Criminology

One of the classes I'm taking this semester is Deviance and Social Control, which has so far mostly been a class in basic criminology. It's making me realize all the overly simplistic assumptions I made about crime and criminal behavior.

First of all, the class is structured by theory. We go through several of the main theories of crime, read the canonical literature for that theory, and discuss where the theory works and where it misses the mark. In my mind, without knowing it, I categorized crimes into two types: violence (usually senseless or about power) and need. Violence would include all the obvious things, and the motivation for it is some kind of mental, emotional, or social ill. Domestic violence is about power; drug gang murders are about business. Crimes like burglary are about need and lack of access to resources, especially money. Then, of course, are the other crimes whose illegality is dubious (and that are illegal because we have agreed they are), like jaywalking, vandalism, and trespassing. I suppose revenge crimes are in there somewhere. My assumptions have not been reflected in any theory so far, and I don't expect they will be, since they aren't based in any fact or knowledge.

And there's the next problem. Much of this literature starts sometime in the 30s-60s, and the newer readings are revisions of the theories done in the 80s and 90s. None of this is based in fact, especially the older literature. There are assumptions and observations, but crime statistics, interviews about motives, and comparisons based on local punishment and specific context aren't even considered. So much of it is just "poor people commit more crimes, because they're delinquent/poor/learn it from their friends." Of course, there's now finally the concept of white collar crime, which I think is largely about power and less about greed, but it's still looked at as a way of getting ahead. None of the theories we've covered have had anything to do with power and powerlessness, except insofar as white men in rural areas try to prove their masculinity by fighting.

To be fair, my own assumptions (which are slowly becoming analyses) are complete armchair theories as well. I have no actual knowledge of data, just a small bit of anecdotal evidence from a friend who's been in the system since he was a preteen, and a fundamental belief that if people could be healthy, they would also be kind.

What strikes me over and over is the need for a single unifying theory. Every theory we discuss has its limitations, and that makes it less than perfect. Granted, I like less than perfect in an explanation -- it creeps me out to think everything can be explained by someone else all the time. But having limitations is seen as disqualification. This theory doesn't explain crimes that aren't economically based, so it doesn't work. This one would be nearly impossible to test across international cultures, so it can't be found to work. Maybe it's just that this is how sociology works -- that we want a single theory that explains behavior as a fundamental human truth that can be predicted uniformly. But wouldn't it be more useful to recognize that different contexts beget different behaviors, and figure out a nuanced truth, or a truth that changes based on context?

The more sociology I take, the more I think it's the right field for me to go into. This whole single-truth-of-human-behavior thing irks me, though. It reminds me of an Alix Olson song that says "art is universal....if you're a straight white male artist talking to straight white men." I think it's even less universal than that, and there are so many ways to find synergy or marginalization among "straight white men." Perhaps this is why women's studies has called to me so strongly. Maybe women's studies can be sociology with nuance.