“Applying material from item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of functionalist
approaches in explaining crime”
Sociologists define crime as a behaviour that goes against the legislation of a society. This includes
utilitarian crimes and non-utilitarian crimes. Functionalists state that society is based on shared norms
and values. So, they explain crime through a consensus approach, where crime is a positive function for
social stability. Durkheim even went on to state that crime is inevitable as it strengthens the status quo of
society. These explanations have been useful in explaining the motivations of crime and how crime serves
society as a whole.
The founding father of functionalism argues that crime is inevitable and beneficial in society for social
stability. This is referred to as boundary maintenance and social cohesion. Durkheim argues that society
needs crime to reinforce acceptable and normal behaviours (norms). This is because the public nature of
punishment shows people the consequences of committing crimes and going against laws in society.
Serious crimes, such as rioting and murder, can led to society collectively condemning perpetrators
through public outrage of the media. As a result of public reaction, the collective consciousness/status
quo is strengthened as society acts as a unifying force against such acts. This encourages social cohesion
as values in society do not atrophy. This further links to Durkheim’s theory of anomie and chaos. Without
crimes occurring within society, values would weaken, leading to a lack of normal-ness. This would
reproduce within society, causing social disintegration and anarchy. This claim can be supported through
the item, in which it states functionalists ‘regard [crime] as inevitable and even beneficial’. A
contemporary example of the use of boundary maintenance for social cohesion would be the 2011
Birmingham Riots. These riots were ridiculed in the media, as it showed individuals who were engaging in
looting and vandalism. Individuals who were caught were severely punished through fines and sentence,
leading to a public disapproval of rioters amongst the majority of society. Without the reinforcement of
rioting being acceptable, functionalists argue that society would have experiences social disintegration
due to anomie. However, one may argue that the explanation of boundary maintenance is heavily
criticised because Durkheim fails to quantify positive crime and deviance. He claims that society requires
a certain amount of deviance to function, but there is no way of knowing how much is the right amount.
This impacts the usefulness of functionalist theories of crime. Merton agrees with this criticism and states
that Durkheim also fails to explain why it exists. For example, is it economically motivated? Therefore,
one way in which the functionalist perspective is useful is in explaining as a positive function to avoid
societal anomie.
Whilst traditional functionalists can explain the positive functions of crime, Merton increases the
usefulness of the perspective by explaining the motivation of crime, which Durkheim fails to do. Merton
coined the ‘social strain’ theory. He argues that crime is committed as a result of individuals being
socialised to expect success (high income) but not achieving it through legitimate opportunities (legal
job). This is specifically true for working class boys, who may internalise mainstream cultural goals.
Merton uses the theoretical stance of the ‘American Dream’ to describe society, where meritocratic
principles assure American citizens that equality of opportunity is available for all, regardless of age,
gender and social class. Merton argues that this is a myth. This gap causes a ‘strain’ as people cannot
achieve the ‘American Dream’ as their opportunities are blocked. This is evident through the increase of
utilitarian crime (drug dealing, theft, burglary) in the US. Due to the legitimate opportunities not being
distributed equally, the working class adapt to the strain by rejecting legitimate means. This can lead to a
approaches in explaining crime”
Sociologists define crime as a behaviour that goes against the legislation of a society. This includes
utilitarian crimes and non-utilitarian crimes. Functionalists state that society is based on shared norms
and values. So, they explain crime through a consensus approach, where crime is a positive function for
social stability. Durkheim even went on to state that crime is inevitable as it strengthens the status quo of
society. These explanations have been useful in explaining the motivations of crime and how crime serves
society as a whole.
The founding father of functionalism argues that crime is inevitable and beneficial in society for social
stability. This is referred to as boundary maintenance and social cohesion. Durkheim argues that society
needs crime to reinforce acceptable and normal behaviours (norms). This is because the public nature of
punishment shows people the consequences of committing crimes and going against laws in society.
Serious crimes, such as rioting and murder, can led to society collectively condemning perpetrators
through public outrage of the media. As a result of public reaction, the collective consciousness/status
quo is strengthened as society acts as a unifying force against such acts. This encourages social cohesion
as values in society do not atrophy. This further links to Durkheim’s theory of anomie and chaos. Without
crimes occurring within society, values would weaken, leading to a lack of normal-ness. This would
reproduce within society, causing social disintegration and anarchy. This claim can be supported through
the item, in which it states functionalists ‘regard [crime] as inevitable and even beneficial’. A
contemporary example of the use of boundary maintenance for social cohesion would be the 2011
Birmingham Riots. These riots were ridiculed in the media, as it showed individuals who were engaging in
looting and vandalism. Individuals who were caught were severely punished through fines and sentence,
leading to a public disapproval of rioters amongst the majority of society. Without the reinforcement of
rioting being acceptable, functionalists argue that society would have experiences social disintegration
due to anomie. However, one may argue that the explanation of boundary maintenance is heavily
criticised because Durkheim fails to quantify positive crime and deviance. He claims that society requires
a certain amount of deviance to function, but there is no way of knowing how much is the right amount.
This impacts the usefulness of functionalist theories of crime. Merton agrees with this criticism and states
that Durkheim also fails to explain why it exists. For example, is it economically motivated? Therefore,
one way in which the functionalist perspective is useful is in explaining as a positive function to avoid
societal anomie.
Whilst traditional functionalists can explain the positive functions of crime, Merton increases the
usefulness of the perspective by explaining the motivation of crime, which Durkheim fails to do. Merton
coined the ‘social strain’ theory. He argues that crime is committed as a result of individuals being
socialised to expect success (high income) but not achieving it through legitimate opportunities (legal
job). This is specifically true for working class boys, who may internalise mainstream cultural goals.
Merton uses the theoretical stance of the ‘American Dream’ to describe society, where meritocratic
principles assure American citizens that equality of opportunity is available for all, regardless of age,
gender and social class. Merton argues that this is a myth. This gap causes a ‘strain’ as people cannot
achieve the ‘American Dream’ as their opportunities are blocked. This is evident through the increase of
utilitarian crime (drug dealing, theft, burglary) in the US. Due to the legitimate opportunities not being
distributed equally, the working class adapt to the strain by rejecting legitimate means. This can lead to a
