1 See, e.g., Scheff, Thomas J., “Review Essay: A New Durkheim,” 96 Am J. Soc. 741 (1990).Google Scholar

2 For a diversity of views on integrated theory, see Steven Messner, Marvin Krohn, & Allen Liska, eds., Theoretical lnregrarion in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989) (“Messner et al., Theoretical Integration”).Google Scholar

3 John Braithwaite, in J. Laufer & F. Adler, eds., 2 Advances in Criminological Theory 164 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1990).Google Scholar

4 Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969) (“Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency”).Google Scholar

5 See Edwin H. Sutherland, “Development of the Theory,” in Karl Schuessler, ed., Edwin H. Sutherland on Analyzing Crime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973) (“Schuessler, Sutherland”).Google Scholar

6 Travis Hirschi, “Separate and Unequal Is Better,” 16 J. Res. Crime & Delinq. 38 (1979).Google Scholar

7 While such schematics may not capture all of the nuances of a complex theory, they force explicit specification of the concrete indicators and causal paths hypothesized by the theory. For this reason, the diagrams are a useful heuristic device for introducing the theory of reintegrative shaming.Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., John Braithwaite, Inequality, Crime and Public Policy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) (“Braithwaite, Inequality”); id., Prisons, Education, and Work: Toward a National Employment Strategy for Prisoners (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1980; id, Corpotate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984; id, To Punish or Persuade: Enforcement of Coal Mine Safety (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985.Google Scholar

9 In Causes of Delinquency, Hirschi viewed delinquency as the result of a weakened bond to school, family, and other social units. This bond varies along dimensions of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.Google Scholar

10 See Ruth R. Kornhauser, Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) (“Kornhauser, Social Sources”), for a comprehensive examination of consensus and other underlying assumptions in prominent criminological theories.Google Scholar

11 On this point, see Matsueda, Ross L., “The Current State of Differential Association Theory,” 34 Crime & Delinq. 277 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 In an author-meets-critics panel discussion of Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Albert K. Cohen suggested that Braithwaite treat consensus as a variable (annual meetings of American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, 22 Nov. 1991).Google Scholar

13 Clifford Shaw & Henry McKay, juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).Google Scholar

14 Bursik, Robert, “Social Disorganization & Theories of Crime and Delinquency,” 26 Criminology 519 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See, e.g., Robert J. Sampson, “Communities and Crime,” in M. Gottfredson & T. Hirschi, eds., Positive Criminology (Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1987); Marvin Krohn, “The Web of Conformity: A Network Approach to the Explanation of Delinquent Behavior,” 33 Soc. Robs. 81 (1986); and more recently, R. Sampson & B. Groves, “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory,” 94 Am. j. Soc. 774 (1989). Since the publication of Crime, Shame and Reintegration, advances in hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) have fostered the specification of community factors in crime and delinquency research. For an application to criminology, see Robert J. Bursik, Jr., “Methods of Studying Community Change in the Rate and Pattern of Crime” (presented at annual meetings of American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, 1992). For a more general treatment of HLM, see Anthony Bryk & Stephen Raudenbush, Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1992.Google Scholar

16 Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D. Hall (1893]; New York: Free Press, 1984).Google Scholar

17 For the latter view, see Elliott Currie, Confronting Crime: An American Challenge 46 (New York: Pantheon, 1985).Google Scholar

18 Research & Training Institute, Ministry of Justice, ed., Summary of the White Paper on Crime 56 (Tokyo: Government of Japan, 1990).Google Scholar

19 See Rosenbaum, James E. & Kariya, Takehiko, “From High School to Work: Market and Institutional Mechanisms in Japan,” 94 Am. J. Soc. 1334 (1989), and Rosenbaum, James E., Kariya, Takehiko, Settersten, Rick, & Maier, Tony, “Market and Network Theories of the Transition from High School to Work: Their Application to Industrialized Societies,” 16 Ann. Rev. Soc. 263 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Richard A. Cloward & Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960).Google Scholar

21 See, e.g. Braithwaite, , Inequality (cited in note 8); id., “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered,” 46 Am. Soc. Rev. 36 (1981). For the opposing view that class is not an important correlate of crime, see Tittle, Charles R., Villemez, Wayne J., & Smith, Douglas A., “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence,” 43 Am. Soc. Reu. 643 (1978), and Tittle, Charles R. & Meier, Robert F., “Specifying the SES/Delinquency Relationship,” 28 Criminology 271 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 See Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie,” 3 Am. Soc. Rev. 672 (1938); Edwin Sutherland & Donald Cressey, Criminology (10th ed. Philadelphia: Lippin-cott, 1978.Google Scholar

23 See, e.g., Braithwaite, , Inequality; Toni Makkai & John Braithwaite. “Criminological Theories and Regulatory Compliance,” 29 Criminology 191 (1991).Google Scholar

24 Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control 101 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966).Google Scholar

25 But see Edwin H. Sutherland, “Critique of the Theory,” in Schuessler, Sutherland 30 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973). In response to this critique, Sutherland argues that “receptivity” is nothing more than prior learning and is therefore interpretable within the differential association framework.Google Scholar

