Abstract
While the role of race has been heavily scrutinized in terms of minority involvement in crime, it has remained largely invisible for Whites despite indications that Whites are overrepresented as offenders in elite white-collar crimes. We propose a theoretical model detailing how “whiteness” encourages cultural adaptations conducive to elite white-collar crime in contemporary US society. Many middle- and upper-class US Whites live in environments of relative social isolation, both geographically (in terms of schools and neighborhoods) and culturally (as mainstream media largely reflect the lived realities of middle- and upper-class Whites). When this social isolation is combined with financial advantage, it serves to block the development of empathy toward outgroups and increases feelings of individual entitlement, which leads to the formation of crime-specific cultural frames that include neutralizations and justifications for elite white-collar crime. We argue that whiteness plays a role that is independent from (but exacerbated by) socioeconomic status, and is an important contributor to the generative worlds from which many white-collar criminals emanate.
Introduction
The overrepresentation of Blacks 1 in serious forms of street crime (particularly crimes of violence) has been thoroughly researched, with different explanations offered as to the cause of this overrepresentation (Anderson, 1999; Burt et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2011; Sampson and Lauritsen, 1997; Unnever and Gabbidon, 2011). Significant energy has also been devoted to exploring factors related to white-collar crime, including cultural explanations. However, very little research explores the implications of race generally for white-collar crime, despite the fact that Whites have long been overrepresented in elite forms of white-collar crime such as corporate crime, investment fraud, and securities fraud (Friedrichs, 1996; Hagan et al., 1980; Harris and Shaw, 2000; Weisburd and Waring, 2001). 2 In other words, researchers have neglected the psychological impact of receiving racial privileges upon cultures conducive to criminal involvement—particularly elite white-collar offending. We explore the role of “whiteness” in the development of cultural norms that might allow offending to occur. By “whiteness” we refer to the experience of having white skin in a society which regularly favors or privileges those perceived as Whites—as Hartigan (1997: 496) states, “Studies of whiteness are demonstrating that whites benefit from a host of apparently neutral social arrangements and institutional operations, all of which seem—to whites at least—to have no racial basis.”
In our “Theory of Racial Privilege and Offending”, we develop testable propositions explaining how experiencing racial privilege predicts the creation of cultural frames conducive to white-collar crime. 3 We argue that many middle- and upper-class US Whites live in environments of relative social isolation, both physically and culturally. Such racialized isolation, when combined with financial privilege, motivates individual-centered perspectives over concerns for group welfare, and manifests in broad cognitive frameworks characterized by a lack of empathy for faceless/anonymous others and feelings of entitlement and competition. These cognitive frameworks, in turn, allow for potential offenders to neutralize or justify their actions without inducing guilt.
In putting forth this new theory, we emphasize that we are not stereotyping all Whites or White culture, 4 but rather are examining how one’s (socially constructed) racial position impacts one’s attitude toward offending. Just as others before us have argued that structural conditions experienced by African Americans cultivate attitudes that allow adaptive (sometimes criminal) behaviors to occur among some individuals in the group (Anderson, 1999; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; Unnever and Gabbidon, 2011), we argue that Whites often live in environments that cultivate attitudes allowing certain (sometimes criminal) behaviors to occur among some individuals in this group. By detailing this process, we highlight how theories of race and crime have unduly focused attention on young, African American males as the primary offenders of interest to criminologists and hope to begin a conversation about whiteness and the problems of racial isolation for all individuals in all socioeconomic classes (particularly considering the substantial impact of elite white-collar crimes). 5 While the intersectionality of race with gender and class informs this theory (Potter, 2013), particularly given the disproportionate number of white-collar offenders that are males from wealthy backgrounds, we focus on the role of racial privilege as it has been undertheorized in the literature (Smith, 2014). Furthermore, we argue that by looking beyond street crimes, our understanding of the relationship between race and crime becomes more complete by incorporating the effect of all racial positions, rather than just minority racial positions.
