You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Subcultural theories develop the functionalist tradition by addressing a question that Merton's strain theory left unanswered: why do people who experience blocked opportunities respond in the particular, and often collective, ways that they do? Merton treated deviant adaptation as an individual calculation, yet a great deal of recorded delinquency — particularly among young people — occurs in groups and frequently takes non-utilitarian forms that yield no material reward. Subcultural theorists explain this by arguing that people respond to structural strain not in isolation but by forming or joining deviant subcultures: groups with their own distinctive norms, values and status hierarchies that differ from, and are often opposed to, those of mainstream society. This lesson examines the foundational American subcultural theories of A. Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin, and Miller, together with Matza's important corrective on "drift", before evaluating the tradition and considering its contemporary relevance.
Key Definition: A subculture is a group within wider society whose members share norms and values that are distinct from — and often opposed to — those of mainstream culture, providing an alternative source of status and identity.
Subcultural theory occupies an important transitional place in the history of criminology. It remains a structural and broadly functionalist tradition, inheriting from Merton the premise that crime originates in the unequal distribution of opportunity. Yet by attending to the meaning of deviance for those involved — the status it confers, the identity it sustains, the way it is justified — it begins to move toward the concerns of interactionism, which the next lesson examines. Reading the subcultural theorists in sequence therefore reveals the discipline in motion, gradually shifting from a purely structural account of why crime occurs toward a concern with the experience and social construction of deviance. This makes the topic especially rich for the synoptic evaluation that A-Level examiners reward.
This lesson addresses the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) Paper 3: Crime and Deviance specification requirement that students understand subcultural theories of crime and deviance alongside functionalist and strain theories. Subcultural theory is the bridge between consensus structural theory (Merton) and the later interactionist concern with how deviant identities are sustained; it is essential for explaining the social distribution of crime by class and age and for analysing group-based and non-utilitarian offending. The material directly informs Paper 3 questions on why crime is concentrated among particular groups and on the relationship between deviance and social control.
Albert K. Cohen (1955), in Delinquent Boys, advanced two pointed criticisms of Merton. First, Merton's theory is too individualistic, treating deviance as a solitary adaptation when much delinquency is collective. Second, it cannot explain non-utilitarian crime — vandalism, fighting, truancy and "doing wrong for the hell of it" — which has no material motive and therefore cannot be a form of innovation aimed at acquiring wealth.
Cohen agreed with Merton that working-class boys face blocked opportunities, but he located the decisive site of failure in the education system. Schools are run on middle-class norms and assess pupils against a middle-class measuring rod — deferred gratification, ambition, individual effort, courtesy and the control of aggression. Working-class boys, less well equipped by their primary socialisation to meet these standards, tend to find themselves at the bottom of the official status hierarchy. The result is status frustration: a collective sense of failure and humiliation generated by being judged against criteria they cannot satisfy.
Cohen argued that boys in this position resolve their frustration collectively by forming a delinquent subculture that inverts mainstream values, creating an alternative status hierarchy in which they can succeed. Where mainstream society prizes property, the subculture awards status for its destruction; where it prizes deference, the subculture rewards defiance. Cohen described this inversion as reaction formation — an over-reaction against the very values that have caused the boys' frustration, expressing a kind of guilty rejection of standards they cannot meet.
Key Definition: Status frustration is the collective sense of failure experienced by working-class youth when they are unable to achieve status through the legitimate, middle-class means valued by mainstream institutions, particularly the school.
The logic of Cohen's argument, from initial disadvantage to the formation of a delinquent subculture, can be represented as follows:
graph TD
A["Working-class boy enters a middle-class school"] --> B["Judged by the middle-class measuring rod"]
B --> C["Fails to gain status; experiences status frustration"]
C --> D["Joins others in the same position"]
D --> E["Collective reaction formation: mainstream values inverted"]
E --> F["Delinquent subculture provides an alternative status hierarchy"]
F --> G["Non-utilitarian crime wins status within the group"]
Cohen's achievement is best understood as a fusion of two intellectual traditions. From Merton he takes the structural premise of blocked opportunity; from the earlier Chicago School tradition of cultural transmission he takes the idea that delinquency is learned and sustained within groups. What is genuinely new is the concept of an alternative status hierarchy. Cohen's insight is that the working-class boy does not primarily want money — he wants status, and the official institutions of society (above all the school) have denied it to him by measuring him against criteria he cannot meet. The delinquent subculture solves this problem of status by collectively manufacturing a new value system in which the boy can succeed precisely by doing what respectable society condemns. This is why the crime is non-utilitarian: vandalism, fighting and defiance confer prestige within the group even though they yield nothing material. Cohen's analysis therefore explains a feature of much youth crime — its apparent pointlessness from a utilitarian standpoint — that strain theory simply cannot. It also carries a sharp implication for the sociology of education: if the school is the crucible of status frustration, then the way schools sort and label working-class pupils is implicated in the production of delinquency, a theme later developed by interactionist studies of anti-school subcultures.
