Do Subcultural theories offer convincing explanations for group offending by young men and women today? Are there any other theoretical perspectives which you may consider to be useful and relevant?

 

Albert Cohen's main interest lay in explaining juvenile delinquency, and his major work “Delinquent Boys”, published in 1955, claimed that a delinquent subculture exists which could explain crime amongst juveniles. He said that when we look at the delinquent subculture we see that it is "non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic". This, he explains, is because the subculture takes its norms from the wider culture and turns them upside down. Therefore, what the delinquent does is right according to the standards of the subculture because it is wrong according to the standards of wider society. But why do juveniles form or join these subcultures in the first place? Cohen argued that certain sections of youth feel rejected by society and the reason for this is to be found in the "great tension and strain in handling the paradoxical many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen nature of schooling". Those who cannot handle the strain suffer “status deprivation” and some will seek the collective delinquent subculture as the solution.

Merton’s anomie (strain) theory aims to integrate explanations of a variety of behaviours into a coherent pattern, by seeing them as related ways of coping with the problems by living in modern societies. This theory asserts that where there is a gap between what people want and what they can legitimately achieve, they experience strain. They can adapt to this strain in any of five ways. Conformists do not experience such a gap and are thus not under strain. Innovators adapt to the strain by finding alternative, usually illegitimate, methods of obtaining the goods they want. Ritualists turn adherence of social norms into a goal itself and often join movements that place moral rules above more individual goals, e.g. religious groups. Retreatists see neither the goals nor the means as valid and minimise their participation in normal society. Drug users, dropouts, “hippies” and priests would all be examples. Rebels are those who declare the social structure illegitimate, and seek to destroy it.

A theory of much the same model as Cohen’s is put forward by Cloward and Ohlin. They accepted a similar model of delinquency causation as him but believed that he placed too much emphasis on the school. Cloward and Ohlin draw their theory in part from both Merton's anomie theory and from differential association. They say that crime occurs because of blocked and limited legitimate opportunities and that what type of criminal behaviour results depends on the individuals' peer group or gang. They concluded that three types of subculture can result: criminal, conflict or retreatist. Again the importance of the group is emphasised as Cloward and Ohlin use differential association to argue that criminal behaviour is learnt from group relationships.

When Lemet (1951) and Becker (1963) first promoted labelling theory, they both argued that no acts are intrinsically deviant; deviance is a moral judgement which is used to label particular acts and those who commit them. Thus “social groups can create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders”. 

The principal strength of these various theories appears to be their superior explanation of juvenile delinquency and crime, such as vandalism, joy-riding and pointless theft, which mainly occurs within juvenile gangs or subcultures. Much of the other criminological explanations of crime largely ignore this group reaction and concentrate solely on the individual. Merton's anomie theory is especially guilty of this and indeed Cohen criticised it for being inapplicable to both juvenile and group crime. Similarly the biological positivists such as Eysenck look at the cause of crime as purely an individual matter without much concern for group crime.

Shaw and McKay's theory placed a great emphasis on juvenile crime and delinquency being a group activity - "delinquency is essentially group behaviour" - and they attempt to explain why people become delinquent and join gangs. They say that in areas of low economic status delinquency is a powerful “rival” way of life which "derives its impelling force in the boys' life from the fact that it provides a means of securing economic gain, prestige, and other human satisfactions and is embodied in delinquent groups and criminal organizations, many of which have great influence, power and prestige". Children are exposed to these values as they are transmitted and passed down from generation to generation as are the techniques for committing offences. In discussing this, Shaw and Mckay give examples of the types of offences whose techniques are passed down, such as jack-rolling and shoplifting - crimes which lack a purpose.

They strongly emphasise the role of the peer group and they say that in the context of this group crime is regarded as normal, as from the viewpoint of the delinquent's immediate social world (the subculture) and the norms associated with that world, he is not necessarily “disorganised, maladjusted or antisocial” but may be highly organized and well-adjusted.

Cohen's explanation of juveniles turning to crime centred upon their frustration at being unable to achieve “middle class” success and, more specifically, success at school. He says that in the resulting delinquent subculture, delinquents respond as a group and that this response has been worked out by their group over many years. This response is to “invert” the norms of wider society with the result that the subcultures' activities are, as mentioned earlier, non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic. Indeed, these descriptions of the groups' activities explain crimes such as shoplifting (which is non-utilitarian) and vandalism (which is malicious) rather well. Cohen himself says that much gang stealing has no motivation and is in fact stealing “for the hell of it” and is a "valued activity to which attaches glory, prowess and profound satisfaction" rather than as an activity for gain and profit. Crime is committed because delinquent groups are out for “fun” and short-term hedonism plays an important part in Cohen's account of juvenile group crime. Again, like Shaw and McKay, Cohen's theory emphasises the point that from the perspective of the gang themselves, their conduct could be regarded as meaningful.

