Over time, several schools of thought have developed. There were three main schools of thought in early criminological theory spanning the period from the midth century to the mid-twentieth century:
Edit Because these boys do not have the ability to succeed, they resort to a process Cohen calls reaction formation.
What this reaction formation means is that the subject reacts with extreme response to situations. This subject has no problems in risk taking and breaking the law Walter Miller published an article in a journal called Lower-Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.
In this article he displayed the lower-class focal concerns, which include six of the following: Trouble, as he states about lower-class communities, is evaluated by how much a person creates it Miller, Getting into trouble, as we all know it, is pretty much breaking the law such as Marxist criminology.
What this does is creates an image for that one subject. On the other spectrum, not being able to fight, our subject will have the appearance of a wimp and therefore be treated with little or no respect. Toughness can explain itself. Marxist criminology in this world is called street smart. What the subject would want is to be able to make money and survive on the street without consequences.
These activities could range anywhere from fighting to sexual adventures. Fate is another one on the list which depicts that people belonging to the lower class believe that their lives are controlled by a great spiritual force.
Last but not least we have autonomy. This pertains to our subject being independent, which is actually a requirement and usually leads to gang involvement.
In an article titled The Delinquent Subculture: An Alternative Formulation states that there are many difficulties associated with reaction formation as stated in the theory.
So the question that comes to mind is how this subject turns to delinquency. They also state that it is easier for an adolescent from the working class to be more restrained to this behavior than working-class adolescents. Compared to a middle-class adolescent, the working-class adolescent is socialized earlier so they are more eager to reap rewards that adults get.
Kitsuse and Dietrick published another article critiquing the book Cohen wrote called Delinquent Boys. Kitsuse and Dietrick also note that Cohen had missed some important points in his Theory.
They are as follows: They questioned the existing subculture and when it first came out. Where was it created? Also, among all the males who are in the working-class, who would fit into this subculture?
They also state that when this subculture emerged, there needs to be some sort of historical data. As they clearly put it: Next are two points concerning the emergence of the delinquent subculture. In a book called The Delinquent Solution: One of the more important ones is that there is not one but many subcultures both within and outside the dominant culture, and in each of these subcultures there are either positive forces or negative ones.
When David compared two different societies such as America and England he notices that England had little organized crime, the working-class was supported, and that unemployment within youths was very low. There was a study made between two cities known for their working class in England.
The conclusion to this study was that there were adolescents that were part of groups but they did not label themselves as gangs, and although loud, they had no intent of being violent.
This resulted in a finding that there was no criminal subculture. As David puts it: So status frustration had nothing to do with delinquency.
What it did have to do is with dissociation from middle-class-dominated schools, occupations and recreation.Other critics contest the claim that Marxist criminology “enhances our understanding of crime,” (Greenberg, ; 21). And perhaps the most crucial criticism of Marxist criminology is the question of whether or not it is scientific.
Many critics argue that the statements made by the theory are not empirically testable. Within the past few years, a marxist school of criminology has developed in England and the United States.
In both countries, this school arose in part because of a dissatisfaction with. Within the past few years, a marxist school of criminology has developed in England and the United States. In both countries, this school arose in part because of a dissatisfaction with "mainstream" criminology; especially in the United States, political radicalism provoked by the turmoil of .
Unlike other Criminological Schools such as Classicism and Positivism, Marxist Criminology does not locate the 'causes' of criminality within the individual. Rather, the Marxist Criminological perspective moves beyond this realm of the individual towards the criminality of the state (Walklate, ).
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation.
It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.. Marxism uses a methodology, now known as historical materialism, to analyze and critique.
Title: A Critique of Marxist Criminology Created Date: Z.