Crime is committed every day throughout the world, varying from low level delinquencies to high level offences. It is highly likely that at some point in our lives we will be involved in a crime, whether as the victim, or the assailant. In 2009, for every 1000 people in the city of London, 109 were involved in some form of criminally related incident (Office for National Statistics, 2010). But why do people commit crime? ‘Social Disorganisation theory’, ‘Strain theory’, and ‘Cultural Deviance theory’, are an example of criminology’s attempts to answer such questions and place crime in its social context.
Criminologist, Robert K. Merton, radically adapted the functionalist understanding of crime in the 20th century through his ‘Strain theory’, developing on the notion of ‘Anomie’, originally established by sociologist Emile Durkheim. Unlike Durkheim, Merton believed the issues surrounding crime, those which created anomie (a sense of confusion over social norms and values), to be more associated with the strains of unequal opportunities, than the strains of sudden social change. Suggesting the key issues surrounding crime and society were that of meritocracy, with the gap between “a truly meritocratic society” and the reality of “one’s birth position within the social structure” the determining feature (Hale, 2005, p70).
His seminal work on deviance in 1938, presented the argument that while crime is inevitable in all societies; excessive levels of delinquency are a result of certain social arrangements (Macionis and Plummer, 2008). Writing originally on 1930s America, Merton argued that many people are denied the chance of achieving “legitimate goals”, i.e. monetary success, as they are denied access to certain institutions or “legitimate channels”, such as a schooling or job opportunities (Agnew, 2003). This notion can easily be applied to lower-class citizens, but can also be applied to higher-class citizens who are not attaining their financial goals.
Merton suggested that conformity in the United States was to be found through aspiring to legitimate goals, related to the US ideal of pursuing the American Dream. However, not everyone who strives for conventional success has the means to attain it, thus, turning to crime to do so. The only difference between criminals and non-criminals then Merton suggested, was their routes towards such success (Macionis and Plummer, 2008). This was seen as a pivotal moment for 20th century criminology, as it “blurred the positivist boundary between “them” (the criminal) and “us” (the non-criminal)”. Following 1938; “no longer was the criminal essentially different from the good citizen” (Hale, 2005, p70).
Merton believed that society was divided into five groups, who leave by the concepts of; conformism, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. A child raised in poverty, who sees no way of achieving culturally approved goals (money) via conventional means (employed work), may take to selling drugs to attain his/her desired wealth. Merton believed that the emphasis on acquisition of wealth in 20th century America, and the limited opportunities to get rich, especially for those in poverty, gave rise to “theft, the selling of illegal drugs or other forms of street hustling” (Macionis and Plummer, 2008, p562). American rap star Christopher Wallace, a.k.a. Biggie Smalls, can be used as a modern example of having committed crimes of innovation. Having been brought up on the tough streets of 1980s Brooklyn, New York, by a single mother, Wallace dropped out of High School. In order to attain the fame and fortune at the heart of the American dream, he turned to the unconventional means of dealing drugs as he had little education or job opportunities. Eventually, Wallace would attain culturally accepted goals by culturally accepted means, but his first footsteps along the way were criminal ones.
“Ritualism”, Merton’s second form of delinquency suggests that “ritualists resolve the strain of limited success by abandoning cultural goals in favour of almost compulsive efforts to live respectably” (Macionis and Plummer, 2008, p562). Essentially this group do not reject the goals of society, but reject the possibility of achieving them, meaning that they are unlikely to commit crime in an attempt to reach such goals.
Merton described the rejection of both cultural means and goals as “retreatism”. This group can be most easily related to members of society that seem to “drop out”, such as addicts and the homeless. Whereas retreatists are understood to accept the situation they find themselves in, “Rebels” reject society and seek to advocate another way to the existing social order. This form of rejecting cultural means and goals is often related to countercultures, and their criminal activities (Macionis and Plummer, 2008).
