Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21:297–311, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online
DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2011.564954
Historical Theories of Crime
and Delinquency
CHARITY SAMANTHA FITZGERALD
School of Social Welfare, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
After an exploration of two underlying themes (the tendency among
historians to explore crime in terms of punishment and the tension
between determinism and indeterminism) that permeate the
historical literature, this paper identifies and expounds on four
constellations of historical theories that explain crime and delinquency:
history of social science explanations, positivism, constructionism,
and post-structuralism. Case illustrations detail the
significance of social control and critical theories, both of the constructionist
constellation, in a historical context. The conclusion
touches on the difficult, yet necessary, task of integrating social
environments and human behaviors in historical explanations of
crime and delinquency.
KEYWORDS Historical theories, crime, delinquency, structuralism,
constructionism, post-structuralism
The literature that addresses historical theories of crime and delinquency is
not extensive. Indeed, several scholars have noted that the field of history
has largely ignored the issues of crime and delinquency (Rousseaux, 1996).
However, the depth of a few theories clearly compensates for the lack of
breadth. Benefiting from centuries of source data, the theories that historians
propound are colorful and textured, and they substantiate the underlying
claim that crime, criminal activity, and criminal law are contingent on a
multiplicity of factors (e.g., time, place, and culture). Drawing from the past,
scholars are encouraged to learn from the past and, hopefully, acquire a
richer understanding of crime and delinquency.
This literature review is organized according to the philosophical complexity
of the theories. It begins with an identification of the underlying
Address correspondence to Charity Samantha Fitzgerald, School of Social Welfare,
University of California at Berkeley, 120 Haviland Hall #7400, Berkeley, CA 94720-7400, USA.
E-mail: s-fitzgerald@berkeley.edu
297
298 C. S. Fitzgerald
tenets of historical theory related to crime and delinquency. After presenting
these commonalities, four overarching theoretical categories are presented.
The first category addresses historical explanations of crime and delinquency
identified in the field of criminology. The second category is labeled structuralism
and takes social, economic, and political factors to identify the multiple
causes of crime and delinquency. The third group of theories is labeled
constructionism to reflect the impact of criminal activity on the ever-changing
criminal law in the form of labeling, social control, and critical theories. The
fourth and final category is called post-structuralism that emphasizes the
importance of moving beyond structural explanations to an evaluation of
the exchanges of power by multiple actors. The literature review concludes
with implications for future inquiry.
METHODS
Given the paucity of literature, several means were used to gather, review,
and evaluate sources and began with historical databases (e.g., America:
History and Life, Historical Abstracts, and History Cooperative) using
such search terms as theories, crime, and delinquency. Google Scholar was
used to identify seminal texts that led to more sources. In addition to electronic
databases, the University of California-Berkeley catalog proved to be
useful.
Underlying Themes
Most historical theories of crime and delinquency reflect common themes.
First, historians often link crime with punishment rather than delinquency
by focusing their attention on the development of institutions (e.g., penitentiaries
and criminal law) to deal with crime rather than on the behaviors
of individuals. Given the limitations of source materials, historians have
been restricted by the availability of documentation and artifacts of the
past, including administrative data (McHale & Johnson, 1976). As a result,
historical theories often fail to capture criminal and delinquent activities that
are punished informally through what Rousseaux (1996) calls ‘‘the reluctant
litigators theory’’ wherein the community deals with deviant behaviors informally
without resorting to the criminal justice system. White-collar crime
is another example of limited documentation except when it is exposed in
the media (Knafla, 1996).
Second, the tension between determinism and indeterminism related to
a person’s ability to exercise free will permeates historical theories of crime
and delinquency. Given the predominance of the institutional perspective of
crime and punishment, most historical theories relate to determinism where
an individual’s behavior is shaped and defined by external factors (Schafer,
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 299
1977). Historians look for causality in structural factors; structuralists look for
causality in social, economic, and political factors whereas constructionists
focus on criminal law, and post-structuralists emphasize the internalization
of external norms. Paradoxically, historians study institutions that operate
on the premise of indeterminism or the tenet that people’s behaviors are the
results of choice or exercising free will (Schafer).
