INTRODUCTION

 

            Travis Hirschi is regarded as one of the great contributors to Criminology.  He was one of the first theorists to examine factors aside from social influences for the determination of criminal and deviant behavior.  His Social Control Theory instead examined internal factors such as family relations as a determining factor for delinquent behavior.  Hirschi believed that it was the relationship between the child and its parents, which would determine the child’s behavior, either positive or negative.  These beliefs were further examined in Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson’s General Theory of Deviance.  This paper will examine the historical roots of the theories, the actual theories themselves, some of the more popular criticisms as well as future implications for the use of Hirschi’s Control Theories.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS

 

            During the early 1900's the "Social Disorganization Model" for explaining criminal behavior was the dominant theory in the world of criminology.  The teachings and principles of the Chicago School had criminologists examining concentric zones around major cities in an attempt to better determine criminal activities.  It was believed that in these “communities of social instability the opportunities for criminal misdeeds were greater and therefore would produce more crime.” (Hirschi,1969, p.17)  Theories such as this and ones related continued to dominate criminology until the late 1960's.

            Walter Reckless was one of the first criminologists that attempted to offer a different approach to the social disorganization theory. He discovered that social disorganization did indeed expose people to criminal activities but there were still those that failed to become involved in this deviant lifestyle. He concluded that social-structural factors therefore could not be the sole cause of criminal activity as previously believed.  There had to be some other factor that influenced this type of behavior.  He determined this other factor to be of a social-psychological nature and further broke the factor down into two main categories: inner containment and outer containment. These factors he claimed helped to protect people from becoming deviant. (Hirschi, 1969)

            Influenced by the work of Reckless, Travis Hirschi proposed a theory of control in 1969.  Hirschi like Reckless believed that “the construction of a society in and of itself was not an infallible way to determine criminal activity.” (Hirschi, 1969, p.119)  He felt that there was something else that when combined with a criminal setting would produce deviant behavior.  It was this particular external piece that would explain the reasons why only certain people became criminals and others did not.  However, unlike Reckless, Hirschi determined this "X" factor to be the family.  He concluded that the bonds formed and maintained by families would be the surest way to predict criminal behavior.  The greater the family bond the less likely the individual would partake in deviant acts. (Hirschi, 1969)

            This control theory, with its emphasis on family structure, was a fairly new idea when it introduced.  It detracted the focus from society and began to examine external factors that in combination with particular social settings would contribute to crime. Hirschi with his persistence of family as the key factor arrived at a perfect time in the landscape of criminal theory.  He helped to advance a line of thinking that had grown old and stale.

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY

            The teachings of Travis Hirschi can best be summarized in his “Social Control Theory.”  It focuses on the social bonds that tie people to traditional society.  First introduced during the Social Disorganization Movement, the basic premise behind this theory is that delinquency is caused when an individual’s bond to society is loosened or broken.  (Hirschi, 1969)

            Hirschi depended on the works of a few prominent criminologists to form his theory.  One of the main contributions came from the teachings of the Classical School of Criminology.  The basic principle of this school is that “crime is a natural consequence of the unrestrained human tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain.” (Gottfredson & Hirschi,1990) He also attempts to incorporate the teachings of the Positivist school. This theory, as opposed to Classical Criminology, emphasizes causation and determinism instead of the self-seeking pleasures of humans.  Hirschi’s main goal in forming his theory was an attempt at blending these two very different approaches together. He wanted to take the freedom aspect of the classical school and combine it with the social aspect of the positivist school.  Crime, he believed was a rational choice that was provided all individuals, but societal factors could heavily influence these decisions.  All these things combined to form his “Social Control Theory.” (Hirschi, 1969)

            According to Hirschi’s theory there are two main types of social bonding dimensions.  It is these social bonds that help prevent delinquency in society. They are the inner and outer bonds.  Inner bonds are composed of conventional and internalized beliefs; for example how to act, and what to do.  It is through understanding societal beliefs that prevent people from becoming criminal. The rationale was that by sharing a commonality with society people would not perform detrimental acts against it. The second type of bonding system is the outer bond.  These bonds protect against the likelihood of deviant behavior as well.  Hirschi subdivided these bonds into three categories: attachment, involvement and commitment.

                 Attachment refers to the strength of a person’s ties to others, particularly to other persons who conform to society’s normative standards.” (Hirschi,1969, p.25)  For Hirschi, this meant the relationship one has to their parents, families and peers.  It was thought that the more attached an individual was to these upstanding members of society the less likely they would engage in criminal behavior. 