Specifically, our focus is on the impact of racial privilege in promoting elite white-collar crimes in the contemporary United States. We include crimes falling under Helmkamp et al.’s (1996: 351) definition of white-collar crime as “illegal or unethical acts that violate fiduciary responsibility or public trust, committed by an individual or organization, usually during the course of legitimate occupational activity, by persons of high or respectable social status for personal or organizational gain”. Since our focus is on decision making by elite white-collar offenders, our theory can apply to individually beneficial crimes (e.g. embezzlement) as well as corporate crimes (i.e. crimes committed to benefit the corporation as a whole; Braithwaite, 1984) when top management’s decision to offend becomes corporate-level behavior (see Cohen and Simpson, 1997; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Pinto et al., 2008). We believe that this theory has the potential to engage in and impact a variety of additional issues, including: the definitional ambiguity that hinders white-collar crime scholarship (see, for example, Friedrichs, 2009; Rorie et al., 2018); the role of racial privilege on a wide range of problematic behaviors beyond elite white-collar crime; the role of whiteness in the construction of capitalism itself in the USA (and, therefore, the sorts of behaviors that are criminalized in such a system; see, for example, Childs, 2015; McLaren and Torres, 1999; Monzó and McLaren, 2016); and comparative understandings of the impact of positional privilege both internationally and across time periods (such as apartheid in South Africa or the Wajin in Japan; see Levin, 2008). Although such issues are incredibly important, it is beyond the scope of this article to engage in all of these topics.
In order to best illuminate the role of race in white-collar offending decisions, as well as to situate it within previous theories of (US-specific) race and crime, we present our theory in the context of a parallel to cultural theories of race and street crime that explain offending as a consequence of an offender’s physical and social environments—environments that ultimately foster cognitive justifications for crime (see Figure 1). We start by discussing the structural conditions that allow certain cultures to develop. We then outline the broad cognitive frameworks that arise as a result of White social isolation, before detailing how broad cognitive frameworks translate into crime-specific cognitive frames. We also discuss how the unique characteristics of white-collar crime fail to challenge these crime-specific neutralizations. We then conclude with implications of the theory.
The Theory of Racial Privilege and Offending, as contrasted with theories of African American pathways to offending.
Race-based structural conditions and criminal offending
Disadvantage and social isolation
From the beginning, cultural theories of crime have emphasized how economic disadvantage gives rise to criminogenic cultural adaptations (Cullen et al., 2006). Cultural theorists have paid particular attention to the experience of African Americans due to this racial group being uniquely situated within contexts of concentrated disadvantage (Sampson and Wilson, 1995) and the historical focus of criminologists in collecting data based on the Black/White dichotomy (Muhammad, 2010). This research provides a useful foil for understanding the role of race and culture in white-collar crime.
Impoverished Blacks in the USA live in situations that are not comparable to any areas that are predominately White—that is, impoverished White communities do not have the same levels of concentrated disadvantage that are found in predominately Black impoverished communities (Massey and Denton, 1993; Sampson and Wilson, 1995). As such, race increases the likelihood of developing cognitive frameworks conducive to street crime simply because Blacks are disproportionately likely to live in areas of extreme concentrated disadvantage. According to the racial invariance thesis, any racial group would be expected to develop similar frames living in such conditions (Sampson and Wilson, 1995).
However, race can also have a more direct effect through social isolation and the specific lived experiences of being Black (Anderson, 1999; Kirk and Papachristos, 2011; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 1987). Research indicates that racial discrimination is a predictor of subsequent criminal activity (Burt et al., 2012; Joosen, 2016 as discussed in Hayes et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2011), and several contemporary cultural theories incorporate the role of racial discrimination combined with economic disadvantage (Anderson, 1999; Simons and Burt, 2011; Unnever and Gabbidon, 2011). Importantly, in many of these theories, it is the “social isolation” of poverty and race that is the criminogenic condition. In such situations, “cultural frames” emerge as a response (or survival mechanism) to these structural problems.
Advantage and social isolation
Existing cultural theories of race and crime generally propose that structural disadvantage leads to cognitive frames that are then conducive to street crime. Similarly, our Theory of Racial Privilege and Offending suggests that racial advantages lead to frames that are then conducive to white-collar crime. Previous scholars have suggested the role of financial advantages and its potential link to crime (Goldstraw-White, 2012; Hagan, 1992; Shover and Hochstetler, 2006; Wright et al., 1999), as well as the role of masculinity (Messerschmidt, 1997). Shover and Hochstetler’s (2006) description of “generative worlds” explains how childrearing in middle- and upper-class families produces adults who are entitled, arrogant, and highly competitive. These values, they argue, promote white-collar offending (see also Shover, 2007; Shover and Hunter, 2010).
