Structural strain theories see deviance as the product of a delinquent subculture with different values from those of mainstream society

They see subcultures as providing an alternative opportunity structure for those who are denied the chance to achieve by legitimate means - mainly those in the working class.

From this point of view, subcultures are a solution to a problem and therefore functional for their members, even if not for wider society.

Subcultural strain theories both criticise Merton's theory and build it

Albert.K. Cohen (1955) agrees with Merton that deviance is largely a lower-class phenomenon

It results from the inability of those in the lower classes to achieve mainstream success goals by legitimate means such as educational achievement

1) Merton sees deviance as an individual response to strain, ignoring the fact that much deviance is committed in or by groups, especially among the young

2) Merton focuses on utilitarian crime committed for material gain, such as theft or fraud. He largely ignores crimes such as assault and vandalism, which may have no economic motive.

According to Cohen, the subculture's values are spite, malice, hostility and contempt for those outside it.

The delinquent subculture inverts the values of mainstream society - turns them upside down.

One strength of Cohen's theory is that it offers an explanation of non-utilitarian deviance.

Unlike Merton, whose concept of innovation only accounts for crime with a profit motive, Cohen's ideas of status frustration, value inversion and alternative status hierarchy help to explain non-economic delinquency such as vandalism and truancy

However, like Merton, Cohen assumes that working-class boys start sharing middle-class success goals, only to reject these when they fail.

Cloward and Ohlin attempt to explain why different subcultural responses occur.

In their view, the key reason is not only unequal access to the legitimate opportunity structure, as Merton and Cohen recognise - but unequal access to illegitimate opportunity structures.

For example, not everyone who fails by legitimate means, such as schooling, then has an equal chance of becoming a successful safecracker.

Just like the apprentice plumber, the would-be safecracker needs to opportunity to learn their trade and the chance to practice.

Criminal subcultures:

Provide youths with an apprenticeship for a career in utilitarian crime.

They arise only in neighbourhoods with a longstanding and stable criminal culture with an established hierarchy of professional adult crime.

This allows the young to associate with adult criminals, who can select those with the right aptitudes and abilities and provide them with training and role models as well as opportunities for employment on the criminal career ladder.

Conflict subcultures:

Arise in areas of high population turnover.

This results in high levels of social disorganisation and prevents a stable professional criminal network developing.

Its absence means that the only illegitimate opportunities available are within loosely organised gangs

In these, violence provides a release for young men's frustration at their blocked opportunities, as well as an alternative source of status that they can earn by winning 'turf' (territory) from rival gangs

This subculture is closest to that described by Cohen.

They agree with Merton and Cohen that most crime is working class, thus ignoring crimes of the wealthy.

Similarly, their theory over-predicts the amount of working-class crime.

Like Merton and Cohen, they ignore the wider power structure, including who makes and enforces the law.

While they agree with Cohen that delinquent subcultures are the source of much deviance, unlike Cohen they provide an explanation for different types of working-class deviance in terms of different subcultures.

However, they draw the boundaries too sharply between these.

For example, South (2020) found that the drug trade is a mixture of both 'disorganised' crime, like the conflict subculture, and professional 'mafia' style criminal subcultures.

Likewise, some supposedly 'retreatist' users are also professional dealers making a living from this utilitarian crime.

In Cloward and Ohlin's theory, it would not be possible to belong to more than one of these subcultures.

Although Miller agrees that deviance is widespread in the lower class, he argues that this arises out of an attempt to achieve their own goals, not mainstream ones.

David Matza (1964) claims that most delinquents are not strongly committed to their subculture, as strain theories suggest, but merely drift in and out of delinquency.

Strain theory has had a major influence both on later theories of crime and on government policy.

For example, Merton's ideas play an important part in left realist explanations of crime.

Similarly, in the 1960s Ohlin was appointed to help develop crime policy in the USA under President Kennedy.

Recent strain theorists have argued that young people may pursue a variety of goals other than money success.

These include popularity with peers, autonomy from adults, or the desire of some young males to be treated like 'real men'.

Like earlier strain theorists, they argue that failure to achieve these goals may result in delinquency.

They also argue that middle-class juveniles too may have problems achieving such goals, thus offering an explanation for middle-class delinquency.

In America (and arguably the UK, economic goals are valued above all, and this undermines other institutions.

For example, schools have become geared to preparing pupils for the labour market at the expense of inculcating values such as respect for others.

Messner and Rosenfield conclude that in societies based on free-market capitalism and lacking adequate welfare provision, such as the USA, high crime rates are inevitable.

Similarly, Savelsberg (1995) applies that strain theory to post-communist societies in Eastern Europe, which saw a rapid rise in crime after the fall of communism in 1989.

He attributes this rise to communism's collective values being replaced by new western capitalist goals of individual 'money success'.

For functionalists, society is based on value consensus, which deviance threatens, but it also performs positive functions such as reinforcing solidarity and adapting to change.

Strain theories argue that deviance occurs when people cannot achieve society's goals by legitimate means. Merton argues that this produces a 'strain to anomie' that may result in innovation, ritualism, retreatism or rebellion

Structural theories see much deviance as a collective rather than individual response. A.K. Cohen argues that subcultural deviance results from status frustration and takes a non-utilitarian form.

Cloward and Ohlin see three different deviant subcultures (criminal, conflict and retreatist) arising from differences in access to illegitimate opportunity structures.

Recent strain theorists argue that capitalist economies generate greater strain to crime.