            Involvement refers to the proportion of a person’s time engaged in the pursuit of conventionality.” (Hirschi,1969, p.25) The reasoning behind this is that the less free time a person has then the less likely they will be able to perform deviant acts.  Instead, they will be preoccupied with activities condoned by society and stay out of trouble.

            Commitment refers to the degree of which a person is tied to conventional ways of behaving in accordance with the prevailing norms.” (Hirschi,1969, p.26) The logic behind this is that the more people succeed and gain by participating positively in society the more they lose if they deviate.  It is the basic “scare you straight” tactic that says that the worse you behave the more that you stand to lose.

THE GENERAL THEORY OF DEVIANCE

Another major theory of Travis Hirschi, developed along with Michael Gottfredson is the General Theory of Deviance.  It is related to motivations and opportunities involved in environmental crime. This theory suggests that all people are motivated to pursue short-term gratification, which includes money without working for it, sex without courting it, and revenge without peaceful conflict resolution.  (It is this proposition that relates most directly to violent behaviors.) (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) It stated that all actions and behaviors are regulated by self-control. One of the major factors related to one’s level of self-control is the degree of proper parenting.  This view is similar to Hirschi’s Social Control Theory in the use of putting family and parental guidance as the central issue in preventing delinquency. (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)

            Levels of self-control according to Hirschi and Gottfredson are neither solely high nor low.  They instead vary among individuals along a continuum from very high to very low.  Those with lower self-control have a lower frustration tolerance and are more likely to engage in violent and delinquent behaviors.  In addition, they are also more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs as well as engage in promiscuous sex. (Gottfredson & Hirschi,1990.)  They respond to stimuli immediately rather than reasoning things out and making rational, logical decisions. 

            There are two corollaries to this theory.  The first deals with the concept of stability.  One’s level of self-control is relatively constant from early adolescence up through adulthood.  This is a similar pattern as the crime curve, and as with the curve the older one becomes the more self-control one accumulates.  This according to Hirschi and Gottfredson is the main reason for the majority of crime occurring among juveniles.  The second deals with versatility and the idea that persons with lower self-control will opt to exploit situations to satisfy their urges for self-gratification above all else.  (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) These individuals will constantly alter situations to suit their immediate needs and desires with little regard for much else. 

            From their theory and book, A General Theory of Crime, they created eight rules for controlling crime.  The first is do not attempt to control crime by incapacitating adults.  They are generally well beyond the age of maximum crime participation and thus serve no positive purpose being incarcerated.

            Second, do not attempt to control crime by rehabilitating adults.  The only thing that can really “cure” an offender is time.  Simply letting the offenders “grow out” of their criminal phase is generally the best solution.

            Third, do not attempt to control crime by altering the severity of penalties available to the criminal justice system.  It seems that the main goal of punishment is to provide deterrence.  However, deterrence may be effective if it is immediate, but long-term punishment fails to deter those on the lower end of the self-control continuum.  In fact, it may be more detrimental.

            Fourth, restrict the unsupervised activities of teens.  The more structured the activity the less likely the individual will be able to engage in mischievous behaviors.  Effective crime control measures should prevent teen crimes.

            Fifth, limit proactive policing.  In instances such as stings or large arrests the results are not very good.  In some cases they create some crimes, and prevent or cure none.

            Sixth, question the characterization of crime offered by agents of the criminal justice system and uncritically reported by the media.  Most of the issues that are reported on television tend to be the extreme cases, and not the norm as portrayed.  Also, the criminal justice system is not informed by hard data but instead by bureaucracy and politics.  It serves as but a tool to serve the interests of those in power.

            Seventh, support programs designed to provide early education and effective child-care.  Children require more attention at earlier ages, especially with the increase of two-parent working households.  Daycare programs need to be more affordable and readily available to all.  It is their job to begin to teach children the ideals of the self-control that will govern their lives and the choices they make.

            Finally, support policies that promote and facilitate two parent families and that increase the number of caregivers relative to the number of children.  The increase of delinquent youths can be directly related to the decline of the traditional American family, therefore something needs to be done alter this. Providing adequate adult supervision, even if it is not the parent, will help to reinforce the positive aspects of self-control and prevent deviance.  (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)

 

THEORETICAL CRITICISMS

When Hirschi first introduced his “Social Control Theory” it was very different from many traditional sociological notions of criminal behavior.  It was the first theory to answer the question of “why don’t we commit crime” instead of the conventional question of “why do we commit crime.”  Initially, the philosophies of this theory were unquestioned because of their radical implications, but eventually criticism emerged. 