Racial privilege intersects with financial advantage and masculinity to produce structural conditions conducive to white-collar offending. 6 Whiteness is about more than just race-based privilege, it is about the construction and maintenance of justifications that defend these racial privileges in a society that claims that all individuals are judged only on their own merit, with race playing no role. Just as African Americans experience deleterious outcomes that go beyond that of race-correlated socioeconomic status (SES) and are directly tied to the stigma of racial status (e.g. in life expectancy rates; Williams, 1999), Whites can be impacted by privileges beyond that of SES that are tied to the status afforded them in US society. Similar to how Wilkinson and Pickett (2011) find that inequality matters beyond privilege in measures of well-being among countries, we believe it is the inequality between racial groups (that is, racial position) that impacts cultures of white-collar crime.
Whites generally live in environments marked by high levels of social isolation, both geographically and culturally. Due to their greater numbers, their social preferences, and a long history of housing policies and practices shaped by Whites in the USA (such as redlining and blockbusting), Whites are far more likely to live in neighborhoods predominately made up of their own racial group (Logan and Stults, 2011), to attend schools that are disproportionately White (Orfield et al., 2012), and to have largely White social networks (Jones, 2014). Even compared to minorities at the same income level, Whites live in more affluent areas (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2014; Kochhar and Fry, 2014; Logan, 2014).
Such isolation is compounded for financially advantaged Whites. Residing in an affluent area promotes social isolation (Massey, 1996; Sampson, 2012)—not only do affluent households have higher levels of geographic separation than impoverished households, economically privileged individuals maintain social distance from less advantaged individuals (Krivo et al., 2013). Due to the confluence of affluence and race, this social isolation has a racial component—income inequality produces income segregation through the “concentrated affluence” of Whites (Reardon and Bischoff, 2011). To illustrate, the typical Black student attends a school in which 64% of the population is low income while the typical White student attends a school in which 34% of the population is low income (Orfield et al., 2012). This racialized social isolation then provides an important context by which broad cognitive landscapes develop.
Whites in the United States are not only socially and geographically isolated, they are also surrounded by popular culture that reflects a White viewpoint: they are overrepresented in movies, news and TV programming, on fashion magazine covers, and even in children’s books (Cooperative Children’s Book Center, 2017; Hunt et al., 2016; Kim, 2015, Media Matters, 2008; Smith et al., 2015). Furthermore, the media’s qualitative depiction of Whites differs from that of minorities. In news as well as fictional portrayals of crime, Whites are more likely to be shown in sympathetic roles (such as a victim; Bjornstrom et al., 2010; Britto and Dabney, 2010; Britto et al., 2007). A common explanation for lacking diversity in popular culture is that it does not “sell” (Terrero, 2014), implying that Whites as a group have difficulty relating to, or empathizing with, characters that are racially different from themselves.
Workplace isolation
In addition to being isolated in broader society, there is evidence that the predominantly White corporate elite are isolated in terms of their work environments, which then contributes to unique workplace cultures. White-collar crime scholars explain how cultural values are able to permeate workplaces because of efforts to isolate employees from outside influences. Sutherland et al. (1983 [1949]), for example, argued that white-collar offenders learn to offend as they are ordered by upper management to engage in aberrant behaviors, as they see how their peers earn promotions, and as they are taught how to handle specific situations with such techniques. Furthermore, white-collar and corporate offenders tend to be isolated from people that speak out against offending, as high-status (i.e. similarly situated) individuals in the media and politics tend to ignore white-collar and corporate crime.
Coleman (1987, 1998) specifies how corporations motivate their employees to accept unethical/illegal business norms and to adopt the “repertoires of actions” (Coleman, 1998: 197) prescribed by the corporation. These repertoires consist of behavioral options (including unethical behaviors) that can be drawn upon in any situation to further corporate goals (and are analogous to the cultural frames among inner city residents in which criminal behavior is justified based upon the available “constraints and opportunities” (Sampson and Bean, 2006: 16).
