■'V-^H^^ ^^
vÚt
.. .When we speak o f a delinquent subculí ture, we speak of a way of life that has somts.^--* how become traditional among certain groups in American society. These groups«^ are the boys' gangs that flourish mostcgo-M' spicuously in the "delinquency neighbor-*, hoods" of our larger American cities Toe? ^ members of these gangs grow up, some.lĽkjKs become law-abiding citizens and othersto^a graduate to more professional and adnlfep forms of criminality, but the delinquentttó-|| diüon is kept alive by the age-groups thal< succeed them. This book is an attempt Bft answer some important questions abotítgg this delinquent subculture. . ..
Chapter 17 ♦ Delinquent Bays    187
jSyhy Is there sucn a subculture? Why is it r to be "taken over"? Why does it have ;ular content that it does and why
Bere'
tflistnbuted as it is within our social sys-'*"? Why does it arise and persist, as it X m such dependable fashion in certain ^a-hborhoods 0f our American cities? fivdoes it not "diffuse" to other areas and other classes of our population....
y
•"Action Is Problem-Solving
iur point of departure is the "psycho-íť' assumption that all human action— nt4*ehnquency alone—is an ongoing series foforts to solve problems. By "problems" £&o not only mean the worries and dilem-nas that bring people to the psychiatrist iui the psychological clinic. Whether or jji'to accept a proffered drink, which of ltjfb.es to buy, what to do about the unex-|scted guest or the "F" in algebra are prob-s too They all involve, until they are reed a certain tension, a disequilibrium i a challenge. We hover between doing . not doing, doing this or doing that, iiyiig it one way or doing it another. Each 3ce is an act, each act is a choice. Not act is a successful solution, for our ijofee may leave us with unresolved tends or generate new and unanticipated consequences which pose new problems, 1 £is at least an attempt at a solution. On Dther hand, not every problem need spy distress, anxiety, bedevilment. Most "oblems are familiar and recurrent and we Swat hand for them ready solutions, ha-Bířual modes of action which we have found cacious and acceptable both to our-Elves and to our neighbors. Other probst however, are not so readily resolved. Sey persist, they nag, and they press for vel solutions....
j?e seek, if possible, solutions which will |tífe old problems and not create new ^scA first requirement, then, of a wholly čeptable solution is that it be acceptable Äthose on whose cooperation and good '■ we are dependent. This immediately Poses sharp limits on the range of cre-
JttVity and innovation. Our dependence
i
upon our social milieu provides us with a strong incentive to select our solutions from among those already established and known to be congenial to our fellows....
We see then why, both on the levels of overt action and of the supporting frame of reference, there are powerful incentives not to deviate from the ways established in our groups. Should our problems be not capable of solution in ways acceptable to our groups and should they be sufficiently pressing, we are not so likely to strike out on our own as we are to shop around for a group with a different subculture, with a frame of reference we find more congenial. One fascinating aspect of the social process is the continual realignment of groups, the migration of individuals from one group to another in the unconscious quest for a social milieu favorable to the resolution of their problems of adjustment
How Snbcultural Solutions Arise
Now we confront a dilemma and a paradox. We have seen how difficult it is far the individual to cut loose from the culture models in his milieu, how his dependence upon his fellows compels him to seek conformity and to avoid innovation. But these models and precedents which we call the surrounding culture are ways in which other people think and otherpeople act, and these other people are likewise constrained by models in their milieux. These models themselves, however, continually change. How is it possible for cultural innovations to emerge while each of the participants in the culture is so powerfully motivated to conform to what is already established? This is the central theoretical problem of this book.
The crucial condition for the emergence of new cultural forms is the existence, in effective interaction with one another, of a number of actors with similar problems of adjustment. These may be the entire membership of a group or only certain members, similarly circumstanced, within the group. Among the conceivable solutions "to their problems may be one which is not yet em-
188    Part V + Anomic/Strain Theories of Crime
bodied in action and which does not therefore exist as a cultural model. This solution, except for the fact that it does not already-carry the social criteria of validity and promise the social rewards of consensus, might well answer more neatly to the problems of this group and appeal to its members more effectively than any of the solutions already institutionalized. For each participant, this solution would be adjusüve and adequately motivated provided that he could anticipate a simultaneous and corresponding transformation in the frames of reference of his fellows. Each would welcome a sign from ■ the others that a new departure in this direction would receive approval and support. But how does one know whether a gesture toward innovation will strike a responsive and sympathetic chord in others or whether it will elicit hostility, ridicule and punishment? Potential concurrence is always problematical and innovation or the impulse to innovate a stimulus for anxiety. The paradox is resolved when the innovation is broached in such a manner as to elicit from others reactions suggesting their receptivity; and when, at the same time, the innovation occurs by increments so small, tentative and ambiguous as to permit the actor to retreat, if the signs be unfavorable, without having become identified with an unpopular position. Perhaps all social actions have, in addition to their instrumental, communicative and expressive functions, this quality of being exploratory gestures. For the actor with problems of adjustment which cannot be resolved within the frame of reference of the established culture, each response of the other to what the actor says and does is a clue to the directions in which change may proceed further in a way congenial to the other and to the direction in which change will lacksocial support. And if the probing gesture is motivated by tensions common to other participants it is likely to initiate a process of mutual exploration sad joint elaboration of a new solution. My exploratory gesture functions as a cue to you; your exploratory gesture as a cue to me, ...
