Subcultural Strain Theories Of Crime And Deviance (functionalist) Flashcards
basic subcultural theories ideas
Subcultural theories developed in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the criticisms made of the traditional functionalist approach. (However, it is possible to see the influence of both Merton and the ecological/ environmental approaches).
Subcultural theories build upon Merton’s work (about strain), but focus on the position of groups in the social structure rather than just on individuals.
Subcultural theories share the common belief that people who commit crime usually share different values from the mass of law-abiding members of society. However, crime-committing people do not live in complete opposition to mainstream values; they have amended certain values so that this justifies criminal behaviour, hence the term ‘subculture’.
Subcultural theories aim to explain how certain social groups adapt to the strain they face, and the groups that Cohen and Cloward & Ohlin focus on most are working class juvenile delinquents, as these young people represent the largest group of deviants and criminals.
This suggests that they accept official crime statistics at face value i.e. assume they are correct.
Other theories such as labelling theory, left realism and the New Right have subcultural elements too so can be used as supportive evaluation.
structual functionalist theories
explain deviance in terms of the position of an individual in the social structure e.g. lower working class commit crime because they can’t achieve society’s goals through accepted means.
subcultural theories
explain deviance in terms of a subculture of a certain group. Subcultures are groups where members develop distinct norms and values that encourage criminal activity, rejecting mainstream values and establishing their own, deviant/criminal ones.
choens argument
Lower working class boys want success but cannot achieve their goals because cultural deprivation leads to educational failure and dead-end jobs.
They suffer from status frustration (dissatisfaction with lack of respect from others) and turn to delinquency to gain an alternative status within their peer group. To deal with this status frustration, an alternative set of norms and values are adopted – a delinquent subculture – which reverses mainstream culture by valuing activities such as stealing, vandalism and truancy.
This solves the problem of status frustration, as they gain high status from other members of the subculture (their peers) for their delinquent behaviour.
evaluation of cohen
Are w/c deviants really aware that they are ‘inverting’ m/c values? Is it a deliberate rebellion? Or are they just committing delinquent acts such as truanting for fun (Lyng would argue that people get a thrill from edgework – acts that are on the edge of deviance) or for other reasons e.g. caring duties.
Steven Box (1981) (Marxist) believes that Cohen was wrong to assume that these working-class delinquent boys had originally accepted the mainstream values. He believes that delinquency is more a result of feeling shame, guilt and resentment at being called failures by teachers – therefore they kick back.
Cohen explains crime that involves no monetary reward because their delinquent activities are about gaining the status they want, not money
Sutherland offers a supportive theory: differential association. He suggests that if the majority of teenagers act in the same way, then it is difficult for the rest of the group to not be influenced by such behaviour i.e. subcultural behaviours form.
cloward and ohlin: delinquency and opportunity
they believe that a person’s reaction to strain will depend on the social environment in which they grow up. Different social environments provide different opportunities for crime and deviance.
So, in summary, Cloward and Ohlin suggest that the varied social circumstances in which working-class youth live give rise to three types of delinquent subculture.
cloward and ohlin, criminal subculture
where crime is a legitimate business and career opportunity for potential members. Crime groups (e.g. the mafia) run in the same way as legitimate businesses, and the purpose of crime is to make money.
cloward and ohlin, conflict subculture
a focus on violent crime against rival subcultures (e.g. gang warfare).
cloward and ohlin, retreatist subculture
when young people are double failures as they fail to join and be successful in either a criminal or conflict subculture, and retreat into drug and alcohol abuse instead.
evaluation of cloward and ohlin
They explain working-class deviance which is not just concerned with material/monetary gain e.g. non-utilitarian crime.
Ignore the overlap between their different types of subcultures e.g. criminal gang members often deal drugs. There may also be more than three types of subculture.
miller, focal concerns
Miller argues that the theories so far (such as Cohen and Cloward & Ohlin) assume that there is value consensus in society – everyone is socialised into the same norms and values, and as such all share the same ideas about success. Delinquency is then seen as a reaction by the working-class to the fact that they cannot achieve this success through the ‘correct’ channels (legitimate opportunity structures).
HOWEVER, Miller does not believe in this value consensus, instead, each class has its own set of values, and these are passed on from one generation to the next. The working-class have their own very distinctive set of values: their focal concerns.
According to Miller these focal concerns, develop in the working class because of the experience of low-skilled and low paid labour which involved boring, repetitive work. Working class male subcultures provide ways of coping with this life: - unique focal concerns.
These focal concerns include – toughness (macho behaviour, drinking, womanising), smartness (look good, act sharp), excitement (look out for fun and enjoyment). Working class male subcultures engage in activities which match these concerns. For example, joy riding.
evaluation of miller
There is little evidence that these focal concerns are restricted to w/c males. These values are just as likely to be found in a middle-class rugby team.
Are all working class men the same? Is Miller not over-generalising in assuming that all w/c hold the same focal concerns?
New Right sociologists such as Murray would support Miller’s ideas, arguing that there is a distinct underclass whose values encourage deviant and criminal behaviour.
