Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._1

approve of discrimination against women and who are avid consumers of pornography. In the same way, if income inequality bears a consistent relationship to rates of predatory crime, it may be that individual predators express strong feelings of ‘‘relative deprivation,’’ that is, perceptions that they are economically disadvantaged and distressed about their situation. However, some additional factors may also have to be identified that determine which of the persons who oppose women’s rights or who feel relatively deprived become involved in illegal conduct and which do not.

PERSPECTIVES, THEORIES, AND

HYPOTHESES

A number of arguments about crime patterns and the processes through which individuals get involved in lawbreaking are examined below. Before moving to these specific theories, however, two other general observations are in order. First, in criminology, as in sociology more generally, there is considerable disagreement regarding the nature of perspectives, theories, and hypotheses (as well as paradigms, frameworks, and other theoretical constructions). Even so, perspectives are often identified as broad and relatively unsystematic arguments; while theories are often described as sets of concepts, along with interconnected propositions that link the concepts together into an ‘‘explanatory package’’; and hypotheses are specific research propositions derived from theories. In practice, however, many causal explanations that have been described as theories have been incomplete and also conceptually imprecise. Jack Gibbs (1985) has labeled such ‘‘theories’’ as being in ‘‘the discursive mode’’ rather than as formal theories. Discursive arguments are stated in everyday language and their underlying logic is often difficult to identify.

According to Gibbs, because many criminological theories are discursive, precise predictions cannot be deduced from them, nor is it possible to subject predictions to empirical test, that is, to validation through research.

Many criminological theories involve relatively vague concepts, faulty underlying logic, and other problems. At the same time, it is possible to identify a number of general theoretical perspectives in criminology and to differentiate these from relatively formalized and precise theories.

For example, many criminologists contend that

American society is criminogenic because it involves social and economic features that appear to contribute heavily to criminality. However, this is a general perspective rather than a theory of crime in that it does not identify the full range of factors that contribute to lawbreaking, and it also lacks a set of explicit and interrelated propositions. By contrast, the income inequality argument more clearly qualifies as a causal theory, as does the formulation that links gender inequality, pornography readership, and certain other influences to forcible rape.

A few other comments are in order on theoretical perspectives in criminology. During most of the developmental history of criminology in the United States, from the early 1900s to the present, sociological criminologists voiced support for the criminogenic culture thesis that directs attention to social-structural factors thought to be responsible for criminality. Thus, this view might also be referred to as ‘‘mainstream criminology.’’ Most criminologists have linked lawbreaking to major ‘‘rents and tears’’ in societal structure at the same time that most of them have assumed that these crime-producing features can be remedied or lessened through social and economic reforms of one kind or another (Gibbons 1992, 1994; Currie 1985).

In the 1970s, a markedly different perspective competed for attention. Often referred to as ‘‘radi- cal-Marxist’’ or ‘‘critical’’ criminology, it asserted that the causes of crime arise out of societal characteristics that are inherent in corporate capitalism

(Gibbons 1992, pp.122–130; Chambliss 1975; Quinney 1974, 1977). According to radical-Marx- ist criminologists, criminal laws serve the interests of the capitalist ruling class. In turn, the system of corporate capitalism over which the ruling class presides depends for its survival on the exploitation of the resources and people of other countries and the economic oppression of citizens within capitalist nations. These conditions create economic strains for many persons, contribute to the deterioration of family life, and drive many individuals into desperate acts of lawbreaking.

The radical-Marxist perspective received considerable attention in the 1970s. Those who criticized it claimed that it presented a one-dimension- al, oversimplified account of the social sources of criminality. For example, while some criminal laws favor the interests of the owners of capital, many

others serve broader social interests. Similarly, while some forms of crime may be related to economic problems, others are not.

A number of other alternative perspectives began to appear in criminology in the 1980s and

1990s, so that theorizing about crime and criminality has become even more diversified. These ‘‘new criminologies’’ (Gibbons 1994, pp. 151–175) include postmodernist viewpoints, feminist arguments, and a number of other strains of thought, all of which differ in a number of ways from

‘‘mainstream’’ criminology.

Although broad theorizing has continued to proliferate in criminology, another major trend in recent years has taken criminology in a different direction, toward relatively detailed theories specific to one or another form of crime and toward research investigations of those theories. Baron and Straus’s (1987) formulation that links gender inequality, pornography, and specific flaws in the social control system is a case in point, as is Kenneth Polk’s (1994) theorizing and research regarding the various ‘‘scenarios’’ of social interaction that culminate in lethal violence. Indeed, contemporary criminology has a rich accumulation of empirical evidence that can be drawn upon by those who seek to understand the nature and causes of criminality in modern societies.

