Critically Evaluate The Contribution Made By Subcultural Sociologists In Understanding Crime & Deviance
Jason Kane
Critically Evaluate The Contribution Made By Subcultural Sociologists In Understanding Crime & Deviance.
There have been many sociological explanations in attempting to understand crime and deviance in our society, some of the earliest being the contributions made by Subcultural sociology and interpretivists.
Before Subcultural sociology however, crime and deviance was explained by social control: Durkheim’s state of anomie as well as Etzioni’s communitarianism focused predominantly on a breakdown of social cohesion and changes in the community. These theories centred on how changes in our society produced deviant behaviour.
Subcultural sociology however centres on how those who commit crime hold different values to mainstream society and how these values can ‘justify’ crime. Many subculturalists have adapted different theories but all centre on understanding how deviance is more apparent within white working class boys; based on the national statistics for crime, which at the time (1950+) were seen as accurate. Whilst these theories have their strengths which will be illustrated next, we can also see how they are flawed.
Following on the work of , Strain Theories have been advanced by (1938), (1955) & and Ohlin (1960). Robert K Merton used Durkheim’s notion of anomie to explain how societal ‘strain’ or pressures can result in 1 of 5 collective responses, thus it can be explained as a Subcultural response to crime and deviancy. Its thesis is dependent upon a social structure that holds the same goals to all its members, without giving them equal means to achieve them. This is best illustrated by the ‘American Dream’ which sees materialism as a measure of success - By everyone sharing the same goals it can produce more ‘strain’ for those unable to fulfil this collective goal.
Merton presents five modes of adapting to strain. He did not mean that everyone who was denied access to society's goals became deviant. Rather the response, or modes of adaptation, depends on the individual's attitudes toward cultural goals. Conformity is the most common mode of adaptation. Individuals accept both the goals as well as the prescribed means for achieving those goals and simply downscale their goals in order to achieve them. Individuals who adapt through innovation accept societal goals but have few legitimate means to achieve those goals, thus they create their own means to get ahead. The means to get ahead may be through robbery, embezzlement or other such criminal acts. In ritualism, the third adaptation, individuals abandon the goals they once believed to be within their reach and dedicate themselves to their current lifestyle. They play by the rules and have a daily safe routine. Retreatism is the adaptation of those who give up not only the goals but also the means. They often retreat into the world of alcoholism and drug addiction. They escape into a non-productive lifestyle. The final adaptation, rebellion, occurs when the cultural goals and the legitimate means are rejected. Individuals create their own goals and their own means, by protest or revolutionary activity.
Whilst strain theories assumes all people want the same goals is does attempt to explain why people may turn to crime, it is however too deterministic and has been criticised as such.