These two themes (crime and punishment, existence of free will) underlie
historical theories of crime and delinquency and often distinguish
historical theories of crime and delinquency from those emanating from
other social sciences. Based on these two themes, this review explores in
more detail the theories of crime and delinquency developed by other social
science disciplines.
History of Social Science Explanations
The first group of theories reflects a historical compilation of explanations
of crime and delinquency developed by other social science disciplines.
The trajectory of explanations ranges from the religious (Rothman, 2002)
and biological (Rafter, 1997) to the personal, social, and cultural (Wolfgang,
1979).
Religious explanations of crime and delinquency flourished in the eighteenth
century. According to Rothman (2002), most people did not define
crime or poverty as social problems but merely as part of the human existence
and a fall from grace. Criminal activities resulted from an individual’s
inherent moral depravity, and crime was not seen as a form of social disorganization.
Nevertheless, harsh and punitive measures were applied to
those who committed crimes, with little attention to the various levels of
gravity of criminal activities. In essence, all crime was sin, and all sin was
abhorred in God’s eyes. Criminal activities included those that were religious
in nature, such as blasphemy, and those committed against other persons.
Early white Americans regarded a crime committed against another person as
a crime committed against God and looked to the three institutions of family,
church, and community to address these sins. The family’s responsibility
included raising obedient children, and the church was called upon to ensure
that families fulfilled their responsibility. Finally, relations among community
members provided another mechanism to ensure that families fulfilled their
duties to raise respectful children.
The next body of theories that dominated criminology was biological
in nature. In her book Creating Born Criminals, Rafter (1997) describes the
development of eugenic criminology that contributed to a biological and a
hereditary understanding of criminality. At the end of the nineteenth century,
the belief that people are born criminals permeated criminology. This school
of thought rejected the notion that crime is a result of a person’s fall from
grace and proposed, instead, the idea that criminal tendencies are inherited
300 C. S. Fitzgerald
and could be recognized by a review of family history and a physical examination.
The chief proponent of this school was the Italian criminologist
Lombroso who noted that certain physical characteristics (e.g., large jaws and
long arms) and weak intelligence could identify born criminals. This genetic
school of thought emerged with the eugenics school that helped to create
a movement to engineer society by engaging in selective reproduction that,
in turn, lost its prominence by the turn of the century.
The biological school of thought lost favor with the rise of interest in the
ability of people to improve themselves. Based on the work of Healy, the
belief that one was born a criminal and thus doomed to be a criminal was
replaced with the idea that criminality was not intrinsic to one’s biological
composition (Wolfgang, 1979) but more related to a personality that could
be altered through the use of appropriate interventions (Platt, 1969).
According to Wolfgang (1979), personal explanations proceeded biological
explanations at the beginning of the twentieth century. Thomas was one
of many social scientists providing explanations of crime and delinquency
by focusing on the environment as both the location of criminal activity and
the source of criminal behavior. Using a social systems approach, Sutherland
developed the concept of differential association that suggests that contact
with other criminals can make someone into a criminal. Wolfgang also
noted the contributions of Shaw and McKay in the 1930s, who argued that
delinquency was the result of social disorganization wherein the internalized
values of the disorganized community place the individual at odds with
mainstream society.
Finally, in the late 1930s, the cultural studies of Sellin emerged to support
the notion that contradictory cultural norms could give rise to delinquency.
In a similar way, Cohen in 1955 argued that there is a subculture of criminal
activity that is diametrically opposed to mainstream society and, by 1967,
Wolfgang and Ferracuti were arguing that there is a subculture that condones
the use of violence.
This ebb and flow of various theoretical perspectives represents the
historical trends identified by social scientists seeking to explain the causes
of crime and delinquency. Based on this historical perspective, some of the
explanations of crime and delinquency reflect paradigmatic shifts whereas
others represent the efforts of scholars to build on one another’s work. This
review focuses on the personal, social, and cultural explanations of crime
and delinquency by identifying the attempts of historians to explain the
evolution of crime and delinquency.
Structuralism
Historical explanations that are classified as structuralist reflect the factors
in the social, economic, and political environments as a way to explain
crime and delinquency by emphasizing objectivity over subjectivity. There
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 301
are at least eight environmental factors that historians use to explain crime
and delinquency: (1) urbanization, (2) industrialization, (3) deindustrialization,
(4) demographic changes, (5) changes in residential composition,
(6) poverty, (7) war, and (8) behavior of law. The structuralist school does
not play a prominent role in the contemporary explanation of crime and
delinquency found in current historical research, but its contributions merit
a brief overview.
