Delinquent Boys: A Critique

Delinquent Boys: A CritiqueAuthor(s): John I. Kitsuse and David C. DietrickSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr., 1959), pp. 208-215Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089431 .

Accessed: 01/10/2013 10:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.113.26.88 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 10:55:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089431?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


208 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

wise, this finding means that it is possible to be antisocial without being criminal. Whether it is also possible to be antisocial without being immoral is the subject of another study.23

In any event, the idea of the antisocial must be used with caution, if at all, as an explanation of crime. To explain crime, and to avoid tautology, such a concept must refer to something other than the criminal act. This "something" has often been denoted as an attitude. The present examination of one kind of antisocial attitude shows its relationship with admitted crime to be less immediate than hypothesized. Investigation of other antisocial attitudes-misanthropic, exploitative, individualistic-and the relationship of such attitudes to both admitted

criminality and conviction will tell us more about the usefulness of the idea of the antisocial as an explanation of crime. It is con- ceivable that such studies may show us that American society has socialized much anti- sociality.24

23 As sources of moral authority, Durkheim gives us God or Society. For many civilized men this is a Hobson's choice. I am grateful to Ladd's criticism of Durkheim's ethic for cues to be used in a reassessment of this problem. J. Ladd, The Structure of a Moral Code, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.

24 Such studies are not now in good repute partly, I suppose, because many sociologists resist association with anything akin to "muckraking," partly because the conformist climate makes even scientists fearful of "wrong opinions," and partly because many sociologists, being themselves culture- comfortable, have neither motivation nor vantage point from which to view their own society except through fashionable channels.

But the possibility that a society may be "organ- ized" on antisocial or unethical principles has been voiced by novelists-a possibility which Durkheim would have regarded as a contradiction in terms. Thus the artist often justifies his alienation on moral grounds: ". . . [Nelson] Algren hates middle-class respectability for moral and political reasons-the middle-class exploits and persecutes. ..." Norman Podhoretz, "The Know-Nothing Bohemians," Par- tisan Review, 25 (Spring, 1958), p. 307. It is a proper sociological function to determine whether Algren is correct.

DELINQUENT BOYS: A CRITIQUE *

JOHN I. KITSUSE DAVID C. DIETRICK

Northwestern University University of California, Los Angeles

Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang is critically examined as a substantive theory of the "delinquent subculture" and as a contribution to a general theory of delinquency. Three major criticisms are made about the theory of the delinquent subculture: (1) The social and cultural bases of the "working-class boy's problem" are ambiguous and subject to equally plausible alternative interpretations. (2) The working-class boy's ambivalence toward the middle-class system does not provide the psychological conditions which would warrant the introduction of the concept of reaction-formation. (3) The reaction-formation thesis raises the question of the independence between the description of the delinquent subculture and the theory which proposes to explain it. Cohen's theory as stated presents added problems of theory and method which render either a direct or indirect test of the theory impossible. The theory of the delinquent subculture is discussd in relation to the value-transmission theories of delinquency, and Cohen's propositions are reformulated to provide hypotheses for an empirical test of his theory.

O NE of the most provocative theoretical formulations concerning juvenile delinquency is that contained in Albert

K. Cohen's Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang.' The reviews of Cohen's mono-

graph are enthusiastic in their praise, and one textbook has already incorporated the

* This paper has benefited from the criticism and suggestions from many sources. We wish especially to acknowledge the helpful comments of Aaron V. Cicourel, Scott Greer, and Donald R. Cressey.

1 Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955.

2 See reviews by Frank E. Hartung, American Sociological Review, 20 (December, 1955), pp. 751- 752; Donnell M. Poppenfort, American Journal of Sociology, 62 (July, 1956), pp. 125-126; Hermann Mannheim, British Journal of Sociology, 7 (June, 1956), pp. 147-152; Max Benedict, The British Journal of Delinquency, 7 (October, 1956), pp. 323- 324; Gilbert Shapiro, Dissent, 3 (Winter, 1956), pp. 89-92.



