Applied Criminology

Level 3

Strain theories

Strain theories:

tackle the question of motivation: Why would anyone want to commit a crime?

argue people would conform to prevailing norms & laws were it not for stress & contradictions in their lives

2 variations:

1) Anomie, leading to thwarted ambition = Durkheim & Merton

2) Relative deprivation caused by material inequalities in wealth

Durkheim Strain theories - roots in Durkheim - crime is: a SOCIAL phenomenon, normal,

functional, not parasitic

All societies are in some stage of progression

MECHANICAL Each social group isolated & self-sufficient, live in same conditions, do same work,

hold same values, social solidarity is based upon uniformity

ORGANIC The different parts of society depend on each other, social solidarity is based on

diversity of functions of the parts of society

As society becomes more ORGANIC, anomie may develop – a state of lawlessness existing at times of abrupt social change in which the factors of control are disturbed (lack of societal regulation over desires/aspirations) - can result in crime

Rapid social change due to increasing division of labour means disappearance of community life, breakdown of norms, state of self interest develops, societal imbalance produces disorder

Merton - Crime is useful to criminals! Helps them to resolve difficulties presented by their social situations – a

central feature of which is Strain

Society is organised around culturally defined goals (society defines as worth pursuing) & institutionalised means (legitimate means available to achieve goals)

Problem: Imbalance between what encouraged to ‘go for’ & what is achievable

Cultural successes set up but many ‘Non-starters’ - economic impoverishment - causes social strain awaiting some form of solution

Crime is a possible response to the strains produced by the unequal opportunities available for achieving success

Merton: Criminality arises as we are ALL led to believe there is equality of opportunity – ‘The American Dream’

Most of us - CONFORMISTS: accept goals & legitimate means

Some pursue deviant forms of adaptation/responses to strain/anomie

One of which is ‘Innovation’ - accept goals/reject accepted & pursue illegitimate means - legitimate means most restricted in lower classes

Strain is ever present, mostly affects disadvantaged, & is culturally induced

2 important theoretical developments follow on from Merton’s concern with production of deviant behaviour:

1) Cohen’s (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture 2) Cloward & Ohlin’s notion of differential opportunity (1960)

Cohen (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture For Merton, crime is solution to inability to achieve dominant cultural goals

Culture - starting point for other theories that draw upon ideas of ‘Strain’: ‘subcultural theory’

Subculture: set of values, beliefs different from dominant culture (hostile)

Cohen - ‘Middle-class mainstream norms & values’ permeate U.S. society (through media & education) & we are all judged against them

E.g. presented these at school BUT schools do not enable working class pupils to achieve

Middle class standards stressed in environment of ‘blocked opportunities’

Strain – ‘status frustration’ - problem needs a solution = delinquent subculture

Young offered alternative ‘society’/way to gain status - by doing what’s most frowned upon by dominant culture - now an activity is right because the dominant culture says it is not

Cohen (1955) notion of the delinquent subculture

Lower-class boy (‘corner boy’) - ill-equipped to compete with middle-class boys in status stakes

He organises his life around working-class values/friendship of mates - inhibits upward mobility

In early adolescence he faces a ‘problem of adjustment’ as he is denied the status given to middle-class boys - 3 responses available to him:

‘the stable corner-boy’ – resigns himself to his situation - perhaps some mild acts of delinquency

‘the college-boy’ – lower-working class boy has internalised middle-class cultural norms & aspires to improve self through educational success & compete with middle-class

‘the delinquent boy’ – joins with others in same situation & develops a delinquent sub-culture

Cohen argues Merton’s theory cannot explain day-to-day, non-utilitarian, negativistic, working-class delinquency

For Merton crime is linked to gaining money/For Cohen, it is linked to gaining cultural status (but group response)

Cloward & Ohlin – notion of differential opportunity (1960) Central themes of strain theory again evident with these theorists arguing there’s

more than 1 way to gain success – illegitimate & legitimate pathways/opportunities

Crime occurs because of blocked legitimate pathways

Middle & upper classes - greater access to legitimate opportunity structures ‘V’ Lower classes greater access to illegitimate opportunity structures

In a community where these 2 structures are poorly integrated there is greater social disorganisation (SD) & the greater the SD, the more likely that the illegitimate opportunity structure (especially organised criminal gangs) will be dominant (an alternative route to success)

Different kinds of delinquent subcultures are more common in different kinds of areas & the type of criminality arising depends on area & gang

Criminal gang: orderly, financial goals Conflict gang: no purpose, angry, violent Retreatist gang: failed in both criminal & violent subcultures, drugs

