Strain Theory, developed by sociologist Robert Merton, offers a compelling explanation for how societal pressures can lead to deviant behaviour. Merton argued that society promotes shared cultural goals, such as financial success and material wealth, but not everyone has equal access to the legitimate means of achieving these goals. This mismatch creates strain, particularly for individuals in disadvantaged positions, and leads to five possible responses: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.

For many working-class individuals, systemic barriers such as limited access to education and stable employment mean that conformity—achieving goals through accepted means—is often unattainable. Instead, some people turn to "innovation," using illegitimate methods to achieve success, or "rebellion," rejecting societal goals and creating alternative value systems. These adaptations help explain why deviance is often concentrated among groups facing the greatest structural inequalities.

A vivid example of this strain can be seen in education. Sociologist Paul Willis, in his study Learning to Labour, examined the experiences of working-class boys in schools. He found that many of these boys reject the values of the education system, such as hard work and academic success, because they believe the system offers them no real chance of achieving upward mobility. Instead, they develop an anti-school subculture that values traits like toughness and resistance to authority. This rebellion aligns with Merton’s concept of rejecting societal goals and means while creating their own pathways to identity and success.

Contemporary issues provide further evidence of the theory’s relevance. For instance, the phenomenon of "county lines" drug operations in the UK illustrates how young people from disadvantaged backgrounds may turn to crime as an "innovative" way of achieving financial stability. These young individuals face a lack of legitimate opportunities, such as well-paid jobs or access to higher education, which creates strain and pushes them toward deviant behaviours that promise material success.

Merton’s theory has been praised for its ability to link social structures with deviant behaviour, but it is not without its critics. Some argue that it focuses too much on individual responses to strain and overlooks broader systemic issues. For example, Marxist sociologists suggest that deviance stems not just from inequality in access to goals but from the inherent injustices of the capitalist system itself. Others, like Albert Cohen, have built on Merton’s ideas, emphasizing how group dynamics shape deviance. Cohen’s concept of "status frustration" highlights how working-class boys, unable to achieve respect through legitimate means, form delinquent subcultures to gain status in their peer groups.

Strain Theory has also been criticized for not fully addressing modern societal pressures. The rise of social media, for instance, has created new strains by exposing young people to unrealistic portrayals of success and wealth. These pressures can exacerbate feelings of inadequacy, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and contribute to behaviours like fraud or theft as individuals attempt to imitate the lifestyles they see online.

Despite these criticisms, Strain Theory remains a valuable tool for understanding the relationship between inequality and deviance. It highlights how structural barriers, such as limited access to education or stable employment, create pressures that drive some individuals toward deviant behaviour. While the theory may need updating to reflect modern contexts, its core message is clear: addressing the inequalities that create strain is essential for reducing deviance in society.

Subcultural Theories and Social Deprivation

The idea that the working class is more likely to commit crimes can be explained using subcultural theories, especially Walter B. Miller’s concept of "focal concerns." Miller suggested that different social groups develop their own values based on their experiences. For the working class, these values include toughness and a focus on immediate rewards, which help them cope with challenges in their lives.

However, these values often clash with middle-class values, like planning for the future and following structured paths to success. Since middle-class values tend to shape laws and social rules, working-class behaviors may be judged as deviant or criminal. It’s important to note that neither set of values is better or worse—they simply reflect different life experiences. However, because middle-class values dominate, the working class can appear more "criminal" in the eyes of the justice system.

The social deprivation theory offers another way to look at this issue. It suggests that people living in poverty or feeling left behind by society are more likely to turn to crime. For the working class, a lack of opportunities can push people to seek illegal ways to achieve goals, like earning money. This connects to Robert Merton’s strain theory, which explains how the gap between societal expectations and the lack of means to achieve them can lead to deviance.

Examples today help explain these ideas. In poorer areas, where unemployment and inequality are high, crime rates are often higher too. This isn’t because working-class people are naturally more criminal, but because barriers in society push them into behaviors that break the rules. Subcultural theories show how these actions are linked to community values, while deprivation theory explains the pressures that make crime more likely.

Critics argue these theories can oversimplify the issue. For example, feminist sociologists say they don’t always consider how gender shapes criminal behaviour. Women from working-class backgrounds may experience different pressures and strains that lead to crime in other ways. Similarly, race and ethnicity also play a big role, and these theories don’t always address that.

Even with these criticisms, subcultural and deprivation theories are useful for understanding why working-class people are often seen as more involved in crime. They show how values, social inequalities, and laws interact to create this perception, encouraging a more thoughtful understanding of crime and its causes.

Labelling Theory 

Rational Choice Theory, developed by sociologist Ronald V. Clarke, provides another way to understand why individuals commit white-collar and corporate crimes. According to this theory, people make calculated decisions about whether to engage in criminal activities by weighing the potential benefits against the risks and consequences of getting caught and punished. If the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, they may decide that committing the crime is worth it.

This theory is particularly useful in explaining white-collar and corporate crime because these crimes often appear "rational" to the offenders. For example, statistics show that white-collar criminals are prosecuted far less often than those who commit blue-collar crimes. When they are brought to trial, they are more likely to receive "not guilty" verdicts because they often have access to significant resources, such as skilled legal teams, to mount strong defenses. Even when found guilty, the penalties are often relatively lenient. Convicted individuals might receive short jail sentences, fines, or orders to repay stolen amounts, which may be far smaller than the financial gains they obtained through their crimes.

The perceived low risks of punishment make white-collar crimes an attractive option for potential offenders. Clarke argues that individuals in corporate settings often assess their chances and conclude that the potential rewards—such as financial gain, career advancement, or maintaining their company’s reputation—far outweigh the risks of getting caught. For example, insider trading scandals, such as those involving hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, highlight how individuals may rationalize illegal activities because they believe the financial benefits are worth the gamble.

Corporate environments can also encourage rational decision-making that leads to criminal behaviour. Sociologist Edwin Sutherland, who first coined the term "white-collar crime," argued that corporate cultures often normalize unethical practices. In these settings, individuals may see crimes like fraud or embezzlement as part of doing business rather than as serious legal violations. For instance, the Volkswagen emissions scandal demonstrates how executives rationalized falsifying emissions data to maintain competitive advantages in the car market. They likely calculated that the financial and reputational benefits of appearing environmentally compliant outweighed the potential consequences of being discovered.

Rational Choice Theory also explains why some corporations engage in systematic crimes like tax evasion or price-fixing. Large companies often use complex accounting practices or exploit legal loopholes to minimize taxes, viewing the risk of fines or audits as a manageable cost compared to the financial savings they gain. For example, major corporations like Apple and Amazon have faced scrutiny for tax avoidance schemes that, while not always strictly illegal, highlight how rational calculations influence corporate decisions.

Opportunity Structures