Explain Why Crime And Deviance Can Be Understood As Normal
Explain why crime and deviance can be understood as normal.
This essay will discuss whether it is possible to classify crime and deviance as normal in everyday social life by basing on theories of Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and Marxist criminologists. However, to in order to do this, one should first comprehend the essence of both concepts. It is important to be aware that crime is only a form of deviance that is simply more defined and regulated.
Deviance, in a sense, is essentially rule-breaking. It can any action that differ from already set script of social behaviours, and was created by the society in order to prevent the outburst of chaos, to close space for ambiguity and uncertainty (Holdaway,1992:13). This violation of social norms …show more content…
can occur on different levels: religious, sexual or even health. Because of that particular groups of people are labelled as ill, pervert, heretic or criminal. However, this set of rules and norms is not established and can differ in different cultures, historical circumstances and other factors. That means, that no action is deviant, until certain group of power, or substantially society, states so. It is, in a manner, a situation similar to popular Schrödinger’s cat experiment.
Crime, then, is a violation of formal rules, written down, for example, in criminal law codex, but also a form of deviance. Even so, there are certain types of crimes that are not perceived as deviant and there are certain types of deviances that are not illegal.
Emile Durkheim, as a father of modern sociology, identified crime and deviance in the functionalist dimension. His work focuses mostly on the phenomenon of anomie, both in Suicide and in Division of Labour in Society. He describes this term as a sense of unsettlement and doubt in when it comes to moral philosophy and also questioning of social norms as a whole. Durkheim sums up anomie’s influence on society in these words: ‘Consequently, there is no restraint upon aspirations… At the very moment when traditional rules have lost their authority, the richer prize offered these appetites stimulates them and makes them more impatient of control.’ (Downes and Rock, 1998:118). Control theory was particularly interesting for Durkheim hence his thoughts were strongly influenced by an idea that deviance can be controlled only in strongly integrated society. This notion is strongly based on the opinion that every individual is in fact Homo duplex with two sides of his nature: one driven by instincts, biological, second being social.
Durkheim was the first one to state, that in fact, deviance could be actually profitable for the whole society. Firstly, deviance would have a role of reassurance and creator of common social moral code. Secondly, deviant behaviours could drive society to revaluate its judgement, when it comes to classification of what is, and what is not deviant.
Robert Merton, the creator of strain theory, took Durkheim’s work on anomie as a starting point in his deliberations about American society in 1930s. Merton’s approach was micro-sociological and it is possible to classify it as both structural and functional.
According Merton, the main source of deviant behaviour is social structure. He focuses on the bold contrast between the ‘American Dream’ ethos and reality of harsh economic inequality (Downes and Rock, 1998:124). Merton believed that crime, in fact, is a factor stabilising system and form of diffusion of a potential conflict and ‘reconciles people to disadvantage’ (Rock, 2002:70). In theory, American society was not preventing anyone to accomplish their dreams of elevating their material status. Indeed, there was Old Money and New Money, but the main objective of American society, mostly immigrant, was the fight for their better tomorrow. This mind-set was based on the belief that hard work and utilization of opportunities will lead to fulfilment of American Dream. Yet, in the situation of disadvantaged position, when, for instance, education, money, social background etc. is not given, chances to accomplish certain (material) goals are much lower. According to Merton, this is the moment, when an individual engages into criminal actions. However, he stated that this pursuit of infinite aspirations emerged more from culture, than form internal human tendency, or some would call it nature.
And here, Merton differs in his approach to Durkheim. For Durkheim deregulation led to infinite aspirations, for Merton it was the other way around – this pursuit for better social status leads to deregulation and, as a result, to deviance and crime. Another difference between the sociologists is their opinion on moral aspect of human being. While Durkheim believes in very negative image of human nature (i.e. humans are naturally egoistic and self-centred, crime and deviance is biologically implemented in their nature, and rejecting a possibility of any kind of grist to the mill is simply odd), Merton challenges this view with a question, why is it that the frequency and type of committed crimes and deviances differ from each social structure (Siemaszko, 1993:28)
Even though Marxist theories and Merton’s strain theory generally differ and contrast each other, there is one statement they have in common: consumerism as a source of crime and deviance. However, Marxists blame the existence of crime more on existing inequalities of the capitalist system (Szacki, 2012:501). Karl Marx argued that law and any other version of it (meaning social norms and order) tend to gravitate towards debasing the rights of the poor (Szacki, 2012:501). E. B. Pašukanis correlate criminality and penal repression with capitalistic mode of production and distribution. In case of this theory, it is possible to see criminal act as a form of ‘political manifestation of the class struggle’ (Ferrajoli and Zolo, 1985:75). Apparently, any kind of illegal action or insubordination would be a form of protest against imposed social order.
