*Assess the view that the reasons why young people are deviant are related to their identity of being working class.
OCR
A Level
2022
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
Essay Outline: Assess the view that the reasons why young people are deviant are related to their identity of being working class.
This essay will assess the view that working-class identity is a key factor in explaining youth deviance. It will examine various sociological perspectives on the relationship between class, identity, and deviance, and critically evaluate the extent to which working-class youth are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour due to their social position.
Introduction
Introduce the essay by outlining the debate surrounding the relationship between class and youth deviance. Define key terms, such as "deviance" and "working class," and briefly mention the different sociological perspectives that will be discussed.
Body Paragraph 1: Functionalist Perspectives on Working-Class Deviance
AO1: Discuss functionalist theories that explain working-class deviance as a reaction to social structures and cultural differences. * Cohen: Explain his theory of status frustration and the formation of delinquent subcultures. * Cloward & Ohlin: Describe their theory of differential opportunity structures and how they contribute to different types of deviance. * Miller: Examine his argument that working-class culture itself promotes deviant values and behaviours, such as toughness and immediate gratification. * Murray: Discuss his perspective on the underclass, arguing that a culture of dependency and irresponsibility is prevalent among certain working-class groups. * AO2: Provide examples of deviant behaviour that might be linked to these theories (e.g., gang culture, street crime). * AO3: Critically evaluate the functionalist perspective: argue that it oversimplifies working-class culture and ignores agency, and that it can be seen as deterministic and blaming the victim.
Body Paragraph 2: Neo-Marxist Perspectives on Working-Class Deviance
AO1: Explore neo-Marxist theories that view working-class deviance as a form of resistance against capitalist oppression. * Paul Willis: Discuss his study of "learning to labour", highlighting how working-class boys resist and subvert the educational system. * Brake & Hebdige: Explain their analysis of youth subcultures, arguing that these act as forms of symbolic resistance, challenging dominant social norms. * AO2: Provide examples of youth subcultures that are seen as expressions of working-class resistance (e.g., punk, hip-hop). * AO3: Critically evaluate the neo-Marxist perspective: argue that it may romanticise working-class deviance and overlooks the complexity of individual motivations and choices.
Body Paragraph 3: Interactionist Perspectives on Working-Class Deviance
AO1: Explain interactionist theories that focus on the role of labelling and social construction in shaping deviance. * Chambliss: Discuss his study of "The Saints and the Roughnecks", demonstrating how differential treatment based on social class can lead to labelling and deviance. * Cicourel: Explain his research on juvenile delinquency, highlighting how the labelling process can influence the way police and social workers perceive and treat working-class youth. * AO2: Provide examples of how police and other authorities may be more likely to target and label working-class youth as deviant. * AO3: Critically evaluate the interactionist perspective: argue that it may overemphasize the power of labelling and underestimate the agency of individuals, and that it can be seen as deterministic.
Body Paragraph 4: Alternative Explanations for Youth Deviance: Gender, Ethnicity, and Postmodernism
AO1: Introduce alternative explanations that challenge the view that class is the primary factor in explaining youth deviance. * Gender: Discuss feminist perspectives on masculinity and crime, arguing that gender socialization and cultural expectations may contribute to deviant behaviour (e.g., Messerschmidt). * Ethnicity: Explore theories of racial inequality and resistance to racism, arguing that the experience of being marginalized can lead to deviant behaviour (e.g., Gilroy, Sewell). * Postmodernism: Explain postmodern theories that reject the idea of class as a significant factor in deviance and emphasize individual choices, pleasure, and risk-taking (e.g., Katz, Lyng). * AO2: Provide examples of deviant behaviour that can be linked to these alternative explanations. * AO3: Critically evaluate these alternative perspectives, arguing that they provide valuable insights but may also oversimplify complex social factors.
Conclusion
Conclude by summarizing the key arguments presented in the essay and reiterate your assessment of the view that working-class identity is a primary driver of youth deviance. Acknowledge the limitations of each perspective and the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to deviant behaviour. Finally, suggest areas for further research, such as examining the intersectionality of class, gender, and ethnicity in relation to youth deviance.
Assess the view that the reasons why young people are deviant are related to their identity of being working class.
This essay will assess the view that the reasons why young people are deviant are related to their identity of being working class. It will begin by outlining the functionalist view that working-class deviance stems from a distinct working-class subculture that clashes with mainstream societal values. This perspective will be explored through the work of theorists like Miller, Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin. Following this, the essay will delve into the neo-Marxist perspective, which posits that working-class deviance is a form of resistance against capitalist oppression. Theorists like Hall and Willis will be used to illustrate this viewpoint. Finally, the essay will consider interactionist arguments, particularly focusing on the concept of labelling and its role in shaping deviant identities, drawing upon the works of Becker.
