrong. New York: Elsevier.
Thus, some people are imprisoned for behavior
that neither they nor members of their social Gove, Walter R. 1980 The Labelling of Deviance: Evalua-
group regard as reprehensible, as in Northern tion of a Perspective, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Ireland where members of the Irish Republican
Army convicted of assassinating British soldiers Kaplan, John 1983 The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Public
considered themselves political prisoners. They Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
went on hunger strikes—in some cases to the
point of death—rather than wear the prison uni- Lemert, Edwin M. 1983 ‘‘Deviance.’’ In Sanford H.
form of ordinary criminals. Kadish, ed., Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New
York: Free Press.
CONCLUSION
Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L. Pastore (eds.) Sourcebook
The more heterogeneous the culture and the more of Criminal Justice Statistics 1997. Washington, D.C.:
swiftly its norms are changing, the less consensus U.S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Department
about right and wrong exists within the society. In of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
the United States, moral values differ to some
extent in various regions, occupations, religions, Packer, Herbert L. 1968 The Limits of the Criminal Sanc-
social classes, and ethnic groups. This sociocultu- tion. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
ral value pluralism means that it is difficult to
identify behavior that everyone considers devi- Parsons, Talcott 1977 The Evolution of Societies. Englewood
ant. It is much easier to identify crime, which is Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
codified in politically organized societies. The
criminalization of deviance makes it clear when Ripoll, Carlos 1985 Harnessing the Intellectual: Censoring
collective reprisals will be taken against those who Writers and Artists in Today’s Cuba. Washington, D.C.:
violate rules. Cuban American National Foundation.
Deviance exists in smaller social systems, too: Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young 1973 The New
in families, universities, and corporations. In addi- Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
tion to being subjected to the informal disapproval
of other members of these collectivities, the devi- Toby, Jackson 1964 ‘‘Is Punishment Necessary?’’ Journal
ant in the family, the university, or the work or- of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 55,
ganization can be subjected to formally organized September.
sanctioning procedures like a disciplinary hearing
at a university. However, the worst sanction that ——— 1980 ‘‘Where are the Streakers Now?’’ In Hubert
these nonsocietal social systems can visit upon M. Blalock, ed., Sociological Theory and Research, pp.
deviants is expulsion. A university cannot impris- 304–313. New York: Free Press.
on a student who cheats on a final exam. Even in
the larger society, however, not all deviance is ——— 1996 ‘‘Reducing Crime: New York’s Example,’’
criminalized, sometimes for cultural reasons as in Washington Post, July 23.
the American refusal to criminalize the expression
of political dissent, but also for pragmatic reasons ——— 1998a ‘‘Getting Serious about School Discipline.’’
as in the American failure to criminalize body The Public Interest, 133, Fall.
odor, lying to one’s friends, or smoking in church.
——— 1998b ‘‘Medicalizing Temptation.’’ The Public
Interest, 130, Fall.
JACKSON TOBY
CRIMINOLOGY
The roots of modern criminology can be found in
the writings of social philosophers, who addressed
Hobbes’s question: ‘‘How is society possible?’’
Locke and Rousseau believed that humans are
endowed with free will and are self-interested. If
527
CRIMINOLOGY
this is so, the very existence of society is problemat- benefits to violating the laws outweigh the cost
ic. If we are all free to maximize our own self- then they are likely to choose to violate those laws.
interest we cannot live together. Those who want Their answer to the second question is deterrence.
more and are powerful can simply take from the The use of sanctions was meant to discourage
less powerful. The question then, as now, focuses criminals from committing future crimes and at
on how is it possible for us to live together. the same time send the message to noncriminals
Criminologists are concerned with discovering an- that crime does not pay. Beccaria and Bentham
swers to this basic question. believed that a ‘‘just desserts’’ model of criminal
justice would fix specific punishments for specif-
Locke and Rousseau, philosophers who are ic crimes.
not considered criminologists, argued that society
is possible because we all enter into a ‘‘social In the mid-nineteenth century the early ‘‘sci-
contract’’ in which we choose to give up some of entific study’’ of human behavior turned to the
our freedom to act in our own self-interest for the question of why some people violate the law. The
privilege of living in society. What happens though positivists, those who believed that the scientific
to those who do not make, or choose to break, this means was the preeminent method of answering
covenant? Societies enforce the contract by pun- this and other questions, also believed that human
ishing those who violate it. Early societies pun- behavior was not a product of choice nor individu-
ished violations of the social contract by removing al free will. Instead they argued that human behav-
the privilege of living in society through banish- ior was ‘‘determined behavior,’’ that is, the prod-
ment or death. In the event of minor violations, uct of forces simply not in the control of the
sanctions such as ostracism or limited participa- individual. The earliest positivistic criminologists
tion in the community for a time were administer- believed that much crime could be traced to bio-
ed. The history of sanctions clearly demonstrates logical sources. Gall (Leek 1970), referred to by
the extreme and frequently arbitrary and capri- some as the ‘‘father of the bumps and grunts
cious nature of sanctions (Foucault 1979). school of criminology,’’ studied convicts and con-
cluded that observable physical features, such as
The Classical School of criminology (Beccaria cranial deformities and protuberances, could be
1764; Bentham 1765) began as an attempt to bring used to identify ‘‘born criminals.’’ Lombroso (1876)
order and reasonableness to the enforcement of and his students, Ferri and Garofalo, also em-
the social contract. Beccaria in On Crimes and braced the notion that some were born with crimi-
Punishments (1768) made an appeal for a system of nal constitutions, but they also advanced the idea
‘‘justice’’ that would define the appropriate amount that social forces were an additional source of
of punishment for a violation as just that much criminal causation. These early positivists were
that was needed to counter the pleasure and bene- critics of the Classical School. They did not go so
fit from the wrong. In contemporary terms, this far as to argue that punishment should not be used
would shift the balance in a cost/benefit calcula- to respond to crime, but they did advance the
tion, and would perhaps deter some crime. Bentham’s notion that punishment was insufficient to pre-
writings (1765) provided the philosophical foun- vent crime. Simply raising the cost of crime will
dation for the penitentiary movement that intro- not prevent violations if individuals are not freely
duced a new and divisible form of sanction: incar- choosing their behavior. The early positivists be-
ceration. With the capacity to finally decide which lieved that effective crime control would have to
punishment fits which crime, classical school confront the root causes of violations, be they
criminologists believed that deterrence could be biological or social in nature.
maximized and the cost to societal legitimacy of
harsh, capricious, and excessive punishment could Around 1900, Ferri gave a series of lectures
be avoided. In their tracts calling for reforms in critiquing social control policies derived from clas-
how society sanctions rule-violators, we see the sical and neo-classical theory. What is most re-
earliest attempts to explain two focal questions of markable about those lectures is that, considered
criminology: Why do people commit crimes? How from the vantage point of scholars at the end of the
do societies try to control crime? The ‘‘classical twentieth century, the arguments then were little
school’’ of criminology’s answer to the first ques- different from public debates today about what
tion is that individuals act rationally, and when the are the most effective means of controlling crime.
528
CRIMINOLOGY
Then, as now, the main alternatives were ‘‘get offering different and sometimes seemingly con-
tough’’ deterrence strategies that assumed that flicting answers.
potential criminals could be frightened into com-
pliance with the law, versus strategies that would WHAT IS THE NATURE OF CRIME?
reduce the number of offenses by addressing the
root causes of crime. We know far more about Simply defining crime can be problematic. We can
crime and criminals today than criminologists of easily define crime legally: Crime is a violation of
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the criminal law. The simplicity of this definition is
knew, yet we continue the same debate, little its virtue, but also its weakness. On the positive
changed from the one in which Ferri participated in. side, a legalistic definition clearly demarcates what
will be counted as crime—those actions defined by
The debates today pit those espousing rational the state as a violation. However, it is not as clear as
choice theories of crime (control and deterrence to whom will be defined as criminals. Do we count
theories being the most popular versions) against as criminals those who violate the law and are not
what still might best be called positivistic theories. To arrested? What about those who are arrested and
be sure, contemporary positivistic criminology is not convicted? Some criminologists would argue
considerably different from the theories of Gall that even an act that may appear to be criminal
and Lombroso. Modern criminologists do not cannot be called ‘‘crime’’ until a response or evalua-
explain law-violating behavior using the shapes of tion has been made of that act. For example, how
heads and body forms. Yet there are still those who can we know if an offensive act is a crime if there
argue that biological traits can explain criminal has been no evaluation of the intent of the perpe-
behavior (Wilson and Herrenstein 1985; Mednick trator? In Anglo-American law, without criminal
1977), and still others who focus on psychological intent, an offensive action is not considered a
characteristics. But most modern criminologists criminal action. Other critics of a legalistic defini-
are sociologists who focus on how social structures tion of crime argue that it is an overly limited
and culture explain criminal behavior. What all of conception that too narrowly truncates criminological
these modern positivists have in common with inquiry; a legalistic definition of crime accepts the
their predecessors Gall, Lombroso, and company, state’s definition of ‘‘legal’’ and equates that with
is that they share a belief that human behavior, ‘‘legitimate.’’ Critical criminologists (Quinney 1974;
including crime, is not simply a consequence of Chambliss 1975; Taylor, Walton, and Young 1973)
individual choices. Behavior, they argue, is ‘‘deter- argue that we should ask questions about the
mined’’ at least in part by biological, psychological, creation of law such as whose interests are being
or social forces. The goal of modern positivist served by classifying a particular behavior as ‘‘ille-
criminologists is to unravel the combination of gal.’’ Questions such as these tend to be ignored if
forces that make some people more likely than we simply accept a legalistic definition. Indeed, the
others to commit crimes. particular definition used influences the kind of
questions criminologists ask. When a legalistic
Today the research of sociological criminologists definition is used, criminologists tend to ask ques-
focuses on three questions: What is the nature of tions such as: ‘‘How much crime occurs?’’ ‘‘Who
crime? How do we explain crime? What are the commits rime?’’ ‘‘Why are some people criminal?’’
effects of societies’ attempts to control crime? If a broader conception of crime is the focus (i.e.,
Approaches to answering these questions vary one that addresses the rule-makers as well as the
greatly, as do the answers offered by criminologists. rule-breakers), then one might ask these same
For example the first question, what is the nature questions, but add others: ‘‘Where does the law
of crime, can be answered by detailing the charac- come from?’’ ‘‘Why are some offensive acts consid-
teristics of people who commit crimes. Alterna- ered crimes while others are not?’’ ‘‘Whose inter-
tively, one can challenge the very definition of ests do the laws serve?’’ This is not a debate that
what crime, and consequently criminals, are. In an will ever be resolved. Students of criminology
attempt to answer this question, some criminologists should understand however, that the definition of
focus on how much crime there is. But of course, crime they employ will have important implica-
even this is a difficult question to answer because tions for the kinds of questions they will ask, the
there are many ways to count crime, with each type
529
CRIMINOLOGY
kinds of data they will use to study crime, and the manpower statistics, and other data potentially of
kinds of explanations and theories they will apply interest to researchers. Victimization surveys may
to understand crime and criminal behavior. be conducted by individuals or teams of research-
ers. The National Crime Victimization Survey
HOW IS CRIME STUDIED? (NCVS) is conducted annually by the federal gov-
ernment and, as a consequence, is widely used.
Having made choices about definitions, criminologists The virtue of victimization surveys is that they
are then faced with an array of data and method- include criminal acts that are never reported to the
ologies that can be brought to bear on criminological police. As their name indicates, self-report studies
questions. The data and methodological approach simply ask a sample of people about their involve-
used should be dictated by the definition of crime ment in criminal activity. If done correctly, it is
and the research question being asked. Some very quite surprising what people will report to researchers.
interesting research problems require analysis of
quantitative data while others require that the Characteristics of criminals. It is always risky
researcher use qualitative approaches to study to speak of the characteristics of criminals because
crime or a criminal justice process. For example, if of the problems with crime data mentioned above.
one is trying to describe the socio-demographic Also, one must take care to specify the types of
characteristics of criminals then one of several crimes included in any description of those charac-
means of counting crimes and people who engage teristics correlated with criminal involvement. For
in them might be used. On the other hand, in his example, those engaging in white-collar crime have
book On The Take (1978), because Chambliss was very different characteristics than perpetrators of
interested in the source and nature of organized what might be called ‘‘common crimes’’ or ‘‘street
crime, it was clearly more appropriate for him to crime.’’ In order to engage in white-collar crime,
spend time in the field observing and interviewing, one has to be old enough to have a white-collar job,
rather than simply counting. and possess those characteristics (such as educa-
tion) requisite for those jobs. Without these same
Methods of Criminological Research. For the requirements, the perpetrators of street crime can
most part, criminologists use the same types of reasonably be expected to look different from
research methods as do other sociologists. But a white-collar criminals.
unique quality of crime is its ‘‘hiddenness.’’ The
character of crime means that those who do it hide Criminologists frequently speak of ‘‘the big
it. As a result, the criminologist must be a bit of a four correlates of crime’’: age, sex, race, and social
detective even while engaged in social science class. The first two are rather uncomplicated. Crime
research. To do this criminologists use observa- is, for the most part, a young person’s activity
tional studies such as those conducted by Chambliss (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1983). Probable involve-
(1978) in studying organized crime, or Fisse and ment escalates in the teen years reaching a peak at
Braithwaite (1987) in studies of white-collar crime, between ages 15 and 17 and then drops. Most
or Sanchez-Jankowski (1992) in his studies of people stop participating in criminal activity by
gang crime. their mid to late twenties, even if they have not
been arrested, punished, or rehabilitated. The
Those who use quantitative methods frequently correlation between sex and crime is also quite
use data generated by the criminal justice system, straightforward. Males are more likely to engage
victimization surveys, or self-reports. All of these in crime than females. Criminologists have not
data collection procedures have strengths and weak- found a society where this pattern does not hold.
nesses, and they are best used by criminologists
who have an appreciation of both. The most wide- The correlation between race, or ethnicity,
ly used criminal justice data are produced by po- and crime is complex. Most Americans when asked
lice departments and published by the Federal state that they believe that minorities commit more
Bureau Investigation each year in their Uniform crimes than whites. This oversimplification is not
Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR contains counts of only inaccurate, but it obscures important pat-
the crimes reported to police, arrest data (includ- terns. First, some nonwhites in the United States
ing some characteristics of those arrested), police are from groups with lower crime rates than whites
530
CRIMINOLOGY
(e.g. Chinese and Japanese Americans), but even neighborhoods. When this occurs, we find that
this pattern is more complex. Chinese Americans those areas with relatively large numbers of resi-
whose families have been in the United States for dents who are poor, African American, immi-
generations seem to have lower crime rates than grants, young, and living in crowded conditions
white Americans, but more recent Chinese immi- have higher crime rates. One must be very careful
grants have higher rates than white Americans. when interpreting these patterns. Because an area
The category ‘‘Asian Americans’’ is too diverse to with relatively large numbers of people with these
make generalizations about the larger group’s per- characteristics has a high crime rate, we cannot
petration of crime. The same is true of Latinos and conclude that they are necessarily the people com-
Latinas. African Americans have disproportion- mitting the crimes. For example, high poverty
ately high crime rates, but Africans and people of areas have high crime rates. The high crime rates
Caribbean island descent have lower crime rates found in poor neighborhoods however, could be
than black Americans. To simply describe the produced by their victimization by the nonpoor.
correlations between broad racial categories and The interesting thing about these correlations, as
crime misses an important sociological point: The well as patterns of individual crime correlations,
criminality associated with each group appears to are not the observed patterns themselves but rath-
be more a product of their experience in America er the questions that arise from these observations.
than simply their membership in that racial/eth-
nic category. This point is buttressed by patterns Victims of crime. One of the more interesting
of race, ethnicity, and crime in other countries. things that we have learned from victimization
Visible minorities and immigrants are more likely studies is how similar the victims of crimes are to
to have higher crime rates and to be more fre- the offenders. Victims of crime tend to be young,
quently arrested in countries where they are sub- male, and minority group members. In fact, the
ordinated (see Tonry 1997 for a collection of prototypical victim of violent crime in America is a
studies of race, ethnicity, crime, and criminal jus- young, African-American male. The poor and those
tice in several countries). with limited education are disproportionately the
victims of crime as well. These patterns are obvi-
For decades, in fact probably for centuries, ously inconsistent with popular images of crime
researchers assumed that people from the lower and victimization, but they are quite predictable
classes committed more crime than those of high- when we examine what we know about crime.
er status. In fact, most sociological theories used to
explain common crime are based on this assump- CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES
tion. In the mid-1970s several criminologists ar-
gued that there really is not a substantial correla- Three theoretical traditions in sociology dominat-
tion between social class and crime (Tittle, Villemez, ed the study of crime from the early and mid-
and Smith 1978). Many criminologists today be- twentieth century. Contemporary versions of these
lieve that if we are simply considering the likeli- theories continue to be used today. The ‘‘Chicago
hood of breaking the law then there probably is School’’ tradition, or social disorganization theory,
not much difference by social class. But if the was the earliest of the three. The other two are
criminal domain being studied is serious violent differential association strain theories or anomie theory
offenses, then there probably is a negative associa- (including subculture theories).
tion between social class and crime. Still, the corre-
lation between social class and violent crime is not Sociologists working in the Chicago School
as strong as most people would assume (Hindelang, tradition have focused on how rapid or dramatic
Hirschi, and Weis 1981). social change causes increases in crime. Just as
Durkheim, Marx, Toennies, and other European
Where crime occurs. A very sociological way sociologists thought that the rapid changes pro-
of describing crime is to examine the crime pat- duced by industrialization and urbanization pro-
terns that exist for different types of areas. The duced crime and disorder, so too did the Chicago
social ‘‘ecological’’ literature that does this usually School theorists. The location of the University of
focuses on states, metropolitan areas, cities, and Chicago provided an excellent opportunity for
531
CRIMINOLOGY
Park, Burgess, and McKenzie to study the social segregated wards and neighborhoods where the
ecology of the city. Shaw and McKay found (1931) migrants were forced to live.
