Functionalism Flashcards
Durkheim’s 3 key ideas about crime and deviance
1) Crime is inevitable and necessary
2) Crime has multiple positive functions for society
3) Too much crime is bad for society
Inevitability of crime
Durkheim argues that crime is present in all societies that exist and it always will be, he does however say that crime in more industrialised societies is higher than pre-modern, but this is of course going to happen.
The reason for this is because, not everyone is equality committed to the collective conscience and the collective sentiments in modern societies.
Why?
In more modern societies, people aren’t as equally connected to the collective sentiments because of the variations in individual lives, therefore it becomes impossible for a one true collective as nobody has the same lived experiences.
This means people assimilate differently with the collective sentiment (shared values, norms etc.) causing crime and deviance.
What would happen in a crimeless society?
A society of saints - a society filled with perfect behaviour. This would cause the general expectations in society to be so high that the slightest slip would be deemed as a serious offence, resulting in awful prosecutions.
Crime and deviance as necessary
Durkheim argues that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for changes to occur, yesterday’s deviance becomes today’s norm.
We can see this in small ways such as tattoos and piercings.
Or in larger ways such as the abolition of slavery.
Critique
He does not explain why certain people are more likely to commit crimes than others.
He appears not concerned with this problem, he was most interested in the nature of
the relationship between deviance and order in society. However, if questioned on
individual motivations of criminals, he would probably have invoked their lack of
Socialisation.
He stresses harmony of society and the belief that the law reflects the interests and views of the majority of the population. He seems to ignore the concept of power. It is generally accepted that in all societies some groups have greater ability than the bulk of the population to influence the law making process.
6 positive functions
1) Marking the extremities of acceptable behaviour
2) The publicity function
3) It helps to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimises social change
4) Bonds are strengthened
5) Deviancy provides a safety valve
6) Acts as a warning device to indicate that aspects of society are malfunctioning
Marking the extremities of acceptable behaviour
First the law clearly marks the extremities of acceptable behaviour.
Each time the Police arrest a person, they are making it clear to the rest of society that, the particular action concerned is unacceptable.
The publicity function
Second the boundaries must be made known to everyone in society, so some form of publicity and drama needs to be generated.
Erikson (1966) has pointed out for example, the dramatic setting of the courtroom where the lawyers and judges dress in special clothes, and where there is a ceremony, which condemns a person’s actions in a public arena. In contemporary society newspapers also help to perform the publicity function, with their often-lurid accounts of criminal acts.
In effect, the courts and the media are ‘broadcasting’ the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, warning others not to breach the walls of the law (and therefore society.
It helps to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimises social change
Criminals provide a constant test of the boundaries of permitted action. For example, every time a person is prosecuted for a crime attention is drawn to the commission of that act.
People can also express their feelings about this – in most cases they simply and unquestioning accept the illegality and evil nature of the act, but sometimes they may feel sympathy for the criminal. When the law is clearly out of step with the feelings and values of the majority, legal reform is necessary. Criminals therefore, perform a crucial service in helping the law to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimising social change.
Bonds are strengthened
Another element is the ‘boundary testing’ function. When feelings of mutual horror or fear, so the bonds between them are strengthened.
Deviancy provides a safety valve
Deviance can also be a safety valve, providing a relatively harmless expression of discontent. In this way social order is protected.
For example, Cohen suggests that ‘prostitution performs such a safety value function, without threatening the institution of the family’.
It can provide a release from the stress and pressure of the family life without undermining family stability, since relationships with prostitutes and their clients usually involves strong emotional attachments.
Acts as a warning device to indicate aspects of society is malfunctioning
Cohen also suggests that certain deviant acts are useful warning device to indicate that an aspect of society is malfunctioning. This may draw attention to the problem and lead to measures to solve it.
Thus truants from school, deserters from the army or runaways from Borstals may ‘reveal unsuspected causes of discontent, and lead to changes that enhance efficiency and morale’.
Too much crime…
The result according to Durkheim, was the development of a state he called anomie. In essence, this means that people regard as unimportant the social expectations to respect the rights and the needs of others and prefer to look after their own interests even at their neighbours expense.
They return to their natural state of greed and self-interest which results in the long term collapse of order and harmony. Anomie, then, is dangerous and harmful to all.
Critiques
Durkheim talks about crime in very general terms. He theorises that ‘crime’ is necessary and even functional but fails to distinguish between different types of crime. It could be that some crimes may be so harmful that they will always be dysfunctional rather than functional.
Secondly, Durkheim is suggesting that the criminal justice system benefits everyone in society by punishing criminals and reinforcing the acceptable boundaries of behaviour. However, Marxist and Feminist analysis of crime demonstrates that not all criminals are punished equally and thus crime and punishment benefit the powerful for than the powerless
Interactionists would suggest that whether or not a crime is functional cannot be determined objectively; surely it depends on an individual’s relationship to the crime.
Functionalists assume that society has universal norms and values that are reinforced by certain crimes being punished in public. Postmodernists argue society is so diverse, there is no such thing as ‘normal’.
