Sutherland & Cressey developed Differential Association theory in 1966, after they criticised Cultural transmission theory for being too vague. In their theory they suggest that individuals are more likely to become involved in criminal activities if they receive positive definitions from others around them. This means if people socialise with other people who are involved in criminal activities, they are likely to imitate them. Sutherland then suggested that these definitions might vary in Frequency (the number of times the definitions occur), Duration (the length of time), Intensity (the importance of the person making the definition) and Priority (at what stage in life the definition occurs).
This theory can be linked to the Family topic, as it is possible that people who provide the definitions to the individual are family members, thus the Intensity of the definition increases and they are then socialised into believing crime and deviance are the norm. This theory can also be linked to phenomenology, as it looks closely at individual actions and interactions rather than the wider social structure, and would therefore use anti-positivist methods of collecting qualitative data.
This theory has been criticized for not being able to explain the dark figure of crime since it is based on official accounts of delinquency and does not take into account the role of legal officials. (I’m not sure what this means) This theory also relies very heavily upon the group nature of crime. The theory also suggests that youths are able to keep community bonds in places where adults cannot.
Durkheim would criticise Differential association by using his own theory. In his theory, he suggests that crime has an integrated function. That is it serves to increase levels of social solidarity (brings the law-abiding people closer together) when there is a moral panic. However, Durkheim also suggests that if the crime level increases too far, it would have the opposite effect; it would serve to weaken moral order and create a state of anomie (normlessness). Therefore, Durkheim would argue that the Differential Association theory was incorrect in its explanation why Crime and Deviance occurs. Although Durkheim’s theory does not provide an explanation for the existence of crime & deviance, so it would appear that Differential Association Theory is more useful.
Cohen drew on Merton’s strain theory to develop Status Frustration. Cohen was interested in the fact that not all crimes are committed for economic gain, for example, vandalism. Cohen suggested that working class boys strive to copy middle class norms and values, but lack the means to achieve success. This leads them into believing that they are failures. From this, they reject those ideologies of normal behaviour in an attempt to cover humiliation and gain status, they engage in crime and anti-social behaviour.
The most obvious link that can be make from this theory is to Education, since the labelling of working class boys within the education system would increase the probability of their failing. This would add to the feeling of worthlessness & result in crime and deviance.
A synoptic link can also be make to Phenomenology, in that because Cohen looks at individuals rather than the wider social structure, it is more likely that he would use phenomenological methods in his research, i.e., collect qualitative data (data which is hand-written, for example, a diary). (So what conclusion do you draw from this?)
Feminists such as Anne Oakley would criticize this theory highly as it does not take into account female deviance; instead it only explains male deviance. Cohen has also been criticized for placing too much emphasis on the education system and not taking into consideration other institutions such as the media, which may affect deviant behaviour. (In what ways?)
In 1960, Cloward and Ohlin developed Illegitimate opportunity Structure theory. They based their work largely on that of Merton’s strain theory, but they believe that Merton missed one major factor, and that was the existence of an illegitimate opportunity structure. According to Cloward and Ohlin, this is the chance for an illegal career in some subcultures. They suggested that an illegal career was readily available for some individuals, and provides easier illegal means of obtaining social goals. Hobbs (1998) demonstrated in his book Bad Business that it was possible to have a deviant career given the right connections and knowledge.
According to Cloward and Ohlin, there are three main adaptations within the illegal opportunity structure. These include, Criminal (This is where there are successful role models for younger children to imitate), Conflict (where there is no career opportunity, and instead small social groups turn to violence against other small social groups), and finally Retreatalist (This is where there is no career opportunity whatsoever, nor the ability to take part in violence. The result is the individual turns to alcohol or drugs).
This theory can be synoptically linked to the methodology of anti-positivism. This is because the theory looks at individual interactions rather than the wider social structure. This would mean they are more likely to use phenomenological methods in order to collect qualitative data. (Again, what conclusion follows from this?)
The illegitimate opportunity theory can also be linked to Family and Education, as these are the primary and secondary locations where individuals are socialised, according to Cloward and Ohlin, into wanting certain social goals.
The Illegitimate opportunity theory has two main criticisms. First of all Feminists such as Valerie Hay may criticise it as it does not include the study of female deviance, as it only discusses male deviance. Secondly, the theory is criticised for being ‘Too easy’, in the sense that it is far too simplistic that people can be categorised into three basic types of criminal.
Interactionists would criticise this theory by saying that it is incorrect about the causes of crime and deviance, and that it operates on the basis that all criminals are people who’ve broken the law, which is far too simplistic. Internactionists suggest that it is far more important to look at the context of the situation that the crime was committed in, and people’s reactions to the crime, to better understand and explain it. This leads to the Labelling theory. This is where people may interpret an individual’s actions as deviant, and then label that person as a criminal. This label would most likely turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the labelled individual internalises and accepts the label, eventually becoming a criminal.
In conclusion, Subcultural theories can be very helpful when studying crime and deviance as they provide causes and different ways of studying it. However, since there are such a variety of opinions within the theories, it is difficult to pick out one that is the most or least helpful, and so the study of crime and deviance when using subcultural theories can sometimes become confusing. An advantage of subcultural theories for some sociologists is that the majority of them study crime and deviance using phenomenological methods, collecting quantitative data.
In my own opinion, I believe that the most useful subcultural theory is Differential Association. (Say why!) However, overall I believe that subcultural theories are not as useful as other theories, such as Interactionism, when studying Crime and Deviance.
