Edwin Sutherland
Edwin Hardin Sutherland (August 13, 1883 – October 10, 1950) was an American sociologist and criminologist recognized as a foundational figure in the discipline, particularly for shifting focus from biological or psychological explanations of crime to social learning processes.[1][2] Sutherland developed the theory of differential association, which asserts that criminal behavior is acquired through communication and interaction within intimate personal groups, where individuals learn techniques, motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable to law violation when such pro-criminal definitions exceed anti-criminal ones.[3][4] This framework, first outlined in his influential textbook Principles of Criminology (1924, with later editions refining the theory), emphasized empirical observation of social environments over innate traits, influencing subsequent research on deviance as a product of group dynamics rather than isolated pathology.[5] He also pioneered the study of white-collar crime, defining it in his 1939 presidential address to the American Sociological Society as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation," based on analysis of violations by 70 major U.S. corporations, revealing higher rates of such offenses among business elites than conventional street crime statistics suggested.[6][7] This concept challenged prevailing assumptions that crime was predominantly lower-class behavior, drawing on corporate records and historical data to argue for sociological explanations applicable across socioeconomic strata, though it provoked debate over measurement and the differential treatment of elite offenders in legal systems.[8][9] Throughout his career at institutions including the University of Chicago and Indiana University, Sutherland authored seminal works like The Professional Thief (1937), derived from extended interviews providing firsthand accounts of criminal subcultures, and advocated for criminology grounded in verifiable social processes, leaving a legacy that reshaped policy discussions on corporate accountability and rehabilitation through social reform.[10][11]Early Life and Education
Family Background and Upbringing
Edwin Hardin Sutherland was born on August 13, 1883, in Gibbon, Buffalo County, Nebraska, to George Sutherland and Elizabeth Tarr Pickett Sutherland.[12] His father, George, was a devout Baptist who worked as both a minister and an academic, initially heading the history department at Ottawa College in Kansas before later serving as president of the Nebraska Baptist Seminary. The family was deeply embedded in Protestant religious traditions, reflecting the stern and pious environment of Midwestern Baptist life during the late 19th century.[13] As the third of seven children in a large household, Sutherland experienced an upbringing marked by frequent relocations driven by his father's professional commitments.[14] Shortly after his birth, the family moved to Ottawa, Kansas, where George Sutherland took up his academic role, before settling in Grand Island, Nebraska. This peripatetic early life in rural Midwestern communities emphasized religious discipline and intellectual pursuit, though Sutherland himself provided scant personal reflections on his childhood, leaving biographical details sparse and derived primarily from secondary academic accounts.[15] The family's religious fervor, including George's strict Baptist influence, shaped Sutherland's initial educational path toward divinity studies before his pivot to sociology.[16]Formal Education and Influences
Sutherland obtained his A.B. degree from Grand Island College in Nebraska in 1904.[17] The institution was a conservative Baptist school where his father, George Sutherland, served as president, and the family background emphasized religious preparation for the ministry.[18] Following graduation, Sutherland taught high school for several years before pursuing advanced studies.[2] In the summer of 1906, he enrolled at the University of Chicago, initially planning to study history but taking introductory sociology courses that sparked his interest in the field.[17] He returned in 1910 for graduate work, shifting focus to sociology and political economy amid the empirical orientation of the department.[1] Sutherland completed his Ph.D. there in 1913, with his dissertation examining the political economy dimensions of social issues.[19] His Chicago education immersed him in the Chicago School's emphasis on social processes, urban ecology, and interactionism, diverging from his early ministerial inclinations toward observable behavioral causation over individualistic or economic determinism.[2] This training prioritized proximate social influences on deviance, laying groundwork for his later rejection of biological or pathological explanations of crime in favor of learned patterns.[10]Professional Career
Initial Academic Positions
Sutherland's first academic appointment following his 1913 Ph.D. from the University of Chicago was as professor of sociology at William Jewell College in Liberty, Missouri, where he taught from 1913 to 1919.[17] [20] In this role at the small liberal arts institution, he gained autonomy to refine his pedagogical methods, including planning courses in sociology and related fields, which allowed him to consolidate ideas from his graduate training.[2] He introduced a criminology course during his inaugural year and continued teaching it annually through 1921, marking an early systematic engagement with the subject that would underpin his later theoretical contributions.[21] In 1919, Sutherland transitioned to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as an assistant professor of sociology, serving until 1926.[17] [22] Under department chair E.C. Hayes, who oversaw the Lippincott sociology textbook series, Sutherland expanded his teaching to include advanced sociology topics and criminology, while benefiting from a larger research-oriented environment compared to William Jewell.[23] This period proved pivotal for his scholarly output; he authored and published the first edition of Principles of Criminology in 1924, synthesizing social and environmental factors in criminal behavior based on empirical reviews of prison data and reform efforts.[17] His work at Illinois also involved collaborations on social problems research, laying groundwork for critiques of biological determinism in favor of cultural explanations of deviance.[20]Major Institutional Roles