FORMS OF CRIME AND TYPES OF

OFFENDERS

The legal codes of the various states and of the federal government include hundreds of specific offenses, but the explanatory task is to develop a relatively small set of theories that make sense of this diverse collection of illegal activities.

In their response to this task, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990) have argued that virtually all forms of criminal activity, and many kinds of deviant behavior as well, share certain features in common: they are spontaneous, unplanned actions requiring little or no skill for their commission. Further, Gottfredson and Hirschi have claimed that lawbreakers rarely specialize in specific acts of criminality. They concluded that virtually all of these varying criminal and deviant acts can be accounted for by a single, general theory that asserts they are the work of persons who are

characterized by low self-control. Accordingly, in their view, there is no need for schemes that classify types of crime or kinds of offenders or for separate theories to account for them.

However, many criminologists contend that there are relatively distinct forms of crime that differ from each other and also that the behavior of many criminals is relatively patterned. For example, some offenders concentrate their efforts upon larcenous acts while others of them are mainly involved in acts of violence.

A number of criminologists have tried to sort the diverse collection of illegal activities into a smaller number of sociologically meaningful groupings or crime forms (Farr and Gibbons 1990; Gibbons 1994). Some have singled out crude property crime, consisting of larceny, burglary, robbery, and kindred offenses, as one type of crime; others have placed homicide and assaultive acts into another crime type; while still others have treated forcible rape and other sexual offenses as yet another broad form of lawbreaking. Then, too, ‘‘white-collar’’ or organizational crime has often been singled out as a crime pattern (Sutherland 1949; Schrager and Short 1978; Coleman 1987), consisting in large part of criminal acts such as antitrust violations, financial fraud, and the like, carried on by corporations and other large organizations. ‘‘Organized crime’’ is still another type that has received a good deal of criminological attention. Some persons have also pointed to a collection of offenses that receive little visibility in the mass media and elsewhere and have termed these ‘‘folk crimes’’ (Ross 1960–1961, 1973) or ‘‘mundane crimes’’ (Gibbons 1983). Finally, ‘‘political crime’’ has been identified as a major pattern of lawbreaking (Turk 1982).

Although these groupings identify forms of lawbreaking that may differ from each other in important ways, it is also true that they are relatively crude in form in that the underlying dimensions or variables on which they are based have not been spelled out. Further, there is disagreement among criminologists as to the specific crimes that should be identified as instances of white-collar crime, mundane crime, or some other category.

Criminologists have also developed systems for sorting individual offenders into behavioral types (Gibbons 1965). Although related to crime

classification efforts, categorization of lawbreakers into types is a separate activity. While it may be possible to identify groupings such as predatory property crime, it many not be true that individual offenders specialize in that form of crime, hence it may be incorrect to speak of ‘‘predatory offenders’’ as a type of criminal. Most offender classification systems have been deficient in one respect or another (Gibbons 1985), but the most serious flaw is that they are oversimplified. Researchers have discovered that many offenders engage in a fairly diverse collection of offenses over their criminal

‘‘careers’’ rather than being crime specialists such as ‘‘burglars,’’ ‘‘robbers,’’ or ‘‘drug dealers’’ (Chaiken and Chaiken 1982).

THEORIES OF CRIME

The number of theories regarding particular forms of crime is extensive, thus they cannot all be reviewed here (for a review of many of them, see

Gibbons 1994). Additional to those theories mentioned previously, a sampling of the more important ones would include the routine activities explanation of predatory property crime. Lawrence

Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) contend that predatory property crime involves three major elements: the supply of motivated offenders, the supply of suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians. In other words, these crimes are carried out by persons with criminal motives, but the incidence of such offenses also depends upon the number of opportunities to burglarize homes or to rob persons. Also, the number of burglaries from one community to another is in-

fluenced by the degree to which residents in local areas act as guardians by maintaining surveillance over homes in their neighborhoods or by taking other crime-control steps. This theory takes note of the fact that criminal opportunities have increased in the United States in recent decades at the same time that capable guardianship has declined, due principally to changes in employment patterns. In particular, the number of families in which both adult members work during the day has grown markedly, as has the number of employed, single-parent families. Research evidence lends considerable support to this theory (Cohen and Felson 1979).

