Introduction:
Among the many things in the world which are inevitable, “crime” is one of them. It is one of those things which can never be eliminated no matter how strict the laws become. Many times we can’t help but think “Why do people commit crimes?” and even other questions follow after like “Are people born criminal minded?”, “Are they not scared of committing the act even when they already know the consequences of their actions?” and so on. Sociologists like Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi were the people who probably must have had questions like these too. They both gave theories addressing the question of “What are the causes of crimes?”. These theories were the ‘Self-control theory’ and the ‘Social Control theory’. We shall see the basic elements of these theories, try to compare the differences and similarities between both as well as if there is any need for improvements in the theories.
The Social Control Theory
Originally known as the “Social Bond Theory”, this theory was given by Travis Hirschi in the year 1969 in his highly influential book “Causes of delinquency”.
Travis Warner Hirschi was an American Sociologist and a professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. He won a lot of awards for his study and contribution to the field of criminology. He won his last award, the ‘Stockholm Prize in Criminology’ in 2016 and died at the age of 81 in January 2017.
According to Hirschi, everyone has the potential to commit crimes but it is the social bonds and ties they have with their friends, family and other members of the society that keep them from committing crimes.[1] People tend to commit crimes when the bonds they have with society start to weaken. In short, criminality can be seen as a possibility for literally everyone but is avoided by the ones who intend to keep these bonds with society. Hirschi explained his belief of 4 variables that have a tremendous impact on an individual’s likelihood to become a criminal or act out in problematic behaviour. These variables are- Attachment, Commitment, involvement and Belief.
- Attachment: An individual’s attachment is the determining factor of their ability to internalise norms, conscience and superego. This is the emotional bond we form with other people in society. We can form this type of bond anywhere; at home with our parents, at school with our friends and similarly at other social institutions. Let’s take the example of parental attachment. The attachment kids have for their parents from living and interacting with them for years is truly a deep one. This positive attachment is very important because when a child is given positive attachment and responsible nurturing from a very young age, they tend to grow up showing the same characteristics. They are responsible, gentle, respectful and know the difference between right and wrong. Not only this, their communication skills improve the more they interact with their parents as well as their social skills develop nicely. These children when going into the outside world, naturally tend to look for similar people as their friends, seniors etc. This ensures a productive and healthy environment around them all the time. Many studies have shown that children who did not get the positive attachment and whose parents did not spend quality time with them grew up to be harsh, foulmouthed, violent and very easily attracted to drugs. Such children also developed criminal mentalities further on.
- Commitment: Commitment is the idea that people generally obey rules for fear of the consequences of breaking them. Everyone should be committed to something that they choose to accomplish something in. An individual can be committed to anything. Things like family, saving money for the future, adopting a career and other goals motivate the individual towards conformity and prevents him from deviance and crime. It is only natural that when a person is committed to something then he/she stays away from criminal thought or activity since they never want to lose all that they have achieved through determination and diligence. People who are not committed to anything in their life are driving a car with no steering. They tend to be more susceptible to criminal thought and also indulge in the same since they have nothing to lose and hence end up destroying their lives. A committed person simply has something to live, love, protect and die for. There is no meaning in a life without commitment. However, there should not be commitment towards criminal acts or other things immoral and unforgivable.
- Involvement: Involvement is the idea that an individual who is heavily involved in conventional activities simply does not have time to engage in deviant behaviour. Activities in schools, religious organizations, social clubs etc leave little to no time for anyone to engage themselves in criminal activities. However, involvement in conventional activities alone is insufficient to deter delinquency.[2]
- Belief: Most people arguably have some sort of belief system such as morals, values, and ethics of societal conduct that actively contradicts the notion that any individual would commit a crime.[3] However, some people act the opposite. They believe in breaking the law and hence end up committing crimes. Beliefs are a common value system within a culture. A criminal either disregards the belief statement entirely or they rationalise their behaviour so that they can engage in criminal activity and still believe that it’s wrong.
These four variables encourage compliance with standards and acceptable social behaviour.
People, in general, tend to act in accordance with the principles of reason, logic, and one’s interests.
Social institutions like workplaces, schools, religious places & families provide a framework for how society is supposed to act. Without these institutions, most people would commit crimes.
Individuals who learn self-control at an early age are less likely to become involved in criminal activity as adolescents.
The Self-Control Theory
Michael Gottfredson was an executive vice-chancellor of the University of California as well as former President of the University of Oregon. As of late 2014, he was a research professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California. Hirschi along with Michael Gottfredson shared their views and developed them even further. Together, they came up with a new theory called self-control theory. When asked what according to them was self-control, they defined it as “the differential tendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circumstances in which they find themselves.” [4] This theory states that low self-control is something that leads to a lot of criminal actions.