DELINQUENT BOYS: A CRITIQUE 209

theory of the delinquent subculture as the major framework for the discussion of juvenile delinquency.3 Sykes and Matza, Wilen- sky and Lebeaux, Merton, and Kobrin and Finestone 4 have questioned various propositions and implications of Cohen's thesis, but their discussions are limited to rather specific issues. In view of the impressive reception which has greeted Cohen's work, his theory of the delinquent subculture deserves a more detailed and systematic examination.

The primary concern of Cohen's inquiry is stated clearly and repeatedly throughout the study: the theoretical task is to explain the content and distribution of the delinquent subculture. Cohen offers his theory to fill a gap in the cultural transmission theories of delinquency which assert that individuals become delinquent because they learn the values, attitudes, and techniques of the delinquent group. The theory of the delinquent subculture attempts to account for the content of what the delinquent learns. Thus, Cohen does not purport to present a theory of delinquency.

Although Cohen is explicit about the limited and specific nature of the problem he is addressing, his theory has been inter- preted and discussed as a theory of juvenile delinquency.5 Indeed, the psychological terms in which Cohen couches his discussion and the logic of his thesis invite such an interpretation. In this paper, therefore, Cohen's thesis is critically examined both as a theory of the delinquent subculture and as a theory of delinquency. We contend that (1) Cohen does not present adequate support, either in theory or in fact, for his explanation of the delinquent subculture, (2) the methodologi-

cal basis of the theory renders it inherently untestable, (3) the theory is ambiguous concerning the relation between the emergence of the subculture and its maintenance, and (4) the theory should include an explanation of the persistence of the subculture if it is to meet an adequate test. In the following section, we remain close to Cohen's statements and analyze them for their internal consistency.

THE THEORY OF THE DELINQUENT

SUBCULTURE

Cohen addresses himself to the task of constructing a theory which will explain two sets of "known facts": first, the content of what he calls the "delinquent subculture," which is characterized by maliciousness, non- utilitarianism, and negativism; and, second, the concentration of that subculture among the male, working-class segment of the population.6

The propositions in Cohen's theory may be stated briefly as follows:

1. The working-class boy faces a characteristic problem of adjustment which is qualita- tively different from that of the middle- class boy.

2. The working-class boy's problem is one of "status-frustration," the basis of which is systematically generated by his early ex- posure to the working-class pattern of socialization.

3. The working-class boy's socialization handicaps him for achievement in the middle- class status system.

4. Nevertheless, he is thrust into this competi- tive system where achievement is judged by middle-class standards of behavior and performance.

5. Ill-prepared and poorly motivated, the working-class boy is frustrated in his status aspirations by the agents of middle-class society.

6. The delinquent subculture represents a "solution" to the working-class boy's problem for it enables him to "break clean" with the middle-class morality and legitimizes hostility and aggression "without moral in- hibitions on the free expression of aggression against the sources of his frustration." T

3 Jessie Bernard, Social Problems at Midcentury, New York: Dryden, 1957, Chapter 18.

4 See, respectively, Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, "Techniques of Neutralization," American Sociological Review, 22 (December, 1957), pp. 664- 670; Harold Wilensky and Charles Lebeaux, In- dustrial Society and Social Welfare, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958, Chapter 9; Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957, pp. 177-179; and Solomon Kobrin and Harold Finestone, "A Pro- posed Framework for the Analysis of Juvenile Delinquency," presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Society, August, 1958.,

5 See, e.g., Bernard, op. cit.; Marshall B. Clinard, Sociology of Deviant Behavior, New York: Rine- hart, 1957, pp. 182-183.

6 Cohen, op. cit., pp. 36-44. It should be noted that Cohen's assertion that the delinquent subculture is concentrated in the working-class is based on an inference from data, not specifically classified with respect to their subcultural character, which suggest the concentration of delinquency in that social stratum.