Research evidence also indicates that income inequality is related to predatory property crime

(Braithwaite 1979; Carroll and Jackson 1983). Further, Leo Carroll and Pamela Jackson (1983) argue that the routine activities and income inequality arguments are interrelated. They suggest that the labor market trends identified in the former have led to increased crime opportunities, declines in guardianship, and heightened levels of income inequality.

THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

While theories about crime patterns and rates have been developed principally by sociological criminologists, representatives of a number of disciplines have endeavored to identify factors and processes that explain the involvement or noninvolvement of specific individuals in lawbreaking.

Three basic approaches can be noted: the biogenicsociobiogenic, psychogenic, and sociogenic orientations. Biogenic-sociobiogenic views attribute the genesis or causes of lawbreaking, entirely or in part, to constitutional and hereditary factors, while psychogenic perspectives often contend that lawbreakers exhibit personality problems to which their illegal conduct is a response. By contrast, sociologists have most often advanced sociological theories, arguing that criminal behavior is learned in a socialization process by individuals who are neither biologically nor psychologically flawed. Also, some persons have constructed theories that combine or integrate elements of these three approaches, one case being James Wilson and Richard Herrnstein’s (1985) argument that the behavior of criminals has genetic and constitutional roots and that offenders tend to be more mesomorphic in body build, less intelligent, and more burdened with personality defects than their noncriminal peers. Wilson and Herrnstein also contend that various social factors such as unemployment, community influences, and the like play some part in criminality.

Three generalizations can be made about biological theories: First, conclusive evidence supporting these arguments has not yet been produced; second, biological factors cannot be ruled out on the basis of the empirical evidence currently on hand; and third, if biological factors are involved in criminality, they are probably intertwined with social and psychological influences (Trasler 1987; Fishbein 1990).

In the first half of the twentieth century, psychological arguments about criminals centered on claims that these persons were feebleminded, or somewhat later, that many of them were suffering from serious mental pathology of one sort or another. However, a number of reviews of the evidence, particularly that having to do with the alleged role of low intelligence or personality defects in criminality, turned up little or no support for such claims (Schuessler and Cressey 1950; Waldo and Dinitz 1967; Tennenbaum 1977).

Even so, there is a lingering suspicion among a number of criminologists that the criminal acts of at least some lawbreakers, including certain kinds of sexual offenders, can be attributed to faulty socialization and abberant personality patterns (Gibbons 1994). Additionally, some psychologists have argued that even though the broad theory that criminality is due to marked personality defects on the part of lawbreakers lacks support, it is nonetheless true that individual differences in the form of personality patterns must be incorporated into criminological theories (Andrews and Wormith 1989; Blackburn 1993; Andrews and Bonta 1998). Moreover, in the opinion of a number of sociological criminologists, the argument that individual differences make a difference, both in accounting for criminality and for conformity, is persuasive (Gibbons 1989, 1994). Personality dynamics play a part in the behavior patterns that individuals exhibit, thus such concepts as role and status are often not entirely adequate to account for the behavior of individuals. Lawbreaking is quite probably related to the psychic needs of individuals as well as social and economic influences that play upon them. On this point, Jack Katz (1988) has explored the personal meanings of homicidal acts, shoplifting, and a number of other kinds of criminality to the persons who have engaged in these acts.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association

(Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 1992, pp.88– 90) has been one of the most influential sociological theories about the processes through which persons come to engage in criminality. Sutherland maintained that criminal behavior, including techniques of committing crime and conduct definitions favorable to lawbreaking activity, is learned in association with other persons. Many of the associations of persons involve face-to-face contact, but conduct definitions favoring criminality

can be acquired indirectly from reference groups, that is, from persons who are important to individuals but with whom they do not directly associate. Sutherland also contended that associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity (the personal meaning or significance to individuals of particular social ties).

A very different theory, directed mainly at the explanation of juvenile delinquency, is that if, through faulty socialization, individuals fail to become bonded or connected to others (that is, if they do not develop positive attachments to adult persons such as parents or teachers), they will then be unlikely to refrain from misbehavior (Hirschi 1969). The emphasis in this argument is on the failure to acquire prosocial, nondelinquent sentiments rather than on the learning of antisocial ones. In this view, delinquency is the result of defective socialization rather than of socialization patterns through which criminal attitudes are learned. A more recent but related version of this argument, noted earlier in this essay, is that of

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), who have claimed that criminality and other forms of deviance are most often engaged in by persons who are low on self-control.

