LECTURE 3 CONTEMPORARY CRIME THEORY

**There are three theoretical perspectives used to study
crime: social structural, social process, and critical.**
Each of these perspectives is rooted in the positivist
tradition. This means that they are based on the premise
**that the causes of criminality are located outside of the
offender.**
▪ The exact causes of criminality vary according to each
perspective. For instance, theories belonging to the social
structural perspective locate the causes of criminality to the
way society is structured and people’s positions within these
structures. Theories within social process perspectives
attributes the causes of criminality to learning and lack of
social control — to socialization in a way.

Each of the three perspectives has too many different
theories associated with it to discuss in Lecture 3 (see the
contemporary theories handout on Blackboard which only
features a small selection). To still give you a sense of what
a theory in each perspective looks like, **I have selected one
theory of each approach and applied it to a present-day
case study.**
▪ Lastly, the title of this lecture “contemporary theories of
crime” is a somewhat misleading term in the context of
digital or cyber crime. **The majority of sociological
criminological theories were developed in what we call
“the pre-web/pre-social web era” (this will be discussed
in more detail in Lecture 4.**

▪While most criminological theories were developed pre-digitalization or pre-social web era, this can work in our advantage.

▪ Applying such theories to a crime case studies that involves digital technology such as the internet allows us to identify methodological limitations. It also allows us to discuss which theories of crime or theoretical perspectives continue to be relevant in the global digital era without any major adjustments, which require a more thorough revisioning, and which are past their sell-by date.

▪ Let us start with the social structural perspectives of crime. Social structure theories are not intended to imply that only poor people commit crimes, nor do they mean that people located in the lower levels of the social structure have no choices or are devoid of responsibility for misconduct. ▪ The theories do imply that crime is primarily a lower class problem. They point to flaws within the social structure that increase the odds of a person within that social stratum resorting to illegal behavior. ▪ The social structural perspective is frequently used to explain the disproportionate involvement of marginalized groups in crime or the effect of unemployment on crime rates.

▪ Social structure theories provide the purest sociological
explanations of crime and delinquency as they link the key
troubles of individuals to the social structural origins of these
difficulties.
▪ Crime is a product of the characteristics of society.
Structural features that contribute to poverty, unemployment,
poor education, and racism (note: interestingly not sexism)
are viewed as indirect or root causes of high crime rates
among members of socially deprived groups.
▪ People in the lower strata of society are overrepresented in
certain crime data because of flaws in how society is
structured.

▪ Note: Most structural theories of crime are US-centric,
which complicates their cross-cultural relevance (also in
digital environments which lacks distinct physical and
nationalist boundaries).
▪ For instance, Robert Merton’s strain theory places the
American Dream central. The first flaw related to the
American Dream suggests that society places too much
cultural emphasis on monetary wealth. The second flaw are
the institutionalized barriers which prevent people in the
lower strata of society access to socially approved means
(education or employment opportunities) to achieve this
Dream.

▪ We will use an updated version of Robert Merton’s (1938)
strain theory, Robert Agnew’s general strain theory (1992),
to examine the case study called #gamergate.
▪ Next, let us discuss the events that turned sexism,
misogyny, harassment, and stalking in online gaming
communities into worldwide news in 2014.

▪ In 2012, Anita Sarkeesian launched the “Feminist Frequency”
video series. In the series, she critiques portrayals of women
in (online) video games.
▪ For instance, in a 2017 episode, Sarkeesian discusses how
female sidekicks and companions in games: “\[are\] designed
to function as glorified gatekeepers, helpless burdens, and
ego boosters, a pattern that works to reinforce oppressive
notions about women as the ones in need of protection and
men as the ones in control \[...\].”

▪ Anita Sarkeesian’s “Feminist Frequency” video series had
turned her into an unpopular figure in some online gaming
circles.
▪ In 2014, computer programmer, Eron G., broke up with his
partner, game developer Zoe Q. Bitter about the break-up,
Eron G. posted on social media that his ex had cheated on him
with a writer for the influential gaming website “Kotaku”. Some
members of the online gaming community condemned the
alleged affair and accused Zoe Q. of comprising the ethics of
gaming journalism.
▪ Anita Sarkeesian’s unpopularity reached new heights when, in
2014, she voiced her support for game developer Zoe Q. This
marked the start of years of online an offline harassment,
stalking, and bomb and death threats: #gamergate.

▪ To understand the motivations of some online gamers involved in the harassment, stalking, and bomb and death threaths against Anita Sarkeesian, we must understand the role online gaming communities play in the lives of these individuals.

▪ For instance: ▪ 1. What threat does Anita Sarkeesian pose to these individuals (strain does she cause) either in an offline or online context.

▪ 2. Is the behavior (norm violations) of these individuals the result of sexist ideologies carried over from the offline world into the online world or of peer pressure from fellow gamers that is displayed in the online gaming world only?

▪ **Food for thought**: #Gamergate will help us think about the
role of digital technology in crime throughout the remainder
of the semester.
▪ If a person uses social media, the internet, or a smartphone
to engage in criminal behavior, to **what degree is behavior
related to factors that exist in the cyber realm only
(such as the anonymity factor)?**
▪ Or are digital technologies only facilitators that serve a
digital/cyber purpose to an offline/physical end, such as
financial gain? To explore this question more in-depth, in
Lecture 4, we will discuss cyber typologies.

▪ The community is probably the most important element of
society. Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies considered
“community” (Gemeinschaft) a vital part of human existence,
because it provides social cohesion. Gemeinschaft
(community) is maintained by traditional rules and an overall
sense of solidarity.
▪ Without Gemeinschaft (community) holding people together,
society (Gesellschaft) would become a lifeless aggregate of
individuals, only motivated by their self-interest. The strength
of online communities depends **on “traditional” rules and
an overall sense of solidarity.**
▪ **Why do you think it is important to see the online
community as a “real community”?**

▪ Positivism locates the causes of criminality outside of the
offender, for instance, the structure of society.
▪ In #gamergate, the online hate campaign and death threats
aimed at Sarkeesian and others who supported Zoe Q. could
be explained as the result of socialization. Such an
explanation consider sexism and misogyny in online gaming
communities the product of ideologies some online gaming
members have internalized (offline). These ideologies are
brought with them once they enter the virtual gaming world
and are not a consequence of being a part of an online
gaming community (although they could be reinforced in
these communities).

▪ One could also argue that Sarkeesian’s criticism of video
games is perceived by some online gamers as an attack on
the online gaming community. If that is the case, **we must
understand how the online gaming community is
experienced by these members (the function it serves).**
▪ Can today’s online communities be considered extensions of
offline communities? Are social networks/interactions in
these environments experienced akin to those in offline
communities? If so, perhaps any perceived threat to its
stability (as symbolized by Anita Sarkeesian) could lead to
retaliatory actions (such as norm violations).

**▪ Can online communities be considered “communities”?**

▪ For a collection of people to become a community, **a social
structure must be in place **(norms and values).
Furthermore, for a community to remain stable, its members
**need to feel a sense of belonging and collectivity** (social
structures establish attachment to the community).
▪ Traditionally, a community had to be tied to a physical
location since daily interactions were expected to take place
within a self-contained geographical area. However, because
of the nature of today’s digital technologies, communities are
no longer bound to self-contained physical geographical
areas.

▪ People compensate for weak social ties in their direct
physical surrounding with stronger (digital) social networks
outside of that surrounding.

\