Assess the functionalist view of crime and deviance. [40]
Functionalism is a macro perspective which sees society as functional and does not seek to be critical
of society, or the values and norms society has. Functionalists believe that people share the same
values – and crime and deviance is functional and necessary for social change and a normal part of
everyday life. They also believe social control mechanism are necessary to protect social order.
Functionalist’s views on crime and deviance are supported by the New Right and some subcultural
theorists – but Marxists, interactionists and left realists believe that functionalists overlook the
causes of crime, what is defined as deviance, and ignores the victims of crime.
Firstly, Functionalists believe that crime is needed. Durkheim believes that crime is both inevitable
and functional. Firstly, he believes it is inevitable because people are socialised differently and have
different circumstances, so have different reluctancies to break the law. He argues that in a ‘Society
of Saints’, with perfect people, deviant would still occur as the slightest slip would be considered
deviant. For example, in British society wearing the wrong clothing to certain events, such as
wearing bright colours to a funeral, could be considered deviant. Durkheim also believes crime is
functional and is only dysfunctional if crime is too high or too low. He suggests that social change
comes from deviance, with his quote ‘Yesterday’s deviance comes from today’s normality’. He
believes that deviance can promote social change, such as in the cases of suffragettes or gay right
movements using crime to advocate for their human rights. He branches off this idea and says that
crime serves 2 functions. Firstly, a safety valve function, which allows people to express their
discontent and satisfy their needs safely. For example, Cohen et. al believe that prostitution perform
a safety valve function without threatening the institution of the family. The second function is a
warning device function, which shows what parts of society are not working so society can respond
with policies and strategies, in areas such as truancy, for example. This theory has been criticised by
many as it fails to explain why deviance or crime happens in the first place, and what causes it. It
also doesn’t distinguish between different types or levels of crime. In addition to this, it overlooks
the individual nature of crime – some crimes are never right, no matter what time in history they
take place, such as domestic abuse. Left realists expand on this point and suggest that crime is a
problem, especially for victims, and is amplified by inequalities, which Durkheim ignores.
In contrast to functionalists such as Durkheim, Left Realists believe crime is a problem. Young
suggests there is an aetiological crisis among different theories, meaning there is a crisis in
explanation. Left Realists, therefore, seek to find out why deviance exists and how to solve these
crimes, as it is a real problem for the victims. Left realists suggest 3 reasons for crime. The first is
relative deprivation, which is the feeling of being poor, possibly because the media advertise goods
that cannot be obtained honestly by most. Young says that poverty itself, however, is not the cause
of crime – as the poorest groups such as the elderly would commit the most amount of crime if
that’s the case. The next is subcultural membership, in which they suggest working-class subcultures
are anti-authority or antagonistic to the police. These subcultures develop as a response to poor
social conditions, and different groups may produce different subcultural solutions to this problem.
Criminal subcultures still share the same values of mainstream society such as materialism and
consumerism but seek different ways of getting there. For example, Pryce (1979) studied subcultures
in Bristol and identified some subcultural groups such as hustlers (pleasure seeking criminals),
Rastafarians and working class ‘respectables’. The final cause is marginalisation which is when the
poor feel disadvantages and side-lined by society. This means the only way they may be able to
influence politics is through rioting and violence. This is because there is no organisation to
represent them or no clear goals, just a sense of resentment or frustration. Kinsley, Lea and Young
(1986) seek to stop these crimes, first by suggesting that police clear-up rates are too low and that
, the police spend too much time actually investigating crime. They argue that the public must
become more involved in determining the police’s priorities and style of policing, as the police
depend on the public to provide them with information about crime. 90% of crimes known to the
police are reported to them by the public. Therefore, functionalist thinking is criticised by left realists
because it lacks explanation, especially in terms of the causes of crime. However, left realism is often
based on a range of different thinking, and this theory has conflicts within itself. Feminists also
identify that it overlooks the way females are victimised in society. Left realists also identify that
crime is a problem that needs to be solved, which functionalists do not and therefore they point out
the weaknesses in functionalist’s explanations. Other functionalist thinkers, however, do investigate
the causes of crime such as Merton.
Functionalists believe that deviance occurs due to structural inequality and is a response between a
lack of ability to achieve socially acceptable, societally valued goals. For example, Merton says that
deviance occurs when not everyone is given the ability to achieve socially acceptable goals. |He
believes deviance stems from the nature and structure of society, and that value consensus means
that people share the same values, but not everyone has the same opportunity to realise these
values. For example, he studied American society and said that the American Dream is a valued,
socially acceptable goal but is met by institutionalised means, which leads to inequality. He took
these ideas and said that people have different responses to these cultural goals, and that a gap
between person or social aims and the means of achieving them causes anomie, which means a lack
of norms. This gap is referred to the strain, and the theory is name strain theory. He says there are 5
responses to the strain. Firstly, Conformists which are people who conform to both the goals and
means of achieving them. Next, innovators which are people who commit to social or personal goals
but seek other ways of achieving them. Also, ritualists who go through the institutionalised route
without any expectations or goals and are said to go ‘through the motions’. Retreatists are people
who reject both the goals and the means of achieving these goals. They may become deviants and
turn to alternative lifestyles, such as becoming drug addicts. Finally, the last response is rebellion
which is when people wish to replace shared values with their alternative ones. This means that they
may deviate to promote new values, such as terrorists shown in the instances of the Manchester
Ariana Grande concert bombings, or the London 7/11 bombings. Eco activists are also considered
among those who rebel, with organisations such as Just Stop Oil vandalising paintings and blocking
roads to spread their message about climate change. This explanation, however, ignores criminal
behaviour that can be destructive or self-destructive such as drug use or non-politically motivated
vandalism, which is not about gaining wealth or power. It also ignores deviant subcultures, which
subcultural theorists, such as Cohen, expand on. A big argument against this theory is that it does
not explain why white-collar crime happens, which Marxists such as Laureen Snider expand on.
Marxists believe that crime is mostly committed by the working class, and this can be explained in
many ways, one of which being that laws favour upper- and middle-class people. For example,
Laureen Snider says that states are reluctant to pass laws that offend the interests of big businesses
because companies have a lot of power. She says laws appear to treat everyone equally, but laws
affecting the rich are not as rigorously enforced. This is affected by the enforcement of the laws, but
also the media reporting of these crimes. This can be shown in the examples of benefit cheating and
tax evasion – where benefit cheating is a working-class type of fraud, in which £1.2 billion was lost to
the treasury in 2012/13. This is compared to tax evasion, a middle to upper-class type of fraud in
which £4.1 billion was lost to the treasury in 2012/13. This exemplifies how recent government crack
downs on benefit cheating and media portrayal of benefit cheaters may be a moral panic, especially
in comparison to tax evaders. Snider also says that health and environmental crimes are overlooked
in the interests of inward investments and profile. This is exemplified by the Union Carbide Bhopal