The destabilizing effects of urbanization are well documented in the
literature and include theories based on conservative politics, Marxism, classical
sociology, American sociology, and European cultural history (Johnson,
1995). According to Knafla (1996), urbanization results in a loss of community
and social order. Urban environments provide the social heterogeneity and
anonymity that make it easier for criminals to conceal themselves whereby
traditional regulatory institutions (e.g., the church and the communal networks)
lose their potency (McHale & Johnson, 1976). With anonymity and
the absence of traditional social controls, perceived opportunity may entice
potential criminals into committing criminal acts if they believe the benefits
outweigh the risks of capture and punishment. Using empirical evidence
from Germany, Johnson (1995) has argued against the urbanization explanation
by suggesting that material hardship, marginalized social status, and
values are more powerful determinants of criminal activity than urbanization.
Nevertheless, urbanization as a historical cause of crime and delinquency
continues to play a prominent role in the literature.
Related to urbanization, theories of industrialization feature changes in
the types of criminal activities committed, a ‘‘shift from violence to theft’’
(Rousseaux, 1996). Assuming that crime is a quest for social power, this
theory hypothesizes that the types of criminal activities endemic to a given
society are contingent upon that society’s stage of industrialization (Wolfgang,
1979). In a pre-industrialized society, honor and status are prized, and
the quest for social power through crime emphasizes violence against other
persons (Johnson, 1995). In an industrialized society, money and market
status are prized (Johnson), resulting in white-collar crime related to fraud
and violation of intellectual property rights (Wolfgang). In Chicago, Haller
(1970) explains the rise of underworld crime of professional thievery and
business and labor racketeering often connected to a person’s ethnic minority
status and the quest for social power. Underworld figures held important
civic positions, and they relied on clandestine patronage arrangements with
politicians and police to evade the criminal justice system. Though ‘‘civilized’’
crime tended to replace random violence, Rousseaux (1996) argues that there
is no evidence that the people who live in industrialized countries are less
aggressive toward one another than those who live in non-industrialized
countries. Moreover, Tonry (1999) argues that industrialization requires the
development of regulatory institutions (e.g., schools, factories, and the military)
that inculcate the importance of deference to authority and the need
302 C. S. Fitzgerald
for order. These regulatory institutions have the potential to counteract the
inclination to engage in white-collar crime.
In recent decades, the United States has experienced the converse of industrialization,
namely, de-industrialization. Historians and sociologists alike
(Wilson, 1996) believe that de-industrialization can also explain criminal
activities, especially related to the impact on family structure. Ousey (2000)
argues that the increase in female-headed households helps to explain the
increase in crime rates.
Other demographic factors that help to explain crime include changes
in cohort size of those committing crimes and changes in residential composition.
Wolfgang (1979) claims that the post–World War II baby boom
created a large, ‘‘crimogenic cohort.’’ According to this theory, the degree
of criminal activity reflects the number of people who are potential criminals.
Wolfgang also reviews changes in residential composition to explain
changing perceptions of crime. With the overthrow of restrictive covenants
in 1949, the composition of residential neighborhoods became more heterogeneous
as racial- and ethnic-minority families were able to move into
neighborhoods that had previously been restricted to white families. As
neighborhoods increased in heterogeneity, perceptions of crime increased
as well. Thus, not only migration from rural to urban environments but
migration within an urban environment have impacted perceptions of crime
throughout history.
Throughout history, the factors of poverty and war have also been
linked with crime rates. Poverty, it was assumed, provided an incentive for
criminal activity (Brauer, 1982). If poverty were to be reduced, crime rates
would fall concurrently. McHale and Johnson (1976) also expound on the
impoverishment of the working class that provided an incentive for criminal
activities. Capitalism, according to the theory, contributed to an increase in
poverty and, in turn, contributed to criminal activity. Historical theories differ
with respect to the implications of war on criminal activities. Some would
argue that in a time of extreme social, economic, and political upheaval
lawlessness would abound, and rational people would take advantage of
this opportunity to engage in criminal activity for personal gain (Knafla,
1996). Others, like Rousseaux (1996), argue that the relationship between
war and crime is ambiguous.
