Social Learning and Routine Activity Theory

3.2.4.1 Background

Social ties and networks are one of the main arguments put forward to explain the phenomenon of disparate Black homicide victimization. The acquisition of violent and criminal behaviours through relational and experiential learning was recognized by Sutherland in the 1940s. His early principle of differential association recognized that someone could “become delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violations of the law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law” (Sutherland, 1947, p. 6-7). Burgess and Akers (1966) would later expand the focus to assert that the key causes for violence were: greater individual association with violence or crime involved persons; greater exposure to criminally acceptable ways of thinking; more association with persons endorsing such behaviours; and, a reality of greater reward and less punishment for certain behaviours (Akers et al., 1986).

The key elements of Social Learning Theory (SLT) that are particularly relevant to Black homicide victimization would include differential association, differential reinforcement, and imitation in the emergence of negative behaviours. According to Akers (2009):

The probability that persons will engage in criminal and deviant behavior is increased and the probability of their conforming to the norm is decreased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior and espouse definitions favorable to it, are relatively more exposed in-person or symbolically to salient criminal/deviant models, define it as desirable or justified in a situation discriminative for the behavior, and have received it in the past and anticipate in the current or future situations relatively greater reward than punishment for the behavior (p. 50).

Routine Activity Theory (RAT) also focuses on over-exposure to criminality and/or violence (Felson & Cohen, 1980; Pratt, Holtfreter, & Reisig, 2012). It highlights the consequence of victimization as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (Peguero et al., 2015). Key considerations are the accessibility of targets, motivated perpetrators, and a lack of potential guardians or interveners to alter potential violent course of events. By virtue of being out at certain hours in circumstances involving drugs and/or alcohol use with other young people, one is more likely to be a victim than someone else who might stay indoors or seek alternative venues (Dahlberg, 1998). This argument suggests that one’s risks increase significantly simply from knowing someone who is a victim or perpetrator of violence (Tracy et al., 2011). The risks are compounded by involvement in illicit drug trafficking, being a member of a gang, and/or simply carrying a firearm for self-protection (Lo et al., 2012). This theoretical perspective appears to mirror a very common assumption articulated most often through various media channels, and may extinguish empathy for many Black victims of homicide.

3.2.4.2 Relevance to Toronto

SLT and RAT consider higher, disadvantaged population demographics as providing greater opportunities for interactions with peers having negative attitudes and therefore reinforcing negative perceptions (Akers et al., 2005). Low-income persons generally tend to use public venues for socialization. By virtue of being out at certain hours and using drugs and/or alcohol with other young people, they are more likely to be victims compared with others who might stay indoors or use alternative private venues (Dahlberg, 1998).

Notably, race has been considered a proxy for sociodemographic and socioeconomic location within society (2009). Low income Black Torontonians have limited culturally relevant options for entertainment and recreation in the city from which to choose (Khenti, 2013). Limited options imply greater accessibility of encounters between motivated perpetrators and their targets. Higher rates of incarceration for the most vulnerable neighbourhoods and communities also infer the likelihood of a lack of potential guardians or interveners to alter potential violent disputes or encounters (Unnever & Gabiddon, 2011).

The intersecting circumstances thus appear to support greater prospects for interpersonal violence among high risk young men.

3.2.4.3 Role of social inequalities

This theoretical perspective appears to reflect a very common assumption articulated most often through various media channels that one’s activities lead to increased exposure to violent situations, persons, and places. The assumption and conclusion of observers is that individuals, not society, are to blame. These particular theories underscore an individualistic focus on lifestyle and/or behavioural orientation that characterizes contemporary media discourse on health, in addition to a well-established neoliberal agenda within global politics.

The reality of how racist educational and criminal justice decision making sets the stage for differential association gets scant attention from this theory. A society’s proclivity to arrest and detain Blacks for issues such as non-violent drug possession, for which many Whites are not similarly detained, needs much greater attention than what is accorded by this theory. The relevant focus may well be society’s role in constructing the learning

environments within which violence and criminal behaviour is learnt by Blacks, especially Black men. Societal structures and assumptions play a critical role in the construction of the phenomenon under scrutiny.

3.2.5 Conclusion

The limitation of criminological theories is evident in the disregard for the fundamental impact of racialization on homicide victimization risks beyond controlling for individual level risk factors (Levitt, 1999; Krueger et al., 2004). According to one study (Rogers et al., 2000), individual level risk factors only account for 35% of racial difference influences affecting victimization risk. It is also quite striking that social conformity, such as going to school, getting good grades and associating with prosocial peers, does not protect young Blacks from crime, violence, and harmful criminal justice interventions in the same way it does for members of other racial groups (Wortley & Owusu-Bempah, 2015). The strength of these racialized risks implicates anti-Black racism in constructing and maintaining Black neighbourhoods and social activity as dangerous environments for Black males in particular.

The realization that homicide victims were disproportionately Black, even in less socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods and smaller proportions of Black residents, also raises important questions about criminological theories (Khenti, 2017, see Chapter 4). The primary drivers may be the discriminatory experiences of Black residents within such environments; for instance, receiving far fewer educational rewards and positive reinforcement than would be expected given their class status. Racialized inequality experienced by Black residents within more affluent, non-Black communities may in fact be

having an equal effect on Black homicide victimization as racialized poverty and segregation (Unnever & Gabiddon, 2011). Differential association with peers with similar cultural attitudes and risk behaviours may therefore not be absolutely necessary to increase homicide