Social Bond Theory and Deviant Behaviour

Social Bond Theory and Deviant BehaviourSocial Bonds and divergenceDeviance is a term used to describe deportment that goes against the established mixer and cultural norms. The concept of deviance is interwoven because norms vary considerably across groups, times, and come ins. Essenti every last(predicate)y, man-to-mans return deviant behavior when society defines it as such. Within the playing area of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why rough people engage in deviant behavior, while separates abstain from it. One of these theories is Travis Hirschis, affectionate stick by speculation, which eventually runs the blueprint for subsequent chasteness theories. This paper entrust analyze aspects of societal temper possibility and kindly bonds, for the purpose of seeing if they tooshie deter deviant behavior. Social control supposition pointes on how the lack of close recountingships with others can unfreeze idiosyncratics from f avorable constraints, which in turn allows them to engage in delinquency. Un similar just about criminology theories that claim to explain why people offend, control theories offer the justification for why people follow the rules (Cartwright, 2013). Social control theories focus primarily on orthogonal factors and the processes by which rules become effective. Followers of this theory believe that deviance and hatred occur because of inadequate constraints. This theory also examines the lack of control a person has in relation to society and explains how deviant behavior occurs in proportion to the strength of ones affable soldering. For the most part, complaisant control theory assumes a shared value or belief in amicable norms. Therefore, even those who break laws or violate friendly norms, share the general belief that those rules should be followed (Cartwright, 2013). Thus, the pith of affable control theory is explaining conformity and the process by means of which p eople are complaisantized to obey the rules.The first mentions of brotherly control theory can be prepare in the works of some of the Enlightenment thinkers and can be traced to the Chicago School (Cartwright, 2011, p. 207). For example, Thomas Hobbes, an English social philosopher who wrote about external restraints and the role of government in preventing deviance, can be seen as one of the roots of this theory. Hobbes argued that humans had an natural tendency toward evil and were constrained only through social contracts and agreements with people. More often though, the origin of social control theory is connected to Emile Durkheim, who is a French sociologist and is considered as the founder of sociology. Durkheim views abuse and deviance as social facts that are present in all societies and even considered shame as normal (Cartwright, 2013). Durkheim feeling that, social controls were necessary if individuals were to understand the boundaries between acceptable and una cceptable behavior (Cartwright, 2011, p. 207). In his view, crime serves the function of identifying boundaries for behavior, which are recognized collectively in communities and reinforced by shun societal reaction. As a precede, social order is maintained to avoid disapproved association with deviant acts.Eventually, Durkheims theory of integration and ordination becomes the basis for Travis Hirschis social bonding theory, in which criminal behavior is accounted as a result of weakening social bonds. Although Hirschi was not the first to propose a social control theory, his research make in the, Causes of Delinquency (1969), established him as the leading social control theorist. However, it is all-important(a) to note that his social bonding theory exists, for the most part, as a result of the work done by his social control theory predecessors (Hirschi, 1969, p. 212). Terence Thornberry elaborated upon Hirschis control theory and Durkheims view of crime in society, in order to create a more accurate model for describing delinquency. He agreed with Hirschi that all humans are born with deviant motivation and that if social constraints are absent, people will course engage in deviant behavior. However, Thornberry argues that the weakening of social controls would not necessarily result in delinquency. In other words, according to Thornberrys interactive theory, the absence or weakening of social control is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for woebegone involvement (Cartwright, 2011, p. 229). Laub and Sampsons turning points theory was also rooted in Durkheims views, Hirschis social bond theory and Thornberrys interactional theory. Laub and Sampsons theory concluded that some social events may change delinquents from a means of crime and this event is called a turning point. Closer to the present time, Bouffard and Petkovsek conducted a probe which explores the process through which social bonds work to restrain offending criminal behavior. This was primarily based on Hirschis social bonding theory and looks at the decision to drive drunk. All of the above mentioned theorists are intricately connected through their theories, which are based on some aspect of their respective predecessors, and their view that all individuals are bonded to society.Hirschis, social bond theory, looks at how delinquency is the result of