What strain theories achieved…

…highlighted the importance of structural variables, external to the individual, as a way of understanding the nature of criminal behaviour

Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin’s theories = subcultural theories but also strain theories as they describe delinquency as a reaction to the strains imposed by unequal opportunities available to attain goals set up by U.S society

Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin draw on Merton’s strain theory to show how it can be adapted to explain crimes that are not motivated by greed

Relative Deprivation

Coined by Sam Stouffer et al (1949) & 1st used in Criminology in 1980s by Stack, Braithwaite & Left Realists

…is distinct from but strongly related to strain & refers to relative rather than absolute poverty

Relative Deprivation will increase if the gap between rich & poor increases

It is possible to be well-off & still feel relatively deprived

We are bombarded daily by media images/definitions of what IS the ‘good life’ - involves consumption - adds to unfairness felt by those who cannot afford it

Now a popular explanation for crime as it partly explains ‘rising living standards & rising crime levels’

Relative Deprivation

Unlike strain theory, it does not suggest crime is just a lower class phenomenon

Discontent can be felt anywhere where people see their rewards as unfair compared to others with similar attributes

But Relative Deprivation is likely to be felt more by those whose economic position is least secure

If Relative Deprivation is present, feelings of injustice may be present & might influence behaviour

Those that believe their situation is not likely to be addressed may

turn to other forms of redress e.g. criminality

Relative Deprivation

Redistribution of income is required through for e.g. full employment, high minimum wages

Criminality may decrease if fewer people felt politically marginalised/that something might be done

So criminality arises from unfair distribution of wealth

Box (1987) – Relative Deprivation may help to explain high crime rates in recessions when the strain to turn to criminality is stronger as the possibility of a re-distribution of wealth is even less

Currie (1985): there’s been a widening of the gap between rich & poor - the deprivations, exacerbated by the consumerism so central to a market economy, have fostered crime

Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’

Most of the above strain theories centred on economic deprivation or relative deprivation but Agnew takes a much wider view

Shifted the focus of Strain theory from idea of ‘long term aspirations’ to more ‘immediate wants’ of young:

popularity with peers, good school results, sporting success - failure to achieve, causes strain

Strain is not just about a difference between aspirations & expectations

3 particular types:

Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’

1) Strain arising from a failure to achieve desired goals/goods (inc. the areas covered by Merton & Cohen) but also strain where a personal expectation (not only economic) does not materialise; e.g. strain resulting from an unjust decision

2) Strain arising from the removal of positively valued stimuli & presentation of negatively valued stimuli – e.g. loss of a friend due to an argument

3) Strain resulting from negative stimuli e.g. physical pain, embarrassment

Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’

Any of these strains will often be reflected in fear, disappointment & anger & may give rise to criminal activity

Strain can vary in its effects on delinquency according to for example: intensity & duration

But even strong feelings of strain may not result in criminality…

Depends on cognitive abilities to reason problem through & anger coping strategies

Agnew’s ‘General strain theory’

Strain is more likely to lead to criminality if:

it arises from the deliberate actions of others person has high levels of aggressiveness & irritability & low

tolerance of adversity person has low levels of social control acting on them person has experience of criminality or association with delinquent

peers

But there are many non-criminal ways of dealing with strain

Joe & Chesney-Lind’s (1998) results: Young males often use peer groups for criminality Young females often use them to build mainly non-criminal

strategies for coping with strain

For Agnew (1992) criminal acts can be:

1) instrumental (trying to regain a loss or something which has previously been unobtainable)

2) retaliatory (hitting back at the source of strain)

3) escapist (seeking comfort from unpleasant states of anger & strain)

Agnew’s theory is arguably a more rounded concept of strain which addresses many problems of earlier theories

Agnew (1999) Macro-level (societal) Strain Theory

Extended & elaborated upon GST, presenting a version that is designed to explain community level differences in crime & delinquency

Suggests that aggregate-level variation in crime/delinquency can also be explained in terms of frustrating social conditions & combined levels of anger & frustration

The characteristics of particular communities are said to be particularly unpleasant/dislikeable

As a result these communities are inhabited by a high % of angry people & thus exhibit relatively high rates of criminal/delinquent behaviour

Another more recent Strain theory -Messner & Rossenfield (1994)

Why does the U.S. have a higher level of serious crime than any other industrial nation? What’s different about it?

