The three types of theories we are about to consider are
not so different from one another as the fact of separate treatment might suggest.
They do, however, have distinct emphases: the cultural learning process through
which deviance is acquired; the ways in which roles, taken from the culture and
incorporated into the self, determine deviance and conformity; and the inter-
action process within which culture is learned, roles acquired, the self built up,
and patterns of deviant action shaped and transformed.

Underlying anomie theory is what we have called a con-
junctive model of motivation. On the actor side is a set of goals and regulative
norms acquired from his culture; on the situation side are conditions and means.
Deviance arises from the interaction between the two. Cultural transmission
theories place less stress on situational variables; to this extent they tend to a "kinds
of people" model of motivation. (However, as we shall see, they treat situational
variables as critical in the developmental or learning process.) Although this com-
parison, like most generalizations, distorts, it does serve to identify an important
difference in emphasis.

Cultural transmission theories are also to be sharply distinguished from "kinds
of people" theories of psychiatric origin. The latter tend to view the deviant act
as the product of the "total personality" or "character structure." That is, the
relevant intrapersonality variables may include such diverse ingredients as ego-
strength, object-attachments, sex-role identifications, dependency needs, drives
fixated at various developmental stages, and systems of unconscious meanings and

-93-