that areas of the city characterized by high levels of
social disorganization had higher rates of crime Foreign immigrants during this period did not
and delinquency. look as dramatically different from the rest of the
population as blacks did, but the migrants from
In the 1920s and 1930s Chicago, like many eastern and southern Europe who came to Ameri-
American cities, experienced considerable immi- can cities did not speak English, and were fre-
gration. Rapid population growth is a disorganiz- quently Catholic, while the native born were most-
ing influence, but growth resulting from in-migra- ly Protestant. The combination of rapid population
tion of very different people is particularly disruptive. growth with the diversity of those moving into the
Chicago’s in-migrants were both native-born whites cities created what the Chicago School sociologists
and blacks from rural areas and small towns, and called social disorganization. More specifically,
foreign immigrants. The heavy industry of cities the disorganized areas and neighborhoods where
like Chicago, Detroit, and Pittsburgh drew those the unintegrated migrants lived were unable to
seeking opportunities and new lives. Farmers and exercise the social control that characterized or-
villagers from America’s hinterland, like their Eu- ganized, integrated communities. Here crime could
ropean cousins of whom Durkheim wrote, moved flourish. Crime was not a consequence of who
in large numbers into cities. At the start of the happened to live in a particular neighborhood, but
twentieth century Americans were predominately rather of the character of the social ecology in which
a rural population, but by the century’s mid-point they lived. That is, the crime rate was a function of
most lived in urban areas. The social lives of these the area itself and not of the people who lived
migrants, as well as those already living in the cities there. When members of an immigrant or ethnic
they moved to, were disrupted by the differences group moved out of that area (usually in succeed-
between urban and rural life. According to social ing generations), that group’s crime rate would go
disorganization theory, until the social ecology of down. But, the old neighborhood, with its cheaper
the ‘‘new place’’ can adapt, this rapid change is a housing and disorganized conditions, would at-
criminogenic influence. But most rural migrants, tract another, more recent group migrating to the
and even many of the foreign immigrants to the city. Those groups settled there because that is
city, looked like and eventually spoke the same where they could afford to live. When they became
language as the natives of the cities into which they more integrated in American urban life, like those
moved. These similarities allowed for more rapid who came before them, they would move to better
social integration for these migrants than was the neighborhoods and as a result have lower crime
case for African Americans and most foreign rates. Chicago School sociologists called the proc-
immigrants. ess of one ethnic group moving out to be replaced
by a newly arriving group (with the first group
In these same decades America experienced passing on to newcomers both the neighborhood
what has been called ‘‘the great migration’’: the and its high crime) ‘‘ethnic succession.’’ This pat-
massive movement of African Americans out of tern seems to have worked for most ethnic groups
the rural South and into northern (and some except African Americans. For African Ameri-
southern) cities. The scale of this migration is one cans, residential segregation and racial discrimina-
of the most dramatic in human history. These tion prohibited the move to better, more organ-
migrants, unlike their white counterparts, were ized neighborhoods.
not integrated into the cities they now called home.
In fact, most American cities at the end of the Contemporary social disorganization theorists
twentieth century were characterized by high lev- (Sampson and Groves 1989) are less concerned
els of racial residential segregation (Massey and with the effects of ethnic migration. The disorgan-
Denton 1993). Failure to integrate these migrants, izing effects of urban poverty (Sampson and Wilson
coupled with other forces of social disorganization 1994), racial residential segregation (Massey and
such as crowding, poverty, and illness, caused Denton 1993), and the social isolation of the urban
crime rates to climb in the cities, particularly in the poor (Wilson 1987), and the consequent effect on
532
CRIMINOLOGY
crime is the focus of current research. This line of (1988), the theory’s major contemporary propo-
research has developed intriguing answers to the nent, has emphasized the interactive quality (simi-
question of why some racial or ethnic groups have lar to labeling theory) of differential association
higher crime rates. theory. Matsueda has suggested new ways to
operationalize the key concepts of differential as-
Both the anomie and differential association sociation, and the theory is ‘‘evolving’’ in his writ-
traditions grew out of critiques of the Chicago ings to bring in aspects of both interactionist and
School version of social disorganization theory. rational choice theory.
The latter was developed by Sutherland (1924),
himself a member of the University of Chicago Anomie theory’s roots are in the work of
faculty. Sutherland believed that a theory of crime Durkheim, who used the concept anomie to de-
should explain not only how bad behavior is pro- scribe the disruption of regulating norms result-
duced in bad living conditions, but also how bad ing from rapid social change. Strain theories, in-
behavior arises from good living circumstances. cluding anomie theory, focus on social structural
This theory should also explain why most resi- strains, inequalities, and dislocations, which cause
dents of disorganized neighborhoods do not be- crime and delinquency. Durkheim stressed that
come criminals or delinquents. Sutherland ex- societal norms that restrained the aspirations of
plained this by arguing that crime is more likely to individuals were important for preventing devi-
occur when a person has a greater number of ance. However, unrealistically high aspirations
deviant associations, relative to non-deviant would be frustrated by a harsh social reality, lead-
associations. ing to adaptations such as suicide, crime, and
addiction. Merton adapted Durkheim’s notion of
Differential association occurs when a person anomie by combining this idea with the observa-
has internalized an excess of definitions favorable tion that not only do societal norms affect the
to violations of the law. Sutherland believed that likelihood of achieving aspirations, but they also
we all experience a variety of forms of exposure to determine to a large degree what we aspire to
definitions favorable to violation of the law—’’It is (1938). In other words, society helps determine
OK to steal this because the insurance company the goals that we internalize by defining which of
will pay for it’’—and definitions unfavorable to them are legitimate but it also defines the legiti-
violation of the law—’’It is not OK to steal from mate means of achieving these goals. American
stores, because all of us are hurt when prices go up society, for example, defines material comfort as
to pay the stores’ higher insurance premiums.’’ legitimate goals, and taking a well-paid job as a
Sutherland was very careful to point out what legitimate means of achieving them. Yet legitimate
differential association was not. It is not a simple means such as these and economic success are not
count of favorable and unfavorable definitions. universally available. When a society is character-
Differential association theory is not a theory that ized by a disjunction between its legitimate goals
focuses on who a person associates with. Indeed and the legitimate means available to achieve them,
Sutherland argued that it is possible to receive crime is more likely.
definitions favorable to violation from the law-
abiding. Of course those spending time with delin- This conceptualization led a number of
quent peers will be exposed to more criminal criminologists to focus on these ‘‘opportunity struc-
definitions, but the theory should not be reduced ture’’ strains (Cloward and Ohlin 1960), as well as
to simply a peer group theory of crime and delin- cultural strains (Cohen 1955), to explain why crime
quency (Sutherland and Cressey 1974). As Cressey would be higher in lower social class neighbor-
has pointed out, if crime were simply a conse- hoods. Contemporary strain theorists have moved
quence of prolonged proximity with criminals, in two directions. Some have proceeded in ways
then prison guards would be the most criminal that are quite consistent with Merton’s original
group in the population. Differential association conceptualization, while others have set forward a
theory continues to be of influence in contempo- more social psychological conception of strain
rary sociology, but it does not occupy as central a (Agnew 1992). What ties these contemporary ver-
role as it did in the 1940s and 1950s. Matsueda sions of anomie theory to the earlier tradition is
the notion that there are individual adaptations to
533
CRIMINOLOGY
social strain, or structurally based unequal oppor- population, and the official labeling of a selected
tunity, and that some of these adaptations can subset of violators was more a consequence of who
result in crime. the person was than of what the person had done
(Becker 1963). Consequently, crime should not be
Subcultural explanations of crime are similar defined as behavior that violates the law, because
to both differential association and anomie theo- many people violate the law and are never arrest-
ries. Like differential association, subculture theo- ed, prosecuted, or convicted. Rather, crime is a
ries have an important learning component. Both behavior that is selectively sanctioned, depending
types of theories emphasize that crime, the behav- on who is engaging in it. It follows then that when
ior, accompanying attitudes, justifications, etc., criminologists use data produced by the criminal
are learned by individuals within the context of the justice system, we are not studying crime but the
social environment in which they live. And, as criminal justice system itself. These data only tell
anomie and other versions of strain theory empha- us about the people selected for sanctioning, not
size, subcultural explanations of crime tend to about all of those who break the law. And, labeling
focus on lower-class life as a generating milieu theorists argued, most of our theories have been
in which procriminal norms and values thrive. trying to explain why lower-class people engage
Cohen’s book Delinquent Boys (1955) describes disproportionately in crime, but since they do
delinquency as a product of class-based social not—they are simply disproportionately sanc-
strains, which lead to a gang subculture conducive tioned—the theories are pointless. What should
to delinquency. Miller (1958) argued that a be explained, labeling theorists argued, is why
prodelinquency value system springs from situa- some people are more likely to be labeled and
tions where young boys grow up in poor, female- sanctioned as criminals than are others who en-
headed households. He felt that adherence to gage in the same or similar behavior. The answer
these values, which he called ‘‘the focal concerns they offered was that those with sufficient resourc-
of the lower class,’’ made it more likely that boys es—enough money, the right racial or gender
would join gangs and involve themselves in delin- status, etc.—to fend off labeling by the criminal
quency. This idea enjoys recurring popularity in justice system are simply less likely to be arrested.
explanations of behavior in poor, and especially
urban, minority neighborhoods (Banfield 1968; A further contribution by labeling theorists is
Murray 1984) even though it is notoriously diffi- the idea that the labeling process actually creates
cult to test empirically. deviance. The act of labeling people as criminals
sets in motion processes that marginalize them
A different version of subculture theory has from the mainstream, create in them the self-
been championed by Wolfgang (Wolfgang and identification as ‘‘criminal,’’ which in turn affects
Ferracuti 1967). Wolfgang and his colleagues ar- their behavior. In other words, the act of sanction-
gued that people in some segments of communi- ing causes more of the behavior the criminal jus-
ties internalized, carried, and intergenerationally tice system wishes to extinguish.
transferred values that were proviolence. Accord-
ingly, members of this subculture of violence would Marxist criminology actually began in 1916 with
more frequently resort to violence in circumstanc- the publication of Bonger’s Criminality and Eco-
es where others probably would not. Critics of this nomic Conditions, but it became central to
thesis have argued that it is difficult to assess who criminological discourse in the late 1960s and
carries ‘‘subculture of violence values’’ except via 1970s (Chambliss 1975; Platt 1969; Quinney 1974;
the behavior that is being predicted. Taylor, Walton, and Young 1973). The Marxist
critique of mainstream criminology can be sum-
Along with most other institutions and tradi- marized by focusing on the argument that it tends
tions, mainstream criminology was challenged in to ask three types of questions: Who commits
the 1960s. Critics raised questions about the theo- crimes? How much crime is there? Why do people
ries, data, methods, and even the definitions of break the law? The Marxist perspective argues that
crime used in criminology. The early challenges these may be important questions, but more im-
came from labeling theorists. This group used a portant are those that do not reify the law itself.
variant of symbolic interaction to argue that law- Marxists argue that in addition to the above ques-
violating behavior was widespread in the general tions, criminologists should ask: Where does the
534
CRIMINOLOGY
law come from? Whose interest does the law serve? need. We do not need to explain why the frustrat-
Why are the laws structured and enforced in par- ed and angry among us will express their feelings
ticular ways? Their answers to these questions are violently. The interesting question is: Why don’t
based on a class-conflict analysis. Power in social most people who have less or have grievances
systems is allocated according to social class, and engage in property or violent crime? Other ver-
the powerful use the law to protect their inter- sions of control theory (Nye 1958; Reckless 1961)
ests and the status quo that perpetuates their preceded his, but Hirschi’s (1969) classic answer to
superordinate status. So the law and criminal jus- this question is that those who are ‘‘socially bond-
tice system practices primarily serve the interest of ed’’ to critical institutions such as families, schools,
elites; while they at times serve the interests of conventional norms, etc., are less likely to violate
other classes, their raison d’être is the interests of the law. The bonds give them a ‘‘stake in conformi-
the powerful. Law is structured to protect the ty,’’ something they value and would risk losing
current status arrangements. should they violate important rules. Though not
initially stated in rational choice terms of classical
Both the labeling and Marxist perspectives school ideas, one can see similarities between
experienced broad popularity among students of Hirschi’s notions of ‘‘stakes in conformity’’ and
criminology. Many scholars responded to their the Classical School of criminology’s concept of
critiques not by joining them, but by taking some the ‘‘social contract.’’
lessons from the debate and moving forward to
develop theories consistent with traditional direc- Control theory has evolved in a number of
tions and research methods that were not as de- directions. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have
pendent on data generated by the criminal justice argued that crime and deviance are a consequence
system. Victimization surveys and self-report stud- of the failure of some to develop adequate self-
ies of crime have become more widely used, in part control. Self-control is developed, if at all, early in
as a consequence of these critiques. life—by the age of eight or ten. Those who do not
develop self-control will, they argue, exhibit vari-
All of the theories mentioned so far have had ous forms (depending on their age) of deviance
significant empirical challenges. Most of the initial throughout their lives. These people will commit
statements have been falsified or their proponents crimes disproportionately during the crime-prone
have had to revise the perspective in the face of ages, between adolescence and the late twenties.
evidence that did not support it. Several of these Sampson and Laub’s (1993) ‘‘life-course’’ perspec-
explanations of crime, or how societies control tive argues that social bonds change for people at
their members, are used today in a modified form, different stages of their lives. Bonds to families are
while others have evolved into contemporary theo- important early, to schools and law-abiding peers
ries that are being tested by researchers. No doubt later, and eventually bonds to spouses, one’s own
when someone writes about criminology in the children, and jobs and careers ultimately tie peo-
future, some or all of the more recent theories will ple to conventional norms and prevent crime and
have joined those that have been falsified or modi- deviance. Tittle (1995) has offered a control balance
fied as a result of empirical analyses. Contempo- theory of deviance. He believes that those who
rary criminological theories tend to be in the balance control exerted by self with control by
control theory, rational choice, or conflict tradi- others that they are subjected to are the least likely
tions. However, these are not mutually exclusive to commit acts of crime and deviance. Those
(e.g. some control theories are very much rational whose ‘‘control ratio’’ is out of balance, with too
choice theories). much or too little regulation by the self or others,
have a higher probability of breaking rules.
Control theorists begin by saying that we ask the
wrong question when we seek to understand why The contemporary rational choice perspec-
some people commit crimes. We should instead tive of crime has been most explicitly articulated
seek to explain why most people do not violate the by economists (Becker 1968; Ehrlich 1973). Becker
rules. Control theorists reason that we do not need described the choices people make in social behav-
to explain why someone who is hungry or has less ior, including crime, as much like those made in
will steal from those who have what they want or economic behavior. Before a purchase we weigh
535
CRIMINOLOGY
the cost of an item against the utility, or benefit to criminologists argue that to understand crimes by
be gained by owning that item. Likewise, before women, against women, and the reaction to both,
engaging in crime, a person weighs the cost— we must consider the subordinate status of wom-
prison, loss of prestige, relationships, or even life— en. If poverty is one of the root causes of crime,
against the benefits to crime—pleasure, expres- then we should recognize first that the largest
sion of anger, or material gain. Becker argued that impoverished group in American society, and in
when the benefits outweigh the cost individuals most western industrialized societies, is children.
would be more likely to commit criminal actions. Increasingly, children are raised in female-headed
households whose poverty can be traced to the
Control theory can also be thought of as a lower earnings of women, a consequence of gen-
rational choice theory. The ‘‘bonded’’ among us der stratification.
have a stake in conformity, or something to weigh
on the ‘‘to be lost’’ side of a cost-benefit analysis. Other conflict analyses of crime focus on in-
To engage in crime is to risk the loss of valued come inequality (Blau and Blau 1982), racial ine-
bonds to family, teachers, or employers. The bond quality (Sampson and Wilson 1994), and labor-
in control theory, thought of in this way, is an market stratification (Crutchfield and Pitchford
informal deterrent. Deterrence theory (Geerken and 1997). What these approaches share is the idea
Gove 1975) is ordinarily written of in terms of a that to understand why individuals engage in crime,
formal system of deterrence provided by the crimi- or why some groups or geographic areas have
nal justice system. As originally conceived by Clas- higher crime rates, or why patterns of criminal
sical School criminologists, police, prosecutors, justice are the way they are, consideration of im-
and the courts endeavor to raise the cost of com- portant social conflicts and cleavages must be
mitting crime so that those costs outweigh the brought into the analysis. Blau and Blau (1982)
benefits from illegal behavior. In the case of those illustrated how income inequality, especially ine-
convicted, the courts attempt to do this by varying quality based on race, is correlated with higher
the sentence so that those convicted become con- rates of violent crime. Those metropolitan areas
vinced that they must avoid crime in the future. with relatively high levels of inequality tend also to
This deterrence aimed at those already in violation have more violence. Others (Williams 1984; Messener
is referred to as ‘‘specific’’ or ‘‘special’’ deterrence. 1989) have argued that it is not so much relative
The noncriminal public is persuaded by general inequality that leads to higher violent crime rates,
deterrence to avoid crime. They perceive that but rather high levels of poverty. Sampson and
crime does not pay when they see others sanc- Wilson (1994) argue that racial stratification is
tioned. So, when considering criminal options, linked to economic stratification and this complex
they weigh the utility of illegal action against the association accounts for higher levels of crime
potential cost in the forms of sanctions. According participation among blacks. Crutchfield and Pitchford
to deterrence theory, when those positive utilities (1997), studying a particular form of institutional
are outweighed by the perceived cost—effective stratification that was produced by segmented
deterrence—they choose not to engage in crime. labor markets, found that those marginalized in
the work force under some circumstances are
A number of contemporary conflict theories of more likely to engage in crime.
