From Hobbes to Marx - A Study of Man, Society and Criminality in Classical to Contemporary Theories

• NCJ Number: 81325
• Journal: Canadian Criminology Forum Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1981) Pages: 118-130
• Author(s): J B L Chan
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 13 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: Canada

Annotation

The development of sociological theories of criminality is traced from classical to contemporary thought.

Abstract

The major theoretical approaches for explaining criminality can be divided into three paradigms -- normative, interpretive, and conflict. Theories within the normative paradigm (control theory, strain theory, and subculture theory) posit criminal behavior in persons not committed to the dominant societal values, those who are committed to the dominant societal values but are unable to achieve them through legitimate channels because of their social position, and those who are committed to deviant subcultural values. Theories under the interpretive paradigm view deviance and criminality not so much as the negative quality of an act per se, but as an interpretive judgment by an authoritative labeler. Under the conflict paradigm, criminality is perceived as determined -- the result of an unequal distribution of power in society, such that what is legal or illegal is decided by the more powerful groups. The current sociological task is not to undertake proofs of any one of the paradigms, but rather to select valid elements from each to develop an integrated, more comprehensive theory of criminality. Lockwood's (1956) analysis was an important step in this direction. Lockwood argues that the existence of normative order holds the potential for conflict, and conflicts are indicative of the uneven distribution of scarce resources in a society. This condition of differential access to material resources is termed the substratum of social action. The normative and conflict paradigms are thus viewed as complementary. For a theory of criminality to be comprehensive, however, it must also recognize the insight of the interpretive paradigm, i.e., that the meaning of deviance or criminality is created in a particular society rather than given as an absolute. Twenty-four references are listed.