Conformists are the group which chooses to both accept the goals of society and accept the standard means by which to attain their goals. For example, in order to have a happy life by social standards, they gain a college education, work in a 9 to 5 job, and eventually complete their goal. In comparison to the conformist, the ritualist will reject the goal but still go about the standard means of doing so. A ritualist may go through the motions of going to college and working 9 to 5, but will not attempt to fulfil the goal of earning excess amounts of money. Innovators look to fulfil the goals of society but instead of going about it through established channels, as conformists do, they will find other means to reach their goals. Examples my include business moguls such as Steve Jobs, or groups such as the Mafia. Both examples took alternate routes to reaching the socially constructed goal. Both of these groups have rejected the goals and the means to reach them. The retreatist will stop engaging in society altogether and instead might live in solidarity or in communes with likeminded individuals. An example of this is the Hippie of the early 1960s. Rebels on the other hand, also reject both aspects but instead of leaving society, they try to change it. The movement of social and political activism among college students in the 1960s is a good example of this group.
However, sociologist Cohen accepts much of what Merton had to say on the structural origins of crime and deviance. Working class youths internalise mainstream norms and values through socialisation. Working class youths face blocked opportunities (e.g. at school) because of their position in the social class structure. Working class youths as a whole (groups not just individuals) suffer from status frustration (realise that they cannot achieve in middle class terms).
But, Cohen extends Merton’s theory by incorporating a strong cultural element in his explanation. Some working class youths make a decision to completely reject mainstream norms and values. This is because of the status frustration they feel. Mainstream norms and values are replaced with alternative delinquent subcultural norms and values. For Cohen a high value is placed on non-financial negativistic delinquent acts. For example, joy riding, arson and vandalism. The delinquent subculture provides an alternative means of gaining status and striking back at an unequal social system that has branded them as ‘failures’.
Cloward and Ohlin accept Cohen’s views on the structural origins of crime and deviance. However, Cloward and Ohlin criticise Cohen’s cultural explanation of crime. In particular, his failure to explain the variety of subcultural forms that emerges out of the social structure. Cloward and Ohlin maintain that the form working class delinquent subcultures take depends on access to criminal networks. Criminal subcultures emerge when working class youths have access to criminal networks. The focus of their deviance is on material crimes such as burglary. Conflict subcultures emerge when working class youths lack access to criminal networks but live in an environment which values defence of territory and violence. The focus of their deviance is gang related ‘warfare’. Retreatist subcultures emerge when working class youths are denied access to criminal or conflict subcultures. The focus of their deviance is on alcohol and drug abuse.
Miller rejects Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin’s views on the structural origins of crime and deviance. He criticises the idea that delinquent subcultures emerge as a reaction to anomie. This is because he believes that lower class youths never accept mainstream norms and values in the first place. He therefore offers an alternative cultural view on crime and deviance. Lower class youths are socialised into a set of lower class values or focal concerns. These values include toughness, smartness, excitement and fatalism. Some lower class youths over conform to lower class values because of a concern to gain status within their peer group.
Cohen and Cloward & Ohlin have gained recent theoretical support from postmodernists. Morrison (1995) argues that the underclasses are faced with blocked opportunities because of their position in the social structure. He suggests this leads to group feelings of resentment and revenge, and crime and deviance invariably follow. This suggests that the ideas have wider theoretical appeal.
However, there are some criticisms to Subcultural theories. Some argue that they are too readily accepting official statistics on crime. They thus fail to explain adult white-collar crime and neglect female subcultural delinquency. This suggests that the subcultural response to official statistics is not adequate. In addition Subcultural theories have been questioned on empirical grounds. Empey (1982) is critical of Cloward and Ohlin. He argues that delinquent boys tend to cross between the distinct subcultural divides which Cloward and Ohlin identify. This suggests that the validity of subcultural ideas have to be questioned. Furthermore, Subcultural theories have been criticised on a theoretical level. The phenomenologist Matza (1964) criticises subcultural theories for over-estimating juvenile delinquency. They do this by assuming that membership of delinquent subcultures is permanent. He argues that individuals drift in and out of delinquency, employing techniques of neutralisation (e.g. they deserved it) as they do so, and therefore crime and deviance is temporary and episodic (every now and gain). This suggests that subcultural theories only offer a partial view on crime and deviance.
In conclusion, some argue that the difference between subcultural and strain theory is that subculture theory offers an account of deviance/crime that is located within the participants own term of reference and understanding whereas, strain theory suggest a variety of responses to situations of frustration, not just criminal activity. However, there are some criticisms to both theories. Strain theory does not spell out way any one individual becomes a retatist rather than a rebel, for example also subcultural theory forces exclusively on delinquent boys and ignores phenomena such as female gangs. However, both theories have one thing in common which is that they assume that most crime is committed by the lower classes and ignore white-collar and other types of crimes of the powerful.