criminology are legacies of 1960s and 1970s-era
critical perspectives. Most prominent among these Hagan, Gillis, and Simpson (1985) developed
is feminist criminological theory (Simpson 1989). Con- what they call a ‘‘power control theory of delin-
temporary conflict theories, like earlier Marxist quency.’’ They combine elements of social control
theory, address important questions about inter- theory and conflict theory to explain class and
est groups. They begin with the position that to gender patterns of delinquency. They argue that
understand social life, including crime and re- because of gender stratification, parents seek to
sponses to crime, the social, political, and econom- control their daughters more and because of class
ic interests of contesting parties and groups must stratification, those in the higher classes have more
be taken into account (Marxists, of course, fo- capacity (because they have the available resourc-
cus on economic conflict). Feminist criminology es) to monitor (control) their children. Yet, child-
focuses on gender conflict in society. These ren of the upper classes are actually free to commit
536
CRIMINOLOGY
more delinquency by virtue of their social-class crime. The history of modern criminology, which
standing. Consequently, upper-class girls will be can be traced to the early nineteenth century, has
more controlled than their lower-class counter- not produced definitive answers to these ques-
parts, but their brothers will have minor delin- tions. To some students that is a source of frustra-
quency rates resembling those of lower-class boys. tion. To many of us the resulting ambiguity is the
source of continuing interesting debate. More
SOCIETY’S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL importantly, the disagreement among criminologists
CRIME captures the complexity of social life. Oversimpli-
fication to achieve artificial closure on these de-
While the theories discussed above focus on the bates will not produce quality answers to these
causes of crime, they are also important for de- questions, nor will it, to the consternation of some
scribing how social systems control crime. Socie- politicians, lead to workable solutions to crime
ties attempt to control the behavior of people problems. Most criminologists recognize that the
living within their borders with a combination of complex debates about the answers to these three
formal and informal systems of control. Social seemingly simple questions will ultimately be a
disorganization theory and anomie theory are ex- more productive route to understanding crime
amples of how crime is produced when normative and to finding effective means to address crime
control breaks down. Differential association and problems.
subcultural explanations describe how informal
social control is subverted by socialization that REFERENCES
supports criminal behavior rather than compliant
behavior. Control theories focus specifically on Agnew, Robert 1992 ‘‘Foundations for a General Strain
how weak systems of informal social control fail. Theory of Crime and Delinquency.’’ Criminology
The obvious exception to this last statement is that 30:47–87.
portion of control theories that are also deter-
rence theory. Deterrence theory does consider Banfield, Edward 1968 The Unheavenly City. Boston:
informal systems of control, but an important part Little, Brown.
of this thesis is aimed at explaining how formal
systems, or the criminal justice system in western Beccaria, Cesare (1764) 1963 On Crimes and Punish-
societies, attempt to control criminal behavior. ments. Translated by Henry Paolucci. Indianapolis,
Most criminologists believe that informal systems Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill.
of control are considerably more efficient than
formal systems. This makes sense if one remem- Becker, Gary S. 1968 ‘‘Crime and Punishment: An
bers that police cannot regulate us as much as we Economic Approach.’’ Journal of Political Economy
ourselves can when we have internalized conven- 76:169–217.
tional norms, and similarly, police cannot watch
our behavior nearly as much as our families, friends, Becker, Howard 1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of
teachers, and neighbors can. The criminal justice Deviance. New York: Free Press.
system then is reduced to supporting informal
systems of control (thus the interest in block-watch Bentham, Jeremy (1765) 1970 An Introduction to the
programs by police departments), engaging in Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Ath-
community policing and patrol patterns that dis- lone Press.
courage crime, or reacting after violations have
occurred. Blau, Judith, and Peter Blau 1982 ‘‘The Cost of Inequali-
ty: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime.’’ Ameri-
CONCLUSION can Sociological Review 47:114–128.
Criminologists are interested in answering ques- Bonger, William 1916 Criminality and Economic Condi-
tions about how crime should be defined, why tions. Boston: Little, Brown.
crime occurs, and how societies seek to control
Chambliss, William J. 1978 On the Take: From Petty Crooks
to Presidents. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
——— 1975 ‘‘Toward a Political Economy of Crime.’’
Theory and Society 2:149–170.
Cloward, Richard, and Lloyd Ohlin 1960 Delinquency
and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New
York: Free Press of Glencoe.
537
CRIMINOLOGY
Cohen, Albert 1955 Delinquent Boys. New York: Free Cost of Inequality.’’ American Sociological Review
Press of Glencoe. 54:597–611.
Crutchfield, Robert D., and Susan R. Pitchford 1997 Miller, Walter 1958 ‘‘Lower Class Culture as a Generat-
‘‘Work and Crime: The Effects of Labor Stratifica- ing Milieu of Gang Delinquency.’’ Journal of Social
tion.’’ Social Forces 76:93–118. Issues 14:5–19.
Ehrlich, Isaac 1973 ‘‘Participation in Illegitimate Activi- Murray, Charles 1984 Losing Ground: American Social
ties: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation.’’ Jour- Policy 1950–1980. New York: Basic Books.
nal of Political Economy 81:521–565.
Nye, Ivan F. 1958 Family Relationships and Delinquent
Fisse, Brent, and John Braithwaite 1987 ‘‘The Impact of Behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Publicity on Corporate Offenders: Ford Motor Com-
pany and the Pinto Papers.’’ In M. David Ermann and Platt, Anthony 1969 The Child Savers: The Invention of
Richard J. Lundmann, eds., Corporate and Governmen- Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
tal Deviance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quinney, Richard 1974 Critique of the Legal Order: Crime
Foucault, Michel 1979 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Control in a Capitalist Society. Boston: Little, Brown.
the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Reckless, Walter C. 1961 ‘‘A New Theory of Delinquen-
Geerken, Michael, and Walter Gove1975 ‘‘Deterrence: cy and Crime.’’ Federal Probation 25:42–46.
Some Theoretical Considerations.’’ Law and Society
Review 9:497–514. Sampson, Robert, and W. Byron Groves 1989 ‘‘Commu-
nity Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorgani-
Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi 1990 A Gener- zation Theory of Crime.’’ American Journal of Sociolo-
al Theory of Crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Universi- gy 94:774–802.
ty Press.
Sampson, Robert, and John Laub 1993 Crime in the
Hagan, John, A. R. Gillis, and John Simpson 1985 ‘‘The Making. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Class Structure of Gender and Delinquency: Toward
a Power-Control Theory of Common Delinquent Sampson, Robert, and William J. Wilson 1994 ‘‘Toward
Behavior.’’ American Journal of Sociology 90:1151–1178. a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality.’’ In
John Hagan and Ruth Peterson, eds., Crime and
Hindelang, Michael, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis Inequality. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
1981 Measuring Delinquency. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Sanchez-Jankowski, Martí 1992 Islands in the Street. Los
Hirschi, Travis 1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: Angeles: University of California Press.
University of California Press.
Shaw, Clifford, and Henry McKay 1931 Social Factors in
———, and Michael Gottfredson 1983 ‘‘Age and the Juvenile Delinquency. Washington, D.C.: National Com-
Explanation of Crime.’’ American Journal of Sociology mission of Law Observance and Enforcement.
89:552–584.
Simpson, Sally S. 1989 ‘‘Feminist Theory, Crime, and
Leek, Sybill 1970 Phrenology. New York: Macmillan. Justice.’’ Criminology 27:705–631.
Lombroso, Cesare 1876 L’Uomo Delinquente. Milan: Hoepli. Sutherland, Edwin 1924 Criminology. Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
Massey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton 1993 American
Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. ———, and Donald R. Cressey 1974 Criminology, 9th ed.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Matsueda, Ross L. 1988 ‘‘The Current State of Differen- Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young 1973 The New
tial Association Theory.’’ Crime and Delinquency Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London:
34:277–306. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mednick, Sarnoff A. 1977 ‘‘A Bio-Social Theory of Tittle, Charles 1995 Control Balance: Toward a General
Learning of Law-Abiding Behavior.’’ In Sarnoff A. Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Mednick and Karl O. Christiansen, eds., Biosocial
Bases of Criminal Behavior. New York: Gardner. ———, W. J. Villemez, and Douglas Smith 1978 ‘‘The
Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical
Merton, Robert K. 1938 ‘‘Social Structure and Ano- Assessment of the Empirical Evidence.’’ American
mie.’’ American Sociological Review 3:672–682. Sociological Review 47:505–518.
Messener, Steven 1989 ‘‘Economic Discrimination and Tonry, Michael (ed.) 1997 Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigra-
Societal Homicide Rates: Further Evidence on the tion: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
538
CRITICAL THEORY
Williams, Kirk R. 1984 ‘‘Economic Sources of Homi- state in social planning and control. The rise of
cide: Reestimating the Effects of Poverty and Ine- fascism and the collapse of effective opposition by
quality.’’ American Sociological Review 20:545–572. workers’ parties, however, prompted them to in-
vestigate new sources and forms of authoritarian-
Wilson, James Q., and Richard Herrenstein 1985 Crime ism in culture, ideology, and personality develop-
and Human Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster. ment and to search for new oppositional forces. By
stressing the importance and semiautonomy of
Wilson, William J. 1987 The Truly Disadvantaged: The culture, consciousness, and activism, they devel-
Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: oped an innovative, humanistic, and open-end-
University of Chicago Press. ed version of Marxist theory that avoided the
determinism and class reductionism of much of
Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Franco Ferracuti 1967 The the Marxist theory that characterized their era
Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock Publishers. (Held 1980).
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD ‘‘Immanent critique,’’ a method of descrip-
CHARIS KUBRIN tion and evaluation derived from Karl Marx and
Georg W. F. Hegel, formed the core of the Frank-
CRITICAL THEORY furt School’s interdisciplinary approach to social
research (Antonio 1981). As Marxists, members of
The term critical theory was used originally by the Frankfurt School were committed to a revolu-
members of the Institute for Social Research in tionary project of human emancipation. Rather
Frankfurt, Germany, after they emigrated to the than critique existing social arrangements in terms
United States in the late 1930s, following the rise of a set of ethical values imposed from ‘‘outside,’’
of Hitler. The term served as a code word for their however, they sought to judge social institutions
version of Marxist social theory and research by those institutions’ own internal (i.e., ‘‘imma-
(Kellner 1990a). The term now refers primarily to nent’’) values and self-espoused ideological claims.
Marxist studies done or inspired by this so-called (An example of the practical application of such an
Frankfurt School and its contemporary representa- approach is the southern civil rights movement of
tives such as Jurgen Habermas. Critical sociolo- the 1960s, which judged the South’s racial caste
gists working in this tradition share several com- system in light of professed American values of
mon tenets including a rejection of sociological democracy, equality, and justice.) Immanent cri-
positivism and its separation of facts from values; a tique thus provided members of the Frankfurt
commitment to the emancipation of humanity School with a nonarbitrary standpoint for the
from all forms of exploitation, domination, or critical examination of social institutions while it
oppression; and a stress on the importance of sensitized them to contradictions between social
human agency in social relations. appearances and the deeper levels of social reality.
THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL OF Immanent critique, or what Adorno (1973)
CRITICAL THEORY termed ‘‘non-identity thinking,’’ is possible be-
cause, as Horkheimer (1972, p. 27) put it, there is
The Institute for Social Research was founded in always ‘‘an irreducible tension between concept
1923 as a center for Marxist studies and was loose- and being.’’ That is, in any social organization,
ly affiliated with the university at Frankfurt, Ger- contradictions inevitably exist between what social
many. It remained independent of political party practices are called—for example, ‘‘democracy’’
ties. Max Horkheimer became its director in 1931. or ‘‘freedom’’ or ‘‘workers’ parties’’—and what, in
Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, their full complexity, they really are. This gap
Herbert Marcuse, and, more distantly, Karl Korsch between existence and essence or appearance and
and Walter Benjamin were among the prominent reality, according to Adorno (1973, p. 5), ‘‘indi-
theorists and researchers associated with the insti- cates the untruth of identity, the fact that the
tute (Jay 1973). Initially, institute scholars sought concept does not exhaust the thing conceived.’’
to update Marxist theory by studying new social The point of immanent critique is thus to probe
developments such as the expanding role of the empirically whether a given social reality negates
its own claims—as, for example, to represent a
539
CRITICAL THEORY
‘‘just’’ or ‘‘equal’’ situation—as well as to uncover On the one hand, they sought to understand
internal tendencies with a potential for change diverse social phenomena holistically as parts of an
including new sources of resistance and opposi- innerconnected ‘‘totality’’ structured primarily by
tion to repressive institutions. such capitalistic principles as the commodity form
of exchange relations and bureaucratic rationality.
Frankfurt School theorists found a paradig- On the other hand, they avoided reducing com-
matic example of immanent critique in the works plex social factors to a predetermined existence as
of Karl Marx, including both his early writings on shadowlike reflections of these basic tendencies
alienation and his later analyses of industrial capi- (Jay 1984). Thus, the methodology of immanent
talism. Best articulated by Marcuse (1941), their critique propelled a provisional, antifoundationalist,
reading of Capital interpreted Marx’s text as oper- and inductive approach to ‘‘truth’’ that allowed for
ating on two levels. On one level, Capital was read the open-endedness of social action and referred
as a historical analysis of social institutions’ pro- the ultimate verification of sociological insights to
gressive evolution, which resulted from conflicts the efficacy of historical struggles rather than to
between ‘‘forces’’ (such as technology) and ‘‘rela- the immediate observation of empirical facts
tions’’ (such as class conflicts) in economic produc- (Horkheimer 1972). In effect, they were saying
tion. Scientistic readings of Marx, however—espe- that social ‘‘facts’’ are never fixed once and for all,
cially by the generation of Marxist theorists as in the world of nature, but rather are subject to
immediately after the death of Marx—essentialized constant revisions by both the conscious aims and
this dimension into a dogma that tended to neg- unintended consequences of collective action.
lect the role of human agency and stressed eco-
nomic determinism in social history. But the Frank- In their concrete studies, members of the
furt School also read Capital as a ‘‘negative’’ or Frankfurt School concentrated on the sources of
‘‘immanent’’ critique of an important form of social conformism that, by the 1930s, had under-
ideology, the bourgeois pseudo-science of econo- mined the Left’s faith in the revolutionary poten-
mics. Here, Marx showed that the essence of capi- tial of the working class. They were among the first
talism as the exploitation of wage slavery contra- Marxists to relate Freud’s insights into personality
dicts its ideological representation or appearance development to widespread changes in family and
as being a free exchange among equal parties (e.g., socialization patterns that they believed had weak-
laborers and employers). ened the ego boundary between self and society
and reduced personal autonomy (Fromm 1941).
Members of the Frankfurt School interpreted After they emigrated to the United States, these
the efforts that Marx devoted to the critique of studies culminated in a series of survey research
ideology as an indication of his belief that freeing efforts, directed by Adorno and carried out by
the consciousness of social actors from ideological social scientists at the University of California, that
illusion is an important form of political practice investigated the relation between prejudice, espe-
that potentially contributes to the expansion of cially anti-Semitism, and ‘‘the authoritarian per-
human agency. Thus, they interpreted Marx’s theo- sonality’’ (Adorno et al. 1950). Later, in a more
ry of the production and exploitation of economic radical interpretation of Freud, Marcuse (1955)
values as an empirical effort to understand the questioned whether conflicts between social
historically specific ‘‘laws of motion’’ of market- constraints and bodily needs and desires might
driven, capitalist societies. At the same time, how- provide an impetus for revolt against capitalist
ever, it was also interpreted as an effort—motivat- repression if such conflicts were mediated by pro-
ed by faith in the potential efficacy of active oppo- gressively oriented politics.
sition—to see through capitalism’s objectified
processes that made a humanly created social Once in the United States, members of the
world appear to be the product of inevitable, Frankfurt School emphasized another important
autonomous, and ‘‘natural’’ forces and to call for source of conformism, the mass media. Holding
forms of revolutionary activism to defeat such that the best of ‘‘authentic art’’ contains a critical
forces of ‘‘alienation.’’ dimension that negates the status quo by pointing
in utopian directions, they argued that commer-
Members of the Frankfurt School attempted cialized and popular culture, shaped predomi-
to honor both dimensions of the Marxian legacy. nantly by market and bureaucratic imperatives, is
540
CRITICAL THEORY
merely ‘‘mimetic’’ or imitative of the surrounding For Lukacs, however, this form of life was histori-
world of appearances. Making no demands on its cally unique to the capitalist mode of production
audience to think for itself, the highly standard- and would be abolished with socialism.
ized products of the ‘‘culture industry’’ reinforce
conformism by presenting idealized and reified In the 1950s, as they grew more pessimistic
images of contemporary society as the best of all about the prospects for change, Horkheimer and
possible worlds (see Kellner 1984–1985). Adorno, especially, came to accept Weber’s belief
that rationalization was more fundamental than
The most important contribution of the Frank- capitalism as the primary source of human oppres-
furt School was its investigation of the ‘‘dialectic of sion. Thus, they located the roots of instrumental
enlightenment’’ (Horkheimer and Adorno [1947] rationality in a drive to dominate nature that they
1972). During the European Enlightenment, sci- traced back to the origins of Western thought in
entific reason had played a partisan role in the Greek and Hebrew myths. This historical drive
advance of freedom by challenging religious dog- toward destructive domination extended from na-
matism and political absolutism. But according to ture to society and the self. At the same time,
the Frankfurt School, a particular form of reason, Horkheimer and Adorno moved closer to Weber’s
the instrumental rationality of efficiency and tech- pessimistic depiction of the modern world as one
nology, has become a source of unfreedom in both of no exit from the ‘‘iron cage’’ of rationalization.
capitalist and socialist societies during the modern In the context of this totalizing view of the destruc-
era. Science and technology no longer play a liber- tive tendencies of Western culture—the images
ating role in the critique of social institutions but for which were Auschwitz and Hiroshima—the
have become new forms of domination. Dogmatic only acts of defiance that seemed feasible were
ideologies of scientism and operationalism absolutize purely intellectual ‘‘negations,’’ or what Marcuse
the status quo and treat the social world as a (1964) termed ‘‘the great refusal’’ of intellectuals
‘‘second nature’’ composed of law-governed facts, to go along with the one-dimensional society. Con-
subject to manipulation but not to revolutionary sequently, their interest in empirical sociological
transformation. Thus, under the sway of positiv- investigations, along with their faith in the efficacy
ism, social thought becomes increasingly ‘‘one- of mass political movements, withdrew to a distant
dimensional’’ (Marcuse 1964). Consequently, the horizon of their concerns. Marcuse, like Benjamin
dimension of critique, the rational reflection on before him, remained somewhat optimistic. Marcuse
societal values and directions, and the ability to see continuted to investigate and support sources of
alternative possibilities and new sources of opposi- opposition in racial, sexual, and Third World lib-
tion are increasingly suppressed by the hegemony eration movements.
