Broken Windows Theory
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1969) proposed the broken windows theory
to explain how social controls can systematically weaken, and minor acts of
deviance can spiral into severe crime and social decay. He placed cars without license
plates and with their hoods up, but otherwise in good condition, in two different
social settings, one in wealthy, mostly white Palo Alto, California (the home of
Stanford University, where he worked), and the other in a poor, mostly black neigh-
borhood in the Bronx, in New York City. The social class and race of passersby
made no difference: In both sites, cars were quickly gutted. One person would con-
clude that the car was abandoned and “no one cared,” and break a side window.
The next person would see the side window broken and feel it was acceptable to
smash the windshield.
The pattern would continue and escalate from there. Zimbardo concluded that
breaking more windows, committing more serious crimes and acts of deviance, is
a rational response to situations of social disorder. Later, James Q. Wilson (1985)
expanded this thesis to conclude that community characteristics, such as decayed
housing, preexisting crime, and the like, contributed to increased crime. Crime rates
go up, he argued, in blighted areas where people think no one cares and no one
is watching.
The societal response has been proactive: policing directed at maintaining
public order. However, the flaw is that the police are left to identify “social disorder”
however they want. Without more systematic definition, police can see almost any-
thing as a sign of social disorder and almost anyone as a threat.Criminal Subcultures
In 1955, juvenile delinquency was getting a lot of publicity in the United States.
Albert Cohen wondered why young people, mostly working-class and poor boys, were
spurning the values of the dominant society and committing so many crimes. After
studying working-class and poor youth gangs, he concluded that strain theory
wouldn’t work: As lower-class youths, they had the least opportunity to achieve
economic success, but their crimes were usually not economically motivated. They
were not trying to get rich (1955).
Cohen drew upon Edward Sutherland’s theory of differential association (which
we discussed earlier in the chapter) to propose that the gang members were not being
socialized with the same norms and values as lower class non–gang members or the
middle class. They were being subjected to differential association,socialized into
a new set of norms and values that allowed them to succeed on their own terms. Cohen
listed their five most important values as:1.Nonutilitarianism. They had no economic motive, or any other sort of motive,
for committing their crimes. They committed crimes “for the hell of it.”2.Maliciousness. They valued being just plain mean. The meaner gang members
enjoyed considerable prestige, and the “nice” ones were deviant.3.Negativism. They were aware of the norms of the dominant culture and valued
doing the exact opposite. If the dominant culture disapproved of smoking, they
smoked.4.Short-run hedonism. They valued getting immediate gratification and disap-
proved of members who waited patiently, saved their money, and so on.180 CHAPTER 6DEVIANCE AND CRIME