An integrated theoretical approach endeavours to explain delinquency by combining different ideas and models to form a single overall criminological perspective. It is an alternative strategy for theory development and testing that addresses some of the limitations of stand- alone delinquency theories and increases the levels of explanatory power. The process attempts to bridge ideological differences that exist among various older delinquency theories because it recognizes that delinquency and youth gangs is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon with multiple causes. Moreover, delinquency and youth gang phenomenon is dynamic and always in flux because as one gang fades away (desistance) another gang emerges. This degeneration-regeneration process is
60
represented by another type of integrated theoretical perspective known as Developmental Life Course theories. So combining delinquency theories is important but by ensuring that this framework adapts and responds to youth development changes and other socialization experiences is even more vital.
In my opinion, integrated theory is necessary because no single theoretical explanation can explain Samoan young people’s attraction to and involvement with gangs. As a Samoan youth justice social worker I have seen a range of factors impacting on Samoan young people’s development including strain, control, and learning challenges. I believe that a wholistic theoretical framework is required to profile and cover the multiple issues that are a part of Samoan young people’s socialization experiences and from this understanding build appropriate intervention and responsive anti-gang strategies. I acknowledge the worth of classical and contemporary theories as prominent and stand-alone models of delinquency perspectives, but when they are combined they become even more effective and perhaps more culturally appropriate.
2.5.1 Integrated Theory: Classical explanation
Many delinquency theorists take a key characteristic or condition – such as social control – and build their main arguments around it, in order to answer a common question like “What is the cause of delinquency?” It is as if there is only one factor that is important; however, individual and social processes that lead to delinquency are complex and involve many stages. Therefore, many experts have considered combinations of factors that result in delinquent behaviour. Yet it is important to remember that simply throwing a bunch of concepts together does not result in a delinquency theory. Rather, an adequate theory describes the mechanisms that link specific factors to delinquency (Elster, 2007).
61
By integrating a variety of ecological, sociological, psychological, biological, and cultural factors into a coherent structure, such theories overcome the shortcomings of classic theories that may be criticized on the grounds of reductionism. That is, many classic theories of crime argue that a single variable is predominantly important as an explanatory cause of crime. A problem with such an approach is that not all persons exposed to that variable (for example, poverty) commit crime. Integrated theories recognize that multiple social and individual factors interact to result in the eventual behaviour of individuals, and that we must consider the constellation of factors in an individual’s life in order to understand his or her behaviour.
In 1979, Elliot, Ageton, and Canter offered one of the first versions of an integrated theory that explicitly combined strain, control, and social learning perspectives to explain delinquency and drug use. Then in 1985, Elliot, Huizinga, and Ageton (hereafter Elliot and his colleagues) provided a more complete version of that integrated theory and a clearer description of the process that involved three main steps. First, they integrated strain theory with social control theory; then they, integrated the combined strain-control theory with social learning theory. In their view, strain theory argues that delinquency is a response to actual or anticipated failure to achieve socially induced needs or goals (status, wealth, power, and social acceptance), while social control theory contends that the strength of an individual’s bonds to conventional society is inversely related to the probability that the individual will engage in delinquent behaviour. In addition, in social bonding theory, the content and direction of socialization are always conventional; deviance results only from weaknesses or failures of socialization. In social learning theory, the direction in which the individual is socialized may be conforming or deviant. Delinquency is learned in the same way that conforming behaviour is learned, and socialization may be more or less successful or unsuccessful in either direction. Sources of weak social control include
62
inadequate socialization in the family and social disorganization in the community or society. Elliot and his colleagues integrated strain and control theories by arguing that the probability of delinquency should be highest when an individual experiences both more strain and less control.
After integrating strain and control theories, in the second step, Elliot and his colleagues incorporated a social learning theoretical principle that delinquency is affected by the balance between the rewards and punishments that are associated with both conforming and deviant patterns of socialization. Young people receive rewards and punishments for their behaviour primarily from families, schools, and peers. Families and schools almost always reinforce conventional or law-abiding behaviours. In contrast, peer groups are much more likely to reinforce deviant behaviour, although this influence varies quite a bit among different youths. Elliot and his colleagues therefore argued that the amount of exposure to delinquent attitudes and behaviours within the peer group is the primary factor that affects the probability of delinquent behaviour.
So it was at this point, Elliot and his colleagues found it necessary to modify control theory to take into account the type of group with which the individual bonds. Control theory holds that the content of socialization always favours conformity, and therefore only the strength of socialization is necessary to explain crime and delinquency (that is, weak socialization leads to deviance). In addition, control theory holds that there are not strong bonds within deviant groups, since deviance itself is purely self- interested behaviour. Thus, deviant groups (for example, juvenile gangs) are sets of people who are purely self-interested, and the group stays together only to the extent that it furthers the self-interests of each group member. In contrast, social learning theory holds that the content of socialization can favour either deviance or conformity, and that individuals can form strong bonds to deviant social groups. Elliot and his colleagues
63
integrated these two theories by hypothesizing that deviant behaviour is most likely when there are strong bonds to deviant groups and weak bonds to conventional groups and is least likely when there are strong bonds to conventional groups and weak bonds to deviant groups.
