ideas drawn from Goode, 1994-2008 chapter 3; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance
and Social Control, 1985. See the disclaimer)
Critique of Strain Theories bringing
into question the idea of consensus.
Thorsten Sellin: Culture Conflict
- Law norms (dominant group)
- Conduct norms (subculture)
- Deviance as a political Reality:
Edwin Sutherland: Differential
Walter Miller: Lower
Class Subculture (view as html)
- Distinctively different from
- Lack of male role models.
- Serial monogamy.
- Alienates male children==>peer
group (gang) formation.
- Centered around their own set
of values and norms:
Evaluation of Miller's Ideas:
- "Delinquent values"
not widely accepted in lower-class
- Underestimates impact and acceptance
of Middle-class values
- Lower-class gang members don't
view delinquent subcultures positively
- Questionable relationship between
broken homes and female headed households and delinquency
Violence and Subculture
What is violence?
- Labeling and approval
- Rioters vs freedom fighters
- Political and ideological factors
- Who is defining?
Covert Institutional Violence
- Lack of attention
- Biological theories-aggression
- Universality? Mead: Arapesh
- Tasaday, Lepcha, Pygmies
- Not universal
- Rates vary--what is it about a
- Degrees tolerated and approved
- Targets (in vs. out groups)(Kaingang)
- Modern Nation State- Out-group
- Intimate--1000's of times more
common than street violence
- The Family as a Violent Institution
- Relationship: stranger=assault,
relative=OK, typically not viewed as violence
Social Image of
Seriousness (140 equals least)(Rossi, et al, 1974)
|Rape former spouse
- Even when death of a victim
is involved; still more lenient attitude toward offender
- Perhaps worse for child abuse
- 300 homicides in Houston:
- Of all killers of relatives-
61% received no penalty
- 53% recevied no penalty if
- 36% no penalty if killed stranger
- Intimate (felony murder becoming
- Stranger: 15-25%
- Family: 13%
- Friends and acquaintances:
- Frequency of interaction
- Intimacy-intensity of emotions
- Importance of attitudes
of those with whom we are involved.
Subculture of violence
- Group norm
- Situationally defined: machismo
- Not all situations, violence
is not valued in and of itself
- Not all=Target--in group vs.
- Link: manhood and violence
- Victim Precipitation
- Both parties accept legitimacy
- Murder transaction
- Assault-no one died
- Victim and perpetrator--similar
pasts: legal troubles, previous fights, alcohol.
- Most of us not participators,
but could/would in right circumstances--Subculture defines appropriateness
(manhood, family, country, etc.)
- Not all situations, degree
- Sub-culture vs. Race and/or
- Structural inequality and changing
perception of life chances and appropriateness of violence
- Jack Katz: Righteous Slaughter--humiliation=>Righteousness=>Rage
Theories: individual, cultural,
- Too restrictive
- Is rape alien to society?
Rapist as different from other men.
- Malamuth asks men: If no chance
of getting caught, would you? 35% yes. Would you use force (vs. rape) 50%
- Proclivity: believe rape myth,
have used force, aroused by tapes of rape--similar results with convicted
Malamuth, et al 1992:
- Proximate causes- attitudes
as above, anger towards women, impersonal sex.
- Distal factors: abused as child,
socially poor and violent parents.
- Economic/Social class
- Age , Region, etc.
"Why don't all men rape?"
- Routine activity
- Target availability
- Defensible space
- Learned- (group rapes) subculture
of rapists: Planning, recreation.
- Sadistic: 5% (rare, sex and
- Anger: 40% (violent, psychological/social
- Power: 55% (contempt, little
force, domination of will, control, sociocultural factors)
Owner: Robert O. Keel firstname.lastname@example.org
Credits for this Page of Notes
Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:37 PM