Strain Theory and Juvenile Gangs

Cody Pennington Dr. Trahan CJUS 5600.001 7-May-2013 Strain Theory and Juvenile Gangs A thorough understanding of criminal theory is the keystone of knowledge to any criminal justice practitioner or policy maker. Policy makers can use the theoretical understanding to design policies that not only address remedies to the current crime problem, but also find the underlying cause of crime. Criminal justice practitioners can use criminological theories to address the cause of crime rather than simply incarcerate offenders. There are four theoretical aspects that any criminal theory must incorporate to be a true theory of crime: correlation, theoretical rationale, time sequence, and an absence of spuriousness (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Correlation has to do with how the theoretical cause of crime leads to the commission of crime. The theoretical rationale explains why the theoretical cause of crime causes the crime. The time sequence must show that the theoretical cause of crime always precedes the crime. The final aspect, the absence of spuriousness, rules out other causes for the crime as the real explanation of crime. One of the major challenges for criminal justice practitioners today are juvenile gangs. Strain Theory is perhaps the best theoretical explanation of the phenomenon of juvenile gang criminal activity. Strain Theory basically states that crime is the result of the strain placed on individuals who are not able to achieve middle class norms through legitimate means. Because they cannot meet those expectations through legitimate means they instead turn to illegitimate means (Akers & Sellers, 2013). In the following essay I will examine the evolution of Strain Theory and how it explains the juvenile gang phenomenon, compare Strain Theory to Aker’s Social Learning Theory, and the policy implications of the theory on juvenile crime. Evolution of Strain Theory The first sociologist to apply Strain Theory to criminal actions in the United States was Robert Merton. Merton’s theory basically states that strain occurs when there is a separation between the cultural goals and the means of obtaining them (Akers & Sellers, 2013). In addition, the cultural goals and means are tailored to middle class norms which the lower classes cannot legitimately achieve. In his 1938 article Merton identified five adaptations of individuals who are not able to achieve the societal goals by legitimate means: conformity, innovation, rebellion, retreatism, and ritualism. In conformity the individual accepts that they are unable to achieve the societal goals and continues to endeavor in the limited opportunities available to them. Innovation sees the individual uses illegitimate means to achieve the societal goals. Those in rebellion reject both the approved means and the societal goals, simply striving for a new system to take its place. Those in retreatism reject the goals and means. The final adaptation is ritualism. Those in ritualism simply have given up on the goals, but continue with the legitimate means (Merton, 1938). Merton would address the problem of criminal juvenile gangs by looking at what they are formed for. For those juveniles who joined a gang to achieve the goal of monetary success, Merton would say they have adapted to strain by innovation. They bond together to commit drug crimes, burglaries, and robberies. If they joined together for the use of drugs or alcohol, Merton would say they have adapted to strain by retreatism. Groups of juveniles who reject the means and goals of society group together under the common bond of substance abuse. After Merton, Albert Cohen took strain theory and explicitly applied it to juvenile gangs. Cohen’s theory splits from Merton’s in that it the strain is not on the ability to achieve material success, but rather it is the strain in the ability to gain status and acceptance (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Cohen examined how the standards of the middle class were imposed on those who are in the lower socio-economic class and how this leads to status deprivation in lower class male youths. He theorized that the formation of delinquent gangs was the result of this status deprivation. The boys who became part of the gangs tended to aspire toward standards that were opposite to those of the middle class (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The delinquent subculture produced by gang involvement as proposed by Cohen explained the crimes committed by gangs that were not done to achieve monetary success. It explained that the individuals in the gang commit crimes such as graffiti to gain respect and status among their delinquent peers. Cloward and Ohlin further modified strain theory by incorporating aspects of social disorganization and differential association. They basically theorized that even when legitimate means are not available it does not mean that illegitimate means are available (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Crime is dependent on the availability of illegitimate means, which means it all comes down to location. Cloward and Ohlin agreed with Cohen’s delinquent subculture hypothesis, but the realized that there were more than one delinquent subculture that juveniles will fall into. The first type of delinquent subculture that they examined was the criminal subculture. The youth gangs that fall into this category are organized to bring in income. They commit offenses which are in line with Merton’s innovation adaptation (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The second type of subculture is the conflict subculture. These gangs act as fight clubs. The youths who fall into this category not only lack legitimate means of success, but also the illegitimate means. They do not have the role models that the criminal subculture has and thus see adults as being weak. They achieve status through violence and bravado. The third subculture identified by Cloward and Ohlin is the retreatist subculture. Those that fall into this category