THEORETICAL INTEGRATION

Clearly, there is a wealth of differing arguments about the causes of crime and individual lawbreaking now in existence. Not surprisingly, then, a number of scholars have begun to ask whether it might be possible to amalgamate some or all of these varied lines of explanation into an integrated theory and thereby to develop a more powerful causal argument. Some criminologists have suggested that biological, psychological, and sociological contentions about crime all have some part to play in explaining crime and that, therefore, they should be integrated (Barak 1998). Others have proposed more limited forms of integration in which, for example, several sociological arguments might be merged into a single formulation (e.g., Tittle 1995; Braithwaite 1989) or in which psychological claims about lawbreaking might be linked or integrated with sociological ones. But to date, criminological investigators have not moved very far in the direction of sophisticated theoretical integrations. Further research on the interconnections between biological, psychological, and social factors in crime

and criminal conduct will probably be required if integrative efforts are to bear fruit.

(SEE ALSO: Criminology; Juvenile Delinquency Theories; Social Control)

REFERENCES

Andrews, D.A., and James Bonta 1998 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 2d ed. Cincinnati: Anderson.

———, and J. Stephen Wormith 1989 ‘‘Personality and Crime: Knowledge Destruction and Construction.’’

Justice Quarterly 6:289–309.

Barak, Gregg 1998 Integrating Criminologies. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Baron, Larry, and Murray A. Straus 1987 ‘‘Four Theories of Rape: A Macrosociological Analysis.’’ Social Problems 34:467–489.

Blackburn, Ronald 1993 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. New York: Wiley.

Braithwaite, John 1979 Inequality, Crime and Public Policy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

——— 1989 Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, Leo, and Pamela Irving Jackson 1983 ‘‘Inequality, Opportunity, and Crime Rates in Central Cities.’’

Criminology 21:178–194.

Chaiken, Jan, and Marcia Chaiken 1982 Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.

Chambliss, William 1975 ‘‘Toward a Political Economy of Crime.’’ Theory and Society 2:148–155.

Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson 1979 ‘‘Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach.’’ American Sociological Review 44:588–607.

Coleman, James W. 1987 ‘‘Toward an Integrated Theory of White-Collar Crime.’’American Journal of Sociology 93:406–439.

Cressey, Donald R. 1951 ‘‘Epidemiology and Individual Conduct: A Case From Criminology.’’ Pacific Sociological Review 3:47–58.

Currie, Elliott 1985 Confronting Crime. New York:

Pantheon.

Farr, Kathryn Ann, and Don C. Gibbons 1990 ‘‘Observations on the Development of Crime Categories.’’

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 34:223–237.

Fishbein, Diana H. 1990 ‘‘Biological Perspectives in Criminology.’’ Criminology 28:27–72.

Gibbons, Don C. 1965 Changing the Lawbreaker. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———1979 The Criminological Enterprise. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———1983 ‘‘Mundane Crime.’’ Crime and Delinquency 29:213–227.

———1985 ‘‘The Assumption of the Efficacy of MiddleRange Explanations: Typologies.’’ In R.F. Meier, ed.,

Theoretical Methods in Criminology .Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

———1989 ‘‘Comment-Personality and Crime: NonIssues, Real Issues, and a Theory and Research Agenda.’’ Justice Quarterly 6:311–323.

———1992 Society, Crime, and Criminal Behavior, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———1994 Talking About Crime and Criminals. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Gibbs, Jack P. 1985 ‘‘The Methodology of Theory Construction in Criminology,’’ In R.F. Meier, ed., Theoretical Methods in Criminology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi 1990 A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Hirschi, Travis 1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Katz, Jack 1988 Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books.

Messner, Steven F., and Richard Rosenfeld 1994 Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Polk, Kenneth 1994 When Men Kill. Cambridge, Eng.:

Cambridge University Press.

Quinney, Richard 1974 Critique of Legal Order. Boston:

Little, Brown.

——— 1977 Class, State, and Crime. New York: McKay.

Ross, H. Laurence 1960-61 ‘‘Traffic Law Violation: A Folk Crime.’’ Social Problems 9:231–241.

——— 1973 ‘‘Folk Crime Revisited.’’ Criminology 11:41–85.

Schrager, Laura Shill, and James F. Short, Jr. 1978 ‘‘Toward a Sociology of Organizational Crime.’’ Social Problems 25:407–419.

Schuessler, Karl F., and Donald R. Cressey 1950 ‘‘Personality Characteristicsof Criminals.’’ American Journal of Sociology 55:476–484.

Sutherland, Edwin H. 1949 White Collar Crime. New

York: Dryden.

