1a How do Functionalists explain crime?
Durkheim
For Durkheim, crime and deviance were central to any understanding of how society
functions. He identified two different sides of crime and deviance for the functioning
of society:
+ Help’s society change and remain dynamic
- Too much crime leads to social disruption.
Positive aspects of crime
According to him, crime - or at least a certain limited amount of crime - was
necessary for any society. Durkheim argued that at the basis of society was a set of
shared values which guide our actions, which he called the collective conscience.
It provides a framework with boundaries, which distinguishes between actions which
are acceptable and those which are not. Durkheim discussed four elements of the
positive aspect to crime.
1 Re-affirming the boundaries
Every time that a person breaks a law and is taken to court, the resulting court
ceremony and the publicity in the newspapers, publicly re-affirms the existing values.
2 Changing values
Every so often when a person is taken to court and charged with a crime a degree of
sympathy occurs for the person prosecuted. The resulting public outcry signals a
change in values and, in time this can lead to a change in law to reflect the changing
values.
3 Social cohesion
A third function of crime, according to Durkheim, is to strengthen social cohesion.
He points out that when particularly horrific crimes have been committed, the entire
community draws in together in shared outrage, and the sense of belonging to a
community is thereby strengthened.
4 Safety Valve
Deviant acts may be functional as a form of pressure release.
The negative aspects of crime
However, Durkheim stressed that it was a certain, limited amount of crime which
performed positive functions for society. Too much crime, on the other hand, had
negative consequences.
Anomie
We saw before that, according to Durkheim, society is based on people sharing
common values (the collective conscience), which form the basis for actions.
However, in periods of great social change or stress, the collective conscience may
be weakened. In this situation, people may be freed from the social control imposed
by the collective conscience and may start to look after their own selfish interests
rather than adhering to social values. Durkheim called this situation anomie. Where
a collapse of the collective conscience has occurred and anomie exists, crime rates
rocket. Only by re-imposing collective values can the situation be brought back
under control.
,Hirschi: bonds of attachment
Durkheim's concept of anomie suggests that if people are not 'controlled' by shared
social values, then they look after their own short-term interests without concern for
others. This led Hirschi to turn around the normal question of why do people commit
crime to another, equally intriguing one - why don’t people commit crime?
Hirschi focuses sociologists’ attention on what forces hold people's behaviour in
check, rather than what propels them into crime. Hirschi argued that criminal activity
occurs when people's attachment to society is weakened in some way. This
attachment depends upon the strength of the social bonds which hold people to
society.
According to Hirsci, there are four crucial bonds which bind us together:
1 Attachment : to what extent do we care about other people’s opinions
and wishes.
2 Commitment: refers to the personal investments that each of us makes
in our lives. What have we got to lose if we commit a crime?
3 Involvement: how busy are we? Is there time and space for law
breaking and deviant behaviour?
4 Belief: how strong is a person’s sense that they should obey the rules of
society?
Therefore, greater the attachment to society, the lower the level of crime.
Merton: strain theory
In the 1930s, Merton tried to locate deviance within a functionalist framework.
For Merton crime and deviance were evidence of a poor fit or a strain between the
socially accepted goals of society and the socially approved means of obtaining those
desired goals. The resulting strain led to deviance.
Merton argued that all societies set their members certain goals, at the same time
they also provide socially approved ways of achieving these goals. Merton was
aware that not everyone shared the same goals, and he pointed out that in a
stratified society, the goals were linked to a person's position in the social structure.
Those lower down had restricted goals. The system worked well as long as there
was a reasonable chance that a majority of people were able to achieve their goals.
However, if the majority of the population were unable to achieve the socially set
goals then they became disenchanted with society and sought out alternative (often
deviant) ways of behaving.
Merton believed that the goal of society was economic and material wealth above all
else and that the means provided to achieve these goals were hard work and
educational achievement.
Different forms of behaviour then could be understood as a strain between goals and
means.
Conformity - here the individual continues to adhere to both goals and means,
despite the limited likelihood of success.
Innovation - the person accepts the goals of society by uses different ways to
achieve those goals. Criminal behaviour is included in this response.
, Ritualism - here the means are used by the individual, but sight of the actual goal
is lost. For example, the bureaucrat or the police officer blindly enforcing the
letter of the law without looking at the nature of justice.
Retreatism: here the individual rejects both goals and means. For example, the
person dependent upon drugs or alcohol is included.
Rebellion: Both the socially sanctioned goals and means are rejected and
different ones substituted. For example, this is the political activist or the
religious fundamentalist.
Criticism of Merton
Merton has been criticised by Valier (2001) amongst others for his stress on the
existence of a common goal in society. Valier argues that there are in fact a variety
of goals which people strive to attain at any one time.
