Delinquent Subcultures, Control Theory and the Dark Figure of Crime

Explaining figures that are incomplete

You have met three explanations already. Merton asked why people break rules and answered with strain. Becker asked who gets called a rule-breaker. Heidensohn asked who is prevented from breaking rules at all. The two theorists in this module slot into that conversation rather than starting a new one. Albert Cohen, writing in 1955, is answering Merton: he takes blocked opportunity seriously and asks what young people do about the frustration it produces. Carlen, writing in 1988, is answering Heidensohn: she agrees that control matters and adds the dimension Heidensohn does not carry, which is class. Saying which earlier theorist each one is answering is worth doing in an exam, because it shows you understand a debate rather than a list. And then the last part of this topic does something none of the others do. It asks whether the crime statistics all of these theories are explaining actually show what happened, and the answer turns out to be no.

Words for subcultures and data

Five terms. The first two are Cohen's, writing in 1955; the next two are Carlen's, writing in 1988.

Match the idea to what it explains

Whose question does Cohen answer

Cohen argues that young people who share mainstream goals but find the routes blocked experience status frustration and may seek status another way. Which earlier account is he extending?

• Merton's, because both begin from goals that are shared and means that are blocked
• Becker's, because both are about how people come to be seen as deviant
• Heidensohn's, because both are about control
• None, because subcultural theory is unrelated to the others

What Carlen adds

Both are control theorists writing about women and offending, so the useful question is not what they have in common but what the later account adds.

Which two are true of the deals

Select the TWO statements that accurately describe Carlen's account.

• Conformity is framed as something offered in return for something, rather than as simple obedience
• Offending becomes more viable when a deal is unavailable or turns out to be illusory
• It argues that anyone without those deals will certainly commit crime
• It replaces control theory with an economic explanation instead

What the figures cannot show

Here is the thing that makes this the last part of the topic rather than an extra. Every theory you have met explains a pattern in recorded crime: who appears in the figures, and why. But the figures are not a record of what happened. A crime enters them only if somebody reports it and an official records it, and a great deal never clears both of those steps. Victims may not realise a crime occurred, may not think reporting worthwhile, may fear the consequences, or may know the person responsible. That unknown remainder is the dark figure, and its size is unknown by definition. Two consequences follow, and both are worth marks. First, a rise or fall in recorded crime can mean a change in offending, or a change in reporting, or a change in recording, and you cannot tell which from the number alone. Second, when a theory explains why one group appears more often in the statistics, you have to ask whether the figures are showing offending or showing attention. That does not make the theories worthless. It means every claim built on the numbers needs the caveat attached, and the strongest answers attach it without abandoning the argument.

The dark figure in a sentence

Official crime statistics count an offence only if it is first _____ and then _____ by an official. Everything that clears neither step is the _____ figure of crime, and its size is unknown by _____. So a change in the recorded numbers may reflect a change in offending, or a change in reporting, and from the number alone you _____ tell which.

The claim that trusts the numbers

Three of these sentences treat crime statistics carefully. Select the ONE that treats them as a complete record of what happened.

• Recorded offences of this kind rose last year, though that may reflect increased reporting rather than more offending.
• The figures show which crimes were reported and recorded, which is not the same as which were committed.
• The statistics prove that this group commits more crime than any other.
• A group that attracts more official attention may appear more often in the figures without offending more.

How an offence reaches the statistics

Put the stages in order. An offence has to clear every one of them to appear in the official figures.

• An offence takes place
• Somebody realises that it has taken place
• They decide it is worth reporting, and report it
• An official decides it meets the criteria and records it
• It appears in the published statistics

A paragraph with the caveat

A question asks how far sociological theories explain differences in offending between groups. Here is a paragraph that would score well. Cohen argued that where mainstream goals are shared but the routes to them are blocked, status frustration follows and status may be sought through a subculture instead, which offers one explanation of why offending is not evenly spread. Carlen approached a different pattern by asking what conformity is offered in return, and argued that where the class deal and the gender deal are unavailable or illusory, one reason for keeping to the rules is removed. Both accounts, however, are explaining patterns in recorded crime, and recorded crime is not a full record of offending, since an offence appears only if it is both reported and recorded. It can therefore be argued that some of what these theories explain is a pattern in official attention rather than in behaviour, and that the honest position is to treat the figures as evidence to be interpreted rather than as a count. Notice four moves. Each theorist is attributed. Each is used to answer the question rather than described. The caveat is attached without abandoning the argument. And the judgement follows from both halves rather than arriving from outside.

Writing about a live argument in sociology

A question asks you to assess arguments about how young offenders should be dealt with. What does the answer need to do?

• Set out what each side argues, attributed to those who hold it, before reaching a reasoned judgement
• State which approach is right and explain why the other is mistaken
• Avoid any judgement, because the topic is controversial
• Report what newspapers say about it, since that is public opinion

Reading the crime figures

You are given a report saying recorded offences of one kind have risen sharply. Take the decisions in order.

• What is the first thing to establish about the rise?
• The report notes that one group appears in the figures more often. How should that be treated?
• You want to use a theory to explain the pattern. Which is a defensible use?
• The report is discussed in a newspaper article. What does this topic ask you to do with that?

Explain the theories and the data

Explain how subcultural and control theories account for differences in offending, and assess how far crime statistics can support such accounts. Attribute every position and name no party, politician or newspaper.

• Explain status frustration and how a delinquent subculture is said to follow from it
• Say which earlier theorist Cohen is extending, and why that placement is defensible
• Explain Carlen's two deals and what happens when either is unavailable
• Explain what Carlen adds to Heidensohn's account rather than repeating it
• Explain what the dark figure of crime is and why its size cannot be known
• Explain why a rise in recorded crime does not by itself show a rise in offending
• Reach a judgement about how far these theories can be supported by official statistics