26 For an ethnomethodological account of discourse in such negotiations in a criminal justice setting, see Douglas W. Maynard, “Defendant Attributes in Plea Bargaining: Notes on the Modeling of Sentencing Decisions,” 29 Soc. Probs. 347 (1982), and id., Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation (New York: Plenum, 1984.Google Scholar

27 George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934); Erving Goffman, Relations in Public (New York: Basic Books, 1971 (“Goffman, Relations in Public”).Google Scholar

28 Goffman, , Relations in Public 113.Google Scholar

29 Garrison Keillor, Happy to Be Here 120 (New York: Atheneum, 1981).Google Scholar

30 Id. at 124.Google Scholar

31 Although an unintended error differs from an intentional violation in important ways, the symbolic role of the apology is clear in both cases.Google Scholar

32 On the comparative meaning of apology in Japan and the United States, see Sanders, Joseph & Hamilton, V. Lee, “Legal Cultures and Punishment Repertoires,” 26 Law & Soc'y Rev. 117, 129 (1992), and Wagatsuma, Hiroshi & Rosett, Arthur, “The Implications of Apology: Law and Culture in Japan and the United States,” 20 Law & Soc'y Rev. 461, 492 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 See, e.g., Kornhauser, Social Sources (cited in note 10); Michael R. Gottfredson & Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime 41 (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1990) (“Gottfredson & Hirschi, General Theory”).Google Scholar

34 Kornhauser, , Social Sources 41.Google Scholar

35 Gottfredson & Hirschi, General Theory 272–73.Google Scholar

36 John Braithwaite and Philip Pettit advance a theory of justice that challenges re-tributivist theories of punishment in Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) (“Braithwaite & Pettit, Not Jut Deserts”).Google Scholar

37 See Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law 139 (New York: Free Press/Macmillan, 1990), and his “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems,” 47 Ind. L.J. (1971) for an account of a “Madisonian” model of government.Google Scholar

38 Thorsten Sellin, Culture Conflict and Crime (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Edwin H. Sutherland, “Critique of the Theory,” in Schuessler, Sutherhnd (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973).Google Scholar

40 On the overreach of the criminal law, see, e.g., Norval Morris & Gordon Hawkins, The Honest Politician's Guide to Crime Control 3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), and George F. Cole, The American System of Criminal Justice 62 (5th ed. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 1989).Google Scholar

41 For the latter view, see Edwin M. Schur, Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).Google Scholar

42 On drunk driving, see Grasmick, Harold G., Bursik, Robert J. Jr., & Arneklev, Bruce J., “Reduction in Drunk Driving as a Response to Increased Threats of Shame, Embarrassment and Legal Sanctions,” 31 Criminology 41 (1993). On domestic violence, see Sherman, Lawrence W. & Smith, Douglas A., “Crime, Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Milwaukee and Omaha Experiments,” 57 Am. Soc. Rev. 680, 688 (1992), and Sherman's Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas (New York: Free Press, 1992). On white-collar deterrence, see Braithwaite, John & Makkai, Toni, “Testing an Expected Utility Model of Corporate Deterrence,” 25 Law & Soc'y Reu. 7 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 See Massaro, Toni, “Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law,” 89 Mich. L. Rev. 1880, 1933 (1991), for arguments for and against opening this window of opportunity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 On this distinction, see Thomas J. Bernard, “Interpreting Criminology Theories” (presented at annual meetings of American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, 1992), as well as Bernard's The Consensas-Conflict Debate: Form and Content in Social Theories (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

45 On the family as the basic social unit, see, e.g., Auguste Comte, Cours de Philosophi Positive (The Positive Philosophy), trans. H. Martineau (1832–1840] New York: C. Blanchard, 1855). On the shift from community to society (Gemeinshaft to Gesellschaft), see Ferdinand Tonnies, Community and Society, trans. Charles P. Loomis ([1887] East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957); on the changing role of religious groups, see Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. J. Swain ([1915] New York: Free Press, 1965).Google Scholar

46 Coleman, James S., “The Rational Reconstruction of Society,” 58 Am Soc. Rev. 1 (1993).Google Scholar

47 Id. at 12 n.7.Google Scholar

48 Id. at 11–14.Google Scholar

49 Among other projects since the publication of Crime, Shame, and Reintegration in 1989, Braithwaite has co-authored with Philip Pettit a theory of criminal justice, Not Just Deserts (cited in note 36), and has continued his work on organizational and regulatory crime in “Poverty, Power, White-Collar Crime and the Paradoxes of Criminological Theory,” 24 Austral. & New Zealand J. Criminology 40 (1991); Makkai & Braithwaite, 29 Criminology (cited in note 23); and Ian Ayres & John Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 For examples of the former, see Hirschi & Gottfredson, General Theory (cited in note 33), and James Q. Wilson & Richard J. Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985).Google Scholar

51 The terms are Travis Hirschi's in “Exploring Alternatives to Integrated Theory,” in Messner et al., Theoretical Integration (cited in note 2).Google Scholar