Download Chapter 5

Chapter 5
Biological and Psychological Explanations of Deviance
-Positivism (scientism) is based on the belief that methods of science shouldn’t be adapted to the study of human beings.
These theories assume that knowledge can be discovered only through sensory experience, observation, and experiment.
Its early proponents claimed that they employed the scientific method of sampling, controls, and analysis, though this isn’t
always the case.
-Classical thinker’s work wasn’t scientific. Positivism represents a paradigm shift.
-Some of the early positivist attempts to discover the biological level of social action were crude examples of deviance in
science. The perspective itself has sometimes been “deviantized”.
-Positivists assume that, underlying all empirical reality, there are discoverable laws that can be used to explain
everything in nature, including human behavior. A person whose every action was a symptom of dark, biological impulses,
evolutionary position, and environmental forces replaced the hedonistic self-directed actor depicted in classical thought.
-This view argues that all behavior is determined by forces that no individual fully controls. Free will, in this view, is nothing
but an illusion through which human beings try to establish their superiority over other animals.
Social Darwinism
-Spencer coined “survival of the fittest” to describe implications of evolutionary theory for human society. He argued that
every field (art science, etc) reflects a pattern of development from lower to higher, less complex to more complex, and
inferior to superior.
-Development in human societies followed the principles of natural science through competition. The more fit competitors
win, survive, and procreate, while the less fit die out (unless the fit commit race suicide). Living organisms best able to
adapt to a particular set of living conditions were the ones with the greatest chance of survival. The powerful and rich are
that way because they are more “fit”.
Mendel and the Discovery of Genetic Inheritance
-Mendel studied plant seeds and discovered the genetic principles whereby variations of colour and size are transmitted
by heredity through predictable mutations and combinations of genes. This finding was often misinterpreted as meaning
that environment played no role in determining individual traits.
Born Criminal Theory
-The idea that criminality wasn’t only inborn but also marked a person’s appearance was common in antiquity. The newly
emerging criminal anthropology promised the possibility of using physical features to identify actual and potential
criminals. In roughly chronological order, the early efforts took the form of physiognomy, phrenology, craniometry,
atavism, and degeneracy.
Physiognomy
-Facial features were used to draw analogies between humans and animals. Physiognomy, the science of judging
character on the basis of facial features, has widespread support in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Its value today is
negligible. Physiognomy contributed little to the development of deviance studies, because it was almost entirely based on
appeals to commonsense and understanding. There was no systematic theory, and no rigorous testing of its assertions.
Phrenology
-Phrenology was popular in the mid-19th century, it was based on the theory that functions such as cautiousness,
firmness, benevolence, mirthfulness, and intellect were located in distinct parts of the brain, and that the stronger the
functions, the larger their physical manifestations. A trained technician could feel the bumps in one’s head and thus “read”
the person’s character.
-Phrenology promised an explanation for every form of criminal behavior, even that of serial killers, not in terms of
temptation and sin, but in terms of brain defect. Brain defects might be the product of heredity, environment, or disease, or
even the consequence of upbringing, since the practice of certain kinds of behavior might influence the organization of the
normal brain and throw it out of balance.
-Phrenology was killed by its popularity. While little experimental work was done, there was a great deal of objective
observation and data collection. But phrenology became intensely popular. It was abused until it became confined to
phrenology booths at psychic fairs.
Craniometry
-This was a system of classifying human types on the basis of skull measurement, particularly measurement of its size.
Eventually most craniologists held that a brain that was too large or too small could be the sign of deviance in the
individual. Craniometric data usually corroborated prevailing social, ethnic, national and gender biases.
-The limits of craniometry were soon reached, as most investigators turned to more defensible and reliable indicators of
human characteristics.
Lombroso’s “Criminal Anthropology”
-Lombroso’s controversial theories have inspired more praise and condemnation than those of any other criminologist. His
biological approach to crime and causation, sometimes called forensic anthropology, proved to be full of unlikely
assumptions and questionable statistical tests.