Although subcultural theories give a good explanation of juvenile delinquency and juvenile group crime, the fundamental weakness of these theories stems from precisely this: an overemphasis on the importance of a “gang response” to crimes. It places far too much emphasis on a group response rather than on individual responses. Notwithstanding the fact that most juvenile crime such as joy-riding is conducted by “gangs”, these theories fail to explain why crimes such as rape and murder, which are very individualistic, occur. Most of the subcultural theorists, including Shaw and McKay, Cloward and Ohlin, and especially Sutherland and Cressey, stress the significance of the peer group and the associations which one has in life. Sutherland and Cressey say that the values which encourage people to commit crime are learnt along with the techniques to commit crime. But how can this theory explain the crime of passion in which the husband murders his wife when finding her in bed with another man? He may have had no criminal associations in the past, but merely “snaps”. Compulsive crimes such as this are better explained by biological impulses rather by differential association or subcultural theories.

It was mentioned earlier that Sutherland and Cressey stated that all the associations which one has in life can be quantified in order to find out whether a person will become deviant or not. However, as with the example above, this does not account for the honest, hard working businessman who, when his business starts doing badly is forced to commit fraud and other crimes to try and save it. It could certainly be said that he has learnt the techniques through differential association, but where and how does he learn the deviant values and motives? Stemming from this overemphasis on gang/group crime is the very closely related flaw that these theories are overly deterministic. Everyone is seen as being very heavily influenced by their peer group and little consideration is given to individual choice or free will. If, taking Shaw and McKay's example, you fall within the centre circle of Chicago you are seen by them as having very little choice as to whether or not you end up in a delinquent gang.

The theory of David Matza addresses in part this weakness of subcultural theories. He pointed out that these theories predicted far too much crime and delinquency. His main theme concerned “drift” as he considered that delinquents drift in and out of delinquency without committing to either. He also emphasised freedom of choice and free will as important, and by doing so he answers many of the criticisms of the overly deterministic theories of Cohen, Shaw and McKay et al. The role of the subculture or gang is still important as they make such activity more likely by actively promoting it but this does not make deviant behaviour mandatory. The individual still has freedom to choose whether to commit a crime or not and to do so for personal reasons rather that as a group requirement.

The major criticisms of anomie theory are that while it outlines different possibilities for adaption, it does not explain why individuals adopt one or other forms of adaption- retreatism, ritualism etc. It also says nothing about the causes of social inequality and conflict, which is strange given the theory’s recognition that inequality and conflict exists is precisely the point at which it has an advantage over functionalism.

Labelling theory does not provide an account for why some social groups have the power to label and others do not, nor of why certain acts are declared illegal and others are not.  In Becker’s view, the theory does not, and need not, explain why some groups or individuals have the power to label, he was only concerned to show that labelling occurs and the consequences of it.

There is no consensus about how far “how-far” a group has to go in having specialised values and norms, or stable membership, or regular activities, to qualify as a sub-culture; nor about the precise meaning of descriptions such as “deviant subculture”.

It is also interesting to note that some studies of subcultures refer back to anomie theory and its concept of adaptation; they thus have the same weaknesses as anomie theory.

It can be said that from the principal strength of subcultural theories stems its main weakness. The main theories examined provide us with a through examination of crimes largely ignored by anomie and biological theories – namely juvenile crime. In their consideration of the consideration of the main causes of juvenile crime, the role and influence of the gang or group response render the application of these theories to explaining individual crimes, such as murder, irrelevant. Related to this is the fact that these theories also suffer from the flaw of being excessively deterministic. Nevertheless, as an account of why subcultures exist and why juveniles within these subcultures engage in deviant acts, the theories examined succeed this objective. Regardless of whichever theory one tends to adopt for a particular given, each has its own strengths and subsequent weaknesses. In this regard, and despite these problems, the concept of sub-culture amongst young men and women remains seductive.

---

BIBLIOGRPAHY

1. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz and Norman Johnson, (1970), The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency, New York: John Wiley and Sons
2. Rubington, E. and Weinberg, M. (1995) The Study of Social Problems, Oxford: Oxford University Press
3. Downes, D. (1966) The Delinquent Solution, London: Routledge.
4. Downes, D. and Rock, P. (1988) Understanding Deviance, London: Clarendon Press
5. Jones, S. (1988) Criminology, London: Butterworths
6. Williams, K (1997) Texbook on Criminology, London: Blackstone Press
7. Cohen, A.K. (1955) Delinquent Boys, New York: Free Press
8. Cloward, R. and Ohlin, L. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity, New York: Free Press.
9. Matza, D. (1964) Delinquency and Drift, New York: Wiley
10. Sutherland, E. and Cressey, D. (1979) Criminology, 11 ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott

---