A Sub-Cultural Criticism Of The Subculture Theory

The subculture theory has not always been seen as an iconic explanation for why crimes are committed. For those that consider this term overused and undefinable, the concept of a subculture is only a mere catch-all phrase. For these researchers, the term subculture is a table opposed to a theory based on its multi-facet approach to identifying the abnormal cultures. For criminologist like Walsh (1986: 19), the term “gangs” is defined as a tight niched group whereas subculture consists of an apprenticeship process which is defined as a means to help ensure comradery based on beliefs and values. For Walsh a subculture must exist on a larger platform than that of just a neighborhood, it must extend through the media and across a state line to ensure that it is intact a secondary culture existing amongst a dominant culture. Another predominate criticism to the subculture theory is that it only focuses on urban males from a working class that is in their late adolescent years. This has concerned allot of criminologist on the basis that female’s and delinquency are not researched as much as males, resulting in an inadequate consistency of the term subculture. Another distraction with this theory is the romanticism that has been attached to the deviant behavior. These actions are treated as if

The rebirth of the term subculture has tried to surface in several areas but the only one that has currently gain a respectable reputation is that of its use on a global level when only working with male adolescent delinquency. This globalized theory has held weight mounts several criminologists because of how tiny social media has made the world. This will allow criminologist to analyze social patterns on a larger platform, which will in return generated a more tangible identity for a subculture (Nwalozie,