Subculture theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The subculture theory is a criminal-sociological approach that explains norm-deviating behavior from group membership. This means that it has no forecast value for the individual case. The versions of this theory all come from the tradition of the Chicago School of Sociology .

The basic assumption of the theory is that social subcultures ( subcultures ) differ in needs, behavior, values ​​and norms from the respective main culture ( middle class culture ) in such a way that criminal acts are almost inevitable. The protagonists of the criminological subculture theory gained their knowledge from the observation of urban gangs of young men, whereby the criminological explanation remained limited.

In the course of the formation of criminological theory, the term neutralization was opposed to this approach.

Thrasher / Whyte and Cohen

Frederic Milton Thrasher (1927), William F. Whyte (1943) and, with the greatest impact on textbook criminology, Albert K. Cohen (1957) explained the accumulation of delinquency in certain neighborhoods by the fact that in these territories youth gangs with deviating values ​​and Standard structures act. The deviations are to be understood as a reaction to middle class expectations, which young men from the lower class cannot meet. Subcultural groups are then "substitute societies" for the satisfaction of community needs.

They describe the emergence of subcultures as spontaneous and unplanned - in stark contrast to associations, which have to be preceded by a planning phase. The formation suggests the character of the founders and participants. Your whole worldview is determined by the moment and the desire not to have any responsibilities or obligations. So that a sense of community can develop in this group, certain activities and reactions are emphasized, which serve to stabilize the group. Mutual stimulation occurs as part of these activities, which are understood to mean hanging around and / or playing together. In this way, a common code of conduct is worked out by which the group members can recognize each other. The different bands can be differentiated according to certain criteria: It is the group structure and age structure:

Breakdown according to the group structure

Those associations that are characterized by brief solidarity and a loose group structure are referred to as diffuse and amorphous gangs. The consensus on leadership is low. Established and consolidated gangs are characterized by a high level of loyalty and group morale. Conventional gangs are formed by outsiders and they have a formal structure (membership fees, elections, etc.), so their members are adapted. As soon as control wears off or is no longer there, destructive and demoralizing influences emerge. Criminal gangs arise when the older gang members cannot be integrated into society as a whole.

Breakdown according to age structure

Children's gangs are characterized by a diffuse organization in the neighborhood, i. h .: that it is a non-binding association within a playgroup. Youth gangs are better organized than children's gangs. But they are just as local, i.e. focused on the street corner. They are unsupervised and semi-delinquent, and this is where the development of professional criminals begins.

Adult gangs are organized in club form and their activities are diverse. Conflicts play a comparatively minor role. One specific type is the criminal type.

The differentiation is particularly interesting in this approach. The group structure plays an important role because it is causally determined by the objectives of the members. However, this objective is also related to age. Age and goal setting influence each other. The question of whether the group’s goals are enforced by criminal means also depends on the group’s laws, which in turn are determined by the members. It should also be noted that Trasher / Whyte provide a rough grid for classifying youth groups. Certainly there are also groups that fulfill certain characteristics of one assignment as well as another.

Yinger

Even John Milton Yinger grappled with the issue of subcultures and their description. Yinger, the term subculture is not differentiated enough. By this term he generally understands subculture: normative systems within the majority society, preculture (inclusion of the biological basis) and the contra culture. His merit lies in the contra culture he describes. Yinger differentiated the subcultures in a different way than Trasher and Whyte did. Yinger puts the so-called conflict issue in the foreground. The subcultures differentiate whether there is any conflict issue at all, and if so, which one. Certain groups first of all distance themselves from society.

They are characterized by various things: clothing, language and rules of conduct. A subculture that the majority society is aware of, but has no confrontation with, is called the Yinger subculture. As soon as a dispute, a conflict occurs between the group and the majority society, Yinger speaks of a contra culture. The group, which is considered to be a counter-culture, is influenced by the confrontation with society in such a way that, as a result of this conflict, it turns away from society and differentiates itself independently according to its own preferences. In addition, Yinger strives for an analytical distinction between roles and subcultures. He explains that roles are known and recognized by almost every citizen. Subcultures, however, do not.

Yablonsky

In 1962, Lewis Yablonsky developed the concept of the "near group" as a supplement to the earlier versions of subculture theory. This form of group organization is flexible in relation to the respective needs of the group members and can act as a temporary liberation from the prevailing norms of society as a whole. This applies in particular to young people who, due to deficits in their socialization, are unable to stay in highly structured groups.

The idea of ​​the near group represents a middle ground between an undefined and unstructured group on the one hand and a highly structured, cohesive group on the other hand. The concept of a near group is defined by loosely structured in a specific organizational form. In this a spontaneous interaction takes place.

Yablonski describes this form of group organization in its function as flexible towards the needs of the group and it can represent a temporary release from the prevailing norms of society as a whole, especially for young people who, due to deficits in their socialization, are unable to participate in structured groups tend. The characteristics of a “near group” are as follows: Membership is inconsistent and changeable. The definition of roles is also changeable because it depends on the needs of the moment. The membership criteria are similarly unpredictable.

The definition of expectations towards members is just as limited as accountability and sociability as requirements for membership. The leadership is self-appointed and often changing and unexplained. In addition, there is limited cohesion with increasing distance from the center. There is limited consensus on functions, goals and norms. The shift system is changing and personalized. The number of members is unclear; members are drawn into the imagination of the participants. Their behavior is also emotionalized. You are in conflict with the rules of the system. Yablonski distinguishes between the following organizational levels of the "near group": 1st level: leader, 2nd level: followers and 3rd level outsiders (within the group).

Miller

Walter B. Miller turned against such an understanding of subculture in 1959. The formation of subcultural associations is not a reaction to the main culture, but the result of adherence to a specific lower class culture. Young people who persisted would inevitably come into conflict with the law.

literature

  • Frederic Milton Thrasher (with George W. Knox): The Gang. A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago , (first edition 1927), Second revised Edition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2013, ISBN 978-0-226-79930-8 .
  • William F. Whyte; The Street Corner Society (first edition 1943), Berlin / New York: de Gruyter 1996, ISBN 3-11-012259-6 .
  • Albert K. Cohen: Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang , 1957 (in German translation: Kriminelle Jugend. On the sociology of juvenile gangs , Reinbek near Hamburg 1961)
  • Walter B. Miller: The culture of the lower class as a genesis environment for gang endelinquency , in: Fritz Sack / René König , Kriminalsoziologie , 3rd edition, Frankfurt am Main 1979, ISBN 3-400-00126-0 , pp. 339-359.
  • Lewis Yablonsky: The Violent Gang , 1962.
  • John Milton Yinger: Contraculture and Subculture , in: American Sociological Review 25, 1960, pp. 625-635, JSTOR 2090136 .