Subcultural Theories Essay Example

Subcultural Theories Paper Consistently in the news we hear of the rise of certain subcultures, the rise of the hoodie culture in teens for example. However, what exactly is a subculture, and are they really linked to crime and deviant behaviour as much as society believes? A subculture can be defined as a group of people who have their own culture, with their own norms and values, which differentiates from the larger culture to what they belong. Many sociologists have researched into the links between subcultures and crime and deviance, to try and establish whether those involved are more likely to commit criminal behaviour, as official statistics suggest. In the early 20th Century, a dramatic social change was taking place in Chicago, and in response to this emerged the University of Chicago, the first parent-school of subcultural sociology. These Chicago sociologists were determined to appreciate the wide variety of cultures and lifestyles prevalent in Chicago at the time, due to the wide influx of migrants from all over Europe and Southern USA. Through their experimental use of, what we now call, participant observation, they wished to observe and note down the sheer variety and dynamism of urban life. Thanks to this integral research, two important studies were released, Fredric Thrashers The Gang(1927) and Whytes Street Corner Society(1943). These two research pieces paved the way for future sociologists to investigate into deviant groups, as it was already established that these groups in society had clear norms and values of their own that justified their different behaviour. Late on in the 1930s, Robert Merton (1938), tried to find how deviance fitted in within a functionalist framework, however, Merton himself was not a functionalist. We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural Theories specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural Theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural Theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer He decided that crime and deviance were the proof that the individual did not fit into societys accepted goals and did not agree with the socially approved means of obtaining those goals. He identified this as strain between the individual and society, and discovered that the greater the strain, the greater the chance of the individual being either deviant or criminal in their behaviour. Merton argued that all societies, whether in Britain or in the jungles of Africa, set their members certain goals and provided them with socially approved ways to achieve this goal. Merton considered the fact that not all the individuals in a society share the same goals; he pointed out that in a stratified society the goals were linked to a persons position in the social structure. Therefore, those lower down the social ladder, had restricted goals. He noted that the system worked well as long as the majority of the population had a reasonable chance of achieving their goals. However, if the majority of the population were unable to achieve their goals, they would become disenchanted with society, and sought out alternative, often deviant, ways of behaving. Merton used Durkheims term anomie to describe this situation. One example of Mertons theory in practice in todays society, is the notion of The American Dream. The American Dream, is a notion held by many that through hard work and material prosperity, residents of the United States will be able to achieve their goals in life; for some this is the ability to achieve more material prosperity than would be possible in their country of origin; the chance for their children to get an education; or the freedom of life without class, gender, racial or religious discriminations. However, for many, this dream is just that, an unachievable dream, and when they realise this, many turn to illegitimate means of money making to help them survive in the materialistic society that is America. Merton identified five different forms of behaviour which could be understood as a strain between goals and means. The first is conformity, in which the individual continues to adhere to both the goals and means, despite the limited likelihood of success, such as the many office workers in New York City, who are living on the poverty line. Another form identified by Merton is Innovation, where the individual accepts the goals of society, but uses different ways to achieve these goals, so the outcome may result in the person being involved in deviant activity, such as soft drug dealers, who long for the materialistic possessions, yet instead of working legitimately, they get their money through deviant behaviour. The third form is Ritualism, this is when the means are used by the individual, but sight of the actual goal is lost, for example a traffic warden, who is not bothered about earning lots of money, but blindly enforces the law without looking at the nature of justice. Ritualism, is the fourth form, in which the individual rejects both the goals and means and society, this is most likely to be a person who is dependant upon drugs and alcohol. The final form of strain can be labelled as Rebellion, where both the socially sanctioned goals and means are rejected and different ones substituted; these individuals are often religious extremists, such as Suicide Bombers. Although Mertons idea of strain has concrete examples in society, many sociologists have criticised his approach to subcultural crime and deviance as being too simple. They say that there are some people who border on the lines between categories. Also, some believe it is too ethnocentric. Valier (2001), criticised Merton for his stress on the existence of common goals in society. Valier argues that instead of such great social consensus, there are in fact a variety of goals that