Abstract
This paper will discuss the two main theories proposed by Travis Hirschi: Social Bonds and Delinquency, Self-control and Crime. In addition, the discussion will touch on four other control theories. This paper will evaluate the theories and point out their limiting factors concluding that the lack of discussion of systematic barriers is a major problem with control theory.
There are a number of theories which attempt to explain criminality in individuals at either different stages of their lives or for some other throughout their lives. Chapter 6 of Lilly, Cullen and Ball’s book on Criminological Theory gives an overview of the two main theories of Travis Hirschi as well as the theory of four other individuals. This paper will go through the theories and analysing the limitation that exists.
Literature Review
The first theory of Hirschi is called social bonds and delinquency. He argues that as social bonds weakens, the propensity for delinquency increases. There is a benefit and consequence that is attached to criminal acts; which applies equally among peoples and populations. There are four social bonds which play a role in the social control believes is important to if a person commits a crime (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2005). The first is attachment which is an emotional intimacy to others especially parents. Secondly, commitment is an educational component translated into higher education and aspiration of career and strong grades in school. Involvement is “participation in conventional activities” and lastly, belief refers to acceptance of “moral validity of the law and of other conventional norms (Lilly et al, 2005 p. 121). His second theory is self-control and crime. If an individual lacks self-control, he/she will likely be engaged in high level of crime (Lilly et al., 2005). Central to this theory is the concept of parental guidance or as he calls it “parental management” (Lilly et al., 20015 p.129). The starting point is his belief that antisocial behaviour is unchanging through one’s life; therefore, an individual who has antisocial tendencies in childhood lacks the self-control and the lack of self-control continues as teenage delinquency and final into criminality in adult years (Lilly et al., 2005). The logical conclusion is that self –control is learned at an early age through the guidance of parents (Lilly et al., 2005).
Some of the other theories discussed in the chapter come from Hagan, Tittle, Cloven and Cullen. Hagan’s power control theory claims someone who had a propensity of taking risks is more likely to be a delinquent. In this case parental guidance is important is developing guidelines just as Gottfredson and Hirschi stated (Lilly et al., 2005). Tittle’s control-balance theory imagines individuals as agents of control (Lilly et al., 2005).The amount of control is proportional to deviance but too much control can also result in deviance (Lilly et al., 2005). Colvin’s differential coercion theory states there is a variation of exposure to coercion among people in that coercion produces some of the causes of crimes that other theorists speak about (Lilly et al., 2005). He states a cause of chronic criminality is “intergenerational and developmental” (Lilly et al., 2005 p. 141). Lastly, Cullen’s Social Support Theory is a rejection of control theory where positive aspects of society as mitigating factors in development of criminality, social support allows control to be more effective (Lilly et al., 2005).
Discussion
Hirschi gives a board theoretical explanation for criminality and what causes individuals to commit crimes. Hagan, Tittle, Cloven and Cullen allow for a deeper and more complex understanding of criminality as well as point out some of the limitations in Hirschi’s theories.
Limitations of Hirschi’s Two Theories
Limitation in First Theory. Hirschi stated that a person’s control is found in ties to society; however, he fails to account for what keeps said social bond stable (Lilly et al., 2005). His theories do not take into account differential factors such as race, sex, disability or socio-economic status (Lilly et al., 2005). He seems to believe that the benefit-consequence frame work applies equally to everyone (Lilly et al., 2005). Colvin’s theory in a way recognizes the difference among individuals when he postulates that coercion affects individuals differently. Limitations in Second Theory. There is an over simplification of the relationship between self-control and criminality. The reality is that there are other factors that play a role. There is socialization in schools, among friends and even neighbourhood conditions play a role (Lilly et al., 2005). Secondly, his idea of self-control is very limiting and redistricting. Low self-control does not mean that criminality will persist throughout life (Lilly et al., 2005). There are other schools of thought that see self-control as a dynamic process and not a static state (Lilly et al., 2005).
Conclusion
Hirschi’s premise is a good starting point to understand patterns of criminality in children, youth and adults. The premise is given more weight by bringing in the notion of social bonds and self-control, especially with the role of parents. The main limiting factor of his argument, as mentioned above, is the fact that he does not take into account systematic discrimination of certain groups that lead individuals down paths of criminality. This is a factor that is common to the theories mentioned in this chapter save Cullen’s theory. The chapter concludes with a policy argument that control theory is the basis for preventative and intervention policies (Lilly et al., 2005). These policies work to integrate former criminals instead of isolating or punishment. This may be a valid conclusion on the surface but without taking into account systematic discrimination and barriers the control theory and policies that grow out of it fall short in its effectiveness to explain criminality.
- Ball, R.A., Cullen, F.T., & Lilly, J.R. (2015). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