of an eviscerated form of thinking. One-dimen-
sional thinking, as an instrument of the totally Benjamin’s Passagen-Werk (Arcades project),
‘‘administered society,’’ thus reinforces the con- originally titled Dialectical Fairy Scene, was an un-
formist tendencies promoted by family socializa- finished project of the 1930s that culminated in a
tion and the culture industry and threatens both to collection of notes on nineteenth-century industri-
close off and absorb dissent. al culture in Paris. The Paris Arcade was an early
precursor to the modern department store, a struc-
The Frankfurt School’s interpretation of the ture of passages displaying commodities in win-
domination of culture by instrumental reason was dow showcases; it reached its height in the world
indebted to Georg Lukacs’s ([1923] 1971) theory expositions (e.g., the Paris Exposition in 1900).
of reification and to Max Weber’s theory of ration- Through an interpretation of Benjamin’s notes,
alization. In the case of Lukacs, ‘‘reification’’ was Susan Buck-Morss (1995) has brought this unfin-
understood to be the principal manifestation of ished project to life. Benjamin drew on allegory as
the ‘‘commodity form’’ of social life whereby hu- a method for analyzing the content and form
man activities, such as labor, are bought and sold of cultural images. In contrast to Horkheimer
as objects. Under such circumstances, social actors and Adorno’s ‘‘iron cage’’ view of mass culture,
come to view the world of their own making as an his dialectical approach held out hope for the
objectified entity beyond their control at the same revolutionary potential of mass-produced culture.
time that they attribute human powers to things. Anticipating aspects of Symbolic Interactionism
and feminist theories of performativity, Benjamin
541
CRITICAL THEORY
explored the relationship between mass produc- impact of commodification and instrumental ra-
tion as form (e.g., montage as a form of film tionalization on the family and socialization (Lasch
production) and political subversion. In contrast 1977), law (Balbus 1977), education (Giroux 1988),
to Horkheimer and Adorno who lamented the advertising culture (Haug 1986), and mass media
loss of authority in art and the family, Benja- (Kellner 1990b), as well as other institutional are-
min welcomed the abolition of traditional sources as. Feminist theorists have contributed a ‘‘doubled
of authority and hailed the rapidity of techno- vision’’ to critical theory by showing the ‘‘systemat-
logical change in mass production as potentially ic connectedness’’ of gender, class, and race rela-
positive. He interpreted mass production as a tions (Kelly 1979) and by criticizing critical theory
form of mimicry that reproduced existing rela- itself for its neglect of gender as a fundamental
tions of authority and domination while lending category of social analysis (Benjamin 1978; Fraser
itself to potentially subversive reinterpretations 1989). Among the most far-reaching and innova-
and reenactments of existing social relations and tive contemporary studies are those of the contem-
social meanings (Buck-Morss 1995). porary German sociologist and philosopher Jurgen
Habermas.
While retaining an analysis of instrumental
reason as a source of domination, Benjamin’s THE CRITICAL THEORY OF JURGEN
allegorical approach worked to unveil the forces of HABERMAS
contradiction that were crystallized as promise,
progress, and ruin in mythical modern images. Perhaps no social theorist since Max Weber has
These images bore the revolutionary potential of combined as comprehensive an understanding of
the new to fulfill collective wishes for an unrealized modern social life with as deeply reflective an
social utopia contained in a more distant past. At approach to the implications of theory and meth-
the same time, they represented progress as the ods as Jurgen Habermas. Habermas has attempted
unrealized potential of capitalism to satisfy materi- to further the emancipatory project of the Frank-
al needs and desires. For Benjamin, images of ruin furt School by steering critical theory away from
represented the transitoriness, fragility, and de- the pessimism that characterized the closing dec-
structiveness of capitalism as well as the potential ades of Frankfurt School thought. At the same
for reawakening and a critical retelling of history time, he has resumed the dialogue between em-
(Buck-Morss 1995). pirical social science and critical theory to the
mutual benefit of both. Further, he has given
Even though some of the most prominent critical theory a new ethical and empirical ground-
founders of the Frankfurt School abandoned radi- ing by moving its focus away from the relationship
cal social research in favor of an immanent cri- between consciousness and society and toward the
tique of philosophy (as in Adorno 1973), the lega- philosophical and sociological implications of a
cy of their sociological thought has inspired a critical theory of communicative action.
vigorous tradition of empirical research among
contemporary American social scientists. In large In sharp contrast to the Frankfurt School’s
measure, this trend can be seen as a result of the increasing pessimism about the ‘‘dialectic of en-
popularization of Frankfurt School themes in the lightenment,’’ Habermas has attempted to defend
1960s, when the New Left stressed liberation and the liberative potential of reason in the continuing
consciousness raising, themes that continue to struggle for freedom. While agreeing with the
influence sociological practice. Stanley Aronowitz Frankfurt School’s assessment of the destruction
(1973), for example, along with Richard Sennet caused by instrumental rationality’s unbridled domi-
and Jonathan Cobb (1973), have rekindled the nation of social life, he nonetheless recognizes the
Frankfurt School’s original interests in working- potential benefits of modern science and tech-
class culture in the context of consumer society. nology. The solution he offers to one-dimensional
Henry Braverman (1974) has directed attention to thought is thus not to abandon the ‘‘project of
processes of reification in work settings by focus- modernity’’ but rather to expand rational dis-
ing on scientific management and the separation course about the ends of modern society. In order
of conception from labor in modern industry. to further this goal, he has tried to unite science
Penetrating analyses also have been made of the and ethics (fact and values) by recovering the
542
CRITICAL THEORY
inherently rational component in symbolic inter- universal demand that interpersonal understand-
action as well as developing an empirical political ing be based on the free exchange and clarification
sociology that helps to critique the political effects of meanings. In other words, an immanent cri-
of positivism as well as to identify the progressive tique of language performance (which Habermas
potential of contemporary social movements. terms ‘‘universal pragmatics’’) reveals the presump-
tion that communication not be distorted by dif-
From the beginning, Habermas (1970) has ferences in power between speakers. Thus, human
agreed with the classical Frankfurt School’s con- communication is implicitly a demand for free-
tention that science and technology have become dom and equality. By this form of immanent cri-
legitimating rhetorics for domination in modern tique—consistent with the methodological stan-
society. At the same time, he has argued that dards of the Frankfurt School—Habermas attempts
alternative ways of knowing are mutually legiti- to demonstrate the potential validity of emancipatory
mate by showing that they have complementary knowledge so that it can be seen as a compelling
roles to play in human affairs, even though their challenge to the hegemony of instrumental knowl-
forms of validity and realms of appropriate appli- edge. The purpose of Habermas’s communication
cation are distinct. That is, plural forms of knowl- theory is thus highly partisan. By showing that no
edge represent different but complementary ‘‘knowl- forms of knowledge are ‘‘value free’’ but always
edge interests’’ (Habermas 1971). ‘‘interested,’’ and that human communication in-
herently demands to occur freely without distor-
‘‘Instrumental knowledge,’’ based on the abili- tions caused by social power differentials, Habermas
ty to predict, represents an interest in the technical seeks politically to delegitimate conventions that
control or mastery of nature. ‘‘Hermeneutical confine social science to investigations of the means
knowledge’’ represents an interest in the clarifica- rather than the rational ends of social life.
tion of intersubjective understanding. Finally,
‘‘emancipatory knowledge’’ is best typified in the In his subsequent works, Habermas has tried
self-clarification that occurs freely in the nondirective to reformulate this philosophical position in terms
communicative context provided by psychoanaly- of a political sociology. To do so, he has profound-
sis. In the context of a democratic ‘‘public sphere,’’ ly redirected ‘‘historical materialism,’’ the Marxist
such self-clarification would have a macro-social project to which he remains committed (see
parallel in the form of ideology critique had this Habermas 1979). Habermas contends that Marx
space not been severely eroded by elite domina- gave insufficient attention to communicative ac-
tion and technocratic decision making (Habermas tion by restricting it to the social class relations of
1989). Emancipatory knowledge thus has an inter- work. This restriction, he argues, inclined the
est in overcoming the illusions of reification, wheth- Marxist tradition toward an uncritical attitude to-
er in the form of neurosis at the level of psychology ward technological domination as well as toward
or ideology at the level of society. In contrast to forms of scientism that contribute to the suppres-
testable empirical hypotheses about objectified sion of critique in regimes legitimated by Marxist
processes, the validity of emancipatory knowledge ideology. Habermas relates his immanent critique
can be determined only by its beneficiaries. Its of language performance to historical materialism
validity rests on the extent to which its subjects by showing that sociocultural evolution occurs not
find themselves increasingly free from compul- only through the increasing rationality of techni-
sion. Thus, a central problem of modern society is cal control over nature (as Marx recognized) but
the hegemony of instrumental knowledge that, also through advances in communicative rationali-
though appropriate in the realm of nature, is used ty, that is, nondistorted communication. Thus,
to objectify and manipulate social relations. In- instrumental rationality and communicative ra-
strumental knowledge thus eclipses the interpretive tionality are complementary forms of societal
and emancipatory forms of knowledge that are ‘‘learning mechanisms.’’ The problem of moderni-
also essential for guiding social life. ty is not science and technology in and of them-
selves, because they promise increased control
When sufficient attention is paid to interper- over the environment, but rather the fact that
sonal communication, Habermas (1979) contends instrumental rationality has eclipsed communica-
that every act of speech can be seen as implying a tive rationality in social life. In other words, in
543
CRITICAL THEORY
advanced industrial society, technical forms of Enlightenment thought (e.g., that truth transcends
control are no longer guided by consensually de- the particular and exists ‘‘out there’’ in its univer-
rived societal values. Democratic decision making sality), understood knowledge and consciousness
is diminished under circumstances in which tech- to be shaped by culture and history, and attacked
nical experts manipulate an objectified world, in disciplinary boundaries by calling for supra-disci-
which citizens are displaced from political deci- plinary approaches to knowledge construction.
sion making, and in which ‘‘reason’’—identified Polarization, nonetheless, worked to emphasize
exclusively with the ‘‘value free’’ prediction of differences, underplay points of agreement, and
isolated ‘‘facts’’—is disqualified from reflection restrict awareness of how these approaches might
about the ends of social life. complement one another (Best and Kellner 1991;
Fraser 1997).
More recently, Habermas (1987) has restated
this theory sociologically to describe an uneven Because critical theory aspires to understand
process of institutional development governed by semiautonomous social systems (e.g., capital, sci-
opposing principles of ‘‘system’’ and ‘‘lifeworld.’’ ence and technology, the state, and the family)
In this formulation, the cultural lifeworld—the as interconnected in an overarching matrix of
source of cultural meanings, social solidarity, and domination (Best and Kellner 1991, p. 220),
personal identity—is increasingly subject to ‘‘colo- poststructuralists charge that it is a ‘‘grand theory’’
nization’’ by the objectivistic ‘‘steering mechanisms’’ still mired in Enlightenment traditions that seek to
of the marketplace (money) and bureaucracy (pow- understand society as a totality. In viewing the
er). On the levels of culture, society, and personali- path to emancipation as the recovery of reason
ty, such colonization tends to produce political through a critical analysis of instrumentalism,
crises resulting from the loss of meaning, increase scientism, and late capitalism, critical theory is
of anomie, and loss of motivation. At the same seen as promoting a centralized view of power as
time, however, objectivistic steering mechanisms emitting from a macro-system of domination. That
remain indispensable because large-scale social is, by promoting a view of social subjects as
systems cannot be guided by the face-to-face inter- overdetermined by class, critical theory is said to
actions that characterize the lifeworld. Thus, the reduce subjectivity to social relations of domina-
state becomes a battleground for struggles involv- tion that hover in an orbit of capitalist imperatives.
ing the balance between the structuring principles By theorizing that subjectivity is formed through
of systems and lifeworlds. Habermas contends social interaction (e.g., intersubjectivity), Habermas
that it is in response to such crises that the forces of departs from Horkheimer and Adorno’s view of
conservatism and the ‘‘new social movements’’ the social subject as ego centered—as a self-reflex-
such as feminism and ecology are embattled and ive critical subject (Best and Kellner 1991). None-
that it is here that the struggle for human libera- theless, poststructuralists contend that Habermas,
tion at present is being contested most directly. As like his predecessors, essentializes knowledge. In
formulated by Habermas, a critical theory of socie- other words, the capacity to recover reason either
ty aims at clarifying such struggles in order to through critical reflexivity (Horkheimer, Adorno,
contribute to the progressive democratization of and Marcuse) or through a form of communica-
modern society. tive action that appeals to a normative order
(Habermas) promotes a false understanding of
CURRENT DEBATES: CRITICAL THEORY subjectivity as ‘‘quasi-transcendental.’’
AND POSTSTRUCTURALISM
In rebuttal, critical theorists argue that
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the heightened poststructuralist views of power as decentralized
influence of poststructuralism sparked intense de- and diffuse uncouple power from systems of domi-
bate between critical theorists and poststructuralists. nation (Best and Kellner 1991). Poststructuralists
Theorists staked out positions that tended to col- view social subjectivity as a cultural construction
lapse distinct theories into oppositional categories that is formed in, and through, multiple and dif-
(critical theory or poststructuralism) yet they agreed fuse webs of language and power. Critics charge
on several points. Both critical and poststructural that such a diffuse understanding of power pro-
theorists critiqued the transcendental claims of motes a vision of society as a ‘‘view from every-
where’’ (Bordo 1993). Social identities are seen as
544
CRITICAL THEORY
indeterminate and social differences as differences identity formation (see Williams and Chrisman
of equivalency (Flax 1990). This perspective re- 1993). Douglas Kellner’s (1997) empirical work on
sults in analyses that focus on identity to the media culture likewise employs a multiperspectival
exclusion of systemic forms of domination. Thus, approach that combines insights from cultural
for example, while feminists who adhere to critical studies and poststructuralism with critical theory
theory tend to analyze gender as a system of in order to understand mass media as a source of
patriarchal domination, poststructuralist feminists, both domination and resistance, and as a way to
by contrast, tend to focus on the cultural produc- account for the formation and communicative
tion of gendered subjects, that is, on representa- positionality of social subjects constituted through
tion and identity. Habermas ([1980] 1997) and multiple systems of race, class, and gender.
others argue that the avoidance of analyses of Habermas’s (1996) current theorizing on proce-
systems in favor of more fragmentary micro-analyses dural democracy reflects a move toward the
of discrete institutions, discourses, or practices is poststructuralism of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal
an antimodern movement that obscures the Mouffe’s (1985) theory of radical democracy that
emancipatory potential of modernity (Best and stresses the potential collaboration of diverse agents
Kellner 1991). in progressive social movements that aim at de-
fending and expanding citizen participation in
Although this debate is still stirring, some public life.
scholars are moving away from oppositional posi-
tions in favor of more complex readings of both (SEE ALSO: Marxist Sociology)
traditions in order to synthesize or forge alliances
between approaches (Best and Kellner 1991; REFERENCES
Kellner 1995; Fraser 1997). Thus poststructuralism
may serve as a corrective to the totalizing tenden- Adorno, Theodor 1973 Negative Dialectics. New York:
cies in critical theory while the latter prevents the Seabury Press.
neglect of social systems and calls attention to the
relationship between multiple systems of domina- ———, E. Frenkel-Brunswick, D. Levinson, and R. N.
tion and social subjectivities. In other words, criti- Sanford 1950 The Authoritarian Personality. New
cal theory points to the need to understand sys- York: Harper.
temic forms of domination while poststructuralism
warns against the reduction of social subjectivity to Agger, Ben 1998 Critical Social Theory: An Introduction.
macro-overarching systems of domination. Thus Boulder. Colo.: Westview Press.
drawing on both traditions, Nancy Fraser (1997, p.
219) suggests that a more accurate picture of social Antonio, Robert J. 1981 ‘‘Immanent Critique as the
complexity ‘‘might conceive subjectivity as endowed Core of Critical Theory.’’ British Journal of Sociology
with critical capacities and as culturally construct- 32:330–345.
ed’’ while viewing ‘‘critique as simultaneously situ-
ated and amenable to self-reflection.’’ Aronowitz, Stanley 1973 False Promises. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Theoretical and empirical applications of such
a ‘‘both/and approach’’ abound. For instance, in Balbus, Isaac 1977 ‘‘Commodity Form and Legal Form:
recognizing that all knowledge is partial, black An Essay on ‘Relative Autonomy’.’’ Law and Society
feminist theorists such as Patricia Hill Collins (1990) Review 11:571–588.
articulate both critical theoretical tenets and
poststructuralist sensibilities by conceptualizing Benjamin, Jessica 1978 ‘‘Authority and the Family Revis-
identity as socially constructed, historically specif- ited: Or, A World without Fathers?’’ New German
ic, and culturally located while stressing systemic Critique 13 (Winter):35–57.
forms of domination without reducing identities
to single systems of oppression (also see Agger Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner 1991 Postmodern Theo-
1998). Postcolonial theories likewise draw on both ry: Critical Interrogations. New York: The Guilford Press.
traditions in order to understand the fluid rela-
tionships among culture, systems of domination, Bordo, Susan 1993 Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western
social subjectivity, the process of ‘‘othering,’’ and Culture, and the Body. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Braverman, Harry 1974 Labor and Monopoly Capital.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Buck-Morss, Susan 1995 The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter
Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge, Mass.:
The MIT Press.