The last structuralist factor to explain crime and delinquency relates to
the behavior of the law (Reidel & Welsh, 2008). It focuses on criminal law
rather than criminals and criminal activities. Simply stated, the behavior of
the law suggests that the number of laws regulating criminal activities is
positively correlated with the number of criminal activities recorded (e.g.,
the more laws, the more documentation of crime). Though this theory has
its own logic, there has been little historical evidence to support it.
In sum, structuralist historical theories suggest that certain factors (e.g.,
urbanization, industrialization, deindustrialization, population changes, resi-
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 303
dential pattern changes, poverty, war, and quantity of laws) help to explain
criminal activities. In contrast, the constructionist theories question the very
basis of structuralist theories by deconstructing the relationship between
criminal activity and criminal law.
Constructionism
According to constructionist theories, crime is in the eyes of the beholder,
and the beholder is the law. Though crime is deviant, not all deviance is
crime. Who defines criminal activity? Constructionists review the changes in
criminal law throughout history to suggest that definitions of crime fluctuate
throughout time, noting that acts throughout time have been criminalized,
decriminalized, and recriminalized (Friedman, 1993). Abortion is an example
of an activity that was normative, then criminalized, and subsequently
decriminalized (Reagan, 1997). Constructionist theories focus on criminals
and criminal activities in terms of criminal law and all parties involved in
the criminal justice system (Rousseaux, 1996). Society determines deviancy.
When deviancy is perceived to threaten the state, sanctions against deviant
behavior become codified into law (Scarpitti & Nielsen, 1999). Thus, laws that
regulate criminal activities represent society’s strongest response to deviant
behaviors. Hence, constructionists believe that all crime is inherently political
(Friedman, 1993). Laws, in a sense, create crime.
This section presents three categories of constructionist theories (e.g.,
labeling theory, social control theory, and critical theory). Labeling theory
suggests that criminal law serves to reify middle-class values and, as
a byproduct, stratifies society on the basis of conformity to those values. In
contrast, social control theory argues that criminal law purposively stratifies
and marginalizes certain populations for social, economic, and political elites
to maintain ‘‘law and order.’’ Finally, critical theory provides a counterweight
to social control theory to diffuse power and to acknowledge the centrality
of oppressed populations. The three categories are not mutually exclusive
because they blend into each other. The distinctions among the three are
subtle. Historians have presented numerous case studies through the lens
of constructionism but rarely explicate the theories through which they are
pursuing their research.
LABELING THEORY
Within the context of constructionist theories, labeling theory assumes a
benevolent, or at least neutral, stance toward the criminal lawmaking process.
Labeling theory proposes that criminal lawmaking results from a pluralistic
process in which different groups battle in the legislative arena to codify
their values (Scarpitti & Nielsen, 1999). Both Hagan’s (1980) conception of
moral functionalism and Scarpitti and Nielsen’s (1999) conception of value
304 C. S. Fitzgerald
consensus suggest that laws reflect commonly held values that are believed to
uphold public welfare. The values that are enshrined in law are those of the
pluralistic majority. According to moral functionalism and value consensus,
laws also are a social contract whereby people agree to concede a degree
of freedom and to abide by the laws in exchange for the common good.
As norms may not be self-enforcing in a pluralistic society (Friedman, 1993),
laws ensure that those who do not abide by codified values are subject to
punishment.
To expand the usefulness of labeling theory, Pfohl (1985) uses a historical
lens to address deviance (in addition to crime) to identify the battle
to establish normative behavior whereby the winner can claim normative
status and the loser is perceived to exist outside the boundaries of so-called
proper society. The winners have the privilege of defining the losers. As
such, deviants are labeled because they threaten the prevailing notion of the
common good.
The distinction between labeling theory and social control theory is
subtle. Labeling theory is based on the benevolent and pluralistic complexities
of the lawmaking process. However, lawmaking does not occur
in an arena of balanced power positions. It is difficult (if not impossible) to
find historical case studies that explicitly support labeling theory given the
care with which historians consider social, economic, political, and cultural
contexts. Historians, thus, are more likely to implicitly identify with social
control theory that situates the lawmaking process squarely in an imbalance
of power relations.
SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY
Social control theory appears to be the most developed body of theory
that historians have used to explain crime and delinquency. With its roots
in a Marxist tradition, it posits that criminal law is a tool used by social,
economic, and political elites to maintain and perpetuate social, economic,
and political order to support their interests (Hagan, 1980). Rothman (2002)
contends that concomitant with urbanization and industrialization, the population
exploded, cities grew, and enlightenment ideas spread where penal
codes replaced traditional methods of social control (i.e., family, church, and
community). The key to social control theory is the use of law to coerce human
behavior. Though elites could maintain social, economic, and political
order through physical restraint, a more effective approach, according to
social control theory, is control through the legislative process (Turk as cited
in Reidel & Welsh, 2008). The use of democratic processes gives laws their
moral credibility and justification (Turk as cited in Reidel & Welsh).
In essence, social control theory views crime as political and linked to
the lawmaking process. Social control theory acknowledges that pluralism
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 305
is an intrinsic part of democratic lawmaking and that conflict, not harmony,
is a building block of criminal law (Muraskin, 1976). Social control theory
acknowledges that lawmaking does not emerge in a vacuum but rather is
embedded in power relations. Hence, those with access to power are likely to
shape the law to suit their interests and to maintain their privileged positions
(Muraskin) and to squelch the imposition of laws that are not conducive to
their interests, such as those that prosecute white-collar crime or perceived
immoral acts that cut across classes like extramarital affairs (Friedman, 1993).
Nevertheless, as long as the populace maintains the perception that the law
is morally justified, social order is maintained and authorities retain power
(Turk as cited in Reidel & Welsh, 2008). Crime is a status given to those who
resist norms (Turk as cited in Reidel & Welsh). Criminal laws serve as a tool
to deal with norm violators without resorting to what the populace perceives
as unjustifiable physical force.
The elites, defined broadly to include persons belonging to the middleclass,
have had vested interests in shaping criminal law. The middle class
was interested in the formation of criminal law, particularly at the turn of the
twentieth century, out of a sense of class uneasiness (Muraskin, 1976). The
perceived decline of order and morality had a special signification for this
group (Muraskin). The construction of social problems required new kinds
of experts (Mayer, 1983), roles that middle-class members (Platt, 1969), were
eager to fill. Muraskin cautions against the historical interpretation of social
control purely to support socioeconomic interests. He argues that ideology
also plays an important role. Muraskin believes that ideology genuinely
motivated some middle-class reformers to codify middle-class values into
new laws. Ideas, states Muraskin, may have material contexts, but they may
also have idealistic aims.
There are several historical accounts that build upon social control
theory. Regan’s (1997) When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine,
and Law in the United States, 1867–1973 emphasizes the criminalization of
abortion as a means to enforce traditional norms of womanhood and motherhood.
In The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New
Republic, Rothman (2002) argues that the underlying purpose of asylums was
not the rehabilitation of individuals but rather an effort to maintain social
order. Musto (1973) argues that the thrust to create drug control policies
emanated from social anxiety among white people about the perceived threat
posed by racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., African-Americans and Chinese
immigrants) in The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. Finally,
Platt’s (1969) chronicle of the child-saving movement in The Child Savers:
The Invention of Delinquency reflects middle-class efforts to control the lives
of poor, immigrant youths vis-à-vis juvenile delinquent status. Platt’s study
provides an excellent example of a historian’s use of social control theory
and provides the focus for the next section.
306 C. S. Fitzgerald
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Platt’s (1969) groundbreaking history moved beyond the structuralist tradition
to argue that delinquency and deviance are ‘‘ascriptive’’ labels by
tracing the constructions of laws that demarcate the bounds of juvenile
delinquency. Child saving was a movement at the turn of the twentieth
century led by middle-class, well-educated reformers who viewed urban
life as a breeding ground of moral decay that made children susceptible to
delinquency. Philanthropic zeal and religious optimism permeated the vision
of these reformers. The optimism was based on the therapeutic interventions
offered by doctors to reform children in an era of declining support for
social Darwinism. These reformers wanted to strike at the root of crime by
inculcating children, especially immigrant and poor children, with white,
middle-class values (e.g., the primacy of the nuclear family and the role
of women in the home). These reformers sought to prove that delinquents
could be transformed into law-abiding citizens.