people strive to attain at any one time. Having been heavily influenced by Mertons work Cloward and Ohlin (1960) carried out their own research, entitled the Illegitimate Opportunity Structure. They argued that Merton had failed to appreciate that there was a parallel opportunity structure to the legal one; the Illegitimate Opportunity Structure. This, to them, meant that many subcultures prevalent in society, had found that a career was available, in which illegal means were used to obtain societys goals. According to Cloward and Ohlin, the Illegitimate Opportunity Structure had three possible adaptations or subcultures. The first of these was Criminal, which states that if there is a thriving local criminal subculture, there will be successful role models in that area, therefore young offenders can work their way up the ladder in the criminal hierarchy. Conflict was identified as the second subculture, and it was noted that this occurred when there was no local criminal subculture to provide career opportunities. Groups and individuals brought up in this environment often turn to violence, usually against other similar groups, for example gang turf wars, where gangs use violence to determine who owns which patch. The final adaption is known as Retreatist, and this tends to be an individual response which occurs when the individual has no exposure or opportunity to be involved with the other two subcultures of Criminal and Conflict. The result therefore, is a retreat into alcoholism or drug dependency. A good example of Cloward and Ohlins theories into these subcultures is Dick Hobbs book Bad Buisness (1998), in which Hobbs interviewed successful criminals and demonstrated how careers in crime are possible, given the right connection and exposure to this subculture. This explanation of criminal deviance is useful and, alongside Hobbs work, shows that for some people crime can be a career choice. But the approach is not completely correct, it shares similar weaknesses to Mertons Strain Theory. One criticism which is shared with Merton, is the categorisation of individuals; there are many people who may be sat on the border of two categories, and also, it is difficult to except the three categories, as there is no reference to people who break free from this subculture. Furthermore, many argue that both theories fail to recognise female deviance, as this often follows a slightly different pattern and is not as easy to define. Albert Cohen (1955) drew upon both Mertons ideas of strain and also on the ethnographic ideas (form of observational research) of the Chicago School of Sociology. He was particularly interested in why crime was carried out, and he discovered it was more for the thrill of the act, rather than for the money involved. Many modern day sociologists believe this is as true today as it was in the 1950s, for example, joyriding has increased, yet the cars are burnt, not sold on, so there is not an economic reasoning behind the crime, it must just be committed for the thrill. Cohen believed that lower-class boys wanted to excel middle-class values and aspirations, but lacked the means to obtain this success. This lead to a sense of personal failure and inadequacy, which Cohen called status frustration. This resulted in the rejection of the acceptable behaviour in which they could not succeed. He suggests that school therefore, is the key area for the playing out of this drama, as lower-class children are much more likely to fail and feel humiliated in the classroom. To counteract this and gain status, they invert traditional values and behave badly, engaging in a variety of antisocial behaviour. They may often resort to being the class-clown, who fools around and disrupts the lesson, as they feel this is the way to climb up the social ladder. However, many have criticised Cohen, least of all Feminist Sociologists. As with Cloward and Ohlin and Merton, there is no discussion of female deviancy, his study is solely based on males. Also, Cohen failed to prove that school really was the environment in which success and failure are demonstrated mainly. But the major criticism of his work is that he assumes the young delinquents must be brilliant sociologists to work out that they are lower-class, to work out the middle-class values and then invert them to gain status. Many believe Cohen is correct, he has just missed the fundamental point that these individuals are children. Another subcultural sociologist was writing in the 1950s, Walter Miller. He developed an approach to crime, which expanded on Cohens class based theory. Miller suggested the deviancy was linked to the culture of the lower-class males; suggesting that they have six focal concerns which are likely to lead them to delinquency. The first was smartness; that the individual must look good and also be witty with a sharp repartee. Also, the concern of trouble; the culture of I dont go looking for trouble it finds me, its never their fault, they didnt start it. Focal concern number three links to Cohen and his discovery that crime was committed for the thrill, yet Miller says that lower-class males feel it is important to search out these thrills and so calls this concern excitement. Toughness is the fourth concern, the individuals must not only demonstrate this, but they must be physically stronger than the others. The fifth concern is Autonomy, it is important for the individual not to be pushed around by the others in the gang. And the final focal concern outlined by Miller is Fate; individuals have little chance to overcome the fate that awaits them, the fate of a deviant career for example. Therefore, according to Miller, young lower-class males become delinquents due to the implicit values of their subculture. Yet, Miller provides little evidence of these specific middle class values. Box (1981) highlights