Crime and Deviance + Theory and Methods: Ishmael
Safdar-Ahmed
Topic 1 – Crime, Deviance, Social Order and Social
Control
The Social Construction of Crime and Deviance
The Social Construction of Crime:
Newburn suggests that crime is a label attached to behaviour which is
prohibited by the state and has some legal penalty against it.
Crime is socially constructed – an act only becomes a crime when the label of
‘crime’ is applied to it.
Crime covers a very wide range of behaviour, so it is extremely difficult to
develop explanations that account for the vast diversity of acts that are labelled
as criminal.
The Social Construction of Deviance:
Like crime (itself a form of deviance), deviance is a social construction.
Plummer distinguishes between societal and situational deviance.
- Societal deviance – acts that most members of a society regard as deviant
because they share similar ideas about approved and unapproved behaviour
- Situational deviance – acts where whether or not they are seen as deviant
depends on the context or location in which they take place.
These two concepts suggest that what is regarded as deviant may:
- Vary between different societies, cultures, contexts and locations
- Vary between groups within the same society.
- Change over time.
Functionalists and Subcultural theories
Durkheim argued that deviance itself was functional, normal and inevitable.
Durkheim suggested that deviance had the following functions:
Boundary maintenance
Social cohesion
Adaptations and Change
Durkheim argued that in a functioning society there is a value consensus into which,
thanks to various institutions, the vast majority in a society have been socialised. One
of the ways in which this consensus is reinforced is through the policing of the
margins: The Formal and Informal sanctions used to either reward those who conform
and punish those who deviate. Indeed, our shared disapproval of deviant behaviour
strengthens our social solidarity. Durkheim argues that even in a ‘Society of saints’
there will be sinners/Deviance.
He also states how deviance facilitates social change and without deviation social
change would never occur. (However, most functionalists promote
incremental organic change and not radical change)
, Deviant behaviour can help facilitate legal change; Growing acceptance of
homosexuality, Civil rights act.
Durkheim argued that too much or too little deviance was bad as it showed that
there was either too much or too little social control from governments. He argued
that pre-industrial eras had little deviance as people shared mechanical solidarity
and the shift towards privatisation and isolationism showed a rapid increase in
isolationism.
Durkheim also argued that when societies went under rapid social changes, like
the industrial revolution there would be increased deviance due to what
he called ANOMIE: normlessness or an absence of social control and cohesion.
Evaluating Durkheim
- Realists criticise the idea that crime is normal and functional as it leaves
victims, and they argue policies need to be enforced to stop crime.
- Marxists argue that the value consensus is from the ideology of the ruling
class.
- Other functionalists point out how Durkheim although showing some societies
have more crime than others doesn’t explain why certain demographic groups
do.
Kingsley David:
- Deviance acts as a safety valve for society -> Prostitution helps men release
frustration.
Polsky:
- Polsky 1967 – Safety valve through porn helping release frustration.
Erikson (1966):
- Society is organised to allow some forms of deviancy – believes that because of
these positive functions, police are actually designed to create and maintain
crime rather than stop it.
SUBCULTURAL THEORISTS
Robert Merton – Strain Method (1938)
He concluded that Americans were socialised into the American dream; that a
consensus existed about what people’s social goals should be: Success, wealth,
materialism. However, equal access to these goals didn’t exist: STRAIN between
the socially encouraged goals and the socially acceptable means in which they are
achieved.
Socialised into the American dream due to the meritocratic society.
Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which
were likely to lead to crime.
The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means a
nd/or the goals
1) So, while some conform and work hard others will adapt and this adaptation
may be into crime.
, 2) Innovation – Creating new means
3) Ritualism – Rejecting the goals but following the rules
4) Some reject both the means and the goal and exile themselves from society
(Retreatist). – Merton thought that these individuals would use drugs and
commit crimes.
5) The other adaption is rebellion which may lead to crime regarding violence.
Evaluating Merton
Merton explained Durkheim’s idea of Anomie in detail
Merton doesn’t consider the source of social goals. Marxists would argue that it
comes from the Bourgeoise, and they would argue that this is not a value
consensus.