weak or broken bonds between the individual and society. He states that there are foursome aspects of the bond, and their relationship between each other, that affect our connection to society (Cartwright, 2011). These four are attachment, commitment, involvement in naturalized activities, and lastly belief in wider social values. Hirschi defines attachment to others as the degree to which we admire others and feel affection for and identify with them. Forming secure bonds to other human beings, foster traits like empathy and respect. If a person is able to experience empathy, that person will be far les s apt(predicate) to engage in criminal acts that would result in someone being harmed. Attachment is especially important when it comes to the persons parental figures. According to Hirschi, other attachments, such as direct, also play a tremendous role in conventional society (Hirschi, 1969, p. 215). Next is commitment, which can be described as the personal investment of an individual, in things such as educational or charge goals, and the perceived losings suffered by involvement in deviant behavior. A person is far less apt(predicate) to commit deviant behavior when they have invested too much energy and time into pursuing a goal. A sense of commitment is a grounding force that gives individuals a reason to conform to socially authoritative norms and goals (Hirschi, 1969, p. 216-217). Involvement impacts to the level of ones participation in social activities such as volunteering, channels, or attending church. There is an inverse correlation between the amount of time an individual participates in conventional activities and the amount of time they have to deviate. Therefore, involvement in activities serves to both further an individuals bonds to others and leaves the individual with limited time to be involved in deviant activities. Finally, belief refers to an individuals religion in societys moral system. The individual must believe that the rules and laws are necessary and should be obeyed. A lack of belief in the system can cause individuals to be more likely to engage in deviant behavior (Hirschi, 1969, p. 217-219). Hirschi views these four aspects of social control as highly interrelated and together they form the foundation of the social bonding theory.Thornberrys Interactional theory attempts to combine social structure, social control, and social learning theories. He began with aspects of Hirschis version of control theory and Ronald Akerss social learning theory, in order to create a more integrated theory to explain delinquent behav ior. He called his theory, interactional because it was based on the premise that crime and deviance is the outcome of interactions between an individual and his or her environment (Thornberry, 1987, p. 232-233). Thornberry selected three concepts from Hirschis theory (attachment to parents, commitment to school, and belief in conventional values) and two from Akerss theory (association with delinquent peers and delinquent values) (Cartwright, 2011). The significance of this theory is that it examines the developmental changes across three submit of adolescence early, middle, and late adolescence. During childhood and early adolescence, attachment to the family is the most important determinant of whether a youth will adjust to societys rules and be shielded from delinquency (Thornberry, 1987, p. 242-243). By mid-adolescence, the family is replaced by the world of friends, school and youth culture. In adulthood, a persons behavioural choices are shaped by their place in conventio nal society and in their own family. Additionally, this theory asserts that at different ages, different influences become more important for the individual (Thornberry, 1987, p. 246, 248). This theory further states that individuals with weak social bonds will form other bonds with delinquents who share the same values.Laub and Sampson developed a theory of age-graded informal social control. They predicted that those who have more social capital, quality marital bonds, and stable employment in adulthood are more likely to abstain from committing more crime, through what the authors refer to as turning points. The key component of this theory is that delinquency and crime have an inverse relationship with an individuals bond to society (Cartwright, 2011). As an extension of Hirschis social bond theory, Laub and Sampson discussed the concept of attachment and commitment. The most notable difference between age-graded informal social control theory and social control theory is that t he former acknowledges that crime is not necessarily stable over the brio sentence history course and that criminals can change into normal, law-abiding adults (Cartwright, 2011, p. 258). Laub and Sampson find that attachments or social bonds in adulthood affix some individuals social capital, leading to desistance from most types of deviant behavior. Furthermore, they found that antisocial behavior in childhood has a strong likelihood of continuing through adulthood across a variety of life domains. So, individuals who become attached to other people will augment their self-control and, constraints in the form of job or marriage can prevent those with low self-control from offending (Laub and Sampsons, 1993, p. 269-270). Laub and Sampson argue that the start of