Subcultural Theories of Deviance

Subcultural theories of deviance emerged in the 1950s and were popular for only 20 years before they were charged with ethnocentrism. Instead of adopting the traditional perspective within criminology that individuals turn to crime because their access to legitimate opportunity structures is limited or nonexistent, subcultural theorists argued that lower-class individuals form completely different, collective views on the nature of criminal behavior, making the class a unique subculture within American society. Access to legitimate opportunity structures is blocked for this group, but since the entire group feels the same frustrations, it forms its own values and norms that make delinquent behavior and membership in gangs acceptable and rewarding. By 1964, critics were arguing that subcultural theories of deviance were the work of middle class intellectual elites who were trying to impose their norms and values upon lower-class groups. Similarly, it was argued that the values attributed to these subcultural groups are not universal or constant either within the group or within any given individual's life experience. Thus critics argued that membership in gangs is transitory, and that the excitement of crime is classless.

Keywords Adherents; Acculturation; Delinquency; Deviance; Ecology; Ethnocentric; Reactive Subculture; Subculture

Subcultural Theories of Deviance

Overview

Culture is a complex term with many different meanings, but sociologists studying culture tend to focus on the norms, beliefs, customs, and values shared by a group of likeminded individuals. Culture is transmitted socially between members of a given group as well as to subsequent generations. It is a "majority rule" framework in which dominant values and beliefs are deemed normal and acceptable, and alternative perspectives are viewed on a continuum ranging from mere eccentricism to outright immorality. A subculture, then, is a subgroup within the larger cultural population. It shares some of the norms and beliefs of the dominant group, but it also holds values that are distinctly different from the majority.

Subcultural theories of deviance focused on minority populations that sociologists and criminologists labeled as holding views of crime and delinquency different from those held by the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) majority in American and English society. An articulation of these dominant WASP values drives these societies' criminal laws, along with their social mores about proper behavior. Labeling the dominant cultural values as WASP is intentional, since most of the subcultural theories of deviance focused on lower-class individuals, youth, and minority populations. These subgroups, it was argued, develop their own cultural values, particularly in regard to deviance and crime. Miller (1958), for example, argued that the working-class youth in his study had a different "focal concern" that was pervasive in their subculture around concepts of trouble, toughness, excitement, smartness, fatalism, and autonomy. Because of these different norms or values, high crime rates could be explained as consistent with their subcultural values. Critics of Miller's arguments said that not all working-class youth resort to lives of immediate need-fulfillment and crime, especially women, leading them to conclude that high crime rates cannot be explained by pervasive subcultural values. Subcultural theorists also were criticized for being insensitive to issues of race, class, gender, and ethnicity, since many of the studies regarded inner-city crime as having a place of value uniformly within a given population.

History

The Anomie Theory

Subcultural theories of deviance grew out of the work of French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), who laid the foundation for what is called the structural-functionalist perspective on crime. According to Durkheim, since a society in part consists of shared values, the sources of crime and deviance also can be found within that social structure. Durkheim argued that crime is a normal and universal part of all cultures and that it even has some positive functions in a society. Political protests about racial inequality, for example, might move a society to be more racially inclusive and just. In pre-industrial societies, though, the general uniformity of roles and values promoted conformity; although crime existed within the culture, its role was limited. But Durkheim and other sociologists were concerned with industrial times and what they believed was a weaker collective conscience around values, norms, and rules. Specifically, Durkheim argued that normlessness, or anomie, permits crime to flourish because "the disciplines and authority of society are so flawed that they offer few restraints or moral direction" (Rock, 2002, p. 52.). This became known as anomie theory in sociology and criminology.

Strain Theory

Robert Merton (1910–2003) built upon Durkheim's anomie theory to create what is known as strain theory. Merton asserted that there is "a universal aspiration to accumulate material wealth," but because our society is stratified into various classes, those in the lower economic levels do not have an equal opportunity to realize their desires for wealth (Gottfredson, p. 78). Under strain to reach these culturally induced goals, some individuals adapt by turning to crime as a means of material gain. Merton argued further that middle-class values generally conflict with engaging in criminal activities, causing members of the middles class to experience especially high levels of strain should they consider engaging in criminal conduct. In the inner-city where crime is highest, the theory holds that because lower-class individuals do not have the same socialization—or in fact, because their cultural processes hold a different view of crime altogether—they feel less strain when not adhering to dominant cultural values, such as behaving in a law-abiding manner. With subcultural values different from or even in opposition to the dominant norms, these lower-class communities might give law breakers high status because of their material success.