            One of the main arguments against this theory is that there are no adequate measures of these social bonds.  Beliefs and values are far from concrete entities, and therefore have no scale from which to judge them.  The same can be said for the level of attachment and commitment of individuals to certain things.  According to Sampson and Laub “these bonds are entirely too abstract and present no empirical support of their measures…this makes them nearly impossible to compare across various subjects.” (Sampson & Laub, p 187, 1993)

            Another criticism is that the theory provides little to no explanation for variance in criminal behavior.  It bases everything on the fact that society creates these values and norms, but fails to recognize that society changes.  These changes are constantly creating new standards that dictate what is right and wrong, and must be considered.  This same criticism is applied to Hirschi and Gottfredson’s “General Theory of Deviance.”  “This theory with all its merits describes lots but explains very little.” (Sampson and Laub, 1993, p.189)

             A further admonition on the two theories is their lack of comments on adults.  Characteristics of these theories are not just found in adolescents but adults as well, yet they provide no explanation for adult criminality.  It is something that is not even considered, which creates an enormous problem in the assertions of the theories. 

            A main criticism of Hirschi and Gottfredson’s “General Theory of Deviance” is it fails to consider biology.  With the abundance of research presented in terms of biological implications on criminal behavior it is “rather ridiculous and illogical” to ignore them. (Moffitts, 1997)   Self-control does not uniformly predict behaviors, and cannot be guaranteed simply based on outside influences.  The age-old assertion that “good parents raise good kids” is not always true because some things are simply beyond control. 

FUTURE THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

In accordance with these criticisms, an abundant amount of research has been conducted to attempt to solve these problems.  For instance, Sampson and Laub created the “Age-Graded Life Course Theory.”  This theory looks for a causal relationship between early delinquent offending and later adult deviant behavior.  It relies on the bond concepts explained by Hirschi in terms of youths, but applies these same bonds to adult issues, such as marriage and employment.

            Another example is Bowlby’s Attachment Theory.  This theory states that the development between the primary caretaker and the child is the basic foundation of all future development.  In addition, it provides insight into the possible role of biology in determining the best way to socialize the child into knowing right from wrong.

            A majority of this new research is continued today.  Currently Hirschi’s theories are still applied to discovering the causes of delinquency among juveniles.  His proposed eight rules for controlling crime are still utilized in terms of determining the best treatment and punishment for troubled youths.  Additionally his belief in the need for a strong and stable family is quite popular, and a major cornerstone of juvenile research.  Despite some of the obvious flaws in his thinking, Hirschi will forever be viewed as one of the greatest supporters of Control Theories in criminology.

 

REFERENCE/BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Akers, Ronald K. 1977. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont,

     CA: Wadsworth. 189p.

 

Gottfredson, Michael, Travis Hirschi. 1980. Understanding Crime and Current

     Research Theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 144p.

 

Gottfredson, Michael, Travis Hirschi. 1987. Positive Criminology. Newbury Park,

     CA: Sage Publications. 189p.

 

Gottfredson, Michael, Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford,

     CA: Stanford University Press. 297p.

 

Gottfredson, Michael, Travis Hirschi. 1994. The Generality of Deviance.  New

     Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 277p.

 

Hindelang, Michael, Travis Hirschi, Joseph G. Weiss. 1981. Measuring

     Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 248p.

 

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkley, CA: University of

     California Press. 280p.

 

Hirschi, Travis, Hana C. Selvin. 1967. Delinquency Research: An Appraisal

     Of Analytic Methods. New York, NY: Free Press. 280p.

 

Hirschi, Travis, Michael Gottfredson. 1983. “Age and the Explanation of Crime.”

     American Journal of Sociology 89:552-84.

 

Klein, Malcolm. 1984. “Offense Specialization and Versatility Among Juveniles.”

     British Journal of Criminology 24:185-94.

 

Matza, David. 1964. Delinquency and Drift. New York, NY: Wiley. 189p.

 

Robbins, Lee. 1966. Deviant Children Grow Up. Baltimore, MD: William and

     Wilkins. 312p.

 

Sampson, Robert J, John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making. Cambridge, MA: 

    Harvard University Press. 432p.

 

Scott, Joseph, Travis Hirschi. 1988. Controversial Issues in Crime and Justice.

     Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 214p.

 

Wilson, James Q., Joan Petersilia. 1995. Crime. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.

     631p.

 

Wilson, James Q., Richard Herrnstein. 1985. Crime and Human Nature. New

     York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 278p.