ABSTRACT
In the 1970s, sociologist William J. Chambliss studied two groups of high school boys in a Seattle suburb, following their exploits for two years while making careful field observations. One group, which Chambliss labeled the “Saints,” were popular, well-dressed, middle-class kids who drove nice cars, played sports, and received good grades. Their counterparts — the “Roughnecks” — were lower class boys, more known for their habitual fighting (mostly among themselves) than for their success in school. Both groups of boys regularly caused trouble, skipping school, engaging in petty theft, and drinking alcohol. Yet the Roughnecks received far more attention from the police and other authorities, while community members saw the Saints as good boys who occasionally engaged in relatively harmless pranks. It's not that the Saints were any less delinquent; they drove while drunk, engaged in vandalism, cheated on exams, and even played jokes on the police. In fact, Chambliss found that the Saints committed more delinquent acts than the Roughnecks — they had greater access to alcohol and automobiles and were able to more easily concoct reasons to skip school. However, the Roughnecks received greater scrutiny and faced much harsher punishment for their behavior. The Saints' deviance was less visible, they were more savvy about how to politely talk their way out of trouble with the police, and, significantly, the 102community saw them as upstanding young men with bright futures. Chambliss (1973) wrote: “Those in low places, like the Roughnecks, are much more likely to be arrested and imprisoned while people in high places, like the Saints, usually avoid paying such a high price for their crimes.” Chambliss's study illustrates that community reaction to subcultures hinges less on the actual deviant behavior and more on the “offender's” social status or how he or she is labeled. In this case, social class and the power and reputation it conferred benefited the Saints (the “good kids”) and worked against the Roughnecks (the “troublemakers”).