Reformers took children who had committed delinquent activities (and
those who exhibited the potential to commit delinquent activities) from
their homes and placed them in reformatories with the alleged goal of
providing ‘‘normal homes’’ for underprivileged children. The child savers
defined juvenile delinquent activities as drinking, roaming the streets, staying
out late at night, and begging. In short, delinquent activities were those
in which poor, immigrant children were likely to engage. Defining these
activities as delinquent gave members of mainstream/dominant society a
window of surveillance into the lives of poor, immigrant families.
The child savers placed juvenile delinquents in reformatories to provide
moral training, education, and job training activities. Built in the countryside,
it was believed that reformatories could counteract the deleterious effects of
growing up in an improper home or in an unsuitable environment. Children
were often confined in these reformatories for indeterminate sentences and
without due process. Although ostensibly defined to reform, they functioned
as institutions of restraint and control designed to intimidate and to control
poor, immigrant families.
Platt’s account of the child-saving movement effectively demonstrates
how commonly perceived criminal activities can be socially deconstructed
by illustrating the ways that privileged groups can manipulate the law to
impose their worldview on others and promote their interests. In the case
of the child-saving movement, reformers were able to codify white, middleclass
values as normative and develop new professions to deal with juvenile
delinquents. Women in particular benefited from the creation of new
occupations as child saving was perceived as a natural extension of the
domestic sphere. Despite the cogency of Platt’s account, his argument does
not take into account the humanitarian interests that may have motivated
some of the reformers in the child-saving movement. Nevertheless, this
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 307
history opened the door into a new line of inquiry in the study of crime
and delinquency.
CRITICAL THEORY
The final category of constructionist theory is critical theory that serves
as a bridge between social control theory and post-structuralist theory. In
contrast to the top-down approach of social control theory, critical theory
embraces reciprocity by focusing on the capacities of marginalized groups to
use deviance as a form of resistance. Like the other constructionist theories,
critical theory claims that those in power are able to define deviance as a
way to de-politicize acts of resistance and to support the power of elites.
Departing from other constructionist groups, critical theory suggests that
social control is not necessarily a top-down affair but can result from the
internalization of elite-sanctioned norms by engaging the will of oppressed
persons. The dual emphasis on power and engagement of the will of the
oppressed can be seen in the works of historian Thompson, who sought to
reveal the simplistic dichotomies of social control theory.
E.P. THOMPSON AND CRITICAL THEORY
E.P. Thompson’s works (e.g., The Making of the English Working Class [1964];
Customs in Common: Studies in Traditional Popular Culture [1991]; and
Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act [1975]) attempt to build
on the ‘‘historically impoverished’’ Marxist underpinnings of social control
theory (Eastwood, 2000, p. 648). In Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the
Black Act, Thompson chronicles the legislation of the Black Act that sought
to protect property by using the threat of capital punishment. The act was
used by the ‘‘propertied’’ against the ‘‘landless’’ as a legislative weapon in
the arsenal of social control. Though the act could be used as a means of
social control, it actually limited the power of the elites based on its universal
applicability; in essence, it controlled relations between social classes while
also applying to members of all social classes.
Thompson also moves beyond social control theory by recognizing the
power of the landless, who were not mystified by the law and did not
assume that it was necessarily justified and legitimate. As a result, Thompson
celebrates the working class’s small acts of deviance that resisted the
implementation of the Black Act. As Eastwood (2000) observes, ‘‘Resistance
to enclosure, hostility to the game laws, passionate commitment to popular
amusement in the face of polite reformers, rough music, arson, and crimes
of anonymity were seen by Thompson as offering a rich resource enabling
plebeian society to constrain patrician power’’ (p. 652).
Though Thompson’s works transcend the staunch Marxist underpinnings
of social control theory, social class still remains his most salient factor
in determining how laws are formed and applied to the landless. For him,
308 C. S. Fitzgerald
criminals and criminal activities are tightly intertwined with class-related
factors as they relate to the law. In contrast, the next theoretical school
argues that power extends beyond class constructs.