What is missing from this discussion, though, is the role of racial isolation in the workplace. The dearth of racial diversity within elite corporate levels is one more way in which the cognitive frameworks supporting problematic workplace culture is left unchallenged. Evidence suggests that top management in US corporations—those positions making decisions about corporate behaviors—is made up of predominantly White individuals, with typically 90% of top management being White (Garcia, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Wallace, 2015). Thus, individuals shaping workplace culture and demands on lower-level employees are disproportionately likely to have come from areas characterized by racial privilege.
Broad cognitive frameworks
Broad cognitive framework of financially privileged Whites
Cultural theories of race and street crime have evolved from viewing culture as values which require criminal behavior or “value” criminal behavior as a positive trait, to an understanding of culture as cognitive frameworks that allow for crime as a response to structural restraints despite cultural values that would otherwise prohibit those acts (Lamont and Small, 2008; Sampson and Bean, 2006; Swidler, 1986). Our conception of “broad cognitive frameworks” follows this development and views the influence of culture as shaping interpretations of reality (thus shaping choices) and making different tools available for different situations (thus providing constraints and possibilities of action). This is in keeping with Bourdieu’s (1990) concept of “schemas”, and—more specifically—is similar in nature to the cognitive landscapes of “legal cynicism” (Sampson and Bartusch, 1998) and the “social schemas” described by Simons and Burt (2011).
Importantly, the cultural adaptations conducive to crime do not manifest themselves uniformly to all members of the group (Lamont and Small, 2008). Just as Unnever and Gabbidon (2011) propose that African Americans share a “worldview”, many Whites may also share a “worldview”. The outcome of this worldview on criminal offending is not predetermined, but rather is affected by other factors (such as racial socialization), and is marked by cultural heterogeneity (Harding, 2011; Unnever and Gabbidon, 2011). Similarly, Anderson notes that living in areas of disadvantage does not have a uniform effect on all residents and the majority of individuals follow “decent” values; the same is true of Whites with economic privilege. White privilege combined with economic privilege simply increases the likelihood of frames conducive to white-collar crime, but the outcome is not inevitable.
While cultural adaptations conducive to white-collar crime tie in closely with capitalism (and wealth), whiteness has an independent effect above and beyond those features. Just as Rostain and Regan (2014) document changes in the culture of tax firms over time within the same context of capitalism, whiteness acts independently in impacting how people will act within the context of capitalism, or when living with great wealth. 7
In the theory presented here, we suggest that the social isolation of Whites who live in areas of concentrated advantage has three consequences. Specifically, it: (1) undermines the development of empathy toward “anonymous” others; (2) contributes to feelings of entitlement; and (3) promotes competitive values. These three outcomes can result in one “broad cognitive framework”—note that this way of thinking is not specific to crime but has broad implications for a person’s behavior (both criminal and non-criminal actions).
Reduced empathy for out-groups
We argue that the social isolation of Whites undermines feelings of empathy toward “anonymous” or faceless others, those with whom a person does not have direct contact. Due to geographic and social isolation, racial bias, and the promotion of individualism, Whites are not accustomed to considering the experiences of other racial groups and come to view members of racial out-groups as a homogenous whole that differs in meaningful ways from themselves. Whites have learned to actively resist understanding the role of race in their lives (Mills, 2007). Furthermore, the positional privilege that allows Whites to disregard their own race as an explanatory factor for their success (Haney Lopez, 1996) primes Whites to neglect how structure impacts their lives. This decreases empathy to faceless others as Whites fail to consider how structure impacts the lives of people of other races. As Jones (2014) notes, the failure of many Whites to understand the situational differences caused by racial position in the USA (and thus how it impacts the experiences of African Americans) leads to an inability for Whites to be able to truly empathize with other racial groups. As a result, the actions or emotions of other racial groups that are seen as divergent from the White viewpoint are often seen as reflective of a homogenous group, are not fully understood, and do not evoke empathic responses.