a criminal career occurs early in life, but emphasize that even with an established criminal career delinquency can be interrupted during the life course. Specifically, Laub and Sampson found that kids who were involved in deviant behavior, changed for the discover because they experienced an event that pulled them out of their criminal lifestyle and into a more conventional pattern of behavior. They refer to these points of interruption as turning points. Such turning points include military service, employment, and marriage which create social capital. This social capital then represents investment in society and will restrain deviant behavior (Laub and Sampsons, 1993, p. 272-273). According to this theory, social influences on crime can directly and indirectly, affect trajectories of crime across the full(a) life course.In Bouffard and Petkovseks paper, they tested Hirschis social bond theory and the impact social bonds have on crime, specifically focusing on the decision to drive drunk. Their prediction for the outcome of the study is as follows individuals with lower levels of social bonding will not care about the severity of negative consequences involved in drunk parkway behavior and th ese ratings of severity will decide whether an individual participates in drunk driving (Bouffard and Petkovsek, 2013, p. 5). Each participant in the study was asked questions to test the social control theory. These questions think on attachment to the family, belief in conventional values, and religious involvement/commitment (Bouffard and Petkovsek, 2013, p. 8). From the results, they found that concepts discussed in Hirschis social bond theory, did in fact affect deviant behavior. Those individuals with greater social bonds were found to be less likely to drive drunk, whereas those with less social bonds had a greater likelihood of driving drunk (Bouffard and Petkovsek, 2013, p. 17). The results of this study indicate that the concepts described in Hirschis social bond theory actually do have an effect on the deterrence of deviant behavior.Personally, I do believe that aspects of social control theory and social bonds can deter people from engaging in deviant behavior. It is n ot difficult to believe in any of the aforementioned theories, especially Hirschis components of social bond theory (attachment, commitment, involvement in conventional activities, and belief in social values), when there are many accounts of the life stories of major criminals out in the media. Most, if not all, serious crimes (murder, kidnappings, etc) are committed by people who grew up with bad parental figures, and strongly believed that they had no place in conventional society. This tied in with Thornberrys concept of developmental changes across various stages of adolescence. When these individual do not have a strong attachment to family during their childhood, they have already begun rejecting some of societys rules. This coupled with Laub and Sampsons assertion that social bonds increase an individuals social capital which in turn restricts deviant behavior, almost guarantees a path of deviance for that individual. Furthermore, as Bouffard and Petkovesks study showed, so cial bonds really do have an effect on some types of deviant behavior. As previously mentioned, the readings have truly convinced me that social bonds play an integral role in the decision to participate in deviant behavior.ReferencesBouffard, J.A., Petkovsek M.A. (2013) Testing Hirschis integration of social control and rational choice Are bonds considered in offender decisions? Journal of Crime and Justice, doi 10.1080/0735648X.2013.814547Cartwright, B. (2011). Social look Theory and developmental life history Course Theories. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 207-209). Boston Pearson reading Solutions.Cartwright, B. (2011). A take care Theory of Delinquency. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 211-213). Boston Pearson study Solutions.Cartwright, B. (2011). play Points in the Life Course Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and De viance (pp. 258-260). Boston Pearson training Solutions.Cartwright, B. (2011). Toward an Interactional Theory of Deviance. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 229-231). Boston Pearson Learning Solutions.Cartwright, B. (2011). The Origins of Social Control Theory Part 1. Retrieved from online tutorial site http//media.pearsoncmg.com/pcp/1256315303/tutorial6/tutorial6.htmlCartwright, B. (2011). Life Course and Developmental Theories Part 2. Retrieved from online tutorial site http//media.pearsoncmg.com/pcp/1256315303/tutorial7/tutorial7.htmlCartwright, B. (2013). Social Control Theories. Criminology 104 Lecture, retrieved from Simon Fraser University on-line lecture site.Hirschi, T. (1969). A Control Theory of Delinquency. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 214-228). Boston Pearson Learning Solutions.Laub, J., Samspon, R. (1993). Turning Points in the Life Course Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime . In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 261-282). Boston Pearson Learning Solutions.Thornberry, T. (1987). Toward an interactional Theory of Delinquency. In B. Cartwright (Ed), Sociological Explanations of Crime and Deviance (pp. 232-257). Boston Pearson Learning Solutions.