We Move Into The Realm Of Sociology And A Drift From Structu

We Move Into The Realm Of Sociology And A Drift From Structural The

Historically, the shift in criminological theories from structural to social process perspectives was driven by changes in societal contexts, scientific advancements, and critiques of early positivist approaches. Early criminology heavily emphasized biological and psychological factors influencing criminal behavior, rooted in positivist paradigms that sought innate or individual traits as primary causes of crime (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2018). However, during the mid-20th century, sociologists and criminologists began to emphasize the importance of social environments, interactions, and processes that shape behavior over inherent traits. This transition was partly motivated by a desire to understand the social forces responsible for criminal behavior, especially amidst rapid societal changes, urbanization, and increased diversity that exposed limitations of early biological determinism (Siegel & Welsh, 2017). Social process theories, such as social learning and social control theories, gained prominence because they could account for the influence of learned behaviors, peer associations, and community influences, which earlier theories often neglected. As Cullen and Akers (2018) highlight, this paradigm shift was also responsive to the broader social movements of the 1950s and 1960s that emphasized social justice, equality, and the influence of social institutions, thus fostering a more dynamic understanding of crime rooted in societal interactions rather than individual pathology.

Furthermore, the decreased reliance on structural theories can be attributed to their inability to sufficiently explain variation in criminal behavior across different social groups and contexts. Structural theories, such as strain theory, focus on macro-level societal factors like poverty, inequality, and marginalization, but they often overlooked the micro-level processes that directly translate societal pressures into criminal acts (Merton, 1938). As a response, social process theories emerged to integrate individual agency within broader social influences, emphasizing that criminal behavior is learned and maintained through interactions with others (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Additionally, developments in psychological and sociological research methodologies provided more nuanced insights into individual learning and social interactions, reinforcing the precedence of process-oriented frameworks. Overall, the evolution reflects an increasing appreciation for the complexity of criminal behavior, recognizing that both societal structures and individual social experiences play integral roles, but with a shift toward understanding how social processes influence and perpetuate crime.

Paper For Above instruction

The transition from structural to social process theories in criminology represents a significant evolution in understanding crime causation. Initially, criminological thought was dominated by positivist approaches that focused on biological and psychological factors, assuming that inherent traits or mental states predisposed individuals to criminality (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2018). These early theories sought objective measures of crime, often neglecting the social environment's influence. However, as society underwent rapid changes in the early to mid-20th century, criminologists recognized the limitations of these biological and psychological explanations. Sociologists and criminologists began shifting their focus towards understanding how social contexts, interactions, and learned behaviors contribute to criminal activity, leading to the development of social process theories (Siegel & Welsh, 2017).

The societal context of the 1950s and 1960s—marked by civil rights movements, urbanization, and social upheaval—created conditions that made social explanations more appealing and relevant. These movements emphasized social justice, equality, and the importance of social institutions, prompting criminologists to explore the role of community, peer groups, and social relationships in shaping behavior (Cullen & Akers, 2018). The rise of social learning theories, such as differential association, and social control theories, like social bonding, provided comprehensive explanations for how criminal behaviors are learned, reinforced, and maintained across social interactions (Akers & Jensen, 2006).

Structural theories, while still valuable, faced critiques for their macro-level focus, which often failed to account for variations in individual behavior within social groups. For example, strain theory posited that societal pressures, such as poverty and inequality, increase the likelihood of criminal activity; however, it did not elucidate how individuals respond differently to similar structural pressures (Merton, 1938). Social process theories filled this gap by emphasizing micro-level processes, including the influence of peers, family, and social bonds, in the development of criminal dispositions. This shift toward understanding social learning and control processes provided a more dynamic and nuanced view of crime causation, recognizing the role of individual agency within the social fabric (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003).

The broader social movement-driven context also contributed to the favoring of social process theories. The 1960s era, with its focus on social reform and civil rights, challenged the deterministic views of early positivism, advocating for explanations that incorporated social interactions and individual choices. The development of research methodologies, such as longitudinal studies and social network analysis, also supported micro-level analyses of social influences on crime. Ultimately, the movement away from a solely structural perspective reflects a more comprehensive approach to understanding crime—one that considers the complex interplay of social structures, interactions, and individual agency (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2018).

In conclusion, the shift towards social process theories in criminology was driven by societal changes, critiques of macro-level explanations, and advances in research methods. These theories provided more detailed insights into how social interactions, learning, and bonds influence criminal behavior, offering a richer understanding of the causes of crime. Although structural theories remain relevant, especially in addressing macro-level social inequalities, social process frameworks foster a more integrated and dynamic view that better accounts for individual variation and the influence of social context on crime (Siegel & Welsh, 2017). This evolution reflects criminology’s ongoing effort to develop comprehensive explanations grounded in both societal structure and social interaction.

References

• Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2006). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime. In J. P. Wright & K. B. Logie (Eds.), Criminological Theory: Past to Present (pp. 57–77). Sage Publications.
• Bernburg, J. J., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Continued Criminality. Rodney King.
• Cullen, F. T., & Akers, R. L. (2018). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Sage Publications.
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
• Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2017). juvenile delinquency: The core. Cengage Learning.
• Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2018). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Sage Publications.