Encyclopedia of Sociology

CRIME, THEORIES OF

approve of discrimination against women and who
are avid consumers of pornography. In the same
way, if income inequality bears a consistent rela-
tionship to rates of predatory crime, it may be that
individual predators express strong feelings of
‘‘relative deprivation,’’ that is, perceptions that
they are economically disadvantaged and distressed
about their situation. However, some additional
factors may also have to be identified that deter-
mine which of the persons who oppose women’s
rights or who feel relatively deprived become in-
volved in illegal conduct and which do not.

PERSPECTIVES, THEORIES, AND

HYPOTHESES

A number of arguments about crime patterns and
the processes through which individuals get in-
volved in lawbreaking are examined below. Before
moving to these specific theories, however, two
other general observations are in order. First, in
criminology, as in sociology more generally, there
is considerable disagreement regarding the nature
of perspectives, theories, and hypotheses (as well
as paradigms, frameworks, and other theoretical
constructions). Even so, perspectives are often iden-
tified as broad and relatively unsystematic argu-
ments; while theories are often described as sets of
concepts, along with interconnected propositions
that link the concepts together into an ‘‘explanato-
ry package’’; and hypotheses are specific research
propositions derived from theories. In practice,
however, many causal explanations that have been
described as theories have been incomplete and
also conceptually imprecise. Jack Gibbs (1985) has
labeled such ‘‘theories’’ as being in ‘‘the discursive
mode’’ rather than as formal theories. Discursive
arguments are stated in everyday language and
their underlying logic is often difficult to identify.
According to Gibbs, because many criminological
theories are discursive, precise predictions cannot
be deduced from them, nor is it possible to subject
predictions to empirical test, that is, to validation
through research.

Many criminological theories involve relative-
ly vague concepts, faulty underlying logic, and
other problems. At the same time, it is possible to
identify a number of general theoretical perspec-
tives in criminology and to differentiate these
from relatively formalized and precise theories.
For example, many criminologists contend that

American society is criminogenic because it involves

social and economic features that appear to con-

tribute heavily to criminality. However, this is a

general perspective rather than a theory of crime

in that it does not identify the full range of factors

that contribute to lawbreaking, and it also lacks a

set of explicit and interrelated propositions. By

contrast, the income inequality argument more

clearly qualifies as a causal theory, as does the

formulation that links gender inequality, pornog-

raphy readership, and certain other influences to

forcible rape.

A few other comments are in order on theo-

retical perspectives in criminology. During most

of the developmental history of criminology in the

United States, from the early 1900s to the present,

sociological criminologists voiced support for the

criminogenic culture thesis that directs attention

to social-structural factors thought to be responsi-

ble for criminality. Thus, this view might also be

referred to as ‘‘mainstream criminology.’’ Most

criminologists have linked lawbreaking to major

‘‘rents and tears’’ in societal structure at the same

time that most of them have assumed that these

crime-producing features can be remedied or less-

ened through social and economic reforms of one

kind or another (Gibbons 1992, 1994; Currie 1985).

In the 1970s, a markedly different perspective

competed for attention. Often referred to as ‘‘radi-

cal-Marxist’’ or ‘‘critical’’ criminology, it asserted

that the causes of crime arise out of societal charac-

teristics that are inherent in corporate capitalism

(Gibbons 1992, pp.122–130; Chambliss 1975;

Quinney 1974, 1977). According to radical-Marx-

ist criminologists, criminal laws serve the interests

of the capitalist ruling class. In turn, the system of

corporate capitalism over which the ruling class

presides depends for its survival on the exploita-

tion of the resources and people of other countries

and the economic oppression of citizens within

capitalist nations. These conditions create eco-

nomic strains for many persons, contribute to the

deterioration of family life, and drive many indi-

viduals into desperate acts of lawbreaking.

The radical-Marxist perspective received con-

siderable attention in the 1970s. Those who criti-

cized it claimed that it presented a one-dimension-

al, oversimplified account of the social sources of

criminality. For example, while some criminal laws

favor the interests of the owners of capital, many