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