' The final product, to which we are iom«' committed, is likely to be a compromiser! mation of all .the participants to what may call a cultural process, a formation n"" haps unanticipated by any of them      *
Subcultural Solutions to Status Problems
3
4

One variant of this cultural process inte ests us especially because it provides fh m odel for our explanation of the delinqüei subculture. Status problems are problem, of achieving respect in the eyes of ones fe] lows. Our ability to achieve status depend upon the criteria of status applied by "by fellows, that is, the standards or normstiie go by in evaluating people. These cri^ti are an aspect of their cultural frames of jj3 erence. If we lack the characteristics orícg pacities which give status in terms ofthÉ criteria, we are beset by one of the mosttyn ical and yet distressing of human probleôS of adjustment. One solution is formdiVidu als who share such problems to gravitateto ward one another and jointly to estah!i$] new norms, new criteria of status whichdá fine as meritorious the charactensbcsiHS do possess, the ldnds of conduct of Whig! they are capable. It is clearly necessary £ each participant, if the innovation nsJi solve his status problem, that these neutói teria be shared with others, that the sUlu tion be a group and not a private soluüarßä he "goes it alone" he succeeds only uifffl ther estranging himself from his feUáitóä Such new status criteria would repreien new subcultUral values different fronty] even antithetical to those of the larger Sü8ä system. ...                                         S^'
Insofar as the new subculture represent; a new status system sanctioning behavioi tabooed or frowned upon by the largersarf ety, the acquisition of status within thenefl group is accompanied by a loss of status outside the group. To the extent that Üie-üff teem of outsiders is a value to the member! of the group, a new problem is engendered To this problem the typical solution is to of-value the good will and respect of tho&

■ i
ŕ
ŕ
dios.e g°°d will an<ä respect are forfeit any-
äv The new subculture of the community
* F innovators comes to include hostile and
flternptuous images of those groups
"jitise enmity they have earned. Indeed, fis repudiation of outsiders, necessary in y er to protect oneself from feeling con-
^^ned about what they may think, may go J"far as to make nonconformity with the mectations of the outsiders a positive cri-
, non of status within the group. Certain jads of conduct, that is, become reputable recisely because they are disreputable in e eyes of the "out-group...." fIn these chapters, in conformity with the ipdel we have proposed, we shall try to ' 'änonstrate that certain problems of ad-sjment tend, in consequence of the struc-Seof American society, to occur most typify m those role sectors where the ■knquent subculture is endemic. Then we IejH try to show how the delinquent subcul-ire provides a solution appropriate to äse particular problems and to elabora-
m and perpetuation by social groups___
"V
Growing Up in a Class System
c
Tn summary, it may confidently be said at the working-class boy, particularly if s training and values be those we have Predefined as working-class, is more likely an his middle-class peers to find himself the bottom of the status hierarchy when-er he moves in a middle-class world, tether it be of adults or of children. To the Igree to which he values middle-class stair, either because he values the good opin-a of middle-class persons or because he 1 is to some degree internalized middle-iSs standards himself, he faces a problem adjustment and is in the market for a "so-tion'
Vfhat the Delinquent Subculture Has to Offer
The delinquent subculture, we suggest, is way of dealing with the problems of ad-itment we have described. These prob-
Chaprcr 17 + Delinquent Boys]:Í85>!:i!s
lems are chiefly status problems: certain'ÜI children are denied status in the respectables ■ S society because they cannot meet the crite-:::-s ria of the respectable status system. The de-": ■■ Iinquent subculture deals with these problems by providing criteria of status which these children can meet....
The hallmark of the delinquent subculture is the explicit and wholesale repudiation of middle-class standards and the adoption of their very antithesis....
It is precisely here, we suggest, in the refusal to temporize, that the appeal of the delinquent subculture lies. Let us recall that it is characteristically American, not specifically working-class or middle-class, to measure oneself against the widest possible status universe, to seek status against "all comers," to be "as good as" or "better than" anybody—anybody, that is, within one's own age and sex category. As long as the working-class corner-boy clings to a version, however attenuated and adulterated, of the middle-class culture, he must recognize his inferiority to working-class and middle-class college-boys. The delinquent subculture, on the other hand, permits no ambiguity of the status of the delinquent relative to that of anybody else. In terms of the norms of the delinquent subculture, defined by its negative polarity to the respectable status system, the delinquent's very nonconformity to middle-class standards sets him above the most exemplary college boy.
Another important function of the delinquent subculture is the legitimation of aggression. We surmise that a certain amount of hostility is generated among working-class children against middle-class persons, with their airs of superiority, disdain or condescension and against middle-class norms, which are, in a sense, the cause of their status-frustration. ...
Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, from Delinquent floys: The Culture of the Gong by Albert K. Cohen. Copyright © [955 by The Free Press; copyright renewed 1983 by Albert K. Cohen,