POST-STRUCTURALISM
The seminal text in historical post-structuralist theories of crime and delinquency
is Foucault’s (1975/1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. His work focuses on the concept of power that he defines as diffuse
and productive. According to O’Brien’s (1989) reading of Foucault, power
can create its own legitimation. To unearth the diffusion of power and its
constructive potency, Foucault proposes genealogy that can detect shifts
in power-knowledge regimes wherein one power-knowledge regime can
displace another as it relates to crime (Foucault). By extending critical theory,
Foucault argues that power is not a matter of domination but rather a
matter of circulation. Power is not housed solely in political and economic
institutions; it is also exercised in everyday acts. Moreover, power is not
confined to mere acts; it also shapes behavior. It reaches into the innermost
psyche to control the body. In addition, power cannot be reduced only
to class and economic interests. Though it may serve class and economic
interests, power is interwoven and interconnected (O’Brien), and it exists
in multiple locations of power (O’Brien). Thus, Foucault shuns theoretical
explanations that rely solely on class struggle or legislative processes but
looks instead to the importance of feelings, love, conscience, and instinct
(Hunt, 1989). He aims to show that what constructionist theories take as
monolithic and homogeneous is actually heterogeneous (Hunt).
To apply his genealogy of power-knowledge to crime and punishment,
Foucault analyzes prisons in France at the end of the eighteenth century and
notes the shift from punishing the crime to punishing the criminal. To punish
the criminal, a bevy of officials, ranging from judges to predecessors of social
work, carefully examined the biography of the individual. This examination
was an exercise of power; it permitted the acquisition of knowledge, it permitted
surveillance, it deprived persons of the fullness of their humanity and
reduced them to classifiable entities, and it generated a set of comparative
data. The prison introduced the dichotomy between the mind and the body,
and its goal was to discipline the body (O’Brien). The rise of the prison
grew concurrently with the rise of schools and factories. To substantiate his
thesis, Foucault examines state documents as well as family letters, the latter
to deny the centrality of the state (O’Brien).
FUTURE INQUIRY
In 1978, O’Brien drew attention to the neglect of theories of crime and
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 309
delinquency by historians. She challenged her colleagues to explore the
‘‘territory yet to be discovered’’ (p. 518). Though crime and delinquency
remain largely unexplored areas in the field of history, Foucault’s seminal
work on prisons seems to represent the zenith of historians’ interest in
crime and delinquency. Even though sociology dominates the academic
discussion of crime and delinquency, it has acknowledged the value that
historical inquiry brings to a discussion of crime and delinquency and the
potential contribution of history to enriching an understanding of crime and
delinquency theories (Ousey, 2000). Historical inquiry promotes reflection
on what has been taken for granted and can propel studies of crime and
delinquency toward new directions in the future (Courtwright, 2004).
Foucault provides a promising line of inquiry that can dissolve the
dichotomies between determinism and indeterminism to acknowledge other
factors that can explain the causes of crime and delinquency. Fass (2003)
argues that social historians have succeeded in recent years to explain the
behavioral tendencies of social groups, and cultural historians have succeeded
in framing the daily lives of ordinary people and the exercise of
individual choice. She notes that both are important as social history frames
the big picture, and cultural history sheds light on the experiences of individuals.
Thus, historians, such as social workers, strive to understand the
deeply intertwined relationships among and between social environments
and human behaviors.
CONCLUSION
The distinguishing factor of each identified school (i.e., history of social
science explanations, structuralism, constructionism, and post-structuralism)
is the locus of power. In the synthesis of explanations throughout history,
social science academics and researchers have the power to explain crime
and delinquency drawing from religion, biology, psychology, sociology, and
anthropology. In the case of structuralism, explanatory power is ascribed
to external factors (e.g., urbanization, industrialization, deindustrialization,
population changes, residential pattern changes, poverty, war, and quantity
of laws). Constructionism locates power in the ability to label and to codify.
According to this school of thought, those with power are privileged to define
and, thus, to explain crime and delinquency. Finally, post-structuralism
splinters power into quotidian exchanges that take place over time to define
and to redefine crime vis-à-vis normality. Progressing through the schools
of thought, explanatory power becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint. It
becomes increasingly difficult to define terms such as ‘‘crime’’ and ‘‘criminal’’
as it is recognized that these terms are not self-evident; rather, these
terms are nested in a vast web of power relations that implicate all human
behaviors and all people. The suggested direction for future inquiry (e.g.,
310 C. S. Fitzgerald
the juxtaposition of social and cultural history) further builds on the tradition
of continuing to splinter power by locating power in social environments,
human behaviors, and the mutually reinforcing relationship between them.