545
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Flax, Jane 1990 Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Femi- Kellner, Douglas 1995 Media Culture: Cultural Studies,
nism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West. Los Identity, and Politics Between the Modern and the
Angeles: University of California Press. Postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Fraser, Nancy 1997 Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections ——— 1984–85 ‘‘Critical Theory and the Culture Indus-
on the ‘‘Postsocialist’’ Condition. New York: Routledge. tries: A Reassessment.’’ Telos 62:196–209.
——— 1989 Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gen- ——— 1990a ‘‘Critical Theory and the Crisis of Social
der in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: Uni- Theory.’’ Sociological Perspectives 33:11–33.
versity of Minnesota Press.
——— 1990b Television and the Crisis of Democracy. Boul-
Fromm, Erich 1941 Escape from Freedom. New York: Avon. der, Colo.: Westview Press.
Giroux, Henry A. 1988 Schooling and the Struggle for Kelly, Joan 1979 ‘‘The Doubled Vision of Feminist
Public Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Theory.’’ Feminist Studies 5:216–227.
Habermas, Jurgen 1996 Between Facts and Norms: Contri- Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe 1985 Hegemony
butions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Politics. London: Verso.
——— 1989 The Structural Transformation of the Public Lasch, Christopher 1977 Haven in a Heartless World.
Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. New York: Basic Books.
——— 1987 The Theory of Communicative Action II: Lukacs, Georg (1923) 1971 History and Class Conscious-
Lifeworld and System—A Critique of Functionalist Rea- ness. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
son. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, Herbert 1964 One-Dimensional Man. Boston:
——— 1986 ‘‘Three Normative Models of Democracy.’’ Beacon Press.
In Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ——— 1955 Eros and Civilization. Boston: Beacon Press.
——— (1980) 1997 ‘‘Modernity: An Unfinished Pro- ——— 1941 Reason and Revolution. New York: Oxford
ject.’’ In d’ Entregrave;ves, Maurizio Passerin and University Press.
Seyla Benhabib, eds., Habermas and the Unfinished
Project of Modernity. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb 1973 The Hidden
Injuries of Class. New York: Vintage Books.
——— 1979 Communication and the Evolution of Society.
Boston: Beacon Press. Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman 1993 Colonial
Discourse and Post Colonial Theory: A Reader. New
——— 1971 Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: York: Columbia University Press.
Beacon Press.
DWIGHT B. BILLINGS
——— 1970 Toward a Rational Society. Boston: Bea- PATRICIA JENNINGS
con Press.
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Haug, W. F. 1986 Critique of Commodity Aesthetics. Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cross-cultural research has a long history in soci-
ology (Armer and Grimshaw 1973; Kohn 1989;
Held, David 1980 Introduction to Critical Theory. Berke- Miller-Loessi 1995). It most generally involves so-
ley: University of California Press. cial research across societies or ethnic and subcultural
groups within a society. Because a discussion of
Hill Collins, Patricia 1990 Black Feminist Thought: Knowl- macro-level comparative historical research ap-
edge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. pears in another chapter of this encyclopedia, the
New York: Routledge. focus here is primarily on cross-cultural analysis of
social psychological processes. These include com-
Horkheimer, Max 1972 Critical Theory: Selected Essays. municative and interactive processes within social
New York: Herder and Herder. institutions and more generally the relation be-
tween the individual and society and its institutions.
———, and Theodor Adorno (1947) 1972 Dialectic of
Enlightenment. New York: Seabury Press. Although all sociological research is seen as
comparative in nature, comparisons across
Jay, Martin 1984 Marxism and Totality. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
——— 1973 The Dialectical Imagination. Boston: Lit-
tle, Brown.
546
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
subcultural or cultural groups have distinct advan- Some scholars take the position that cultural regu-
tages for generating and testing sociological theo- larities must always be interpreted in cultural and
ry. Specifically, cross-cultural research can help historical context, while others argue that what
‘‘distinguish between those regularities in social appear to be cross-cultural differences may really
behavior that are system specific and those that are be explained by lawful regularities at a more gen-
universal’’ (Grimshaw 1973, p. 5). In this way, eral level of analysis. Those in the first group most
sociologists can distinguish between generaliza- often employ primarily qualitative research strate-
tions that are true of all cultural groups and those gies (intensive ethnographic and historical analy-
that apply for one group at one point in time. The sis of a few cases), while those in the second usually
lack of cross-cultural research has often led to the rely on quantitative techniques (multivariate or
inappropriate universal application of sociological other forms of statistical analysis of large data sets).
concepts that imply an intermediate (one cultural
group at one point in time) level (Bendix 1963). METHODOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES AND
AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES
In addition to documenting universal and sys-
tem-specific patterns in social behavior, cross-cul- The wide variety of techniques employed in cross-
tural analysis can provide researchers with cultural analysis reflect the training and discipli-
experimental treatments (independent variables) nary interests of their practitioners. We discuss the
unavailable in their own culture. Thus, specific methods of anthropologists, psychologists, and
propositions can be investigated experimentally sociologists in turn. Anthropologists generally rely
that would be impossible to establish in a laborato- on different types of ethnographic tools for data
ry in the researcher’s own country (Strodtbeck collection, analysis, and reporting. Ethnographic
1964). Finally, cross-cultural analysis is beneficial research has the dual task of cultural description
for theory building in at least two respects. First, and cultural interpretation. The first involves un-
the documentation of differences in processes covering the ‘‘native’s point of view’’ or the criteria
across cultures is often the first step in the refine- the people under study use ‘‘to discriminate among
ment of existing theory and the generation of things and how they respond to them and as-
novel theoretical models. Second, cross-cultural sign them meaning, including everything in their
analysis can lead to the discovery of unknown facts physical, behavioral, and social environments’’
(behavioral patterns or interactive processes) that (Goodenough 1980, pp. 31–32); while the second
suggest new research problems that are the basis involves ‘‘stating, as explicitly as we can manage,
for theory refinement and construction. what the knowledge thus attained demonstrates
about the society in which it is found and, beyond
INTERPRETIVE AND INFERENTIAL that, about social life as such’’ (Geertz 1973, p. 27).
PROBLEMS
Three types of ethnographic approaches and
Cross-cultural researchers face a number of chal- methodological tools are generally employed in
lenging interpretive and inferential problems that cross-cultural research. The first involves long-
are related to the methodological strategies they term participant observation and the thick de-
employ (Bollen, Entwisle, and Alderson 1993). For scription of the culture under study in line with
example, Charles Ragin (1989) argues that most Clifford Geertz’s (1973) interpretive perspective
cross-cultural research at the macro level involves of culture. From this perspective, culture is seen as
either intensive studies of one or a small group of ‘‘layered multiple networks of meaning carried by
representative or theoretically decisive cases or words, acts, conceptions and other symbolic forms’’
the extensive analysis of a large number of cases. (Marcus and Fisher 1986, p. 29). Thus the meta-
Not surprisingly, extensive studies tend to empha- phor of culture in the interpretive approach is that
size statistical regularities while intensive studies of a text to be discovered, described, and inter-
search for generalizations that are interpreted with- preted. The second involves methods of ethnoscience
in a cultural or historical context. This same pat- including elicitation tasks and interviews with key
tern also appears in most micro-level cross-cultural informants that yield data amenable to logical and
research, and it is clearly related to both theoreti- statistical analysis to generate the ‘‘organizing princi-
cal orientation and methodological preferences. ples underlying behavior’’ (Tyler 1969; also see
547
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Werner and Schoepfle 1987). Ethnoscience views In one of the first efforts of its kind, women in
these organizing principles as the ‘‘grammar of the forty-two developing countries were interviewed
culture’’ that is part of the mental competence of between 1974 and 1982 about their fertility behav-
members. The final type of ethnographic research ior, marital and work history, and other aspects of
is more positivistic and comparative in orienta- their background. The WFS spawned hundreds of
tion. In this approach cross-cultural analysis is comparative studies that have contributed greatly
specifically defined as the use of ‘‘data collected by to the understanding of human fertility (see, for
anthropologists concerning the customs and char- example, Bohgaarts and Watkins 1996; Kirk and
acteristics of various peoples throughout the world Pillet 1998). The Demographic and Health Survey
to test hypotheses concerning human behavior’’ (DHS) largely took up where the WFS left off. In
(Whiting 1968, p. 693). this ongoing project, begun in 1984, nationally
representative samples of women aged 15–49 in
All three types of ethnographic research gen- forty-seven countries have been surveyed regard-
erate data preserved in research monographs or ing lifetime reproduction, fertility preferences,
data archives such as the Human Relations Area family planning practices, and the health of their
Files, the Ethnographic Atlas, and the ever-expand- children. For some countries, detailed data are
ing World Cultures data set that has been con- available for husbands also and, for a few coun-
structed around George Murdock and Douglas tries, in-depth interview data are also available.
White’s (1968) Standard Cross Cultural Sample. A
number of scholars (Barry 1980; Lagacé 1977; Less specialized is the international counter-
Murdock 1967; Whiting 1968; Levinson and Ma- part to the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS); the
lone 1980) have provided detailed discussions of International Social Survey Program (ISSP). The
the contents, coding schemes, and methodologi- ISSP got its start in 1984 as researchers in the
cal strengths and weaknesses of these archives as United States, Germany, Britain, and Australia
well as data analysis strategies and overviews of the agreed to field common topical modules in the
variety of studies utilizing such data. course of conducting their regular national sur-
veys. Beginning 1985 with a survey of attitudes
Most cross-cultural research in psychology in- toward government in the four founding coun-
volves the use of quasi-experimental methods. These tries, the ISSP has expanded to include surveys on
include classical experimentation, clinical tests and topics as diverse as social networks and social
projective techniques, systematic observation, and support and attitudes regarding family, religion,
unobtrusive methods (see Berry, Poortinga, and work, the environment, gender relations, and na-
Pandey, 1996; Triandis and Berry 1980). However, tional identity. Some specific modules have been
a number of psychologists have recently turned to replicated and, overall, a large proportion of the
observational and ethnographic methods in what items from earlier surveys are carried over to new
has been termed ‘‘cultural psychology’’ (Shweder modules, giving the ISSP both a cross-cultural and
1990). Much of the recent research in this area longitudinal dimension. At present, thirty-one na-
focuses on culture and human development and tions are participating in the ISSP. A number of
spans disciplinary boundaries and involves a wide non-member nations have also replicated specific
variety of interpretive research methods (Greenfield modules. An interesting offshoot of the ISSP is the
and Suzuki 1998; Shweder et al. 1998). International Survey of Economic Attitudes (ISEA).
Building on an ISSP module concerning beliefs
Sociologists have made good use of intensive regarding social inequality, the ISEA collects a
interviewing (Bertaux 1990) and ethnography wide array of information on attitudes regarding
(Corsaro 1988, 1994; Corsaro and Heise 1992) in income inequality, social class, and economic poli-
cross-cultural analysis. However, they more fre- cy. The first round was carried out between 1991–
quently rely on the survey method in cross-cultural 1993 in three countries. A second round was
research and have contributed to the development carried out in five countries over the 1994–1997
of a number of archives of survey data (Kohn 1987; period, and a third round is currently under way.
Lane 1990). The growth of such international Some of the important reports based on data from
surveys in recent years has been impressive. The these surveys include Jones and Broyfield (1997),
World Fertility Survey (WFS) is an early example. Kelley and Evans (1995), and Western (1994).
548
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Also of general interest are the surveys under- government policy on standards of living. The
taken under the auspices of the World Values central instrument is a household questionnaire
Survey Group and Eurobarometer. The World that details patterns of consumption. Other mod-
Values Survey (WVS) (originally termed the ‘‘Eu- ules, collecting information regarding the local
ropean Values Survey’’) began in 1981 as social community, pricing, and schools and health facili-
scientists in nine Western European countries ties, have also been administered in a number of
administered a common survey of social, political, cases (see Grosh and Glewwe 1998; Stecklov 1997).
moral, and religious values in their respective
countries. Between 1981 and 1984, this survey was CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS IN CROSS-
replicated in fourteen additional countries, in- CULTURAL RESEARCH
cluding a number of non-European countries. In
1990–1993, a second wave of the World Values There are numerous methodological problems in
Survey was conducted in a broader group of forty- cross-cultural research including: acquiring the
three nations and a third wave was undertaken in needed linguistic and cultural skills and research
1995–1996. In terms of content, the WVS is broad- funds; gaining access to field sites and data ar-
ly organized around values and norms regarding chives; defining and selecting comparable units;
work, family, the meaning and purpose of life, and ensuring the representativeness of selected cases;
topical social issues. Specifically, respondents are and determining conceptual equivalence and meas-
queried on everything from their views on good urement reliability and validity. These first two
and evil to their general state of health, from their sets of problems are obvious, but not easily re-
associational memberships to their opinions of the solved. Cross-cultural analysis is costly in terms of
value of scientific discoveries (see Inglehart 1997; time and money, and it usually demands at least a
MacIntosh 1998). The Eurobarometer surveys be- minimal level (and often much more) of education
gan in 1974 as an extension of an earlier series of in the history, language, and culture of groups of
European Community surveys. Designed primari- people foreign to the researcher. The difficulties
ly to gauge public attitudes toward the Common of gaining access to, and cooperation from, indi-
Market and other EU institutions, the Eurobarometer viduals and groups in cross-cultural research ‘‘are
surveys, carried out every Fall and Spring, have always experienced but rarely acknowledged by
expanded to include a variety of special topics of comparative researchers’’ (Armer 1973, pp. 58–
interest to sociologists, ranging from attitudes re- 59). Specific discussions of, and development of
garding AIDS to beliefs about the role of women strategies for, gaining access are crucial because
(see Pettigrew 1998; Quillian 1995). research can not begin without such access. Addi-
tionally, casual, insensitive, or ethnocentric pre-
Finally, there are two more specialized pro- sentation of self and research goals to foreign
jects that are deserving of note for their scale and gatekeepers (officials, scholars, and those indi-
scope. Of interest to students of crime and devi- viduals directly studied) not only negatively affects
ance is the International Crime (Victim) Survey the original study, but can also cause serious prob-
(IC(V)S). Begun in 1989 and carried out again in lems for others who plan future cross-cultural
1992 and 1996, the IC(V)S gathers reports of research (Form 1973; Portes 1973). Given the
crime, in addition to surveying attitudes regarding cultural isolation of many social scientists in the
the police and the criminal justice system, fear of United States, it is not surprising that these practi-
crime, and crime prevention (see Alvazzi del Frate cal problems have contributed to the lack of cross-
and Patrignani 1995; Zvekic 1996). At present, cultural research in American sociology. Howev-
over fifty countries have participated in the IC(V)S. er, the internationalization of the social sciences
Scholars interested in cross-cultural dimensions of and the globalization of social and environmental
poverty and development have benefitted from issues are contributing to the gradual elimination
the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS). of many of these practical problems (Sztompka 1988).
In this World Bank-directed program of research,
surveys have been conducted in over two dozen For the cross-cultural analysis of social psycho-
developing countries since 1980 with the aim of logical processes the unit of analysis is most often
gauging the welfare of households, understanding interactive events or individuals that are sampled
household behavior, and assessing the impact of
549
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
from whole cultures or subunits such as communi- are dependent on implicit theories of language
ties or institutions (e.g., family, school, or work- and communication (Cicourel 1964). As social
place). The appropriateness of individuals as the scientists have come to learn more about commu-
basic unit of analysis has been a hotly debated issue nicative systems within and across cultures, there
in sociology. The problem is even more acute in has been a growing awareness that problems relat-
cross-cultural analysis, especially in cultures ‘‘that ed to language in cross-cultural analysis are not
lack the individualistic, participatory characteris- easily resolved. There is also a recognition that
tics of Western societies’’ (Armer 1983, p. 62). In these problems go beyond the accurate translation
addition to the special difficulties of representa- of measurement instruments (Brislin 1970; Grimshaw
tive, theoretical, or random sampling of cases 1973), to the incorporation of findings from stud-
(Elder 1973; Van Meter 1990), cross-cultural re- ies on communicative competence across cultural
searchers must also deal with ‘‘Galton’s problem.’’ groups into cross-cultural research (Briggs 1986;
According to the British statistician, Sir Francis Gumperz 1982).
Galton, ‘‘valid comparison requires mutually inde-
pendent and isolated cases, and therefore cultural THE FUTURE OF CROSS-CULTURAL
diffusion, cultural contact, culture clash or out- ANALYSIS
right conquest—with their consequent borrow-
ing, imitation, migrations etc.—invalidates the re- There is a solid basis for optimism regarding the
sults of comparative studies’’ (Sztompka 1988, p. future of cross-cultural analysis. Over the last twen-
213). Although several researchers have presented ty years there has been remarkable growth in
strategies for dealing with Galton’s problem for international organizations and cooperation among
correlational studies of data archives (see Naroll, international scholars in the social sciences. These
Michik, and Naroll 1980), the problem of cultural developments have not only resulted in an in-
diffusion is often overlooked in many quantitative crease in cross-cultural research, but also have led
and qualitative cross-cultural studies. to necessary debates about the theoretical and
methodological state of cross-cultural analysis (Øyen
Undoubtedly, ensuring conceptual equivalence 1990; Kohn 1989).
and achieving valid measures are the most chal-
lenging methodological problems of cross-cultural Cooperation among international scholars in
research. Central to these problems is the wide cross-cultural analysis has also contributed to the
variation in language and meaning systems across breaking down of disciplinary boundaries. In the
cultural groups. Anthropologists have attempted area of childhood socialization and the sociology
to address the problem of conceptual equivalence of childhood, for example, there have been a
with the distinction between ‘‘emic’’ and ‘‘etic.’’ number of cross-cultural contributions to what
Emics refer to local (single culture) meaning, func- can be termed ‘‘development in sociocultural con-
tion and structure, while etics are culture-free (or text’’ by anthropologists (Heath 1983), psycholo-
at least operate in more than one culture) aspects gists (Rogoff 1990), sociologists (Corsaro 1997),
of the world (Pike 1966). A major problem in and linguists (Ochs 1988). Developing interest in
cross-cultural analysis is the use of emic concepts children and childhood in sociology has resulted
of one culture to explain characteristics of another in the establishment of a new research committee
culture. In fact, many cross-cultural studies involve (‘‘Sociology of Childhood’’) in the International
the use of ‘‘imposed etics,’’ that is Euro-Ameri- Sociological Association (ISA) and a new journal
can emics that are ‘‘imposed blindly and even titled Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research,
ethnocentrically on a set of phenomena which as well as the publication of several international
occur in other cultural systems’’ (Berry 1980, p. reports and edited volumes (see Qvortrup, Bardy,
12). A number of procedures have been developed Sgritta, and Wintersberger 1994). Less interdisci-
to ensure emic-etic distinctions and to estimate the plinary, perhaps, but no less impressive, has been
validity of such measures (Brislin 1980; Naroll, the degree of international cooperation that has
Michik, and Naroll 1980). developed around a number of other research
committees of the ISA. The ISA Research Com-
Addressing conceptual relevance in cross-cul- mittee on Stratification, for instance, has had a
tural research does not, of course, ensure valid
measures. All forms of data collection and analysis
550
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
long history of such collaboration. This has in- ———, Y. H. Poortinga, and J. Pandey, (eds.) 1996
volved the development of a common agenda Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Theory and Meth-
(official and unofficial) and the pursuit of a com- od, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
mon program of research by scholars around the
globe (Ganzeboom, Treiman, and Ultee 1991). In Bertaux, Daniel 1990 ‘‘Oral History Approaches to an
addition to these developments, the growth of International Social Movement.’’ In E. Øyen, ed.,
international data sets and their ready availability Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in Inter-
due to the new technologies such as the Internet national Social Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
are also grounds for optimism regarding cross-
cultural research. Bollen, Kenneth A., Barbara Entwisle, and Arthur S.