The third and final step in integrating strain, control, and social learning theories is to propose a single line of causation that includes variables from all three theories. Strain, inadequate socialization, and social disorganization are all said to lead to weak conventional bonding. These failures then lead to strong delinquent bonding, which, in turn, leads to delinquent behaviour. Strain can also directly affect strong delinquent bonding, as at least some strain theories contend, but Elliot and his colleagues argued that most of the effect of strain operates through the weak conventional bonding. In addition, weak conventional bonding can directly affect delinquent behaviour, as control theories contend, but Elliot and his colleagues argued that most of its effect operates through strong delinquent bonding.
What is interesting is that unlike Akers who argued that Strain and Control theories also feature elements of Learning Theory overlapping throughout the two theories, Elliot and his colleagues established an integrated model with the social control perspective, rather than with the social learning perspective, as the dominant theory. They reasoned that the control perspective is more general and can explain deviance across levels of explanation and that it is more sociological (learning theory is more behavioural) in that it places great importance on the role of institutional structures in controlling deviant behaviour.
2.5.2 Developmental Theory - Contemporary explanation
Most classic criminological theories are essentially static theories,
64
caught in them and they do not explicitly consider how strain theory (Agnew, 1992; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), differential association theory (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974) and social control or bonding theory (Hirschi, 1969) change over time as young people mature physically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically. For example, we cannot expect a 12- year old boy to react to family turmoil the same way as an 18-year old young man. Developmental changes determine how many factors affect delinquent behaviours. The life course consists of a number of stages running from early childhood to old age and theories should also consider conditions and behaviours that exist at these various stages. Developmental theorists consider, for example, how changes that occur in the transition from youth to young adulthood affect the likelihood of movement from delinquent to criminal. Moreover, since most individuals end their delinquent or criminal behaviour at some point in their lives, developmental theorists study the reasons for desistance in the various transitions that occur as people enter or move through adulthood. Hence
a developmental perspective is dynamic and is interested in studying
whether an individual’s behaviour remains stable or changes over time.
The goal of Developmental and Life-Course (herewith DLC) perspective is to understand better the stability and changes in criminal and deviant behaviour through time and at different life stages. It is associated with three main issues: the development of offending and antisocial behaviour, risk and protective factors at different ages, and the effects of life events on the course of development. Among the many scholars developing “life- course” and “developmental” criminology are David P. Farrington (Farrington, 2005 & 2006), John Laub and Robert Sampson (Laub & Sampson, 1993 & 2003; Laub, Sampson, & Sweeten, 2006; Sampson & Laub, 1993, 1997 & 2005), Rolf Loeber (Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996 & 1998), and Terrie E. Moffitt (Moffitt, 1993 & 2006). In 1986, the National Research Council published a two-volume
65
distinction was unclear at first, the ideas of “career criminals” and “criminal careers” are very different. A career criminal is thought to be a chronic offender who commits frequent crimes over a long period. In
contrast, the term criminal career does not imply anything about the
frequency or seriousness of the offending. It simply suggests that involvement in criminal activity begins at some point in a person’s life, continues for a certain length of time, and then ends. Many people have short and trivial “criminal careers” – they commit one or two minor offenses and then stop.
The distinction sparked a debate over the interpretation of the relationship between age and crime. It has long been known that crime rates rise rapidly through the youth years, peak in the late teens or early twenties, and steadily decline from then on. The traditional view has been that the decline in this curve after about age twenty is due primarily to changes in frequency – that is, the number of offences remains the same, but each offender commits fewer offenses. In contrast, career criminal researchers suggest that the decline is caused by a change in participation – that is, the number of offenders declines, but each remaining offender still engages in a high rate of offending. If these researchers are correct, then those offenders who continue to commit crimes at high levels after their early twenties are career criminals who need to be incapacitated. On the other hand, if all offenders gradually commit fewer crimes, then none of them is a career criminal in the sense of being a more frequent and chronic offender than the others.
Farrington’s theory of delinquent development derived from research conducted as part of a Cambridge study of delinquent development, which followed the offending careers of 411 London boys born in 1953 (Farrington, 2003 & 2005; Lahey & Waldman, 2005). This study used self- report and interview data, as well as psychological testing, and collected information from the subjects eight times over a 24-year period, beginning
66
when subjects were eight years old. This study found the existence of chronic offenders, the continuity of offending, and the presence of early onset leading to persistent deviance (see also Lily, Cullen & Ball, 2012, p. 393-416; Thornberry & Krohn, 2005 for further discussion about continuity and/or change concepts). Moffitt’s (1993 & 2006) study identified two kinds of offenders: adolescent-limited offenders (AL) and life-course persistent offenders (LCP) (see Cicchetti & Cohen, 2006; Savage, 2009; Skardhamar, 2009 for alternative discussions). Adolescent-limited offenders restrict their criminality largely to the teenage years, whereas life-course persistent offenders are, likely to demonstrate antisocial behaviour in childhood and to persist in criminality into adulthood. Thus, this gap between biological and social maturity is a source of dissatisfaction and motivation for delinquency.