-Central to his conception of crime was his theory of biological atavism. This theory holds that the criminal was an
evolutionary throwback to a more primitive stage of human evolution. Physical characteristics (stigmata) such as sloping
forehead, bushy eyebrows, and protruding jaws were evidence of atavism and its attendant deviant propensity. Different
kinds of criminality were indicated by head and body size, hair colour, and abnormalities of the ears, nose, and body.
-Lombroso’s follower, Ferri, coined the term born criminal to describe the biologically determined criminal type. Lombroso
was influenced by evolutionary theory through the work of Comte, who argued that society goes through evolutionary
stages just as the human species does; by the work of Gall, and Morel, who argued that degeneracy was expressed in
epilepsy, insanity, mental deficiency, and crime.
-Soon Lombroso was conducting anthropometric studies of inmates and such. In one of his studies of over 300 skulls, he
uncovered the skull of a “notorious brigand”, which he used in his public lectures to illustrate the idea of the atavistic
criminal. An atavistic is one who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and inferior
animals.
-He also illustrated the epileptiform nature of criminality. He classified all criminals as “epileptoids” on a scale in which
epileptic was at the top, followed by criminal moral imbecile, born criminal, criminaloid (occasionally criminal), and criminal
by passion. He didn’t claim that all criminals were born criminals. He adjusted his argument repeatedly to meet the
criticisms of other researchers. Lombroso believed that born criminals were the most serious and chronic offenders.
Lombrosian Theory and Social Control
-Lombrosian theory became a factor in determining guilt or innocence in the courtroom and in deciding how a convicted
criminal should be treated. When it came to social control of the born criminal, relatively few options existed. Neither
suffering or salvation (the demonic approach) nor the manipulation of free will (classical theory) was appropriate for the
born criminal. This left as possible solutions execution, isolation, or treatment. At the time, few treatments were available,
especially if the problem was seen as congenital. Lombrosians tended to flavor the death penalty or isolation in institutions
for the insane.
The Displacement of Lombrosian Theory
-The Italian school of criminal anthropology, represented by Lombroso, was vigourously attacked by sociologists and
anthropologists.
-No matter how accurate Lombroso’s measurements of ears, noses, and brains were, this evidence didn’t support the
conclusion that particular sizes, weights, and shapes of anatomical parts were associated with criminal proclivities. In
addition, Lombroso was criticized for using ill-defined measurements, unwarranted deductions, and inadequately chosen
control groups, as well as for relying too frequently both on reasoning by analogy and on anecdotal illustration.
-Goring found that the physical and mental constitutions of both criminal and law-abiding persons of the same age,
stature, class, and intelligence were virtually identical with respect to Lombroso’s atavistic stigmata. Goring showed that
Lombroso’s version of the “anthropological monster” didn’t exist.
-Lombroso’s chief long-term contribution to criminology and the study of deviance wasn’t his atavism theory or his
methods, but rather the fact that he inspired others to observe firsthand and systematically what criminals looked and
sounded like, what they had in common, and how they differed from others.
Eugenics and Theories of Degeneracy
Eugenics
-Eugenics was coined by Galton who saw selective breeding as the antidote to the social problems produced by the
dysgenic effects of the increasing numbers of citizens who were genetically unfit. Positive eugenics policies were
proposed to encourage those with the best genes to reproduce. Negative eugenics policies involved programs to exclude
inferior populations (immigration controls), compulsory sterilization programs for those identified as unfit, and
exterminations programs (Germany) for the ethnically, mentally, and politically unfit.
-Galton imagined a society called “Kantsaywhere”, which would be a eugenic society. People with class 1 genetic
inheritance would be encouraged to have babies, those in class 2 could have 3, those in class 3 could have 2, those in
grade 4 could have one, and the really inferior (class 5), couldn’t have any.
-Lower grade folks who had too any kids were deviantized and criminalized. Such organization could only be maintained
in a society that had eugenics as a religion, because democracy couldn’t sustain it.