7 Ibid., p. 132.




7. Thus, the delinquent subculture is characterized by non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic values as "an attack on the middle-class where their egos are most vulnerable. . . . It expresses contempt for a way of life by making its opposite a cri- terion of status." 8

The Working-Class Boy's Problem. What are the logic and the evidence presented in support of Cohen's theory? He begins by noting the class differentials in the socialization experience of the child which handicaps the working-class boy in his competition for status in the middle-class system. For example: the working-class boy's social and cultural environment does not systematically support the middle-class ethic of ambition to get ahead; he is not socialized in techniques of discipline and hard work; his behavior is oriented to immediate satisfactions rather than to future goals. Thus, the working-class boy is not socialized to middle-class norms. "To this extent he is less likely to identify with these norms, to 'make them his own,' and to be able to conform to them easily and 'naturally."' 9

What then is the basis for the working- class boy's fundamental ambivalence toward the middle-class system that seeks and finds a solution in the delinquent subculture? His ambivalence, according to Cohen, is due to the fact that, in American society, children are compared with "all comers" by a single standard of performance which embodies the norms of the middle class. Neither the working-class boy nor his parents can ignore or deny the dominance of middle-class norms for they comprise the code of "the distin- guished people who symbolize and represent the local and national communities with which the children identify." 10 Confronted by the obvious dominance and prestige of middle-class values, the working-class boy is drawn to the "American Dream."

We note a persistent ambiguity in Cohen's statements. The working-class boy faces a problem of adjustment "to the degree to which he values the good opinion of middle- class persons or because he has to some degree internalized middle-class standards himself. . . ." 1 On the other hand, Cohen ac-

knowledges, "it may be argued that the working-class boy does not care what middle- class people think of him." 12 He suggests, and rightly so, that this is an empirical question. Nevertheless, Cohen proceeds to develop his thesis with the assertion that "there is, however, reason to believe that most children are sensitive to some degree about the attitudes of any persons with whom they are thrown into more than the most superficial kind of contact." 13

Cohen's reasons for rejecting the argument that the working-class boy may not care what middle-class people think (which is crucial for his theory) are not convincing. Indeed, his statements about the working-class boy's socialization lend strong support to the con- trary view.14 If there are in fact class dif- ferences in socialization, surely they may be expected to insulate the working-class boy from the responses of middle-class people. Furthermore, it would appear that the working-class boy's problem is a minor one if it depends on "the degree to which he values middle-class persons" or if it rests upon the argument that he is "sensitive to some degree" about the attitudes of others. On the strength of his statements, the rejected proposition seems equally plausible, namely, that the working-class boy is not oriented to status in the middle-class system. As Cohen himself suggests, "satisfactory emotional relationships with his peers are likely to be more important" for the working- class boy than for his middle-class counter- part.

8 Ibid., p. 134. 9 Ibid., p. 97. 10 Ibid., p. 87. 11 Ibid., p. 119.

12 Ibid., p. 123, Cohen's emphasis. 13 Ibid., p. 123, Cohen's emphases. 14 Thus Cohen states, "In general, the working-

class person appears to be more dependent upon and 'at home' in primary groups [presumably among his own social class] and to avoid secondary, segmental relationships more than the middle-class person." (Ibid., p. 97) Again, "The working-class child is more often thrown upon his own or the company of an autonomous group of peers." (p. 100) He suggests further that "At the same time, it seems likely, although this aspect of differential socialization has not been so well explored, that the working- class child is more dependent emotionally and for the satisfaction of many practical needs upon his relationships to his peer groups. . . . Satisfactory emotional relationships with his peers are likely to be more important, their claims to be more im- perious, and the rewards they offer to compete more effectively with parental [and we might add, teacher] expectations." (p. 101)




The Reaction-Formation Concept. Cohen's explanation of the distinctive content of the delinquent subculture and "what it has to offer" to the working-class boy is anchored in the concept of "reaction-formation." His use of this psychological concept deserves careful examination, for reaction- formation provides the key to his explica- tion of the non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic character of the delinquent subculture.

A reaction-formation is a psychological mechanism which "attempts to deny or to repress some impulses, or to defend the person against some instinctual danger. ... the original opposite attitudes still exist in the unconscious." 15 In the context of Cohen's argument, the "impulse" is the working-class boy's desire for middle-class status which, if expressed, would only be frustrated. There- fore, the reaction-formation is instituted against it.

