Introduction
Travis Hirschi’s social control theory as postulated in his publication; Causes of Delinquency has remained a forceful paradigm in criminology from its introduction to date. As a matter of fact, only a few theories have been able to sustain as much debate and empirical attention. Scholarly interest on this theory has been ongoing for a while, generating heated arguments while being tested for its veracity. Hirschi has also remained relevant in the field of theoretical criminology for decades ranking high among the most cited criminologists. But what would have been the reason for this? Before his time, there had been a few scholars who had developed theories that seemed to be eerily similar. Albert J. Reiss, for example, proposed that delinquency was a consequent result to the failure of personal and social control. Between 1956 and 1958, works by Walter Reckless, Jackson Toby and F. Ivan Nye worked on theories with strong empirical similarities to Hirschi’s. Yet, for some reason any reference made to the social control theory will be presumed to be a reference to Hirschi. Many reasons have been cited for his preeminence, but most important was his proposition that his theory was a specific contrast to the school of thought that had reigned. That is the ‘strain’ and the ‘cultural conflict perspectives. In doing this, he had the courage of conducting a self-report survey to test his theory, something that most scholars of his time tried to avoid.
This paper undoubtedly, has a narrow focus. Whilst social control theory has been referenced by many scholars, the focus will lie on Hirschi’s postulation. The paper will highlight the main elements of this theory. Having mentioned its enduring character, it will point out some of the strengths and the notable weaknesses. And while at it, it will be inescapable to mention some of the notable researches that are related to this theory. When all is said and done, the will bring a nexus through a general assessment, between this theory and the wide field of criminality.
Elements of the Social Control Theory
According to Hirschi, almost all of the existing theories began with a faulty fundamental premise. The reigning view then was that criminal behavior resulted from the creation of criminal motivation. The ‘strain’ theories that emerged out of Merton assumed that it was the pressure placed on social norms, due to a disconnect between youths’ goals and aspirations and their ability to reach such goals through legitimate means, that created the motivation to offend, an assumption similarly echoed by later versions of the strain theory articulated by Cloward and Ohlin.
But to Hirschi, the opposite premise was true. His postulation was that all humans were possessed of the hedonistic urge to act in a selfish and aggressive manner that resulted to criminal behavior. You will remember John Locke’s Leviathan that laid down these instinctive selfish acts as the foundational basic of the social contract. Hirschi contended that these behaviors are part of the innate human nature, but more importantly, most people have learnt to control these ‘natural’ urges. In a nutshell, Hirschi started formulating his theory with the opinion that asking why offenders ‘do it’ was not the right question; instead we should be asking why the non-offenders do not do it. This is where the dominance of his version lies, asking the ‘right’ question. Hirschi’s argument was that there were some basic ‘social bonds’ that if manipulated one way or another, could constitute a particular outcome in the youths’ tendencies.
Accordingly, these ‘social bonds’ come in four forms that are related to the bonds that people make to pro-social people, pro-social values, and pro-social institutions. The first in his list was attachment. This refers to a level of emotional bond to other people and an attachment to parents. This, according to Hirschi encompassed the interpersonal emotional barrier to delinquency, so that parents and the schools became critically important in the youths’ development of greater levels of social control.
The second bond is commitment. In support of this, Hirschi cited the importance of relationships that are of value to people. These are the kinds of relationships that one would put in jeopardy when they engaged in deviant acts. He noted that people are less likely to put their acts in order if they knew they had something to lose. It could entail not wanting to be an object of ridicule in the face of parents, friends, or teachers. In a similar breath, Hirschi would argue that people would refrain from activities that would threaten their employment or marriage.
The third is involvement which refers to behavioral investment in lines of action that conventionally preclude one from delinquent acts. This would be said to be related to the opportunity cost associated with how people spend time; so that those who spend time doing mostly pro-social activities will not be found engaging in anti-social activities. The final type of social bond according to Hirschi is belief. This refers to the personal embracement of normative conceptions that are deterrent to delinquent choices. The degree to which one adheres to the values associated with conforming behavior is, therefore, focused. If one values a particular ideology that pertains to the law then it is unlikely they will engage in it. For example, youths who do not value the notion that it is a bad idea to skip school for no apparent reason will most likely do just that.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Social Control Theory
Hirschi succeeded in presenting his theory in the most compelling manner. One of its strengths lies in the idea that all the four elements, the ‘social bonds’ coalesce in a way that control is manifestly indirect. This means that one does not need to have these elements directly presented in order to have his behavior in check. It is evident that the pro-social bonds we form can control our behavior even when they are not evidently present or have ceased to be there.
The other strength lies in the social bonds as represented by Hirschi. They are primarily mechanisms of informal social control. This means that it is ‘social bonds’ and conventions that control behavior rather than formally adopted laws. In essence, Hirschi’s argument is hinged on the proposition that juvenile delinquents and adult criminals lack the social bonds necessary in a convectional society. It is, therefore, right to say that offenders behave the way they do because they are not socially controlled, leaving their ‘natural instinct’ to run un-curtailed.
Hirschi’s theory has, however, sparked an enormous level of interest among scholars. Some have sought to tear its foundational basis, while some have simply sought to test its validity. This theory remains one of the widely tested theories in criminology. One element of weakness found in this theory which has prominently featured is that Hirschi made little or no distinction of the importance of each of his four foundational elements. Some recent research has pointed out to the possibility of a distinct difference between each of these elements. In one such study, a number of delinquent adolescents reported a high level of involvement which according to Hirschi, was supposed to reduce delinquency. Connected to that is the deviant peers and parents, while Hirschi assumes that any type of social attachment is good. It is widely accepted that young people would most likely embrace some deviant behavior from parents that they are very attached to. Michael Hindeland established that attachment to delinquent peers actually escalated criminality. Many recent studies have shown that young adults with drug abusive parents are most likely to become abusers themselves. Another controversy involves Hirschi’s ideal family and the level of control. Whilst control of young people is good, too much of it may lead to rebellion thus setting the stage for delinquent behavior.
Conclusion
The validity of this theory as it relates to criminality is strong. Having been the subject of heated debate for decades; spawning over 100 related researches and two related theories; it arguably remains an important theory. The whole essence that Hirschi based this theory on the social controls, rather than the more formal law gives it credence. There are many things that we do without having any law to guide us, for example the manner in which people conduct themselves in elevators or banking halls. Some of these behaviors are instinctive because the social controls have inculcated in us the need to respect them.
References
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological Theories: Introduction, evaluation and application. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman , J., & Rosenbaum , D. (2008). Social control theory: The salience of components by age, gender, and type of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(1), 363-381.
Hirschi , T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. The Regents of the University of California Press, 250-257. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/e/x/exs44/406/hirschi_bonds.pdf
Keller, P. (2009). Key Ideas: Hirschis Social Bond/ Social Control. Key Ideas in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/36812_5.pdf
Ozbay, O., & Ozcan, Y. (2006). A Test of Hirschi's Social Bonding Theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 711-726. Retrieved from http://www.angelfire.com/planet/crimeandsociology/AdolescentCrimeinTurkey.pdf
Rousseau, J. J. (2010). Social Contract. New York: Simon and Schuster.
