Abstract
There are numerous debates regarding theoretical integration in matters of criminology. Criminology is, therefore, a scientific field that draws its theories from different currents of psychology, law, and sociology. However, there lacks a unified conceptual framework amidst theoretical work and research. Diverse empirical studies have found linkages between a theoretical proposition and the criminology theories. The diverse theoretical approaches give an explanation of risk factors and criminal behaviors. Crime prevention is at times implicitly based on a theoretical comprehension of crime. Therefore, while focusing on the practicality of responses, more value is found in the acknowledgment of a theoretical explanation for crime alongside insights offered by these explanations.
Theoretical basis has guided the scientific studies propelling the causes of crime and delinquency. Good theories provide a foundational lens through which it becomes possible to comprehend the manifestation of behaviors. In criminology, the theoretical lens is founded on concepts of biology, psychology, and sociology with a typical explanation on behaviors that violate the stipulated laws of society. Responding to the unavailability of ‘single magical theory’, researchers have resulted in the integration of theories with a desire to acquire an explanation for a bigger proportion of crime and delinquency. Ideally, a theoretical integration is a composure of a single theory from theoretical constructs of competing theories. When integrated with criminology, it becomes advantageous to allow researchers to comprehend a behavior in a complex and complete manner. The two theories of differential social control by Ross Matsueda and Control balance by Charles Tittle have been identified as being closely associated with criminal justice. An analysis of integration for the components of these criminology theories is important in creating integrated models of crime and it improves understanding of causes of crime. In this paper, the objective is to discuss the integration of Differential Social control theory and Control Balance Theory in the context of criminology.
Literature Review and Theory
Central sociological problems regard a process of dealing with deviance or crime and the manner in which it controls society. According to American Society of Criminology (2000), the majority of people argue that social interaction is an essential locus for controlling delinquency and crime though criminology theories but they hardly stress the interactional mechanisms of social control. According to Hagan (2001), recent development in criminological theories and research studies put more focus on the development of macro theories for the Marxist class category. On the other hand, Beirne and Messerschmidt (2011) articulated the life theory of life events and delinquency. However, in the criminal justice category, the most recognized integration of theories is differential Social control and the control Balance theory. Matsueda adopts symbolic interactionism aspect to demonstrate how social control for crime is engaged in the interactionism conception.
The explanation is based on Mead’s thesis in regards to self-arising towards problematic cases where individuals assume roles of duly significant others and views themselves from the perception of other individuals (Bernard, Vold, Snipes, & Gerould, 2010). At an individual level, Mead’s thesis perceives role-taking as a fundamental tool for social control. Essentially, reciprocal adoption of roles between the interacting parties facilitates for joint activity, implying a process of social cognition that results from problematic scenarios that Matsueda builds an explanation for the crime. Reflective thinking and self-consciousness are key in obtaining an explanation for criminology. Role-taking encompasses five essential processes that affect the probability of the occurrence of crime and forms delinquency behaviors. First, the particular meaning of reflected appraisal concerning being a rule violator affects criminology behaviors. In this regard, criminology is part of the stable definition of self-relevant to behavioral conduct and it arises through role-taking and labeling. Secondly, holding an attitude towards criminology mitigation to problematic scenarios could affect the probability of criminal behaviors. In the problematic scenarios, developing an attitude is a plan for action that serves to redirect social acts by means of role taking.
According to Britt and Gottfredson (2003), whenever attitudes of a social group lack a solution for a problem, it creates interaction discontinuity and the individual forms odd attitudes. In the case of criminology, it is expected that an individual will endeavor in criminal acts acceptable to law-abiding social groupings by justifying and neutralizing a behavior. In other cases, persons opt to change perspectives by changing roles such as having law violating peers who have a likelihood of committing criminal acts. Whenever attitudes that favor criminology are adopted by an individual, they gain stability and become a backup for future reference. As a result, the existence of stable attitudes and justification for criminology promotes increment of criminal resolutions towards problematic scenarios as pointed out by Merton (2005). Third, a process that affects Criminology involves the anticipation of reactions of others in criminal behaviors. Britt and Gottfredson (2003) argue that it is through role-taking that an individual becomes aware of other people’s reactions towards certain things; hence, they make considerations for the resulting consequences for reactions of a group membership. This is paramount in the theory of differential social control since the ability to anticipate a response.
In addition, Matsueda perceives criminology as likely to occur through habits or scripted responses built by previous experiences and, in most cases, occurring in the absence of reflective thinking. The latter builds a habit that gives individuals