that the values could equally apply to males right across the class structure. Also, female deviancy is not considered again! One consistent criticism of subcultural theories is that there is little evidence to demonstrate this distinct set of antisocial values. Even if there are subcultures, why would they respond to certain middle or working class values? Matza bonded these criticisms together to attack subcultural theory. He argued that instead of subcultures having different values, we all share a set of subterranean (hidden) values. The key thing is that most people control these deviant desires, they may rarely emerge, say at the office party, yet when they do we use techniques of neutralisation to provide justification for our deviant actions. Some examples include the denial of responsibility- it wasnt me, it was the alcohol; or denial of injury- victim wasnt hurt, often used when justifying stealing from a company rather than individual. Matza is therefore arguing that the difference between a persistent offender and a law-abiding citizen is simply the frequency and environment in which our subterranean values appear to the public. Matzas critique of subculture is deemed by many as devastating. He is saying that all of us share deviant subcultural values and that it is not true that there are distinctive groups with their own values, different from the rest of us. Carl Nightingale took yet another approach towards deviance, and his subcultural theory does not focus on crime, but that black youth are marginalised, often driving them towards deviance; the Paradox of Inclusion. For his book On The Edge(1993), Nightingale studied young Black youth in inner-city Philadelphia. He discovered that subculture derives from the desire to be part of mainstream US culture, that is to say that subcultures occur due to the rejection and marginalising of youth by society. In America, Black children avidly consume US culture by watching television with its emphasis on consumerism and the success of violence, yet at the same time they are excluded economically, racially and politically from participating in the mainstream society they idolise. This is seen in England through the Chav culture. Those individuals dress how they see on television in music videos, so they can fit in, yet by doing so, they ironically become individuals which society fears, and therefore marginalises. These individuals begin to identify themselves through acquiring clothing with high-status labels, such as Nike or Adidas. Once again, drawing upon Mertons ideas, the subculture reflects the belief that it is not so much how these high status goods are obtained rather the fact of possessing them, which is often through crime and violence. This links with Phillip Bourgois study of El Barrio. He looks at the lives of drug dealers and criminals in the deprived areas of New York. He wanted to study the underground econmy, everything ranging from babysitting to hard drug dealing, in this marginalised society. He realised they were marginalised for many reasons, particularly racial and due to their high poverty lifestyles, society excluded them. He discovered that the severe abuse of drugs and alcohol prevalent in El Barrio, was due to the marginalisation and alienation from mainstream American Society, which many residents encountered daily. The change of drugs and scale which Bougois monitored was widespread and dramatic, with everyone in the society involved. However, although they did not share the same means as mainstream America, they shared the same goals, as in to achieve the American Dream. Bourgois noted that the legitimate economy mirrors the illegitimate economy, there is a hierarchal system in place, which all obey, just like legitimately. He decided that the pressure of the American Dream is what caused many to deviate into criminal activity, as this way they could obtain the needed money to pursue their dream. His main finding was that crime makes economic sense, why would these people surviving on the bread line want to work in an office, earning the minimum wage, when they can earn ten times as much on their own doorstep? And this attitude is shared all over the world by many living in poverty. Since 1998, there has been the introduction of ASBOs; Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, but there has been much dispute as to whether these actually prevent deviant behaviour. Many believe that by labelling delinquent youths as Anti-Social, they accept this label and it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the youngster feels they must live up to this reputation. Others believe that ASBOs are seen as labels to be had and are worthy of respect. Many of the approaches outlined above seek to explain deviant behaviour through rational reasoning as to why subcultures have developed. Some recent postmodern approaches reject this explanation for behaviour. Katz (1988), argues young men get drawn into crime, because it is seductive and thrilling, echoing Cohen. This is not dissimilar to Lyng (1990). He said that young males like taking risks and engaging in what he refers to as edgework; going to the extremities of acceptable behaviour and flirting with danger. Using the example of neo-tribes, Maffesoli (1996) introduced a postmodernist innovation in understanding subculture. He was unhappy with the idea that the idea of subculture had been transformed from a concept based on values, more into a concept of consensus. He believed subcultures should be though of in terms of fluidity, occasional gatherings and dispersal. Neo-tribes then referred to states of mind, that were flexible, open and changing. Deviant values are less important than a stress on consumption, suitably fashionable behaviour and individual identity that can change rapidly. As previously noted, subcultural theories