Is the ambivalence described by Cohen sufficient warrant for the introduction of this psychological concept? Cohen states that the the reaction-formation in the case of the working-class boy who responds to the delinquent subculture "should take the form of an 'irrational,' 'malicious,' and 'unaccounta- ble' hostility to the enemy within the gates as well as without: the norms of the respectable middle-class society." He suggests: "the unintelligibility of the response, the 'over- reaction,' becomes intelligible when we see that it has the function of reassuring the actor against an inner threat to his defenses as well as the function of meeting an external situation on its own terms. . . . we would expect the delinquent boy, who, after all, has been socialized in a society dominated by a middle-class morality and who can never quite escape the blandishments of middle- class society, to seek to maintain his safe- guards against seduction." 16

Clearly, Cohen's use of reaction-formation assumes that the delinquent boy is strongly and fundamentally ambivalent about status in the middle-class system, and that he "cares"' so intensely about improving his status within the system that he is faced

with a genuine problem of adjustment. Cohen's theory stands on this assumption which is, by his own admission, on "some- what speculative ground where fundamental research remains to be done." 17

Cohen's description of the social and cultural conditions of the working-class boy is a tenuous base from which to posit the in- ternalization of middle-class values. A more reasonable and obvious question is: How under such conditions are such values signifi- cantly communicated to the working-class boy at all? According to Cohen, in his daily encounters with the middle-class system, the working-class boy suffers humiliation, shame, embarrassment, rejection, derision, and the like as a consequence of his family back- ground. Similarly, in the settlement houses, recreation centers, and other welfare agen- cies, the working-class boy is exposed to the "critical or at best condescending surveillance of people who are 'foreigners' to his community and who appraise him in terms of values which he does not share. . . . To win favor of the people in charge he must change his habits, his values, his ambitions, his speech and his associates. Even were these things possible, the game might not be worth the candle. So, having sampled what they have to offer, he turns to the street or to his 'clubhouse' in a cellar where 'facilities' are meager but human relations more satis- fying." 18 In this description of the working- class boy's perceptions of the middle-class system, the implication is clear that it is not that the working-class boy's status aspirations are frustrated (that is, he is motivated but is unable to achieve prestigeful status in the middle-class system), but rather that he does not want to strive for status in the system, and that he resents the intrusion of "foreigners" who seek to impose upon him an irrelevant way of life.

Cohen's image of the working-class boy, who admittedly is extremely dependent upon his gang, standing alone to face humuliation at the hands of middle-class agents is difficult to comprehend. To add to this picture of the pre-teen and teen-ager an intense desire to gain status in the middle-class system, which when frustrated provides sufficient

15 Otto Fenichel, Psychoanalytic Theory of Neu- rosis, New York: Norton, 1945, p. 151.

16 Cohen, op. cit., p. 133, Cohen's emphasis. 17 Ibid., p. 127. 18 Ibid., p. 117, emphasis added.




basis for a reaction-formation response, is to overdraw him beyond recognition. Even in "Elmtown," to which Cohen refers, it is difficult to conceive of the working-class boy exposed to the middle-class environment un- protected by the support of his peer group. When we realize that Cohen's formulation applies, presumably, more directly to schools in urban areas which are predominantly working-class in composition, confusion is compounded.

Again, why does Cohen insist upon the working-class boy's ambivalence toward the middle-class system? His discussion of alternative subcultural responses among working- class boys to the problem of status-frustration may provide a clue. He specifies three modes of response: that of the college-boy, of the "stable corner-boy," and the delinquent boy response. The college-boy deserts the corner-boy way of life and accepts the "challenge of the middle-class status system," conforming to its rules.19 The stable corner- boy culture "does not so much repudiate the value of middle-class achievements as it emphasizes certain other values which make such achievements improbable. . . . the corner-boy culture temporizes the middle- class morality." 20 It is the delinquent response, legitimized by the subculture, that represents the reaction-formation of a whole- hearted repudiation of middle-class morality.

It would appear that, of the three cate- gories of respondents, the working-class boys who find a solution in the delinquent subculture are those who are faced with the most serious problems of status-frustration and ambivalence. The logic of the reaction- formation thesis leads us to conclude that, of the three modes of adjustment, the delinquent boys' is an expression of the most serious problems of status-frustration and ambivalence. We must assume that the in- tensity of the hostility and aggression against the middle-class system is a measure of status-frustration and ambivalence.