have given up on both the legitimate and illegitimate goals and means and instead retreat into the world of drugs and alcohol. These youths are not good at committing crimes and are also not very good fighters. They gain status by the strength of their drug addiction (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Strain Theory was once again modified following the research of Cloward and Ohlin by Walter Miller. Miller hypothesized that juvenile delinquency was an adaptation to lower class culture. He found that the delinquent youths simply exaggerated the central values of the lower class adults: trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fatalism, and autonomy (Akers & Sellers, 2013). By demonstrating the central values of the lower class adults, in an exaggerated way, lower class youths are able to gain status in delinquent gangs. Strain Theory saw resurgence in popularity in the 1980’s. This renewed interest resulted in two major versions of Strain Theory: Institutional Anomie Theory and General Strain Theory. Messner and Rosenfeld broke down Merton’s culture assumption into four value orientations: achievement, individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The achievement orientation of American society places a person’s worth on what they have monetarily and what they have achieved. The value of individualism puts people in competition with each other to reach the achievement orientation. The value of universalism dictates that everyone in the society strives for the same goals, even though those at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder cannot achieve them. The fetishism of money refers to the value of money in and of itself rather than what can be purchased with the money. These values and the institutional imbalance that the economy has, result in criminal activity as the byproduct of American society. They theorized that crime can be reduced by instituting safeguards against the impact of the economy. Agnew’s General Strain Theory looks at individual level crime rather than the macro-level that Messner and Rosenfeld studied. Agnew looked at deviance as an adaptation to the stress and identified three types of strain that produce deviance (Agnew, 1985). The first strain is the failure to achieve positively valued goals. Here the gap between the aspirations of the individual and the expectations results from unobtainable opportunities and inadequacies of the individual. Furthermore there is a gap between the expectations of the individual and what they achieve that leads to disappointment and resentment. Finally there is a disconnect between what the individual thinks is fair, based on the effort they put in and what they get (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The second type of strain is the removal of positively valued stimuli. This includes all stress inducing events in a juvenile’s life such as the loss of a friend or changing schools. The final type of strain identified by Agnew is the confrontation with negative stimuli (Akers & Sellers, 2013). This includes all the stress inducing life events that involve the juvenile’s conflict with the negative actions of others. This can include the juvenile’s experience with abuse or legal confrontations. As a result of these three types of strain a juvenile will react to them by illegitimate means because they do not have the legitimate means to avoid them (Agnew, 2012). Comparison with Social Learning Theory Akers’ Social Learning Theory has been held as one of the premier criminological theories. When empirically tested against other theories it generally shows more validity than other theories. The central concept of Social Learning Theory is that probability of whether or not a person will engage in deviant behavior is determined by the definitions held by the individual, and the influences upon him, at any given time (Burgess & Akers, 1966). Or put differently, criminal behavior can be predicted by an individual’s beliefs, in a given situation. Akers identified four main concepts in his theory: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (Burgess & Akers, 1966). Differential association states that the greatest effect on behavior comes from the earlier associations that have a longer duration, occur frequently and involve those who one is close to. The second concept that Akers proposes is the concept of definitions. Definitions can best be understood as one’s attitudes and beliefs that affect one’s behavior. The third concept of Social Learning Theory is differential reinforcement. Differential reinforcement can best be thought of as the mental calculus of the pros and cons that result from a particular behavior. The final concept of Social Learning Theory that Akers proposes is imitation. Imitation refers to how an individual will engage in a behavior after seeing others engage in the behavior. Social Learning Theory when compared to Strain Theory comes short of explaining why juveniles commit crime in groups. The concept of differential association seems to fit perfectly into the explanation of this phenomenon as it has been incorporated into the Cloward and Ohlin theory. However this is not the case. Both theories provide the basic assumption that juveniles will associate with like-minded individuals, but it is Strain Theory that gives the best reasoning for it. Juveniles tend to group together and commit crime as a result of the blocked means to achieve the approved societal goals. Social Learning Theory simply proposes that the juvenile learns the criminal activity from those they associate with. It does not provide a motive for the crime which is provided by Strain Theory. Social Learning Theory’s second concept of definitions also falls short in its explanation of juvenile gang crime. Akers give two types of definitions that positively influence crime. The first definition is a positive definition. Positive definitions are those that paint a behavior in positive light (Burgess & Akers, 1966). As a result an individual will more likely engage in