Conflict Theory

Conflict Theory in Criminology

I learned about conflict theories in criminology from chapter nine in the sixth edition of the book Criminological Theory. Using what I learned from the author, I will discuss conflict theory in depth including what it examines, its views, its history, and the problems it is trying to solve.

What is conflict theory?

Conflict theory is based on the belief that conflict is natural to society. Criminological conflict theories focus on the political nature of crimes in order to examine and improve the creation and application of criminal law. Conflict theories say that society should be characterized by conflict instead of consensus. They basically believe that conflict is inevitable. Even if society can be in agreement about something it either will not last or it will come at a high cost. The groups within society are continuously struggling against each other to get what they desire in any number of matters.

There are differences among conflict theories but they all work together as if they were on one continuum. The two main types of conflict theories, class-conflict and pluralist, would be at opposite ends of this continuum. Pluralist versions propose that society is made up of countless groups that struggle with each other to satisfy their own interests. They say that all these groups come in different sizes and are often temporary. Class-conflict versions argue that there are two main classes in society that constantly struggle for power.

In conflict theories, they study the problem of power being used to make society appear to be in consensus even though it’s not. Unlike a lot of other criminological theories, they are not that concerned with individual behavior or the offenders’ behavior. Instead, they are more focused on the creation and enforcement of law.

How did conflict theory start?

Although a conflict theorist named George Vold had been writing about conflict theory for a while, conflict theory remained in the shadow of labeling theory until the 1970’s. Labeling theory laid a lot of the ground work for conflict theory. Labeling theory suggests that the way individual behave and identify themselves has a lot to do with the labels and stereotypes society gives them. Why did conflict theory go from being ignored to taking off in the 1970’s? Let’s back up a little…

From about 1965 to 1975 a lot was going on in the U.S. that really changed society all around. In the two decades before, the civil rights movement had given other minorities hope for change. Groups like women and homosexuals that once believed they had no power now saw that it was worth wild to fight for social equality. Before you knew it, everyone was having marches and demonstrations trying to enact change. Society and the law fought against this even though most demonstrations were peaceful. This combined with the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal had the younger generation doubting all of the country’s values. They rejected the lifestyles of their parents and even started losing faith in the government.

So, with all these problems among society, distrust of authority, and disagreement between these different groups, it is easy to see why labeling theory was replaced by conflict theory. Conflict theory addressed the questions they wanted answered at that time about social and legal structures that labeling theory had ignored.

What are pluralists versions of conflict theory really saying?

Pluralist conflict theories focus on how power is used by groups to get what they want. While class-conflict versions of conflict theory believe there are two main groups struggling for power, pluralists versions believe that there are multiple groups struggling to gain control and get their way. Just like any struggle for control, having the best resources can sway the victory in your favor. To get what they want on any number of issues, they need things like money and political power. These resources allow them to best promote their desired outcome and persuade the country to make the decision that will best suit their desires. The struggle between these groups for the limited resources is a struggle for power, because whoever has the best resources has control. If the two groups are almost equal in resources, it can lead to a very long struggle for power, such as with the abortion issue.

In addition to money and political power, some believe that race plays a part in the groups’ struggle for power. This is known as the “power threat theory” and it was developed by Hubert Blalock. He explained that the race who is in the majority have that as another kind of resource that is a key to their power. When a minority group is starting to gain a higher percentage of the population, authority feels threatened. They respond to this threat with discrimination. They try to combat this and retain their control by restricting the minority’s political rights, increasing forms of segregation, and making them feel threatened.

Money and political power are used to gain control of a third resource, law. The law being in favor of a groups’ desired outcome gives that group the most control and makes it hard for anyone to go against them. When a certain group wants to support or detour a law from getting passed, they use money to hire people to promote and lobby for their agenda. Sometimes they can just bribe the legislators directly with money, taking away all of the citizens’ influence on the decision about whether or not to pass the law. A person’s high social stature also gives them more influence over what happens than a large group of middle and low class citizens. This country was built on the backs of the lower social class, but now their voice is usually overshadowed. The citizens in the bottom two classes that make up the majority of our country do not really have much say in what happens as long as the interest group going against them has these resources. And the longer a group stays in control, the more we become a class system with a ruling class and a subjugated class.