Merton doesn’t explain why people find it harder to achieve social goals. He does
not pursue the idea of inequality.
Similarly, Merton doesn’t consider why different people have different adaptations.
He doesn’t explain why groups of people are deviant in different ways and why
deviant people socialise in groups like gangs.
Merton doesn’t describe crime that has no monetary gain like violence and
murder.
Travis Hirschi: Bonds of attachment (1969)
Focuses on why people don’t commit crime rather than commit crime like other
sociologists do – How is social control achieved?
He identifies bonds of attachment that link to the value consensus and ensure
social control and order, these are:
Attachment – How much do we care what others think? We may particularly
think about how our partners and spouses feel if we commit crime.
Commitment – What have we got to lose? If we have a good job, we put it in
jeopardy by committing crimes,
Involvement – How involved are we in society? What takes up our time?
Would we have time to commit crime?
Belief – To what extent do we believe obeying the law is the right thing to
do? How strong in the personal moral code?
Turning this on its head: Those who are more likely to commit crimes who do not have
family attachments, work commitments, school involvements and a strong moral
code, these people tend to be young, marginalised and single.
Evaluating Hirschi
Suggest an absence of attachment bonds leads to criminality. Helps policy
makers in areas such as promoting young activities like sports clubs in order to
reduce and or prevent crime and deviance.
Like other functionalists he doesn’t really address the issue of why some people
have secure bonds and others don’t have secure bonds – Marxists and Feminists
would point out how there is NO value consensus that benefits all members of
society: instead, society is characterised by conflict promoted through the
detachment fostered by capitalism. The reserve army of labour also keeps the
Proletariat trapped due to low wages.
, Albert Cohen – Status frustration (1955)
Sets out to develop Merton’s theory and address why groups commit crime and
why people commit non-utilitarian crimes. In doing so he developed a theory about
subcultures.
Cohen argued that working-class boys often failed at school resulting in a low
status. A response to this was the formation of subcultures or gangs with
values that were largely anti-mainstream values.
What was deemed taboo or deviant in mainstream society was praiseworthy in the
subculture.
Clear link between this (a Subculture born out of frustration) and the ‘Lads’ in Paul
Willis’s ‘Learning to labouring’
Cohen’s theory sought to explain delinquent crime and non-utilitarian crimes.
Crimes like fighting and vandalism can be explained by the subcultures inverting
the values of mainstream society, making socially deviant acts applaudable.
Evaluating Cohen:
Cohen’s suggestion that members of these delinquent subcultures invert the
norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. Postmodernists like
Lyng and Katz argue that it is more likely that individuals are influenced by
boredom or is seeking a buzz. However, it can be countered that delinquents are
conscious and seek reward and status within their group without individually
inverting mainstream values.
Cohen specifically says that this is a phenomenon relating to “Working-class boys”
but he makes few links to social class and gender. Why do they struggle to attain
status? Others like Willis, attempt to address this. Also, why boys? If the reason is
low status, Feminists would suggest that in 1950’s America, you would expect girls
to be the ones forming deviant subcultures. Therefore, flawed.
He does successfully develop Merton’s strain theory. Therefore, together Merton
and Cohen offer a functionalist explanation.
Cloward and Ohlin: Illegitimate opportunity structures (1960)
Sought to combine Merton and Cohen to explain the different kinds of criminal
subcultures they identified in contemporary America. They argued there was a
“Legitimate opportunity structure” (Socially acceptable means to achieving
social goals), they also identified an alternative “Illegitimate opportunity
structures” which was available through gang membership.
However, just as not all people could easily access the legitimate opportunity
structure and material success (Strain theory), there could also be a strain in
relation to illegitimate opportunity structure.
Just because people cannot be wealthy through hard work doesn’t mean they will
easily find a path to wealth through crime.
Some people are born in areas of high crime others aren’t.
The types of subcultures available vary and this goes a long way to explaining why
not all those who find legitimate opportunity structures are blocked turn to
crime.