Merton is also criticised by functionalist subcultural theorists for focussing on
crime as an individual act, rather than a collective/group response.
Remember some of the key criticisms of Functionalist theories of crime
Functionalism assumes that there is a common value system to
deviate from
Functionalists do not recognise sub cultures
Functionalists are very accepting of official statistics as valid
Functionalists do not explore the motivations and meanings given to
deviant acts
, Marxists Perspective - Crime and Deviance
1b How do the Marxists explain crime?
Marxists believe that society is best understood by examining the process whereby the
majority of the population are exploited by the owners and controllers of commerce and
industry. Marxists argue that this simple, fundamental fact of exploitation provides the
key to unlock the explanations for the workings of society.
The key elements of the Marxist or critical criminological approach include:
1. The basis of criminal law
2. The dominant hegemony of the ruling class
3. Law enforcement
4. Individual motivation
5. Crime and control
1 The basis of the criminal law
All laws are essentially for the benefit of the ruling class, and reflect their interests.
Criminal law therefore operates to protect the rich and powerful.
2 Law creation and the dominant hegemony
In capitalist societies, the ruling class impose their values (values which are beneficial to
themselves) upon the mass of the population. They do this through a number of agencies
such as the education system, religion and the mass media. (This concept of ruling class
values being imposed upon the population is commonly known as hegemony.)
It is the dominant set of values that are the basis from which laws arise in a democracy.
However, according to Marxists, the set of values is actually ‘forced’ on the people. Thus
what they believe they are agreeing to as a result of their own beliefs are, in reality in
the interests of the ruling class.
3 Law enforcement
Despite the fact that the law making process reflects the interests of the ruling class,
many of these laws could provide benefits for the majority of the population if they
were applied fairly. However, even the interpretation and enforcement of the law is
biased in favour of the ruling class, so that the police and the criminal justice system will
arrest and punish the working class, but tend not to enforce the law against the ruling
class.
4 Individual motivation
Marxist theory provides an explanation for the individual motivation underlying crime.
Bonger argued that capitalism is based upon competition, selfishness and greed and this
formed peoples’ attitudes to life. Therefore crime was a perfectly normal outcome of
values which stressed looking after oneself at the expense of others. But Bonger also
said that in many cases, poor people were driven to crime by their desperate conditions.
1
Durkheim
For Durkheim, crime and deviance were central to any understanding of how society
functions. He identified two different sides of crime and deviance for the functioning
of society:
+ Help’s society change and remain dynamic
- Too much crime leads to social disruption.
Positive aspects of crime
According to him, crime - or at least a certain limited amount of crime - was
necessary for any society. Durkheim argued that at the basis of society was a set of
shared values which guide our actions, which he called the collective conscience.
It provides a framework with boundaries, which distinguishes between actions which
are acceptable and those which are not. Durkheim discussed four elements of the
positive aspect to crime.
1 Re-affirming the boundaries
Every time that a person breaks a law and is taken to court, the resulting court
ceremony and the publicity in the newspapers, publicly re-affirms the existing values.
2 Changing values
Every so often when a person is taken to court and charged with a crime a degree of
sympathy occurs for the person prosecuted. The resulting public outcry signals a
change in values and, in time this can lead to a change in law to reflect the changing
values.
3 Social cohesion
A third function of crime, according to Durkheim, is to strengthen social cohesion.
He points out that when particularly horrific crimes have been committed, the entire
community draws in together in shared outrage, and the sense of belonging to a
community is thereby strengthened.
4 Safety Valve
Deviant acts may be functional as a form of pressure release.
The negative aspects of crime
However, Durkheim stressed that it was a certain, limited amount of crime which
performed positive functions for society. Too much crime, on the other hand, had
negative consequences.
Anomie
We saw before that, according to Durkheim, society is based on people sharing
common values (the collective conscience), which form the basis for actions.
However, in periods of great social change or stress, the collective conscience may
be weakened. In this situation, people may be freed from the social control imposed
by the collective conscience and may start to look after their own selfish interests
rather than adhering to social values. Durkheim called this situation anomie. Where
a collapse of the collective conscience has occurred and anomie exists, crime rates
rocket. Only by re-imposing collective values can the situation be brought back
under control.
,Hirschi: bonds of attachment
Durkheim's concept of anomie suggests that if people are not 'controlled' by shared
social values, then they look after their own short-term interests without concern for
others. This led Hirschi to turn around the normal question of why do people commit
crime to another, equally intriguing one - why don’t people commit crime?