What does this have to do with law?

If those who have the law in favor of their interests have all the control, it is much harder for those with opposing interests to gain any control. When enacting a law, the group supporting that law make sure that failing to obeying this law in any way is a criminal act. By opposing the group in charge, they are also rebelling against the government and are then subject to law enforcement. See, all the group in charge has to do to keep control is make their rivals look like criminals. That is easy to do because their rivals are not just opposing them, they are also opposing the current law. Going up against the law in today’s society without sufficient resources is pretty well pointless. The group that lost the struggle for power over that issue now has no choice but to let it go or continue to fight for control and become a criminal.

What does this have to do with crime rates?

The more power the wining group has, the more the losing group will be criminalized. When someone wants to oppose the most powerful group’s believes, the solution is simply to criminalize them. After opposing the group in charge becomes a crime, law enforcement steps in to stop them and the group in control does not have to worry about anyone taking away their power. If there was nothing keeping the group in charge in check, they would probably throw everyone who ever went against them in jail. So the more control the group in charge has, the higher the crime rate is going to be. And the more physical coercion that is used to combat their rivals or “the criminals”, the higher the crime rate will be.

Why is all this important?

Richard Quinney, a major contributor to conflict theory, questioned the very definition of crimes and the legal process. He viewed crime as a product of reaction. The reaction of authority is to change the definitions of what are kinds of criminal behaviors to fit their agenda. In the same way that authorities give us definitions of what is criminal, they also give us definitions of what is not criminal. They can make their actions noncriminal just like they can make their rivals’ actions criminal. The sad part is most of the public sees their legal definitions of crime and noncrime as natural and do not realize that these definitions have been constructed for them.

Another conflict theorist named Austin Turk said that the label of criminal is given to norm resisters whose perceptions of social norm and reality are considered inadequate. He is saying that anyone who does not believe what the people in charge want you to believe is given the label of criminal. Minors have an easier time going against authority because they cannot be criminalized as easily as adults can. The consequences for adults who have conflict with authority can be harsh because law enforcement officers see them not as citizens fighting for their beliefs, but as mere criminals. This is why conflict theorists focus on studying criminality rather than criminal behavior. What kind of country have we become if we cannot question authority without being told we are committing a crime? In The U.S.A. we are supposed to have the freedom to think outside the box, go against the majority, and fight for what we believe in.

Conclusion

From my post you should have gained a basic knowledge and understanding of conflict theories and what they are saying. Most of the other versions of conflict theory agree on the same basic principles from pluralist versions and just go into more detail with their views and theorize more about how crime and conflict are connected.

There is a lot of research regarding conflict theory currently being done. Research is being done on many different components from multiple versions of conflict theories to find support for their perspective. This research is being used by criminologists to find correlations and better explain how crime and conflict are related. I expect future literature on conflict theory to provide more information on the research currently being done and to show what the studies have successfully found to support conflict theory. All of this is being done in order to come up with better policies. The policies will be used to combat this power struggle between the groups and all the negative effects that come with it. 

Critical analysis of chapter 9 of Criminological Theory.

The author did a good job of helping the reader to understand conflict theory and its views. He did a good job of explaining the problems conflict theory addresses and stressing their importance. There is not much I feel the author failed to say. There are only two things I wish he would have talked about. I want to learn how the group in charge eventually loses power and how other groups are ever able to gain control. I would also like to hear more about how conflict theorist think we can combat these problems in society with new policies.

The author addressed a lot of the many views within conflict theory. The author did a good job of comparing and contrasting these different viewpoints. In addition to pluralist versions of conflict theory, the author also gave a brief overview of some other versions of conflict theories and discussed their history and views. The subject matter discussed by the author was the radical conflict perspective, Marxist criminology, radical explanations of crime, left realism, and anarchist criminology. These topics build on the material I have discussed here and I would recommend reading chapter 9 of Criminological Theory to anyone who wants to learn more about the other perspectives in conflict theory.