“Delinquents have withdrawn their support from established norms and have invested officially forbidden norms of conduct with a claim to legitimacy in the light of their special situation”
[Cloward and Ohlin, 1960]
Members of subcultures reject conventional values, they do not succeed in school or college, but they are good at things that their subculture values.
A criticism of this view is that it regards everyone as having the same goals and aspirations. A good career with financial success is not everybody’s aim. Walter B Miller (1962) suggested that crime is the result of normal working class values. The concerns of the working-class culture can lead working-class males into crime. Crime is an extension of working-class values, not alternative ideas. Most subcultural theorists approaches emphasise that subcultural values are distinct from the majority of the population and that those within subcultural groups are subject to forces stronger than they e.g. peer pressure.
Young working-class men accept that life involves violence. They consider that males should demonstrate that they are ‘manly’ being able to drink, fight, womanise, be into sport etc. They think it is important to look good and be in fashion. They are mainly interested in ‘having fun’. They accept their prospects as ‘the norm’ and do not think that they have any control over their lives. They also resent authority e.g. police and teachers.
A criticism of this approach could be that the values of most criminals could be similar to that of the rest of the population. Criminals can be just as shocked by the acts of other and can show remorse and offer explanations for their crimes.
Labelling theorists stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is expected to have deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been labelled, as the deviant act they are said to have committed.
Howard S. Becker, one of the earlier interaction theorists, claimed that, "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders". According to Becker, after the individual has been labelled as deviant, they progress down the path of a 'deviant career' and it becomes hard to shake off the deviant label as others see it as a master status of the individual.
Kai T. Erikson, in "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance", also highlights the way social reaction affects the deviant individual. He reinforces what Backer had previously said: "deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behaviour, it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them". He suggests, however, that deviance is necessary to society's stability, rather than being responsible for its breakdown, as the deviant individual serves as a marker of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong
Becker examines some of the criticisms made of the theory in "Labelling Theory Reconsidered" (1974). Firstly, however, he says that, rather than being an all-encompassing theory of deviance, labelling 'theory' was created as "a way of looking at a general area of human activity". It is not, he claims "a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, nor focused so exclusively on the act of labelling as some have thought".
One of the main criticisms of labelling theory, is that it is deterministic, and that it treats the individuals as if they were no more than passive organisms, led into certain behaviour by the act of labels being given to it, and following behaviour patterns as a mere result of behaviour patterns that go with it. This ignores the ‘social actor’ theory.
Functionalist Emile Durkhiem believed that societies are held together by shared values and economic dependence. He considered that society would collapse if values are not reaffirmed and passed from one generation to another. A crucial ‘function’ of society is maintenance of its values. This is most obviously done by way of education and religion.
He also thought that crime and deviance is normal in society. A limited amount of crime is necessary and beneficial; society could not exist without some form of deviance. Too much crime though, could bring about its collapse. This contrasts with the view that crime, by its nature, is harmful to society. Society has expectations of behaviour, based on shared values and beliefs. Boundaries of acceptable behaviour need to be defined and made common knowledge. This is why there is criminal law.
The law marks the extremities of acceptable behaviour, when someone is arrested it is because his actions have been unacceptable to society. The drama of arrest and prosecution publicises these boundaries and serves as a warning to others. When particularly horrific crimes have been committed the shock and fear of members of society is mutual and so bonds them together, making the society stronger. Durkhiem acknowledges damaging effects of crime if it goes unchecked, but insists that crime is inevitable in any society. Society would not exist without it.
Society has a ‘collective conscience’, but everybody does not follow it. Some are motivated by greed and will put themselves first at cost to others. They are stopped by the law and the reactions of others who have been socialised in a society where this is not acceptable behaviour. The law is not as strong as the ‘collective conscience’. Except at times of great social hardship or change. Dramatic social change will weaken the conscience. Durkhiem called this a state of ‘anomie’ where people would no longer see the rights and welfare of others as important, and concentrate on their own needs.
Before Durkhiem, most sociologists believed that crime was created by a small number of ‘sick and unnatural’ individuals. He introduced the idea that criminals are an integral part of society and have a role to play in it. A criticism of his work is that he does not offer any explanation as to why certain people are more likely to commit crime than others. Also he considered that the law reflected the view of the majority. It could be argued that the law reflects only the interests of those in power. The majority is not involved in the law making process.
The Marxist approach has been one of the most important approaches in explaining deviant behaviour. They mainly base their ideas and theories on how the powerful people control the society which influences how the society works today. Marxists seems to believe that young working class males commit most crime mainly due to the media, which reinforces ideas of materialism into people. This will lead to a materialistic capitalist system, which may force working people to commit crime as they have a lower income and may not be able to afford to buy things like the rest of the society.
The idea of young working class males committing more crime can be supported by David Matza's study on juvenile delinquency. He suggested that people tend to stick to their own norms and values in the society that will lead to a subculture. Young boys do not receive monetary reward for they crimes they commit such as joyriding; they may commit these crimes because of their failure in the educational system, or the dysfunction of the family after they have done a cost benefit analysis to their actions.
Marxists suggested that the law is controlled by the powerful, this was supported by their idea of the manipulation of values, where the mainstream of the society, the court, the police etc. are predominantly middle class and would be bias towards the ruling class people. Law creation is another one as Marxists suggested that members of the parliament whom are mainly from the bourgeoisie pass most laws. They have the ability to manipulate themselves to the laws. Law creation and law enforcement happens in consistently to show why people in control tends to be bias.
Marxists also support the information provided from the criminal statistics as it gives evidence to support their idea that working class people commit more crimes than middle class males. On the other hand, criminal statistics was challenged by left realists who believe that criminal statistics is the reality and therefore we should accept it, along with the solutions to attempt to solve the problems to tackle the high levels of crime.
Marxist approach in explaining deviant behaviour is only reliable to some extent. Along with the contradictions from other perspectives, it shows that improvements can be added to their ideas. Marxists mainly concentrated on the class distribution and stress that they the ruling class control the norms and values of the society. It will not be classed as deviant unless the bourgeoisie say so and they will not say so unless a working class person commits it.