Functionalist Perspectives
Functionalist sociologists argue that deviance can be beneficial for society as it helps to clarify social norms and values. However, they also see working-class deviance as arising from the formation of deviant subcultures. For example, Miller (1958) argued that working-class males have different 'focal concerns' to those of the middle class, such as valuing toughness and excitement over educational achievement. Cohen (1955) developed this idea, suggesting that working-class boys experience 'status frustration' due to their inability to achieve mainstream success. This leads them to create a delinquent subculture where they can gain status through other means, such as vandalism or fighting. Cloward and Ohlin (1960) further elaborated on this by suggesting that the type of deviant subculture that emerges depends on the opportunities available in the local area. For example, areas with established criminal networks are more likely to have criminal subcultures, while areas with high levels of social disorganization may be more prone to conflict subcultures.
However, this theory can be seen as deterministic – it assumes that working-class youth will inevitably be deviant. This is not always the case, as many working-class young people do not engage in crime or deviance.
Neo-Marxist Perspectives
Neo-Marxists argue that deviance is a deliberate act of resistance against capitalist oppression. They see the law as a tool used by the ruling class to maintain their power and control over the working class. For example, Hall (1978) argued that the media creates a 'moral panic' around working-class youth, demonizing them and justifying increased police surveillance and control. Similarly, Willis (1977) argued that working-class boys' resistance to school is a rational response to their limited job prospects in a capitalist society. They see through the 'myth of meritocracy' and realize that educational success is unlikely to lead to social mobility. Therefore, their deviant behaviour is a way of gaining status and control in a system that offers them little opportunity.
However, this theory can be criticized for romanticizing working-class deviance. While some acts may be seen as a form of resistance, many others, such as violence and theft, can harm individuals and communities.
Interactionist Perspectives
Interactionists focus on the process of labelling and its impact on individual behaviour. They argue that no act is inherently deviant; it is only labelled as such by those in power. According to Becker (1963), once a person is labelled as deviant, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, a working-class youth labelled as a 'troublemaker' by their teachers may be excluded from school, making them more likely to engage in deviant behaviour in the future. This can be particularly damaging for working-class youth, who are often stereotyped as being more likely to be deviant, leading to increased surveillance and punishment. Therefore, their deviance may be a result of labelling and societal reactions rather than inherent characteristics.
While the interactionist approach offers valuable insight into the role of labelling, it has been criticized for neglecting the broader structural inequalities that contribute to the over-representation of working-class youth in the criminal justice system. It fails to fully explain why working-class youth are more likely to be labelled as deviant, to begin with.
Alternative Explanations: Gender and Ethnicity
While class plays a significant role in shaping deviance, other factors are equally important. For example, Messerschmidt (1993) argues that masculinity plays a key role in male deviance. He suggests that men are socialized into a hegemonic masculinity that values power, control, and risk-taking. This can manifest in various forms of deviance, such as violence, vandalism, or risky sexual behaviour. Similarly, theorists like Gilroy (1982) and Cashmore (1984) highlight the impact of race and ethnicity on deviance. They argue that young black men are often stereotyped as being more aggressive and criminal, leading to increased police harassment and racial profiling. Their deviance can, therefore, be seen as a form of resistance against racism and social exclusion. In this sense, gender and ethnicity, alongside class, interact in complex ways to shape experiences of deviance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while there is evidence to suggest that working-class youth may be more likely to be involved in deviance, it is essential to avoid simplistic explanations that attribute this solely to their class background. Functionalist perspectives highlight the role of subcultural values and blocked opportunities but risk deterministic interpretations. Neo-Marxist perspectives offer a valuable critique of capitalist power structures but may romanticize deviance. Interactionist perspectives provide crucial insights into the impact of labelling but require a broader consideration of structural inequalities. To fully understand youth deviance, it is vital to consider the interplay of class, gender, ethnicity, and individual agency within a broader social context.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
AO1: Knowledge and Understanding
The following may be used:
The view that they are related to conflict and control:
- Functionalist view of deviant working class subcultures as a reaction to the norms and values of wider society – A Cohen, Cloward & Ohlin.
- Functionalist view of deviant working class subcultures acting as an independent working class/ underclass culture – Miller; Murray.
- Contemporary examples of deviant behaviour – e.g. gang culture – linked to so-called working class “values”.
- Neo-Marxist view – being working class leads to deviance as an expression of resistance and rebellion (e.g. P. Cohen; Hebdige; Brake).
- Interactionist views (could also be used as evaluation) – labelling of being “working class” leads to deviance (e.g. Chambliss, Cicourel).
- Any other relevant response.
AO2: Application
The selected knowledge should be directly related to the specific question.
AO3: Analysis and Evaluation
The following list is indicative of possible factors/evidence that candidates may refer to in evaluation but is not prescriptive or exhaustive:
- Accept any specific criticism of the theories stated above.
- Young people are deviant as a result of their gender, not class – e.g. it’s masculinity that causes deviance (e.g. Messerschmidt – males are socialised into a hegemonic value system and masculine goals which can align with criminality; e.g. The need for reputation; having power authority and control over others.)
- Young people are deviant as a result of ethnicity – resistance against racism (e.g. Gilroy ); Cashmore – uses Merton’s ideas of strain but applies to young African-Caribbean’s in Britain; Sewell – triple quandary theory.
- The postmodern view that deviance is not related to class; instead it’s related to the pleasure of thrill of risk taking (Katz, Lyng)
- Any other relevant response.