Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

Normative Conflict: The Root Cause of Crime in Society

At the societal level, crime is rooted in normative conflict. For Sutherland, primitive, undifferentiated societies are characterized by harmony, solidarity, and consensus over basic values and beliefs. Such societies have little conflict over appropriate behaviors and, consequently, little crime. With the industrial revolution, however, societies developed advanced divisions of labor, market economies, and a breakdown in consensus. Such societies become segmented into groups that conflict over interests, values, and behavior patterns. These societies are characterized by specialization rather than similarity, coercion rather than harmony, conflict rather than consensus. They tend to have high rates of crime. Sutherland hypothesized that high crime rates are associated with normative conflict, which he defined as a society segmented into groups that conflict over the appropriateness of the law: some groups define the law as a set of rules to be followed under all circumstances, while others define the law as a set of rules to be violated under certain circumstances. Therefore, when normative conflict is absent in a society, crime rates will be low; when normative conflict is high, societal crime rates will be high. In this way, crime is ultimately rooted in normative conflict, according to Sutherland and Donald Cressey.

Differential Association Process: Explanation of Individual Criminal Acts

At the level of the individual, the process of differential association provides a social psychological [Page 899]explanation of how normative conflict in society translates into individual criminal acts. Accordingly, criminal behavior is learned in a process of communication in intimate groups. The content of learning includes two important elements. First are the requisite skills and techniques for committing crime, which can range from complicated, specialized skills of computer fraud, insider trading, and confidence games, to the simple, readily available skills of assault, purse snatching, and drunk driving. Such techniques are necessary but insufficient to produce crime. Second are definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime, which consist of motives, verbalizations, or rationalizations that make crime justified or unjustified, and include Gresham Sykes and David Matza's techniques of neutralization. For example, definitions favorable to income tax fraud include “Everyone cheats on their taxes” and “The government has no right to tax its citizens.” Definitions favorable to drunk driving include “I can drive fine after a few beers” and “I only have a couple of miles to drive home.” Definitions favorable to violence include “If your manhood is threatened, you have to fight back” and “To maintain respect, you can never back down from a fight.”

...