Strain Theory And Conflict/Radical Criminology: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction

In this paper, Robert Merton’s strain theory, and Karl Marx’s conflict/radical criminology is comparatively analyzed by describing how conflict theory is preferable based on its policy implications and social consequences. By providing arguments for both stain theory and conflict criminology, this paper will present why conflict theory is favourable when assessing peacemaking policies and restoration programs that can dismantle class conflict, social divisions, and promote job opportunities/resources, as opposed to strain theory’s use of family-based programs that fail to address the economic issue directly tied to blocked opportunities. In this paper, a concise summary of the key concepts for both strain theory and conflict/radical criminology is provided, and an analysis is given by focusing on the strengths, weaknesses, policy implications, and social consequences for both theories. By providing policy implication and social consequences of conflict criminology through examples of restoration programs and peacemaking programs, this theory reveals ways in which we can direclty address the issue of crime perpetuating outside of individualistic approaches, and how conflict theory is preferable for addressing crime compared to strain theory.

By focusing on the societal context, intellectual origin, development, and contributing theorist to strain theory, a concise summary of the key components for strain theory can be generated. Strain theory emerges from the works of Durkheim on anomie, crime and deviance, such that Durkheim discusses how social changes and society enacts through both mechanical social solidarity and organic social solidarity. As a result of Durkheim’s work, Merton develops strain theory through social reform, in which we shift from individual desires to social structures pressuring individuals to attain cultural goals through illegitimate means, due to the attraction towards greed, material desire, and the American Dream (Newburn 2017). Given this, the underlying premise of strain theory emerges through the culture of society and its social structure, in which culture focuses on our goals, beliefs, and values, whereas social structure focuses on the attainment of such goals through legitimate means and positive-valued behaviour. Likewise, when structural barriers are imposed due to structural inequalities, negative emotions are created due to this imposed strain, and our goals, values, or beliefs can no longer be attained through legitimate means, but rather illegitimate means.

As for the core tenants of conflict/radical criminology, conflict criminology focuses on the deep-rooted structural inequalities that exist within society, creating a division that results in crime and justice. As a key contributor, Marx’s views on capitalistic means for production, crime perpetuating in society through conflict, and the acts of crime benefiting the rich gives rise to conflict criminology. Quite similar, Willem Bonger focuses on economic inequalities and the need for economic success, while Richard Quinney focuses on the unequal distributions of power within contemporary society, in which crime serves the better interests of favoured groups. Conflict criminology is also driven by broader shifts in society due to social and economic shifts, in which a societal context argues that conflict criminology creates class inequalities that favor capitalism, exploits the poor, and promotes poverty through dominance and power of capitalist social organizations (Newburn 266), whereas an economic context looks at the political climate of society, in which a capitalistic society is favoured through the accumulation of property, wealth, and a division of labours. Given this, the underlying premise of radical criminology emerges through human behaviour, where humans shape their own behaviours in more acceptable ways, and crime serves as a functional part that helps perpetuate a capitalistic society.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Strain Theory in Relation to Conflict/Radical Criminology

By focusing on the relative strengths and weaknesses of strain theory and conflict/radical criminology, compare and contrast arguments can be generated. As a weakness, strain theory promotes the need for dissatisfaction and engagement in non-conforming conduct, due to frustration surrounding an individual’s inability to attain cultural goals through legitimate means. Similarly, the prevalence of blocked opportunities that strain imposes, creates pressure to attain cultural goals, values, or beliefs, and structural barriers in society deter individuals from attaining such cultural goals, or satisfying their greed for material success/the American Dream through legitimate means. As a result, blocked opportunities not only impose a strain on individuals, but creates negative emotions and deviant behaviours due to the lack of legitimate opportunities available. Given this, strain theory focuses on the disjuncture between cultural goals and institutional means, and how society pressures individuals to enact in crime and deviance/non-conforming conduct to fulfil their cultural goals.