are very masculine orientated. However, as Collison (1996) points out, sociologist may well have missed the significance of studying male behaviour in such detail. He said that in order to explain male offending behaviour, it is important to explain the nature of being male in our society and the links masculinity itself has to crime. Collinsons work on masculinity links closely to that of Connell (1995), who sees the existence of a hegemonic masculinity, in which males both conspire with and aspire to, and believes this drives them to deviance. This emphasis on hegemonic masculinity is very similar to Millers earlier works on lower-class values. However, Winlow argues these values are most obvious when the economic social structure is changing. He suggests that the traditional working class values fitted alongside physical work, which is now in decline, so they are restless and desperate to prove their masculinity. These values have dispersed due to the rise of office work. He further suggests that these problems greatly affect young males who are out of employment. So, to conclude, there are many different approaches to explaining subculture and its place in society, all of which are as valid today as they were when the original research was carried out, from studying the British Street Corner Groups in the early 1900s, to the participant observation of crack dealers in New York City, all of these theories are still relevant to the gang culture of today. However, looking at the theories, the one society can relate to most is Metza and Subterranean Values. This is very obviously prevalent in society today, from photocopying body parts at the office party and blaming it on the alcohol, to the men who get cleared of rape, claiming the victim isnt a victim as she was wearing clothes which led the man on. Whether subcultures do or do not share common social values will be disputed for many years, yet Mazas techniques of neutralization will be evident in society always, therefore, I believe I identify most with this theory, as it seeks to explain natural patterns of behaviour, not seek to infiltrate gang culture and lifestyles. Having said this, I am particularly interested in Bourgoiss El Barrio research as I agree with him and the dealers, crime makes economic sense, why work a nine-to-five for minimum wage, when you can earn enough money on your doorstep? Perhaps, if I had access to a criminal subculture, I would become involved as Cloward and Ohlin said, yet unfortunately my future is even bleaker according to them, a retreatist lifestyle involving drugs or alcohol, good job I believe Merton and feel I am a conformist, adhering to both the socially accepted goals and means. Subcultural theories Essay Example Subcultural theories Essay Subcultural theories examine the behaviour and actions of various groups within society groups with either reject or depart from the traditional norms and views of the majority. These groups are referred to as subcultures, and subcultural theories attempt to explain why these groups most are concerned with youth gangs and gang delinquency engage in deviant acts. Subcultural theories originated in America and in particular the Univeristy of Chicago Sociology Department. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay at the University studied juvenile crime rates in Chicago and they divided the city up into a series of concentric rings. They then calculated the delinquency rates of in each ring finding that areas with the highest crime rates were those in the centre of the city, with the rates diminishing outwards from the centre. They noted that delinquency was lower in areas of high economic status while it was seen to be high in areas of low economic status. Their studies also found that these findings remained constant over time, notwithstanding successive changes in the nativity and nationality composition of the population1. They therefore came to the conclusion that delinquency-producing factors are inherent in the community2 and are culturally transmitted. They said that what is transmitted is social disorganisation This term referred to an inconsistency of values, attitudes and standards of behaviour. In areas of high economic status, ie. the middle class, there is consistency and uniformity of attitudes and morals, whereas in low economic status areas there is an absence of common values with competing attitudes and standards prevalent instead. Shaw and Mckay state that in the latter situation delinquency has developed as a powerful competing way of life3. There are, therefore, rival values, conventional and non-conventional, and gang and juvenile delinquency is a symptom of this conflict. Another theory to emerge from Chicago is Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey s differential association theory. Although not strictly a subcultural theory in the strict definition of the term this theory is so closely related so as to be worthy of consideration. Differential association says that criminal and deviant behaviour is learnt behaviour in the same sense as other behaviour is learnt. We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer It tells us that a person is likely to become a criminal if they are exposed to an excess of definitions favourable to violation of the law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law4. The effect which these associations have may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity. In this process of differential association, Sutherland and Cressey stress that the strongest part of the learning occurs within intimate personal groups and we can see that they are stressing the importance of the peer group, family and friends in the learning process. They also make the point that all the associations which one has in life could be quantified and a mathematical formula