For example, as Muhammad (2010) demonstrates, the creation of the stereotype of “black criminality” leads to a situation in which crime by Whites is seen as indicative of social problems or individual failings and is not reflective of the White race, whereas the criminality of Blacks is seen as a race problem, and reflects on Blacks as a racial group. Studies show, for example, that Whites in the USA—as a group—hold more punitive attitudes than other racial groups, and several studies have found that racial bias and racial resentment by Whites increases their punitive attitudes (Barkan and Cohn, 2005; Hetey and Eberhardt, 2014; Johnson, 2008; Unnever et al., 2008). There is also evidence that Whites act on subconscious bias against other groups in such areas as employment (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004; Pager, 2003) and housing (Krysan et al., 2009; Lewis et al., 2011; Turner et al., 2013).
In contrast, Blacks are far more likely to be surrounded by and have regular contact with individuals from different racial groups (Jones, 2014; Logan and Stults, 2011). They are also presented with a culture that largely presents the viewpoint of the White majority, and thus are regularly asked to identify with and empathize with members of other racial groups with different racial experiences. As “Non-white Americans are seldom afforded this luxury of seeing themselves as individuals, disconnected from any race” (Wray, 2006: 27), Blacks may be more empathetic to the experiences of faceless others due to their own experiences of being stereotyped. Blacks are also more likely than Whites to experience (or to have contact with individuals who have experienced) discrimination or hardships traced to their racial identity (see, for example, Staples, 1984) and as such are more likely to consider how external forces may impact groups of people—or that is, faceless or anonymous others.
Although opinion polls indicate that minorities are as likely as Whites to value the importance of individual effort in success, minorities are more likely to also see a role for society in ensuring equal opportunities for individuals to succeed (Pew Research Center, 2005). Whites are less likely to support the intervention of government to ensure equal opportunities (Pew Research Center, 2005), which may indicate that Whites are less likely than other racial groups to feel responsible for the well-being or equal protection of others, or empathize with the hardships that they may face based upon their racial identity. 8 Whites’ lack of support for race-based policies likely reflects the fact that they do not perceive discrimination to be an important factor in differential opportunities (Bobo and Kluegel, 1993), which may indicate a lack of consideration, or empathy, for the lived experiences of others. We argue that by dismissing (or failing to consider), evidence of the effects of historic and current racial discrimination’s deleterious consequences, Whites become primed to dismiss the experiences of faceless others—regardless of the racial identity of those others (see, for example, Carter, 2009; Wade, 2001).
Research supports that financial affluence is correlated with decreased empathy as well. Low-income individuals are more charitable givers than are high-income individuals (Warner, 2010), while upper-class individuals are worse at reading the emotions of others (Kraus et al., 2010). Psychological experiments indicate that financial advantage can lead to lower levels of compassion and consideration for others, as well as increased unethical behavior (Dubois et al., 2015; Lamy et al., 2016; Piff et al., 2010, 2012; Stellar et al., 2012). Reardon and Bischoff (2016) argue that the concentration of affluence may have the effect of inhibiting social empathy as high-income families become less likely to have contact with middle- and low-income families. We believe that these findings likely reflect the impact of living in areas of racial isolation among financially affluent individuals.
Entitlement
Feelings of entitlement can arise among members of the dominant group as a natural by-product of racial hierarchy (Blumer, 1958), but we suggest they can also arise when Whites evaluate their own accomplishments without considering any racial advantages they have received. As discussed above, blocked empathy contributes to an ideology in which the individual is reified over the group, which can then lead to feelings of entitlement. When Whites are unable to feel empathy toward groups suffering from structural disadvantage, they see only the effects of individual effort and thus assume that individual effort is sufficient to ensure success. This can then contribute to a sense of entitlement—where one feels they deserve to be given certain privileges. Lareau (2002, 2011) notes that class differences in child-rearing, specifically the concerted cultivation of middle-class children, produce feelings of entitlement among middle-class children. Middle- and upper-class parents teach their children to challenge authority figures, to be actively involved in adult conversations, to give their opinions, and to pester adults to get what they want (as opposed to working-class households, in which parents tend to give directions/opinions without much opportunity for the child’s feedback). When middle- and upper-class children “offend” and are subject to potential punishments, they learn that they can negotiate the sanctions meted out—often by claiming that they did not intend to cause harm, that their behavior is morally justified, or that the offense was not serious (Lareau, 2011; Shover and Hochstetler, 2006; see, for example, Ethan Couch’s “affluenza” defense, Eckenroth, 2015). This then extends into the workplace in which white-collar offenders believe that their contributions to society entitle them to financial benefits and rewards. Legal restrictions interfere with obtaining what they rightly deserve, therefore circumventing these restrictions is justified (Shover and Hochstetler, 2006).
