EDWIN SUTHERLAND: SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

EDWIN SUTHERLAND: SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

BY: ADITYA VERMA AND ROHIT SINGH

ABSTRACT The Social Differentiation Association Theory, formulated by Edwin Sutherland, challenges conventional perspectives on the origins of criminal behaviour. Developed in the early twentieth century, this theory posits that criminality is not an innate trait but is acquired through the process of social learning. Individuals, according to this theory, gain criminal values, attitudes, techniques, and motives through interactions within their social milieu. This discourse explores the main principles of the Social Differentiation Association Theory, emphasizing that criminal behaviour is learned through communication within intimate groups, and it includes the acquisition of techniques and motives for crime.

The theory contends that individuals learn about the legality or illegality of behaviour through the definitions provided by their social circles. The balance of these definitions influences an individual's likelihood of choosing a criminal path. Early exposure to highstatus figures and the influence of respected individuals in one's social network play crucial roles in shaping future criminal conduct.

While the Social Differentiation Association Theory has significantly contributed to our understanding of criminal behaviour, it faces criticisms. Critics argue that the theory neglects individual differences, such as personality traits and genetic factors, as determinants of criminal susceptibility. Furthermore, it is criticized for placing limited emphasis on environmental factors, overlooking the role of biological determinants, mental health, and societal conditions. The theory's predominant focus on social learning might overshadow the potential influence of personality in criminal behaviour.

INTRODUCTION Social Differentiation Association Theory, commonly known as social learning theory, represents a fundamental criminology concept. This is one of the theories developed from the renowned American criminologist – Edwin Sutherland which contradicts the established notions about the causes of criminal acts. The theory suggests that people do not have a

natural inclination towards crime but pick up criminal values, attitudes, techniques, and motives in the course of social interaction. This is a thorough discourse where we consider Social Differentiation Association Theory, its main principles, criticism, and the relevance of the theory in modern criminology.

Edwin Sutherland initiated this theory in the early twentieth century which is known as the Social Differentiation Association theory. Sutherland greatly drew a lot of inspiration from the Chicago school of sociologists, who highlighted the significance of the social context for a proper analysis of criminal conduct. He is noted to be the original contributor to this theory as his book “Principles of Criminology” came out in 1939. Sutherland’s theory changed the common view that people naturally engaged in criminal activities due to their own faults.

Social Differentiation Association Theory contends that criminality does not arise from inherent disposition, but is a result of interpersonal interactions as part of the society. The theory highlights how criminals gain the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives from their social surroundings. The key principles that underpin this theory: Criminal Behaviour is Learned: The basic argument of the theory is that people do not inherit criminal propensities. Rather, they acquire criminal behaviour through interaction with other people. This is a learning process that occurs in several social contexts.

Interaction and Communication: People learn to commit criminal acts by interacting and communicating with people that surround them, including their families, friends, colleagues, peers, and networks. These interactions expose an individual to criminal values, attitudes, and norms.

Learning Occurs within Intimate Groups: First, the theory highlights that most of the knowledge of criminal behaviour takes place through intimate personal groups. The close-knit circles have a deep influence on individual’s beliefs and behaviour. To exemplify, someone who is a close friend to a criminal has higher chances of copying their criminal acts.

Techniques and Motives for Crime: The learning process includes both acceptance of criminal values and obtaining skills and reasonings on how to commit wrongdoings. People learn how to do wrongs, explain reasons for it, and use some unique methods of crime in this way.

Definition of Legal Codes: Through this people form the perception about the legality or illegality in relation to the criminal behaviour. These definitions impact on their motives and drives. As such, a person who thinks some crime is victimless or acceptable might be involved in crime easily.

Balance of Definitions: When the definitions favouring law-breaking and law-abiding behaviour are not equal, an individual is more likely to choose a criminal path. The frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of these definitions’ influence differ.

Early Influence and High-Status Figures: According to this theory, early exposure of an individual to high-status people in a group has a serious effect on an individual’s future criminal conduct. It can become very strong influence if respected figures in one’s social network participate in crime.

Practical Motives: This may be an assumption of some people because while the theory emphasizes social learning it does not rule out practical motives in crime. People commit crime in order to meet their economic requirements and achieve social gains. Nonetheless, it emphasizes that the learning of attitudes and beliefs is a key component.

General Needs and Values: Criminal and non-criminal persons have general need and value motivations. Hence, it is acquired attitudes, beliefs, and associations which separate criminal behaviour.

While Social Differentiation Association Theory has made significant contributions to our understanding of criminal behaviour, it has not been without its share of criticisms: Individual Differences:

Critics contend that the theory does not accommodate various person’s characteristics. Not everyone who is associated with crime will become a criminal. Susceptibility to crime can be attributed to personality traits, genetic factors, as well as psychological difference.

Limited Emphasis on Environment: Although the theory gives an account of the impact of environment on criminal acts, it undermines the importance of factors such as, biological determinants, mental health, and societal conditions.

Influence of Personality: However, the theory places much emphasis on social learning and this may miss out on any contribution made by personality in criminal behaviour. It fails to sufficiently explain how particular characteristics relate to the social setting leading to criminal results.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Social Differentiation Association Theory has provided valuable insights into the social dynamics of criminal behavior, emphasizing the importance of social interactions in shaping criminal tendencies. However, addressing criticisms related to individual differences and expanding the consideration of various factors influencing criminality can enhance its explanatory power in modern criminology.