Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: May 2, 2004
Latest Update: May 2, 2004
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

TITLE OF ESSAY

Edwin H. Sutherland & The Theory of Differential Association By Jeremy Gordon. FSU Website. Cecil Greek's page.

Edwin H. Sutherland: Differential Association Theory FSU Website. Cecil Greek's page.

Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association

Reflection Reports Criminology.

Differential Association Theory J. Hamlin.

Deviance and Social Control Power Point. Includes discussions we'll want to cover. Includes Szasz.

Discussion: Nancy Romero

Dear Jeanne

I have been trying to make sense of the theory that Sutherland proposed. A sociologist that said that behavior is learned, that a child’s mind is blank (empty) when he/she comes into this world. The first years of that child’s life will be established and will be unconsciously ready to perform in our society. If this theory is true, then my question is; which parent makes the call in determining the future for these children?

Let's say that Julie married John, and they had two children. These children will develop a viewpoint that Julie and John illustrate when raising them. Now, lets say that John is a violent man, and constantly beats Julie. She gets pregnant with her first child and the beating continues. The child is 4 year old when Julie gets pregnant again with her second child, and ten years later, nothing has changed. Despite the fact that Julie tries to conceal the truth, the children still know about the abuse. Until Julie realizes that this life is not suitable for her children, she will then leaves John.

Seven years after Julie leaves John, their older son is in jail for assault, and her younger son is constantly in trouble at school. Julie chose John, right? Did Julie make a bad choice by marrying John? Who was the most harmed here, Julie or the boys? Why didn’t Julie leave John at an earlier time, for the well being of the boys? If Southerland’s theory is correct, then, it was too late when Julie left John. The boys had developed an ideal behavior at an early age, which was probably the most important time for them to have internalized the norms of behavior.

Children deserve to have a happy and loving family with both parents. If we cannot offer that, then we should not bring children into this world. Our world is already violent and corrupted. Life is hard enough as it is, and yet, there are children that have been sexually molested, physically abused, and neglected by their own parents if not by other relatives. Think about it, if we were to analyze the reasons for our choices in life, we women, are responsible for the welfare of our children. Lets not make life any more difficult for the children who without a doubt will be the ones left in this world. If Southerland’s theory were to be true, then wouldn’t women have the power to change their children’s life to a much better and happier one?

It seems that this happens to many women, whether it is a violent man, a man that can’t keep a job, a womanizer, or a husband that just doesn’t care. I ask why? Why do we choose men without thinking about the future of our children? Why are we so weak when we fall in love? Are we that desperate for the need of a loving companion or are we just selfish? We seem to choose the desire of pleasure that satisfy our needs rather than the welfare for our children. It seems to me that the women can make the difference by thinking ahead just a bit of whom they date. We choose whom we marry and we determine the manners we want our children learn. So, why not give it some thought in with whom we will have children with. Say that Southerland‘s theory is right, so then don’t we want to select a great husband so that we can have a healthy family?