Critical theories try to explain group differences in crime rates while looking at social variables such as race, gender, and social class. Simply put, critical theories explain crime in terms of group differences in social power and control.

4.8.1 Power-Control Theory

Did you ever think about how the power configuration in a family could explain the differences in criminality between sons and daughters? Sociologist John Hagan and his colleagues (1988) set out to do just that in the power-control theory. The theory’s answer to the question of why male adolescents and their female counterparts differ with respect to delinquency came down to freedom. They argue male adolescents (sons) are granted more freedom while female adolescents (daughters) experience greater control of their behavior in their families. Instrumental controls (supervision and surveillance) and relational controls (emotional bond with mother) are imposed more on daughters than on sons. The greater control discourages girls from taking risks and because of this, girls are less delinquent than boys.

Hagan suggested there are two types of families and the type determines the level of control under which girls are placed. First, the patriarchal family has a power imbalance toward the father (“the man of the house”) who works outside of the home while the mother is not employed outside of the house. In this family structure, mothers and fathers play more traditional roles which are passed down to their children. The other family type is an egalitarian family where both the father and the mother work outside of the home and in which they have equal authority over others. Power-control theory states that egalitarian families will treat their daughters more like their sons, being less controlling and encouraging more risk-taking. On the other hand, patriarchal families will control their daughters more than their sons and discourage the taking of risks.

4.8.2 Control-Balance Theory

If you blend social bond and containment theory, you will have control-balance theory, coined by criminologist Charles Tittle (1995). This theory focuses on the control someone is under and the control they hold themselves. Too much control can be just as dangerous as too little. The control ratio of an individual is the amount of control to which a person is subject versus the amount of control a person exerts over others. In this theory, the control ratio is used to determine someone’s risk of deviance. The importance of the control ratio is that it is believed to predict not only the probability that one will engage in deviance but also the specific form of deviance.

High levels of control are termed “control surplus” while low levels are considered a “control deficit.” Those individuals with control surpluses are able to exercise a large amount of control over others and by extending this control, their efforts can lead to deviant actions involving exploiting others as seen in cases of intimate partner violence. Control surpluses are built upon the fundamental drive toward autonomy and result in a form of deviance that is referred to as “autonomous” (Tittle, 1995).

Those individuals who are overly controlled experience a control deficit that can result in deviance. The deviance that is caused by control deficit usually takes the form of predation (physical violence, sexual assault, and robbery), defiance (vandalism and curfew violations), or submission (obedience to the commands and desires of others).

Control imbalance sets the stage for deviance but deviance only occurs when the individual realizes that the acts of deviance can reset the control ratio in a desirable manner. Further, control-balance theory states that conformity results from the right balance between control surpluses and control deficits.