CHAPTER 5: PEER GROUP AND ITS EFFECTS ON SCHOOL VIOLENCE
1. Differential Association Theory by Edwin H. Sutherland
Sutherland did not write a great deal to present his theory of differential association, but his theory makes some notable contributions to deviance theories. He points out essential criteria for constructing a theory explaining the causes of social deviance;
and he provides a theory that serves to explain deviance at different levels and one that is testable in empirical studies.
The vital principle Sutherland proposes for constructing a scientific explanation for crime is that „the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and they should be absent when crime is absent.‟ (Sutherland and Cressey 1996: 189) Normally, theorists often look for factors „present when crime is present‟ and hardly pay attention to the corollary, i.e. if crime is absent if these
factors are absent. Thus, existing theories of crime mostly address predictors of crime rather than the causes of crime.
In an attempt to propose a general explanation for crime, Sutherland formulated nine propositions explaining how crime is caused. Briefly, these propositions claim that crime is learned via association with delinquent persons. By associating with delinquents, individuals gradually learn values, norms, motivations, rationalisations, and techniques of committing crime. What they learn will be translated into action when an opportunity presents itself.
However, not everyone who has association with delinquents will become delinquent. The likelihood of becoming delinquent depends on the state of this association (that is why Sutherland called his theory the differential association theory). Differential associations have a differential influence on an individual‟s behaviour. The more intimate the association is, the earlier in life the association starts, the more intensive and frequent the interactions, the more likely people having association with delinquents are to learn to commit a crime and engage in crime.
Applying Sutherland‟s differential association theory to the study of violence, his nine propositions can be outlined as follows:
1. Violent behaviour is learnt. People do not invent violence; rather, they learn it from their close associations.
2. Violent behaviour is learnt in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. Through daily interpersonal interaction, not violent video games or movies and lifeless things, violent behaviour is propagated.
3. The principal part of learning violent behaviour occurs within an intimate personal group. This means that the closer people are to violent individuals, the more likely they will be to learn violent behaviours.
4. When criminal behaviour is learnt, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing violence, (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitude.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learnt from definitions favourable to violence.
6. A person becomes violent because definitions favourable to using violence override definitions unfavourable to using violence. This is the principle of differential association. Students resort to violence because of their contact with violent patterns and (emphasis added) because of isolation from anti- violent patterns. Much of our experience is in fact neutral (i.e. neither pro- violence nor anti-violence) such as studying or walking. This neutral experience is important as it occupies a student‟s time so that chance for engaging in violence is reduced.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning violence by association with violent and anti-violent patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Thus, learning violence is not simply a process of imitation.
9. While violent behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because non-violent behaviour is also an expression of the same needs and values. For instance, some students may resort to violence in order to assert their social status.
However, desire for higher social status is not the cause of violence, since it also explains the effort put forth to reach excellent level of academic performance.
Since its publication, Sutherland‟s differential association theory has received both praise and criticism. This theory is valued in that its explanatory sphere is quite large. Given the fact that no single theory is able to explain every type of crime, the differential association argument is praised for its explanation of broadly varying observations, more so than any existing theory, as claimed by Cressey (1960). It is also highly appreciated for highlighting the idea that an effective explanation of human behaviour is consistent with explanations of epidemiology, as mentioned at the beginning of this section. However, some of the concepts used in this theory are criticized for being somewhat vague and difficult to be operationalized for empirical tests, such as definitions of „excess‟ or „favourable to‟ and „unfavourable to‟.
Besides, the differential association theory by Sutherland is also criticized for oversimplifying the complex and diversified process in which deviant behaviour is learnt (Cressey 1960).
However, when applied to empirical tests, the differential association argument appears quite effective in explaining deviance. In a study of how broken homes affect delinquency among black and non-black youth, Matsueda and Heimer (1987:
826) found that „in both populations, the effects of broken homes and attachment to parents and peers are mediated by the learning of definitions of delinquency, a finding that supports differential association over social control theory.‟ Heimer (1997) specifically pointed out that association with violent peers influenced violence indirectly through its impact on the learning of definitions favourable to
violence. Consistent with the findings of Matsueda and Heimer (1987) and Heimer (1997), Hoffman (2002) also found that those who hold conventional definitions are less likely to be involved in delinquency; yet, he noted that the impact of definitions varies across urban communities, suggesting that theories need to be developed with more attention to specific contextual processes. More recently, the study of Haynie and Osgood (2005) also supported the differential association arguments, showing that adolescents tend to engage in delinquency if they are associated with delinquent friends or if they indulge in a great deal of unstructured socializing with friends.
In sum, research has provided evidence supporting differential association arguments, mainly with regard to the effect on delinquency of association with delinquent peers and learning definitions favourable to delinquency. Following this proven-to-be-effective line of explanation, this study seeks explanations for the overwhelming use of violence among students in the sampled high schools in Hanoi based on students‟ contact with violent patterns and association with aggressive friends.