Durkheim's functionalist theory

Functionalism sees society based on value consensus, it sees members of society as sharing a common culture. A culture is a set of shared norms (rules), values, beliefs, and goals. Sharing the same culture produces social solidarity; it binds individuals together, telling them what to strive for and how to conduct themselves.

Functionalists argue that in order to achieve this solidarity, society has two key mechanisms:

• Socialisation instils the shared culture into its members This helps to ensure that individuals internalise the same norms and values, and that they feel it right to act in the ways that society requires

• Social control mechanisms include rewards (or positive sanctions) for conformity, and punishments (negative sanctions) for deviance. These help ensure that individuals behave in the way society expects

The inevitability of crime

We might expect that functionalists would regard crime and deviance as wholly negative—a threat to social order and even the very existence of society. For example, if each of us chose to 'do our own thing-whether it be refusing to work or helping ourselves to others' possessions—it is hard to imagine how society could continue to exist.

However, while functionalists see too much crime as destabilising society, they also see crime as inevitable and universal. Every known society has some level of crime and deviance-a crime-free society is a contradiction in terms For Durkheim (1893), 'crime is normal and an integral part of all healthy societies

There are at least two reasons why crime and deviance are found in all societies. Firstly, not everyone is equal. effectively socialised, into the shared norms and values so some individuals will be prone to deviate. Secondly, particularly in complex modern societies, there is a diversity of lifestyles and values. Different groups develop their own subcultures with distinctive norms and values, and what the members of the subculture regard as normal, mainstream culture may see as deviant.

In Durkheim's view, modern societies tend towards anomie or normlessness- the rules governing behaviour become weaker and less clear-cut. This is because modern societies have a complex, specialised division of labour, which leads to individuals becoming increasingly different from one another This weakens the shared culture or collective conscience and results in higher levels of deviance, For example, Durkheim sees anomie as a cause of suicide

The positive functions of crime

For Durkheim, not only is crime inevitable; it also fulfils two important positive functions.

1. Boundary maintenance

Crime produces a reaction from society, uniting its members in condemnation of the wrongdoer and reinforcing their commitment to the shared norms and values

For Durkheim, this explains the function of punishment. This is not to make the wrongdoer suffer or mend their ways, nor is it to remove crime from society, In Durkheim's view the purpose of punishment is to reaffirm society's shared rules and reinforce social solidarity.

This may be done through the rituals of the courtroom which dramatise wrongdoing and publicly shame.and stigmatise the offender. This reaffirms the values of the law- abiding majority and discourages others from rule breaking. Similarly, Stanley Cohen has examined the important role played by the media in this 'dramatisation of evil. In his view, media coverage of crime and deviance often creates 'folk devils'.

1. Adaptation and change

For Durkheim, all change starts with an act of deviance Individuals with new ideas, values and ways of living must not be completely stifled by the weight of social control There must be some scope for them to challenge and change existing norms and values, and in the first instance this will inevitably appear as deviance. For example, the authorities often persecute religious visionaries who espouse a new 'message' or value-system, However, in the long run their values may give rise to a new culture and morality if those with new ideas are suppressed, society will stagnate and be unable to make necessary adaptive changes.

To summarise for Durkheim, neither a very high nor a very low level of crime is desirable. Each of these signals some malfunctioning of the social system:

• Too much crime threatens to tear the bonds of society apart

• Too little means that society is repressing and controlling its members too much, stifling individual freedom and preventing change.

Other functions of crime

Others have developed Durkheim's idea that deviance can have positive functions. For example, Kingsley Davis argued that prostitution acts as a safety valve for the release of men's sexual frustrations without threatening the monogamous nuclear family. Similarly, Ned Polsky argues that pornography safely 'channels' a variety of sexual desires away from alternatives such as adultery, which would pose a much greater threat to the family.

Albert Cohen identifies another function of deviance; a warning that an institution is not functioning properly. For example, high rates of truancy may tell us that there are problems with the education system and that policy-makers need to make appropriate changes to it.

Functionalists have also developed Durkheim's idea of the normality or inevitability of deviance. For example, Kai. Erikson argued that if deviance performs positive social functions, then perhaps it means society is actually organised so as to promote deviance. He suggests that the true function of agencies of social control such as the police may actually be to sustain a certain level of crime rather than to rid society of it. The idea that agencies of social control actually produce rather than prevent crime has been developed further by labelling theory.

