Members of the lower stratum were the ones Merton highlighted as experiencing the most strain, however he did point out that not everyone experienced strain in the same way, to which he posed five different behavioural outcomes. The most common behaviour was that of conformity where individuals both subscribe to the dominant value and the legitimate means for attaining success. Those exhibiting criminal behaviour were the innovators, who subscribed to the dominant value, yet attempted to achieve success illegitimately. The ritualists were seen as deviant as they rejected the dominant value and instead accepted their limited success in life. The rebels rejected both socially approved goals and the means to achieve then and instead adopted new ones; the political activist was posed as an example of this. The retreatists reject both goals and means, and turn to alcoholism and drug abuse. In today’s society however, Merton’s theories may be a little out of date as in today’s society there are much greater opportunities, in education for example, for working classes to achieve success legitimately.
The idea of the retreatist behaviour that Merton posed lent ideas to further work by Cloward and Ohlin (1960) who applied their theories to subcultures. However where they criticised Merton was in his failing to recognise that an illegitimate opportunity structure existed in parallel with a legitimate opportunity structure. Cloward and Ohlin believed that, depending on socialisation there were 3 types of deviant subculture. Firstly the criminal subculture was the most successful in terms of illegitimate opportunity structures as it provided a chance for individuals to work their way up the criminal ‘ladder’, and also provided successful criminal role-models. They then posed the conflict subculture; where gangs were formed and violence sometimes erupted between rival gangs, e.g. gang warfare. The final subculture was the retreatist one, where there was no opportunity to enter the first two subcultures. Members felt like ‘double failures’ and turned to alcoholism and drug abuse. These concepts were mirrored by Sutherland and Cressey (1978), who argued that individuals learn to be criminal by mixing with others of similar interests and backgrounds, which then produces the delinquent sub-culture. Cloward and Ohlin however, were criticised for assuming the whole of society would fit into one of three kinds of subculture. However it is clear to see that Cloward and Ohlin’s work shared similarities with Merton’s.
Where Merton lacked however, was in his failure to explain deviance in terms of anything other than economic success. Cohen (1955) therefore attempted expand on this and explain acts of violence or vandalism. Like Merton, Cohen argued that society set unattainable goals to achieve, and those that were unable to achieve them he believed, experienced ‘status frustration’. This then led to the creation of a deviant subculture where norms and values could be shared. Acts of violence and vandalism were a way to reinforce the youth’s status within their subculture. Cohen highlighted that the education system failed to socialise youth’s correctly, preferring to focus on their middle-class counterparts.
Shaw and McKay (1931) from the Chicago School of Sociology posed environmental explanations for the creation of subcultures. They studied ‘zones’ around the city and concluded that those with the highest crime problems were the inner-city zones, which they explained in terms of social disorganisation. A high turnover of the population created social disorganisation; recent immigrants were housed in the inner city areas and when some moved to more affluent areas, further immigrants took their place. This led to confusion as to what were the socially accepted values within this area. Later work by Shaw and McKay explained the subcultures in Chicago with regard to cultural transmission, whereby as there were no socially accepted values, generation after generation were then socialised to hold deviant values, with crime as culturally acceptable.
This is a view mirrored by Murray (1990), however he argues against the idea that environmental or structural issues within society cause this behaviour. Murray believes that there is a subculture at the lowest strata of society, called the underclass, that succeed in socialising generation after generation to hold the same deviant values. He argues, however, that this subculture exists by choice with members who have a work-shy attitude, loose morals and illegitimate children. Murray has been heavily criticised for his views as he fails to take into account issues like rising unemployment as a reason for deviant behaviour.
In conclusion, subcultural and strain theories do have some similarities, and much of the subcultural theories posed, owe much to the original ideas of Merton. However they have expanded on his work to further explain acts such as violence and deviance without economic gain. It is therefore fair to say that strain and Subcultural theories share some similarities, yet their differences highlight that they are individual theories on their own right.