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), in Delinquency and Opportunity, accepted Merton's premise that working-class youth are denied legitimate opportunity, but argued that he had overlooked a crucial point: access to the illegitimate opportunity structure is also unequally distributed. Not everyone who wishes to turn to crime can do so successfully, because the availability of criminal networks, skilled role models, training and a stable criminal career varies by neighbourhood. The type of deviant subculture that develops therefore depends on the local illegitimate opportunity structure.
| Subculture | Description | Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal subculture | A settled, organised criminal network exists locally and provides young people with an apprenticeship in utilitarian crime (theft, fencing, dealing). Established professional criminals act as role models and offer a career ladder. | Stable, long-settled working-class areas with an existing criminal hierarchy linking adult offenders to youth. |
| Conflict subculture | No organised criminal network exists, so a stable criminal career is unavailable. Frustration is channelled instead into violence, territorial conflict and the pursuit of "rep" through gang warfare and intimidation. | Socially disorganised, high-turnover neighbourhoods lacking a stable adult criminal hierarchy. |
| Retreatist subculture | Comprises "double failures" — those who cannot succeed in either the legitimate or the illegitimate opportunity structure. They retreat into drug use, alcohol and a hustling lifestyle on the margins of both. | Individuals rejected by, or unable to sustain a place in, both mainstream society and the criminal/conflict subcultures. |
The framework helps explain why different localities produce characteristically different forms of crime: areas with established criminal organisation tend toward acquisitive professional crime, whereas disorganised, transient areas tend toward expressive violence. Contemporary county lines drug distribution — in which established urban networks recruit and exploit young people to run drugs into provincial towns — maps closely onto the criminal-subculture model, with its hierarchies, role models and apprenticeship structure. Cloward and Ohlin's central theoretical contribution is to complete Merton's account: where Merton implies that the strained individual can simply "choose" innovation, Cloward and Ohlin point out that successful innovation is itself a learned and organised activity requiring access to tutelage, contacts and a market. A would-be thief in a neighbourhood without fences, mentors or a criminal market is no more able to pursue a criminal career than a would-be professional is able to pursue a legitimate one without the relevant institutions. The illegitimate opportunity structure is thus the criminal mirror-image of the legitimate one, and its unequal distribution explains why blocked legitimate opportunity does not translate uniformly into the same kind of crime everywhere.
Walter B. Miller (1958, 1962) rejected the premise shared by Cohen and (implicitly) Merton that deviant subcultures arise as a reaction to mainstream values. Miller argued instead that the lower class possesses its own long-established culture, transmitted through socialisation across generations, organised around a set of focal concerns. Adherence to these concerns — entirely normal within lower-class culture — brings lower-class males into routine conflict with a law built on middle-class norms.
| Focal Concern | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Trouble | Accepting that life involves trouble and gaining standing through the capacity to handle it. |
| Toughness | Valuing physical strength, bravery and a demonstrative masculinity. |
| Smartness | Prizing street wit and the capacity to outwit others, as opposed to academic intelligence. |
| Excitement | Seeking thrills, risk and edge to relieve the monotony of routine life. |
| Fate | A fatalistic sense that life is governed by luck or destiny rather than individual effort. |
| Autonomy | Resenting external authority and prizing personal independence. |
Miller argued that pursuit of these concerns — above all toughness, excitement and autonomy — predictably produces behaviour that mainstream society criminalises, without any prior commitment to, or rejection of, middle-class success goals.
Miller's account is significant for decoupling deviance from frustration: where Cohen sees delinquency as a response to failure in middle-class institutions, Miller sees it as the normal expression of a self-contained lower-class culture. This has an important implication that students should handle carefully. If lower-class culture itself generates crime, the explanation comes close to locating the problem within the poor rather than in the structural conditions that constrain them — which is precisely why critics charge Miller's theory with cultural determinism and with blaming the victim. The same logic later reappears, in a more explicitly political form, in right realist arguments about an "underclass", making Miller a useful bridge to that debate. A careful answer notes both the strength of Miller's position (it credits the working class with its own culture and agency rather than treating them as mere reactors to the middle class) and this serious weakness (it underplays the poverty, insecurity and exclusion that shape that culture in the first place).
David Matza (1964), in Delinquency and Drift, offered an important corrective to the determinism of earlier subcultural theory. Matza argued that delinquents are not committed to a distinct oppositional value system at all; rather, most young people drift in and out of delinquency, conforming most of the time and offending intermittently. The image of the delinquent as the bearer of a wholly separate culture, he insisted, is contradicted by the obvious fact that most young offenders "grow out of" crime and lead conventional lives — something inexplicable if they were truly socialised into an oppositional value system.
Drawing on his earlier work with Gresham Sykes (1957) on techniques of neutralisation, Matza showed that delinquents in fact share conventional moral values but learn to neutralise them temporarily so as to permit deviance without guilt. Sykes and Matza identified five such techniques:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.