Hirschi focuses sociologists’ attention on what forces hold people's behaviour in
check, rather than what propels them into crime. Hirschi argued that criminal activity
occurs when people's attachment to society is weakened in some way. This
attachment depends upon the strength of the social bonds which hold people to
society.
According to Hirsci, there are four crucial bonds which bind us together:
1 Attachment : to what extent do we care about other people’s opinions
and wishes.
2 Commitment: refers to the personal investments that each of us makes
in our lives. What have we got to lose if we commit a crime?
3 Involvement: how busy are we? Is there time and space for law
breaking and deviant behaviour?
4 Belief: how strong is a person’s sense that they should obey the rules of
society?
Therefore, greater the attachment to society, the lower the level of crime.
Merton: strain theory
In the 1930s, Merton tried to locate deviance within a functionalist framework.
For Merton crime and deviance were evidence of a poor fit or a strain between the
socially accepted goals of society and the socially approved means of obtaining those
desired goals. The resulting strain led to deviance.
Merton argued that all societies set their members certain goals, at the same time
they also provide socially approved ways of achieving these goals. Merton was
aware that not everyone shared the same goals, and he pointed out that in a
stratified society, the goals were linked to a person's position in the social structure.
Those lower down had restricted goals. The system worked well as long as there
was a reasonable chance that a majority of people were able to achieve their goals.
However, if the majority of the population were unable to achieve the socially set
goals then they became disenchanted with society and sought out alternative (often
deviant) ways of behaving.
Merton believed that the goal of society was economic and material wealth above all
else and that the means provided to achieve these goals were hard work and
educational achievement.
Different forms of behaviour then could be understood as a strain between goals and
means.
Conformity - here the individual continues to adhere to both goals and means,
despite the limited likelihood of success.
Innovation - the person accepts the goals of society by uses different ways to
achieve those goals. Criminal behaviour is included in this response.
, Ritualism - here the means are used by the individual, but sight of the actual goal
is lost. For example, the bureaucrat or the police officer blindly enforcing the
letter of the law without looking at the nature of justice.
Retreatism: here the individual rejects both goals and means. For example, the
person dependent upon drugs or alcohol is included.
Rebellion: Both the socially sanctioned goals and means are rejected and
different ones substituted. For example, this is the political activist or the
religious fundamentalist.
Criticism of Merton
Merton has been criticised by Valier (2001) amongst others for his stress on the
existence of a common goal in society. Valier argues that there are in fact a variety
of goals which people strive to attain at any one time.
Merton is also criticised by functionalist subcultural theorists for focussing on
crime as an individual act, rather than a collective/group response.
Remember some of the key criticisms of Functionalist theories of crime
Functionalism assumes that there is a common value system to
deviate from
Functionalists do not recognise sub cultures
Functionalists are very accepting of official statistics as valid
Functionalists do not explore the motivations and meanings given to
deviant acts
, Marxists Perspective - Crime and Deviance
1b How do the Marxists explain crime?
Marxists believe that society is best understood by examining the process whereby the
majority of the population are exploited by the owners and controllers of commerce and
industry. Marxists argue that this simple, fundamental fact of exploitation provides the
key to unlock the explanations for the workings of society.
The key elements of the Marxist or critical criminological approach include:
1. The basis of criminal law
2. The dominant hegemony of the ruling class
3. Law enforcement
4. Individual motivation
5. Crime and control
1 The basis of the criminal law
All laws are essentially for the benefit of the ruling class, and reflect their interests.
Criminal law therefore operates to protect the rich and powerful.
2 Law creation and the dominant hegemony
In capitalist societies, the ruling class impose their values (values which are beneficial to
themselves) upon the mass of the population. They do this through a number of agencies
such as the education system, religion and the mass media. (This concept of ruling class
values being imposed upon the population is commonly known as hegemony.)
It is the dominant set of values that are the basis from which laws arise in a democracy.
However, according to Marxists, the set of values is actually ‘forced’ on the people. Thus
what they believe they are agreeing to as a result of their own beliefs are, in reality in
the interests of the ruling class.
3 Law enforcement
Despite the fact that the law making process reflects the interests of the ruling class,
many of these laws could provide benefits for the majority of the population if they
were applied fairly. However, even the interpretation and enforcement of the law is
biased in favour of the ruling class, so that the police and the criminal justice system will
arrest and punish the working class, but tend not to enforce the law against the ruling
class.
4 Individual motivation
Marxist theory provides an explanation for the individual motivation underlying crime.
Bonger argued that capitalism is based upon competition, selfishness and greed and this
formed peoples’ attitudes to life. Therefore crime was a perfectly normal outcome of
values which stressed looking after oneself at the expense of others. But Bonger also
said that in many cases, poor people were driven to crime by their desperate conditions.
1
