Subcultural theories Essay Example

Subcultural theories Essay Example Subcultural theories Essay Subcultural theories Essay Essay Topic: Sociology Subcultural theories examine the behaviour and actions of various groups within society groups with either reject or depart from the traditional norms and views of the majority. These groups are referred to as subcultures, and subcultural theories attempt to explain why these groups most are concerned with youth gangs and gang delinquency engage in deviant acts. Subcultural theories originated in America and in particular the Univeristy of Chicago Sociology Department. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay at the University studied juvenile crime rates in Chicago and they divided the city up into a series of concentric rings. They then calculated the delinquency rates of in each ring finding that areas with the highest crime rates were those in the centre of the city, with the rates diminishing outwards from the centre. They noted that delinquency was lower in areas of high economic status while it was seen to be high in areas of low economic status. Their studies also found that these findings remained constant over time, notwithstanding successive changes in the nativity and nationality composition of the population1. They therefore came to the conclusion that delinquency-producing factors are inherent in the community2 and are culturally transmitted. They said that what is transmitted is social disorganisation This term referred to an inconsistency of values, attitudes and standards of behaviour. In areas of high economic status, ie. the middle class, there is consistency and uniformity of attitudes and morals, whereas in low economic status areas there is an absence of common values with competing attitudes and standards prevalent instead. Shaw and Mckay state that in the latter situation delinquency has developed as a powerful competing way of life3. There are, therefore, rival values, conventional and non-conventional, and gang and juvenile delinquency is a symptom of this conflict. Another theory to emerge from Chicago is Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey s differential association theory. Although not strictly a subcultural theory in the strict definition of the term this theory is so closely related so as to be worthy of consideration. Differential association says that criminal and deviant behaviour is learnt behaviour in the same sense as other behaviour is learnt. It tells us that a person is likely to become a criminal if they are exposed to an excess of definitions favourable to violation of the law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law4. The effect which these associations have may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity. In this process of differential association, Sutherland and Cressey stress that the strongest part of the learning occurs within intimate personal groups and we can see that they are stressing the importance of the peer group, family and friends in the learning process. They also make the point that all the associations which one has in life could be quantified and a mathematical formula reached which would enable us to find out how a person will turn out. Sutherland and Cressey acknowledge however that such a weighing up of associations would be extremely difficult5. Albert Cohens main interest lay in explaining juvenile delinquency, and his major work Delinquent Boys, published in 1955, claimed that a delinquent subculture exists which could explain crime amongst juveniles. He said that when we look at the delinquent subculture we see that it is non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic6. This, he explains, is because the subculture takes its norms from the wider culture and turns them upside down. Therefore, what the delinquent does is right according to the standards of the subculture because it is wrong according to the standards of wider society. But why do juveniles form or join these subcultures in the first place? Cohen argued that certain sections of youth feel rejected by society and the reason for this is to be found in the great tension and strain in handling the paradoxical many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen nature of schooling7. Those who cannot handle the strain suffer status deprivation and some will seek the collective delinquent subculture as the solution. Mertons8 anomie (strain) theory aims to integrate explanations of a variety of behaviours into a coherent pattern, by seeing them as related ways of coping with the problems by living in modern societies. This theory asserts that where there is a gap between what people want and what they can legitimately achieve, they experience strain. They can adapt to this strain in any of five ways. Conformists do not experience such a gap and are thus not under strain. Innovators adapt to the strain by finding alternative, usually illegitimate, methods of obtaining the goods they want. Ritualists turn adherence of social norms into a goal itself and often join movements that place moral rules above more individual goals, e. g. religious groups. Retreatists see neither the goals nor the means as valid and minimise their participation in normal society. Drug users, dropouts, hippies and priests would all be examples. Rebels are those who declare the social structure illegitimate, and seek to destroy it. A theory of much the same model9 as Cohens is put forward by Cloward and Ohlin. They accepted a similar model of delinquency causation as him but believed that he placed too much emphasis on the school. Cloward and Ohlin draw their theory in part from both Mertons anomie theory and from differential association. They say that crime occurs because of blocked and limited legitimate opportunities and that what type of criminal behaviour results depends on the individuals peer group or gang. They concluded that three types of subculture can result: criminal, conflict or retreatist. Again the importance of the group is emphasised as Cloward and Ohlin use differential association to argue that criminal behaviour is learnt from group relationships. When Lemet (1951) and Becker (1963) first promoted labelling theory, they both argued that no acts are intrinsically deviant; deviance is a moral judgement which is used to label particular acts and those who commit them. Thus social groups can create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders10. The principal strength of these various theories appears to be their superior explanation of juvenile delinquency and crime, such as vandalism, joy-riding and pointless theft, which mainly occurs within juvenile gangs or subcultures. Much of the other criminological explanations of crime largely ignore this group reaction and concentrate solely on the individual. Mertons anomie theory is especially guilty of this and indeed Cohen criticised it for being inapplicable to both juvenile and group crime11. Similarly the biological positivists such as Eysenck look at the cause of crime as purely an individual matter without much concern for group crime. Shaw and McKays theory placed a great emphasis on juvenile crime and delinquency being a group activity delinquency is essentially group behaviour12 and they attempt to explain why people become delinquent and join gangs. They say that in areas of low economic status delinquency is a powerful