They contend that general theory speaks against comparative theory, that it does so without providing an adequate critique of a comparative perspective, and that it fails to consider comparative research findings. Their arguments are divided into four parts: (1) goals of general theory, its logical style, and levels of abstraction and forms of analysis common to general theory; (2) the general theory of crime developed by Hirschi and Gottfredson; (3) the role of history and culture in the construction of criminological theory; and (4) rational man assumptions on which general theoretical approaches within criminology are based. The authors conclude that a general theory of crime that attempts to explain crime in all cultural and historical settings and in terms of immutable forces is impossible. Rather, crime theory should be culturally and historically specific and directly address the context in which crime is committed, reacted to, and constructed. An adequate crime theory should address multiple causation levels, demonstrate a connection between structural and subjective factors, include opportunity structure as an important dimension of understanding crime, discuss effects of law enforcement, and construct explanations of crime that are grounded in empirical realities. 111 references and 15 notes