Topic 2: Functionalist explanations Flashcards
intro
Functionalists are structural sociologists who regard those structures as based upon the shared values and agreement in society. They tend to have an optimistic view about society and see institutional adjustment and reform as all that is necessary to tackle social problems.
Durkheim believed that as societies became more complex and modern so socialisation agencies were less likely to do an effective job in ensuring value consensus. Consequently there was likely to be more crime and deviance in modern societies compared with pre-industrial societies.
Durkheim intro
Durkheim identified two different sides of crime and deviance for the functioning of society. First, a positive side which helped society change and remain dynamic; second, a negative side which saw too much crime leading to social disruption.
Durkheim positives
According to him, crime - or at least a certain limited amount of crime - was necessary for any society - Re-affirming the boundaries, Changing values, Social cohesion and safety valve.
• Social cohesion - A third function of crime, according to Durkheim, is to strengthen social cohesion. He points out that when particularly horrific crimes have been committed, the entire community draws in together in shared outrage, and the sense of belonging to a community is thereby strengthened. This was noticeable, for example in the USA as a result of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre.
• Changing values - Every so often when a person is taken to court and charged with a crime a degree of sympathy occurs for the person prosecuted. The resulting public outcry signals a change in values and, in time this can lead to a change in law to reflect the changing values. An example of this is the change in attitude towards cannabis use, for example.
Durkheim negatives
According to Durkheim, society is based on people sharing common values (the collective conscience), which form the basis for actions. However, in periods of great social change or stress, the collective conscience may be weakened. In this situation, people may be freed from the social control imposed by the collective conscience and may start to look after their own selfish interests rather than adhering to social values. Durkheim called this situation anomie. Where a collapse of the collective conscience has occurred and anomie exists, crime rates rocket.
Durkheim eval
As a functionalist he assumes that there is a common value system to deviate from.
He is also criticised for failing to identify and theorise the role of subcultures in the creation of crime.
In addition, he fails to acknowledge victims of crime.
He is seen by some as naïve for accepting official statistics as valid and for failing to explore the motivations and meanings actors give to deviant acts.
Hirschi intro
Hirschi argued that criminal activity occurs when people’s attachment to society is weakened in some way. This attachment depends upon the strength of the social bonds which hold people to society.
Hirschi bonds
According to Hirschi, there are four crucial bonds which bind us together:
• Attachment : to what extent do we care about other people’s opinions and wishes.
• Commitment: refers to the personal investments that each of us makes in our lives. What have we got to lose if we commit a crime?
• Involvement: how busy are we? Is there time and space for law breaking and deviant behaviour?
• Belief: how strong is a person’s sense that they should obey the rules of society?
Therefore Hirschi suggests that the greater the attachment to society, the lower the level of crime.
Hirschi eval
However, sometimes social bonds can be used to explain deviance. For example, attachment can actually lead people into crime because of loyalty to their peer group or subculture. The need to support a family in financial trouble can cause, say, shoplifting while attachment to a subculture can encourage drug-taking, for example. Like all functionalist theorists, Hirschi assumes a set of shared values in society – other perspectives such as Marxism would disagree with this view.
merton intro
Merton argued that all societies set their members certain goals (mostly economic and material wealth), at the same time they also provide socially approved ways of achieving these goals. Different forms of behaviour then could be understood as a strain between goals and means.
merton strains
- Conformity - here the individual continues to adhere to both goals and means, despite the limited likelihood of success.
- Innovation - the person accepts the goals of society by uses different ways to achieve those goals. Criminal behaviour is included in this response.
- Ritualism - here the means are used by the individual, but sight of the actual goal is lost. For example, the bureaucrat or the police officer blindly enforcing the letter of the law without looking at the nature of justice.
- Retreatism - here the individual rejects both goals and means. For example, the person dependent upon drugs or alcohol is included.
- Rebellion - both the socially sanctioned goals and means are rejected and different ones substituted. For example, this is the political activist or the religious fundamentalist.
merton eval
Taylor, Walton and Young (1973) argue that the theory cannot account for politically motivated crime where the law is broken because of commitment to a cause. For example many high paid and high status people took direct action to oppose the poll tax in the 1990s.
Merton is criticised by Taylor et.al. (Neo-Marxists) for failing to consider wider power relations in society. He doesn’t address the questions about who makes the laws and who benefits from them?
Merton has been defended by Reiner (1984) who believes that the theory can be adapted to take into account most of these criticisms.
Conclusion
Albert cohen- the delinquent subculture (func subculture theory) - Functionalist subcultural theory