Theoretically, the college-boy is equally ambivalent about the middle-class system, yet Cohen does not invoke the concept of reaction-formation to account for his (the college-boy's) rejection of (or reaction against) working-class values. If the price

of the working-class boy's accommodation to the middle-class system is that he must "change his habits, his values, his ambitions, his speech and his associates," would not the college-boy response entail more than an acceptance of the challenge to compete within the system on its own terms? 21

The Description of the Delinquent Sub- culture. Cohen's emphasis upon the "posi- tive" aspect of the college-boy response con- trasts with his stress upon the "negative" aspect of the delinquent response, which leads him, we suggest, to describe the delinquent subculture as an irrational, malicious attack on the middle-class system. This raises the more fundamental question about his description of the subculture, "the facts to be explained."

"Non-utilitarian," "malicious," and "negativistic" are, we suggest, interpretive cate- gories of description which are not independent of Cohen's explanation of the delinquent subculture. For example, the imputation of intent, implicit in his description of malice, is open to serious doubt.22 We do not deny that subculture delinquency is marked by such distinctive characteristics as the systematic extortion of money from younger, defenseless children. What is at issue here is the interpretation of this kind of delinquent behavior, an interpretation directed systematically at the middle-class as a consequence of the frustration of ambivalent status aspirations.

It is important that we keep apace the facts. Cohen's description of the delinquent subculture does not fit the behavior of con- temporary delinquent gangs.23 They are not

19 Ibid., p. 128. 201bid, p. 130.

21 Ibid., p. 127. 22Martha M. Eliot, Chief of the Children's Bu-

reau, has observed, "We are too inclined to make vandalism a catch-all phrase which imputes to the vandal hostile antagonisms toward society, then to compound the catch-all by saying that vandals, by and large, are teen-agers. But if teen-agers are vandals, why are they any more so than children of any age?" "What is Vandalism"? Federal Proba- tion, 18 (March, 1954), p. 3.

23 See, e.g., Sam Glane, "Juvenile Gangs in East Side Los Angeles," Focus, 29 (September, 1950), pp. 136-141; Dale Kramer and Madeline Karr, Teen-Age Gangs, New York: Henry Holt, 1953; Stacy V. Jones, "The Cougars-Life with a Brooklyn Gang," Harper's Magazine, 209 (No- vember, 1954), pp. 35-43; Paul C. Crawford, Daniel I. Malamud, and James R. Dumpson, Work-




engaged in replacing one stolen hat with another from store to store, or delighting in the terrorizing of "good" children by driving them from playgrounds and gyms. The delinquents whose activities are organ- ized by a delinquent subculture are attending to more serious enterprises. There is no absence of rational, calculated, utilitarian behavior among delinquent gangs, as they exist today. To describe the activities of such gangs as non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic gives the misleading view that they somehow represent a child's angry out- bursts against the injustices of a world he never made.

It is also important to guard against the tendency to apply different standards for interpreting the behavior of class-differen- tiated groups. There is ample evidence in the daily press that middle-class adolescents are engaged in the kinds of activities that Cohen cites to support his description of the working-class delinquent subculture. To be sure, such reports appear less frequently under banner headlines than do the exploits of working-class delinquents; and middle-class delinquency does not prompt, as does working-class delinquency, editorial clamor for a radical and thorough revision of programs of control. For example, acts of vandalism committed by college boys on the facilities rented for fraternity dances and other occasions occur with annual regularity.24 In view of the

great probability that such instances of middle-class gang delinquency are substantially under-reported, it would be an arbitrary pre- conception to dismiss them as no more than scattered and rare occurrences.

THE TEST OF COHEN 'S THEORY

In the preceding discussion we argue that, first, Cohen does not present adequate support for his formulation of "the working- class boy's problem," second, his description of the working-class boy's ambivalence toward the middle-class system does not warrant the use of the reaction-formation concept, and, third, his description of the delinquent subculture, the "facts" to which his theory is addressed, is open to question. While these criticisms are presented as logical ambiguities and inconsistencies in Cohen's statements, it may be maintained nevertheless that empirical research demonstrates the validity of his major thesis. In turning to this question, we suspend the criticisms formu- lated above, and examine the methodology of Cohen's theory.

