subcultural theories
DESCRIPTION
Subcultural Theories. ▪Several Theories emerged from late 1950s through the 1960s ▪Attempt to explain the formation and activity of delinquent subcultures ▪Subculture defined as a group (such as a street gang) that holds different norms and values than mainstream society - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Subcultural Theories▪ Several Theories emerged from late 1950s
through the 1960s▪ Attempt to explain the formation and activity
of delinquent subcultures▪ Subculture defined as a group (such as a street
gang) that holds different norms and values than mainstream society
Combined ideas from both strain theory (Merton) and differential association –> “mixed models”
Specific Subcultural Theories1. Status frustration (Cohen)2. Differential opportunity theory (Cloward and
Ohlin)3. Focal concerns of the lower class (Miller)
Status Frustration (1 of 3)▪ Albert Cohen ▪ From Merton: strain causes crime
BUT, for Cohen, not “American Dream” frustrations, but strain caused by inability to reach middle class
Can’t “buy” middle class status From Sutherland: crime as learned
New values are passed on (learned by) new members of the subculture
Status Frustration (2 of 3)▪ Turning point occurs when boys reach
school age▪ 1950s school systems entrenched in middle-
class values and social networks▪ Lower-class boys singled out by their dress,
manners, and attitudes (“tracking”)▪ Middle-class measuring rod
If cannot meet? In “market” for solution.
Status Frustration (3 of 3)▪ Delinquent “reaction formation” = value the
opposite of middle class:▪ Aggression▪ Toughness▪ Hedonism▪ Immediate gratification▪ Loyalty▪ Conformity
Cohen: Most delinquency is malicious, negative and not utilitarian (not achieving American dream)
Differential Opportunity Theory (1 of 2)▪ Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin
▪ From Merton: Lack of legitimate opportunities for success causes strain
▪ Blocked economic aspirations lead to poor self-image
▪ Frustration leads to delinquency From Sutherland: much delinquency requires
access to “illegitimate means” for success Delinquents learn criminal trades within
neighborhood
Differential Opportunity Theory (2 of 2)▪ Delinquent subcultures
▪ Criminal subculture▪ Where illegitimate opportunities exist, delinquents
seek economic gain, view crime as a career▪ Conflict subculture
▪ Where no illegitimate opportunities exist, gangs fight over turf and place high value on violence
▪ Retreatist subculture▪ “Double losers”: Emphasizes drug abuse or other
forms of escape
Focal Concerns of the Lower Class (1 of 2)▪ Walter Miller
▪ Views entire lower class as subculture ▪ Focal concerns (values) foster delinquency. ▪ Lower-class youth respond to these values and
develop a subculture of delinquency.
Focal Concerns of the Lower Class (2 of 2)
▪ Trouble: Violent situations, interactions with the police
▪ Toughness: Need to demonstrate that one can stand up to adversity
▪ Smartness: Street smarts▪ Excitement: Thrill of engaging in conflict▪ Fate: What happens in life is beyond one’s control▪ Autonomy: Intolerance of challenges to one’s
personal sphere
Focal Concerns of the Lower Class (3 of 3)
Social Structure Predominance of female-based households
contributes to this problem. ▪ Lower-class adolescents often go out on the
streets to learn appropriate adult male behavior.
Criticisms of theory ▪ Failure to put the focal concerns in context▪ Many middle-class youth share “focal
conerns”
Focal Concerns Code of the Streets
▪ Elijah Anderson▪ Lower-class youth guided by code of the
streets▪ Informal rules that govern interpersonal
behavior▪ Heart of the code is fear of being
disrespected Grounded within structural reality (despair,
lack of opportunity, etc) of inner city life TIE BACK TO SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
Policy Implications▪ Cohen = ? Cloward and Ohlin?
▪ Mobilization for Youth program Provide legitimate opportunities for success to
members of the lower class (Job programs, apprenticeships, etc)
▪ Organize social institutions in poor neighborhoods (political power)
Miller Importance of prosocial male role models (Men as
Peacemakers?)