reached which would enable us to find out how a person will turn out. Sutherland and Cressey acknowledge however that such a weighing up of associations would be extremely difficult5. Albert Cohens main interest lay in explaining juvenile delinquency, and his major work Delinquent Boys, published in 1955, claimed that a delinquent subculture exists which could explain crime amongst juveniles. He said that when we look at the delinquent subculture we see that it is non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic6. This, he explains, is because the subculture takes its norms from the wider culture and turns them upside down. Therefore, what the delinquent does is right according to the standards of the subculture because it is wrong according to the standards of wider society. But why do juveniles form or join these subcultures in the first place? Cohen argued that certain sections of youth feel rejected by society and the reason for this is to be found in the great tension and strain in handling the paradoxical many-are-called-but-few-are-chosen nature of schooling7. Those who cannot handle the strain suffer status deprivation and some will seek the collective delinquent subculture as the solution. Mertons8 anomie (strain) theory aims to integrate explanations of a variety of behaviours into a coherent pattern, by seeing them as related ways of coping with the problems by living in modern societies. This theory asserts that where there is a gap between what people want and what they can legitimately achieve, they experience strain. They can adapt to this strain in any of five ways. Conformists do not experience such a gap and are thus not under strain. Innovators adapt to the strain by finding alternative, usually illegitimate, methods of obtaining the goods they want. Ritualists turn adherence of social norms into a goal itself and often join movements that place moral rules above more individual goals, e. g. religious groups. Retreatists see neither the goals nor the means as valid and minimise their participation in normal society. Drug users, dropouts, hippies and priests would all be examples. Rebels are those who declare the social structure illegitimate, and seek to destroy it. A theory of much the same model9 as Cohens is put forward by Cloward and Ohlin. They accepted a similar model of delinquency causation as him but believed that he placed too much emphasis on the school. Cloward and Ohlin draw their theory in part from both Mertons anomie theory and from differential association. They say that crime occurs because of blocked and limited legitimate opportunities and that what type of criminal behaviour results depends on the individuals peer group or gang. They concluded that three types of subculture can result: criminal, conflict or retreatist. Again the importance of the group is emphasised as Cloward and Ohlin use differential association to argue that criminal behaviour is learnt from group relationships. When Lemet (1951) and Becker (1963) first promoted labelling theory, they both argued that no acts are intrinsically deviant; deviance is a moral judgement which is used to label particular acts and those who commit them. Thus social groups can create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders10. The principal strength of these various theories appears to be their superior explanation of juvenile delinquency and crime, such as vandalism, joy-riding and pointless theft, which mainly occurs within juvenile gangs or subcultures. Much of the other criminological explanations of crime largely ignore this group reaction and concentrate solely on the individual. Mertons anomie theory is especially guilty of this and indeed Cohen criticised it for being inapplicable to both juvenile and group crime11. Similarly the biological positivists such as Eysenck look at the cause of crime as purely an individual matter without much concern for group crime. Shaw and McKays theory placed a great emphasis on juvenile crime and delinquency being a group activity delinquency is essentially group behaviour12 and they attempt to explain why people become delinquent and join gangs. They say that in areas of low economic status delinquency is a powerful rival way of life which derives its impelling force in the boys life from the fact that it provides a means of securing economic gain, prestige, and other human satisfactions and is embodied in delinquent groups and criminal organizations, many of which have great influence, power and prestige13. Children are exposed to these values as they are transmitted and passed down from generation to generation as are the techniques for committing offences. In discussing this, Shaw and Mckay give examples of the types of offences whose techniques are passed down, such as jack-rolling and shoplifting crimes which lack a purpose. They strongly emphasise the role of the peer group and they say that in the context of this group crime is regarded as normal, as from the viewpoint of the delinquents immediate social world (the subculture) and the norms associated with that world, he is not necessarily disorganised, maladjusted or antisocial but may be highly organized and well-adjusted14. Cohens explanation of juveniles turning to crime centred upon their frustration at being unable to achieve middle class success and, more specifically, success at school. He says that in the resulting delinquent subculture, delinquents respond as a group and that this response has been worked out by their group over many years. This response is to invert the norms of wider society with the result that the subcultures activities are, as mentioned earlier, non-utilitarian, malicious and negativistic. Indeed, these descriptions of the groups activities explain crimes such as shoplifting (which is non-utilitarian) and vandalism (which is