Adulthood, however, brings desistance from crime. As the maturity gap closes, adult conventional roles become available (for example, jobs, marriage), and the consequences from misconduct escalate, there is a corresponding decrease in the appeal of, and reinforcements for, delinquency. In their first book, Crime in the Making, Robert Sampson and John Laub (1993) they hypothesized that a complex set of factors combine to entrench a child on an antisocial pathway such as difficult temperament, early conduct problems, disadvantaged and unstable social contexts that a child is born. Sampson and Laub apply Hirschi’s social bond theory to their life-course perspective (see also Laub, Sampson, & Sweeten, 2006; Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2007) and argued informal social control that leads to desistance from crime or when offenders acquire quality social bonds – such as a “good” marriage or a “good” job they discontinue law violations, whereas others continue offending. Those who do not experience these changes or have disruptive family or employment experiences are more likely to persist in offending. The stability of causative factors in the social environment at one age produces stability of behaviour; changes in those same factors produce changes in behaviour
67
through the life course primarily through their effects on informal social control. Hence age-specific rates for offenses increase rapidly during adolescence, peak in the late teenage and early adult years, and then decline thereafter.
2.5.3 Section summary
In my view, the recruitment and involvement of Samoan young people in gangs is a complicated process and a single theoretical explanation would exclude many potentially important stages and factors. A more complete picture of ethnic minority gangs can be most productively explored using diverse forms of information within a multivariate design. For this study, Samoan young people’s socialization experiences within the family, school, church and the neighbourhood community because each of these institutions will influence their development and decisions. Tracking their socialization experiences could also reveal other influential dimensions not reported in the literature like the role that Samoan cultural identity or fa’asamoa can play in explaining Samoan young people’s participation in youth gangs. However, as Elster (2007) points out, the use of integrated theory is not about just putting together concepts like poor family, school and church socialization experiences together and then deducing involvement in gangs. More importantly, it is about finding the links that connect specific factors in these various contexts that lead Samoan young people to delinquency and gangs.
Samoan young people’s relationships with their parents, school teachers, church people and neighbours do change, these rarely stay the same and change is almost inevitable. From their early childhood memories through to youth and later young adulthood the socialization experience in each of these institutional contexts is always changing and this is a very important consideration for this study. It is important to understand different parts of the socialization experience for Samoan young people and then link
68
them to explain things like why they join a gang. But it is also equally vital that these same parts are thought of as active stages of the Samoan young person’s life span as well. Socialization is a dynamic and constantly changing experience so any theory purporting to account for affiliations to youth gangs must be fluid and versatile and incorporate things like physical, social, emotional, and psychological maturation and subsequent changes in a Samoan young person’s life. One integrated theory, the developmental life course approach, forms this study’s theoretical foundation.
Given the importance of integrated theory to the study there are also areas that need to be addressed as well. I am interested in determining whether there is specific pattern or order that Samoan young people experience in the lead up to gang life. For example, Elliot et al., (1979 & 1985) integrated theory began with combining strain and control theories by arguing that when individuals experience an excessive amount of strain their control or the things that control them weakens. Then Elliot and his colleagues applied social learning principles like reinforcement and conditioning behaviour for good or bad behaviour. From there Elliot and his colleagues were able to merge all three theories into one by referring to the socialization experience as the common denominator. Would the study find a similar pattern or would it be different if it adopted a similar approach? Would it involve all three theories or just the combination of two theories? Would the study reveal a new theory and how would it fit-in with the integrated theory approach and existing classical and contemporary delinquency theories? What anti-gang strategies can be developed based on the integrated theory framework?
In terms of developmental life course theory, what about the changes to the cultural development of the Samoan young person? How much of a factor is culture for the development of Samoan young people and gangs? What would be the reasons that Samoan young people would leave the
69
gang? What changes have Samoan young people experienced in their socialization journey since childhood and were any of these turning points or critical events in the lead up to being involved in gangs? Moffitt (1993 & 2006) distinguishes delinquents as either adolescent-limited offenders (deviancy generally stops before adulthood) or life-course persistent offenders (deviancy continues onto adulthood and may be beyond). How relevant would this finding be for the study? How relevant would background structural factors be for the study? Overall the study is satisfied and relieved to locate and adopt integrated theory as its theoretical framework but given the unique features of this study (Samoan youth gangs) it is about making integrated theory fit the study’s objectives particularly the research design rather than the other way around.