When we come across the term “self-control” in our everyday lives, it may mean anything depending on the subject of the conversation ranging from anger management, sexual urges, cracking sexist jokes and so on. Some of these factors mentioned if not controlled can also lead to crimes but we will stick to the definition given by Hirschi and Gottfredson. This theory believes that parenting is a very important factor that determines a person’s self-control ability. What this means is that when a child is brought up with care and discipline they tend to have more self-control as well as a more general sense of right and wrong. Whenever a child commits a mistake, we need to correct them and tell them what is the right thing to do. Such a child grows up to be more composed, understanding and having overall great self-control. However, parents who are sweet to their children all the time and rarely correct them when they commit mistakes, end up being with that child becoming an individual with less self-control and more prone to delinquent thoughts and acts. They are more inclined towards activities with great risk such as drugs. Such people only care about immediate satisfaction or happiness from things and never have motives to strive towards like education and career. All they care about is satisfying their present urge (to involve in delinquent behaviour) and get money to spend on drugs and hence the cycle continues over and over every single day. Life becomes meaningless and sometimes when they realise what situation they are in, they get depressed and drink/smoke again and have no way of coming out of their addictions.
Similarities & Differences
We see certain similarities between the two theories. The Social Control theory, as we saw, required a person who had weak or crumbling bonds with people and society to commit a crime. But if we see a scenario in which the person has “strong bonds” with, say, their seniors then it can be equally as bad too. Under the influence of these “seniors”, the person can agree to indulge in criminal activities to gain their acceptance, close friendship etc. We see the same thing in the self-control theory as well. Children who get minimum teaching and supervision from a young age from their parents tend to have comparatively much less self-control and hence are more likely to fall for delinquency.
We see another similarity when we notice how both the theories are seen to be having ‘commitment’ as a central element. People with no commitment towards anything in their lives just care about immediate pleasures and do not care about long term satisfaction. According to both theories, the absence of ‘commitment’ leads to a person falling prey to the criminal world.
Another similarity that can be seen is how having ‘beliefs’ is said to be the factor that makes people ‘not commit’ crimes. For instance, if we talk about people who are participants of a religious institution, they have a set rule system according to their religion which they follow and therefore achieve incredible levels of self-control. Similarly having ‘beliefs’ of our help in providing a stimulus for self-control.
The difference we notice between the two theories is that on one hand the social control theory speaks about the eternal opportunity given by the society to commit crimes and anyone who has weak social bonds will take up these opportunities. On the other hand, the self-control theory highlights ‘self-control’ as the main factor and the absence of which due to inattentive and negligent parental direction makes the person a delinquent in the future. Here opportunities don’t seem to play any role in the choice of an individual to perpetrate a crime.
The Indian Scenario
When applied to Indian society, we can see numerous examples of how these theories stand true. India is a developing nation. More than 50% of the population is dependent on agriculture. 65% of the population lives in rural areas and only 35% lives in urban areas.[5] Not only this, India accounts for a meagre 2.4% of the world surface area yet it supports and sustains a whopping 17.7% (1.38 billion people as of 2020) of the world population.[6] All these factors combined with an incredible diversity of religions, castes, professions and lifestyles give rise to the enormous amount of criminal activity.
Mostly prevalent in rural and extremely backward areas of the Indian society, we find people growing up with superstitious beliefs, a belittling attitude towards women, fear of parents and other grown-ups along with negatively developed habits. This ‘not so nourishing’ environment leads to these people growing up with less to no self-control. They lack qualities like critical thinking, a sense of equality and respect, patience and determination. Due to this, these individuals tend to indulge in criminal activities like domestic abuse, murder, rape or even joining local gangs and committing other crimes. The lack of commitment as mentioned in both the theories is one of the most significant factors influencing such individuals. The lack of education and drive to live a life with purpose turns them into dolls working for temporary satisfaction.
Religion and caste are cancerous cysts that, in all these years, have grown and evolved in such a bad way that they can no longer be cured. It is indeed true that conditions are much better than before and the youth today being educated and aware has brought a change, but the bad side of these factors still exists and is truly disgusting. We see numerous cases where tribal women are subjected to rape and made to believe that it is normal (Mathura rape case), cases where ‘caste’ being a problem to the parents result in the child’s partner’s death (honour killing cases) and many more caste-based crimes. There is no social control on living due to such biased thinking and social bonds become almost non-existent with time. This breeds more chaos and the cycle continues.
Thus, India being a pit of endless hatred and internal divide tries to hold up the massive population via education, urbanisation and law & slowly moves forward.
Conclusion
Both the theories of Social Contact and Self-Control were given by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson can enlighten anyone and everyone on why people commit crimes and the thought process behind the same. Although some amendments can be made to both theories. The absence of self-control leading to impetuous or imprudent behaviour cannot be the ‘only’ factor that tends to turn someone into a criminal. Other equally important factors are mental illnesses and the genetic background of the person. Whereas in the social bond theory, the variable of ‘involvement’ has a bad side too which cannot be ignored. It can be equally destructive and can cause youngsters to get involved in criminal activities.
References:
[1] Social Bond theory and Self Control theory, 3rd July 2018, https://www.ukessays.com/essays/criminology/theories-of -crime-causation.php
[2] Id under para 5 Line 4 from bottom
[3] Social Control Theory vs Self-Control Theory, June 16 2021, By Deepshikha, https://www.legalbites.in/social-control-theory-vs-self-control-theory/#_ftn2
[4] General Theory of crime, https://criminology.fandom.com/wiki/General_Theory_of_Crime
[5]See https://m.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/india-population.php
[6] Id under 2nd Para
0 Comments