Following Merton’s original work, many criminologists have continued to study his theory with Downes and Rock (1988, p94) describing it as the “fostering of the propensity to consume irrespective of the material possibilities of such a course”. However, the most influential continuation of Merton’s work has been the notion of “status frustration”, introduced by Albert Cohen. It has come to play an important role in the wider understanding of the subject, and was first introduced by Cohen in 1955. In his study, Delinquent Boys, Cohen suggests that some individuals may be frustrated by a more general desire for status, not only money. More than money, status involves how people are viewed and treated by others. For lower-class citizens, middle-class status can be a lot harder to attain through legitimate means, than money itself (Agnew, 2003). Agnew goes on to suggest that:
“Some lower-class individuals … respond to their status frustration by setting up an alternative status system in which they can successfully compete.” (2003, p417-18)
This would clearly relate to the “Rebel” group previously described by Merton. Street gangs, in particular those involved in violent and drug crimes, can be seen to live in a status system by which a gang leader with a lengthy criminal record, is someone to be admired and respected; a status system which to the conformist would be seen as highly unconventional.
Merton’s theory has clearly been an influential one; most interestingly it tackles the issues of motivation, and gives us an idea of how strain can create frustration and in turn crime. It gives us an insight into why crime levels are generally higher in poorer areas and why when legitimate means of achieving goals are restricted, delinquency also appears to rise. As well as to areas, this can also be applied to periods of time such as those of economic depression (Hale, 2005).
However, as his work was focused on the United States, and more generally the Western capitalist world, Strain theory can only be related to such societies. A final criticism is that, Merton’s work fails to tackle the issue of white-collar crime and why those who have the means to achieve their goals still commit crime (Lotz, 2005).
The second theory in question, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay’s ‘Social Disorganisation theory’ can in some ways be related to Merton’s work on strain, not least because both theories evolved from the ‘Chicago School of Sociology’, famous for the relationships established by its scholars between crime and the environment (Hale, 2005). Shaw and McKay’s theory, first released in 1942, argued that crime rates were determined by the area, involving factors such as economic, spatial and environmental circumstances They argued that, the closer to the city centre, the higher the levels of “truancy, delinquency and adult crime”, and that this was due to the “physical make-up of different communities”. Most interestingly that this remained the case even following periods of extensive population change (Muncie, 2003, p411).
Using the ‘Concentric Zone Model’ already established by Chicago School sociologists, Robert Park and Ernest Jones, Shaw and McKay investigated the five different areas defined in the model. In centrality outwards: the Central Business District, Transitional Zone, Working Class Zone, Residential Zone, and Commuter Zone. They discovered that the zones of transition, situated almost at the heart of Chicago, were characteristically: ran-down, high in poverty and poor in levels of health. Ultimately, these were the most disorganised districts. These areas were often the first homes for immigrants and groups that would only stay for as long as until they were able to move to a more affluent area. As such this ‘Transitional Zone’ was an area of constant change, making it difficult for relationships to be established within the community, meaning that “informal levels of social control” were particularly low, and crime levels high (Hale, 2005). Shaw and McKay said themselves that this was not necessarily due to the personalities of the population of this environment but that “delinquency rates were for these groups high...because of other aspects of the total situation in which they lived” (Shaw and McKay, 1942, pg56). As their investigations led to conclusions on delinquency within the four other zones of the Concentric Model, Shaw and McKay discovered that “delinquency rates… declined the further one moved into the prosperous suburbs” (Hayward, 2001, p31).
In conclusion to their studies, Shaw and McKay believed that deviance was more related to the environment than the personality or social stature of criminals, relating to the basic idea of ‘nature’ rather ‘nurture’, and that criminal behaviour was to be expected as a response to living in such “abnormal environmental circumstances” (Treadwell, 2006, p46).
Whereas Merton believed giving someone the right chances, determined by wealth of opportunity, would result in them becoming a non-criminal conformist. Shaw and Mckay believed that housing someone in an organised, and essentially wealthy area, would ultimately result the same way.
However, naturally, criticisms exist. Lotz (2005) criticises Shaw and McKay’s theory for not accounting for crimes committed in areas not considered disorganised. Similar to Strain theory also, it fails to tackle the issue of middle-class and white-collar crime. Finally, Lotz suggests that it offers no explanation for how deviant norms and values are transmitted.
However, the final theory in question, that of ‘Cultural Deviance’, explores the very essence of Lotzs’ final criticism. Developed by Edwin Sutherland, another scholar of the Chicago School, his theory explores the notion that criminal activity is a result of a learned experience. Suggesting that through interaction, individuals absorb the necessary views, beliefs, techniques and motivations to commit crime.
