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. 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.

(a) Examine the evolution of strain theory. (20 marks)

2.3.1 Classical Theory- Strain Theory
The Strain Theory (developed in 1938 by R. Merton) states that when an individual is
not able to achieve his/her path by legitimate ways, the only option available is to go
into delinquency. People can use other mechanism of defence by venting their anger
and in result they may recourse to illegal channels of achievement. As far as young
adolescents are concerned, they are more interested in short term goals rather than
long-term goals (Coleman. 1961; Elliott and Voss, 1974; Greenberg. 1977; Quicker
1974) and in achieving immediate goals. Furthermore, Strain Theory explains
immediate goals as related to middle-class delinquency as unrestrained by social
class (Elliott and Voss, 1974). Individuals try to get the best of both world by stepping
in reward seeking and try to avoid punishment.
The endeavour to achieve concert goals is parallel to the attempt to escape painful
situation, which is being blocked (Zillman, 1979). For instance, the resistance of
teenagers to find school interesting may become a barrier for them to quit school.
The process of omitting the real pain-avoidance feeling and behaviour of teenagers
may become a source of resentment for them. In addition, more agonised feeling
like aggression can arise while these feelings of pain and avoidance are being
suppressed when the individual feels that the scenario is uncompliant (Zillman,
1979).
The Strain Theory underlines the link between the aversive experiences and
delinquency. Morris (1964) argues on how the relational expectation of female often
collide with the contentions of the family. According to Morris (1964) in every
 scenario, the aversive obstacle leads to delinquency because it interferes with the
achievement of valued goals. Firstly, adolescents who are placed in adverse situation
may resort to delinquency. In order to escape the difficult situation, they may resort
to solution to discard the toxic environment or the cause of the adversity. When it
becomes difficult from breaking off the adverse situation, the adolescent becomes
frustrated may become angry and they might lash out in rage. The second argument
focuses on the emotional aspect of the issue. Apart from the role of pain-avoidance
in encouraging deviant behaviors, there are several factors influencing the individual
to act in a certain way. The factors affecting adolescent’s deviant way of behaving
include the influence of delinquent peers, whether if any violent trigger is present,
the degree of punishment for delinquent act and the social control exerted on
adolescent. By investigating the effects of aversion resulting in delinquency, it is
important to take into consideration the control for the variables of social control
and deviant beliefs.

(b) What are the assumptions made by strain theory? (5 marks)

Most of the revisions challenge the assumption that monetary success or middle-class status
is the primary goal of adolescents. Certain theories attempt to specify altemative goals that
adolescents pursue (Marwell; Morris). The general theme of most revisions, however, is that
adolescents may pursue a variety of goals and that goal commitment should be consid- ered
a variable rather than a given (Elliott and Voss; Elliott et al.; Green- berg,a; Simon and
Gagnon). Such an approach allows these theories to explain middle-class delinquency. If
goal commitment is a variable, one can argue that the middle class has higher aspirations
and this offsets whatever advantage they might have in achieving goals (for examples, see
Elliott and Voss; Mizruchi).

While most revisions state or imply that goal commitment is a vari- able, they also suggest
that adolescents will be more interested in the achievement of immediate goals rather than
long-range goals like mone- tary success (Coleman; Elliott and Voss; Empey; Greenberg,a;
Quicker). The immediate goals of adolescents may include such things as popularity with
peers, good grades, doing well in athletics, and getting along with parents. (This focus on
immediate goals has been explained in terms of the special structural position of
adolescents in our society (Coleman; Greenberg,a)). Focusing on immediate goals also
allows strain theory to explain middle-class delinquency, since the achievement of many
immedi- ate goals may be independent of social class (see Elliott and Voss). In addition, the
focus on immediate goals allows strain theory to explain away those findings dealing with
the disjunction between aspirations and expectations. Studies in this area focus on future
goals like occupational status. If such goals are unimportant to the adolescent, then we
would not expect the disjunction between aspirations and expectations to be related to
delinquency. A disjunction between immediate goals and the achieve- ment of these goals,
however, might result in much delinquency. Other revisions have been made in strain
theory. Much work, in particular, has focused on the factors which may condition the link
be- tween strain and delinquency (see especially Elliott et al.). Nevertheless, the major
suggested revision is that we treat goal commitment as a vari-able and focus on the
immediate goals of the adolescent.

(c) Critically examine the relevance of the statement ‘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

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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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.

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 [CITATION Ake13 \t \l
1033 ]. 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 [ CITATION
Mer38 \l 1033 ].

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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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.
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 [CITATION
Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ].

Along the same lines as the Boston Mid-City Project, New York City implemented the
Mobilization for Youth project[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ]. 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[CITATION Ake13 \t \l 1033 ].

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 [CITATION
Pro13 \l 1033 ]. 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[CITATION Pro13 \l 1033 ].

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.