———, Donald R. Cressey, and David F. Luckenbill 1992 Principles of Criminology, 11th ed. Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall.

Tennenbaum, D. J. 1977 ‘‘Personality and Criminality: A Summary and Implications of the Literature.’’

Journal of Criminal Justice 5:225–235.

Tittle, Charles R. 1995 Control Balance. Boulder, Colo.:

Westview.

Trasler, Gordon 1987 ‘‘Biogenetic Factors.’’ In Herbert C. Quay, ed., Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Wiley.

Turk, Austin T. 1982 Political Criminality. Beverly Hills,

Calif.: Sage.

van Dijk, Jan J., Pat Mayhew, and Martin Killias 1990

Experiences of Crime Across the World. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.

DON C. GIBBONS

CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENT SUBCULTURES

A subculture is derivative of, but different from, some larger referential culture. The term is used loosely to denote shared systems of norms, values, or interests that set apart some individuals, groups, or other aggregation of people from larger societies and from broader cultural systems. Common examples include youth subcultures, ethnic subcultures, regional subcultures, subcultures associated with particular occupations, and subcultures that develop among people who share special interests such as bird-watching, stamp collecting, or a criminal or delinquent behavior pattern.

Neither membership in a particular category

(age, ethnicity, place of residence, occupation) nor behavior (bird-watching, stamp collecting, crime, or delinquency) is sufficient to define a subculture, however. The critical elements are, rather,

(1) the degree to which values, norms, and identities associated with membership in a category or types of behaviors are shared, and (2) the nature of relationships, within some larger cultural system, between those who share these elements and those who do not.

In these terms, criminal or delinquent subcultures denote systems of norms, values, or interests that support criminal or delinquent behavior. The many behaviors specified in law as criminal or delinquent are associated with many criminal and delinquent subcultures. The norms, values, or interests of these subcultures may support particular criminal acts, a limited set of such acts (e.g., a subculture of pickpockets vs. a subculture of hustlers). ‘‘Professional criminals,’’ for example, take pride in their craft, organize themselves for

the safe and efficient performance of the crimes in which they specialize, and generally avoid other types of criminal involvement that might bring them to the attention of the authorities (see Sutherland 1937; Cressey 1983). Not all criminal subcultures are this specific, however. Some are simply opportunistic, embracing several types of criminal behavior as opportunities arise. So it is with delinquent subcultures, where specialization is rare.

While delinquent subcultures typically are associated with a broad range of illegal behaviors, among delinquent groups and subcultures there is great variation in the nature and strength of group norms, values, and interests. Moreover, the extent to which delinquent behavior is attributable to these factors is problematic. Much delinquent behavior of highly delinquent gangs, for example, results from the operation of group processes rather than group norms per se (see Short 1997). The normative properties of groups vary greatly, but even the most delinquent gang devotes relatively little of its group life to the pursuit of delinquent behaviors. Further, when gangs do participate in delinquent episodes, some members of the gang typically do not become involved. This is so, in part, because subcultures typically consist of collections of normative orders—rules and practices related to a common value (Herbert 1998)—rath- er than norms oriented around a single value (such as being ‘‘macho,’’ ‘‘cool,’’ or exceptionally gifted in some way). In addition, individuals who are associated with a particular subculture tend also to be associated with other subcultures. Simply being associated with a subculture thus is unlikely to be a good predictor of the behavior of a particular individual.

For analytical purposes it is important to distinguish between subcultures and the particular individuals and groups who share the norms, values, and interests of the subculture. While members of a delinquent gang may be the sole carriers of a particular subculture in a particular location, some subcultures are shared by many gangs. Con-

flict subcultures, for example, are shared by rival fighting gangs among whom individual and group status involves values related to the defense of ‘‘turf’’ (territory) and ‘‘rep’’ (reputation) and norms supportive of these values. Subcultures oriented to theft and other forms of property crime vary in the extent to which they are associated with particular

groups. Some types of property crimes require organization and coordination of activities in order to be successful. Some also necessarily involve the efforts of others, such as ‘‘fences,’’ in addition to members of a criminally organized gang (see Klockars 1974). Others, such as mugging and other types of robbery, may be carried out by individual offenders, who nevertheless share a subculture supportive of such behavior. Most drug-using subcultures tend to be less oriented toward particular groups than are conflict subcultures because the subcultural orientation is toward drug consumption, and this orientation can be shared with other drug users in many types of group situations. To the extent that a subculture is oriented to experiences associated with a particular group, however, a drug-using subculture may also be unique to that group.

