5.1 functionalist explanations

Durkheim

• organic analogy — perceived society similarly to the human body, everything must work together to function

• Argued that deviance was functional, normal and inevitable

Deviance has the following functions

1. Boundary maintenance

2. Social change

Boundary maintenance

• society has a value consensus

• One way we are socialised is by informal and formal sanctions used to reward those who conform and punish those who deviate

• The shared disapproval of deviant behaviour strengthens social solidarity

• Deviance = any behaviour that goes against the norms, values and expectations of a society

Social change

• functionalists promote organic change rather than radical change

• An organic process is started by society responding positively to deviant behaviour, e.g slowly changing attitudes towards homosexuality

Extra

• Kingsley Davies also argued deviance acted as a safety valve, releasing tensions to prevent bigger issues

• Durkheim argued the increased isolation and privatised nature of modern industrialised societies increased the likelihood of deviance

• Also deviance increases when society undergoes rapid change (e.g industrialisation), as there is anomie (normlessness or an absence of social control and cohesion)

Evaluation

• realists would argue that crime isnt normal or functional, pointing out the harm of crime towards victims and for society

• Marxists would argue that Durkheim fails to explain where the consensus comes from and who it benefits

• Other functionalists would suggest that Durkheim doesnt explain why some groups commit crime and others do not

Mertons strain theory

• the idea that there is not an equal access to achieving goals

• So people may turn to crime when they lack the means to achieve their goals, this leads to adaptations such as…

1. Innovator = finding another way to achieve goals, typically through crime

2. Retreatists = rejecting the means and the goals, dropping out of society all together

3. Rebellion = replacing the means and goals with new ones, leading to illegal protests or political violence

Evaluation

• explains why some people commit crime and why others don’t

• Doesn’t consider the source of social goals. Marxists would argue social goals serve the interests of capitalism, earning money to purchase consumer goods and ‘working hard’ for bosses

• Doesn’t explore the causes of why some find it harder to achieve societies goals, through inequalities and unequal opportunities. Also why people have different adaptations or why not everyone who experiences strain commits crime.

• Doesn’t explain why groups of people are deviant in the same way (gangs)

• Isn’t applicable to non-utilitarian crime (crime with no material benefits)

Hirschi’s control theory

• focuses on why some people don’t commit crime

• More likely to be someone marginalised, young and single

Identified 4 bonds of attachment

1. Attachment - how much we care about what others think

2. Commitment - what have we got to lose

3. Involvement - how involved are we with society, what takes up our time

4. Belief - how strong is someone’s personal moral code

Evaluation

• introduces ideas of how to prevent crime and how to achieve social order, this has influenced policymakers. E.g activities for young people, encouraging marriage and employment, encouraging shared values and morality in education

• Does not look into why some members of society have secure bonds and why others are more marginalised. Marxists would argue capitalism produces detached, marginalised individuals on purpose to create a reserve army of labour through the unemployed. This helps to keep wages low as the workers see themselves as ‘disposable’, so will remain compliant out of fear of replacement

Cohens status frustration

• looked into why groups commit crimes and why people commit non-utilitarian crime

• Suggested that when people fail at school they receive a low status, so they join subcultures to gain a status

• So they conform to the norms and values of the subculture which is the opposite of mainstream society, where deviant acts are praised and they can increase their status through crime

• E.g Paul Willis lads, were denied status at school so gained status through anti-school subcultures

Evaluation

• suggests that crime is a subconscious act as they are just following the norms and values of the subculture, whereas Katz and Lyng would argue that it is conscious as its influenced by boredom and doing it for the thrill.

• Fails to explain why is commonly occurs with working class boys, if its due to status frustration then why weren’t more women criminals when they lacked status

• Successfully explains why people commit non-utilitarian crime

Cloward and ohlin: illegitimate opportunity structures

• Suggested that when people cannot achieve their goals through the legitimate opportunity structures, they then find an alternative (illegitimate opportunity structure) such as gangs

• Explains why not all those who lack legitimate opportunity structures turn to crime as some people live in areas where criminal subcultures don’t exist, and the type of subcultures vary

3 types of deviant subculture

• criminal subculture = organised crime, criminals socialising youths into their own criminal career

• Conflict subculture = gangs organised by young people, often based on claiming territory from other gangs

• Retreatist subculture = dropping out of society altogether, groups that abuse drugs

Evaluation

• most subcultures would overlap with the traits, so it is too simplistic to suggest there are 3 distinct subcultures

• Don’t look into social class or gender, they don’t question why working class youth are denied access to legitimate opportunity structures or why girls and boys don’t react in the same way to being denied access to these structures

Millers focal concerns

• suggests that working class boys are socialised into a number of distinct values that meant they are more likely to engage in delinquent or deviant behaviour

• E.g excitement, toughness, smartness, trouble, autonomy, fate

Evaluation

• it is not clear that the ‘lower class’ has distinct norms and values, and if they do it would contradict functionalists idea that society ensures social solidarity and value consensus

• Doesn’t consider gender, as these focal concerns may also apply to all working class people. Matza suggests that girls also learn these values but learn not to act on them

Matza: subterranean values and ‘drift’

• suggests that we all share delinquent values but most of us are able to keep them suppressed, this is a learned skill so we are more deviant when we are young

• These subterranean/ underground values come from the fact that people seek to ‘neutralise’ their deviant acts. If people really had a different set of values they would believe their deviant behaviour is correct, instead they seek ways to justify their behaviour

• E.g denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties

• These techniques of neutralisation are used to drift back into mainstream values

Evaluation

• these techniques of neutralisation could just be a way of avoiding punishment, rather than drifting back into mainstream values. Being aware of what’s unacceptable without sharing that belief

• Techniques of neutralisation may be examples of deviant norms and values in criminal subcultures

• Evidence shows people are more likely to be delinquent when they are young, they are able to conform to mainstream values once they have matured and learned to not act on these subterranean values

Overall evaluation

• Marxists argue that functionalists fail to consider where rules and laws come from, and who they benefit. They would say that it benefits the powerful minority rather than the collective conscious of the whole of society

• Feminists would argue that functionalists ignore gender. Placing a focus on boys and neglecting girls in crime, also new right sociologists such as Charles Murray blame male criminality on women, saying they single mothers do not socialise their children adequately

• Postmodernists would argue crime is pointless rather than functional, crime is due to boredom or seeking thrills. However the safety valve theory may explain this

• Left and right realists would argue that functionalists ignore ways to solve crime and neglect the victims of crime. However left realists would agree with functionalists because it supports the idea of relative deprivation. And right realists would agree with Hirschi