As for conflict/radical criminology, teleology, determinism, and idealism are three main criticisms and therefore weaknesses of radical criminology. Teleology argues that conflict criminology favours the dominant groups, such that these privileged groups are given more power over underrepresented and unprivileged groups. Determinism argues that conflict criminology promotes laws that in nature favour interest groups, such that the values of interest groups is what inherently shapes the law. Likewise, idealism argues that conflict criminology promotes laws that not only represents the interests of dominant groups, but in reality, laws exist to uphold the status quo, and keep the disadvantaged underrepresented and unprivileged. Unlike strain theory, crime, deviance, and the role of the criminal justice system for conflict criminology is a by-product of capitalism, whereas resistance of the working class is criminalized to maintain a capitalistic society (Newburn 277). As a strength, radical criminology doesn’t focus on an individualistic approach like strain theory, but rather a group approach, in which the way society functions, and the favouring of certain group interests is what promotes capitalism and structural inequalities. Radical criminology is also flawed but favourable as opposed to strain theory, because group distinctions seem to associate fixed social positions to individuals within society, rather than considering individualistic approaches and influences on capitalism, crime or deviance (Newburn 277).

General Objectives of Policy ‘On the Books’

The general objectives of policies ‘on the books’ surrounding strain theory is further analyzed through the lens of family-based programs. Strain theory understands crime as a form of negative emotions deriving from the frustration and competitive nature that exists within society. For instance, in policies surrounding youth mentorship programs, individuals are able to work alongside mentors that help them attain goals pertaining employment opportunities, leadership roles, or educational success. Similarly, by having family-based programs, such policies reduce the rates of delinquent youth subcultures from expanding, help parents improve proper coping behaviours, and eliminate the risk of youth violence from occurring. Further, family-based programs could create a sense of belongingness with a specific focus on helping low socio-economic families, or racial minority families to reduce any sort of strain imposed on the parent and child. More specifically, if a racial minority parent is unable to fulfil their need for monetary success, or proper programing for their child, they are then faced with a structural barrier that promotes the need to achieve such goals through illegitimate means due to blocked opportunities. In response to this, family-based programs can promote positive-valued goals to reduce strain, problem-solving tactics that deter from using illegitimate means, and coping strategies to reduce deviant behaviour by implementing more communication within the family. By implementing family-based programs for specifically families experiencing poverty/low socio-economic status, or racial minority families, we can advocate for the restructuring of society’s social opportunities available to these specific groups or individuals, and we can reduce the existence of blocked opportunities, promote legitimate means for attaining culturally prescribed goals, and create more balance within the social structure of society.

As for the general objective of policies ‘on the books’ for conflict/radical criminology, conflict theory understands crime by looking at class inequality, such that the goals conflict theory prioritizes when creating policies would be to deter from capitalistic views, and rather advocate for radical and socialist views instead. These radical views give rise to how individuals conform to certain behaviours and attitudes surrounding cultural norms, and accept the favouring of dominant power groups, in which this creates conflict within institutions of the criminal justice system itself (Newburn 266). Similarly, conflict theory argues that laws do not simply address class-conflict and a broad social consensus (Newburn 266), but rather reflects dominant cultural norms while favouring those that currently hold positions of power such as politicians, judges, or police officers. Such policies that advocate for a decentralization of power and peacemaking, includes restoration programs that gives rise to restorative justice by dismantling the use of uneven exercise of power within society. Restoration programs also creates a balance, such that victims are given the justice they deserve, while offenders face consequences for their actions by accepting responsibility. Similarly, by having peacemaking programs, such policies would look for alternate ways to reduce levels of conflict and crime in society by using mediation or alternate conflict resolution methods that don’t require punishment of offenders. Further, peacemaking programs promote peace between individuals and restructures society to create a balance that deters the use of punishment by the hands of those in power. By having such policies surrounding the above programs, conflict theory is addressed because we are implementing social control, dismantling class inequality, and decreasing levels of conflict that promotes crime and deviant acts.