Sutherland suggests that a child brought up within a wealthy criminal family, is more likely to go on to be a criminal, than use the opportunities afforded to them by the family’s wealth to live an honest, non-criminal lifestyle. This could be applied to the infamous crime families of Italy, not least the Sicilian Mafia, who instil not only knowhow to future generations, but also a sense of heritage and pride within the families honour and tradition.
However, as part of his ‘Differential Association theory’, Sutherland developed the notion of Cultural Deviance more closely with the lower-class subcultures, existing in the financially poor, socially disorganised areas of Chicago, previously described as ‘zones of transition’. These districts, filled with communities that have their own set of goals and values, much like the wealthier subculture of the Italian crime families discussed, also pass these on to future generations (Hollin, 2003).
Rooted in the ‘conflict perspective’, Sutherland approved of the notion that crime is a normal condition of society (Matsueda, 1997), and that ‘nurture’, rather than ‘nature’ is the determining factor in whether or not an individual is likely to be delinquent.
Once again, this theory ties in with discussions surrounding various other ideas. The Social Disorganisation theory could perhaps be understood to develop a subculture of criminal activity amongst communities, only for the Cultural Deviance theory, to take over as the views and opinions of previous generations are passed on through families and communities.
Similarly to the other theories discussed, Sutherland’s work has been the subject of criticism, most notably the lack of explanation for how an individual can become criminal if they are not from a criminal background, family, or subculture (Matsueda, 1997).
In conclusion, each of the theories discussed believe that society plays a paramount role in the development of criminal activity. Each theory has developed a different understanding of how delinquency manifests itself in the lives of individuals, families, subcultures and communities. With the issue of ‘Nature v Nurture’ being a prominent one.
However, each theory has had individual criticisms, most notably throughout the seeming inability to be able to tackle the issue of white-collar delinquencies. Collectively, they also come under scrutiny as the products of the same city in similar timeframes. In the early 20th century, Chicago was a quickly expanding industrial city, meaning that these theories, while they are useful in the direct analysis of similar Western cities and nations, they are not so useful elsewhere.
In some ways it is clear to see how the boundaries between these theories can become blurred, and it is then that we best begin to understand the roles in which these theories have helped us begin to place crime in its social context, for example, the discussed relationship between Social Disorganisation leading to a process of Cultural Deviance.
Bibliography
AGNEW, Robert (2003). Status Frustration. In: McLAUGHLIN, Eugene and MUNCIE, John. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, Second Edition. London, Sage.
ANTHONY, Thalia and CUNNEEN, Chris (eds.) (2008) The Critical Criminology Companion. Sydney, Hawkins Press.
COHEN, Albert (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York, Free Press.
DOWNES, D. and ROCK, P. (1988). Understanding Deviance. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HALE, Chris, et al. (eds.) (2005). Criminology. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HAYWARD, K (2001). Chicago School of Sociology. In: McLAUGHLIN, Eugene and MUNCIE, John. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. London, Sage.
HOBBS, Dick (1995). Bad Business. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HOLLIN, Clive (2003). Differential Association. In: In: McLAUGHLIN, Eugene and MUNCIE, John. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, Second Edition. London, Sage.
LOTZ, R. (2005). Youth crime: A modern synthesis in America. New Jersey, Pearson Education.
MACIONIS, John J. and PLUMMER, Ken (2008). Sociology, 4th Edition. London, Pearson Education.
MATSUEDA, Ross L. (1997). Cultural Deviance Theory: The Remarkable Persistence of a Flawed Term. Theoretical Criminology, 1(4), 429-52.
MATZA, David (1964). Delinquency and Drift. London, John Wiley and Sons.
MUNCIE, John (2003). Sociological Positivism. In: McLAUGHLIN, Eugene and MUNCIE, John. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, Second Edition. London, Sage.
O’BRIEN, Martin and YAR, Majid (2008). Criminology, The Key Concepts. London, Routledge. OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2010). Regional Trends: London: Social Indicators. [online]. Last accessed 16 January 2011 at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=437
SHAW, C.R. & H.D. McKAY (1942). Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
TREADWELL, James (2006). Sage Course Companion: Criminology. London, Sage.