-Davenport claimed that “thalassophilia” (love of the sea) was a sex-linked gene (cuz only men are in the navy). He also
concluded that alcoholism, prostitution, etc. were determined by genes.
-Eugenics also played a role in Canada where it was used to justify policies of sterilization.
-Eugenicists have tended to form close attachments with those developing new techniques of psychometrics (IQintelligence quotient) tests, MRI brain scanning techniques, and similar measures. This empiricism lends a spurious
scientific veneer to work that typically involves huge leaps between empirical evidence and conclusions.
-The “new eugenics” overlaps with endeavors such as the use of human biotechnology when its goals are eugenic. This
includes, for example, artificial insemination by donor, prenatal diagnosis, implantation of genes, embryo selection, and
cloning.
Robert Dugdale and the Jukes
-Dugdale published a study of a so-called degenerate family entitled the Jukes. Dugdale has been present in a Kingston,
New York, court when a youth was being tried for receiving stolen goods. Five of his relatives were there. Dugdale made
inquiries about the youth’s family and traced the family back 150 years. He found that about 20% of the family were
criminals. Despite Dugdale’s ridiculous methodology, it was an influential study and the name Jukes became synonymous
with depravity.
-All of this fostered the idea that criminality, poverty, and degeneracy were inherited, feeding into the public demand for
policies that would reduce the size of this burden on society. Dugdale believed that the deprived social environment
prolonged the taint of their degeneration and that this could be rectified by a better environment.
Henry Goddard and the Kallikaks
-Goddard was influenced by Mendel’s work and the science of IQ testing. In his view, intelligence was inborn and
inherited and was a measure of many other aspects of human worthiness, especially human morality. He published
“pedigrees” of hundreds of defective people who wouldn’t have existed has their moronic ancestors been prevented form
breeding. One study was the history of Martin Kallikak, a good young soldier who has a sexual liason with a moronic
barmaid, which resulted in a family tree of morons. When Kallikak returned home, he married a respectable Quaker
woman, and the majority of their descendants were “normal”.
-Goddard’s findings were somewhat dishonest. He believed that delinquency and immorality were caused by degeneracy
and that this degeneracy showed itself in low IQ scored.
-Despite the weakness of degeneracy theory, it remains part of the cultural repertoire of explanations that is called upon
from time to time.
Born Criminal Theory Revisited
-Body-type theory was developed in a new form in the work of Hooton and Sheldon, who believed their work proved that
crime and immorality were aspects of physical inheritance.
Ernest Albert Hooton and the Hierarchy of Degeneration
-Hooton described the biological component of criminal behavior as degeneracy. Crime was the result of normal
environmental stress on low-grade organisms (humans). Despite the fact that his evidence shows there were more
differences among prisoners than between prisoners and the noncriminal controls, Hooton concluded that prisoners were
distinctive and inferior.
-He claimed to have discovered a natural hierarchy of degeneration. He presented his data by racial and national-origin
groups. He argued that although race didn’t affect whether a person would be a criminal or not, it did affect what kind of
crime would be committed.
-He was a supported of eugenics. He was criticized by other academics for improperly selecting (and using) his control
samples, for suppressing data that didn’t fit his hypothesis, and for making the very basic research error of defining as
“inferior” all characteristics found most often among prisoners and then proceeding to show that the data demonstrated
how inferior prisoners were –an example of “circular reasoning”.
William H. Sheldon and Somatotyping
-Sheldon took the ideas of Kretschmer, who identified 3 distinct body types –asthenic (frail, weak), athletic (muscular), and
pyknin (short, rotund)- and associated them with different behavior predispositions. Sheldon mapped out the relationships
among human physique, personality, and criminal propensity.
-His method of making objective bodily measurements is called somatotyping.
