UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.1 Free with a free account
Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance: Overview and Key Features
Criminology · Chapter 7: Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceSection 7.1 · lesson 22 of 91video coming soon
← Comparative Analysis of Positivist and Classical Approaches to CrimeNext lesson: Economic, Racial, and Gender Disparities and Their Impact on Crime →
In this lesson
Why crime rates belong to social arrangements, not only to individuals.
- Distinguish sociological from individual explanations of crime.
- Describe the three families of sociological theory.
- Identify the level of explanation a claim operates at.
- Explain the contributions of Durkheim and the Chicago School.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,646 words). Read along, or search it.
Lesson Preview
From Individuals to Whole Places
This lesson opens a new chapter, and with it, a new way of explaining crime. Chapter six looked inside the individual, at choice, traits, biology, and psychology. Sociological theory starts somewhere else entirely. It asks why whole places and groups have the crime rates they do. That's the question Priya's research group brings to this neighborhood. You'll learn what separates a sociological explanation from an individual one, and meet the three families of sociological theory, with the question each one asks. You'll practice identifying the level at which a claim operates. That skill sounds technical, but it prevents the most common mistake in this field. Finally, we introduce two foundations of the tradition: Emile Durkheim, and the Chicago School. Keep one question in mind throughout: what exactly is being explained?
Core Premise
Crime Rates Reflect Social Arrangements
The sociological premise is simple to state, and easy to underestimate: crime rates are properties of social arrangements. In other words, a rate reflects how a community or a society is structured. It isn't just the sum of many separate individual decisions. On this premise, two questions come apart. Why does this place have a high or low rate of offending? And why does a specific person within this place offend? They sound similar, but they're genuinely different questions. Each one requires different evidence, and different theories, to answer. A great theory of individual offending can still leave the rate question untouched, and the reverse is also true.
Key Shift
The Environment Becomes the Thing Explained
This premise marks a genuine turn, not a minor addition to chapter six. Rational choice, trait, biological, and psychological theories all explain variation between individuals. They ask why this person offends and that one doesn't. To do that, they hold the surrounding environment roughly constant. Sociological theory flips the focus. It treats the environment itself as the thing to be explained, and its core question is why this environment produces the aggregate rate it does. Notice the key phrase: regardless of which individuals happen to live there at a given moment. Both questions are legitimate, and both are needed for a complete picture. But answering one doesn't answer the other, and this chapter keeps that distinction in view.
Four Levels
Individual, Situational, Community, Societal Explanations
Sociological criminology distinguishes four levels of explanation, and this street can show all four. At the individual level, we ask why a specific person offends and another doesn't. At the situational level, we ask why one setting, like this corner market, sees more incidents than another. At the community level, we ask why one neighborhood has a higher rate than another. At the societal level, we ask why one society's overall rate differs from another's. Each level has its own typical error. Applying an individual finding to an entire group is one; applying a setting pattern to a person, regardless of setting, is another. So is applying a neighborhood pattern directly to one resident, or a societal pattern directly to one community. So here's the single lesson: moving a finding between levels without warrant is the most common methodological error this chapter addresses.
Common Mistake
Ecological and Individualistic Fallacies
Subchapter six point three introduced the ecological fallacy: the error of applying a group-level finding to an individual. Its opposite is the individualistic fallacy: generalizing from individuals to a whole group. Both are cases of a more general error, moving between levels without warrant. A finding at one level doesn't automatically transfer to another. So much of this chapter's methodological care is about alignment: the level of the claim should match the level of the evidence behind it.
Quick Check
Burglars Interviewed, Districts Judged
Try a case. Interviews with a few repeat burglars find that most grew up poor, so a report concludes the city's poorest districts must have the highest burglary rates. What went wrong? Pause, and decide. A pattern among a few individuals was generalized to whole districts. That's the individualistic fallacy, and the conclusion doesn't follow.
Three Families
Structure, Process, and Conflict Theories
Back at the research office, Priya maps sociological criminology into three families, each asking a distinct question. Social structure theories ask how a person's position in the social order produces offending. They look at poverty, opportunity, and social position, at the community and societal levels. Their policy implication is to address structural conditions, such as concentrated disadvantage. Social process theories ask how individuals become offenders through interaction. They study learning, bonding, and labeling, at the individual and situational levels. Their policies target bonds, associations, and how institutions respond. Social conflict theories ask a different question: not why people offend, but who holds the power to define conduct as criminal, and in whose interest that definition operates. Their unit of analysis is the definition of criminal law itself. This third family is only named here; chapter eight develops it fully.