behaviors that result from positive definitions. The second category of definitions are the neutralizing definitions. Positive definitions look at behavior as desirable, neutralizing definitions simply rationalize them (Burgess & Akers, 1966). Strain Theory better explains juvenile gangs because it does not have an emphasis on whether or not the juveniles believe what they are doing is right, they simply are using the only means they have available to accomplish their goals. The third concept of Social Learning Theory is differential reinforcement. It basically explains that crime commission will be dependent on if the individual’s past experience with the crime in which they are currently faced with committing and what they will gain or lose as a result of committing the crime (Burgess & Akers, 1966). This has no real bearing on crimes committed by juvenile gangs. It cannot account for the initial crime when the individual has no experience. In Strain Theory experience does not have any bearing and better explains juvenile gang crime. Gangs will graffiti as a result of the strain placed on them for not being able to meet the expectations of society. They have nothing to really gain by committing the offense; it is simply a means to achieve the ends provided by the delinquent subculture. The final concept of Social Learning Theory that Akers proposes is imitation. Imitation refers to how an individual will engage in a behavior after seeing others engage in the behavior (Burgess & Akers, 1966). Even within Social Learning Theory imitation is the least supported of the concepts (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979). In the context of juvenile gang crime imitation can play a role in inoculating the individual in the subcultural norms. Individual members will imitate established members to achieve the goals of the subculture. This runs into a temporal order problem because it cannot address the starting point to the imitated behavior. It simply cannot establish when the behavior first began. Strain Theory does not do a much better job here. Policy Implications The main policy implication for Strain Theory are in the form of enhancing the economic opportunities of lower class, providing training programs for juveniles who are at risk of joining gangs, and working with delinquent gangs to integrate societal goals and means. The first major policy implemented was the Boston Mid-City Project in the 1950’s (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The project was designed to combat delinquency in central Boston. The project provided a detached worker to work with gangs to ease delinquency. The detached worker acted as a role model for the juveniles in the gangs and tried to emphasize how members could use the conventional means to obtain the goals of conventional society. They tried to accomplish this by getting juveniles involved in community activities. The project was not successful because of conflicts with the agencies that were involved in the implementation of the project (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Along the same lines as the Boston Mid-City Project, New York City implemented the Mobilization for Youth project (Akers & Sellers, 2013). The main goal of the project was to decrease delinquent gangs by opening up the block opportunities that were thought to cause strain and lead to the delinquency. The program provided job opportunities, technical skills training, and educational training along with the implementation of detached workers to work directly with the gangs. Like the Boston Mid-City Project, the Mobilization for Youth project was doomed due to conflicts among community groups that resulted in the termination of the project. Neither of the projects achieved the goal of preventing delinquency through social structure change (Akers & Sellers, 2013). Perhaps the most successful of the programs that address the limited opportunities available to lower class youth is the US Job Corps. Job Corps was founded by Sargent Shriver to offer career development to at risk youths and prepare them for career success (Progam Design, 2013). Job Corps offers GED training and vocational training to increase employability of the enrolled young people. The Job Corps has been successful in providing opportunities to lower class youths who would have been at serious risk of gang related delinquency. It provides individuals enrolled the means to achieve the conventional goals of society (Progam Design, 2013). In conclusion, Strain Theory is perhaps the best theory to explain the phenomenon of juvenile gang crime. It is through the application of stress and strain over the inability to achieve the conventional goals of society that leads some juveniles to try and achieve the goals by criminal means. Social Learning Theory is lacking in how it would explain juvenile gang crimes, however Strain Theory is able to explain the phenomenon fully. The best way to combat the formation of juvenile gangs is to redistribute the opportunities within society so they do not only favor the middle and upper classes. Unfortunately, this type of societal overhaul is unlikely. Programs such as the Job Corps have had a positive impact on lower class youth by opening up opportunities they would not have had and giving them the legitimate means to achieve the goals of society. Other programs have had limited success in decreasing delinquency.  Works Cited Progam Design. (2013, March 20). Retrieved May 6, 2013, from Job Corps Website: http://www.jobcorps.gov/AboutJobCorps/program_design.aspx Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64(1), 151-167. Agnew, R. (2012). Reflection on "a revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 91(1), 33-38. Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (6th ed.). New York City: Oxford University Press. Akers, R., Krohn, M., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636-655. Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147. Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(1), 672-682. Pennington 10