Social Disorganization Theory

Strain theory argues that individuals in the lower classes are aware of how the dominant culture values material wealth, but are frustrated in realizing this value by acquiring wealth for themselves. Another group of theorists who focus on social disorganization would say that the dominant culture's values have not been instilled in these groups and, therefore, are not an aspiration. Social disorganization theories came out of the Chicago Sociology School that dominated criminology for much of the twentieth century. Working from data on juvenile crime, this school mapped crime rate areas throughout the city of Chicago and discovered that certain zones or areas of the city experience high rates of crime regardless of their communities’ racial or ethnic makeup at any period of time. This methodology, when combined with ecological theories, views "the physical structure of communities as shaping the routine activities of inhabitants in ways that affect the likelihood of crime" (Gottfredson, p. 82). Through the interplay of people and the environment and its resources, the various zones of the city would evolve into diverse, unique areas with the residents sharing similar social characteristics. This process could be said to mirror the evolutionary changes plants and animals undergo as they adapt to the varied ecological niches in a diverse landscape.

Social Control Theory

Because social disorganization theory emphasizes the obligation of the community to train or socialize individuals and then monitor their behavior to ensure lawful actions, it received significant attention from social control theory circles. Social control theorists hypothesize that an individual can turn to crime when his or her connection or identification with the dominant culture is ineffective. In fact, like their social disorganization counterparts, they believe that people find crime useful, profitable, and enjoyable unless they are influenced by larger societal values to forego these returns. Their ideal is to preserve what many would call "WASP" values about lawful personal conduct. To do this, control theorists argue for interventions that control deviance and reorganize communities so that traditional cultural values are encouraged and enhanced. Identification with traditional values instills mechanisms of internal, individual control through a social bond that helps group wellbeing. In addition to policing mechanisms, external social control is exerted through involving people in community activities, displaying role models, and using peer pressure. These mechanisms create social bonds that can dissuade the individual from engaging in activities that would disappoint the other members of the group.

Gang Theory

The last theoretical element needed for the development of subcultural theories of deviance is gang theory, which was first articulated by Frederick Thrasher in 1927. Thrasher was a member of the Chicago Sociology School and an adherent to social disorganization theory. He undertook a systematic study of gangs and concluded that they originate spontaneously from adolescent play groups that get into mischief. As these groups' activities increasingly focus on illegal and delinquent behavior, opposition to their existence increases, which in turn augments and cements their group identities. Cultural transmission theory, which has dominated discussions in criminal causation into the twenty-first century, was offered as the mechanism by which each subsequent generation learns gang values and behavior. According to O'Connor (2006), this theory states that "traditions of delinquency are transmitted through successive generations of the same zone in the same way language, roles, and attitudes are transmitted" (p. 4). This acculturation process builds communities of individuals who view criminal acts in ways that significantly differ from the dominant norm. A successful drug dealer within a given community, for example, might be respected for his wealth and business abilities rather than be reviled as a thug and a criminal. Since these gangs were prevalent in inner-city areas experiencing high population turnover, poverty, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity, Thrasher argued that these groups provide members with a sense of identity and belonging.

Viewpoints

Albert Cohen

Drawing on various aspects of the theoretical frameworks discussed above, Albert Cohen set forth the foundational work on subcultural theories of deviance in 1955. Studying gangs of delinquent boys from working class sums, Cohen set forth the argument that these gangs form a distinctive subculture within American society. Cohen believed that crime is a structural element of society, and, like Merton, he believed that the youth in these gangs suffer from cultural strain because of their unequal access to opportunity in American society. Cohen's views differed from Merton and others, though, because he argued that the delinquency he witnessed was not just an individual response to cultural strain. Rather, he believed, it is a collective response. By weaving in the Freudian idea of reaction formation, Cohen argued that these young men, facing the prospect of profoundly failing to achieve the dominant culture's monetary aspirations, undergo a psychological transformation that makes them reject the dominant culture's values and create their own centered around crime and personal advancement. According to Rock (2002), "the practical and utilitarian in middle-class life was transformed into non-utilitarian delinquency; respectability became malicious negativism; and the deferment of gratification became short-run hedonism" (p. 54).

Cohen's theoretical framework falls within the reactive subculture structural argument about subgroup formation. As noted above, Cohen believed that the new subculture is formed "as both a response to and opposition against the prevailing norms and values that exist in a wider (predominantly middle-class or 'conventional') culture" (Livesey, n.d., p. 2). This perspective fits within Merton's strain theory framework as an explanation of how a group can create values that are in opposition to the dominant culture. An alternative to reactive subculture is the notion of independent subculture, wherein "the members of the group are held to adopt a set of norms and values which are effectively 'self-contained' and specific to the group" (Livesey, p. 8). Miller's work on gangs provides an example of this form of subcultural grouping, since he argued that their subcultural norms are merely a solution to problems faced by group members in their everyday lives. Gangs, he believed, are an independent cultural phenomena based upon lower-class beliefs and experiences.

