Drift Theory

Drift theory was originally proposed by Greshem Sykes and David Matza to explain how juvenile delinquents can hold both conventional and deviant values and attitudes. The theory claims that delinquents use techniques of neutralization to rationalize their delinquent and/or deviant behaviors. By neutralizing their conventional beliefs, juvenile delinquents are able to commit deviant and criminal acts while simultaneously still maintaining membership in the mainstream culture. This rationalization process therefore allows juveniles to drift in and out of crime and delinquency. This entry discusses the development of drift theory as it was birthed from differential association theory, the components of drift theory, as well as criticisms of the theory. Drift theory is a pertinent addition to the understanding of deviance, because it highlights how juveniles can simultaneously deviate from the culture and hold conventional beliefs.

The social process perspective, which includes drift theory, encompasses those theories that focus on socialization—the interaction between individuals and society. Through interactions with various individuals, organizations, institutions, and processes of society, individuals attain the knowledge and learn the skills to function within their society. The social process perspective assumes that all individuals possess the potential to act in criminal and/or deviant ways, because these behaviors are not innate characteristics of human nature. Such behaviors are learned through primary socialization groups that instill values and norms in individuals. Social process theories that aim to understand crime and deviance include social learning theory, differential association theory, social control theory, labeling theory, and, the focus of this entry, drift theory.

As one of the first social process theories, differential association theory emerged and criticized the prominent biological theories of the time that targeted the lower socioeconomic class. Through this early learning theory, Edwin H. Sutherland argued that every individual has the potential to become a criminal. Criminal behavior is learned through a process identical to that of learning any other behavior. As a microlevel social process theory, differential association suggests that criminal behavior is learned through socialization in intimate personal groups (i.e., differential associations) where one learns procriminal values and skills. Criminal behavior results once an individual holds more definitions favorable to crime than unfavorable. Differential association theory was one of the first sociological theories concerning deviance and was popular from its inception; however, critics questioned the generalizability of the theory. One of the chief concerns of differential association theory is that it does not explain why individuals who have delinquent associations and possess an excess of favorable definitions toward crime and delinquency do not offend constantly. Drift theory addresses this gap.

Drift theory responds to a main criticism of differential association theory by presenting a new theory that combines elements of both control and learning theoretical traditions. Drift theory recognizes that juvenile delinquents hold conventional values and attitudes; they are aware that their delinquent actions are viewed by society as deviant. To nullify these conventional values and beliefs, juvenile delinquents learn techniques of neutralization. These techniques work owing to the presence of subterranean values in mainstream culture. [Page 224]Subterranean values are morally tinged influences that are a part of the culture but are publicly condemned (e.g., underage drinking, gambling, etc.). These mixed messages allow juveniles to rationalize their behaviors and feelings of guilt; thus, they are able to drift in and out of crime, deviance, and delinquency.

...