There is a difference between criminal behavior and deviant behavior. All crime is deviant but not all deviance is a crime. Crime is based on legal norms while deviance is a violation of social norms. What is striking is the Psychology of crime and the Psychology of deviance. When an individual commits a crime, they are partaking in deviance. But when an individual does a deviant act it is not always a crime. Crime is grounded to social structure of rule of law. Deviance on the other hand is according to social constructs that exist. Such social constructs are built on social normativity which stipulates what is acceptable and not acceptable similar to the social frameworks of the rule of law. What differentiates crime from deviance is infarctions violations and contraventions, whereas deviance causes social offenses rather than the aforementioned. Custom is where deviance serves as a grey area whereas Convention is the info system by which crime is controlled. The major theories involving deviance are follows: Psychoanalytic Theory, Cognitive Development Theory and Learning Theory. These theories are based on the fact that “individuals [are] the primary unit of analysis, …. [next] an individual’s personality is the major motivational element that drives behavior within individuals [and] criminals ... deviants are seen as suffering from personality deficiencies, which means that crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual” (Thoughtco 2019). There are discrepancies with the aforementioned basis because it does not account for every criminal and or deviant and hence this view becomes a means of deterrence or social engineering designed to make individuals act in civil ways. The Psychoanalytic Theory says that every person has a natural tendency to deviance and these are repressed in the subconscious. These drives and tendencies to criminality are controlled through socialization (Thoughtco 2019). The Cognitive Development Theory says that “criminal and deviant behavior results from the way in which individuals organize their thoughts around morality and the law” (Thoughtco 2019). Once again through socialization, these are guided by role models and peers. Individuals without adequate socialization growing up develop tendencies that are considered primitive or uncouth or uncultured. This is how the three levels of moral reasoning explains what occurs during the socialization process. In the “pre-conventional stage, which is reached during middle childhood, moral reasoning is based on obedience and avoiding punishment.” The second level is called the conventional level and is reached at the end of middle childhood. During this stage, moral reasoning is based on the expectations that the child’s family and significant others have for him or her. Lastly, the third level of moral reasoning, the post-conventional level, is reached during early adulthood. The education system also serves as a means by which to socialize and educate people in the community. Educational institutions a breeding grounds of social normativity essentially seen in societal patterns. These educational institutions serve as a means by which to critically think and rationalize phenomena in the community.
With the above explained, it is important to paraphrase it as it is rather complicated. If the mind is seen in three stages the innermost part is the psyche and this part of the mind is developed at early childhood during the preconventional stage. This means that the individual would appear to exhibit niaveness and primitiveness as the child develops and grows. These are rooted to a simple desire of pleasure. At this stage the child does not know right from wrong and are operating under a tabula rasa. The second part consist of the conventional level. This is the stage when the child has grown and now experiences conscious emotions and intellect. This is developed through people that the individual has been growing with and has been around with including people in their activities such as sports, groups in class and friends that are seen on a daily basis. The individual gets a “grasp” on all these demands and starts to make a view of the world and then acts on that given the basis. The last and highest stage is the post-conventional level and this occurs because of institutions that serve to maintain civility in the community. At this stage both socialization and education have created a framework in the persons mind of how he should behave and how he or she should act given a specific phenomenon. These are the three layers of the mind with the inner the most primitive and the outer the most civil.
Educational institutions have a mandate to the government and oftentimes education becomes a means of propaganda in support of the government of the day. This occurs in China, North Korea, Russia and this also has occurred in Japan and Moldova. The last theory of note with regards to deviance is Learning Theory. Learning Theory states that “a person’s behavior is learned and maintained by its consequences or rewards. Individuals thus learn deviant and criminal behavior by observing other people and witnessing the rewards or consequences” (Thoughtco 2019).
With concerned of the aforementioned Social Learning Theory, this next theory is a proposition and it is referred to as THE THEORY OF A UNIT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. In this theory education and socialization form the basis by which psychology occurs. This theory reduces the individual to a single unit and in that he is compared to a larger unit- a country. Essentially this theory is a form of personification which is a literary technique used in English and Writing. This theory says that existing theories in Political Science between nations are practically about psychology especially with concern that oftentimes Education has been used as a form of propaganda. If a theory in Political Science is broken down, it relates to Criminology, Sociology and then Psychology.
EX:
Political Science Theory- Mutual Assured Destruction
Criminology- Deterrence, Social Control
Sociology- Authority- Agency / Power- Agency – Social Stratification and Social Hierarchy
Psychology- Rational Choice, Maslow’s Hierarchy
In the discipline of Political Science there is a bipolar world. In this bipolar world countries with the means for total destruction are hesitant to cause the other a reason by which to use that means. Hence the countries are deterred from acting in that way and in that they attempt to maintain social control. Their social control is constantly vilified as they attempt to maintain authority and power and they do this through collective agency which causes social stratification and a social hierarchy. Those people then make decisions based on rational choice which essentially is a depiction of how individuals choose their needs and wants as defined in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This then can be applied to the individual via psychology, sociology then criminology and then politics as it pertains to the circumstance, situation and scenario. As above if any of the theories concern a group, it is necessary to reduce that specific person/s to a single unit. For example, In Political Science, the Theory of Mutual Assured Destruction can be reduced to two opposing forces in a litigation case hence depicting the adversarial nature of the legal system. When these two are reduced to single units, the other theories can then be applied to become a micro relevancy in an explanation. When the theorist needs to determine a macro relevancy, he would do vice versa through a process called sociological imagination. This theory becomes increasingly useful in modernity because of the concepts of nationalisms and nationhood and patronage- people can be reduced to units of the country via this theory on the basis that they likely hold similar ideas to that which they originated from via socialization and education.
WORK CITED
Akers et al. (2013). Criminological Theories. New York. Oxford University Press.
Thoughtco. (2019). How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/psychological-explanations-of-deviant-behavior-3026268
Ross- Kerr. et al. (2006). Canadian Fundamentals of Nursing. Ontario. Elsevier.
Sens et al. (2005). Global Politics. Toronto. Thompson Nelson.
No comments:
Post a Comment