(Un)intended Social Consequences of Policy ‘In action’

The social consequences of policies ‘in action’ surrounding strain theory is further discussed by focusing on family-based programs. Through a specific focus on family-based programs for low socio-economic families or racial minority families, such policies create both beneficial and problematic social consequences relating to strain theory. As a consequence, an excess or deficiency of policies surrounding family-based programs could contribute to a lack of self-regulation and control. Without the proper resources and opportunities available to families of this specific group, family-based programs could potentially increase levels of strain and competition in society for them, such that cultural goals would no longer favour attaining positive-valued goals through legitimate means, but rather the existence of blocked opportunities would prevail, and individuals would no longer use legitimate means to attain their cultural goals of monetary success or deliver the need for proper care/programs for their children. As for the beneficial social consequences of having family-based programs for instance, we can implement proper coping behaviours amongst children and their parents to deter individuals from using disruptive or aggressive behaviour, or the use of negative-based emotions within broader social institutions such as religious, class, or work-settings. Further, policies that addresses the social structure of society, such as family-based programs put more emphasis on maintaining family income, balancing the costs of children while focusing on their development, improving employment opportunities, and allowing individuals to be content with their own reality. A downside from this is the notion that majority of individuals are influenced by the favouring of monetary success, and conformity, in which the likelihood of using illegitimate means due to blocked opportunities is quite high when social structures cannot work in one’s favour.

As for the social consequences of policies ‘in action’ surrounding conflict/radical criminology, there are both problems and benefits that result. More specifically, by creating a new society through peacemaking criminology, we can dismantle the existing inequalities of wealth and power that contributes to conflict criminology. Evidently, crime exits today due to capitalism and the structural inequalities that are forced upon individuals, and by implementing more peacemaking-based programs, we can reduce rates of conflict by promoting peace, and social/individual relationships. In extension to Richard Quinney’s work, peacemaking programs generate positive peace through social justice, in which crimes are deterred, and the structural source of violence and crimes are dismantled (Newburn 272). In relation to this, the only problematic downside is that we would have to restructure society as a whole, along with our norms, our beliefs, and our social policies. By restructuring society, we could potentially obstruct various normative standards within communities and neighbourhoods, such that the conflict amongst dominate cultures and subsidiary cultures could potentially worsen. More specifically, restoration programs create policies that advocate for restorative justice, but by restructuring society as a whole, individuals no longer hold the same views on what constitutes as restorative, and what restorative methods could be damaging to society amongst the different subcultures of dominant and subsidiary groups. Given this, such policies of conflict criminology argue that we must deter radical principles, and favour social principles instead. This way, authoritative figures will not have the sole power to promote their best interests on issues of justice, punishment, or restorative methods, but rather directly implement the interest of all. By having such policies surrounding peacemaking-based programs and restoration programs, we can dismantle the promotion of conflict amongst individuals and deter those from advancing towards a capitalist economy, but rather promote socialist views.

Why Conflict Theory is Preferable to Strain Theory

Given the prior arguments, it is prevalent that conflict criminology is preferable to strain theory. Strain theory is less preferable to conflict theory, because it tends to focus on individualistic desires, goals, values, and beliefs being directly dependent on one’s social status and availability to social opportunities, in which an individualistic approach fails to directly eliminate social inequity on a much broader scale pertaining the social construction of society. Moreover, family-based programs are quite dependent on the parent as an individual, such that proper coping behaviours, and positive-valued goals is quite subjective and personal to the individual and fails to address bigger issues as to how blocked opportunities as a social issue creates strain. Given this, conflict theory is preferable for addressing crime than strain theory, because conflict criminology uses a group approach, instead of individual desires to directly address group values, needs, and beliefs to deter delinquent behaviour and reduce inequality within society. By using peacemaking programs and restoration programs, we are implementing change within society and restructuring the way society addresses crime and deviant behaviour through a boarder context, such that conflict theory not only considers what’s best for the individual by looking at their cultural goals, but considers what’s the best normative standards for various communities, neighbourhoods, and society as a whole by shifting from capitalistic views to socialist views instead to address the conflict between dominant and subsidiary cultures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Merton’s strain theory fails to recognize the economic ties to such policies surrounding strain theory and its use of family-based programs, and therefore conflict theory is more favourable. By focusing on the policy implications of conflict theory and its social consequences, we are able to address the core developments of crime in society, its implications, and its limitations that strain theory fails to address. Further, strain theory reveals how crime/delinquency, cultural goals and institutional means, and influences of society contributes to the levels of criminality, in which it fails to create a shift from individualistic approaches to more broader social views in the understanding of policies within a contemporary criminal justice system, while using its weaknesses to implement newer policies.

References

1. Goodman, Philip. September 23, 2019. “Durkheim, Anomie, and Strain Theories.” SOC205
2. Theories in Criminology.
3. Newburn, Tim. 2017. Criminology. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.