As this analysis suggests, cultures, subcultures, and the groups associated with them typically overlap, often in multiple and complex ways. To speak of youth culture, for example, is to denote a subculture of the larger adult-dominated and institutionally defined culture. Similarly, delinquent subcultures contain elements of both youth and adult cultures. Terry Williams’s (1989) lower class, minority, ‘‘cocaine kids,’’ for example, were entrepreneurial, worked long hours, and maintained self-discipline—all important elements in the achievement ideology of the American Dream (see Messner and Rosenfeld 1994; also Fagan 1996; Hagan, et al. 1998). Most saw their involvement in the drug trade as a way to get started in legitimate business or to pursue other conventional goals, and a few succeeded at least temporarily in doing so. The criminal subculture with which they identified shared a symbiotic relationship with their customers (including many middleand upperclass persons), who shared subcultural values approving drug use but who participated in the subculture of drug distribution only as consumers. For the young drug dealers, selling drugs was a way to ‘‘be somebody,’’ to get ahead in life, and to acquire such things as jewelry, clothing, and cars— the symbols of wealth, power, and respect.

The nature of relationships between delinquent subcultures and larger cultural systems is further illustrated by Mercer Sullivan’s study of cliques of young men in Brooklyn, among whom the ‘‘cultural meaning of crime’’ was ‘‘constructed

in . . . interaction out of materials supplied from two sources: the local area in which they spend their time almost totally unsupervised and undirected by adults, and the consumerist youth culture promoted in the mass media’’ (1989, p. 249). In other words, crime becomes meaningful to young men when they interact with one another and when they participate in youth culture, with its highly commercialized messages. The research literature on criminal and delinquent subcultures is devoted largely to describing and accounting for these types of varied and complex relationships.

THEORY AND RESEARCH

Despite efforts to define the theoretical construct,

‘‘subculture’’—and related constructs—more precisely and to describe and account for the empirical reality they represent, no general theory of subcultures has emerged (Yinger 1960, 1977). Instead, research has continued to reveal enormous variation in subcultures, and theory has proceeded by illustration and analogy, with little progress in measurement or formal theoretical development. Despite this scientifically primitive situation, principles of subcultural formation have been identified, and knowledge of it has advanced.

It is a ‘‘fundamental law of sociology and anthropology,’’ noted Daniel Glaser, that ‘‘social separation produces cultural differentiation’’ (1971, p. 90). More formally, and more cautiously, social separation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of subcultures. To the extent that groups or categories of persons are socially separated from one another, subcultural formation is likely to occur.

Albert Cohen argued that a ‘‘crucial’’ (perhaps necessary) ‘‘condition for the emergence of new cultural forms is the existence, in effective interaction with one another, of a number of actors with similar problems of adjustment’’ (1955, p. 59). While the notion of ‘‘similar problems of adjustment’’ can be interpreted to include problems faced by quite conventional people with special interests who find themselves ‘‘in the same boat’’ with others who have these same interests (let us say, bird-watchers), this condition seems especially appropriate to subcultures that embrace vandalism, ‘‘hell raising,’’ and other types of nonutilitarian

delinquent behavior. Observing that this type of behavior occurs most frequently among workingclass boys, Cohen hypothesized that this type of delinquent subculture was formed in reaction to status problems experienced by working-class boys in middle-class institutions such as schools. Many working-class boys are inadequately prepared for either the educational demands or the discipline of formal education, and they are evaluated poorly in terms of this ‘‘middle-class measuring rod.’’

Working-class girls are less pressured in these terms, Cohen argued, because they are judged according to criteria associated with traditional female roles, and they are subject to closer controls in the family.

The solution to their status problems, as some working-class boys see it, according to Cohen’s theory, is to reject the performance and status criteria of middle-class institutions, in effect turning middle-class values upside down. The theory thus seeks to account for the highly expressive and hedonistic quality of much delinquency and for the malicious and negativistic quality of vandalism.

Cohen did not attempt to account for the delinquent behavior of particular individuals or for the behavior of all working-class boys. Most of the latter do not become delinquent—at least not seriously so. They choose instead—or are channeled into—alternative adaptations such as the essentially nondelinquent ‘‘corner boys’’ or the high-achieving ‘‘college boys’’ described by William Foote Whyte (1943).

