Cloward and Ohlin agreed with Cohen on the structural origins of crime, ie. The class system, but stated that the form of working class delinquent subcultures take depends on their access to criminal networks, and that only when working class youths have access to these that criminal subcultures emerge, and when they do it’s mainly focused on burglary for material gains. These sociologists also argued that there were conflict subcultures, which emerged when access to criminal networks could not happen. This type of deviant subculture centred on defensive and violent values, such as fighting with other alike ‘gang’ subcultures. The third subculture they identified were retreatist subcultures which concentrated on alcohol and drug abuse. This was stated to occur when youths were denied access to both criminal and conflict subcultures.
Miller rejected the structural origins of crime and deviance as presented in the above. Miller argued that working class youths never accepted mainstream norms in the first place. Instead, Miller stated that working class youths are socialised into a set of lower class values or focal concerns. These values included things such as toughness, smartness, excitement and fatalism (they can’t change their position in life). Working class youths want to have status in their class as they are denied it elsewhere, thus conforming to these focal concerns.
Functionalist theories have been commended because they highlight important links between the social structure and the cultural causes of crime and deviance. However, they have also been criticised because they fail to consider subcultural styles and meanings. They also neglect to consider the ways in which crime and deviance is socially constructed by various agencies of social control. Functionalist subcultural theories have also been criticised for readily accepting official statistics on crime, and therefore fails to explain higher class crime and neglect female delinquency.
Matza rejects the ideas that delinquents are distinctly different from mainstream society and that certain individuals were determined to be involved in deviance. Matza argued that delinquents were similar to everyone else in society in their values and voiced similar feelings of dislike towards crime in general as the majority of society. Matza points out that when delinquents are caught, they express feelings of remorse and extend justifications to their acts, showing that they care and know that what they are doing is wrong. Matza argued that there are two levels of values, the first level being the ones which guide people most of the time – these are seen to be ‘good’. The second level – also referred to as subterranean values – of values are considered the vices, such as greed, that sometimes emerge. Matza argues that everyone has these same values and thus occasionally all of us give vent to them. Matza argues that youths are more likely to act out on the subterranean values as they are in a period of drift – not an adult but also no longer a child. They feel they lack control of their lives, and in an effort to gain control they may commit a delinquent act. Matza still maintains they respect the values of society though, in showing remorse for their actions as mentioned earlier. For example, they may deny responsibility by using the excuse of being drunk. This is supported by Downes in his study of East London adolescents.
Marists reject official statistics on crime, seeing them little more than a social construction. They believe that official statistics do not present an accurate picture of the social distribution of criminal acts reported, and thus believe the invisibility of higher class crime and selective social control leads to biased statistics.
Chambliss argues that capitalism gives rise to huge economic inequalities as the powerless (working class) are exploited by the ruling class. He maintains that it is the poverty and unemployment experienced by the working class that explains their criminality. He also argues that the values transmitted by capitalism such as profit, wealth, competition, self-interest and power creates pressures on both the middle and working class to commit crime. The middle class tend to be drawn to white-collar crime such as fraudulent stock market trading, and the working class tend to be drawn to street crime.
Pearce argues that deviance is based on subjective decision making by the powerful. He sough to explain law creation, and in doing so has a strong view on the links between deviance and power. They maintain that most (although not all) laws are largely created by the state to protect the interests of the powerful ruling class. This can be illustrated with recent employment and trade union laws that control the activities of the powerless. Laws implemented by Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s undermined trade union power by limiting numbers on picket lines and requiring secret ballots before strikes. Furthermore, he points out that most laws protect property and money. A person who robs a bank could go to prison longer than a person who commits murder.
Pearce also suggests that the extent and distribution of crime and deviance is socially constructed. He maintains that the law is selectively enforced so that powerless groups are more likely to be policed, arrested, and prosecuted than powerful groups. This can be illustrated with a comparison of social security and tax fraud. The cost of tax fraud is four times the cost of dole fraud, yet there are sixteen times more prosecutions for dole fraud than tax fraud. He goes on to argue that selective law enforcement serves to create the belief that crime is a working class problem and therefore directs attention away from crimes committed by powerful groups. It is also said to reduce working class solidarity (togetherness) by creating the belief that working class criminals are the ‘enemy’ rather than the bourgeoisie who exploit them on a daily basis.
As we can see, there are different ways to approach subcultural theories.
