Social Control Theory

 Control theory starts off by assuming that crime and delinquency need no special explanation, for they bring with them their own attractions and rewards, such as money, possessions, excitement and power over others. Instead, it is conformity that needs explanation, rather than being assumed. So control theory asks ‘why don’t we all break the law?’  The answer lies in the idea of control or constraint: that people who conform do so because they are controlled or constrained. These controls can be inside or outside the person (internal or external controls). Control theories have a long pedigree and are often to be found lurking within other theories; the concept of social disorganization suggested conditions under which social control breaks down, and anomie is often seen as a lack of moral restraint or regulation, which allows individual ambitions, self-interest and appetites a free rein. Although there are a number of examples, the sociological control theory that provided an influential outline was set out and tested by Travis Hirschi (1969) at the end of the 1960s. Hirschi sought to demonstrate the superiority of his version of control theory over competing explanations of delinquency, which were already beginning to look rather jaded, some reasons for which we outlined in the last section.

Hirschi outlines four types of social controls (or elements of the social bond) that make up the theory

Attachment
this refers to the sensitivity of the individual to the opinions, concerns and feelings of others, such as parents, friends, and teachers. Whether the person takes those into account will depend on the quality of the relationships with those people; if the relationships are strong, conformity is more likely; if they are weak, the individual becomes freer to deviate.

Commitment
This suggests that a major reason for conformity is fear of the consequences of deviation. We spend time, energy and bits of ourselves in certain activities with an eye to the future, such as an education, career, or just building a reputation as a certain kind of person. These can be put at risk by episodes of delinquency, as any young person who acquires a criminal record will testify. Aspiration, ambition and commitments of these kinds therefore play a part in producing conformity.

Involvement
People who are kept busy doing ‘conventional things’ have less time or opportunity to get up to mischief. Adolescents with large amounts of unstructured time at their disposal, on the other hand, are a problem waiting to happen. This is a contemporary version of the old saying that ‘the devil makes work for idle hands.

Belief
Whereas traditional subcultural theory suggested that delinquents held a different set of norms and values and asked how this situation arose, control theory asks how some individuals can break rules in which they basically believe. Hirschi suggested that there is variation in the degree to which individuals think they should abide by the rules of society, variation which may be due, for example, to differences in socialization. In some, there is therefore an absence of moral restraint that makes delinquency possible.

Elements from the theory have popped up in many places since Hirschi’s original study, usually modified or combined with some other elements in order to overcome perceived weaknesses and gaps. For example, it has been said that the theory neglects group processes and the role of delinquent friends in delinquency. While Hirschi suggested that delinquents would lack social bonds to anyone, some researchers claim that bonding to delinquent peers is a key factor, if not the key factor, in delinquency

Feminist perspectives
Following the rapid development of the feminist movement in the 1960s, various academic disciplines began to feel the impact of a new set of criticisms and ideas. It was the 1970s before this impact was much felt within criminology. At first, it took the form of a critique of mainstream criminology (see, for example Klein 1973; Smart 1976), which began by observing that women had been largely ignored in the discipline. The literature was based almost entirely on studies of men and boys. When women did occasionally make an appearance, they were treated in unsatisfactory ways, subject to biological and psychological assumptions of a stereotypical and sexist nature. Pollak (1961), for example, argued that the devious and deceitful nature of women led to their contribution to crime being much underestimated by official statistics. Although one of the most striking things about crime rates, however they are measured, is the way in which men far outnumber women in their rates of offending, gender was nevertheless given relatively little attention, even by the emerging radical criminology. Following this critique, a number of studies began to appear, as if to fill the gaps and deficiencies that had been identified. This work focused on a number of topics and areas, such as:

• the issue of whether theories of mainstream criminology could be adapted in order to explain the crimes of women, or, at least, their low crime rates? If not, what kinds of theories would be useful? (Leonard 1982)
• empirical research on women and girls and their involvement in crime, such as the study of delinquent girls in gangs (Campbell 1984);
• women as victims of crime, especially those often committed by men and involving actual or the threat of violence, such as rape, sexual abuse and harassment, and domestic violence (e.g. Stanko 1985). Most famously, Brownmiller (1975) put forward a new interpretation of rape, which saw it as power-based, the fear of which contributed to the subordination of women, affecting their lives and choices in subtle but pervasive ways;
• the treatment of women by the criminal justice system, as offenders and as victims (Eaton 1986; Edwards 1984). For example, are women offenders treated more harshly or more leniently than men?
• the role of women in social control, such as the study of women police officers (Heidensohn 1992).

There were, however, clearly important differences within feminism itself which manifested themselves in different emphases and approaches towards crime and criminal justice. There are a number of ways in which
these differences can be considered. For example, we can identify differences in broad political ideas, which lead to different interpretations of the origins of the problem to be addressed, the strategy to be taken towards it, and the kind of ideal arrangements towards which to work.
• Liberal feminism is said to be concerned with equal rights and equality of opportunity for women (Gelsthorpe 1997: 512) and has concentrated on sex differentials in crime and discriminatory practices in the criminal justice system in its research (Walklate 1998: 73).
• Radical feminism, on the other hand, has focused on the oppression of women by men in particular, and has concentrated on women as victims (‘survivors’, a more positive term, is preferred) of ‘date’, marital and other rape, domestic violence, murder and child abuse (Walklate 1998: 75).

• Socialist feminism sees women’s oppression as rooted in patriarchal capitalism, seeing the need to consider the interaction of gender and class in understanding crime (see, for example, Messerschmidt 1993) and for fundamental economic and social change to tackle the roots of women’s oppression.

Left realism
Left realism as a collection of ideas came to prominence within the particular context of Britain in the early 1980s. A Conservative government appeared to have captured the law and order issue as its own, employing it as a major plank of its electoral strategy, and successfully convincing significant groups in the population that tough measures were needed to deal with a rising tide of crime and disorder (including industrial conflict).