The Historical Method and Empirical Re- search. What, then, are the research direc- tives of the theory of the delinquent subculture? When this problem is analyzed, Cohen's methodology presents numerous difficulties, for his theory is an historical con- struction addressed to the explanation of the emergence of an existing subculture and its present concentration among the working- class male population. Furthermore, the basic propositions of this explanation utilize concepts which require data about the psychological characteristics of past populations.

Cohen's use of the present indicative in the development of his theory is misleading, for the interpretation of the rise of the delinquent subculture requires historical data. It is not that the working-class boy is ambivalent about middle-class values; the theory requires only that at some unspecified time when the delinquent subculture emerged, the working-class boy was ambivalent about middle-class values.

Subculture Maintenance and Motivation. There is no objection per se to a plausible explanation that cannot be tested if the explanation is viewed as an heuristic device

ing with Teen-Age Gangs, New York: New York Welfare Council, 1950; Harrison E. Salisbury, "The Shook-Up Generation," New York Times, March 24-30, 1958; Dan Wakefield, "The Gang That Went Good," Harper's Magazine, 216 (June, 1958), pp. 36-43.

24 One Southern California college fraternity has depleted a long list of rental facilities where their patronage is no longer solicited. The last dance held by this fraternity was the scene of a minor riot which required a force of thirty regular and reserve police officers to control. Acts of vandalism included ripping fixtures from the walls, entering the ballroom dripping with water from the swim- ming pool, tearing radio antennae from police cars, etc. Lest this example be dismissed as institution- alized saturnalia, other instances may be cited which the community was less willing to view as mere pranks. In Los Angeles, a group of high school seniors of undisputedly middle-class families committed an "unprovoked" act of setting fire to a school building. In another case, several middle- class adolescents in Glendale, California were con- victed for stomping on the hoods and roofs of automobiles in that city. And so on,




for the generating of hypotheses. If then a direct test of Cohen's theory through the measurement of deduced empirical regulari- ties is not possible as a practical matter, is it feasible to approach the problem from a functional point of view? The question may be phrased: what are the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the delinquent subculture? On this question, Cohen's statements are quite explicit. Commenting on the fact that his theory is not concerned with the processes by which one boy becomes delinquent while another does not, Cohen writes:

We have tried to show that a subculture owes its existence to the fact that it provides a solution to certain problems of adjustment shared among a community of individuals. However, it does not follow that for every individual who participates these problems provide the sole or sufficient source of motivation. Indeed, there may be some participants to whose motivation these problems contrib- ute very little.... Our delinquent subculture . . .is not a disembodied set of beliefs and practices but is "carried" and supported by groups with distinctive -personnel. A position in this organization or affiliation with this or that particular member may offer other satisfactions which help to account for the participation of certain members but do not help to explain the content of the culture in which they participate.25

An implication of this statement is that the maintenance of the delinquent subculture is not wholly dependent upon the motivational structure which explains its emergence. Not every individual who participates in the delinquent subculture need be so motivated and, for some, such motivation may be peripheral if not irrelevant. Clearly an investigation of the motivations which lead individuals to participate in the delinquent subculture does not constitute even an indirect test of the theory. For the statement may be read to mean that once the subculture is established, it can be maintained by the behavior of individuals who bring a diverse range of motivations to the gangs which embody the delinquent subculture. Thus, functionally, the delinquent subculture requires another explanation.

The Double Dilemma: Theory, and Method. The theoretical significance of

Cohen's explanation of the emergence of the delinquent subculture, however, lies precisely in its relevance for an explanation of the maintenance of that subculture. Were this not so, the theory could be dismissed as merely plausible and untestable or as in- capable of generating hypotheses about reg- ularities other than the pre-existing "facts" which it explains. We suggest that the statement quoted above presents a methodological dilemma by divorcing the dynamics of the etiology of the delinquent subculture from the dynamics of its maintenance. Cohen is correct of course in asserting that, theoretically, the former does not necessarily require the same motivational dynamics as the latter. However, the ambiguity of his statement lies in his implicit concession that some of the participants in the subculture must have the characteristic motivational structure posited in the theory.