Subcultural Theory Criticism▪ Narrow scope
▪ Focus on lower-class boys▪ Does not account for white-collar crime,
middle-class crime, or female offending▪ Are gangs are truly subcultures?▪ Assumes almost perfect socialization to
gang
Control Theories Control = shorthand for informal social control Theories covered
Hirschi (social bonds) Gottfredson and Hirschi (low self-control) Sampson and Laub (age graded social control)
Assumptions about “Motivation towards crime” Strain theory: motivation from some sort of
strain (e.g. blocked opportunity) Learning theory: motivation from delinquent
peers Control theory: there is enough natural
motivation towards crime No need to “build in” extra motivation Real question? Why aren’t we all criminal?
Types of Control Direct Control
Direct punishments, rewards from parents, friends Indirect Control
Refrain from deviance because you don’t want to risk friends, job, etc.
Internal Control Good self-concept, self-control, conscience
Walter Reckless’ Containment Theory as precursor to “control” theories
Pushes and Pulls• poverty, anger,delinquent subculture
Outer Containment• parents/school • supervision
DELINQUENCY
OUT HERE !!!!!!
Inner (Good self concept)Containment
ENTER TRAVIS HIRSCHI Causes of Delinquency (1969)
Was an attack on other theories as much as a statement of his theory
Self-report data (CA high schools) Measures from “competing theories”
This book was the first of its kind!
Social Bond Theory “Bond” indicates “Indirect Control”
Direct controls (punishment, reinforcement) less important because delinquency occurs when out of parents’ reach (adolescence).
Attachment Commitment (Elements of the social
bond Involvement are all related to each
other) Belief
Or, Put Another Way…
The Social BondAttachmentCommitmentInvolvementBelief
Crime
Fun, thrilling, quick and easy satisfaction of desires
Hirschi’s Evidence in Favor of Bonds Attachment
Attachment to parents (wish to emulate, identify with)
Commitment Grades, educational aspirations
Belief Techniques of Neutralizations
Criticisms of Hirschi’s Theory1. Delinquents do form relationships2. Attachment to delinquent peers or parents
increases, rather than decreases delinquency
3. Which comes first, bonds or delinquency? 4. Bonds more salient for females, and early in
adolescence
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) A General Theory of Crime
Same control theory assumptions If we are all inclined to be deviant, why conform?
Because most of us develop “self-control” “Internal control” Developed by age 8, as the result of “direct
control” from parents
Nature of Crime, Nature of Low Self-Control
Criminal Acts…
Provide immediate gratification of desires
Are risky/thrilling
Are easy/simpleRequire little skill/planning
Provide few/meager long termbenefits
Result in pain/discomfort to a victim
People with low self-controlare therefore…
Impulsive
Risk-taking
Physical (as opposed to mental)Low verbal ability
Short-sighted
Insensitive
The implications of low self-control Explains “stability of criminal behavior”
But, how does it explain “aging out?”
Explains all crime and analogous behaviors Analogous = same “nature” as criminal acts
Empirical Support Moderate relationship between low self-control
and both crime and analogous behaviors Holds for both males and females
BUT Not the “sole cause” of crime May not explain white collar crime at all
“Age Graded Theory of Informal Social Control” Sampson and Laub We will cover this again in the “lifecourse”
theory section Takes Hirschi’s (1969) theory and made it
“age graded” The specific elements of the social bond change over
the life-course Also includes elements of “direct control” Also throws in some other stuff (integrated theory)
Sampson and Laub
ContextParenting• Supervision• Discipline Social Bonds• Family• SchoolDelinquent Peers
Childhood Adolescence Adulthood
Individual Differences
Delinquency
Social Bonds• Marriage• Good Job
Length ofIncarceration
Adult Crime
Policy Implications Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory
Target attachment, commitment, belief
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory Must focus on early childhood prevention Train parents?
Sampson and Laub Different targets for different ages Importance of adult bonds (job, marriage)