Evaluate the Contribution that Subculturalist theory has made to our Understanding of Deviant Behaviour.

Evaluate the Contribution that Subculturalist theory has made to our Understanding of Deviant Behaviour

Deviance is defined as behaviour that challenges widely accepted norms and values. It is generally non-conformist and usually attracts moral disapproval from members of society. Many theories have developed, especially in the past 100 years concerning deviance. Subcultural theories developed around the 1950’s and followed sociological schools of thought such as physiological and sociological theories. They differ from structural theories of deviance as they explain its origins in terms of the position of the individual in society whereas subcultural theories explain deviance in terms of the subculture of a particular group. That is, certain groups develop norms and values which are different from those held by other members of society. The theory is fairly deterministic and mainly focuses on working class males. This is a criticism in itself as other forms of crime are largely ignored. Subculturalist theory attempts to contribute to our understanding of deviant behaviour, an issue I will discuss.

Firstly, Robert K Merton (1938) explains how deviance can result from the culture and structure of society. He primarily begins from a functionalist perspective – that all members of society share the same values. He believes that all members of society strive for the same goal of success which is largely measured in material possessions and wealth. Merton therefore assumes that society is meritocratic. The sociologist can be criticised, as Marxists would argue that society is not meritocratic. In addition, Merton assumes that there is a value consensus in U.S.A and that people are only deviate because of structural strain in society. Merton’s fundamental argument is that in society there is little importance to the means of achieving this success. He believes that this leads to an unbalanced society where achievement is everything and that the process of achievement and its rules are not important. This situation is known as ‘anomie’ or ‘normlessness ‘ and is a term first used by Emile Durkheim. Merton believes that individuals respond in different ways. Conformity, Innovation (those with goals but no means to achieve them may turn to crime to achieve material success), Ritualism (may have no goals of supreme wealth but continue to conform to maintain respectability, Retreatism (drop outs with neither means nor goals who may resort to drugs and alcohol) and Rebellion (could either have or not have means and goals and wish to create an entirely new society.) Merton believed that because the lower classes had restricted means, might resort to crime to achieve material goals.

This is a preview of the whole essay

This theory has been criticised by many sociological thinkers as not being useful in understanding deviant behaviour. Firstly Taylor thinks that Merton is failing to consider wider power relations in society and that laws are made by the ruling classes for the working classes to follow. Also, Merton appears to exaggerate working class crime and omitted ‘White Collar Crime’ from his thesis. Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) argue that the theory cannot accept for politically motivated crime where people break the law because of commitment to a cause. An example of this would be animal rights activists trespassing onto test centres to free animals. However, Reiner (1984) has defended Merton’s theory believing that it can be adapted to take into account most of these criticisms. In addition, Merton’s theory can be applied to some contemporise trends in crime. An example of such is Margaret Thatcher created emphasis on individual success in the 1970’s and 1980’s which contributed to a rise in property crime.

Albert Cohen developed his theory in 1955 by combining Robert Merton’s concept of strain theory with the ethnographic ideas of the Chicago School of sociology. However he believes, unlike Merton, that deviance is a collective rather than a individual response And that Merton failed to recognise crimes that have no financial rewards such as vandalism and joy riding. These are called utilitarian crimes. He did however believe that people strived for goals in society and that working class boys attempted to emulate middle class values and aspirations. Due to their lack of means to achieve success, a status frustration developed from educational failure and dead end jobs. Cohen believes that a delinquent subculture is adopted as criminal paths are followed to achieve success with an alternative set of norms and values to mainstream society. Cohen believes that in an attempt to gain status, boys ‘invert’ middle class behaviour by engaging in a variety of anti social behaviours. This theory appears useful in understanding delinquent behaviour however it is not without its critique. Box (1981) argues that Cohen’s theory only apply to a minority of delinquents but that the rest accept mainstream standards of success but resent being seen as failures and turn against those who they feel look down on them. Also the research is only of males who, in addition, must be excellent sociologists to work out middle class values and deliberately attempt to invert them.

Another set of Subculturalist sociologists are Cloward and Ohlin (C&O). Richard A Cloward and Lloyd E Ohlin in 1961 wrote ‘Delinquency and Opportunity’. Although they accepted Merton’s explanation of deviance in term of legitimate opportunity structure, they criticised him for failing to consider the illegitimate opportunity structure. Just as the opportunity to succeed by legitimate means varies so does the means by which to succeed illegitimately. An example is an 18-year lad in an environment where there may be a thriving deviant subculture will have more opportunity to become a successful criminal in an area that does not have such a culture. Similarly to Merton, Cloward and Ohlin believe that working classes are more likely to deviate due to greater pressure, as there is less opportunity to succeed by legitimate means. C & O have identified three possible responses to this situation – Criminal subcultures – a thriving local community of organised deviant and criminal activity. Young people have the opportunity to rise within an established hierarchy.

