Download “Outline and evaluate the usefulness of subcultural approaches to

“Outline and evaluate the usefulness of subcultural
approaches to the study of crime and deviance.”
When studying Crime and Deviance, Sub cultural approaches can be very
helpful. In this essay, I plan to discuss the different strands of sub cultural
theory, including Differential Association, Cultural transmission and Status
Frustration. I will evaluate these theories with other theories such as
Durkheim's Strain Theory and Internationalism. I will then draw a conclusion
based on what I have written.
Cultural transmission is the process by which a set of values that allow Crime
and deviance to take place are passed on through generations. This idea was
developed by Shaw & McKay (1942), and they suggest that in the most
disorganized and poor areas of the ci ty, successful criminals are providing a
role model for younger generations. They argue that this younger generation
is socialized into believing that criminal behaviour is normal and easily
achieved. This theory can be linked to the family topic in the se nse that this is
the primary location where socialization takes place.
The key functionalist thinker, Robert Merton, would highly criticise the
theory of subcultural transmission by using his own Strain Theory. In this,
Merton suggests that people are socialized into wanting particular things,
such as nice houses or cars, etc. However, the majority of people lack the
means to achieve these goals. According to Merton, it is this that causes a
strain in the structure of society (I.e. there is a conflict between what
people have been socialized to expect and what they can realistically
achieve through legal means.) Merton argues that this is what leads people
to crime and deviance, when trying to find an alternative route to gaining
what they want, not through cultural transmission.
Sutherland & Cressey developed Differential Association theory in 1966,
after they criticized 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 socialize 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 serve s
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 t he 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 st ructure, 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 a daptations 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 soci al
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 c r im i na l.
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 reactio ns 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.