Crime and Deviance
Functionalist theories of Crime:
• Functionalists view society as a big machine made up of many parts, if the machine represents society then
the parts represent the key social institutions e.g. religion, education, crime.
• Like any machine should any of these parts ‘stop working’, then the whole machine (society) will break
down.
• Each part has a functional relationship with the other, and all are crucial to the smooth running, balance
and harmony of the machine.
• Functionalists traditionally and interestingly have focused on the positive functions of crime and deviance,
obviously too much crime is bad for society (anomie), but Durkheim said that too little crime was also bad
for society. He asked us to imagine a ‘society of saints’, a society where murder, rape and theft simply did
not exist. In such a world the slightest infraction would lead to the severest punishment. In this way he
illustrates the importance of crime in reaffirming and maintaining the boundaries between appropriate and
inappropriate behaviour.
• Crime also reinforces value consensus, it reminds us whats important, brings people closer together by
reinforcing social solidarity. e.g. Je Suis Charlie. As well as this media reporting of incidents of child abuse
has the effect of reinforcing social control against child abusers and unites the public in displays of
disapproval.
• Cohen points out a number of other positive functions of crime:
1. Crime is a release valve — man who screws a prostitute keeps his family together by not having an
affair or leaving his wife.
2. Deviance can act as a warning device — a minor act of deviance can bring a major issue to our
attention that we otherwise would not have been aware of, which can then lead to a resolution to
make society better.
• These early functionalist contributions are elegant and interesting theories which force us to look at crime
in a slightly different way and therefore arguably they have contributed greatly to our understanding of
crime and deviance. However, they do very little to explain it, why does crime happen, why does one
person commit crime yet another does not? One functionalist who was keen to tackle this question was
Robert K Merton.
Merton’s strain theory:
Merton argued that crime was the result of the strain between goals
and means, at the time he was writing he was concerned that
America was on the brink of anomie. The American dream was
failing because “winning had become more important than the
rules of the game”. Most people have the same goal in life, to be
successful, success for most people is viewed materially (money).
Society provides a socially acceptable means of achieving this
success (school, hard work, qualifications), most people, most of
the time accept the cultural goal of money/success and accept the
socially approved means of achieving it. Merton called this response conformity. However, some individuals,
because of their position on the social structure, may be denied access to the cultural goal of money/success
via the legitimate means. These individuals cannot abandon the goal so they reject the means and develop
their own, often illegitimate, means (crime) for achieving money/success). Merton called this adaptation to
the strain between goals and means innovation (see picture).
1 of 17
,Other responses include:
Ritualists are committed to the means so are forced to abandon or readjust the goal e.g. teachers or nurses.
Their training and upbringing commits them to the means but their choice of profession implies that they will
never achieve money/success. So they convince themselves that its not all about money, it’s about helping
people.
Retreatists are drop-outs, drug addicts, alcoholics, the homeless etc. these individuals have retreated into
themselves and abandoned both the cultural goal of money/success and the socially approved means of
achieving it. Their only goal is the next hit or drink and they will turn to whatever means to achieve it (often
criminal).
Rebels also abandon the goal and means but replace them both with new ones, e.g. revolutionary Marxists or
ISIS.
Response Goal (money, success) Means (hard work/school) Example
Conformity ✓ ✓ The non-deviant, non-
criminal conformist citizen
Innovation ✓ × Factors like poor
educational qualifications
or unemployment can mean
some can''t achieved goals
by approved means so turn
to crime as an alternative
Ritualism × ✓ Give up on achieving goals,
but stick to means, e.g.
teachers who no longer care
about student success
Retreatism × × Drop-outs and drug addicts
who give up all together
Rebellion ×/✓ ×/✓ Reject existing social goals
and means, but substitute
new ones to create a new
society, e.g. revolutionaries/
Marxists
✓= accept, × = reject
Evaluation:
- Merton’s Strain Theory is a departure form other functionalist theories because it is at the very least a
clear attempt to explain why crime happens (rather than simply understanding it).
- Nevertheless, a key criticism of Merton’s sting theory is that it cannot explain non-utilitarian crime (crime
that is not motivated by financial gain).
- He assumes everyone has the same means and goals.
- Focuses on individual responses, doesn't recognise the social pattern of crime.
- Doesn't explain why most people who face strain don't turn to crime or deviance.
- Exaggerates working class crime by not recognising that there are many outworlds respectable and
conforming people who are ‘innovators’ and involved in illegal activities i.e white collar crimes and
corporate crime.
2 of 17
, In order to understand such crimes, we need to examine sub-cultural approaches to crime and deviance.
Sub-cultural approaches to crime and deviance:
• Sub-cultural theories explain deviance in terms of
how groups respond to the strain facing them in
achieving social goals, rather than individuals
(Merton). Their theories focus on the position of
groups in the social structure and how these
groups adapt to the strain facing them in
achieving social goals.
• They focus on male-working class juvenile
delinquents.
Status Frustration:
Albert Cohen argues that working-class males
accept mainstream goals, but cultural and material
deprivation block legitimate means of achieving
them, which leads to status frustration.
They react by forming a sub-culture that reverses mainstream values (hard work etc) and replaces them with
delinquent values (drugs, vandalism etc). Gives working-class youth a chance to achieve status within their
peer group. — delinquent subcultures Cohen identifies an element of revenge in this subculture, an attempt
to get back at the society that has denied them status. This helps explain why a lot of juvenile offences are
not motivated by financial gain.
Evaluation:
- Explains working-class delinquency as a group response rather than an individual response.
- Wrongly assumes that delinquents originally accept the mainstream goals against which they react and
only develop delinquent values as a reaction to what they cant achieve. Miller disagrees.
- Matza’s studies show most young delinquents are not committed to delinquent values.
Cloward and Ohlin:
Believe not all w/c youth have the same chances of accessing illegitimate opportunities. Leads to 3 types of
delinquent subcultures:
• Criminal subcultures — found in more stable working class areas. Adult criminals provide training and
career opportunities for aspiring young criminals to achieve material goals by illegitimate means,
• Conflict subcultures — found in socially disorganised areas. Young people respond by achieving status
through violence, gang culture and opportunist street crimes.
• Retreatist subcultures — those who fail in mainstream society and in the criminal and conflict
subcultures (double failures), retreat into drug addiction and alcoholism.
Evaluation:
- Gives insight into why w/c delinquency takes different forms in different social circumstances.
- They exaggerate the differences between the three types of subculture as there is a lot of overlap. For
example, utilitarian crime features in all three subcultures and good stolen in the retreatist subculture to
3 of 17
