Subcultural perspectives

By sociologytwynham.wordpress.com

Subcultural theories

In 1955 Albert Cohen came up with status frustration

This is seen as a functional perspective of subcultural behaviour (it improves their status)

Many working class youths who cannot gain status legitimately, become frustrated and therefore try to gain status through illegitimate means

They create their own subculture and reject the norms and values of mainstream society

Albert Cohen

Although they have failed in mainstream society, they can solve their problems by gaining status and respect from their peers within a delinquent subculture.

The crime committed within these subcultures is often non-utilitarian

This means the crime is undertaken for no financial gain

For example vandalising a building does not make money for the criminal

However, this type of crime will gain status among his peers 

Albert Cohen

Cohen's theory offers a good explanation for non-utilitarian crime (this means there’s no financial gain), and why crime is committed in groups 

This is seen as a functional perspective of subcultural behaviour as it serves the function of improving their status and subcultures are dysfunctional and they help cement social norms

However, there are other explanations for working class delinquency.  

Cloward and Ohlin

Cloward and Ohlin (1961) provide other explanations for working class delinquency

Cohen could not explain why delinquent subcultures take different forms - for example some are mainly concerned with theft while others focus on violence

Cloward and Ohlin identify 3 types of delinquent subcultures:

Cloward and Ohlin

1. The first is criminal subculture - this tends to develop in areas where an illegitimate opportunity structure is present

2. There is conflict subculture - this tends to develop in areas where an illegitimate opportunity structure is absent. Delinquents form conflicting gangs out of frustration at the lack of available opportunity structures

3. Finally there is the retreatist subculture

Cloward and Ohlin

which emerges among those who have failed to succeed either by legitimate means or by being part of a criminal or conflict subculture. They tend to retreat to drug and alcohol abuse

Cloward and Ohlin

Cloward and Ohlin's theory is good in that it shows that working class delinquency is not just concerned with material gain.

The theory also identifies and explains a number of different subcultures.

However, Cloward and Ohlin fail to realise that the different subcultures can overlap. For example gangs involved in conflict subculture often deal in drugs, and make large sums of money in the process.

Pulling together

These two subcultural theories can be seen as functionalist because they assume there is a consensus on social values. Members of society are socialised into measuring success purely in financial terms (you could also say subcultures are dysfunctional and they help cement social norms through a moral consensus

They also assume deviant subcultures are created as a response to working-class males being unable to succeed through legitimate means

Walter Miller had a different view....

Walter Miller

Miller (1958) argued that the lower classes create their different value system as a response to the monotony of working-class jobs

Working-class subculture is a mechanism full of processes which allow working-class people to cope with their situation which he termed - focal concerns

These focal concerns are: fate, excitement, autonomy, smartness, trouble and toughness

Walter Miller

For example, one of the focal concerns is autonomy.

The lower classes believe in freedom and independence, and do not like being told what to do. This may bring them into conflict with authority figures, such as police

Miller’s ideas assume all lower class males are seen to act out this subculture with little reference to mainstream society

Yet not all working class boys want to fail in education.

Pulling together So far subcultural theories have seen crime and

deviance as being the result of social forces These social forces are seen as ‘beyond an

individual’s control’ With Merton’s strain theory those stratified at

the bottom of society are under pressure to resort to crime

While Cohen looks to the creation of delinquent subcultures

And Miller explained his ideas through ‘focal concerns’

Matza’s delinquency and drift

Matza saw three problems with blaming social structures

It makes deviance seem as if they’re a different species than everyone else and so markedly different which isn’t possible

They seek to predict delinquency in certain social groups, yet not all working-class people are delinquent

It ignores free-will, as if social forces determine behaviour

Matza’s delinquency and drift

Matza (1964) was at pains to point out that Cohen was wrong in assuming delinquents have a distinct subculture

Instead Matza said delinquent behaviour is often driven by ‘subterranean values’ which are evident throughout society

These underground values focus on excitement and toughness which mainstream society release through sports etc.

Therefore delinquent behaviour is mainstream behaviour

Matza’s delinquency and drift

Matza then asked how do you people view their delinquent behaviour?

According to Matza, many young people express guilt and shame for their delinquent actions, and they hold at least some mainstream values

Nevertheless, they still commit crime, but why?

Matza said it’s because they adopt ‘techniques of neutralisation’. This simply means they justify their delinquent acts

1. Denial of responsibility – “not my fault got in with the wrong crowd”

2. Denial of injury – Nobody was hurt, “we only stole a car for fun”

3. Denial of victim – The victim was a criminal so “they deserved it”

4. Condemnation of the condemners – “the police are just as bad”

5. Appeal to higher loyalties – criminal behaviour is justified “as a means to an end” such as political action

Matza’s delinquency and drift

Therefore ‘techniques of neutralisation’ suggest mainstream values are followed because they justify their actions through mainstream values.

Therefore there is little evidence to suggest there is a distinctive subculture of delinquency

Instead Matza talks of ‘delinquency and drift’ where young people drift in and out of crime.

This fits in with crime stats which show young men are more likely to be criminal

Matza

Matza ignores Hispanic gangs which are actively criminal and permanent

When you examine UK crime data, yes young men under 30 commit, BUT as many as 1 in 3 young men are delinquent which tends to imply more of a subcultural drive than an opportunist or transient one