Societies sometimes also manage and regulate deviance rather than seeking to eliminate it entirely. For example, demonstrations, carnivals, festivals, sport and student rag weeks all licence misbehaviour that in other contexts might be punished. Similarly, the young may be given leeway to 'sow their wild oats'. From a functionalist perspective, this may be to offer them a way of coping with the tra the transition from childhood to adulthood,

Functionalism is useful in showing the ways in which deviance is integral to society. It provides an important and interesting analysis that directs attention to the ways in which deviance can have hidden or latent functions for society - i.e not everything that is bad, is bad for society

Criticisms

For Durkheim, society requires a certain amount of deviare to function successfully, but he offers no way of knowing how much is the right amount.

Functionalists explain the existence of crime in terms of its supposed function-for example, to strengthen solidarity. But this doesn't mean society actually creates crime in advance with the intention of strengthening solidarity in other words, just because crime does these things is not necessarily why it exists in the first place

Functionalism, looks at what functions deviance perform for society as a whole and ignores how it might affect different groups or individuals within society, For exатре prostitution may be 'functional' as a safety valve for male sexual frustrations, but it obviously isn't functional for the illegally trafficked sex worker who has to meet bis needs. Functionalism misses this because it fails to ask 'functional for whom?'

Crime doesn't always promote solidarity. It may have the opposite effect, leading to people becoming more soletes for example forcing women to stay indoors for fear of attack. On the other hand, some crimes do reinforce collective sentiments, for example uniting the community condemnation of a brutal attack.

Merton's strain theory

Strain theories argue that people engage in deviant behaviour when they are unable to achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. For example, they may become frustrated and resort to criminal means of getting what they want, or lash out at others in anger, or find comfort for their failure in drug use.

The first strain theory was that developed by the functionalist Robert K. Merton, who adapted Durkheim's concept of anomie to explain deviance, Merton's explanation combines two elements:

• Structural factors = society's unequal opportunity structure.

• Cultural factors = the strong emphasis on success goals and the weaker emphasis on using legitimate means to achieve them

For Merton, deviance is the result of a strain between two things

• The goals that a culture encourages individuals to achieve

• What the institutional structure of society allows them to achieve legitimately

For example, American culture values 'money success Individual material wealth and the high status that goes with it

The American Dream

Americans are expected to pursue this goal by legitimate means: self-discipline, study, educational qualifications, and hard work in a career. The ideology of the "American Dream" tells Americans that their society is a meritocratic one when anyone who makes the effort can get ahead - there are opportunities for all.

However, the reality is different: many disadvantaged groups are denied opportunities to achieve legitimately. For example, poverty, inadequate schools and discrimination in the job market may block opportunities for many minority ethnic groups and the lower classes,

The resulting strain between the cultural goal of money success and the lack of legitimate opportunities to achieve it produces frustration, and this in turn creates a pressure to resort to illegitimate means such as crime and deviance. Merton calls this pressure to deviate, the strain to anomie

According to Merton, the pressure to deviate is further 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 becomes more important than playing by the rules.

To summarise, the goal creates a desire to succeed, and lack of opportunity creates a pressure to adopt illegitimate means, while the norms are not strong enough to prevent some from succumbing to this temptation

Deviant adaptations to strain

Merton uses strain theory to explain some of the patterns of deviance found in society. He argues that an individual's position in the social structure affects the way they adapt or respond to the strain to anomie. Logically, there are five different types of adaptation, depending on whether an individual accepts, rejects or replaces approved cultural goals and the legitimate means of achieving them.

Conformity: Individuals accept the culturally approved goals and strive to achieve them legitimately. This is most likely among middle-class individuals who have good opportunities to achieve, but Merton sees it as the typical response of most Americans.

Innovation: Individuals accept the goal of money success but use new, illegitimate means such as theft or fraud to achieve it. As we have seen, those at the lower end of the class structure are under greatest pressure to innovate.

Ritualism: Individuals give up on trying to achieve the goals, but have internalised the legitimate means and so they follow the rules for their own sake. This is typical of lower middle class office workers in dead-end, routine jobs

Retreatism: Individuals reject both the goals and the legitimate means and become dropouts. Mertan includes 'psychotics, outcasts, vagrants, tramps, chronic drunkards and drug addicts' as examples

Rebellion: Individuals reject the existing society's goals and means, but they replace them with new ones in a desire to bring about revolutionary change and create a new kind of society. Rebels include political radicals and counter-cultures such as hippies.

Evaluation of Merton

Merton shows how both normal and deviant behaviour can arise from the same mainstream goals. Both conformists and innovators are pursuing money success-one legitimately, the other illegitimately

He explains the patterns shown in official crime statistics

• Most crime is property crime, because American society values material wealth so highly

• Lower-class crime rates are higher, because they have least opportunity to obtain wealth legitimately.