Conflict subcultures – develop in areas where there is little access to either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures. Gang warfare develops to serve a release of anger and frustration.

Retreatist subcultures – (Merton would refer to these as having no means nor goals to achieve neither legitimately or illegitimately) are a more individual response and centre around alcohol or drugs.

The marketization of capitalist societies has made these theories increasingly relevant. Nigel South (1997) believes that the British drug trade is largely based around ‘disorganised’ crime, which can be compared to Clowarda and Ohlins conflict subcultures, although some of it is based around professional criminal organisations and more closely resembles a criminal subculture. Many of the drug users themselves are part of the retreatist subculture. However some may criticise C&O. Having neat definitions in real life is unlikely and a little naïve. There is again, no reference to female delinquency. Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) criticize Merton, Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin for assuming that everyone is committed to the success goal of material wealth. They note that, for example, hippies make a conscious choice to reject conventional goals.

However, Walter B Millers approach was slightly different to earlier subculturalist theorists. He believed that the lower classes had their own distinctive values which were passed on from generation to generation and which actively encouraged lower-class men to break the law. However, this can be criticised, as many sociologists would reject Millers picture of an isolated working class whose values bear no relation to mainstream culture. He identified various ‘focal concerns’ which included

Toughness, Smartness Excitement, Trouble, Autonomy and Fate. Miller believed that delinquency was the result of an exaggerated conformity to these ‘focal concerns’ and that the values of certain poorer groups push them to behave in ways that are likely to conform them to a life of poverty. Downes applied Millers theory in studies in London and found that young working class lads showed no evidence of specific values and suggested that they were ‘disassociated’ from mainstream values and were more concerned about leisure than long term jobs. Parker applied the theory in Liverpool finding evidence of Millers ‘focal points’. Gill’s study of a working class area (1977) also supported Miller, as residents did not believe it was wrong to commit some crimes, such as stealing from an unoccupied home. However, Braithwaite (1989) argued that crimes that involve direct harm to the victim are seen as wrong in all classes in Western societies.

However, some subculturalists have suggested that an ‘underclass’ exists which does not share the same values as other members of society. Charles Murray (1989) believes that the underclass is responsible for a large proportion of crime. He primarily blames this on the welfare states allowing young women to become single mothers and for young men to reject the idea that it is important to hold down a job. Although some sociologists reject Murray’s ‘New Right’ thinking, they believe that an under class exists. Taylor (1997) does not believe in the subculture theory but notes that young, working class males have been affected by increasing inequality and declining job prospects. He does believe that underclass deprivation is the result of material deprivation rather than an unacceptable culture.

David Matza (1964) argues that delinquents are, to a considerable extent, committed to the same values as other members of society. He opposed the subculture theory as he stated there were no distinctive subcultural values, and that all groups in society used shared sets of ‘subterranean values’. Most people control deviant desires most of the time but deviance becomes possible when ‘techniques of neutralization’ are used which temporarily release them from the hold society has over them. For example – denial of responsibility or loyalty to higher causes than the law. These might be ‘I was drunk’ or ‘I was just defending my mate’. Matza argues that the use of techniques of neutralization make us doubt the idea of deviant subcultures. This is firstly because their existence is evidence of guilt and shame which suggests at least a partial acceptance of mainstream values. Secondly, one set of mainstream values is sometimes used to justify breaking another. For example, assaulting homosexuals could be justified since it supports mainstream sexual behaviour. There are critiques to Matza’s attack on subculturalist theory however. Box (1981) questioned the evidence that Matza used. Delinquents may not be sincere when they say that they regret their actions. Jones (1998) adds that Matzo’s theory cannot adequately explain persistent delinquency and violent acts.

In conclusion to my essay, I identified the contribution that subculturalist theory has in allowing society in understanding deviant behaviour. It is fair to comment that the theories must be relevant and useful as there have been recent studies based on the original theories where evidence has been proved in modern day society. However, as research methods, sampling techniques and researcher bias have a strong impact on case study findings, subculturalist theory may not be as relevant as once thought. Despite this, I believe that subculturalist theory has allowed sociology to progress giving future researchers a basis of theory upon which to use – either to prove or disprove the various thesis’s.

Sarah Lee