Crime and Deviance Notes
Topic 1: Functionalist, Strain and Subcultural Theories
Durkheim’s functionalist theory of crime:
Functionalists see society as a stable system based on value consensus. This
produces social solidarity, binding individuals into a harmonious unit. Two achieve this
society has two mechanisms:
1. Socialisation: instils shared culture into individuals to ensure they internalise the
same norms and values and believe it is right to act in the ways that society needs.
2. Social control: mechanisms include positive sanctions for conformity and negative
sanctions for deviance.
Crime is inevitable and universal:
While crime does disrupt social stability, functionalists see it as inevitable and
universal. Durkheim sees crime as a natural part of a healthy society:
- In every society, some individuals are inadequately socialised and prone to deviate.
E.g. parents of single-parent families.
- In modern societies, there is a highly specialised division of labour and a diversity of
subcultures. Individuals and groups become increasingly different to each other, and
shared rules of behaviour become more blurred. Durkheim refers to this as anomie
(normlessness). E.g. Durkheim’s ideas of anomic suicide can illustrate the idea of
anomie: rapid change in society can result in suicide as norms become more blurred.
Functions of crime:
For Durkheim, crime fulfils two important positive functions:
1. Boundary maintenance: crime produces a reaction from society, uniting its members
against the criminal and reinforcing their commitment to value consensus. This is the
function of negative sanctions: to reaffirm these shared rules and reinforce social
solidarity. E.g. courtroom rituals publicly stigmatise offenders, reminding everyone of
the boundaries between right and wrong. Cohen’s ideas of how the media create
‘folk devils’ illustrates this view.
2. Adaptation and change: for Durkheim, all change starts with deviance. For change to
occur, individuals with new ideas must challenge the existing norms, and at first this
will appear as deviance. If this is suppressed, society will be unable to make the
necessary changes and will stagnate.
(Functionalists identify other positive functions of crime:
- Safety valve: Davis argues that prostitution acts release men’s sexual frustrations
without harming the nuclear family.
- Warning light: A.K. Cohen argues that deviance indicates that an institution is not
operating correctly, e.g. high truancy rates may indicate problems with the
education system).
- Functionalists are criticised for their argument that crime is beneficial to society but
ignore how it may affect individuals, e.g. it is not beneficial for its victims)
Criticisms of Durkheim:
, - Durkheim claims that society needs a certain amount of deviance to function, but
offers no way of knowing how much the right amount is.
- Durkheim and other functionalists explain crime it terms of its function, e.g.
boundary maintenance and strengthen solidarity. But just because crime does these
things does not mean this is why it exists in the first place.
Merton’s Strain Theory:
Merton argues that people engage in deviant behaviour when they cannot achieve
socially approved goals by legitimate means. His explanation combines:
- Structural factors: society’s unequal opportunity structure
- Cultural factors: the strong cultural emphasis on success goals and weaker emphasis
on using legitimate means to achieve them.
The American Dream:
For Merton, deviance is the result of a strain between goals that culture encourages
people to aim for and what the structure of society actually allows them to achieve
legitimately. He uses the American dream to illustrate this:
- The American dream emphasis monetary success. Americans are expected to pursue
this goal by legitimate means, e.g. education and hard work.
- The ideology claims that American society is meritocratic. But in reality, poverty and
discrimination block opportunities for many to achieve goals by legitimate means.
- The resulting stress between the cultural goal of monetary success and lack of
legitimate opportunities produces strain and pressure to resort to illegitimate
means.
- The pressure is increased by the fact that American culture puts more emphasis on
achieving success at any price than upon doing so by legitimate means. Winning the
game is more important than playing by the rules.
- Merton views American society as tending towards anomie as the norms are too
weak to restrain people from using illegitimate means to achieve the monetary
success that American culture sets for them.
- American sociologists criticise Merton arguing that blocked opportunities have been
alleviated by federal policies such as Affirmative Action.
Deviant adaptations to strain:
Merton seeks to explain the different patterns of deviance. He argues that an
individual’s position in the social structure affects how they adapt to the strain. He identifies
5 types of adaptations:
1. Conformity: individuals accept the culturally approved goals and strive to achieve
them legitimately. (Likely of the middle class)
2. Innovation: individuals accept the money success goals but use illegitimate means to
achieve it. This is typical of those who lack legitimate opportunities. (Likely of the
working class)
3. Ritualism: individuals give up on the goal, but have internalised the legitimate means
and follow the rules for their own sake. (Likely of the lower middle class)
4. Retreatism: individuals reject both the goals and legitimate means, and drop out of
society. (likely of the addicts, vagrants etc)
, 5. Rebellion: individuals replace existing goals and means with new ones with the aim
of creating social change (Likely of the political rebels).
Strengths of Merton’s approach:
Merton shows how both normal and deviant behaviour can arise from the same
mainstream goals. Conformists and innovators both pursue the same goal, but by different
means. He explains the patterns shown in official statistics:
- Most crime is property crime, because American society values material wealth so
highly.
- Working class crime rates are higher, because they have the least opportunity to
obtain wealth legitimately.
Merton’s theory has been criticised on several grounds:
- It takes official states at face value, when they are socially constructed due to over-
representation and under-recording.
- It is too deterministic: not all working class people deviate.
- It ignores the powers of the ruling class to make and enforce the laws.
Subcultural strain theories both criticise Merton’s theory and build on it. They see deviance
as the product of delinquent subcultures. These subcultures offer their lower class members
a solution to the problem of how to gain the status they cannot achieve by legitimate
means.
A.K. Cohen: Status Frustration
Cohen agrees that much deviance results from the lower classes’ inability to achieve
mainstream success goals by legitimate means such as education. However, he criticises
Merton’s explanation:
1. Merton sees deviance as an individual response to strain, ignoring the group
deviance of delinquent subcultures.
2. Merton focuses on utilitarian crimes for material gain (e.g. theft). He ignores non-
utilitarian crimes that have no material gain, e.g. assault and vandalism.
Cohen notes that working class boys face anomie in the middle class education system.
- They are culturally deprived and lacks the skills to achieve, leaving them at the
bottom of the official status hierarchy.
- As a result, they suffer ‘status frustration’. They resolve it by rejecting mainstream
middle class values and turn instead to others in the same situation, forming a
subculture.
Alternative status hierarchy:
For Cohen, the subculture offers a ‘illegitimate opportunity structure’ for boys who
have failed to achieve legitimately.
- The subculture provides an ‘alternative status hierarchy’ where they can win status
through deviant actions.
- Its values include spite, hostility and contempt to those outside it. The subculture
inverts mainstream values. What society praises, it condemns e.g. society respects
property, whereas boys gain status from vandalising it.
Evaluation of Cohen:
