The Biological And Psychological Theories Of Adler And Adler

Part II in Adler and Adler covered some of the major theories of deviance. These theories included, biological and psychological theories, theories about the structure of the society, cultural theories, interactioinist theories, functionalist theories, differentiation theory, control theory, feminist theory, and constructionist theories. First I will briefly explain these theories, then I want to dive into the biological and psychological theories that peaked my interest. Biological and psychological theories believed that crime was related to "people's biological abnormalities or predispositions" (Adler and Adler 2016:57). This study focused on the genetic make-up of deviants and non-deviants. This was connected to the psychological theories
Durkheim claimed that "...societies with high degrees of social integration would increase the confomity of its member" and he claimed that deviance was "functional" (Adler and Adler 2016:61). Cultural theories claimed that was was deviant depended on one's culture that often causes conflict on what is considered deviant. Interactionist perspective believed that people learned deviance from their interactions with different people, such as family, peers, etc. Functionalist perspective saw that deviance was necessary for the proper function of the society, because it defined boundaries. Control theory proposes that deviance comes from the lack of a bond between an individual and the community they live in. Lastly, the feminist theory states that "...the cycle of victimization to criminalizations characterizes the gender related pathway of girls into deviance and crime"(Adler and Adler 2016:98). Feminist try to find a connection between how women are treated in society and how it affects deviance in
She now attends groups in order to help with her addictions that often claim that there is an "addictive gene" related to drug use and alcoholism. She tends to blame her deviance on our father who was addicted to alcohol when we were younger. The book doesn't go through too much about whether or not there is an "addiction gene" rather than they state that having extra "Y" chromosomes being related to deviance. However, I felt that the biological theory failed to explain why some girls have deviance, because they don't have a "Y" chromosome and can't fall under the "supermale" idea (Adler and Adler 2016:58) so I wanted to address deviance (addiction) to it's connection between parents and children, particularly in daughters since the book didn't address it, and why might other siblings not have this gene. I would propose that a "addictive gene" would be dominant gene where when it's present it overrides the recessive gene. For example, when one addict is with a non-addict, we can say the addict has XY where the X* will be the addiction gene in males, however, this wouldn't explain addiction in daughters since both parents would give and X gene that would be dominant. One explanation is a carrier of the gene, where the gene doesn't affect the carrier. For example, my father would have had genes that X*Y, where X would be