3 types of deviant subcultures identified:
Criminal Organised crime (e.g. the mafia) where career criminals ca
Subcultures n socialise
Safdar-Ahmed
Topic 1 – Crime, Deviance, Social Order and Social
Control
The Social Construction of Crime and Deviance
The Social Construction of Crime:
Newburn suggests that crime is a label attached to behaviour which is
prohibited by the state and has some legal penalty against it.
Crime is socially constructed – an act only becomes a crime when the label of
‘crime’ is applied to it.
Crime covers a very wide range of behaviour, so it is extremely difficult to
develop explanations that account for the vast diversity of acts that are labelled
as criminal.
The Social Construction of Deviance:
Like crime (itself a form of deviance), deviance is a social construction.
Plummer distinguishes between societal and situational deviance.
- Societal deviance – acts that most members of a society regard as deviant
because they share similar ideas about approved and unapproved behaviour
- Situational deviance – acts where whether or not they are seen as deviant
depends on the context or location in which they take place.
These two concepts suggest that what is regarded as deviant may:
- Vary between different societies, cultures, contexts and locations
- Vary between groups within the same society.
- Change over time.
Functionalists and Subcultural theories
Durkheim argued that deviance itself was functional, normal and inevitable.
Durkheim suggested that deviance had the following functions:
Boundary maintenance
Social cohesion
Adaptations and Change
Durkheim argued that in a functioning society there is a value consensus into which,
thanks to various institutions, the vast majority in a society have been socialised. One
of the ways in which this consensus is reinforced is through the policing of the
margins: The Formal and Informal sanctions used to either reward those who conform
and punish those who deviate. Indeed, our shared disapproval of deviant behaviour
strengthens our social solidarity. Durkheim argues that even in a ‘Society of saints’
there will be sinners/Deviance.
He also states how deviance facilitates social change and without deviation social
change would never occur. (However, most functionalists promote
incremental organic change and not radical change)
, Deviant behaviour can help facilitate legal change; Growing acceptance of
homosexuality, Civil rights act.
Durkheim argued that too much or too little deviance was bad as it showed that
there was either too much or too little social control from governments. He argued
that pre-industrial eras had little deviance as people shared mechanical solidarity
and the shift towards privatisation and isolationism showed a rapid increase in
isolationism.
Durkheim also argued that when societies went under rapid social changes, like
the industrial revolution there would be increased deviance due to what
he called ANOMIE: normlessness or an absence of social control and cohesion.
Evaluating Durkheim
- Realists criticise the idea that crime is normal and functional as it leaves
victims, and they argue policies need to be enforced to stop crime.
- Marxists argue that the value consensus is from the ideology of the ruling
class.
- Other functionalists point out how Durkheim although showing some societies
have more crime than others doesn’t explain why certain demographic groups
do.
Kingsley David:
- Deviance acts as a safety valve for society -> Prostitution helps men release
frustration.
Polsky:
- Polsky 1967 – Safety valve through porn helping release frustration.
Erikson (1966):
- Society is organised to allow some forms of deviancy – believes that because of
these positive functions, police are actually designed to create and maintain
crime rather than stop it.
SUBCULTURAL THEORISTS
Robert Merton – Strain Method (1938)
He concluded that Americans were socialised into the American dream; that a
consensus existed about what people’s social goals should be: Success, wealth,
materialism. However, equal access to these goals didn’t exist: STRAIN between
the socially encouraged goals and the socially acceptable means in which they are
achieved.
Socialised into the American dream due to the meritocratic society.
Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which
were likely to lead to crime.
The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means a
nd/or the goals
1) So, while some conform and work hard others will adapt and this adaptation
may be into crime.
, 2) Innovation – Creating new means
3) Ritualism – Rejecting the goals but following the rules
4) Some reject both the means and the goal and exile themselves from society
(Retreatist). – Merton thought that these individuals would use drugs and
commit crimes.
5) The other adaption is rebellion which may lead to crime regarding violence.
Evaluating Merton
Merton explained Durkheim’s idea of Anomie in detail
Merton doesn’t consider the source of social goals. Marxists would argue that it
comes from the Bourgeoise, and they would argue that this is not a value
consensus.