In addition to advancing the theory that a collective solution to status frustration creates subcultures within the larger society, Cohen also argued that it is possible for crime to have no utilitarian or monetary function. Rather, it could be used to consolidate group loyalty and to foster bonding between individuals within the gang. Graffiti and other forms of vandalism, for example, are seen as expressions of malice and defiance toward the dominant cultural as well as mechanisms to express group identity. Because they cannot have the American dream as it is expressed through the dominant culture's values and norms, Cohen argued, youth gangs reject the majority beliefs and pursue values that are in direct opposition to them. Thus, because of the groups' subcultural norms, instant gratification, malice, disruptive and destructive behavior, and intent to injure are all rewarded with prestige, recognition, and greater authority within the group.

Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin

In 1960, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin also argued that delinquent working class youth gangs are a subculture. They, too, agreed with Merton that the development of subcultures is related to the limited opportunities members of the lower classes have to legitimate means for success in the dominant society. While Merton had focused on the legitimate opportunity structure of the dominant culture, Cloward and Ohlin argued that there are three parallel illegitimate opportunity structures within the lower class subcultures that steer working-class youth into crime. In other words, instead of one grand subculture, Cloward and Ohlin argued that there are three, each with a different mechanism and structure to attract youthful members. The first illegitimate structure is criminal and refers to the existence of well-organized, adult, utilitarian criminal networks intent upon crime as a means of material gain. Within this subculture, youth learn the "tricks of the trade" and become socialized in the subculture's values and beliefs. The second subculture is conflict focused and involves gangs of youth destructively acting out their frustration at their inability to access both legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures. The third subculture involves retreat. Illegal drug use and prostitution are the fate of these individuals who are "double failures" since they cannot access legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures.

Walter Miller

The third major contributor to subcultural theories of deviance was Walter Miller, whose work is mentioned above. Miller agreed that delinquency is a subculture for working class youth, but he argued that the subculture is an outgrowth of lower-class values and norms passed on to young males, not a reaction to the dominant middle-class culture. Since unskilled labor is boring and unrewarding, Miller argued that little satisfaction could come from adhering to the middle-class work ethic. Instead, Miller believed, young males are taught to focus on other concerns like street smarts, recognition, making trouble, and prestige within the gang. The gang becomes the unit of identification; more than the family, work, school, or the community, it allows the members to feel like they belong to something and provides a means for status enhancement within its ranks. The subculture, in Miller's opinion, is the lower-class collective that sees gang affiliations as a normal response to a lack of opportunities for economic advancement. Miller went on to argue that it is unfortunate that the dominant society labels the actions of the delinquents as criminal, since within the subculture the label is not relevant or accurate.

As noted above, Miller introduced the concept of focal concerns to the discussion of lower-class culture. Six characteristics make up this analysis. The first is trouble, which assumes that lower-class males have a tendency to become involved in acts of violence, so they quickly learn how to handle it. Toughness is the second subgroup focal concern, since the boy has to be able to handle trouble with masculine abilities relating to strength and endurance. Smartness is related to being "street smart" and able to cope with trouble. It also means the ability to look good and impress others, especially women. Excitement involves the constant search for thrills and having fun. According to Miller, this is an expressive outlet for the lack of meaningful self-expression through education or an occupation. Fate is the fifth focal point and involves an assumption that life is out of the individual's control so nothing can be done to create change or assert control. Livesey argued that this lack of control produces a focus on hedonistic leisure activities that seem to occur as a result of chance or fate. The sixth focal concern, according to Miller, is autonomy. Since group members are fatalistic about the life circumstances, they resent authority figures and rules. Instead, they seek ways of exercising freedom and independence in situations where they do have some control or influence. Usually these situations involve delinquency and crime. Obviously, one major area of criticism of Miller's work involves his complete acceptance of heightened definitions of masculinity, while at the same time ignoring the lower-class female experience within the study populations. Collinson (1990) and others argued that Miller's findings have nothing to do with a different subculture, but rather are a reflection of heightened masculine values that are the underpinnings of deviant behavior.

Critical Views

In 1964, David Matza provided the first major criticism of subcultural theories of deviance, a trend that led to a rapid retreat from their acceptability. Matza argued that young people in gangs are not adherents to unique or different subcultural values. Rather, they drift in and out of conventional and unconventional behavior based upon their life circumstances. This is called an interactionalist perspective on criminal behavior. Even though the dominant culture's values and expectations are clear, Matza argued that individuals have ways of ignoring those demands in order to avoid feeling guilty about not adhering to them. This process of ignoring the dominant culture, however, falls far short of the formation of unique subgroups with alternative values and expectations that could be considered subculture entities. Matza also argued that delinquent behavior is fun and exciting, and any interest in this thrill has little to do with class considerations. Arguably, anyone could make a rational choice to commit vandalism, for example, knowing that structural restraints are in place to prohibit vandalism and that he or she might be arrested and punished.