-The divisions or somatotypes are endomorph (soft, round, sociable, etc), mesomorph (hard, energetic, insensitive, etc),
and ectomorph (lean, sensitive, nervous). He argued that the human embryo comes with 3 forms of skin tissue- the
endoderm, the ectoderm, and the mesoderm. The endomorph was the most highly developed of the 3 types.
-In Sheldon’ sample, each individual would be assigned a score from 1-7 for endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy.
-Sutherland re-analyzed Sheldon’s data using what he thought was a more meaningful criterion of delinquency. He found
no significant body-type differences between Sheldon’s seriously delinquent boys and the college boys.
-Thus, the relationship between mesomorphy and delinquency may be a reflection not of biological determinism, but
rather of opportunity, labeling, and incarceration.
Twin and Adoption Studies: Refining the Search for Heritability
-Twin or adoption studies can be more credible in that they have closely followed the scientific method. If there is a flaw
here, it is in the over interpretation of results. None of these works show that anyone is predestined to be a burglar or
serial killer. The most we find is that some traits may sometimes be passed on through genetic inheritance.
Twin Studies
-Twin studies have been look on as a means of sorting out conflicting nature vs. nurture interpretations. Monozygotic
(identical) twins are formed from one egg and have virtually identical chromosomes. Dizygotic (fraternal) twins share
about half the same chromosomes, as do brothers and sisters born apart. The differences among the three groups
provide opportunities to test the importance of inheritance and environment.
-In most studies, we find that the concordance (the chance of both having the same trait) is greater for identical twins,
even when these individuals are raised in different families. Discordance is defined as contrasting outcomes. Evidence
exists that some traits show higher concordance for identical twins than for nonidentical twins.
-These studies are valuable at the population level for helping us to sort out the contribution that genetic inheritance can
make. They are not very useful at the individual level because this genetic contribution is far from deterministic.
Adoption Studies
-Adoption studies are used to assess the likelihood that a child whose parents have a particular trait will also have that
trait through genetic inheritance rather than upbringing. Adoption studies are problematic, mainly because adoption is an
unusual event. It may be associated, in itself, with disruption, mental disorder, or antisocial behavior. Also, the placement
of adopted kids isn’t random, so environmental factors can’t really be excluded from the studies.
-A study distinguished between milieu-limited alcoholism and male-limited alcoholism. The first type was found among
both men and women. It usually wasn’t severe, and while there appeared to be a genetic predisposition, it also seemed
influenced by stressful environmental conditions. The other type was less common but more serious. It was found among
men whose biological relatives showed the same characteristic aggressive heavy drinking pattern, and it wasn’t
influenced by the drinking habits of the adoptive parents.
-The relationship is far from deterministic. In fact, most of these kids don’t follow their biological parents’ example.
Inheritance has a slight effect, but it is far from determining one’s destiny.
Modern Biological Explanations of Deviance
-More sophisticated biological paradigms have emerged, mainly focusing on the operation of the human brain. The
resulting explanatory maps often combine the study of inherited genetic conditions with consideration of how noninherited
genetic abnormalities combine to increase the likelihood that specific kinds of behavior may be programmed to occur.
The XYY Male
-Chromosomes are thin threads of DA that contain hereditary genes for the growth of every cell in a living organism. In the
normal female, the 2 chromosomes are both X’s, while in the normal male, the two chromosomes are XY. Different
combinations are also possible and thus researchers have attempted to establish syndromes of behavior and their
accompanying physical traits.
-Researchers believe that an XYY syndrome might predispose a person toward the kind of behavior that results in
imprisonment. Underlying this research was the assumption that, since the Y chromosome is the male hormone, the XYY
genotype must be some kind of supermale.
-Stories and reports about “XYY men” have linked the syndrome to slightly heightened chances for behavioral problems
and aggression, psychosis and schizophrenia, paraphilias (sexually deviant behaviors), and criminal offending.
-The image of the XYY violent supermale has proven to be a great exaggeration. Most XYY males lead normal and
productive lives and don’t have a higher rate of violence than XY males. The rise and fall of the XYY solution draws
attention to the common phenomenon of extravagant claims following upon single, often unreplicated studies.