malicious) rather well. Cohen himself says that much gang stealing has no motivation and is in fact stealing for the hell of it and is a valued activity to which attaches glory, prowess and profound satisfaction15 rather than as an activity for gain and profit. Crime is committed because delinquent groups are out for fun and short-term hedonism plays an important part in Cohens account of juvenile group crime. Again, like Shaw and McKay, Cohens theory emphasises the point that from the perspective of the gang themselves, their conduct could be regarded as meaningful. Although subcultural theories give a good explanation of juvenile delinquency and juvenile group crime, the fundamental weakness of these theories stems from precisely this: an overemphasis on the importance of a gang response to crimes. It places far too much emphasis on a group response rather than on individual responses. Notwithstanding the fact that most juvenile crime such as joy-riding is conducted by gangs, these theories fail to explain why crimes such as rape and murder, which are very individualistic, occur. Most of the subcultural theorists, including Shaw and McKay, Cloward and Ohlin, and especially Sutherland and Cressey, stress the significance of the peer group and the associations which one has in life. Sutherland and Cressey say that the values which encourage people to commit crime are learnt along with the techniques to commit crime. But how can this theory explain the crime of passion in which the husband murders his wife when finding her in bed with another man? He may have had no criminal associations in the past, but merely snaps. Compulsive crimes such as this are better explained by biological impulses rather by differential association or subcultural theories. It was mentioned earlier that Sutherland and Cressey stated that all the associations which one has in life can be quantified in order to find out whether a person will become deviant or not. However, as with the example above, this does not account for the honest, hard working businessman who, when his business starts doing badly is forced to commit fraud and other crimes to try and save it. It could certainly be said that he has learnt the techniques through differential association, but where and how does he learn the deviant values and motives? Stemming from this overemphasis on gang/group crime is the very closely related flaw that these theories are overly deterministic. Everyone is seen as being very heavily influenced by their peer group and little consideration is given to individual choice or free will. If, taking Shaw and McKays example, you fall within the centre circle of Chicago you are seen by them as having very little choice as to whether or not you end up in a delinquent gang. The theory of David Matza addresses in part this weakness of subcultural theories. He pointed out that these theories predicted far too much crime and delinquency16. His main theme concerned drift as he considered that delinquents drift in and out of delinquency without committing to either. He also emphasised freedom of choice and free will as important, and by doing so he answers many of the criticisms of the overly deterministic theories of Cohen, Shaw and McKay et al. The role of the subculture or gang is still important as they make such activity more likely by actively promoting it but this does not make deviant behaviour mandatory. The individual still has freedom to choose whether to commit a crime or not and to do so for personal reasons rather that as a group requirement17. The major criticisms of anomie theory are that while it outlines different possibilities for adaption, it does not explain why individuals adopt one or other forms of adaption- retreatism, ritualism etc. It also says nothing about the causes of social inequality and conflict, which is strange given the theorys recognition that inequality and conflict exists is precisely the point at which it has an advantage over functionalism. Labelling theory does not provide an account for why some social groups have the power to label and others do not, nor of why certain acts are declared illegal and others are not. In Beckers view, the theory does not, and need not, explain why some groups or individuals have the power to label, he was only concerned to show that labelling occurs and the consequences of it. There is no consensus about how far how-far a group has to go in having specialised values and norms, or stable membership, or regular activities, to qualify as a sub-culture; nor about the precise meaning of descriptions such as deviant subculture. It is also interesting to note that some studies of subcultures refer back to anomie theory and its concept of adaptation; they thus have the same weaknesses as anomie theory. It can be said that from the principal strength of subcultural theories stems its main weakness. The main theories examined provide us with a through examination of crimes largely ignored by anomie and biological theories namely juvenile crime. In their consideration of the consideration of the main causes of juvenile crime, the role and influence of the gang or group response render the application of these theories to explaining individual crimes, such as murder, irrelevant. Related to this is the fact that these theories also suffer from the flaw of being excessively deterministic. Nevertheless, as an account of why subcultures exist and why juveniles within these subcultures engage in deviant acts, the theories examined succeed this objective. Regardless of whichever theory one tends to adopt for a particular given, each has its own strengths and subsequent weaknesses. In this regard, and despite these problems, the concept of sub-culture amongst young men and women remains seductive. Subcultural theories Essay Example Subcultural theories Paper Subcultural theories of youth civilization owe much to the pioneering work of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies ( CCCS ) during the 1970s and early 1980s. The CCCS make usage of the term subculture from US sociologists at Chicago University, and applied it to visually typical post-World War II British working category young person civilizations, such as teddy male childs, mods, and bootboyss. Sociologists today employ three primary theoretical positions: the functionalist position, the Marxist position and the post-modernist position. These positions offer sociologists theoretical paradigms for explicating how society influences people, and frailty versa. Each position unambiguously conceptualises society, societal forces, and human behavior. Functionalism Functionalism is the oldest, and still the dominant, theoretical position in sociology and many other societal scientific disciplines. Harmonizing to the functionalist position each facet of society is mutualist and contributes to society s operation as a whole. Functionalists see society as holding a construction, with cardinal establishments executing critical maps, and roles directing people in how to act. They identify the maps of each portion of the construction. For illustration, the province, or the authorities, provides instruction for the kids of the household, which in bend wages revenue enhancements on which the province depends to maintain itself running. This means that the household is dependent upon the school to assist kids turn up to hold good occupations so that they can raise and back up their ain households. In the procedure, the kids become observant, taxpaying citizens, who in bend support the province. If the procedure succeeds the parts of society green goods order, stableness and productiveness. On the other manus, if the procedure does non travel good, the parts of society so must accommodate to recapture a new order, stableness, and productiveness. For illustration, as we are soon sing, during a fiscal recession with its high rates of unemployment and rising prices, net income and salary decrease, societal plans are trimmed or cut. Families tighten their budgets while employers offer fewer concern plans, and a new societal order, stableness and productiveness occur. Functionalists believe that society is held together by societal consensus, or coherence, in which society members agree upon, and work together to accomplish, what is best for society as a whole. Emile Durkheim suggested that societal consensus takes one of two signifiers: Mechanical Solidarity: This is a signifier of societal coherence that arises when people in a society maintain similar values and beliefs and prosecute in similar types of work. Mechanical solidarity most commonly occurs in traditional, simple societies such as those in which everyone herds cowss or farms. Amish society exemplifies mechanical solidarity. Organic Solidarity: This is a signifier of societal coherence that arises when people in a society are mutualist, but hold to changing values and beliefs and engage in changing types of work. Organic solidarity most commonly occurs in industrialized, complex societies such as those in big American metropoliss like New York in the 2000s. We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Subcultural theories specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Leading functionalists include Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. Robert Merton ( 1910 ) , who was a functionalist as good, developed his theory of aberrance which is derived from Durkheim s thought of anomy. It is cardinal in explicating how internal alterations can happen in a system. For Merton, anomy means a discontinuity between cultural ends and that accepted methods available for making them. Merton ( 1968 ) has proposed a figure of of import differentiations to avoid possible failings and clear up ambiguities in the basic functionalist position. First, he distinguishes between manifest and latent maps. Manifest maps are recognised, knowing and obvious, while latent maps are unrecognized, unwilled, and therefore non obvious. Merton used the illustration of the Hopi rain dance to demo that sometimes an person s apprehension of their motivation for an action may non to the full explicate why that action continues to be performed. Sometimes actions fulfil a map of which the hist rion is incognizant, and this is the latent map of an action. Second, he distinguishes between effects which are positively functional for a society, those which are dysfunctional for the society, and those which neither. Third, he besides distinguishes between degrees of society, that is, the specific societal units for which regularised forms of behavior are functional or dysfunctional. Finally, he maintains that the peculiar societal constructions which satisfy functional demands of society are non indispensable, but that structural options may be which can besides fulfill the same functional demands. Merton expanded on the thought that anomy is the disaffection of the ego from society due to conflicting norms and involvements by depicting five different types of actions that occur when personal ends and legitimate agencies come into struggle with each other. Conformity is the typical successful hardworking individual who both accepts the ends of the society and has the agencies for obtaining those ends. This is an illustration of non-anomie. Invention refers to the chase of culturally approved ends by disapproved, including illegal agencies, in other words, they must utilize invention in order to accomplish cultural ends. ( Example: Drug trader who sells drugs to back up a household. ) Ritualism refers to overly stiff conformance to approved ends and agencies, even to the disregard of the existent consequences ; inefficient administrative