Deviance Deviance Theories on Behaviors That Defy Social Norms Duane L. Dobbert and Thomas X. Mackey, Editors Copyright © 2015 by Duane L. Dobbert and Thomas X. Mackey All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Deviance (Praeger) Deviance : theories on behaviors that defy social norms / Duane L. Dobbert and Thomas X. Mackey, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4408-3323-6 (print : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4408-3324-3 (e-book) 1. Deviant behavior. 2. Social norms. I. Dobbert, Duane L. II. Mackey, Thomas X. III. Title. HM811.D532 2015 302.5'42—dc23 2015007657 ISBN: 978-1-4408-3323-6 EISBN: 978-1-4408-3324-3 19  18  17  16  15 1  2  3  4  5 This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. Praeger An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America Contents Preface by Duane L. Dobbert vii Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction 1 Thomas X. Mackey 2 Charles Darwin 7 Joseph McCluskey and Lucy Papp 3 Karl Marx 15 Inna Angelina Olson 4 Sigmund Freud 25 Danica Ivancevich 5 Anomie and General Strain Theory 38 Sarah Norman 6 Karen Horney 48 Jessica Vena 7 Labeling Theory 58 Nicholas Zarrillo 8 Jean Piaget 72 Shauna Stoeger 9 B. F. Skinner 80 Cynthia Penna vi Contents 10 Abraham Maslow 90 Sarah Norman 11 Albert Ellis 98 Ashley Veasy 12 Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay 108 Christina Molinari 13 Albert Bandura 119 Kimberly Ortiz 14 Lawrence Kohlberg 125 Lindsey Page 15 Robert D. Hare 135 Christina Molinari 16 Travis Hirschi 147 Jessica Vena 17 Social Disorganization 155 AnnaMaria Tejeda 18 Pedophilia 171 Sarah A. Strickland 19 Competency and Culpability 181 Joseph McCluskey About the Editors and Contributors 205 Index 209 Preface Duane L. Dobbert This book is a unique demonstration of the blending of Scholar/Practitioner and Socratic pedagogic theoretical perspectives. The editors of this book are Scholar/Practitioners with a combined excess of 75 years as practitioners in the criminal justice system in the United States. They are also accomplished researchers and publicists in the public sector and academe. They are both committed to the Socratic method of teaching, particularly with university graduate students. Unless a course is especially esoteric, there is no “Sage on Stage.” Rather, the Socratic method is a dialogue between stu- dents and faculty rather than a faculty monologue by acknowledging that each participant, faculty and students, brings unique and authentic perspectives to the content knowledge. Dogmatism is frowned upon; however, healthy debate, supported by credible research documentation, is encouraged. The Socratic method provides for a plethora of wide-ranging perspectives and opinions in an environment free from fear of criticism. Each individual’s perspective on a social problem is influenced not only by discipline or course of study but also by their unique frame of reference. Commonly, the new student to the Socratic method is not cognizant of their individual frame of reference and how it precipitates skew on their view of the world. The frame of reference is dynamic, ever changing as one encounters the world in which one exists. The views of the wealthy are significantly different from the views of the poor. Ethnicity, religion, education, parental indoctrina- tion, and peer association influence the individual’s frame of reference. These experiences determine tolerance and acceptance of persons different from oneself. These referential parameters are also developed by legitimate institu- tions: parents, schools, and government. A Scholar/Practitioner curriculum at the upper-undergraduate and grad- uate-student level is applied. Acquired content knowledge in and of itself is insufficient for application in the solving of social problems. The skill sets of intelligence analysis, critical thinking, and communication are of equal viii Preface importance. Comparative analysis of classical and contemporary theoretical perspectives with contemporary research is mandatory in assessing the effi- cacy of theoretical perspectives. Theory in the absence of practice is merely that—theory. The Scholar Professor lecture format often restricts freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. It precipitates dogmatism and cloning of the skewed perspectives of the graduate faculty member. Challenging the professor is often intimidating and humiliating. Intelligent debate is discouraged as disrespect- ful. Consequently, the scholar’s theoretical perspectives become “fact” in the eyes of the student. This is a tragic error in applied disciplines and sentences society to the historically failed solutions to social problems. History repeats itself again and again. Effective graduate education demands student analysis of seminal work, not the interpretation of classical theory by a textbook author. Critical authentic thinking begins by examining the original work of the theorists. Utilizing the research question, “The Proliferation of Violent Street Gangs,” examination of the seminal work of Durkheim, Merton, and Thrasher is required. Ano- mie, anomie and social structure, and play group confrontation are foundation principles that offer insight into the research question. Generally speaking, textbook authors are university professors with spe- cific academic knowledge and skill sets. While there is value in reading the interpretation of theory and research by the textbook author, it is naturally skewed by the author’s frame of reference. Graduate student examination of the original work is also skewed by their personal frame of reference, and this is the same of each student in the class. There is a natural difference of opinion for each student. The Socratic method entertains vigorous informed critical thinking, challenges the frame of reference–precipitated skew, and scholarly debate. Many university faculty are not practitioners in their discipline. Research and publishing are significantly relevant; however, some disciplines also require a practitioner’s perspective in problem solving. Hours, days, weeks, and months spent inside a maximum-security penitentiary is valued knowl- edge pertaining to prison reform. It is inconceivable that an academician can offer valid applicable theoretical perspectives in the absence of that practitio- ner’s experience. Knowledge honed through practical application is requisite to the criminal justice, public safety, homeland security, forensic behavioral analysis, and intelligence analysis disciplines. This book is the product of the editors’ frustration. Books authored by Scholar/Practitioners that examine the sociological and psychological vari- ables that precipitate deviance are nonexistent. There are a plethora of books authored by academicians with no experience as practitioners. If one truly wishes to examine the variables associated with the proliferation of violent Preface ix street gangs, one does not need to have previous membership with a street gang but a professional responsibility involving gang activity. This experience adds credibility to the research conclusions. This book examines the seminal work of 20 classical and contemporary theorists from psychology, sociology/criminology, political science, and phi- losophy. It differs from other books as the content knowledge of each theorist has been examined, analyzed, and debated by 35 graduate students with the goal of reducing skew. It also examines the contextual frame of reference that influences the theorist’s perspective. Have you wondered how Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner developed such significantly different views on the human personality? This book does not propose to accurately answer these questions but rather to present an opportunity for the audience to determine their own inquiries for future research. The ultimate goal is to challenge current perspectives on deviance. Do these perspectives that drive the implementation of deviance prevention and elimination programs have efficacy in accomplishing their objectives? Is there value in the integration of different perspectives in syn- thesizing new multidisciplinary perspectives that accurately understand the variables that precipitate deviance?