Social class Flashcards
What does statistical data show about offending behaviour in relation to social class
Statistical evidence is not routinely collected on the class background of offenders in the UK.
However, a range of data sources suggest that most people convicted of indictable offences, especially those who are imprisoned, tend to be from lower social-class backgrounds.
A study of 2,171 adult prisoners imprisoned in England and Wales in 2006/7 (Omolade, 2014) found that 43% had no educational qualifications and only 6% had a degree or equivalent; 36% had been unemployed when sentenced, and 60% had been claiming benefits.
However, such statistics have limitations as they do not offer a direct measure of the relationship between class and crime and only include those who have been convicted and imprisoned.
What do self-report studies show about the relationship between social class and crime?
Only one recent self-report study, the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, which was carried out annually between 2003 and 2006, has examined the issue of social class and crime.
The study was based on approx. 5,000 10- 25 year olds in three of the four surveys, and a sample of 10- 65 year olds in one survey, and analysed the independent effects of a number of variables on offending and drug use.
The survey found that the social class of the family (operationalised as the occupation of the chief wage earner), was not significantly associated with the likelihood of offending and drug use: it was not social class but individual circumstances which seemed more important (Hales et al., 2009).
Self-reported offending was found to be statistically associated with a range of ‘risk factors’
What risk factors did self-report studies find to be associated with offending?
Single-parent families
Having a parent living with a new partner
Inconsistent parental discipline
Attending a poorly disciplined school
Having a friend or sibling who’d been in trouble with the law.
Explain Albert Cohen’s explanation for working-class criminality.
Albert Cohen put an emphasis on cultural factors (values and status) rather than material factors in explaining working class crime.
Cohen argued that working class boys strove to emulate middle-class values and aspirations, but lacked the means to achieve success.
This led to status frustration: a sense of personal failure and inadequacy.
In Cohen’s view, they resolved their frustration by rejecting socially acceptable values and patterns of acceptable behaviour. Because there were several boys going through the same experiences, they end up banding together and forming delinquent subcultures.
This delinquent subculture reversed the norms and values of mainstream culture, offering positive rewards (status) to those who were the most deviant.
Status was gained by being malicious, intimidating others, breaking school rules or the law and generally causing trouble.
This pattern of boys rejecting mainstream values and forming delinquent subcultures first started in school and then becomes more serious later on, taking on the form of truancy and possibly gangs.
(-) Cohen's suggestion that members of these delinquent subcultures consciously invert the norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. (-) Cohen specifically says that this is a phenomenon relating to "working-class boys" and yet makes very few links between his theory and either social class or gender.
Explain Lea and Young’s explanation for working-class criminality.
Lea and Young argue that crime has its roots in deprivation, but deprivation itself is not directly responsible for crime – for example, living standards have risen since the 1950s, so the level of deprivation has fallen, but the crime rate is much higher today than it was in the 1950s.
Left Realists draw on Runciman’s (1966) concept of relative deprivation to explain crime. This refers to how someone feels in relation to others, or compared with their own expectations.
The concept of relative deprivation helps to explain the apparent paradox of increasing crime in the context of an increasing wealthy society. Although people are better off today, they have a greater feeling of relative deprivation because of the media and advertising have raised everyone’s expectations for material possessions – we are wealthier, but we feel poorer, and thus there is more pressure to get more stuff to keep up with everyone else, which generates historically high crime rates.
As well as deprivation, Lea and Young believed that marginalisation could lead to increased criminality. For example, unemployed youth are marginalised – they have no specific organisation to represent them and no clear sense of goals – which results in feelings of resentment and frustration. Having no access to legitimate political means to pursue their goals, frustration can become expressed through violence.
(-) Fails to explain why women commit less crime- as with much malestream sociology, gender is ignored.
Explain the Marxist explanation for working-class criminality.
Karl Marx himself hardly discussed crime, but, when he did, saw it as a product of class inequality.
Marx associated crime with the lumpenproletariat, who he saw as dehumanised by their lack of work, and it was this that made them turn to crime.
Alienation is one source of crime, but, according to Marxists, the poverty generated by capitalism also pushes the proletariat towards committing crime.