Deviance
Norms Are Relative to Context
Subchapter one point one defined deviance as conduct that departs from a group's norms, whether or not any law addresses it. Sociology adds the relativity of norms: they're relative to group, time, and place. One community may treat an act as a violation while another doesn't, and the same community may judge it differently in another era. This relativity isn't a weakness in the concept; it's the point. Deviance is defined by its normative context, not by a fixed property of the act. A second insight matters even more for this chapter: deviance is produced by the response to an act, as much as by the act itself. Picture a young person, Tyler, taking a neighbor's bike without permission.
Example Response
Tyler's Family Handles It at Home
First, his family might handle it informally, at home in the kitchen.
Example Response
The School Uses Discipline
Or a school might use its disciplinary process.
Example Response
Juvenile Justice Processing Records the Act
Or the case might go to formal juvenile justice processing. The act never changes, but whether it's officially recorded, and what follows, does. This insight is developed later, in subchapter seven point six, into labeling and secondary deviance theory.
Foundations
Durkheim on Normal Crime and Anomie
The sociologist Emile Durkheim supplied several foundational ideas. The first is the normality of crime: some level of crime is a normal, even necessary, feature of any society. That sounds surprising, so consider his reasoning. The boundaries of acceptable conduct are only known when someone crosses them. Punishing an offender publicly, as in an open courtroom, reaffirms for everyone else exactly where the line sits. This is the boundary-maintaining function of punishment. Durkheim also introduced anomie, a state of normlessness. It arises when rapid social change outpaces a society's ability to keep shared norms, leaving people without reliable guidance. This original sense is related to, but distinct from, the strain-based anomie in subchapter seven point three.
Foundations
The Chicago School Studies the City
Next came the Chicago School: researchers who studied the city itself, directly. They mapped offense patterns and observed neighborhoods, making the city a subject of systematic research, much as Priya's group is doing here. Looking ahead, their concentric zone work also returns in subchapter seven point three.
Applying Levels
Marcus and Elena Ask Different Questions
Now apply the levels. Priya's group has been asked to investigate crime in this one neighborhood, and its members disagree about what question they're actually answering. Marcus wants to know why this neighborhood has a higher rate than a comparable one nearby. That's a community-level question, and it needs rate data compared across neighborhoods. Elena wants to know why certain residents offend while most don't. That's an individual-level question, and it needs data about individual residents and their circumstances. The group must settle the level first, before choosing a research design. Otherwise, it risks answering one question with evidence suited to the other.
Strength and Limit
Rates Explained Well, Individuals Poorly
So what does sociological explanation contribute that chapter six can't? It explains why offending rates differ systematically across places and groups. And that pattern can persist even as the specific residents of a high-rate place change. Subchapter seven point three's concentric zone findings show this directly. The characteristic limitation is the mirror image of that strength: sociological theory explains rates well, and individual cases poorly. Knowing a neighborhood's rate says very little about which resident will offend. That's why chapters six and seven are designed as a pair. Individual-level theory handles individual variation; sociological theory handles rate variation. Neither one replaces the other.
Combining Families
Three Theories as Layered Questions
The three families aren't simply rival answers to one question. Each targets a different piece of the overall picture, so they can be combined. One useful way to hold them together is as a fixed sequence of questions, like successive layers. First, social conflict theory asks why the conduct is treated as criminal at all. That question is logically prior to the other two. Second, social structure theory asks why the rate differs across places where it's criminalized. Third, social process theory asks why, within one place, some individuals engage in it and others don't. Each layer answers a question the layer before it leaves open. Where the families do conflict, it's mostly over emphasis: which level deserves priority for a research question or a policy problem. Subchapter seven point nine returns to that tension directly.
Quick Check
Classifying the All-Night Gas Station
Now classify one yourself. Thefts cluster at one all-night gas station, while the day-only stations on the same road see few. What level is that claim? Pause, and decide. Situational level: it compares settings on one road, not people, and not whole neighborhoods.
Practice
Matching Claims to Levels and Families
Other claims work the same way. One nation's rate differing from a neighbor's is a societal-level claim. A person's offending history traced to their circumstances is individual level, and two neighborhoods in one city with different rates is a community-level claim. Now match questions to families. Poverty concentration correlating with a neighborhood's rate is a social structure question. Why does one sibling begin offending while another doesn't? That's social process. Why is conduct criminalized in one era but not another? That's social conflict.
Key Takeaways
Sociological Theory in Review
Let's recap. Sociological theory treats crime rates as properties of social arrangements, a different question from why one person offends. There are four levels of explanation, and a claim must stay at the level of its evidence. Structure, process, and conflict theories each ask a different question. Deviance depends on context, and on the response to an act. Durkheim and the Chicago School laid the foundations.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance: Overview and Key Features
How is a sociological explanation of crime different from an individual explanation?
What are the three families of sociological theories of crime?
What are the four levels of explanation in sociological criminology, and why do they matter?
What did Emile Durkheim and the Chicago School contribute to criminology?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →