SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für sociology

sociology

Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite)

Shaming describes any form of reaction to deviant behaviour that causes shame in the deviant. Braithwaite assumes two different forms of shaming. Disintegrative shaming has a stigmatizing effect and excludes a person from the community. It thus provides for the emergence of secondary deviance and is thus related to the labelling approaches on a theoretical level. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, involves not only disapproval of deviance but also signs of forgiveness and a willingness to reintegrate the offender into the community.

Main Proponent

John Braithwaite

Theory

Based on the labeling approach, control theories and theories of social disorganization, Braithwaite distinguishing between two forms of shaming to explain the different ways in which penalties work. Braithwaite understands shaming as “all social processes of expressing disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming” (Braithwaite, 1989: 100).

According to Braithwaite there are two forms of shaming:

The crucial distinction is between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatization). Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. These gestures of reacceptance will vary from a simple smile expressing forgiveness and love to quite formal cere-monies to decertify the offender as deviant. Disintegrative shaming (stigmatization), in contrast, divides the community by creating a class of outcasts.
(Braithwaite, 1989: 55)

Disintegrative Shaming

Disintegratives Shaming: the British priest Titus Oates at the pillory

In disintegrative shaming, the focus is not only on the actual act committed, but on the person as a whole. The shamed person is degraded in his/her entire person. The stigmatisation that goes along with this has an effect on the social interactions of the ashamed person. For example, access to the labour market is denied and other measures are taken that contribute to social marginalisation. As a consequence, the ashamed person is now denied the opportunity to participate in mainstream culture. This ultimately leads to the formation of subcultural structures in which those so excluded join together.

Integrative Shaming

The negative consequences of punishment, however, are not inevitable. In reintegrative shaming, the act of shame is combined with an offer of reintegration into the community. Braithwaite assumes that this reintegrating shame is particularly promising when people from the perpetrator’s social environment are involved.

It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority.

(Braithwaite, 1989: 69)

How and why does shaming work?

Braithwaite (1989: 81 ff.) lists the following points that explain the effectiveness of shaming:

  1. Deterrence works more for fear of shame than for fear of punishment.
  2. Shame also functions as an instrument of negative general prevention, since other members of society who experience the shame of a perpetrator would be deterred by this experience from committing crimes themselves.
  3. Both the special and general preventive effect of shame has the strongest effect on socially integrated members of society.
  4. A stigmatising form of punishment, on the other hand, weakens social control and strengthens the cohesion of stigmatised offenders.
  5. Shame is a social process that illustrates the harmfulness of certain actions. The effect of shame is more effective than that of deterrent punishment.
  6. Reintegrative shaming has a greater positive effect than stigmatizing shaming. The repentance of the perpetrator and the forgiveness of the community would strengthen criminal law through the symbolic power of community-wide consciousness building.
  7. Shame is a participatory form of social control in which citizens – in contrast to formal sanctioning – are participating in the events and become both instruments and goals of social control.
  8. The cultural process of the formation of shame and repentance leads to pangs of conscience. This guilty conscience is the most effective punishment for committing crimes.
  9. Feelings of shame have a double function: they are both the social process that strengthens the conscience and the most important support that must be used if the conscience does not contribute to conformity. The fear of formal sanctioning is also an inhibition threshold, but not so effective.
  10. Gossip about perpetrators and their crimes has an important function. Gossip promotes the development of a conscience and morality even outside the social circles in which the perpetrators operate.
  11. Another important function is public shaming, which replaces private shaming when children and adolescents escape the sphere of influence of family and school. It would therefore be up to the courts to provide for public humiliation of the perpetrators of crimes committed primarily by adults (e.g. environmental crimes).
  12. Public shaming generalises familiar principles into unknown or new contexts and integrates new categories of misconduct into existing moral concepts. Public shaming could, for example, “transform” the loss of a human life into a war crime or massacre.
  13. Cultures with a strong emphasis on reintegrative shaming create a smoother transition between socialisation practices in the family and socialisation in wider society. Within the family, social control shifts from external to internal control as the child grows older. In punishment-oriented cultures, this process is reversed. However, internal control is the more effective form of crime control – which is why families are the more effective control agents than police forces.
  14. Shaming that is excessively confrontational complicates the social reintegration of the ashamed. Even without becoming targets of direct humiliation, members of society may be aware when they become the subject of gossip. Here, special gestures of acceptance are needed to promote reintegration.
  15. The effectiveness of feelings of shame is often increased by the fact that shame is directed not only against the individual perpetrator but also against his family or – in cases of white-collar crime – against the company. Within these collective relationships, the individual is exposed both to humiliation by society and to strengthening informal control by the family/company. A negative and defiant attitude of the individual towards his critics and thus a stronger identification with the deviant role would also aggravate the consequences of the shame for the family or the company, which is why this would encourage the individual in the acceptance of the shame.

In a complex diagram Braithwaite summarizes the effects of reintegrative shaming as well as stigmatization (click to enlarge). This illustrates the hybrid character of the theory that makes use of other crime theories. In the upper left corner there is a reference to control theories. To the right, the reference to theories of social disorganization is illustrated. In the lower right half of the picture, Braithwaite sketches the consequences of criminalization from the perspective of labelling approaches (also with reference to anomie and subculture theories). In contrast, in the lower left half of the diagram, Braithwaite presents the consequences (or consequences without consequences) of a re-integrating embarrassment.

Schaubild: Zusammenfassung der Theorie des reintegrative shaming (eigene Darstellung nach: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)
Figure: Summary of the theory of reintegrative shaming (based on: Braithwaite, 1989: 99)

Implications for Criminal Policy

Braithwaite’s theory can be understood as an answer to just deserts philosophy, i.e. a criminal policy that is primarily oriented towards the retaliatory character of punishment and negative general prevention. At the beginning of the 1970s, a change in criminal policy in the USA (but also in other countries) had to be taken into account. A rehabilitative ideal in which the reintegration of the offender into society has top priority is increasingly receding into the background. It is replaced by the just desert paradigm (“Everyone gets what he deserves”), which can be understood as a kind of retaliation. According to this doctrine, punishment should be adapted and standardized to the seriousness of the crime, measured by the damage inflicted and the seriousness of the offender’s guilt. So-called “sentencing commissions” have developed guidelines for criminal judges for many US states, whose discretion in the sentencing of criminals has been severely restricted (cf. Sebba, 2014).

Braithwaite’s Restorative Justice approach is to be understood as a clear criticism of this development and as his draft of a Restorative Justice approach.

Literature

  • Braithwaite, John (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press. [Volltext]
  • Sebba, Leslie (2014). Penal Paradigms: Past and Present. In: G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer Reference, S.  3481-3490.

Further Information

  • Christie, Nils (1977). Conflicts as Property. British Journal of Criminology 17 (1), 1-15.

Video/ Podcast

A summary of the various theories on which Restorative Justice is based can be found here: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No63/No63_10VE_Braithwaite2.pdf

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Theory of differential opportunity (Cloward & Ohlin)

The theory of differential opportunities combines learning, subculture, anomie and social disorganization theories and expands them to include the recognition that for criminal behaviour there must also be access to illegitimate means.

Main proponent

Richard A. Cloward und Lloyd E. Ohlin

Theorie

Cloward & Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunities represents a link between learning, subculture, anomie and social desorganisation theories.

On the one hand, the approach is based on Sutherland, starting from the assumption that criminal motives, techniques and rationalizations are learned through criminal associations. On the other hand, Cloward and Ohlin share with Merton and Cohen the notion that deviant behaviour is a consequence of the stratum-specific pressure to adapt, or more precisely of blocked access to legitimate means, and that this adaptation (according to Cohen) typically takes place collectively through interaction processes in groups.

Cloward and Ohlin see the answer, which is why not all persons suffering from adaptation problems become criminals, in the fact that access to illegitimate means can also be blocked for criminal action – the opportunities differentiate. For example, drug trafficking is more difficult to access in some parts of the city than in others. A person who intends to become a drug dealer not only requires drug suppliers, but also a customer base and a street corner where he can sell his drugs. Access to these means, however, is not open to everyone. It requires relationships with experienced people who are willing to share their knowledge and professional network.

The opportunity to break into cars also depends on the social situation of the environment, the car owner and the presence of possible accomplices. Socially disorganized neighbourhoods thus, according to Shaw and McKay’s theory, offer more access to criminal behaviour than others.

However, the theory of differential opportunities can also be applied within subcultural structures. So it seems obvious that delinquent gangs can only commit crimes if they have the means to do so.

At both the macro-social and subcultural levels, after Cloward and Ohlin, it can now happen that an individual has neither legitimate nor illegitimate means at his disposal. Since in such a case neither the legitimate nor illegitimate means are available to an individual, the authors speak of double failures.

According to Cloward and Ohlin, members of subcultures in such a dilemma react with random violence and intensified territorial expansion.

Altogether it can be said that Cloward and Ohlin aim more at the crime opportunity and less at the motivation for the crime. Crime is only possible if society, certain neighbourhoods, or delinquent subcultures provide illegitimate means. A certain kinship cannot be ignored with routine activity approach where, for example, the presence of an alarm system prevents the opportunity to commit a crime.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Just like the theory itself, the political demands and conclusions are a mixture of different approaches.

According to the theory of differential opportunities, rehabilitation is achievable by learning to conform to behaviour, good social policy, moral education, the resolution of problematic neighbourhoods, but also, to a certain extent, deterrence and situational crime prevention.

Above all, Cloward and Ohlin demand more education and improvement of the economic conditions for the US underclass in order to enable cultural and financial success for all members of society. This includes the establishment of social and political structures within vulnerable or socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Cloward’s and Ohlin’s theory shares some strengths as well as some weaknesses of their related theories, which, however, are partly resolved by their combination.

What remains in any case is the criticism that not every offence needs specific opportunities or certain illegitimate means to be executed. Pure violence or kleptomaniac behaviour is obviously always and everywhere possible. The basic assumption of Cloward and Ohlin that criminal acts are in principle always reactions to status and adaptation problems is and remains debatable. Merton, Cohen and others have already been accused of this narrow view.

Nevertheless, the theory of differential opportunities succeeds in making clear the illegitimate means necessary for most crimes. This underlines situational elements in the criminological discussion on the one hand, and on the other hand plays with the idea of whether everyone would not end up acting criminally if they had the necessary access to it.

Literature

  • Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press..

Further information

Social learning theory (Akers)

The theory of social learning states that criminal behaviour is learned when the positive consequences of deviant behaviour are more powerful than the positive consequences of normative behaviour (operant conditioning).

Main proponent

Ronald L. Akers und Robert L. Burgess

Theory

Referring to Sutherland’s theory of differential associations, Aker’s theory of social learning poses the question of how criminal behaviour is learned.

The answer to this question is, on the one hand, the consideration of the Bandura principle of social learning, but above all the assumption that criminal behaviour is learned through the principle of operant conditioning.

Accordingly, the learning of criminal behaviour is dependent on whether it is differentially amplified – i.e. whether a deviant behaviour is positively stimulated or negatively stimulated – or whether it is punished or conformal behaviour is amplified more than criminal behaviour.

The decisive factors are therefore above all what reinforcing consequences are available for deviant behaviour, how effective they are, how intensively and frequently they occur, and how likely it is that they actually follow the behaviour shown.

Aker’s theory was therefore referred to in its first publication (together with Burgess) as the theory of differential amplification. The name change, however, makes it clear that Aker later considered the principle of model learning in addition to the concept of operant conditioning. Accordingly, the observation of the actions of others and their consequences can also lead to a strengthening of one’s own behaviour: The reward of an observing person for their behaviour has a strengthening effect in that the observed behaviour is now carried out by the person.

Thus, a direct social interaction process (in contrast to Sutherland’s theory) is not absolutely necessary here, since non-social situations (e.g. via the media) can also have an amplifying effect. However, Akers agrees with Sutherland in so far as criminal behaviour shown for the first time (whether it is subsequently intensified or not) mostly arises through contact with a criminal environment.

In summary, it can be said that Aker’s theory of social learning takes Sutherland’s basic idea as its starting point, expands it to include the idea of social learning, and finally explains the process of learning criminal behaviour through the principle of operant conditioning.

In this way, despite some similarities, it differs fundamentally from Sutherland’s theory of differential association: contact with criminal persons is not the cause of crime, but the reinforcement/reward of deviant behaviour.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Aker’s theory of social learning initially implies the same criminal policy implications as the theory of differential associations, but there are two crucial aspects that behavioural therapy attempts to address through concepts such as the token economy:

First, criminal actions must have such negative consequences that they outweigh the positive consequences. Conversely, conforming actions must be rewarded in such a way that their negative consequences recede into the background. Criminal policy must therefore prevent both the reinforcement of criminal behaviour and the punishment of compliant behaviour as well as support the punishment of criminal behaviour and the rewarding of compliant behaviour. A political kinship with rational choice theory cannot be overlooked here.

Secondly, the influence of the mass media on individual behaviour must be taken into account. Theories such as Akers’ thus lay the theoretical foundations for the ongoing discussions about the effects of violent ego-shooter games or violent movies.

What remains decisive, however, is the fact that according to Burgess and Akers, the mere observation of a behaviour does not lead to its imitation (as argued by Gabriel Tarde). Rather, the behaviour and its positive consequences must be observed.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Akers succeeds in theoretically integrating the processes and mechanisms of social learning that were missing in Sutherland’s concept of differential association theory, but even he cannot resolve the fundamental objections to the approach of learning theory (partially tautologous, individually different ability to learn, non-consideration of affect crimes).

Thus, the theoretical advancement through the consideration of the principles of social learning and operant conditioning is to be appreciated. However, Akers also fails in his attempt to present a pure learning theory as a general theory of crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Burgess, Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. In: Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1977). Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Belmont, CA.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern Uniniversity Press.

Further information

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Sellers, Christine (2004): Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th. ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bandura, Albert (1963). Social learning and personal development. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Bandura, Albert (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Beirne, Piers (1987). Between classicism and positivism: crime and penalty in the writing of Gabriel Tarde. In: Criminology, 25(4), 785-819.

Video

Differential association theory (Sutherland)

In his differential association theory Edwin Sutherland proposes that criminal behaviour is learned. A person will be delinquent if there are prior attitudes that favour violations of the law, as opposed to attitudes that negatively evaluate violations of the law.

Main proponent

Edwin H. Sutherland

Theory

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association assumes that criminal behavior is learned through contact with individuals who are themselves criminal.

It is therefore also called the “theory of differential contacts”. The term “association”, however, refines this idea by the realization that it is not sufficient to merely contact criminal persons, but that during these contacts the criminal definitions and attitudes must also be successfully conveyed.

The basic thesis here is that criminal behaviour is learned when more attitudes are learned that favour violations of the law than those that negatively evaluate violations of the law. Conversely, learning criminal attitudes, motives and definitions becomes all the more likely the more contact there is with people and groups who violate the law and the less contact there is with people and groups who live according to the rules.

In simple terms, one could say that contact with criminals leads to one’s own criminal behaviour by learning the corresponding behaviour in a model manner. This becomes even more likey when there is fewer contact to non-criminals.

 

Schaubild: Theorie der differentiellen Kontakte nach Sutherland

Sutherland’s theory of differential contacts (see diagram) is based on nine theses which summarize the theory of differential association:

  1. Criminal behaviour has been learned.
  2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a communication process.
  3. The learning processes take place primarily in small and intimate groups (and thus less through (mass) media, for example).
  4. The learning of criminal behaviour includes the learning of techniques to commit a crime as well as specific motives, rationalisations and attitudes that favour criminal behaviour.
  5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned by defining laws positively or negatively.
  6. A person becomes delinquent as a result of the predominance of attitudes that favour the violation over those that take a negative view of the violation.
  7. Differential contacts vary according to frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
  8. The process of learning criminal behaviour includes all the mechanisms involved in any other learning process.
  9. Although criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by them. Non-criminal behaviour can also infer from exactly the same values and needs (e.g. sexual urges).

Implication for criminal policy

Sutherland’s theory of differential association stands for a rehabilitative ideal. Since criminal attitudes and activities can be learnt, these can be logically deduced and re-learned, or compliant behaviour, attitudes and rationalisation can be achieved in the first place.

In the sense of the ultimately decisive imbalance in theory between associated attitudes that favour violations of the law and attitudes that evaluate violations of the law negatively, it must therefore be the goal of justice and society to surround criminals with non-criminals or to dissolve social spaces in which predominantly people with deviant motives and patterns of action live.

Furthermore, criminal law must build on the ideal of rehabilitating offenders.

Critical appreciation & relevance

In the past, Sutherland was often accused of theoretical gaps in his concept, for which other theories or theoretical extensions were developed.

Thus Sutherland himself drew attention to the different needs and preferences of learning individuals, who significantly contribute to deciding whether deviant actions and attitudes are accepted or not.

Glaser pointed out, however, that it is not the number of people with deviant attitudes that is decisive for learning crime, but rather the degree of identification with one or a few people.

Cloward & Ohlin pointed out that access to illegitimate means or exclusion from legitimate means is a decisive factor.

Akers (and also Eysenck) extended Sutherland’s theory to include a detailed analysis of the learning processes taking place (conditioning, social learning/ observing a model, etc.).
Despite this, Sutherland’s crime-related learning theory has to struggle with the accusation of partial tautology, since the existence of delinquency must already exist for it to be passed on at all.

Furthermore, the theory of differential associations does not take into account instinctive and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the fact that the cognitive abilities of different individuals can also be varying.

Sutherland’s thesis also assumes a purely behaviorist view: The human being reacts automatically and reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not sufficiently considered here, yet Sutherland’s theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-biologistic theory. According to Sutherland, the consideration of social processes in the search for the causes of crime has only really taken its course and has certainly long since become predominant in criminological research alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime can be learned has turned the previously very perpetrator-oriented perspective into a sociological and socio-psychological one.

Literature

  • Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. Auflage von 1966, mit Donald R. Cressey, Philadelphia.

Subcultural theory (Cohen)

Cohen’s subcultural theory assumes that crime is a consequence of the union of young people into so-called subcultures in which deviant values and moral concepts dominate. Subcultural theory became the dominant theory of its time.

Main proponent

Albert K. Cohen

Theory

Cohen’s basic assumption is that most juvenile criminals are members of delinquent subcultures. Subcultures are defined as subsystems or antisystems of society with their own attitudes and norms that often contradict the moral concepts of majority society.

According to Cohen, the union of young people into subcultures is the result of adjustment and status problems of their members caused by the inequality of the existing class society.

For example, a boy from the lower classes always strives to adapt to higher social strata, but is confronted with expectations and goals that he cannot fulfil due to his social background or cannot achieve due to rigid social structures. In direct comparison with middle-class boys, he has to recognise his own low status, poor prestige and little chance of success in business and society. The resulting problems of self-respect ultimately lead to the merging of several such boys into alternative subgroups, which are defined by their demarcation from the unattainable middle class.

According to Cohen, these delinquent subcultures are characterized above all by their deviant values and morals, which enable their members to gain prestige and recognition. The behaviour that is displayed within the subculture is fundamentally different from that outside the subculture because of these new norms. For society as a whole, they seem deviant, often criminal. As an alternative status system, however, subculture justifies hostility and aggression towards non-members, thereby eliminating possible feelings of guilt.

Delinquent subcultures are, according to Cohen (see: Downes & Rock, 2007):

  • nontutilitarian (the deviant actions are not committed on the basis of economic rationality)
  • malicious (the purpose of delinquent acts is to annoy or even injure others)
  • negativistic (criminal acts are committed precisely because of their prohibition in order to consciously reject conventional values)
  • versatile (in the sense of various delinquent behaviours that occur)
  • hedonistic (the focus is on the momentary pleasure)
  • resistant (to external pressure of conformity and loyal towards their own goup members, values and norms)

Subcultural theory is not an actual learning theory, but rather a hybrid of learning, anomie and other theories. Another special feature is that subculture theory only deals with juvenile delinquency, but not with criminal behaviour in general.

Cohen later dealt with other forms of subcultures. Other authors also developed a number of other theories on the phenomenon of delinquent subcultures. However, all these concepts have in common Cohen’s basic theses:
Socially unequally distributed social structural conditions lead to the development of subcultures as expressions of social differentiation. Their diverging norms entail behavioural expectations that are perceived as deviating by society as a whole, but are regarded as normal within the subculture.

Implication for criminal policy

Like anomie theories, subcultural theories criticize social inequalities in stratified or class society, which are responsible for individual pressure and adaptation problems. According to Cohen, a good criminal policy would be a good social policy. In fact, at the time when subcultural theories were being developed in the USA, political projects such as the “fight against poverty” were at the forefront of criminal policy. With regard to the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency, social policy would have to be expanded, for example, by promoting the schooling of young people from lower classes.

However, Cohen himself did not make precise criminal policy demands, and the fact that Cohen’s subculture theory is one of the only known theories of crime according to which deviating norms lead to deviating actions is interesting and not without political significance. The idea of resocialization would thus be applied here to good education with sustainable transmission of values and morals.

Critical appreciation & relevance

Cohen’s subcultural theory draws attention to the fact that criminals, in their view, do not act criminally at all. As members of subcultures, they are subject to different behavioural requirements based on values and norms that deviate from those of mainstream society. The behaviour shown is a conforming behaviour within the subculture and thus also for the actor. From this, something can already be deduced that actually only found its way into the criminal sociological discussion much later: The different definition of deviation and conformity for the same behaviour within the framework of different socio-structural conditions leads to the equally simple and important thesis: what is considered deviant or criminal for one person can be normal and conformal for another, perhaps even absolutely necessary, since it is prescribed by one’s own system of values and norms.

Subcultural theories are therefore to be appreciated for their understanding that deviation in certain groups is common. By also incorporating the idea of anomie theory of status and adaptation problems, the approaches show themselves as early attempts to use both learning theory and social-structural conditions to explain deviant behaviour patterns.

However, Cohen’s theory has a decisive weakness in its own limitation to juvenile delinquency. Empirically, Cohen’s theory is based solely on studies of North American street gangs and youth gangs. Subsequent attempts to extend it to crime in general have failed because it is obviously absurd to attribute any criminal activity to the existence of male delinquent subcultures. White-collar crimes cannot be explained, nor can crimes by the middle class or, for example, by women.

Some critics also doubt whether these gangs of young people and gangs actually represent such postulated subcultures with fixed structures and deviating norms. Quite a few studies have shown that many youth groups are rather loose and unstructured connections. In addition, there is criticism of the underlying determinism of Cohen’s subcultural theory. From today’s perspective, a subcultural normative attitude is not an either-or. Representatives of the neutralization thesis doubt, however, that subcultural values that deviate from those of mainstream society can actually be developed and completely internalized.

Literature

Primary Literature

Secondary Literature

  • Cohen, Albert K. and Short, J. (1968). Research in Delinquent Subcultures. In: Journal of Social Issues, S.20–37.
  • Downes, D.M. & Rock, P. E. (2007). Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule-breaking (5th ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Miller, Walter B. (1958): Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. In: Journal of Social Issues, 15, S.5-19.
  • Thrasher, Frederic M. (1927). The Gang. A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.
  • Whyte, William F. (1943): Street Corner Society. Chicago [u.a.]: University of Chicago Press.
  • Yablonski, Lewis (1959): The delinquent gangs as a near group. In: Social Problems, 7, S.108-109

Further Information