Sutherland assumed the position of head of the Department of Sociology at Indiana University in 1935, succeeding U.G. Weatherly, and held this leadership role until 1949, during which he expanded the department by recruiting prominent scholars such as Alfred Lindesmith and Harvey Locke.[17][10] In 1939, he was elected the 29th president of the American Sociological Society (now the American Sociological Association), delivering his presidential address on white-collar criminality.[17][18] He also served as president of the Sociological Research Association from 1940 to 1942.[17] Sutherland held additional presidencies in criminology-related organizations, including the Indiana University Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, the American Prison Association, and the Chicago Academy of Criminology, though exact terms for these roles are not precisely dated in available records.[17][18][18]Administrative Contributions
In 1935, Sutherland assumed the position of head of the newly independent Department of Sociology at Indiana University, succeeding U.G. Weatherly, and served in this capacity until 1949.[17][10] Under his leadership, the department expanded its focus on criminology, integrating Sutherland's research interests and attracting scholars to study white-collar crime and related topics.[10] Sutherland's influence extended to professional organizations, where he was elected the 29th president of the American Sociological Society (now the American Sociological Association) in 1939.[17] In this role, he delivered his seminal presidential address on "White Collar Criminality" at the society's annual meeting, advocating for the sociological study of upper-class offenses and challenging prevailing views that equated crime primarily with lower socioeconomic groups.[6] His presidency marked a pivotal moment in elevating criminology within mainstream sociology, as evidenced by the address's lasting impact on the field's discourse.[17] These administrative efforts solidified Sutherland's role in institutionalizing criminological research, bridging academic departments and national societies to prioritize empirical analysis of crime causation over punitive or reformist approaches dominant at the time.[17]Core Theoretical Developments
Differential Association Theory
Differential Association Theory, formulated by sociologist Edwin H. Sutherland, asserts that criminal behavior arises from learned patterns acquired through social interactions rather than innate traits or isolated environmental factors.[4] The theory emphasizes that individuals engage in crime when exposed to an imbalance of attitudes and rationalizations favoring law violation over conformity, primarily via communication in close-knit groups. Sutherland introduced the concept in the third edition of Principles of Criminology in 1939, building on his rejection of biological determinism and multiple-factor explanations prevalent in earlier criminology, which he viewed as lacking explanatory unification.[24] He refined it in the 1947 fourth edition, articulating it through nine systematic propositions to explain both the acquisition and persistence of deviant conduct across diverse social contexts.[25] Central to the theory is the notion of "definitions," defined as verbal and gestural communications conveying attitudes toward legal norms—either favorable (pro-conformity) or unfavorable (pro-violation).[4] Delinquency occurs when unfavorable definitions predominate, influenced by the frequency, duration, priority (earliness of exposure), and intensity (emotional closeness) of associations.[26] This learning parallels non-criminal skill acquisition, encompassing not only practical techniques of crime but also motivational elements like rationalizations that neutralize guilt.[27] Sutherland's framework rejects psychological abnormality or mere opportunity as sufficient causes, insisting instead on a causal chain rooted in social reinforcement of deviant norms.[28] The nine propositions encapsulate the theory's mechanics:- Criminal behavior is learned.[4]
- Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others through communication, primarily verbal.[4]
- Learning occurs mainly within intimate personal groups, such as family or peers, rather than impersonal sources like media.[4]
- Learning includes both techniques for committing crimes (e.g., lock-picking or deception) and specific rationales, motives, and attitudes directing behavior.[4]
- Directions toward criminality stem from differential exposure to definitions of law as favorable or unfavorable to violation.[4]
- Delinquency emerges from an excess of favorable definitions over unfavorable ones.[4]
- The balance of associations varies by frequency, duration, priority, and intensity, with stronger exposures tipping toward deviance.[4]
- Learning mechanisms mirror those in conventional behavior, involving imitation, reinforcement, and conditioning without unique processes for crime.[4]
- Criminal acts fulfill general human needs (e.g., economic gain or status) but cannot be explained solely by those needs, as conformist acts satisfy identical drives.[4]