Sociologist and Psychologists would differ in their opinion of what are the root causes of such diverse issues as divorce, crime, inequality, and racism. Where as a psychologist would focus on the causes being of purely personal genetic root, a sociologist would look at how an individuals society and their standing within it could be the catalyst for that individuals process for action.
             Crime is a subject that seems to have the clearest delineation, amongst the opposing ideologies, of what drives an individual to a criminal act. A Sociologist would focus on the economic and societal influence that drove a person to commit a crime. If a person were to steal food, then certainly hunger most likely would have been the motivating force. Hunger would be a sure sign of poverty, and that poverty could be the result of economic forces that are beyond that individual's capability to influence. "Stealing" is certainly an acceptable practice in any group if it means the survival of that group. Another example of the societal influence promoting the individual to commit a so called crime would be if that crime were the norm amongst the peers of the group. If one poor person within the group survives by stealing then others would find that to be the case as well. Soon the crime has now become a norm for that group.
             Psychologists would focus solely on personal influences that have molded the individual and how this may have led him/her to commit the act of stealing. Possibly the individual was genetically predisposed to react in that manner if put in a stressful situation. Maybe the person had a disorder that did not allow him/her to differentiate between right and wrong.
             I think that both the social and psychological influence on an individual is correct. Whereas the social ideals are the canvas or backdrop for the individual's behavioral output, the psychological aspects is the color and texture of that painting, that f...