officials who adhere stiffly to the regulations are the authoritative illustration of ritualism. The individual who ignores and rejects the agencies and the ends of the society is said to be withdrawing from society. ( For illustration a drug nut who has stopped caring about the societal ends and chooses a drug induced world in favor of the socially recognized life style. ) Finally, there is a 5th type of version which is that of rebellion which refers to the rejection of sanctioned ends and agencies in favour of new 1s. Functionalism has received unfavorable judgment as it has a conservative prejudice. Critics claim that the position justifies the position quo and complacence on the portion of society s members. Functionalism does non promote people to take an active function in altering their societal environment, even when such alteration may profit them. Alternatively, functionalism sees active societal alteration as unwanted because the assorted parts of society will counterbalance of course for any jobs that may originate. Marxist NEW-SUBCULTURAL THEORY Marx argues that societies result from worlds acquiring together to bring forth nutrient. The forces of production form societal relationships. In Marxist theory, category is the most of import societal group in the capitalist society and the city manager societal constellations are category civilizations. The categories are organised depending on the manner of production that determine a concrete set of dealingss of production: the capitalists ( middle class ) and the workers ( labor ) . These categories are all the clip in struggle and dialogue because one of them is dominant and the other is low-level. This struggle position originated chiefly out of Karl Marx s Hagiographas on category battles and it presents society in a different visible radiation than do the functionalist position. While the latter position focal point on the positive facets of society that contribute to its stableness, the struggle position focuses on the negative, conflicted, and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defend the position quo, avoid societal alteration, and believe people cooperate to consequence societal order, struggle theoreticians challenge the position quo, promote societal alteration ( even when this means societal revolution ) , and believe rich and powerful people force societal order on the hapless and the weak. As we can see, most societies are based upon development of some groups by others. Those who own the agency of production, such as mills, land, natural stuff or capital, exploit those who work for them, who lack the agencies to bring forth things themselves . Therefore, capitalists accumulate net incomes and acquire richer and richer. Eventually workers will come to gain that they are being exoploited and will subvert capitalist economy and make a communist society. In communism the agencies of production will be communally owened, so there will be no governing category, no development and much less inequality than in capitalist economy. Today, struggle theoreticians find societal struggle between any groups in which potency for inequality exists, such as, racial, gender, spiritual, political, economic and so on. These theoreticians note that unequal groups normally have conflicting values and dockets, doing them to vie against one another. This changeless competition between groups forms the footing for the ever-changing nature of society. Critics of the struggle position point to its highly negative position of society. The theory s ultimately cardinal jobs are: it has trouble explicating the more orderly and stable elements of societal life, it neglects or downplays the cultural and symbolic facets of societal life because it emphasises on economic sciences and category, struggle theoreticians tend to presume the power differences lead to conflict but differences do non needfully arouse struggle. POST MODERNISM Post modernist positions have developed since the 1980s. Some versions see of import alterations taking topographic point in society, while other versions question the ability of conventional sociology to bring forth worthwhile theories of society. Some postmodernists argue that societal behavior is no longer shaped by factors such as category, gender, ethnicity and different types of socialization. It is now merely a inquiry of lifestyle pick. Finally, Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, perspectives developed on the Gallic rational scene, have had considerable influence on American sociologists in recent old ages ( every bit good as on bookmans in many other Fieldss, particularly literary surveies ) . Derived from ( but mostly rejecting ) both the Marxist tradition and the plants of anthropologist Claude L A ; eacute ; vi-Strauss who developed a structuralist theory of civilization these theoretical schools seek to account for the evident decomposition of modern civilization over the past several decennaries. Among the tradition s major figures, such as Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard, possibly the best known is Michel Foucault, a historian and philosopher. Tracing the historical alterations in social attitudes toward penalty, mental unwellness, and gender, among other subjects, he argued that cognition and power have become inextricably entwined. Foucault stressed the disciplinary nature of power, and argued that ( societal ) scientific discourse as one such subject may itself necessitate to be questioned. Sociologists in this tradition seek non merely to analyze the universe otherwise, but to do the production of sociological cognition, and therefore our ain situatedness within constructions of cognition and power, portion of the survey. American sociologists influenced by this tradition sometimes name their work Discourse Analysis or Cultural Studies.