Differential Opportunity Theory is a theory of crime that seeks to explain people’s choice of criminal activities. It states that some groups have higher access to “illegitimate means“ than others. As a result, some people are more highly incentivized to commit some types of crimes than other people.
The theory explores how illegitimate means of committing crimes (such as by joining organized criminal groups) directly affects the types of crimes that are committed.
You are viewing: Who Created Differential Opportunity Theory
According to this theory, there are three categories of deviant subcultures:
- Criminal subcultures (high access to legitimate means),
- Conflict subcultures (low access to legitimate means), and
- Retreatist subcultures (low access to legitimate means).
Differential Opportunity Theory Overview
The key contribution of the theory is that it was the first to discuss how access to opportunities for criminal behavior will affect the type of crime committed (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
Prior to this, the dominant theory at the time – Merton’s strain theory – simply proposed that the key driver of crime was lack of access to legitimate ways of gaining money and power. It didn’t sufficiently talk about the types of crimes committed by people who lack access to legitimate ways of gaining power and money.
Differential opportunity theory both built on and critiqued strain theory by introducing the idea of ‘illegitimate means’ when discussing the crimes that people choose to commit (Shjarback, 2018).
Differential Opportunity Theory proposes that not all criminal opportunities are equally accessible or appealing to individuals.
The social environment, including factors such as neighborhood characteristics, family background, and social networks, can shape the types of criminal activities that individuals become involved in (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
As a result, the theory suggests that it is not only the presence of strain but also the type and availability of illegitimate opportunities that influence criminal behavior.
Deviant Subcultures and Illegitimate Means
The criminologists who developed the theory, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, propose three distinct deviant subcultures.
Each subculture had differing levels of access to illegitimate means of obtaining money and power, resulting in different criminal or deviant behaviors, as explored below.
1. Criminal Subculture
A criminal subculture refers to a culture where organized deviant groups exist. The groups have organized structure and a hierarchy of roles, enabling them to engage in sophisticated criminal activities.
In these environments, people seeking to engage in deviance have access to criminal role models who can train and guide newcomers (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
Deviance is often achieved through illegitimate means, such as theft, corruption, trafficking, or other illegitimate activities.
The criminal subculture provides individuals with opportunities to learn criminal skills and obtain material reward for the acquisition of those skills.
As a result, criminal behavior is seen within this subculture as a rational and acceptable way to achieve money and power.
Read more : Who Makes Iron Man Tires
Example: A young person growing up in a neighborhood with a strong presence of organized crime may become involved in trafficking of goods on behalf of superiors within the gangs. Engagement with the criminal subculture feels legitimate as the rewards obtained (i.e. money) are more readily available and rewarding than alternate legitimate options, like getting a job.
Example: A successful politician realizes there is a lot of money to be made by green-lighting land rezoning applications for developers who will provide highly lucrative kickbacks once the buildings are constructed.
2. Conflict Subculture
Conflict subcultures emerge in communities where there are few legitimate means for gaining money and power, but there are also few organized crime opportunities.
In other words, both legitimate and illegitimate means to obtain money and power are scarce.
In these settings, individuals may engage in sporadic and opportunistic deviance as a means to achieve status and respect within their peer group.
Unlike the criminal subculture, people in conflict subcultures don’t tend to engage in organized illegitimate activities such as corruption or extortion.
The primary goal in a conflict subculture is not necessarily material gain or gaining skills, but rather the pursuit of individual prestige and dominance through physical confrontation or aggressive behavior (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
Example: A group of teenagers who go to a local tourist street at night to pickpocket unsuspecting tourists. They gain status among friends for success and for evading detection.
3. Retreatist Subculture
Retreatist subcultures are made up of social outsiders who have failed to achieve success through legitimate nor illegitimate means.
Such people may have made an effort to fit into society, applied for jobs, etc., but come across barriers due to anything from personal inability to systemic discrimination.