Race may also serve to insulate White children from experiences that challenge feelings of entitlement. Rather than identifying structural advantages of whiteness that contribute to their own success, Whites are more likely to attribute success solely to individual effort and thus see their successes as indicative of their own superior worth. White individuals may then view the lower rates of success among racial groups (such as Blacks) to be indicative of cultural or individual failings rather than reflective of historical and structural barriers to success (Bobo et al., 2012). This might contribute to a view of other racial groups as homogenous entities with shared deficiencies, whereas “Whites” are viewed as a heterogeneous group. Public opinion polls find that many White Americans believe the reason for Blacks’ subordinate economic status (compared to Whites) is a failure to work hard—these beliefs then predict Whites’ reluctance to support welfare programs benefitting all individuals (Gilens, 1995). Such beliefs foster a frame condoning views of some individuals as exceptional and thus more deserving of financial wealth. Whites that fail to see the benefits that result simply from being White may be more likely to develop feelings of entitlement. This feeling of entitlement is likely to be exacerbated when combined with other advantages, such as financial status or gender.
As others have noted (Shover and Hochstetler, 2006), these feelings of exceptionalism likely contribute to neutralizations that allow for the commission of white-collar crime. Shover and Hochstetler (2006: 69) note that the sense of entitlement found among financially privileged individuals stems from a sense of “moral hierarchy” that arises because they are in positions of power and thus “operate daily with an understanding that their honor and respectability are a given, and they are entitled to be treated accordingly; privilege and deference is their due”. We argue that racial privilege also confers a sense of “moral hierarchy” through a culture that emphasizes the contributions of Whites and undervalues the contributions of Blacks (and other minorities) in history lessons (Loewen, 2008) and public discourse. This culture also uses public narratives in which coded language praises “job creators” and vilifies “takers” or “welfare cheats” in a way that is racially loaded (Haney Lopez, 1996; Nelson and Robison, 2013). Notably, this is a narrative that is widely embraced not only by financially advantaged individuals, but also poor and working-class individuals (Hochschild, 2016).
Haney Lopez (1996) demonstrates that the construction of whiteness depended upon first defining what it meant to be “non-white” and then creating whiteness as the “superior opposite” to non-whiteness. Thus for “each negative characteristic ascribed to people of color, an equal but opposite and positive characteristic is attributed to Whites” (1996: 28). Whites come to expect and feel entitled to the benefits of whiteness, even as they deny the impact of race in society. Historical and contemporary battles against racial equity (such as opposition to desegregation in housing and education) led by prominent White politicians not only demonstrate this entitlement, but also serve to teach the justifications for this entitlement to future generations (Lipsitz, 2006). To the extent that policies and practices benefit Whites in the forms of neighborhoods and schools that allow for racial and financial segregation, or the lack of enforcement of fair housing laws, Whites learn a lesson of arrogance and entitlement when it comes to hoarding social benefits. The color-blind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2009) that allows them to see the current order as “natural”—and any resulting inequality as reflective of individual choices of minorities rather than structure—allows these feelings of entitlement to go unchallenged.
Competitiveness
Shover’s (2007; Shover and Hochstetler, 2006) cultural theory of white-collar crime specifies how middle- and upper-class children operate in environments that prime individuals to engage in white-collar offending. These “generative worlds” not only lead to arrogance and entitlement, but also prioritize competition over cooperation. Parents compare siblings to one another and expect all children to be successful (defined in terms of material wealth or indications of future material success). They actively monitor their children’s efforts and likelihood for success (as opposed to working-class parents who take a much more “hands-off” approach to child development; Lareau, 2011; Shover, 2007). Shover argues that when “winning” is the criterion by which one’s worth is judged, one is more likely to do whatever it takes to win and can justify unethical behaviors in the name of achieving success. This is supported by findings that high levels of “interpersonal competitiveness” increased the likelihood of insider trading even after controlling for parents’ income, social class, and need for achievement (Terpstra et al., 1993).
