What is Criminological Theory and Why Does it Matter?

So the semester has started up again, and so has all the nonsense. Toad is being Toad, bragging about a "grant" that isn't all that much to brag about, because I doubt the existence any such thing. And, of course, professors are being professors, adding "last minute" books that we need for yesterday ( and are hundreds of dollars to boot) and handing out syllabi that make no sense (there are only 14 weeks in a semester). So the typically stress has started up again, and the petty annoyances are just that: petty and annoying. In the end, I'll laugh, I'll cry, I'll freak out and I'll work my butt off. And I'll be fine after all.

Obviously, grad school is very different from college, and a PhD program is going to be different from a master's program. But in the end, the subject matter is the same: criminal justice is the study of crime and practitioners in the field, and criminology is the study of the causes of crime. This is an oversimplification; the real definition is amorphous and intricate and there is no one right answer, making it a bit difficult to explain to the layman (or just wrap your head around in general). I have this problem with my family and friends quite often, particularly my grandmother. She is thrilled to have a grandduaghter working towards a PhD, thrilled beyond belief. But she has no real understanding of the material, just a general sense of what I might be working on at any given time. And that is perfectly normal.

So why does theory matter? If it's so hard to pin point and there are so many conflicting views, then why bother? Well, in order to try and change crime, you need to know what causes it. For instance, let's say there is a burning building. You could just throw water on it and be done. But that might be a temporary fix; what caused the building to light on fire in the first place? What is the root cause? By identifying the cause of the fire, you know whether you have to shut of the gas lines, find an arsonist, or take that pack of matches from the toddler. You see? In order to fix a problem, you need to identify what's causing the problem.

If you think crime is caused by biological factors, then identifying a "crime gene" or medicating offenders will fix crime. If you think it is a matter of social inequalities an upheaval, then social programs and community involvement will stop crime. And if you think that crime is a function of the ruling class's oppression of the under class, then the redistribution of wealth and power within society is the answer. These are by no means the only theories out there, but I think it illustrates the point. If you want to change something, you need to know what needs to be fixed first.

If you are looking for books on criminological theory, I have two to recommend. The first is Cullen and Agnew's Criminological Theory: past to present. Unlike other tests that just summaries theories, this work offers the original articles that have become landmarks in the study of criminology. There is also a very handy grid in the first few The second is my personal favorite, Lilly, Cullen and Ball's Criminological Theory: Context and Consequence. Again, unlike other textbooks this work offers not just the theories, but the social, economic, political and cultural climate and changes that prompted new theories to develop. There are also discussions on whether these theories worked, and the long lasting effects of programs implemented on these recommendations. I personally felt that the chronological structure of this book, complete with the historical subtexts, gave me a greater understanding of where the theories came from and what they were a reaction to.

Theory may not be my favorite facet of my studies, but it's an important one. In order to understand where you are going, yo need to know what came before you. Happy theorizing!

Best "Frenemies"... the Story of Toad

I think It's about time I introduced you to Toad. Looking back at my first semester a grad student, I have to say that all of the students in the criminal justice department are really unpretentious and down to earth. Everyone seems ready to talk to you, offer bits of advice, give you encouragement and repeat the mantra I've come to internalize: "You'll worry and you'll work hard, but in the end it's really not that bad."

Everyone is, if a bit reserved and private at first, really quite friendly. That it, everyone but Toad. Imagine, if you will, that stereotypical student of the White Tower, all theory and name dropping and high and mighty opinions. That's Toad, very full of himself and very quick to toot his own horn. He is best described, I suppose as a "frenemy," someone who you are polite and friendly to but secretly hate their guts. He is never outright rude or condescending to anyone, but everything about his manner, and every word that comes out of his mouth, says otherwise.For instance, he recently got a 97/100 on a presentation (during which he stopped every three seconds to refer to some professor's assistance or flatter himself with false modesty) . He turns to me and says, "Oh, well, you know. Not too bad. I don't think there'll be any grades higher. No such thing as perfection." He says all of this, of course, just as I am about to get up an present. So, no pressure or anything.

I like to think I handled this very well. I nodded and made some kind of noncommittal noise in response. I then got up, gave me presentation (which I practiced with Super boy easily 10 times) and, lo and behold!, I am handed my rubric with a large 100/100 written on it with several glowing comments. Being the bigger person, I put the paper in my purse and didn't say anything about it to anyone, but in my head I was whooping with joy.

This is just one example of his behavior. Apparently, I am not the only one to notice or be annoyed by this constant barage of offhanded compliments/insults. Others have approached me with similar gripes; in fact, one of these conversations lead to Toad's epithet. A few fellow disgruntled grad students, all fed up with his references to "Dr. So-and So" and "special projects" and "independent research," tried to analyze the root of this behavior. One student put it brilliantly, referring to a species of toad in his native country; this toad, rather puny and insignificant, will puff itself up and hiss when it feel threatened by another frog and predator.  Following this line of thought, Toad then resorts to rattling off achievements and acquaintances and projects on order to make himself feel bigger than he really is and superior to the rest of us. This is very likely the truth of the matter; while no one else is so vulgar as to list our distinctions, Toad is in a cohort of scholars that have Phi Kappa Phi memberships, Phi Beta Kappa distinctions, teaching assistantships, scholarships and advanced degrees.  Maybe he is inflating his ego to keep up.

I, however, have some worries. Despite knowing the likely reasons for his behavior (insecurity) I still wonder if he is in fact better than me. Do the professors really buy his brown-nosing? Do they see through his flattery, or are they taken in by it? Is he ahead of the game by befriending so many professors and committing himself to so many projects, or is he spreading himself thin to no avail? Will his plan to schmooze every he can really get him ahead?

I don't know. I'd like to think I can compete with him. I have awards. And memberships. And, out of the entire cohort, the department practically begged me to join this program. I was the chosen one. I was the first in their eyes. And yet... I never tell anyone this.  I don't make this sort of information public to my peers. The rest of us are honest in our fears, share our concerns, open in our weaknesses. But Toad never shows weakness. He makes himself bigger than the rest of us and, while I know it's a ruse, I'm still intimidated.

I just wish I knew why, and how I could make it stop.