rival way of life which derives its impelling force in the boys life from the fact that it provides a means of securing economic gain, prestige, and other human satisfactions and is embodied in delinquent groups and criminal organizations, many of which have great influence, power and prestige13. Children are exposed to these values as they are transmitted and passed down from generation to generation as are the techniques for committing offences. In discussing this, Shaw and Mckay give examples of the types of offences whose techniques are passed down, such as jack-rolling and shoplifting crimes which lack a purpose. They strongly emphasise the role of the peer group and they say that in the context of this group crime is regarded as normal, as from the viewpoint of the delinquents immediate social world (the subculture) and the norms associated with that world, he is not necessarily disorganised, maladjusted or antisocial but may be highly organized and well-adjusted14. Cohens explanation of juveniles turning to crime centred upon their frustration at being unable to achieve middle class success and, more specifically, success at school. He says that in the resulting delinquent subculture, delinquents respond as a group and that this response has been worked out by their group over many years. This response is to invert the norms of wider society with the result that the subcultures activities are, as mentioned earlier, non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic. Indeed, these descriptions of the groups activities explain crimes such as shoplifting (which is non-utilitarian) and vandalism (which is malicious) rather well. Cohen himself says that much gang stealing has no motivation and is in fact stealing for the hell of it and is a valued activity to which attaches glory, prowess and profound satisfaction15 rather than as an activity for gain and profit. Crime is committed because delinquent groups are out for fun and short-term hedonism plays an important part in Cohens account of juvenile group crime. Again, like Shaw and McKay, Cohens theory emphasises the point that from the perspective of the gang themselves, their conduct could be regarded as meaningful. Although subcultural theories give a good explanation of juvenile delinquency and juvenile group crime, the fundamental weakness of these theories stems from precisely this: an overemphasis on the importance of a gang response to crimes. It places far too much emphasis on a group response rather than on individual responses. Notwithstanding the fact that most juvenile crime such as joy-riding is conducted by gangs, these theories fail to explain why crimes such as rape and murder, which are very individualistic, occur. Most of the subcultural theorists, including Shaw and McKay, Cloward and Ohlin, and especially Sutherland and Cressey, stress the significance of the peer group and the associations which one has in life. Sutherland and Cressey say that the values which encourage people to commit crime are learnt along with the techniques to commit crime. But how can this theory explain the crime of passion in which the husband murders his wife when finding her in bed with another man? He may have had no criminal associations in the past, but merely snaps. Compulsive crimes such as this are better explained by biological impulses rather by differential association or subcultural theories. It was mentioned earlier that Sutherland and Cressey stated that all the associations which one has in life can be quantified in order to find out whether a person will become deviant or not. However, as with the example above, this does not account for the honest, hard working businessman who, when his business starts doing badly is forced to commit fraud and other crimes to try and save it. It could certainly be said that he has learnt the techniques through differential association, but where and how does he learn the deviant values and motives? Stemming from this overemphasis on gang/group crime is the very closely related flaw that these theories are overly deterministic. Everyone is seen as being very heavily influenced by their peer group and little consideration is given to individual choice or free will. If, taking Shaw and McKays example, you fall within the centre circle of Chicago you are seen by them as having very little choice as to whether or not you end up in a delinquent gang. The theory of David Matza addresses in part this weakness of subcultural theories. He pointed out that these theories predicted far too much crime and delinquency16. His main theme concerned drift as he considered that delinquents drift in and out of delinquency without committing to either. He also emphasised freedom of choice and free will as important, and by doing so he answers many of the criticisms of the overly deterministic theories of Cohen, Shaw and McKay et al. The role of the subculture or gang is still important as they make such activity more likely by actively promoting it but this does not make deviant behaviour mandatory. The individual still has freedom to choose whether to commit a crime or not and to do so for personal reasons rather that as a group requirement17. The major criticisms of anomie theory are that while it outlines different possibilities for adaption, it does not explain why individuals adopt one or other forms of adaption- retreatism, ritualism etc. It also says nothing about the causes of social inequality and conflict, which is strange given the theorys recognition that inequality and conflict exists is precisely the point at which it has an advantage over functionalism. Labelling theory does not provide an account for why some social groups have the power to label and others do not, nor of why certain acts are declared illegal and others are not. In Beckers view, the theory does not, and need not, explain why some groups or individuals have the power to label, he was only concerned to show that labelling occurs and the consequences of it. There is no consensus about how far how-far a group has to go in having specialised values and norms, or stable membership, or regular activities, to qualify as a sub-culture; nor about the precise meaning of descriptions such as deviant subculture. It is also interesting to note that some studies of subcultures refer back to anomie theory and its concept of adaptation; they thus have the same weaknesses as anomie theory. It can be said that from the principal strength of subcultural theories stems its main weakness. The main theories examined provide us with a through examination of crimes largely ignored by anomie and biological theories namely juvenile crime. In their consideration of the consideration of the main causes of juvenile crime, the role and influence of the gang or group response render the application of these theories to explaining individual crimes, such as murder, irrelevant. Related to this is the fact that these theories also suffer from the flaw of being excessively deterministic. Nevertheless, as an account of why subcultures exist and why juveniles within these subcultures engage in deviant acts, the theories examined succeed this objective. Regardless of whichever theory one tends to adopt for a particular given, each has its own strengths and subsequent weaknesses. In this regard, and despite these problems, the concept of sub-culture amongst young men and women remains seductive.