The environment that supports such thinking is a property of capitalist ideals more generally. Coleman (1987, 1998) talks specifically about “the culture of competition” and how it motivates white-collar crime. The desire for wealth, coupled with a “fear of falling” (Piquero, 2012), leads to insecurities. Society values the competition for individual success and implies that economic competition is fair—you only have to work hard to be successful. This leads to a belief among many that the poor (i.e. the “unsuccessful”) are lazy or incapable and, thus, the fear of losing material wealth is linked to a fear of being seen as a failure or of “losing the competition”. To the extent that White individuals view their social position as part of a racial hierarchy (Blumer, 1958) and have labeled racial minorities as less deserving due to lower aggregate levels of success, whiteness contributes to a fear of failing as it jeopardizes one’s own superiority compared to racial minorities.
Crime-specific cognitive frameworks and criminal opportunity characteristics
In our theory, we suggest these broad frames (which are not necessarily crime-related) can be transformed into crime-specific actions through the use of crime-specific cognitive frameworks analogous to Sykes and Matza’s (1957) original five techniques of neutralization (i.e. denial of responsibility, denial of victim, denial of injury, appeal to higher loyalty, and condemning the condemner), as well as three white-collar and corporate-crime-specific neutralization added by white-collar crime scholars: the “defense of necessity”; the “claim of normality”; and the “claim to entitlement” (see Heath, 2008; Klenowski, 2012). Empirical scholarship supports the use of neutralizations and the salience of workplace culture in promoting white-collar offending (Benson, 1985; Copes et al., 2013; Klenowski, 2012; Piquero et al., 2005; Shover and Hochstetler, 2006; Shover and Hunter, 2010; Stadler and Benson, 2012; Willott et al., 2001). The characteristics of much white-collar crime (e.g. indirect victimization, context within a legitimate and competitive work environment) fail to challenge these frameworks.
There is much evidence that the content of white-collar offenders’ neutralizations expands beyond those used by conventional offenders because of their advantaged social status (Benson, 1985; Copes et al., 2013; Stadler and Benson, 2012) as well as the types of crimes being committed (Benson, 1985). The framework of entitlement means that white-collar offenders, given the opportunity to commit crime, are less likely to question whether their actions fit a criminal identity (using Heath’s 2008 “claim to entitlement”). By claiming broader, more altruistic motivations for their crimes—such as the need to supply jobs within a community—elite white-collar offenders evidence drawing on their feelings of entitlement (see also Copes et al., 2013; Klenowski et al., 2011).
The depressed ability to empathize with anonymous others allows white-collar offenders to employ neutralizations that deny harm. Elite white-collar offending is often indirect or involves (relatively) small amounts dispersed over a wide number of victims; allowing offenders to claim “denial of injury”. White-collar crimes are often depicted as “victimless” in the larger society, making this neutralization particularly useful for white-collar offenders (Croall, 2014, 2016; Gottschalk, 2012).
Prioritizing competitiveness promotes cognitive frames emphasizing business success over everything else—thus white-collar offenders might “appeal to higher loyalties” (e.g. by claiming that crime was necessary to keep the corporation in business (Benson, 1985; Copes et al., 2013; Heath, 2008) or employ the “claim of normality” (i.e. that the crime is necessary to remain competitive; Klenowski, 2012).
Of particular note for our theory, elite white-collar crimes tend to involve very different victim–offender relationships than traditional offenses. By dispersing victimization across many individuals, offenders are less likely to be faced with a single individual’s suffering from victimization and thus are not forced to commiserate with those victims (Croall, 2014; Gottschalk, 2012). Since whiteness insulates individuals from feeling responsible for, or empathizing with, the experiences of others, potential offenders are less likely to feel responsible for ensuring that their actions (or those of their business) do not create harm or violate regulations. 9 Further exacerbating a lack of empathy on the part of the offenders, crime victims themselves are generally unaware and unable to detect that they have been victimized (Croall, 2014, 2016) or are unwilling to report their victimization. Victims may not know who to report the crime to, or if they do report, victims may call it a “complaint” or “incident”—rather than calling it a crime (Croall, 2014, 2016). This fails to challenge, and even reinforces, the frames of the offenders which reifies individual action over concern for group well-being (that is, placing the blame on the victim for not engaging in enough self-protection), and justifies their feelings of entitlement (by being smart and skilled enough to engage in these actions without consequences).