REFERENCES
Brauer, C. M. (1982). Kennedy, Johnson, and the War on Poverty. The Journal of
American History, 69(1), 98–119.
Courtwright, D. T. (2004). Drug wars: Policy hots and historical cools. Bulletin of
the History of Medicine, 78(2), 440–450.
Eastwood, D. (2000). History, politics and reputation: E. P. Thompson reconsidered.
History, 85(280), 634–654.
Fass, P. (2003). Cultural history/social history: Some reflections on a continuing
dialogue. Journal of Social History, 37(1), 39–46.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan,
Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon (Original work published 1975).
Friedman, L. M. (1993). Crime and punishment in American history. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Hagan, J. (1980). The legislation of crime and delinquency: A review of theory,
method, and research. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 603–628.
Haller, M. H. (1970). Urban crime and criminal justice: The Chicago case. The Journal
of American History, 57(3), 619–635.
Hunt, L. (1989). Introduction: History, culture, and text. In L. Hunt (Ed.), The new
cultural history (pp. 1–24). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Johnson, E. A. (1995). Urbanization and crime: Germany, 1871–1914. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Knafla, L. A. (1996). Structure, conjuncture, and event in the historiography of
modern criminal justice history. In C. Emsley & L. A. Knafla (Eds.), Crime history
and histories of crime: Studies in the historiography of crime and criminal
justice in modern history (pp. 33–44). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Mayer, J., Cohen, S., & Scull A. T. (Eds.). (1983). Social control and the state (pp.
17–38). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
McHale, V. E., & Johnson, E. A. (1976). Urbanization, industrialization, and crime in
imperial Germany: Part I. Social Science History, 1(1), 45–78.
Muraskin, W. A. (1976). Review: The social-control theory in American history: A
critique. Journal of Social History, 9(4), 559–569.
Musto, D. (1973). The American disease: Origins of narcotic control. New Haven,
CT: Yale.
O’Brien, P. (1978). Crime and punishment as historical problem. Journal of Social
History, 11(4), 508–520.
O’Brien, P. (1989). Michel Foucault’s history of culture. In L. Hunt (Ed.), The new
cultural history (pp. 25–46). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Ousey, G. C. (2000). Deindustrialization, female-headed families, and black and
white juvenile homicide rates, 1970–1990. Sociological Inquiry, 70(4), 391–419.
Pfohl, S. J. (1985). Images of deviance and social control: A sociological history. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Historical Theories of Crime and Delinquency 311
Platt, A. (1969). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.
Rafter, N. H. (1997). Creating born criminals. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
Regan, L. J. (1997). When abortion was a crime: Women, medicine, and law in the
United States, 1867–1973. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Reidel, M., & Welsh, W. (2008). Criminal violence: Patterns, causes, and prevention
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford.
Rothman, D. J. (2002). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the
New Republic (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rousseaux, X. (1996). From medieval cities to national states, 1350–1850: The historiography
of crime and criminal justice in Europe. In C. Emsley & L. A.
Knafla (Eds.), Crime history and histories of crime: Studies in the historiography
of crime and criminal justice in modern history (pp. 3–32). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Scarpitti, F. R., & Nielsen, A. L. (1999). Crime and criminals: Contemporary and
classic readings. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Schafer, S. (1977). The problem of free will in criminology. In S. F. Landau & L. Sebba
(Eds.), Criminology in perspective: Essays in honor of Israel Drapkin (pp. 17–
26). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Thompson, E. P. (1964). The making of the English working class. New York, NY:
Pantheon.
Thompson, E. P. (1975). Whigs and hunters: The origin of the Black Act. New York,
NY: Pantheon.
Thompson, E. P. (1991). Customs in common: Studies in traditional popular culture.
New York, NY: New Press.
Tonry, M. (1999). Why are US incarceration rates so high? Crime & Delinquency,
45(4), 419–437.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New
York, NY: Knopf.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1979). Real and perceived changes of crime and punishment. In
S. F. Landau & L. Sebba (Eds.), Criminology in perspective: Essays in honor of
Israel Drapkin (pp. 27–38). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Copyright of Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.