Subsequent studies of working-class adolescents by Downes (1966) found little support for Cohen's arguments that working class gang members are frustrated with their status in life or "resentful of their lack of legitimate employment prospects" as argued by Cloward and Ohlin (Livesey, p. 11). Downes did find unplanned, petty acts of crime that seemed to add excitement to otherwise boring life circumstances, but none of these actions was a predictor of a life of crime.

As noted above, the influence of subcultural theories of deviance lasted from 1950 through the late 1960s. Closer scrutiny of lower-class youth gangs revealed little evidence to prove that distinct and oppositional subcultures form around differing attitudes toward criminal behavior. Not only were defined, shared values lacking within these gangs, but membership in the gangs also proved to be transitory. The theoretical framework also was challenged by anthropologists, who argued that the subcultural theorists' analysis of culture and subcultures was shallow and failed to adhere to more rigorous disciplinary considerations. The most significant criticism of subcultural theories of deviance, however, had to do with the theories' ethnocentric adherence to the values of middle class individuals over those of the lower class. By suggesting that lower-class individuals adhere to differing views of criminal action, subcultural theorists downplayed the hardships and tragedies wrought on communities facing high levels of crime and delinquency. By building their theories solely on young, male gang members, the subcultural theorists also failed to look at the larger issues of criminal conduct in a society, violence within families and towards women and children, and white collar and middle-class crime.

Terms & Concepts

Adherents: A supporter of a cause or a leader.

Acculturation: A change in the cultural behavior and thinking of a person or group of people through contact with another culture.

Delinquency: Antisocial or illegal acts performed by youth under the age of 18.

Deviance: Activities that do not conform to the norms of a particular community or society.

Ecology: The study of interactions between living organisms and their environment.

Ethnocentric: A belief in or assumption of the superiority of one's social or cultural group over others.

Reactive Subculture: A new subculture that is formed "as both a response to and opposition against the prevailing norms and values that exist in a wider (predominantly middle-class or 'conventional') culture" (Livesey, n.d., p. 2).

Subculture: An identifiably separate group within a larger culture, especially one regarded as existing outside of mainstream society.

Bibliography

Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Collinson, D., Knight, D., & Collinson, M. (1990). Managing to discriminate. London: Routledge.

Downes, D. (1966). The delinquent solution. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Livesey, C. (n.d.). Deviance and social control: Subcultural theories. Retrieved July 18, 2008 from: http://www.sociology.org.uk/devteco.pdf

Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: Transaction Press.

Miller, W. (1958). Lower-class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14 , 5–20. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16487100&site=ehost-live

O'Connor, T. (2006). Social disorganization theories of crime. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from: http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory10.htm.

Petre, R. (2013). Criminalization of youth in Romania: The creation and amplification of youth deviance. Social Work Review / Revista De Asistenta Sociala, , 153–162. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87672678&site=ehost-live

Piquero, A., Intravia, J., Stewart, E., Piquero, N., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2012). Investigating the determinants of the street code and its relation to offending among adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 , 19–32. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71672818&site=ehost-live

Rock, P. (2002). Sociological theories of crime. In M. Maguire, M. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology. (3rd ed., pp. 51–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, D. (2011). Cultural criminology: An invitation... to what?. Critical Criminology, 19 , 197–212. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=63899047&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Banks, C. (2013). Youth, crime, and justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Deflem, M. (2006). Sociological theory and criminological research: Views from Europe and the United States: Vol. 7. Sociology of crime, laws and deviance. Oxford: Elsevier.

Downes, D., & Rock, P. (2007). Understanding deviance. (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downes, D., & Rock, P. (2011). Understanding deviance: A guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking. (6th ed.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Farganis, J. (2004). Readings in Social Theory: The classic tradition to post-modernism. (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Frelich, M., Raybeck, D., & Savishinsky, J. (Eds.). (1991). Deviance: Anthropological perspectives. New York: Greenwood.

Hendershott, A. (2004). The politics of deviance. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.

Kaplan, H., & Johnson, R. (2001). Social deviance: Testing a general theory. New York: Kluver Academic.

Kivisto, P. (Ed.). (2007). Social theory: Roots and branches: Readings. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2007). Criminology theory: Context and consequences. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ritzer, G. (Ed.). (2007). Classical sociological theory. (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. (2007). Sociological theory. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Stinchombe, A. (1987). Constructing social theories. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.