CRIMINOLOGYcrime is the focus of current research. This line of
research has developed intriguing answers to the
question of why some racial or ethnic groups have
higher crime rates.
Both the anomie and differential association
traditions grew out of critiques of the Chicago
School version of social disorganization theory.
The latter was developed by Sutherland (1924),
himself a member of the University of Chicago
faculty. Sutherland believed that a theory of crime
should explain not only how bad behavior is pro-
duced in bad living conditions, but also how bad
behavior arises from good living circumstances.
This theory should also explain why most resi-
dents of disorganized neighborhoods do not be-
come criminals or delinquents. Sutherland ex-
plained this by arguing that crime is more likely to
occur when a person has a greater number of
deviant associations, relative to non-deviant
associations.
Differential association occurs when a person
has internalized an excess of definitions favorable
to violations of the law. Sutherland believed that
we all experience a variety of forms of exposure to
definitions favorable to violation of the law—’’It is
OK to steal this because the insurance company
will pay for it’’—and definitions unfavorable to
violation of the law—’’It is not OK to steal from
stores, because all of us are hurt when prices go up
to pay the stores’ higher insurance premiums.’’
Sutherland was very careful to point out what
differential association was not. It is not a simple
count of favorable and unfavorable definitions.
Differential association theory is not a theory that
focuses on who a person associates with. Indeed
Sutherland argued that it is possible to receive
definitions favorable to violation from the law-
abiding. Of course those spending time with delin-
quent peers will be exposed to more criminal
definitions, but the theory should not be reduced
to simply a peer group theory of crime and delin-
quency (Sutherland and Cressey 1974). As Cressey
has pointed out, if crime were simply a conse-
quence of prolonged proximity with criminals,
then prison guards would be the most criminal
group in the population. Differential association
theory continues to be of influence in contempo-
rary sociology, but it does not occupy as central a
role as it did in the 1940s and 1950s. Matsueda
(1988), the theory’s major contemporary propo-
nent, has emphasized the interactive quality (simi-
lar to labeling theory) of differential association
theory. Matsueda has suggested new ways to
operationalize the key concepts of differential as-
sociation, and the theory is ‘‘evolving’’ in his writ-
ings to bring in aspects of both interactionist and
rational choice theory.Anomie theory’s roots are in the work of
Durkheim, who used the concept anomie to de-
scribe the disruption of regulating norms result-
ing from rapid social change. Strain theories, in-
cluding anomie theory, focus on social structural
strains, inequalities, and dislocations, which cause
crime and delinquency. Durkheim stressed that
societal norms that restrained the aspirations of
individuals were important for preventing devi-
ance. However, unrealistically high aspirations
would be frustrated by a harsh social reality, lead-
ing to adaptations such as suicide, crime, and
addiction. Merton adapted Durkheim’s notion of
anomie by combining this idea with the observa-
tion that not only do societal norms affect the
likelihood of achieving aspirations, but they also
determine to a large degree what we aspire to
(1938). In other words, society helps determine
the goals that we internalize by defining which of
them are legitimate but it also defines the legiti-
mate means of achieving these goals. American
society, for example, defines material comfort as
legitimate goals, and taking a well-paid job as a
legitimate means of achieving them. Yet legitimate
means such as these and economic success are not
universally available. When a society is character-
ized by a disjunction between its legitimate goals
and the legitimate means available to achieve them,
crime is more likely.This conceptualization led a number of
criminologists to focus on these ‘‘opportunity struc-
ture’’ strains (Cloward and Ohlin 1960), as well as
cultural strains (Cohen 1955), to explain why crime
would be higher in lower social class neighbor-
hoods. Contemporary strain theorists have moved
in two directions. Some have proceeded in ways
that are quite consistent with Merton’s original
conceptualization, while others have set forward a
more social psychological conception of strain
(Agnew 1992). What ties these contemporary ver-
sions of anomie theory to the earlier tradition is
the notion that there are individual adaptations to