Is differential association social learning cultural deviance theory?

Sutherland's differential association theory has long been criticized as a ''cultural deviance'' theory, and the critics have continued to apply this same designation to the theory's social-learning reformulation by Akers. According to this critique, differential association/social learning theory rests on the assumption that socialization is completely successful and that cultural variability is unlimited, cannot explain individual differences in deviance within the same group and applies only to group differences, has no way of explaining violation of norms to which the individual subscribes, and proposes culture as the single cause of crime. This article examines the basis and validity of this cultural deviance label. I conclude that the usual attribution of cultural deviance assumptions and explanations to differential association/social learning theory is based on misinterpretations. Then, I offer a clarification of how cultural elements are incorporated into the theory.