Is Delinquency an Individual or a Family Problem?
| Published date | 01 April 1934 |
| Date | 01 April 1934 |
| Author | S. Clement Brown |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455053400101906 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
297
IS
DELINQUENCY
AN
INDIVIDUAL
OR
A
FAMILY
PROBLEM?
By
S.
CLEMENT
BROWN,
M.A.,
(Tutor,
Mental
Course
London
School
of
Economics)
Being
An
Address
delivered
to
the
Midland
Branch
N.A.P.O.
Conference
at
Nottingham.
I N
these
days
of
classifying
and
labelling
people
we
__
are
apt
to
forget
that
&dquo;delinquent
&dquo;
is
the
name
not
of
an
individual
or
of
a
type,
but
of
a
relation-
ship :
the
relationship
between
an
individual
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
social
demands
that
have
been
made
upon
him
on
the
other.
No
economist
would
think
of
considering
seriously
the
problems
of
production
or
supply
without
relating
them
to
those
of
consumption
or
demand,
though
the
tangles
in
which
industry
finds
itself
to-day
seem
contingent
upon
the
failure
to
discover
a
proper
balance
between
the
two.
So
it
is
with
the
tangles
of
human
conduct.
Demands
are
too
great,
too
small,
or
too
conflicting
to
be
met
by
the
individual
member
of
the
family,
or
citizen
of
the
state;
or,
conversely,
the
output
of
the
individual
is
too
vigorous,
too
self-centred,
or
too
feeble
for
a
successful
balance
to
be
reached
between
the
two.
In
economics
we
are
reminded
that
the
producer
is
also
the
consumer.
So
the
individual
citizen
has
his
demands
of
society.
His
vigour
always
depends
upon
an
interchange
of
satis-
factions.
His
needs
must
be
met
if
we
are
to
expect
him
to
fulfil
his
obligations.
Probation
officers
do
not
need
to
be
reminded
of
the
enormous
variety
of
demands,
not
only
from
the
moral
point
of
view,
but
also
from
the
psychological
and
physical
standpoints,
that
are
placed
upon
individuals.
They
may
reply
that
this
is
as
it
should
be-because
every
individual
varies
in
capacity.
The
early
socialists
had
as
their
slogan &dquo; From
each
according
to
his
capa-
cities ;
to
each
according
to
his
needs &dquo; ;
;
a
motto
to
which
we
should
probably
all
consent
until
we
thought
about
the
enormous
complications
of
assessing
both
needs
and
capacities,
and
the
trouble
that
ensues
when
. we
have
to
decide
who
should
shoulder
this
respon-
sibility.
But
for
the
most
part
the
demands
which
we
make
on
other
people
and
which
other
people
make
on
us
are
not
reasoned
demands.
They
are
generally
the
result
of
our
own
emotional
needs.
Fortunately
or
unfortunately,
only
a
very
little
bit
of
our
behaviour
is
logical,
and
most
of
our
social
life
is
a
haphazard
affair.
Let
me
emphasise
then,
that
the
symptom
of
delin-
quency
must
be
considered
as
a
relationship.
It
seems
possible
that
social
workers
have
inclined
too
much
to
separation
of
what
they
are
pleased
to
call
&dquo; causes
&dquo;
of
delinquency,
into
the
individual
on
the
one
hand,
and
environment
on
the
other ;
into
heredity
and
life
experience.
People
form
themselves
into
schools
of
thought,
and &dquo; believe &dquo;
in
one
or
another,
without
realising
that
scientists
are
only
just
beginning
to
discover
methods
whereby
these
influences
can
be
separated
for
study.
The
unborn
babe
is
already
a
product
of
social
forces.
The
conduct
of
a
man
on
a
ship-wreck
will
be
influenced
not
only
by
the
exigencies
of
that
dramatic
situation
and
his
moral
standards,
but
also
by
the
qualities
which
he
inherited
from
his
forefathers.
It
is
generally
assumed
that
social
workers
are
&dquo;environmentalists.&dquo;
It
seems
to
me
that
they
should
allow
themselves
to
be
called
environmentalists
only
in
the
sense
that
they
should
not
accept
conclusions
about
human
beings,
or
allow
programmes
to
be
based
upon
a
study
of
the
individual
in
isolation ;
for
since
he
never
exists
in
isolation,
the
data
must
be
incomplete.
Equally
one-sided will
be
the
conclusions
of
the
person
who
makes
a
study
of
the
social
setting
of
an
individual,
without
considering
what
meaning
that
setting
has,
in
terms
of
the
ideas
and
feelings
of
the
individual
in
question.
The
same
situation
means
entirely
different
things
for
different
people.
To
the
physician,
for
instance,
a
person
damaged
by
accident
on
the
road
means
a
patient,
to
the
passer-by,
perhaps,
a
&dquo; thrill &dquo; ;
;
to
the
good
Samaritan
an
obligation ;
to
the
criminal
an
opportunity
for
plunder.
And
his
action
in
relation
to
it
will
differ
accordingly.
So
with
the
delinquent.
It
is
necessary
to
know
whether
he
comes
from
a
home
of
violence,
of
solicitude
or
of
indifference ;
but
this
can
hardly
be
significant
in
assessing
his
needs,
unless
we
know
what
this
means
for
him.
And
the
meaning
will
depend
upon
his
own
specific
individual
qualities
which
are
the
product
of
both
his
endowment
and
his
life
experiences.
Most
of
our
generalisations
about
the
causes
of
delin-
quency
come
from
summaries
of
many
cases
of
delin-
quents,
and
generally
the
delinquents
who
are
caught.
Very
few
people
have
taken
the
trouble
to
compare
the
lives
and
the
home
conditions
of
delinquent
families
with
those
who
are
law-abiding.
As
soon
as
such
an
enquiry
is
started
one
is
impressed
by
the
fact
that
some
of
the
very
features
of
family
life
which
in
the
delin-
quent’s
family
have
been
put
forward
as
generally
damaging,
in
other
cases
seem
to
have
become
sources
of
growth
and
stability.
A
member
of
a
women’s
club
who
was
interested
in
the
problems
of
family
life
described
her
home
to
me.
She
lived
in
fairly
comfortable
circumstances,
her
hus-
band
being
a
taxi-driver
in
regular
employment.
She
had
a
girl
of
eleven
and
a
boy
of
twenty-one,
also,
To continue reading
Request your trial