The forces propelling youngsters into alternative adaptations such as these are not completely understood. Clearly, however, working-class and lower-class boys and girls tend to be devalued in middle-class institutional contexts. Their marginality sets the stage for subcultural adaptations. Delinquents and criminals occupy even more marginal positions. This is particularly true of persistent delinquents and criminals who commit serious crimes, in contrast to those who only rarely transgress the law and with little consequence. When marginality is reinforced by labeling, stigmatization, or prejudicial treatment in schools and job markets, ‘‘problems of adjustment’’ magnify. The common ecological location of many delinquents, in the inner-city slums of large cities, and their coming together in schools, provides the setting for

‘‘effective interaction.’’ The result often is the formation of delinquent youth gangs, an increasingly common organizational form taken by delinquent subcultures (see Thrasher 1927; Klein, 1995; Short 1997).

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of youth gangs. For theoretical purposes, however, it is useful to define gangs as groups whose members meet together with some regularity over time and whose membership is groupselected, based on group-defined criteria. Similarly, organizational characteristics are group determined. Most importantly, gangs are not adultsponsored groups. The nature of relationships between young people and conventional adults is the most critical difference between gangs and other youth groups (see Schwartz 1987). Gang members are less closely tied to conventional institutions and therefore less constrained by institutional controls than are nongang youth. Group processes of status achievement, allocation, and defense are more likely to result in delinquent behavior among gangs than is the case among adult-sponsored groups.

HOW DO CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENT SUBCULTURES GET STARTED?

Delinquent and criminal subcultures have a long history in industrialized societies (Cressey 1983). Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1985) trace the origins of adolescent subcultures, including delinquent varieties, to social changes that began in the sixteenth century. Traditional economic and social relationships were greatly altered with the advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe, leaving in their wake large numbers of unemployed persons and disrupting communities, families, and other primordial groups. Cut adrift from traditional crafts and communities, thousands roamed the countryside, subsisting as best they could off the land or by victimizing travelers. The ‘‘dangerous classes’’ eventually settled in cities, again to survive by whatever means were available, including crime. Criminal subcultures and organizational networks often developed under these circumstances.

The Schwendingers emphasize that criminal subcultures developed as a result of structural

changes associated with capitalist values and their accompanying norms and interests—individual- ism and competitiveness, acquisitiveness and exploitativeness—and the relationships that developed during this period between capitalists and emerging nation-states. While many of the facts upon which this Marxist interpretation is based are generally accepted, careful historical analysis of economic and political systems and their consequences cautions against any simple or straightforward interpretation (see Chirot 1985). The connection between global phenomena and crime and delinquency always is mediated by historical, cultural, and local circumstances—by the historically concrete (see Tilly 1981).

James Coleman and his associates (1974) identified more recent social changes that were associated with the rise and spread of youth culture throughout the United States: the Baby Boom following World War II and the increased affluence of young people associated with post-World War II economic prosperity combined to create a huge youth market with great economic power. At the same time, young people were spending more time in school and therefore delaying their entrance into the labor force; growing numbers of women entered the work force, further separating mothers from youth in homes and neighborhoods; adults increasingly were employed in large organizations where young people were not present; and mass media, catering more and more to the youth market, were greatly expanded. At the close of the twentieth century, each of these broad social changes was more pronounced—and their influence was more widespread throughout the world— than was the case when these observations were made.

In contrast to accounts of the origins of Western European youth cultures, and of youth culture in the United States, Ko-lin Chin (1996) traces the development of Chinese youth gangs in the United States to ancient secret society traditions, and to the more recent Triad societies that formed in the late seventeenth century in China, and their counterpart tongs in the United States. Formed as political groups representing disfavored Chinese officials and the alienated poor, these groups initially stressed patriotism, righteousness, and brotherhood as primary values. However, their secret nature was conducive to clandestine activities such as gambling, prostitution, and running opium dens.

Competition among Triad societies in these activities often led to violence. Failure to achieve political power led to their further transformation into criminal organizations involved in extortion, robbery, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes.

Street gangs comprised of Chinese adolescents did not form in the United States until the late 1950s, but their numbers increased dramatically during the following decade, when changed immigration laws permitted more Chinese to enter the country. Conflict between foreignand American-born youths led to the emergence of gangs, some seriously delinquent. Chin attributes this development to alienating problems experienced by immigrant Chinese youth in their families, schools, and communities, in dramatic contrast to their American-born counterparts. From the beginning, many Chinese youth gangs have been associated in a variety of ways with established adult secret societies in the United States, Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or in all three places. The existence of ‘‘Triad-influenced’’ organizations has been critical to the types of gangs that have emerged in Chinese communities and to the nature of their criminal activities.