However, the theory is criticised on several grounds

• It takes official crime statistics at face value. These over- represent working-class crime, so Merton sees crime as a mainly working-class phenomenon. It is also too. deterministic the working class experience the most strain, yet they don't all deviate

• Marxists argue that it ignores the power of the ruling class to make and enforce the laws in ways that criminalise the poor but not the rich

• It assumes there is a value consensus - that everyone strives for money success and ignores the possibility that many may not share this goal.

• It only accounts for utilitarian crime for monetary gain and not crimes of violence, vandalism etc.

• It is hard to see how it could account for state crimes such as genocide or torture

• It explains how deviance results from individuals adapting to the strain to anomie but ignores the role of group deviance, such as delinquent subcultures

Subcultural strain theories

Subcultural strain theories see deviance as the product of a delinquent subculture with different values from those of mainstream society. They see subcultures as providing an alternative opportunity structure for those who are denied the chance to achieve by legitimate means, mainly those in the working class. From this point of view, subcultures are a solution to a problem and therefore functional for their members, even if not for wider society. Subcultural strain theories both criticise Merton's theory and build on it.

A.K. Cohen: status frustration

Albert K. Cohen agrees with Merton that deviance is largely a lower-class phenomenon. It results from the inability of those in the lower classes to achieve mainstream success goals by legitimate means such as educational achievement. However, Cohen criticises Merton's explanation of deviance on two grounds:

• Merton sees deviance as an individual response to strain. ignoring the fact that much deviance is committed in or by groups, especially among the young

• Merton focuses on utilitarian crime committed for material gain, such as theft or fraud. He largely ignores crimes such as assault and vandalism, which may have no economic motive

Cohen focuses on deviance among working-class boys. He argues that they face anomie in the middle-class dominated school system. They suffer from cultural deprivation and lack the skills to achieve. Their inability to succeed in this middle-class world leaves them at the bottom of the official status hierarchy

As a result of being unable to achieve status by legitimate means (education), the boys suffer status frustration. They face a problem of adjustment to the low status they are given by mainstream society. In Cohen's view, they resolve their frustration by rejecting mainstream middle-class values and they turn instead to other boys in the same situation forming or joining a delinquent subculture.

Alternative status hierarchy

According to Cohen, the subculture's values are spite, malice, hostility and contempt for those outside it. The delinquent subculture inverts the values of mainstream society-turns them upside down. What society condemns the subculture praises and vice versa. For example, society upholds regular school attendance and respect for property whereas in the subculture, boys gain status from vandalism property and truanting.

For Cohen, the subculture's function is that it offers the boy an alternative status hierarchy in which they can achieve Having failed in the legitimate opportunity structure, the boys create their own illegitimate opportunity structure in which they can win status from their peers through their delinquent actions..

One strength of Cohen's theory is that it offers an explanation of non-utilitarian deviance. Unlike Merton whose concept of innovation only accounts for crime with

a profit motive, Cohen's ideas of status frustration, value, inversion and alternative status hierarchy help to explain non-economic delinquency such as vandalism and truancy

However, like Merton. Cohen assumes that working-class boys start off sharing middle-class success goals, only to reject these when they fail He ignores the possibility that they didn't share these goals in the first place and so never, saw themselves as failures

Cloward and Ohlin: three subcultures

Like Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin take Merton's ideas as their starting point. They agree that working-class youths are denied legitimate opportunities to achieve money success', and that their deviance stems from the way they respond to this situation

Cloward and Ohlin note that not everyone in this situation adapts to it by turning to 'Innovation-utilitarian.crimes such as theft, Different subcultures respond in different ways to the lack of legitimate opportunities For example, the subculture described by Cohen resorts to violence and vandalism, not economic crime or illegal drug use.

Cloward and Ohlin attempt to explain why different subcultural responses occur in their view, the key reason is not only unequal access to the legitimate opportunity. structure, as Merton and Cohen recognised but unequal access to illegitimate opportunity structures.

For example, not everyone who fails by legitimate means.. such as schooling, then has an equal chance of becoming a successful safecracker, Just like the apprentice plumber, the would-be safecracker needs the opportunity to learn their trade and the chance to practise it

Drawing on the ideas of the Chicago School, Cloward and Ohlin argue that different neighbourhoods provide different illegitimate opportunities for young people to learn criminal skills and develop criminal careers. They identify three types of deviant subcultures that result:

1. Criminal subcultures provide youths with an apprenticeship for a career in utilitarian crime. They arise only in neighbourhoods with a longstanding and stable criminal Suture with an established hierarchy of professional adult come This allows the young to associate with adult criminals, who can select those with the right aptitudes and abilities. band provide them with training and role models as well as opportunities for employment on the criminal career ladder

2. Conflict subcultures arise in areas of high population turnover. This results in high levels of social disorganisation and prevents a stable professional criminal network developing. Its absence means that the only illegitimate opportunities available are within loosely organised gangs. In these, violence provides a release for young men's frustration at their blocked opportunities, as well as an alternative source of status that they can earn by winning turf (territory) from rival gangs. This subculture is closest to that described by Cohen.

