On the Origin of the Concept of “Deviant Subculture” in Criminology: W. I. Thomas and the Chicago School of Sociology

ABSTRACT

“Deviant subculture” has been a key concept in sociology of deviance and crime for a long time. It has often been argued that Albert K. Cohen was the person who first developed the concept. However, this article argues that the concept first emerged in the work of the Chicago School of Sociology and that W. I. Thomas’ notion of “the definition of the situation” was at the core of it. The notion allowed Thomas to redefine the problem of deviance and crime from one caused by psychological and physiological defects to one caused by normative disorganization.

Notes

¹ For example (see Downs 1966; Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967; Ferrell et al. 2008; Young 2010).

² The key characteristic of the School was its common theoretical perspective and method of social analysis (see Cavan 1983; Blumer 1984; Cortese 1995).

³ For more details see Reckless (1970).

⁴ This view held that (1) everywhere social evolution emerged and proceeded in a progressive, invariable sequence of “lower” to “higher” stages of civilization; (2) the higher stage was the result of racially determined, inborn, superior mental endowments; and (3) rate of cultural progress was influenced by favorable geographical factors (Thomas 1937:3–6). Thomas argued, to the contrary, that: (a) cultural and behavioural diversities were the result of different life experiences and not indications of having reached a particular stage of evolution; (b) race-based differential mental endowments did not exist and indices used to measure such endowments were culturally biased; and (c) geographical differences in modes of living were not indications of civilizational inferiority or superiority.

⁵ Thomas’ (1925) other terms for “attitudes” were “dispositional traits” (p. 30), and “experience complexes” (p. 39).

⁶ House (1926) and Blumer (1939) provided thorough critiques of the concept.

⁷ Robert K. Merton’s concept of ‘‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ was based on W. I. Thomas’ concept of the definition of the situation. See Merton 1948.

⁸ He argued, firstly, methods of data collection on which they were based were disputed. Secondly, they could not be scientifically tested. He also argued against eugenics. First, over the long period of evolutionary time nature had largely produced the soundest, most efficient biology for human beings. This was especially so of the human mind. There was not much more that humans could do to enhance it, especially given the insufficient knowledge of biology and the inadequacy of a variety of scientific methods needed for the purpose. Second, it was not easy to predict or to control the outcome. Third, many desirable qualities were acquired through life experiences and were not inheritable. Fourth, it was not obvious what qualities were desirable for human beings. Thomas argued that improving the human species was an economic and not a biological matter. It was primarily through the elimination of poverty that the social life could be improved (Thomas 1909a:196).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Reza Barmaki

REZA BARMAKI teaches criminology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto Mississauga. His area of interest is deviant subcultures.