As a result, they have often withdraw from conventional society and decided to engage in behaviors that offer a temporary escape from their feelings of inability or failure (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
This subculture may engage in vagrancy, rioting, substance abuse, or other forms of escapism as a way to cope with feelings of alienation and frustration.
Their deviance is often destructive but victimless, such as spray-painting public spaces, squatting in unused buildings, and vagrancy.
Example: A person who struggles with finding stable employment and has no access to criminal opportunities might turn to the outsider punk scene and start abusing substances as a way to escape their sense of failure or dissatisfaction with their life.
Table Summary: Deviant Subcultures from Differential Opportunity Theory
Table adapted from Wang (1983):
Differential Opportunity Theory vs Strain Theory
Differential opportunity theory is seen either as an improvement upon Merton’s strain theory or, to some, a critique of strain theory (Shjarback, 2018).
The theory clearly builds on aspects of strain theory, given that both belong to the groups and neighborhoods tradition of criminology theories (Shjarback, 2018), which look at how deviance comes to be a characteristic trait of some subcultural groups. This differs, for example, from Hirschi’s social bond theory, which focuses more on individual traits and factors rather than social structures.
Read more : Who Is John Kruk’s Wife
However, the theory either contributes to or critiques the idea in strain theory that strain (in the form of lack of access to legitimate means for making money and achieving power etc.) can lead to crime (Shjarback, 2018). While agreeing to an extent with this proposition, Cloward and Ohlin propose that opportunity to commit crime is also an important influencing factor in both the decision to commit a crime, and the crime that will end up being committed.
Thus, differential opportunity theory’s critique of strain theory is summed up as:
“[it is] the illegitimate opportunity structure, not strain, regulates the content and form of deviant adaptations.” (Cullen, 1988, p. 224)
With that in mind, below is a table summarizing the key differences and similarities between strain theory and differential opportunity theory:
Criticisms of the Differential Opportunity Theory
While offering profound insight into the varied levels of opportunity that people receive, and the repercussions of what not having access to that opportunity can result in, the theory been criticized for both its theoretical shortcomings and oversimplified approach.
Researchers have argued that there is a disproportionately high focus on lower socioeconomic strata, and in turn, empirical disregard towards criminal behavior among middle-upper class individuals (Shjarback, 2018).
Others contest that the scope of the theory, and the studies conducted on it up until now, often focused on juvenile delinquency, failing to properly examine criminal conduct in adults.
One particularly strong criticism came from Cressey (1964), who asserted that the theory fails to understand and respect the role of freewill in choosing to reject or participate in available illegitimate behaviors.
Compare This Theory With: Differential Association Theory
Conclusion
Differential opportunity theory offers an alternative perspective to Merton’s strain theory, offering a nuanced discussion of how access to illegitimate means can affect people’s criminal behavior. While the theory offers a useful lens for critiquing and/or building on strain theory, it is also seen to lack an understanding of human agency and white-collar criminal activities.
References
Barkan, S. E., & Bryjak, G. J. (2011). Fundamentals of criminal justice: A sociological view. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Braithewaite, J. (1979). Merton’s theory of crime and differential class symbols of success. Crime and/ET Justice, 7/8(2), 90-94. http://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/1980_Merton-s-Theory-of-Crime-and-D.pdf
Cressey, D.R. (1964). Some Popular Criticisms of Differential Association. In: Delinquency, Crime and Differential Association. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9015-2_5
Cullen, F.T. (1988). Were Cloward and Ohlin strain theorists? Delinquency and opportunity revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(3), 214-241.
Glaser, D. (1960). Differential Association and Criminological Prediction. Social Problems, 8(1), 6-14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/798625
Shjarback, J. A. (2018). Revisiting a Classic: A Qualitative Analysis of Differential Opportunity Theory and Its Utility in Explaining Residential Burglary. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology. https://doi.org/10.21428/88de04a1.3cf13246
Wang, P. W. (1983). A study of juvenile delinquency in Taiwan: An application of differential opportunity theory. Illinois: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Source: https://t-tees.com
Category: WHO
