Subcultural Theories ▪ Several Theories emerged from late

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 Theories 1. Status frustration (Cohen) 2. Differential opportunity theory (Cloward and Ohlin) 3. Focal concerns of the lower class (Miller)

Status Frustration Albert Cohen From Merton: strain causes crime BUT, for Cohen, not “American Dream” frustrations, but strain caused by inability to reach middle class (1 of 3) 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 middleclass 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 selfimage 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 Conflict subculture Where illegitimate opportunities exist, delinquents seek economic gain, view crime as a career 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 Toughness: Need to demonstrate that one can stand 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 police up to adversity 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 Indirect Control Direct punishments, rewards from parents, friends 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 Inner Containment (Good self concept) Outer Containment parents/school supervision Pushes and Pulls poverty, anger,delinquent subculture DELINQUENCY OUT HERE !!!!!!

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 bond Involvement other) Belief (Elements of the social are all related to each

Or, Put Another Way The Social Bond Attachment Commitment Involvement Belief Crime Fun, thrilling, quick and easy satisfaction of desires

Hirschi’s Evidence in Favor of Bonds Attachment Commitment Attachment to parents (wish to emulate, identify with) Grades, educational aspirations Belief Techniques of Neutralizations

Criticisms of Hirschi’s Theory 1. 2. 3. 4. Delinquents do form relationships Attachment to delinquent peers or parents increases, rather than decreases delinquency Which comes first, bonds or delinquency? 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 People with low self-control are therefore Provide immediate gratification of desires Impulsive Are risky/thrilling Are easy/simple Require little skill/planning Risk-taking Physical (as opposed to mental) Low verbal ability Provide few/meager long term benefits Short-sighted Result in pain/discomfort to a victim 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 selfcontrol 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 Childhood Context Individual Differences Adolescence Parenting Supervision Discipline Social Bonds Family School Delinquent Peers Delinquency Length of Incarceration Adulthood Adult Crime Social Bonds Marriage Good Job

Policy Implications Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory Target attachment, commitment, belief Must focus on early childhood prevention Train parents? Sampson and Laub Different targets for different ages Importance of adult bonds (job, marriage)