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.