-There have been similar precipitous announcements of “a gene for” one sort or another deviant behavior, based on
inappropriate evidence.
Genetics and the Bell Curve Argument
-The bell curve argument is that IQ is heritable. Blacks have a lower IQ range than whites, and IQ and criminality are
linked traits.
Sociobiology and the Selfish Gene
-Wilson put forward a controversial book called Sociobiology. Human sociobiology, in principle, is indistinguishable from
evolutionary psychology. Its focus is on individual personality characteristics such as selfishness and altruism. It has also
pronounced on inborn causes of specific behaviors. Sociobiologists argue that all living bodies are driven by an innate
need to ensure that their genetic material survives, and furthermore, that their behavior is often unconsciously
“programmed” toward this end. Organisms (individuals) are always seeking “inclusive fitness”, defined as the sum of the
individual’s own reproductive success plus the reproductive success of the others who carry that person’s genes (kids).
Humans, strive to enhance the number of genes they leave behind.
-This theory is used to explain or justify many characteristics imputed to be immutable in humans, including gender roles,
status hierarchies, cheating, and lying. We are “survival machines” –robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve these
selfish molecules or selfish genes. This doesn’t mean that every detail of cultural life is genetically programmed. There is
room for variation in the expression of biological imperatives, and for a dynamic coevolution of genetic, behavioral, and
cultural traits.
-Socioiologists take a conservative stand against phenomena such as egalitarianism and women’s liberation. Preservation
of the gene pool doesn’t always mean the survival of the individual. As the central sociobiological concept of inclusive
fitness predicts, we are most likely to sacrifice ourselves if the people we are saving are kinfolk or people so like ourselves
that they may be carriers of the same genes.
-Many researchers today feel that we should be looking for combinations of genes rather than single genes and that the
influence of genes on behavior is more like “open programming” than determinism. It will take a long time before
researchers are able to isolate particular genes or genetic combinations that control specific behavioral events in the
body.
-Most sociobioligists have moved away from the idea the biology is destiny. They don’t deny that environmental factors
may play a deciding role in whether the behavior manifests itself. Nonetheless, some observers are concerned that
sociobiological views lend support to unacceptable controls such as involuntary sterilization, abortion, and genetic
screening for criminological or insurance purposes.
Genetic Loading
-Despite the problems in certain lines of genetic research, the bio-genetic field itself is still vibrant. Certain types of
predatory aggression and seemingly senseless, explosive violence may be related o physical damage or genetically
induced malfunction in specific parts of the brain. Recent biologically based explanations are open to the role of such
things in combination with environmental factors.
-Thus, the person with an inherited predisposition is like a loaded gun, with the environment serving as the trigger. (This
conceptualization differs from the typical social science viewpoint, which sees the environment as a factor shaping the
behavior rather than merely releasing it).
-A wide variety of sexually deviant behaviors called paraphilias, in which individuals are turned on by exposure to unusual
or forbidden stimuli, have been blamed on the functioning of the limbic system of the brain. Paraphilias can lead to serial
homicide.
-Seeing drug use or other addictions as inborn characteristics is less easy. Although some evidence supports the view
that some people have an inborn predisposition to explore and take risks, its difficult to deduce from this that some of
them have a specific, inborn need for cocaine, heroine, or alcohol.
-Mounting evidence shows that the physiological aspect of addiction isn’t the only factor in the continuing use of
recreational drugs.
-Whether we look at evidence from genetic inheritance studies or focus on other sources of chemical or structural
differences in brain functioning, such differences do seem, under certain conditions, to be related to offending behavior.
The causal pattern between such factors and actual behavior isn’t direct and deterministic. You can inherit a
predisposition toward particular kinds of behavior on the basis of one abnormality, or an even stronger predisposition on
the basis of several, but you will not necessarily act on it.