The research dilemma posed by Cohen's theory is two-fold. Methodologically, the historical method relies upon data concerning the psychological dynamics of a population which are difficult if not impossible to obtain. Theoretically, the motivational dynamics posited as necessary for the emergence of the delinquent subculture is considered either (a) independent of the motivational dynamics necessary for the maintenance of the subculture, or (b) dependent upon it in some unspecified relationship.

In view of these difficulties, it may be fruitful to turn the problem around and ask: What are the consequences of participation in the delinquent subculture for the motivational structure of the participants? This question places the theory of the delinquent subculture in its proper relation to the value- transmission theories of delinquency, and directs us to examine the heuristic value of Cohen's theory. Viewing his theory from this perspective, the following propositions about the maintenance of the delinquent subculture may be stated:

1. The individual learns the values of the delinquent subculture through his participation in gangs which embody that subculture.

2. The motivations of individuals for partici- pating in such gangs are varied.

3. The malicious, non-utilitarian, and negativistic behavior which is learned through participation in the subculture is met by formal negative sanctions, rejection, and 25 Cohen, op. cit., p. 148.



THE SKIDDER 215

limitation of access to prestigeful status within the middle-class system.

4.Thus, participation in the delinquent subculture creates similar problems for all its participants.

5.The participants' response to the barriers raised to exclude them from status in the middle-class system (that is, the "problem") is a hostile rejection of the standards of "respectable" society and an emphasis upon status within the delinquent gang.

6. The hostile rejection response reinforces the malicious, non-utilitarian, and negativistic norms of the subculture.

The formulation suggested here relates Cohen's explanation of the emergence of the delinquent subculture with an explanation of its maintenance. It hypothesizes that the delinquent subculture persists because, once established, it creates for those who participate in it, the very problems which were the bases for its emergence. It is possible to derive the further hypothesis that the

motivational structure of the participants of the subculture displays characteristics similar to those described by Cohen.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have critically examined Cohen's monograph for its implications for theory and method. The problems raised in the first part of our critique cannot be re- solved by logical argumentation. Indeed, we have suggested that insofar as they are consequences of the historical method, research to test the validity of Cohen's statements, as a practical matter, is impossible. If, however, the theory of the delinquent subculture is read for its heuristic value, its significance for theory and research is not limited to the field of juvenile delinquency, but extends to the more general problem of the dynamics of subcultural maintenance.

THE SKIDDER: IDEOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENTS OF DOWNWARD MOBILE WORKERS *

HAROLD L. WILENSKY AND HUGH EDWARDS

University of Michigan

Variations in class ideology among 495 workers in a homogenous factory sample suggest that the experiences preceding and accompanying downward occupational mobility make the skidder more conservative than workers in his class of destination. Such conservatism is most widespread among older worklife skidders but is found also among young intergenera- tional skidders. Data support the following explanation: early or retrospective socialization in family, school, and/or white collar workgroup leads the status-deprived to deny failure and strive for success. Middle-class perspectives retain their force despite the working-class milieu. The later socialization and anticipatory socialization hypotheses are rejected. Conditions which might move the skidder to a more radical response are suggested. The study again stresses the need to take account of types of mobility and aspirations in research on the impact of mobility.

THIS is a secondary analysis of data from a study of two large factories in a small Midwestern city.' It seeks to

demonstrate that in a period of prosperity

(1) downward occupational mobility ("skid- ding") has a conservative impact on values and beliefs regarding the stratification order among urban workers; but (2) the strength of the relationship between mobility and ideology varies with age, type of mobility, and aspirations (situs versus stratum). Al- ternative explanations of the skidder's conservatism are tested. In the manner of Som- bart's Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? 2 the analysis underscores one cultural constraint on political extremism-

* Revision of paper read in part at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, Au- gust, 1958.

1 Field work was conducted by the Survey Re- search Center of the University of Michigan in the Fall of 1951. The original study used a long ques- tionnaire administered to all non-supervisory personnel on company time. It was directed by Gerald M. Mahoney, Gerald Gurin, and Seymour Lieber- man. We are grateful to Angus Campbell, Director of the Center, for access to the data, and to Jacob J. Feldman and Gerhard E. Lenski for many helpful suggestions.

2 Werner Sombart, Warum gibh esinden Vere- ingten staaten keinen Sozialismus? Tibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1906.



Documents

Delinquent Boys: A Critique