While the origins of delinquent subcultures may reside in antiquity, the formation and evolution of modern variations of them can be explained in terms of more immediate macro-level developments. Some of these developments relate primarily to the ongoing activities and interests of gang members rather than to racial or ethnic changes, or to sweeping social changes. The nature of these influences is illustrated by a drugusing group studied by James Short, Fred Strodtbeck, and their associates (Short and Strodtbeck 1965; see also Short 1997, 1998). This gang was observed as it developed its own unique subculture. The subculture of the ‘‘Pill Poppers,’’ as they became known to the research team, evolved from their relationship with a larger, conflict-oriented gang of which they had previously been a part. The Pill Poppers’ preoccupation with drugs and their refusal to participate in the more bellicose activities of the larger gang led to their withdrawal and increasing isolation, by mutual agreement. The researchers were able to observe the evolution of this subculture, which was characterized by normative approval of drug consumption, an elevated value on ‘‘getting high,’’ and mutual interest in the

‘‘crazy’’ things that happened to them when they were under the influence of drugs. The latter, in particular, became legendary within the group, being told and retold with nostalgia and humor when members of the gang were together. The subculture of this gang contrasted sharply with that of other gangs that were participating in a well-developed conflict subculture.

LEVELS OF EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL AND DELINQUENT SUBCULTURES

The theories of criminal and delinquent subcultures are macro-level theories (Short 1998). Their purpose is to identify what it is about political, economic, and other social systems that explain the emergence and the social distribution of these phenomena. Other theories at this level focus on the impact of local and broader community opportunities on delinquent subcultures and on youth subcultures generally. Walter Miller (1958) related lower-class culture to gang delinquency, while Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) found that different delinquent subcultures were associated with the availability of legitimate and illegitimate economic opportunities in local communities. Gary

Schwartz (1987) stressed the importance of local community youth-adult authority relationships in determining the nature of youth subcultures, including the extent and the nature of delinquent activities associated with them. Mercer Sullivan (1989) related gang adaptations to more global economic developments such as the transfer of manufacturing jobs from the United States to other countries and an increasingly segmented labor market, which has resulted in the concentration of low-wage and surplus labor in innercity minority communities (see also Hagedorn 1987, 1998).

William Julius Wilson (1987) provided the most compelling theoretical argument relating economic changes to crime and delinquency among the ‘‘truly disadvantaged.’’ Wilson argued that a permanent underclass emerged in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Research on delinquent subcultures supports this argument and documents related changes in gang membership.

Because fewer good jobs were available to poor, minority young men, more gang members continued their association with gangs as they entered

adulthood. In the past, gang members typically

‘‘grew out of’’ the gang to take jobs, get married, and often become associated with adult social clubs in stable, ethnically-based communities. These options have become less viable among the poor of all races, but minorities have increasingly become the truly disadvantaged. Gang organization has been affected by this change, as older members assume or continue leadership roles. The result often has been that gang involvement in criminal activities has become more sophisticated and instrumental, and younger members have been exploited in criminal enterprise. Relationships between young people and conventional adults also suffer, as older, stable role models and monitors of youthful behavior are replaced by young adult, often criminal, role models for the young (see Anderson 1990, 1999).

Sullivan’s study of groups and young males in three Brooklyn communities—black, predominantly Latino, and white—is particularly significant in this regard. The young men in Hamilton Park, the white group, were able to find better jobs than were the others at all ages. More important, because ‘‘they had become more familiar with the discipline of the workplace,’’ as they grew older they were able to secure better-quality jobs and to hold on to them, compared to the minority youth studied by Sullivan. Familiarity with the discipline of the workplace is a type of human capital that was made possible by an important type of social capi- tal—the superior personal networks that the Hamilton Park youth shared with the adult community (Sullivan 1989, pp. 105, 226). The minority youth were disadvantaged, with respect to both human and social capital, in the family and in other ways

(see Coleman 1988). Thus, while individual human and social capital are acquired through personal experience, communities and neighborhoods also vary in their stock of human and social capital, qualitatively and quantitatively—yet another way in which delinquent and criminal subcultures reflect aspects of their ‘‘parent’’ (larger) cultures.

All macro-level theories make certain assumptions about the individual level of explanation. The most prominent of these assumptions is that individuals learn subcultural norms, values, and the behaviors they encourage, by interacting with others in their environment. The general processes of learning have been well established by research and theory (see Bandura 1986; Eron 1987).