Alderson 1993 ‘‘Macrocomparative Research Meth-
Despite growing international and multi-disci- ods.’’ Annual Review of Sociolology 19:321–351.
pline cooperation and recognition of the impor-
tance of comparative research, it is still fair to say Bongaarts, John, and Susan Cotts Watkins 1996 ‘‘Social
that cross-cultural analysis remains at the periph- Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions.’’
ery of American sociology and social psychology. Population and Development Review 22:639–682.
Although there has been some reversal of the
growing trend toward narrow specialization over Briggs, Charles 1986 Learning How to Ask. New York:
the last ten years, such specialization is still appar- Cambridge.
ent in the nature of publications and the training
of graduate students in these disciplines. There is a Brislin, Richard 1970 ‘‘Back-Translation for Cross-Cul-
clear need to instill a healthy skepticism regarding tural Research.’’ Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
the cultural relativity of a great deal of theory and 1:185–216.
method in social psychology in future scholars.
Only then will future sociologists and social psy- ——— 1980 ‘‘Translation and Content Analysis of Oral
chologists come to appreciate fully the potential of and Written Materials.’’ In H. Triandis and J. Berry,
cross-cultural analysis. eds., Handbook of Cross Cultural Methodology. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
REFERENCES
Cicourel, Aaron 1964 Method and Measurement in Sociolo-
Alvazzi del Frate, Anna and Angela Patrignani 1995 gy. New York: Free Press.
‘‘Women’s Victimisation in Developing Countries.’’
Issues and Reports (UNIRI) 5:1–16. Corsaro, William 1988 ‘‘Routines in the Peer Culture of
American and Italian Nursery School Children.’’
Armer, Michael 1973 ‘‘Methodological Problems and Sociology of Education 61:1–14.
Possibilities in Comparative Research.’’ In M. Armer
and A. Grimshaw, eds., Comparative Social Research: ——— 1994 ‘‘Discussion, Debate, and Friendship: Peer
Methodological Problems and Strategies. New York: Wiley. Discourse in Nursery Schools in the U.S. and Italy.’’
Sociology of Education 67:1–26.
———, and Allen Grimshaw, (eds.) 1973 Comparative
Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies. ———, and David Heise 1990 ‘‘Event Structure Models
New York: Wiley. From Ethnographic Data.’’ Sociological Methodolo-
gy 20:1–57.
Barry, Herbert 1980 ‘‘Description and Uses of the Hu-
man Relations Area Files.’’ In H. Triandis and J. Elder, Joseph 1973 ‘‘Problems of Cross-Cultural Meth-
Berry, eds., Handbook of Cross Cultural Methodology, odology: Instrumentation and Interviewing in In-
Volume 2 Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. dia.’’ In M. Armer and A. Grimshaw, eds., Compara-
tive Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies.
Bendix, 1963 ‘‘Concepts and Generalizations in Com- New York: Wiley.
parative Sociological Studies.’’ American Sociological
Review 28:532–539. Form, William 1973 ‘‘Field Problems in Comparative
Research: The Politics of Distrust.’’ In M. Armer and
Berry, J. W. 1980 ‘‘Introduction to Methodology.’’ In H. A. Grimshaw, eds., Comparative Social Research: Meth-
Triandis and J. Berry, eds., Handbook of Cross Cultural odological Problems and Strategies. New York: Wiley.
Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., Donald J. Treiman, and Wout
C. Ultee 1991 ‘‘Comparative Intergenerational Stratifi-
cation Research: Three Generations and Beyond.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 17:277–302.
Geertz, Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New
York: Basic Books.
Goodenough, Ward 1980 ‘‘Ethnographic Field Tech-
niques.’’ In H. Triandis and J. Berry, eds., Handbook
of Cross Cultural Methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
551
CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS
Greenfield, Patricia and Lalita Suzuki 1998 ‘‘Culture Miller-Loessi, Karen 1995 ‘‘Comparative Social Psycholo-
and Human Development: Implications for Parent- gy: Cross-Cultural and Cross-National.’’ In K. Cook,
ing, Education, Pediatrics, and Mental Health.’’ In G. A. Fine, and J. House, eds., Sociological Perspectives
W. Damon, I. Siegel, K. Anne Renninger and K. Ann on Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Renninger, eds., Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume
4, Child Psychology in Practice. New York: Wiley. Murdock, G. P. 1967 Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh.:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Grimshaw, Allen 1973 ‘‘Comparative Sociology: In What
Ways Different from Other Sociologies?’’ In M. Armer ———, and Douglas White 1969 ‘‘Standard Cross-Cul-
and A. Grimshaw, eds., Comparative Social Research: tural Sample.’’ Ethnography 8:329–369.
Methodological Problems and Strategies. New York: Wiley.
Naroll, Raoul, Gary Michik, and Frada Naroll 1980
Grosh, Margaret E., and Paul Glewwe 1998 ‘‘Data Watch: ‘‘Holocultural Research.’’ In H. Triandis and J. Ber-
The World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement ry, eds., Handbook of Cross Cultural Methodology. Bos-
Study Household Surveys.’’ Journal of Economic Per- ton: Allyn and Bacon.
spectives 12:187–196.
Ochs, Elinor 1988 Culture and Language Development:
Gumperz, John J. 1982 Discourse Strategies. New York: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a
Cambridge University Press. Samoan Village. New York: Cambridge Universi-
ty Press.
Heath, Shirley 1989 ‘‘Oral and Literate Traditions Among
Black Americans Living in Poverty.’’ American Psy- Øyen, Else 1990 ‘‘The Imperfection of Comparisons.’’
chologist 44:45–56. In E. Øyen, ed., Comparative Methodology: Theory and
Practice in International Social Research. Newbury Park,
Inglehart, Ronald 1997 ‘‘Modernization, Postmodernization Calif.: Sage.
and Changing Perceptions of Risk.’’ International
Review of Sociology 7:449–459. Pettigrew, Thomas 1998 ‘‘Reactions toward the New
Minorities of Western Europe.’’ Annual Review of
Jones, Rachel K., and April Brayfield 1997 ‘‘Life’s Great- Sociology 24:77–103.
est Joy: European Attitudes Towards the Centrality
of Children.’’ Social Forces 75:1239–1270. Pike, R. 1966 Language in Relation to a United Theory of
the Structure of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Kelley, Jonathan and M. D. R. Evans 1995 ‘‘Class Con-
flict in Six Western Nations.’’ American Sociological Portes, Alejandro 1973 ‘‘Perception of the U.S. Sociolo-
Review 60:157–178. gist and Its Impact on Cross-National Research.’’ In
M. Armer and A. Grimshaw, eds., Comparative Social
Kirk, Dudley, and Bernard Pillet 1998 ‘‘Fertility Levels, Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies. New
Trends, and Differentials in Sub-Saharan Africa in York: Wiley.
the 1980s and 1990s.’’ Studies in Family Planning 29:1–22.
Quillian, Lincoln 1995 ‘‘Prejudice as a Response to
Kohn, Melvin 1987 ‘‘Cross-National Research as an Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition
Analytic Strategy.’’ American Sociological Review and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe.’’
52:713–731. American Sociological Review 60:586–611.
——— (ed.) 1989 Cross-National Research in Sociology. Qvortrup, Jens, Marjatta Bardy, Sgritta Giovanni, and
Newbury Park: Calif.: Sage. Helmut Wintersberger (eds.) 1994 Childhood Matters:
Social Theory, Practice, and Politics. Aldershot, Eng-
Lagacé, R. O. (ed.) 1977 Sixty Cultures: A Guide to the land: Avebury.
HRAF Probability Sample Files. New Haven, Conn.: HRAF.
Ragin, Charles 1989 ‘‘New Directions in Comparative
Lane, Jan-Erik 1990 ‘‘Data Archives as an Instrument for Research.’’ In M. Kohn, ed., Cross-National Research
Comparative Research.’’ In E. Øyen, ed., Comparative in Socioloogy. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social
Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Rogoff, Barbara 1990 Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cogni-
tive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford
Levinson, David and Martin J. Malone 1980 Toward University Press.
Explaining Human Culture: A Critical Review of the
Findings of Worldwide Cross-Cultural Research. New Shweder, Richard 1990 ‘‘Cultural Psychology: What Is
Haven, Conn.: HRAF Press. It?’’ In J. Stigler, R. Shweder, and G. Herdt, eds.,
Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human De-
MacIntosh, Randall 1998 ‘‘Global Attitude Measure- velopment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ment: An Assessment of the World Values Survey
Postmaterialism Scale.’’ American Sociological Review ———, J. Goodnow, G. Hatano, R. LeVine, H. Marcus,
63:452–464. and P. Miller 1998 ‘‘The Cultural Psychology of
Development: One Mine Many Mentalities.’’ In W.
552
CROWDS AND RIOTS
Damon and R. Lerner, eds., Handbook of Child Psy- record is replete with examples of crowds func-
chology: Volume 1, Theoretical Models of Human Develop- tioning as important textual markers, helping to
ment. New York: Wiley. shape and define a particular event, as well as
strategic precipitants and carriers of the events
Stecklov, Guy 1997 ‘‘Intergenerational Resource Flows themselves. The storming of the Bastille and the
in Cǒte d’Ivoire: Empirical Analysis of Aggregate sit-ins and marches associated with the civil rights
Flows.’’ Population and Development Review 23: 525–553. movement are examples of crowds functioning as
both important markers and carriers of some larg-
Strodtbeck, Fred 1964 ‘‘Considerations of Meta-Meth- er historical happening. Not all crowds function so
od in Cross-Cultural Studies.’’ American Anthropolo- significantly, of course. Most are mere sideshows
gist 66:223–229. to the flow of history. Nonetheless, the collective
assemblages or gatherings called crowds are ongo-
Sztompka, Piotr 1988 ‘‘Conceptual Frameworks in Com- ing features of the social world and, as a conse-
parative Inquiry: Divergent or Convergent?’’ Interna- quence, have long been the object of theorizing
tional Sociology 3:207–219. and inquiry, ranging from the psychologistic ren-
derings of Gustav LeBon (1895) and Sigmund
Triandis, Harry, and John Berry 1980 Handbook of Cross- Freud (1921) to the more sociological accounts of
Cultural Psychology Volume 2, Methodology. Boston: Neil Smelser (1963) and Ralph Turner and Lewis
Allyn and Bacon. Killian (1987) to the highly systematic and empiri-
cally grounded observations of Clark McPhail and
Tyler, Stephen 1969 ‘‘Introduction.’’ In S. Tyler, ed., his associates (1983, 1991).
Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston. Crowds have traditionally been analyzed as a
variant of the broader category of social phenome-
Van Meter, Karl 1990 ‘‘Sampling and Cross-Classifica- na called collective behavior. Broadly conceived,
tion Analysis in International Social Research.’’ In E. collective behavior refers to group problem solv-
Øyen, ed., Comparative Methodology: Theory and Prac- ing behavior that encompasses crowds, mass phe-
tice in International Social Research. Newbury Park, nomena, issue-specific publics, and social move-
Calif.: Sage. ments. More narrowly, collective behavior refers
to ‘‘two or more persons engaged in one or more
Werner, O, and G. M. Schoepfle 1987 Systematic Field- behaviors (e.g., orientation, locomotion, gesticula-
work: Foundations of Ethnography and Interviewing. tion, tactile manipulation, and/or vocalization)
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. that can be judged common or convergent on one
or more dimensions (e.g., direction, velocity tem-
Western, Bruce 1994 ‘‘Institutional Mechanism for Un- po, and/or substantive content)’’(McPhail and
ionization in Sixteen OECD Countries: An Analysis Wohlstein 1983, pp. 580–581). Implicit in both
of Social Survey Data.’’ Social Forces 73:497–520. conceptions is a continuum on which collective
behavior can vary in terms of the extent to which
Whiting, John 1968 ‘‘Methods and Problems in Cross- its participants are in close proximity or diffused
Cultural Research.’’ In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, in time and space. Instances of collective behavior
eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 2. in which individuals are in close physical proximi-
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ty, such that they can monitor one another by
being visible to, or within earshot of, one another,
Zvekic, Ugljesa 1996. ‘‘The International Crime (Vic- are constitutive of crowds. Examples include pro-
tim) Survey: Issues of Comparative Advantages and test demonstrations, victory celebrations, riots,
Disadvantages.’’ International Criminal Justice Re- and the dispersal processes associated with flight
view 6:1–21. from burning buildings. In contrast are forms of
collective behavior that occur among individuals
ARTHUR S. ALDERSON who are not physically proximate but who still
WILLIAM A. CORSARO share a common focus of attention and engage in
some parallel or common behaviors without devel-
CROWDS AND RIOTS oping the debate characteristic of the public or the
Crowds are a ubiquitous feature of everyday life.
People have long assembled collectively to ob-
serve, to celebrate, and to protest various happen-
ings in their everyday lives, be they natural events,
such as a solar eclipse, or the result of human
contrivance, such as the introduction of machin-
ery into the production process. The historical
553
CROWDS AND RIOTS
organization of social movements, and who are In contrast, crowds commonly associated with
linked together by social networks, the media, or collective behavior, such as protest demonstra-
both. Examples of this form of collective behavior, tions, victory celebrations, and riots, usually chal-
referred to as diffuse collective behavior (Turner lenge or disrupt the existing order. This is due in
and Killian 1987) or the mass (Lofland 1981), part to the fact that these crowds are neither
include fads and crazes, deviant epidemics, mass temporally nor spatially routinized. Instead, as
hysteria, and collective blaming. Although crowds David Snow, Louis Zurcher, and Robert Peters
and diffuse collective behavior are not mutually (1981) have noted, they are more likely to be
exclusive phenomena, they are analytically distinct unscheduled and staged in spatial areas (streets,
and tend to generate somewhat different litera- parks, malls) or physical structures (office build-
tures—thus, the focus on crowds in this selection. ings, theaters, lunch counters) that were designed
for institutionalized, everyday behavior rather than
Understanding crowds and the kindred collec- contentious or celebratory crowds. Such crowd
tive phenomenon called ‘‘riots’’ requires consid- activities are also extrainstitutional, and thus un-
eration of five questions: (1) How do these forms conventional, in the sense that they are frequently
of collective behavior differ from the crowd forms based on normative guidelines that are emergent
typically associated with everyday behavior, such and ephemeral rather than enduring (Turner and
as audiences and queues? (2) What are the distinc- Killian 1987), on the appropriation and redefini-
tive features of crowds as collective behavior? (3) tion of existing networks or social relationships
What are the conditions underlying the emer- (Weller and Quarantelli 1973), or on both.
gence of crowds? (4) What accounts for the coor-
dination of crowd behavior? and (5) What are Crowd behavior has long been described as
the correlates and/or predictors of individual ‘‘extraordinary’’ in the sense that its occurrence
participation? indicates that something unusual is happening.
Precisely what it is that gives rise to the sense that
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE CROWDS something ‘‘outside the ordinary’’ is occurring is
OF COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND rarely specified unambiguously, however. John
EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR Lofland (l981) suggests that it is increased levels of
emotional arousal, but such arousal is not peculiar
There has been increasing recognition of the con- to crowd episodes. The conceptualization offered
tinuity between collective behavior and everyday here suggests several possibilities: It is the appro-
behavior, yet the existence of collective behavior priation and use of spatial areas, physical struc-
as an area of sociological analysis rests in part on tures, or social networks and relations for purpos-
the assumption of significant differences between es other than those for which they were intended
collective behavior and everyday institutionalized or designed that indicates something extraordi-
behavior. In the case of crowds, those commonly nary is happening.
associated with everyday life, such as at sports
events and holiday parades, tend to be highly THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF
conventionalized in at least two or three ways. CROWDS
Such gatherings are recurrent affairs that are sched-
uled for a definite place at a definite time; they are Crowds have been portrayed historically and jour-
calendarized both temporally and spatially. Sec- nalistically as if they are monolithic entities charac-
ond, associated behaviors and emotional states are terized by participant and behavioral homogenei-
typically routinized in the sense that they are ty. Turner and Killian (1987, p. 26) called this
normatively regularized and anticipated. And third, image into question, referring to it as ‘‘the illusion
they tend to be sponsored and orchestrated by the of unanimity,’’ but not until the turn toward more
state, a community, or a societal institution, as in systematic empirical examination of crowds was it
the case of most holiday parades and electoral firmly established that crowd behaviors are typical-
political rallies. Accordingly, they are typically so- ly quite varied and highly differentiated, and that
cially approved affairs that function to reaffirm crowd participants are generally quite heterogene-
rather than challenge some institutional arrange- ous in terms of orientation and behavior.
ment or the larger social order itself.