3. Retreatist subcultures in any neighbourhood, not everyone who aspires to be a professional criminal or a gang leader actually succeeds - just as in the legitimate opportunity structure, where not everyone gets a well-paid Job. What becomes of these "double failures' - those who fail in both the legitimate and the illegitimate opportunity structures According to Cloward and Ohlin, many turn to a retreatist subculture based on illegal drug use.

Evaluation of Cloward and Ohlin

They agree with Merton and Cohen that most crime is working-class, thus ignoring crimes of the wealthy. Similarly, their theory over-predicts the amount of working-class crime. Like Merton and Cohen, they too ignore the wider power structure, including who makes and enforces the law.

While they agree with Cohen that delinquent subcultures. are the source of much deviance, unlike Cohen they provide an explanation for different types of working-class deviance in terms of different subcultures.

However, they draw the boundaries too sharply between these. For example, South found that the drug trade is a mixture of both disorganised crime, like the conflict subculture, and professional mafia style criminal Subcultures. Likewise, some supposedly retreatist users are also professional dealers making a living from this utilitarian crime In Cloward and Ohlin's theory, it would not be possible to belong to more than one of these subcultures

Strain theories have been called reactive theories because they explain subcultures as forming in reaction to the failure to achieve mainstream goals. They have been criticised for assuming that everyone starts off sharing the same mainstream success goal

By contrast, Walter B. Miller argues that the lower. class has its own independent subculture separate from mainstream culture, with its own values. This subculture does not value success in the first place, so its members are not frustrated by failure

Although Miller agrees deviance is widespread in the lower class, he argues that this arises out of an attempt to achieve their own goals, not mainstream ones.

David Matza claims that most delinquents are not strongly committed to their subculture, as strain theories suggest, but merely drift in and out of delinquency

Strain theory has had a major influence both on later theories of crime and on government policy. For example, Merton's ideas play an important part in left realist explanations of crime. Similarly, in the 1960s Ohlin was appointed to help develop crime policy in the USA under President Kennedy

Recent strain theories

Recent strain theorists have argued that young people may pursue a variety of goals other than money success. These include popularity with peers, autonomy from adults, or the desire of some young males to be treated like 'real men

Like earlier strain theorists, they argue that failure to achieve these goals may result in delinquency. They also argue that middle-class juveniles too may have problems achieving such goals, thus offering an explanation for middle-class delinquency,

Institutional anomie theory

Like Merton's theory, Messner and Rosenfeld's (2001) Institutional anomie, theory focuses on the American Dream They argue that its obsession with money success and its 'winner-takes-all' mentality, exert "pressures towards crime by encouraging an anomic cultural environment in which people are encouraged to adopt an 'anything goes mentality in pursuit of wealth,

In America (and arguably the UK), economic goals are valued above all, and this undermines other institutions.For example, schools become geared to preparing pupils for the labour market at the expense of inculcating values such as respect for others. Messner and Rosenfeld conclude that in societies based on free-market capitalism and lacking adequate welfare provision, such as the USA, high crime rates are inevitable.

Downes and Hansen (2006) offer evidence for this view. In a survey of crime rates and welfare spending in 18 countries, they found societies that spent more on welfare had lower rates of imprisonment. This backs up Messner and Rosenfeld's claim that societies that protect the poor from the worst excesses of the free market have less crime.

Similarly, Savelsberg (1995) applies strain theory to post communist societies in Eastern Europe, which saw a rapid rise in crime after the fall of communism in 1989. He attributes this rise to communism's collective values being replaced by new western capitalist goals of individual 'money success'.

Topic summary

For functionalists, society is based on value consensus, which deviance threatens, but it also performs positive functions such as reinforcing solidarity and adapting to change.

Strain theories argue that deviance occurs when people cannot achieve society's goals by legitimate means. Merton argues that this produces a 'strain to anomie' that may result in innovation, ritualism, retreatism or rebellion.

Subcultural theories see much deviance as a collective rather than individual response. A.K. Cohen argues that subcultural deviance results from status frustration and takes a non-utilitarian form. Cloward and Ohlin see three different deviant subcultures (criminal, conflict and retreatist) arising from differences in access to illegitimate opportunity structures.

Recent strain theories argue that capitalist economies generate greater strain to crime.