Functionalism and crime summary sheet

Durkheim argued that deviance and crime can only be explained

by looking at the way societies are socially organised, i.e.
their social structures. In other words, crime in the UK is not
caused by evil, or by poor parenting or any other individual or
family shortcoming rather it is caused by the way British
society is socially organised. Functionalism is therefore a
structuralist theory of crime.
Durkheim noted that crime was very low in pre-industrial
societies because of the existence of mechanical solidarity religion and family were very powerful agents of socialisation.
However, in Durkheims view modern societies have a tendency
towards anomiethe rules of the governing behaviour become
weak or less clear-cut. This is because modern societies have a
complex and specialised division of labour which has led to
increasing diversity. This means that the collective conscience is
weakened, leading to criminal and deviant behaviour

Postmodernists view the category crime as simply a social

construction, based on a narrow legal definition, reflecting
an outdated metanarrative of law which does not reflect the
diversity of postmodern society.

This is supported by Postmodernists who see individuals as

being increasingly focused on themselves, often with little
sense of obligation to others, or regard and respect for
them, which reduces constraints over committing crime.
However, Postmodernists are also critical of theories of
crime such as Functionalism as they argue that the
individualism of identity in postmodern society means that
the social causes of crime are undiscoverable.
Durkheim also never properly explains why some
individuals and groups are more prone to committing
crime than others. His main explanation for crime
anomie does not seem specific to any one group.

For Durkheim (1893) crime is normal...an integral part of all

healthy societies as not everybody is equally socialised into the
shared norms and values of society, so some individuals may be
prone to deviate.
Durkheim claimed that all societies contained crime and
deviance. He therefore concluded that crime was a social fact and
that consequently it must perform some useful function for
society. He argued that some crimes acted as a social barometer
they were a sign that some type of social change was necessary
e.g. the suffragettes argued in the early part of the 20th century
that the only way they could get societys attention to bring
about equal rights for women was to break the law.

This is supported by the New Right approach who argue that

lone-parent families fail to adequately socialise their
children into correct norms and values of society. This is
particularly the case in young males who do not have male
role model in their life.
However, Durkheim has been criticised for failing to
consider the possible dysfunctions of crime and deviance.
For example, it is difficult to see how crimes such as rape or
child abuse are functional. Marxist sociologists also claim
that he over-stresses consensus and that crime is actually
the product of class conflict. He also fails to explain why
some social groups are more likely to commit crime than
others.

Durkheim also noted that some crime functions to promote

community because society often unites in reaction to some
terrible crime, e.g. the 7/7 bombings. Moreover, crime reinforces
peoples commitment to the consensus by reminding them what
counts as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Finally, some functionalists have argued that crime can function
as a safety valve some lesser types of crime may prevent a rise
in more serious types, e.g. Davis argues that the legalisation of
prostitution may reduce rape although many feminist sociologists
dispute this.
The functionalist Robert Merton built upon Durkheims ideas and
argued that crime has little to do with individual or family
deficiencies. Rather he argued that crime was the product of a
strain between the cultural goals set by capitalist societies and
the institutional means that those societies provided its members
for achieving those goals. Merton noted that most of those who
experience blocked opportunities remain committed to the value
consensus, i.e. they continue to conform. However, some are
motivated to innovate, i.e. turn to crime, in order to achieve
material success. Some retreat they reject material success by
dropping out of society in various ways. A minority may be
motivated to rebel and may conspire to replace the capitalist
system with one which was more suited to their beliefs, e.g.
communists, terrorists etc. In summary, then, Mertons theory
suggests that crime is caused by conformity to the dominant
value system both the law-abiding citizen and the criminal are
shaped by the same cultural goals. Sumner argues that Merton
had uncovered the main cause of crime in modern capitalist
societies anomie caused by disillusion with the impossible
goals set by capitalist culture.

Merton has been criticised because he does not explain why

an individual chooses one particular form of deviant
adaptation rather than another, e.g. why do some
people react to blocked opportunities by committing crime
but most people conform. It also fails to explain juvenile
delinquency as they are not yet experiencing blocked
opportunites.
However, Mertons analysis also inspired a number of other
influential theories of crime and delinquency. Firstly, Albert
Cohens subcultural theory attempts to remedy the
criticism that Mertons theory does not really address youth
crime (juvenile delinquency). However, Cohen claimed
that Mertons idea that deviance is the product of a
mismatch between societys goals and the means of
achieving those goals can be applied to crimes
committed by young people.
Cohen argues that young people are set a social goal
to gain status and the means of achieving this is
educational performance and the acquisition of
qualifications. However, some young people usually
those from working-class backgrounds cannot achieve
status in this way because their parents have not
equipped them with the right skills and because

schools have relegated them to the bottom sets or

streams. These boys therefore experience anomie they
are frustrated by the treatment they receive from teachers
(Cohen calls this status frustration).
Reiner (2007) takes a Mertonian approach to crime and argues
Both Reiner and Merton highlight the inevitability of a
that since the 1950s the acquisition of money has become
criminal response to the anomie caused by the
the main source of status and therefore, the main
organisation of contemporary UK society. Both suggest
aspirational goal of many people in modern Britain. However, that Mertons concept of anomie will be crucial to our
Reiner argues that society has failed to provide the means
understanding of the crime explosion that they believe will
education and well-paid jobs by which monetary success be the inevitable consequence of the economic recession
or wealth might become a reality for the majority. He notes and austerity that the UK is currently experiencing.
that this is frustrating for the majority because at the same
time, they can see massive inequality because in the last thirty
years, the rich have got richer whilst the poor have got
poorer.