554
CROWDS AND RIOTS
Variation in Crowd Behaviors and ‘‘Riots.’’ that while there are innumerable ways in which
Based on extensive field observation of crowds, people could pursue collective ends, alternatives
Sam Wright (1978) differentiated between two are in fact limited by sociohistorical forces. His
broad categories of crowd behaviors: crowd activi- research suggests, for example, that the massed
ties and task activities. ‘‘Crowd activities’’ refer to march, mass assembly, and temporary occupation
the redundant behavior seemingly common to all of premises are all collective task activities specific
incidents of crowd behavior, such as assemblage, to the twentieth century.
milling, and divergence. In their overview of em-
pirical research on behaviors within crowds, McPhail Second, crowd task activities are not mutually
and Ronald Wohlstein (1983) include collective exclusive but are typically combined in an interac-
locomotion, collective orientation, collective ges- tive fashion during the history of a crowd episode.
ticulation, and collective vocalization among the The mass assembly, for example, is often preceded
types of crowd behaviors ‘‘repeatedly observed by the massed march, and property destruction
across a variety of gatherings, demonstrations, and and looting often occur together. Indeed, whether
some riots’’ (p. 595). a crowd episode is constitutive of a protest demon-
stration, a celebration, or a riot depends, in part,
Taking these observations together, one can on the particular configuration of task activities
identify the following ‘‘crowd activities’’ (Wright and, in part, on who or what is the object of
1978) or ‘‘elementary forms’’ of crowd behavior protest, celebration, or violence. Both of these
(McPhail and Wohlstein 1983): assemblage/con- points can be illustrated with riots.
vergence; milling; collective orientation (e.g., com-
mon or convergent gaze, focus, or attention); col- It is generally agreed that riots involve some
lective locomotion (e.g., common or convergent level of collective violence against persons or prop-
movement or surges); collective gesticulation (e.g., erty, but that not all incidents of collective violence
common or convergent nonverbal signaling); col- are equally likely to be labeled riots. Collective
lective vocalization (e.g., chanting, singing, booing, violence against the state or its social control agents
cheering); and divergence/dispersal. Given the is more likely to be labeled riotous, for example,
recurrent and seemingly universal character of than violence perpetrated by the police against
these basic crowd behaviors, it is clear that they do protesting demonstrators. Traditionally, what gets
not distinguish between types of crowds, that is, defined as a riot involves interpretive discretion,
between demonstrations, celebrations, and riots. particularly by the state. But even when there is
agreement that riots are constituted by some seg-
To get at the variation in types of crowds, ment of a crowd or gathering engaging in violence
attention must be turned to what Wright concep- against person(s) or property, distinctions are of-
tualized as ‘‘task activities’’ (1978). These refer to ten made between types of riots, as evidenced by
joint activities that are particular to and necessary Morris Janowitz’s (1979) distinction between ‘‘com-
for the attainment of a specific goal or the resolu- munal riots’’ and ‘‘commodity riots,’’ Gary Marx’s
tion of a specific problem. It is these goal-directed (1972) distinction between ‘‘protest riots’’ and
and problem-oriented activities that constitute the ‘‘issueless riots,’’ and the Walker Report’s (1968)
primary object of attention and thus help give reference to ‘‘police riots.’’ Communal riots in-
meaning to the larger collective episode. Exam- volve religious, ethnic, and/or racial intergroup
ples of task activities include parading or mass violence in which the members or property of one
marching, mass assembly with speechmaking, pick- group are violently assaulted by members of an-
eting, proselytizing, temporary occupation of prem- other group, as occurred in the United States in
ises, lynching, taunting and harassment, property Miami in 1980 (Porter and Dunn 1984) and in
destruction, looting, and sniping. South Central Los Angeles in 1992 (Bergesen and
Herman 1998). Commodity or property riots, in
Several caveats should be kept in mind with contrast, typically involve looting, arson, and van-
respect to crowd task activities. First, any listing of dalism against property, which has generally been
task activities is unlikely to be exhaustive, because posited as one of the defining features of the many
they vary historically and culturally. Charles Tilly’s urban riots that occurred across major U.S. cities
(1978) concept of ‘‘repertories of collective ac-
tion’’ underscores this variation. Tilly has stressed
555
CROWDS AND RIOTS
in the 1960s. But it has been argued that many of Variation in Participation Units. Just as em-
these riots, such as those that occurred following pirical research on crowds has discerned consider-
the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in able heterogeneity in behavior, so there is corre-
1968, were also protest riots, or at least had ele- sponding variation in terms of participants. Some
ments of protest associated with them (Fogelson are engaged in various task activities, some are
1971). Even though there has been some effort to observing, and still others are involved in the
identify the conditions that lead to the designation containment and control of the other participants
of elements of crowd behavior as protest (Turner and their interactions. Indeed, most of the indi-
1969), it is clear that communal, commodity, and viduals who make up a crowd fall into one of three
protest riots are overlapping rather than mutually categories of actors: task performers, spectators or
exclusive crowd phenomena and that distinguish- bystanders, and social control agents. Task per-
ing among them therefore involves some interpretive formers include the individuals performing both
discretion (Turner 1994). The same is true, as well, main and subordinate tasks. In the case of an
with the category of issueless riots, such as the antiwar march, for example, the main task per-
sporting victory celebrations that sometimes take formers would include the protesting marchers,
on the flavor of property riots among some of the with counterdemonstrators, peace marshals, and
celebrants. Even in the case of police riots, which the press or media constituting the subordinate
involve a loss of discipline and control among the task performers.
ranks, as occurred during the 1968 Democratic
National Convention in Chicago, there is often Spectators or bystanders, who constitute the
debate as to whether the assaultive behavior of the second set of actors relevant to most instances of
police is justified. That there is some level of crowd behavior, have been differentiated into proxi-
ambiguity and debate associated with categorizing mal and distal groupings according to proximity to
and distinguishing any crowd episode as not only a the collective encounter and the nature of their
riot, but as particular kind of riot, is not surprising response. Proximal spectators, who are physically
considering that all crowd episodes share various co-present and can thus monitor firsthand the
task activities or elementary forms even when they activities of task performers, have generally been
differ in terms of their defining task activities. treated as relatively passive and nonessential ele-
ments of crowd behavior. However, research on a
Following from these observations is a final series of victory celebrations shows that some
caveat: The task activities associated with any given spectators do not merely respond passively to the
crowd episode vary in the degree to which they are main task performance and accept the activity as
the focus of attention. Not all are equally attended given, but can actively influence the character of
to by spectators, social control agents, or the me- the activity as well (Snow, Zurcher, and Peters
dia. Consequently, task activities can be classified 1981). Accordingly, proximal spectators can vary
according to the amount of attention they receive. in terms of whether they are passive or animated
One that is the major focus of attention and thus and aggressive. ‘‘Distal spectators’’ refer to indi-
provides the phenomenal basis for defining the viduals who take note of episodes of crowd behav-
episode constitutes ‘‘the main task activity,’’ whereas ior even though they are not physically present
those subordinate to the main task activity are during the episodes themselves. Also referred to
‘‘subordinate or side activities.’’ The main task as ‘‘bystander publics’’ (Turner and Killian 1987),
activity is on center stage and typically is the focus they indirectly monitor an instance of crowd be-
of media attention, as illustrated by the extensive havior and respond to it, either favorably or unfa-
media coverage of property vandalism and looting vorably, by registering their respective views with
associated with commodity riots. In contrast, the the media and community officials. Although dis-
remaining task activities are sideshows, occasioned tal spectators may not affect the course of a single
by and often parasitic to the focal task activity. episode of crowd behavior, they can clearly have
Examples of subordinate task activity in the case of an impact on the career and character of a series of
property or communal riots, or both, include interconnected crowd episodes.
spectating or observing, informal, unofficial at-
tempts at social control, and even the work of Social control agents, consisting primarily of
the media. police officers and military personnel, constitute
556
CROWDS AND RIOTS
the final set of participants relevant to most in- Conditions of Conduciveness. The concept
stances of crowd behavior. Since they are the of conduciveness directs attention to structural
guardians of public order, their primary aim with and cultural factors that make crowd behavior
respect to crowds is to maintain that order by physically and socially possible (Smelser 1963).
controlling crowd behavior both spatially and tem- Conditions of conduciveness constitute the raw
porally or by suppressing its occurrence. Given material for crowd behavior and include three sets
this aim, social control agents can clearly have a of factors: ecological, technological, and social
significant impact on the course and character of control. Ecological factors affect the arrangement
crowd behavior. This is evident in most protest and distribution of people in space so as to facili-
demonstrations and victory celebrations, but it is tate interaction and communication. One such
particularly clear in the case of riots, which are factor found to be particularly conducive is the
often triggered by overzealous police activity and existence of large, spatially concentrated popula-
often involve considerable interpersonal violence tions. The vast majority of campus protest demon-
perpetrated by the police. The urban riots of the strations in the 1960s occurred on large universi-
1960s in the United States illustrate both tenden- ties, for example. Similarly, the urban riots of the
cies: police-citizen scuffles occasioned by traffic 1960s typically occurred in densely populated resi-
citation encounters or arrests sometimes func- dential areas, where there were large, easily mobi-
tioned as a triggering event (Kerner 1968); and the lizable black populations. Seymour Spilerman’s
vast majority of riot-associated deaths were attrib- (1976) aggregate-level research on the occurrence
uted to social control agents (Bergesen 1980; Kerner of these riots found an almost linear relationship
1968). This was not the case, however, with the between the size of a city’s black population and
riots in Miami in 1980 and in South Central Los the likelihood and number of disorders experi-
Angeles in 1992, in which the clear majority of enced, thus suggesting that there was a threshold
deaths were at the hands of civilians (McPhail population size below which riots were unlikely.
1994; Porter and Dunn 1984). Although these More recent analyses of the 1960 riots have found
different sets of findings caution against prema- that ‘‘the propensity to riot was a function of far
ture generalization regarding the attribution of more than simply the number of Blacks available
responsibility for riot-related deaths, they do not for rioting in a particular city’’ (Myers 1997, p. 108;
belie the important role of social control agents in Olzak, Shanahan, and McEneaney 1996), but such
affecting the course and character of crowd epi- findings do not suggest that concentrated popula-
sodes (Della Porta and Reiter 1998). tion density and the prospect of rioting are unre-
lated. Thus, these findings, in conjunction with the
Although there is no consensual taxonomy of earlier observations, provide support for the hy-
crowd behaviors and interacting participation units, pothesis that, all other things being equal, the
the foregoing observations indicate that behavior- greater the population density, the greater the
al and participant heterogeneity are characteristic probability of crowd behavior.
features of most crowd episodes. In turn, the
research on which these observations are based The heightened prospect of interpersonal in-
lays to rest the traditional image of crowds as teraction and communication associated with popu-
monolithic entities composed of like-minded peo- lation concentration can also be facilitated by the
ple engaged in undifferentiated behavior. diffusion of communication technology, namely
telephone, radio, television, and Internet access.
CONDITIONS OF EMERGENCE But neither the diffusion of such technology nor
population density guarantee the emergence of
Under what conditions do individuals come to- crowd behavior in the absence of a system of social
gether collectively to engage in crowd task activi- control that allows for freedom of assembly and
ties constitutive of protest or celebration, and why speech. It has been found repeatedly that inci-
do these occurrences sometimes turn violent or dence of public protest against the state diminish-
riotous? Three sets of interacting conditions are es considerably in political systems that prohibit
discernible in the literature: (1) conditions of and deal harshly with such crowd behavior, where-
conduciveness; (2) precipitating ambiguities or as the development of a more permissive attitude
grievances; and (3) conditions for mobilization.
557
CROWDS AND RIOTS
toward public protest and a corresponding relaxa- part by such grievances include the hostile gather-
tion of measures of social control is frequently ings of hungry citizens and displaced workers in
conducive to the development of protest behavior. industrializing Europe; the striking crowds of work-
Two concrete examples of this political-opportuni- ers associated with the labor movement; and the
ty principle include the proliferation of public mass demonstrations (marching, rallying, picket-
protest throughout Eastern Europe in 1989 and ing, vigiling) associated with the civil rights, stu-
1990 following the break-up of the Soviet Union, dent, antiwar, and women’s movements of the
and prison riots, which research reveals are sparked 1960s and 1970s.
in part by the erosion of prison security systems
and the increased physical vulnerability of those Grievances against communal or status groups
systems (Useem and Kimball 1989). appear to occur most often in a context of compe-
tition and conflict between two or more ethnic or
Precipitating Events and Conditions. Howev- racial groups. A second generation of quantitative
er conducive conditions might be for crowd behav- research on urban racial rioting in the United
ior, it will not occur in the absence of some precipi- States has shown it to be associated with increasing
tating event or condition. Although the specific intergroup competition sparked by patterns of
precipitants underlying the emergence of crowd hypersegregation of blacks (Olzak, Shanahan, and
behavior may be quite varied, most are variants of McEneaney 1996), heightened nonwhite unem-
two generic conditions: (1) ambiguity; and (2) ployment (Myers 1997), and rapid ethnic succes-
grievances against corporate entities, typically the sion (Bergesen and Herman 1998). Indeed, if
state or some governmental, administrative unit, there is a single structural-based source of griev-
or against communal or status groups such as ance associated with intergroup rioting through-
ethnic, racial, and religious groups. out much of modern history, it is probably inter-
group competition triggered by ethnic/racial
Ambiguity is generated by the disruption or displacement and succession.
breakdown of everyday routines or expectancies,
and has long been linked theoretically to the emer- Crowd violence—’’riotous’’ task activities such
gence of crowd behavior (Johnson and Feinberg as property destruction, looting, fighting, and snip-
1990; Turner and Killian 1987). Evidence of its ing—has been an occasional corollary of protest
empirical linkage to the emergence of crowd be- crowds, but it is not peculiar to such crowds.
havior is abundant, as with the materialization of Moreover, the occurrence of crowd violence, wheth-
crowds of onlookers at the scene of accidents and er in association with protest demonstrations or
fires; the celebrations that sometimes follow high- celebrations, is relatively infrequent in compari-
stakes, unanticipated athletic victories; the collec- son to other crowd behaviors (Eisinger 1973;
tive revelry sometimes associated with the disrup- Gamson 1990; Lewis 1982). When it does occur,
tion of interdependent networks of institutional- however, there are two discernible tendencies:
ized roles, as in the case of power blackouts and interpersonal violence most often results from the
police strikes; and prison riots that frequently dynamic interaction of protestors and police
follow on the heels of unanticipated change in (Kritzer 1977; MacCannell 1973); and property
administrative personnel, procedures, and control. violence, as in the case of riot looting, often tends
to be more selective and semi-organized than ran-
The existence of grievances against the state dom and chaotic (Berk and Aldrich 1972; Quarantelli
or some governmental, administrative unit, or and Dynes 1968; Tierney 1994).
against communal or status groups, can be equally
facilitative of crowd behavior, particularly of the Conditions for Mobilization. A precipitating
protest variety. Grievances against the state or condition coupled with a high degree of
other corporate actors are typically associated with conduciveness is rarely sufficient to produce an
the existence of economic and political inequities instance of crowd behavior. In addition, people
that are perceived as unjust or political decisions have to be assembled or brought into contact with
and policies that are seen as morally bankrupt or one another, and attention must be focused on the
advantaging some interests to the exclusion of accomplishment of some task. On some occasions
others. Examples of protest crowds triggered in in everyday life the condition of assemblage is
already met, as in the case of the pedestrian crowd
558
CROWDS AND RIOTS
and conventional audience. More often than not, role this interaction plays in determining the direc-
however, protest crowds, large-scale victory cele- tion and character of crowd behavior. These
brations, and riots do not grow out of convention- oversights are primarily due to the perceptual trap
al gatherings but require the rapid convergence of of taking the behaviors of the most conspicuous
people in time and space. McPhail and David element of the episode—the main task perform-
Miller (1973) found this assembling process to be ers—as typifying all categories of actors, thus giv-
contingent on the receipt of assembling instruc- ing rise to the previously mentioned ‘‘illusion of
tions; ready access, either by foot or by other unanimity’’ (Turner and Killian 1987).
transportation, to the scene of the action; schedule
congruence; and relatively free or discretionary A more modern variant of the convergence
time. It can also be facilitated by lifestyle circum- argument attributes coordination to a rational
stances and social networks. Again, the ghetto calculus in which individuals reach parallel assess-
riots of the 1960s are a case in point. They typically ments regarding the benefits of engaging in a
occurred on weekday evenings or weekends in the particular task activity (Berk 1974; Granovetter
summer, times when people were at home, were 1978). Blending elements of this logic with strands
more readily available to receive instructions, and of theorizing seemingly borrowed from LeBon
had ample discretionary time (Kerner 1968). and Freud, James Coleman (1990) argues that
crowd behavior occurs when individuals make a
The focusing of attention typically occurs unilateral transfer of control over their actions.
through some ‘‘keynoting’’ or ‘‘framing’’ process Such accounts are no less troublesome than the
whereby the interpretive gesture or utterance of earlier ones in that they remain highly individualis-
one or more individuals provides a resonant ac- tic and psychologistic, ignoring the extent to which
count or stimulus for action. It can occur sponta- crowd behavior is the product of collective deci-
neously, as when someone yells ‘‘Cops!’’ or ‘‘Fire!’’; sion making involving the ‘‘framing’’ and ‘‘reframing’’
it can be an unintended consequence of media of probable costs and benefits and the extent to
broadcasts; or it can be the product of prior plan- which this collective decision making frequently
ning, thus implying the operation of a social has a history involving prior negotiation between
movement. various sets of crowd participants.