Merton’s theory given renewed attention – as ‘American Dream’ is central

‘a commitment to the goal of material success to be pursued by all in society, under conditions of open, individual competition’

But said too much emphasis put on Merton’s theory as an explanation of criminality based on individual strain

We should view it instead, as a wider theory of social organisation

Messner & Rossenfield (1994)

What is different in the U.S. society’s structure from other countries - the wielding of economic power takes precedence over other important societal institutions: political system, family & school

- crime results from a culture of prioritising wealth

A balanced relationship between these institutions is crucial if societies are to function properly

But the ‘American Dream’ places such emphasis on monetary success that this goal dominates - Money IS the currency for measuring achievement

We can always have more money – ‘American Dream’ - no stopping point

So whereas in U.S., education is seen as the way to better paid employment & is not prized as an end in itself, in other countries it is one of many influences which develops values & beliefs

Messner & Rosenfield Preoccupation with financial success interferes with ability of U.S institutions

to properly socialise people into law abiding, healthy roles

They suggest, if other aspirations were to have priority there would be less crime:

the family should be more valued & strengthened by altering working practices

education should not be so closely connected to training for work goals should be moved away from ‘the Dream’ & include more caring facets

Argue that societies which are less focussed purely on monetary values, suffer less crime

Policy implications? - much greater focus on citizenship (respect for others)

So recent developments in the area of ‘Strain’ which stand apart from others are:

1) Agnew’s GST (highlights differing personal ways & abilities of coping with strain)

2) Relative deprivation & how this can create tensions leading to criminality

The increased emphasis on personal (rather than social & cultural factors), is a new facet to strain theory

Merton’s theory is now considered not as a full explanation of crime but a flexible notion…

…an ‘evolving paradigm’ where different theorists have stressed different aspects

Whilst Agnew further examined the social-psychological impact of strain on individuals…

Messner & Rosenfield examined the societal impact of excessive concentration on the American Dream

Whilst Merton considered individual reactions to strain…

Cohen & Cloward & Ohlin considered group responses

Whilst Merton considered strain resulting from problems re: material wealth…

Cohen considered strain resulting from problems of status

Policy implications:

Provide greater educational & job training opportunities, better wages & hours

Expand the public sector to provide services to the less well-off

Promote feelings of inclusion, encourage cultural ideals which focus on community & respect

Equality of opportunity = no strain & less crime

Most strain theorists do not suggest fundamental redistribution of wealth/breaking down of class divisions – they just stress an equal opportunity to succeed or fail

As we see the gap between rich & poor widening it is likely that further interpretations of ‘strain’ will follow along the lines of relative deprivation theory

References Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30 (1) Box, S. (1983). Power, Crime and Mystification. London: Tavistock Brezina, T. (2000). Delinquent problem-solving: an interpretive framework for criminological theory & research. Journal of Research in Crime &

delinquency, 37 (1), p. 3-30. Brezina, T., Piquero, A.R. & Mazerolle, P. (2001). Student anger & aggressive behaviour in school: an intial test of Agnew’s macro-level strain theory.

Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 38 (4), p. 362-386. Broidy, L. & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender & crime: a general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 34 (3), p. 275-306. Cernkovich, S.A., Giordano, P.C. & Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Race, crime and the American Dream. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency 37 (2), p.

131-170. Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent Boys. London: Free Press Cloward, R. A and Ohlin.L.E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Macmillan. Durkheim, E. (1938). Rules of the Sociological Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Hoffman, J.P. & Su, S.S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency & drug use: a strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of

Research in Crime & delinquency, 34 (1), p. 46-78. Jones, S. (2001). Criminology. London: LexusNexus. Chapter 7, pp. 137-160. Lea, J. & Young, J. (1996). Relative Deprivation. In J. Muncie, E. McLaughlin & M. Langan (Eds), Criminological Perspectives: A Reader. London:

Sage, p.136-144. Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: OUP Menard, S. (1995). A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory. Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 32 (2), p. 136-174. Merton, R. (1949). Social Theory & Social Structure. New York: Free Press Simons, R.L. &Gray, P.A. (1989). Perceived blocked opportunity as an explanation of delinquency among lower-class black males: A research note.

Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 25 (1), p. 90-101. Stiles, B.L,. Lui, X. & Kaplan, H.B. (2000). Relative deprivation & deviant adaptations: the mediating effects on negative self-feelings. Journal of

Research in Crime & delinquency, 37 (1), p. 64-90. Velmer, S., Burton, Jr., Cullen, F.T., Evans, T.D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: operalization, rival theories & adult criminality.

Journal of Research in Crime & delinquency, 10 (3), p. 213-239. Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J. & Snipes, J.B. (2002). Theoretical Criminology. Oxford: OUP. Chapter 8, pp. 135-153. Williams, K. (2004). Textbook on Criminology. Oxford: OUP. Chapter 12, pp. 304-327