Subcultural strain theory

Cohen 1955 — general idea

• Agrees w/Merton that deviance = lower-class phenomenon that comes from inability to achieve goals legitimately

Cohen — focus and why

• Young W/C boys

  • Face anomie in M/C school system

Cohen — status frustration

• CD and lack skills to succeed so cannot succeed by legitimate means of education

  • Leaves them at the bottom of the official status hierarchy and they have difficulty adjusting to this

Cohen — way the boys resolve status frustration

• Reject M/C values and form/join delinquent subculture to find support from other boys in the same situation

Function of alternative status hierarchy

• Win status from peers by delinquent actions

4 delinquent subculture values

• Inversion of mainstream ones

1. Spike

2. Malice

3. Hostility

4. Contempt

CRITICISM of Cohen’s status frustration

• Assumes W/C boys subscribe to M/C goals and then reject them when they fail

  • Reality: didn’t share the M/C goals in the first place

Cloward and Ohlin 1960 — reason for different types of subculture

• Unequal access to illegitimate or legitimate opportunity structure

  • Also differs by neighbourhood

Cloward and Ohlin 1960 — 3 types of deviant subculture

1. Criminal

2. Conflict

3. Retreatist

3 features of a criminal subculture

1. Youth provided with apprenticeship for utilitarian crime

2. Neighbourhood has a stable criminal culture with an established hierarchy of professional adult crime

3. Young can mix with adult criminals that then pick the best of them to go on to a criminal career, providing them with training role models and opportunities for criminal employment

2 examples of a conflict subculture

1. Cohen

2. Patrick

4 features of a conflict subculture

1. Neighbourhood has high population turnover and social disorganisation which prevents a stable criminal culture/network forming

2. Only illegitimate opportunities are loosely organised gangs

3. Gangs are a violent release for boy’s frustration at lack of opportunities

4. Gangs are a source of status, e.g. winning turf from other gangs

3 features of retreatist subculture

1. Neighbourhood = any

2. Accessible to those that fail at both illegal and legit opportunities

3. Often caused by illegal drug use

3 CRITICISMS of subcultural theory (C and O)

1. Ignores crimes of wealth

2. Ignores influence of wider power structure on criminality, e.g. creation and enforcement of law

3. Assumes everyone shares the same mainstream success goal

CRITICISM of C and O — South 2020

• Divisions between subcultures are not that sharp

  • Drug trade is both conflict and criminal (and retreatists in some ways)

CRITICISM of C and O — Miller 1962

• W/C has own independent subculture that does not value success in the first place so member are not frustrated by failure

  • Deviance comes from attempt to achieve own goals

CRITICISM of C and O — Matza 1964

• Most delinquents drift in and out of delinquency

  • They’re not committed to their subculture

Ohlin’s real-world impact

• Appointed by Kennedy to develop crime policy in ‘60s

The Chicago School — origins

• Founded 1892

• One of the first socio depts

• Instrumental in study of crime and deviance

Shaw and McKay 1942 — cultural transmission theory

• Some neighbourhoods have a criminal culture that’s passed on, while others don’t

Sutherland 1939 — differential association theory

• Deviance (criminal values and skills) learnt through social interaction with deviant people

Park and Burgess 1925 — social disorganisation theory

• Deviance = product of social disorganisation

  • E.g. rapid population turnover and migration create instability

• This then disrupts family and community structures, which reduces their role in informal social control and leads to deviance

Park and Burgess 1925 — application of social disorganisation theory

• 1920s Chicago

  • High crime in centre of city all the way to low crime on the outside where population turnover was minimal

Recent strain theories

• Youth pursue autonomy and popularity

• Boys wish to be treated like ‘real men’

• Not achieved → delinquency

Messner and Rosenfeld 2001 — institutional anomie theory

• American Dream

• Obsession with money success encourages anomic cultural environment → people will do anything to get wealth → pressure towards crime

  • Economic goals above everything undermines school’s values of instilling good qualities and instead leads them to prepare pupils for the labour market

    • FMC means crime is inevitable

Downs and Hansen 2006

• More welfare → lower imprisonment rates

  • Societies that protect poor from excesses of free market have less crime

Savelsberg 1995

• Post-1989 collapse of communism crime skyrocketed

  • Due to replacement of collective values with Western capitalist goals

2 CRITICISMS of subcultural theories — Matza

• Deviants are not different

• Over-estimation of juvenile delinquency, actually episodic

CRITICISM of Cloward and Ohlin — Empey 1982

• W/C boys don’t fit into just 1 of their subcultures

CRITICISM of subcultural theories

• Official statistics ignore white collar/female crime

2 positives of subcultural theories

1. Lots of research done and has made major contributions to study of crime and deviance

2. Gained empirical support and has wide theoretical appeal