COORDINATION OF CROWD BEHAVIOR A sociologically more palatable view holds
that crowd behavior is coordinated by definition
Examination of protest demonstrations, celebratory of the situation that functions in normative fash-
crowds, and riots reveals in each case that the ion by encouraging behavior in accordance with
behaviors in question are patterned and collective the definition. The collective definition may be
rather than random and individualistic. Identifica- situationally emergent (Turner and Killian 1987)
tion of the sources of coordination has thus been or preestablished by prior policing strategies or
one of the central tasks confronting students of negotiation among the relevant sets of actors (Del-
crowd behavior. la Porta and Reiter 1998; Snow and Anderson
1985). When one or more sets of actors cease to
Earlier theorists attributed the coordination adjust their behaviors to this normative under-
either to the rapid spread of emotional states and standing, violence is more likely, especially if the
behavior in a contagion-like manner due to the police seek to reestablish normative control, and
presumably heightened suggestibility of crowd the episode is likely to be labeled as riotous or
members (LeBon [1895] 1960; Blumer l95l) or to mob-like.
the convergence of individuals who are predis-
posed to behave in a similar fashion because of Today it is generally conceded that most in-
common dispositions or background characteris- stances of crowd behavior are normatively regulat-
tics (Allport 1924; Dollard et al. 1939). Both views ed, but the dynamics underlying the emergence of
are empirically off the mark. They assume a uni- such regulations are still not well understood em-
formity of action that glosses the existence of pirically. Consequently, there is growing research
various categories of actors, variation in their be- interest in detailing the interactional dynamics
haviors, ongoing interaction among them, and the underlying the process by which coordinating un-
derstandings emerge and change. Distinctive to
559
CROWDS AND RIOTS
this research is the view that social interaction which have been numerous, have failed to find
among relevant sets of actors, rather than the consistently significant empirical correlations be-
background characteristics and cognitive states of tween measures of frustration or deprivation and
individuals, holds the key to understanding the participation (McPhail 1994). This is not to suggest
course and character of crowd behavior (Snow that riot or protest participants may not some-
and Anderson 1985; Turner 1994; Waddington, times feel deeply frustrated or deprived as com-
Jones, and Critcher 1989). pared to others, but that these psychological states
do not reliably explain their participation or typi-
THE CORRELATES AND PREDICTORS OF cally differentiate them from nonparticipants. Such
PARTICIPATION findings are consistent with the second general
observation: There are a diversity of motivations
Crowd phenomena associated with collective be- for participation in crowd episodes, ranging from
havior have been distinguished from everyday, curiosity to exploitation of the situation for per-
conventionalized crowds, the characteristic fea- sonal gain (e.g., fun, material goods) to sympathy
tures of crowds have been elaborated, the major with the issue for which the episode is a marker or
sets of conditions that facilitate the emergence or carrier to embracement of and identification with
occurrence of crowds and riots have been identi- the cause from either a self-interested or altruistic
fied, and the issue of behavioral coordination in standpoint (Turner and Killian 1987). That nei-
crowd contexts has been explored. In addressing ther a distinctive psychological state or deficit nor
these orienting issues, only passing reference has a dominant motive have been found to be associat-
been made to factors that make some individuals ed with crowd and riot participation does not
more likely than other individuals to participate in mean that psychological or personality factors are
crowd episodes. For example, it is clear that the without relevance to this issue. To the contrary,
odds of participating in some crowd episodes are one such factor that appears to be consistently
greater with increasing spatial proximity and ac- associated with participation as a main task per-
cess to those episodes, schedule congruence, and former in protest crowds and riots is the existence
discretionary time (McPhail and Miller 1973). As of a sense of ‘‘personal efficacy’’—the belief that
well, individuals whose daily routines and expectancies one’s participation will make a difference, the
have been rendered ambiguous or who share griev- confidence that one’s efforts will contribute to the
ances that are linked to the occurrence of a crowd larger cause (Snow and Oliver 1995). This finding,
episode would appear to be more likely candidates which constitutes the third general observation
for participation. But both of these sets of condi- regarding participation correlates, makes good
tions typically hold for a far greater number of sense when considered in conjunction with the
individuals than those who end up participating in fourth general observation: Participants in crowd
a crowd episode in some capacity other than a episodes—whether they are victory celebrations,
social control agent or media representative. So protest events, or riots—seldom participate alone.
what can be said about the personal and interper- Instead, rather than being isolates or loners, they
sonal correlates or predictors of participation? are typically in the company of friends or acquain-
tances; they are, in other words, part of a social
There is no simple answer to this question or network. Additionally, recruitment into many
standard formula for predicting crowd participa- crowd episodes occurs through the very same
tion. However, research on this question suggests social networks (Snow and Oliver 1995). Thus,
at least four general, sensitizing observations, par- participation in crowd episodes, particularly planned
ticularly with respect to participation in protest ones such as protest events, tends to be embedded
crowds and riots. The first general observation is in social networks, which also function to nurture
that commonsensical psychological indicators of a greater sense of both personal and collective
protest and riot participation, such as intense frus- efficacy. When these factors are coupled with the
tration or strong feelings of deprivation, have not previously mentioned conditions for assemblage,
been found to be valid or reliable predictors. For and either ambiguity or target-specific grievances,
example, studies of individual riot participation, participation becomes more likely and perhaps
even more predictable.
560
CROWDS AND RIOTS
REFERENCES Kritzer, Herbert M. 1977 ‘‘Political Protest and Political
Violence: A Nonrecursive Causal Model.’’ Social For-
Allport, Floyd H. 1924 Social Psychology. Boston: Hough- ces 55:630–640.
ton Mifflin.
LeBon, Gustave (1895) 1960 The Crowd: A Study of the
Bergesen, Albert 1980 ‘‘Official Violence During the Popular Mind. New York: Viking Press.
Watts, Newark, and Detroit Race Riots of the 1960s.’’
In Pat Lauderdale, ed., A Political Analysis of Deviance. Lewis, Jerry 1982 ‘‘Fan Violence: An American Social
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Problem.’’ Research on Social Problems and Public Poli-
cy 2:175–206.
———, and Max Herman 1998 ‘‘Immigration, Race,
and Riot: The 1992 Los Angeles Uprising.’’ American Lofland, John 1981 ‘‘Collective Behavior: The Elemen-
Sociological Review 63:39–54. tary Forms.’’ In Morris Rosenberg and Ralph Turne,
eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New
Berk, Richard 1974 ‘‘A Gaming Approach to Crowd York: Basic Books.
Behavior.’’ American Sociological Review 39:355–373.
MacCannell, Dean 1973 ‘‘Nonviolent Action as Thea-
———, and Howard Aldrich 1972 ‘‘Patterns of Vandal- ter.’’ Nonviolent Action Research Project Series No.
ism During Civil Disorders as an Indicator of Selec- 10, Haverford College Center for Nonviolent Con-
tion of Targets.’’ American Sociological Review 37:533–547. flict Resolution, Haverford, Pa.
Blumer, Herbert 1951 ‘‘Collective Behavior.’’ In Alfred Marx, Gary 1972 ‘‘Issueless Riots.’’ In James F. Short
McClung Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology. New York: and Marvin E. Wolfgang, eds., Collective Violence.
Barnes and Noble. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Coleman, James S. 1990 Foundations of Social Theory. McPhail, Clark 1994 ‘‘The Dark Side of Purpose: Indi-
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. vidual and Collective Violence in Riots.’’ Sociological
Quarterly 35:1–32.
Della Porta, Donatella, and Herbert Reiter (eds.) 1998
Policing Protest: The Control of Mass Demonstrations in ——— 1991 The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York:
Western Democracies. Minneapolis: University of Min- Aldine de Gruyter.
nesota Press.
———, and David L. Miller 1973 ‘‘The Assembling
Dollard, John, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller, Herbert Process: A Theoretical and Empirical Examination.’’
Mowrer, and Robert Sears 1939 Frustration and Ag- American Sociological Review 38:721–735.
gression. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
McPhail, Clark, and Ronald T. Wohlstein 1983 ‘‘Indi-
Eisinger, Peter 1973 ‘‘The Conditions of Protest Behav- vidual and Collective Behaviors Within Gatherings,
ior in American Cities.’’ American Political Science Demonstrations, and Riots.’’ Annual Review of Sociolo-
Review 67:11–28. gy 9:579–600.
Fogelson, Robert M. 1971 Violence as Protest: A Study of Myers, Daniel J. 1997 ‘‘Racial Rioting in the 1960s: An
Riots and Ghettos. New York: Doubleday. Event History Analysis of Local Conditions.’’ Ameri-
can Sociological Review 62:94–112.
Freud, Sigmund 1921 Group Psychology and Analysis of the
Ego. London: International Psychoanalytical Press. Olzak, Susan, Suzanne Shanahan, and Elizabeth H.
McEneaney 1996 ‘‘Poverty, Segregation, and Race
Gamson, William 1990 The Strategy of Social Protest, Riots: 1960–1993.’’ American Sociological Review
2nd ed., rev. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey. 61:590–613.
Granovetter, Mark 1978 ‘‘Threshold Models of Col- Porter, Bruce, and Marvin Dunn 1984 The Miami Riot of
lective Behavior.’’ American Journal of Sociology 1980: Crossing the Bounds. Lexington, Mass.: Lexing-
83:1420–1443. ton Books.
Janowitz, Morris 1979 ‘‘Collective Racial Violence: A Ouarantelli, Enrico L., and Russell Dynes 1968 ‘‘Loot-
Contemporary History.’’ In Hugh Davis Graham and ing in Civil Disorders: An Index of Social Change.’’
Ted Gurr, eds., Violence in America: Historical and In Louis Masotti and Don R. Bowen, eds., Riots and
Comparative Perspectives, rev. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Rebellion. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Johnson, Norris R., and William E. Feinberg 1990 ‘‘Am- Smelser, Neil 1963 Theory of Collective Behavior. New
biguity and Crowds: Results From A Computer Simula- York: Free Press.
tion Model.’’ Research in Social Movements, Conflict
and Change 12:35–66. Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson 1985 ‘‘Field Meth-
ods and Conceptual Advances in Crowd Research.’’
Kerner, Otto 1968 Report of the National Advisory Commis- Paper presented at Conference on Research Meth-
sion on Civil Disorders. New York: E.P. Dutton. ods in Collective Behavior and Social Movements,
561
CULTURE
Collective Behavior/Social Movements Section of CULTURE
the American Sociological Association, Bowling Green
State University. To produce a definition of culture, one can exam-
ine the concept in the abstract, that is, explore the
Snow David A., and Pamela E. Oliver 1995 ‘‘Social concept theoretically from a variety of standpoints
Movements and Collective Behavior: Social Psycho- and then justify the definition that emerges through
logical Dimensions and Considerations.’’ In Karen S. deductive logic. Or one can explore how the con-
Cook, Gary Alan Fine, James S. House, eds., Sociologi- cept is used in practice, that is, describe how
cal Perspectives on Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn sociologists, both individually and collectively, de-
and Bacon. fine culture in the research process and analyze
how they inductively construct a shared definition.
Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher, and Robert Peters This essay takes the latter collective-inductive ap-
1981 ‘‘Victory Celebrations as Theater: A Dramaturgical proach to defining culture. Such an approach is
Approach to Crowd Behavior.’’ Symbolic Interac- inherently sociological and does not presume to
tion 4:21–42. produce an independent definition for the field,
rather it seeks to document how successful partici-
Spilerman, Seymour 1976 ‘‘Structural Characteristics of pants in the field have been in producing a shared
Cities and the Severity of Racial Disorders.’’ American definition for themselves. To produce such a ‘‘work-
Sociological Review 35:627–649. ing’’ definition of culture, one starts by examining
the social science roots that have helped deter-
Tierney, Kathleen J. 1994 ‘‘Property Damage and Vio- mine the current status of the sociology of culture.
lence: A Collective Behavior Analysis. In Mark
Baldassare, ed., The Los Angeles Riots: Lessons for the The focus on culture in sociology has flour-
Urban Future. Boulder, Colo.: Westwood Press. ished over the past twenty years, as evidenced by
the fact that the Culture Section in the American
Tilly, Charles 1978 From Mobilization to Revolution. Read- Sociological Association has become one of the
ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. largest and is still one of the fastest-growing sec-
tions in the discipline. The growth of interest in
Turner, Ralph H. 1994 ‘‘Race Riots Past and Present: A culture is also nicely documented by the number
Culture-Collective Behavior Approach.’’ Symbolic In- of survey review articles and books written during
teraction 17:309–324. this period (e.g., Denzin 1996; Crane 1994, 1992;
Hall and Neitz 1993; Munch and Smelser 1992;
——— 1969 ‘‘The Public Perception of Protest.’’ Ameri- Peterson 1990, 1989, 1979; Alexander and Seidman
can Sociological Review 34:815–831. 1990; Wuthnow and Witten 1988; Blau 1988;
Mukerji and Schudson 1986). As is clear from the
———, and Lewis Killian (1957, 1972) 1987 Collective reviews, interest in cultural analysis has grown
Behavior, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. significantly. The focus on culture in all spheres of
research has increased tremendously; and culture
Useem, Bert, and Peter Kimball 1989 States of Siege: U.S. is now readily accepted as a level of explanation in
Prison Riots 1971–1986. New York: Oxford Universi- its own right. Even in traditionally materialist-
ty Press. oriented research arenas, such as stratification and
Marxist studies, cultural activities and interests are
Waddington, David, Karen Jones, and Chas Critcher not treated as subordinate to economic explana-
1989 Flashpoints: Studies in Public Disorder. London: tions in current research (e.g., Halle 1994; Nelson
Routledge. and Grossberg 1988; Bourdieu 1984; Williams
1981, 1977). Cultural studies and analysis have
Walker, Daniel (ed.) 1968 Rights in Conflict. New York: become one of the most fertile areas in sociology.
Grossett and Dunlop.
The rapid growth in the focus on culture and
Weller, Jack, and Enrico L. Quarantelli 1973 ‘‘Neglected cultural explanation has produced some definitional
Characteristics of Collective Behavior.’’ American Jour- boundary problems. The term culture has been
nal of Sociology 79:665–685.
Wright, Sam 1978 Crowds and Riots: A Study in Social
Organization. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
DAVID A. SNOW
RONNELLE PAULSEN
CULTS
See Religious Organizations; Religious Orienta-
tions; Religious Movements.
562
CULTURE
used in contemporary sociological research to de- maintained that culture is primary in guiding all
scribe everything from elite artistic activities (Becker patterns of behavior, including who interacts with
1982) to the values, styles, and ideology of day-to- whom, and should therefore be given priority in
day conduct (Swidler 1986). Along with art and theories about the organization of society. This
everyday conduct, included among the ‘‘mixed position was countered by researchers in the struc-
bag’’ of research that takes place under the auspi- tural tradition, such as A.R. Radcliffe-Brown ([1952]
ces of the sociology of culture is work in science 1961) and E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1937, 1940) from
(Latour 1987; Star 1989), religion (Neitz 1987), the British school of social anthropology, and
law (Katz 1988), media (Schudson 1978; Gitlin Claude Levi-Strauss ([1953] 1963) in French
1985; Tuchman 1978), popular culture (Peterson structuralism. ‘‘Structuralists’’ contended that so-
1997; Weinstein 1991; Chambers 1986), and work cial structure was the primary focus of social sci-
organization (Fine 1996; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1990). ence and should be given priority in theories
about society because social structure (e.g., kin-
With such an extensive variety in the empirical ship) determines patterns of social interaction and
focus of research in culture, the question for many thought. Both schools had influential and large
participants in the field is how to translate this numbers of adherents.
eclecticism into a coherent research field. This
goal has not yet been reached, but while a coher- The culturalists took a holistic approach to the
ent concept of culture is still evolving and the concept of culture. Stemming from Edward Tylor’s
boundaries of the current field of sociology of classic definition, culture was ‘‘. . . that complex
culture are still fluid and expanding, it is possible whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, mo-
to explore how different types of researchers in rals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
the social sciences, both currently and historically, habits acquired by man as a member of society’’
have approached the concept of culture. In this ([1871] 1924, p.1). This definition leaves little out,
inventory process, a better understanding of the but the orientation of the late nineteenth century
concept of culture will emerge, that is, what differ- intended the concept of culture to be as inclusive
ent researchers believe the concept of culture as possible. Culture is what distinguishes man as a
includes, what the concept excludes, and how the species from other species. Therefore culture con-
distinction between categories has been made. sists of all that is produced by human collectivities,
This essay will provide a historical overview of the that is, all of social life. The focus here stems from
two major debates on the appropriate focus and the ‘‘nature’’ vs. ‘‘nurture’’ disputes common dur-
limitations of the definition of culture, and then ing this period. Anything that differentiates man’s
turn to the contemporary social context in an accomplishments from biological and evolution-
effort to clarify the issues underlying the current ary origins was relevant to the concept of culture.
concept of culture. That includes religion as well as kinship structures,
language as well as nation-states.
THE CULTURE–SOCIAL STRUCTURE
DEBATE Following Boas, the study of culture was used
to examine different types of society. All societies
From the turn of the century until the 1950s, the have cultures, and variations in cultural patterns
definition of culture was embroiled in a dialogue helped further the argument that culture, not
that sought to distinguish the concepts of culture nature, played the most significant role in govern-
and social structure. This distinction was a major ing human behavior. In addition, the cultural vari-
bone of contention among social scientists, most ances observed in different societies helped break
noticeably among anthropologists divided between down the nineteenth-century anthropological no-
the cultural and social traditions of anthropology. tion of ‘‘the psychic unity of mankind, the unity of
Researchers in the cultural or ethnological tradi- human history, and the unity of culture’’ (Singer
tion, such as Franz Boas (1896/1940), Bronislaw 1968, p. 527). The pluralistic and relativistic ap-
Malinowski (1927, 1931), Margaret Mead (1928, proaches to culture that followed emphasized a
1935), Alfred Kroeber (1923/1948, 1952), and more limited, localized conception. Culture was
Ruth Benedict (1934) believed culture was the what produced a distinctive identity for a society,
central concept in social science. ‘‘Culturalists’’
563
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Encyclopedia of sociology by Edgar F. Borgatta, Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (z-lib.org)
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Encyclopedia of sociology by Edgar F. Borgatta, Rhonda J. V. Montgomery (z-lib.org)
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 750
- 751 - 756
Pages: