Essay, Research Paper: Socialization

Socialization
The claim that criminals are unsocialized, or under socialized individuals is not theoretically sound. Socialization is inevitable, and unless individuals are completely isolated, socialization will occur. The problem is not that individuals who commit criminal acts are "unsocialized", but rather that they are socialized in ways that encourage or support violent, or criminal behavior. Numerous theories attempt to explain this type of socialization, and we will look at these in this paper.
Learning Theory is the theory that I feel best supports this notion of criminal socialization. "Learning refers to habits and knowledge that develop as a result of the experiences of the individual in entering and adjusting to the environment"
(Vold, et al., 1998:180). This involves learning positive and negative behavior. Edwin Sutherland's theory of criminal behavior examined this phenomenon. "The content of what is learned includes specific techniques for committing crimes . . . the process by which the learning takes place involves associations with other people in intimate personal groups"
(Vold, et al., 1998:185). In A Theory of Differential Association, Sutherland and Donald Cressey explain the process that they believe brings a person to engage in criminal behavior. Their theory includes nine points that describe this process, all of which relate to the learning of criminal behavior, which comes from socialization. For instance, some of the points are as follows:
"2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti- criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning" (Sutherland and Cressey, 1960:1,2).
In Theoretical Criminology, it is stated that "Burgess and Akers maintain, with Sutherland, that the principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs in those groups which comprise the individual's major source of reinforcement'" (Vold, et al., 1998:196).
Social control theory, which is best known through Travis Hirschi, states that "individuals who were tightly bonded to social groups such as the family, the school, and peers would be less likely to commit delinquent acts" (Vold, et al., 1998:207). In other words, individuals who are bonded to other groups such as delinquent peers, gangs, or those who are bonded to no one are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior. I suppose that one could say that an individual who is bonded to no one can be under socialized (as stated earlier). The problem with that, though, is that an individual can be socialized and learn behavior without actually having a close bond with the group he or she is learning from.
There are four elements that are part of Hirschi's social control theory: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. "Attachment refers to the affection and respect that individuals have for others - most notably parents and teachers" (Agnew, 1995:367). This attachment is important because it prevents the individual from wanting to harm those that he or she is close to. "Commitment refers to the individual's actual or anticipated investment in conventional society, including the individual's reputation, educational and occupational achievements . . . ." (Agnew, 1995:368). This concept is also important, because if an individual is committed to his or her reputation, they will refrain from doing things to tarnish it. The
reverse of this, of course, would be the individual who is committed to a group or a concept that is not conducive to obeying the law. If a delinquent is committed to a group of deviant peers, his reputation with them will probably be more important than his reputation at school or in the community. Again, this does not indicate a lack of socialization, but rather socialization to a deviant way of life. Involvement is the third element of Hirschi's Control Theory. This basically states that involvement in conventional activities restricts the opportunity to be involved in deviance.
The final element is belief, which refers to an individual's belief regarding crime. Agnew makes some interesting statements when discussing Hirschi's concept of belief. He states, "Control theory assumes the existence of a common value system in the United States, but argues that there is variation in the effectiveness of socialization - with some individuals failing to internalize conventional beliefs" (Agnew, 1995:368). One could interpret from this wording that it is possible for socialization to fail, which would support the claim of some individuals being "under socialized". I would argue, though, that if an individual fails to internalize the "conventional beliefs", then they have probably internalized unconventional ones. Agnew also states, "Such individuals do not believe that crime is good; rather, they are amoral". Is he saying that all individuals either believe crime is bad, or they do not care? It would seem to me that there are definitely individuals in our society that believe that crime is beneficial, and who also believe that our laws are senseless, and therefore do not need to be followed. I would like to see the data to support Agnew's statement.
According to Strain Theory, "the culture of any society defines certain goals it deems worth striving for'"(Vold, et al., 1998:159). According to this theory, the strain is caused when individuals are unable to achieve the goals they feel they are expected to achieve. Society sets the standard for what people should achieve, but makes it impossible for many people to achieve that success. The frustration of strain in turn causes people to commit crimes. People, especially in American society, are socialized to strive for monetary wealth, and this is no different for criminals. An individual who does not value the same things that the rest of society values is not "under socialized". They could merely be unconventional. According to this theory, it would seem that some criminals are over socialized as far as wanting to obtain monetary wealth.
I do not feel that there is any empirical evidence to support the claim that criminals are unsocialized, or under socialized individuals. There are exceptions to every theory, which is one of the reasons that there are so many theories to explain so many different causes of crime. The point being that this could possibly explain the criminal behavior of certain individuals, but it is doubtful that this claim could apply very frequently. As was stated in the opening paragraph, socialization is inevitable, unless an individual is cut off completely from society, which would be quite rare. Some people may view certain criminals as "unsocialized" because they do not rise to that person's definition of "socialized", but that certainly does not mean that the individual has had no socialization. There are so many theories that explain how society affects an individual's behavior that this claim seems ludicrous.