Further, capitalism generates a ‘dog eat dog’ attitude which is also criminogenic.
Evaluate sociological explanations of crime.
Critics have pointed out that there is not a straightforward statistical relationship between factors such as poverty, unemployment, the state of the economy, and crime rates- it remains the subject of much debate in numerous disciplines.
For example, in the second half of the 20th century in the UK, crime continued to rise whether the country was in recession or not and whether unemployment was high or low.
However, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) cite statistical evidence that higher levels of economic inequality are associated with higher levels of crime- it may be that this inequality is a key variable, which would fit well with a number of the sociological theories we’ve considered (and is my personal fave theory).
Explain Miller’s cultural explanation of working class criminality.
Miller (1958) suggested that working-class boys were socialised into a number of distinct values that together meant they were more likely than others to engage in delinquent or deviant behaviour. Miller described these values as “focal concerns”:
Excitement- seeking out excitement
Toughness- wishing to prove toughness/hardness
Smartness- using wit, which might include ‘smart’ remarks
Autonomy- wishing to be independent and not reliant on others
Fate- believing that their future is already decided
None of these values on their own mean that crime is inevitable- many “lower-class boys” are also socialised with these focal concerns and stay out of trouble- but they do make crime more likely.
What are the cultural explanations for working-class criminality?
Underclass Miller's focal concerns
Evaluate cultural explanations for working-class criminality.
Neither Miller nor Murray’s theories provide particularly convincing explanations for working-class crime.
Miller’s work is very dated, and many theories question whether there is such a clear cut lower class culture in Britain today- e.g. some suggest that traditional working class culture has been replaced by a different set of values largely based on consumerism, and working-class involvement in crime is associated with the desire to gain status through acquiring consumer goods.
Murray’s ideas have been undermined by a lack of empirical evidence. Some research has found high rates of criminality among children from single-parent families (e.g. hales et al.), but this may be about low income rather than the ‘loose morals’ identified by Murray.
Explain Chambliss’s study into class bias and criminal justice.
William Chambliss (1973) conducted a classic study of two groups of white, male, high‐school students were both frequently involved in delinquent acts of theft, vandalism, drinking, and truancy. The police never arrested the members of one group, which Chambliss labelled the “Saints,” but the police did have frequent run‐ins with members of the other group, which he labelled the “Roughnecks.”
The boys in the Saints came from respectable families, had good reputations and grades in school, and were careful not to get caught when breaking the law. By being polite, cordial, and apologetic whenever confronted by the police, the Saints escaped labelling themselves as “deviants.”
In contrast, the Roughnecks came from families of lower socioeconomic status, had poor reputations and grades in school, and were not careful about being caught when breaking the law. By being hostile and insolent whenever confronted by the police, the Roughnecks were easily labelled by others and themselves as “deviants.”
In other words, while both groups committed crimes, the Saints were perceived to be “good” because of their polite behaviour (which was attributed to their upper‐class backgrounds) and the Roughnecks were seen as “bad” because of their insolent behaviour (which was attributed to their lower‐class backgrounds). As a result, the police always took action against the Roughnecks, but never against the Saints.
In what way may the criminal justice process be biased?
British sociologists argue that similar processes occur in contemporary Britain.
For example, Newburn and Reiner (2007) argue that “Discretion is both routine and inevitable. Breaches of the law outstrip police capacity to process them, so choices about priorities are inescapable.”
Police then choose to concentrate on those who fit the stereotype of the criminal (lower class males) engaged in street crime in public places. Whilst people from all social classes commit crimes, working class crime tends to consist of “common and visible predatory street offences… almost by definition the ‘crimes of the poor’- which occupy a high proportion of police attention, rather than the more hidden types of crime which happen within the private sphere of the commercial world or within the household” (Newburn and Reiner, 2007)
In a review of research, Croall (2011) argues that areas with high concentrations of working-class homes are subject to more intense policing and when crimes are committed, the ‘usual suspects’ from the lower classes are the focus of most attention. If taken to court, lower classes are seen as at more risk of reoffending and therefore more likely to receive a custodial sentence.