Conclusion
The racial impact of whiteness has not been sufficiently explored in the study of crime. Here, we propose a theory of white-collar crime that remedies this omission. While theories of race and crime have focused on the effect of concentrated disadvantage in crime, the role of concentrated advantage is equally important in understanding elite white-collar crime. Our theory, in sum, states that the social isolation and racial privileges experienced by Whites (particularly when combined with relative financial advantage) contribute to the formation of frames that undermine the development of empathy toward anonymous others, encourage competition, and increase feelings of individual entitlement. These broad cognitive frameworks promote crime-specific frameworks, or techniques of neutralization, that promote white-collar offending. Because of the unique criminal opportunity characteristics of white-collar crime (specifically, that they tend to victimize anonymous others and take place in the context of legitimate business work), these cognitive frameworks are not adequately challenged.
This theory suggests the urgent need for a more integrated society—both geographically (residential and school segregation) as well as in popular culture. Perhaps by drawing attention to the role of whiteness in the commission of elite white-collar crimes that cost victims and taxpayers billions of dollars, we can create interest in dismantling the institutions of whiteness that have worked so effectively to maintain a racially and financially segregated society. This manifestation of whiteness is not inevitable, but rather is an outcome of historical and cultural dynamics, which (like any other culture) can be impacted by addressing antecedent structural factors.
We would also like to suggest that research examining the effect of whiteness on broad cognitive frameworks can be applied in a variety of areas beyond elite white-collar crime (e.g. hiring decisions, school choice, housing, opinions regarding gun-ownership, traditional offending, etc.). The cognitive frameworks we suggest are subtler than “racial prejudice” and can help explain discriminatory action in the face of a seeming lack of prejudice.
While some may say that this theory is premature given the lack of data available to test it, we argue it is the lack of data that has obscured the relationship between race and white-collar crime. Just as Muhammad (2010) documents how data collection choices were integral in constructing ideas of Black and White criminality, and Henne and Shah (2015) find that criminological research upholds “White logic”, data collection choices which disproportionately focus on street crime have generally resulted in criminological theories that explain only street crime (for excellent reviews of data limitations as well as theoretical shortcomings in this field, see Braithwaite, 1985; Simpson, 2010, 2013; Simpson and Yeager, 2015). Without a clean, testable, theoretical framework on the relationship between race and white-collar offending, data collection efforts will continue to neglect race, or treat it only as something to be “controlled for”, further perpetuating the invisibility of whiteness.
Understanding the role of whiteness is not only relevant for scholarly research on crime, but in terms of public understandings of race as well. Drawing attention to racial components of white-collar crime can contribute to a public conversation about whiteness and the problems of racial isolation for society more generally. To date, research on concentrated advantage has focused on the extent to which such areas confer benefits to those living in these areas, and have been seen as negative only to the extent that they have excluded others from those benefits. We hope that our work will shift attention to some of the deleterious consequences of racial and economic segregation in terms of those living in areas of concentrated advantage (i.e. the adoption of maladaptive cultural frameworks) as well as for society (through white-collar crime victimization).
We have gone too long with a view of race as having a single impact on crime based on disadvantage, without examining the counterpart of crime’s relationship with social advantage. This research addresses an important topic that has been neglected by scholars and policy makers. It is vital that we stop seeing racial division in the USA as a one-way street affecting only the choices and decisions of minorities (i.e. Latinos and Blacks), and start to examine the impact it has on the choices and decisions of Whites as well.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Brian Johnson and Sally S Simpson (University of Maryland, College Park), Graham Ousey and Deenesh Sohoni (College of William & Mary), Charis Kubrin (University of California, Irvine), Matthew West (University of Nevada, Las Vegas), and the anonymous reviewers for their incredibly helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. All errors remain our own. We would also like to express our unending appreciation to our mentor, Ray Paternoster of the University of Maryland; his influence (both academically and personally) will continue to guide our research and serve as a model for balancing intellectualism with lightheartedness.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