Merton doesn’t explain why people find it harder to achieve social goals. He does
not pursue the idea of inequality.
Similarly, Merton doesn’t consider why different people have different adaptations.
He doesn’t explain why groups of people are deviant in different ways and why
deviant people socialise in groups like gangs.
Merton doesn’t describe crime that has no monetary gain like violence and
murder.
Travis Hirschi: Bonds of attachment (1969)
Focuses on why people don’t commit crime rather than commit crime like other
sociologists do – How is social control achieved?
He identifies bonds of attachment that link to the value consensus and ensure
social control and order, these are:
Attachment – How much do we care what others think? We may particularly
think about how our partners and spouses feel if we commit crime.
Commitment – What have we got to lose? If we have a good job, we put it in
jeopardy by committing crimes,
Involvement – How involved are we in society? What takes up our time?
Would we have time to commit crime?
Belief – To what extent do we believe obeying the law is the right thing to
do? How strong in the personal moral code?
Turning this on its head: Those who are more likely to commit crimes who do not have
family attachments, work commitments, school involvements and a strong moral
code, these people tend to be young, marginalised and single.
Evaluating Hirschi
Suggest an absence of attachment bonds leads to criminality. Helps policy
makers in areas such as promoting young activities like sports clubs in order to
reduce and or prevent crime and deviance.
Like other functionalists he doesn’t really address the issue of why some people
have secure bonds and others don’t have secure bonds – Marxists and Feminists
would point out how there is NO value consensus that benefits all members of
society: instead, society is characterised by conflict promoted through the
detachment fostered by capitalism. The reserve army of labour also keeps the
Proletariat trapped due to low wages.
, Albert Cohen – Status frustration (1955)
Sets out to develop Merton’s theory and address why groups commit crime and
why people commit non-utilitarian crimes. In doing so he developed a theory about
subcultures.
Cohen argued that working-class boys often failed at school resulting in a low
status. A response to this was the formation of subcultures or gangs with
values that were largely anti-mainstream values.
What was deemed taboo or deviant in mainstream society was praiseworthy in the
subculture.
Clear link between this (a Subculture born out of frustration) and the ‘Lads’ in Paul
Willis’s ‘Learning to labouring’
Cohen’s theory sought to explain delinquent crime and non-utilitarian crimes.
Crimes like fighting and vandalism can be explained by the subcultures inverting
the values of mainstream society, making socially deviant acts applaudable.
Evaluating Cohen:
Cohen’s suggestion that members of these delinquent subcultures invert the
norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. Postmodernists like
Lyng and Katz argue that it is more likely that individuals are influenced by
boredom or is seeking a buzz. However, it can be countered that delinquents are
conscious and seek reward and status within their group without individually
inverting mainstream values.
Cohen specifically says that this is a phenomenon relating to “Working-class boys”
but he makes few links to social class and gender. Why do they struggle to attain
status? Others like Willis, attempt to address this. Also, why boys? If the reason is
low status, Feminists would suggest that in 1950’s America, you would expect girls
to be the ones forming deviant subcultures. Therefore, flawed.
He does successfully develop Merton’s strain theory. Therefore, together Merton
and Cohen offer a functionalist explanation.
Cloward and Ohlin: Illegitimate opportunity structures (1960)
Sought to combine Merton and Cohen to explain the different kinds of criminal
subcultures they identified in contemporary America. They argued there was a
“Legitimate opportunity structure” (Socially acceptable means to achieving
social goals), they also identified an alternative “Illegitimate opportunity
structures” which was available through gang membership.
However, just as not all people could easily access the legitimate opportunity
structure and material success (Strain theory), there could also be a strain in
relation to illegitimate opportunity structure.
Just because people cannot be wealthy through hard work doesn’t mean they will
easily find a path to wealth through crime.
Some people are born in areas of high crime others aren’t.
The types of subcultures available vary and this goes a long way to explaining why
not all those who find legitimate opportunity structures are blocked turn to
crime.
3 types of deviant subcultures identified:
Criminal Organised crime (e.g. the mafia) where career criminals ca
Subcultures n socialise
