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)