Moreover the subculture deviant theory have emerged from the Strain theory , where
Cohen (1965) elaborated on how most juvenile criminals normally comes from delinquent
subcultures and it result from young people’s adaptation to their status resulting from
inequalities of the social-classes. As mentioned by Cohen, the delinquent subcultures are
recognized by the anti-social values and morals they ascribed to seek validation. However,
classical theories like Strain Theory were criticized for not being able to elaborate the fact
that most delinquents give up delinquent acts in their late teenage years (Greenberg, a.,
1977; Hirschi 1969.); they can neither justify why these offenders take a break from
committing delinquents acts (Hirschi, 1969); and they might also have ignored many of the
other factors influencing delinquency for instance the consistency of family relations.
Although the validity of the scholars’ argument can be explored further, there are at least
some facts about delinquency that Strain Theory has trouble explaining.
Examine how Agnew broadened the scope of the strain theory developed by Merton.

(20 marks)

Other scholars paved the way for Agnew’s GST. According to Brown, Esbensen, & Geis (2013),
Merton’s explanation of criminal behavior “has been acclaimed as one of the most influential
developments in the study of crime and deviance” (p. 271). Merton’s explanation of crime was very
similar to that of Agnew. Merton (1938) opined that “ some social structures exert a definite
pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist
conduct” (p. 672). Like Agnew, Merton believed that American society provided the strain that
instigated crime due to the pressure of unattainable goals it posed for people to reach. According to
Merton (1938):

The extreme emphasis upon the accumulation of wealth as a symbol of success in our own society
militates against the completely effective control of institutionally regulated modes of acquiring a
fortune. Fraud, corruption, vice, crime, in short, the entire catalog of proscribed behavior, becomes
increasingly common when the emphasis on the culturally induced success-goal becomes divorced
from a coordinated institutional emphasis (p. 675-676).

Merton, like his predecessors believed that the availability of wealth was separated by the social
classes as well. Merton (1938) contended that:
Antisocial behavior is in a sense “called forth” by certain conventional values of the culture and by
the class structure involving differential access to the approved opportunities for legitimate,
prestige-bearing pursuit of the culture goals. The lack of high integration between the means-and-
end elements of the culture role pattern and the particular class structure combined to favor a
heightened frequency of antisocial conduct in such groups. (p. 679).

Even though Merton believed in wealth being separated by class structure, he differed in the sense
of where the strain was focused. Merton (1938) argued:
The actual advance toward desired success-symbols through conventional channels is, despite our
persisting open-class ideology, relatively rare and difficult for those handicapped by little formal
education and few economic resources. The dominant pressure of group standards of success is,
therefore, on the gradual attenuation of legitimate, but by in large and effective, strivings and the
increasing use of illegitimate, but more or less effective, expedience of vice and crime (p. 679).

According to Agnew (1992) “Strain theory is distinguished from social control and social learning
theory in its specification of (1) the type of social relationship that leads to delinquency and (2) the
motivation for delinquency” (p. 48).

General Strain theory shares beliefs similar to other theories within the social structure genre.
Agnew argued that these theories “explain delinquency in terms of the individual’s social
relationships” (Agnew, 1992, p. 48). Agnew (1992) states that “Strain theory focuses explicitly on
negative relationships with others: relationships in which the individual is not treated how he or she
wants to be treated. Strain theory has typically focused on relationships in which others prevent the
individual from achieving positively valued goals” (p. 48-49). Agnew later broadened the theory to
include “relationships in which others present the individual with noxious or negative stimuli”
(Agnew, 1992, p. 49). GST also asserts that “adolescents are pressured into delinquency by the
negative affective states- most notably anger and related emotions- that often result from negative
relationships” (Agnew, 1992, p. 49). Agnew (1992) argued that “this negative affect creates pressure
for corrective action and may lead adolescents to (1) make use of illegitimate channels of goal
achievement, (2) attack or escape from the source of their adversity, and/or (3) manage their
negative affect through the use of illicit drugs” (p. 49).

Strain and stress are abundant in the lives of people because society places high standards on the
successes of people. Brown, Esbensen, & Geis (2013) discussed the notion that “the structure of
American society creates the lower social echelons, and consequently, explain lower-class crime” (p.
268). These goals are set too high and out of reach for a proportion of society and are “distorted
aspirations, unrealistic desires for attainment, and crass materialism” (Brown et al., 2013, p. 268).
This strain “sets the stage for individual failure, and the search for deviant solutions” (Brown et al.,
2013, p. 268).

In some cases, Brown, Esbensen, & Geis (2013) suggests that “strain may occur when an individual
perceives the reward to be inadequate relative to the effort” (p. 282). This thought process helps
give an overall view of strain and why people who are “stressed out” from their environment might
turn to deviance to accomplish what they want. Brown, Esbensen, and Geis (2013) explain that many
criminologists suggest that they often hear students complain, “But I studied 10 hours for this exam
why didn’t I get an A? Does this question indicate strain? Not in a traditional sense, but under
Agnew’s General Strain theory we can now appreciate why this same student was caught cheating
on the next exam” (p. 282). This example provides evidence that students perceived their reward to
be inadequate to the effort put forth.

Discuss the relevance of either social strain theories or cultural transmission theories in

the study of crime.