Marxists reinterpret commonly known labelling theory. What they are stating is, that in fact the poor are more likely to be labelled as ‘deviant’. This assumption is constituted on a view that, since capitalism is based on private ownership, people with no assets, are more prone to become criminal. However, from Marxist perspective, criminal is more of a ‘victim’ and his crimes are simply ‘doing business’ (Macionis and Plummer, 2002:427). Moreover, anyone openly challenging capitalist society is more inclined to be considered a deviant or a criminal. Chambliss describes this phenomenon as a result of the ability possessed by ruling class to actually define the ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ according to their current needs and different dimensions of exploitation. This means that any form of contesting this system is perceived as deviant and/or criminal (Szacki, 2012:505).
From this sociological perspective crime is inevitable due to the social order on that particular moment. Working-class crime is mostly caused by labour exploitation, therefore crime is more of a reaction for individual’s financial status and class affiliation.
Even though both theories differ from each other to a great extent, it is possible to recognise factors that is common for both of sociological streams. Firstly, consumerism builds circumstances for crime, since it creates inequalities. One of the great examples of the influence consumerism has on society are the riots in London in 2011. Main reason for these was greed mixed with young people’s boredom.
Durkheim believed that it was natural for human to gravitate towards crime as a solution of their problems, since it is undoubtedly an easier way to obtain goods of certain kind.
Nonetheless, it is possible to answer to this argument with another one: there are crimes that are not providing any kind of benefit to the criminal (e.g. a doctor making a mistake in patient’s treatment that causes damage, is illegal, but yet, it definitely does not benefit the doctor/criminal). Merton argues with this assumption with more realistic explanation of the phenomena. His theory is currently undeniably the most popular one amongst modern sociologists. Culture and social order as a source and, surprisingly, reason for crime and deviance is obviously less positivist in approach, than Durkheim proposed in his work. Notwithstanding, Durkheim’s observations on possible social benefits of crime and deviant behaviour are quite important. The idea, that crime in fact bonds the society (against this theoretical ‘bad power’), helps to revise certain social norms, but also reaffirms society in its moral code and its definitions of what is good, and what is bad. However, functionalist approach can be easily criticised by its biological argumentation.
Marxist, on the other hand, propose an interesting idea of crime being in fact a form of political protest and deviance a label, used by ruling class to impose order. In fact, the problem with Marxist criminology is, that it is ideological. It also overly justify crimes of the poor, which are not always a reaction to ruling class decisions and can be criticised from ethical point of
view.
Is crime and deviance normal, then? Considering all the arguments given, it is possible to state, that crime-free society does not exist anywhere. Historically, crime and deviance were always present, even if redefined as time passed. It is proved to be useful for certain purposes in social reality. It differs from culture to culture, yet some of it dimensions are always the same. Crime could be then described as an important cog in this machine, or a political statement, or a mean for achieving certain goals. It is always present. And since it is always present, it is acceptable to say that it is normal.
This essay will discuss whether it is possible to classify crime and deviance as normal in everyday social life by basing on theories of Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and Marxist criminologists. However, to in order to do this, one should first comprehend the essence of both concepts. It is important to be aware that crime is only a form of deviance that is simply more defined and regulated.
Deviance, in a sense, is essentially rule-breaking. It can any action that differ from already set script of social behaviours, and was created by the society in order to prevent the outburst of chaos, to close space for ambiguity and uncertainty (Holdaway,1992:13). This violation of social norms …show more content…
can occur on different levels: religious, sexual or even health. Because of that particular groups of people are labelled as ill, pervert, heretic or criminal. However, this set of rules and norms is not established and can differ in different cultures, historical circumstances and other factors. That means, that no action is deviant, until certain group of power, or substantially society, states so. It is, in a manner, a situation similar to popular Schrödinger’s cat experiment.
Crime, then, is a violation of formal rules, written down, for example, in criminal law codex, but also a form of deviance. Even so, there are certain types of crimes that are not perceived as deviant and there are certain types of deviances that are not illegal.
Emile Durkheim, as a father of modern sociology, identified crime and deviance in the functionalist dimension. His work focuses mostly on the phenomenon of anomie, both in Suicide and in Division of Labour in Society. He describes this term as a sense of unsettlement and doubt in when it comes to moral philosophy and also questioning of social norms as a whole. Durkheim sums up anomie’s influence on society in these words: ‘Consequently, there is no restraint upon aspirations… At the very moment when traditional rules have lost their authority, the richer prize offered these appetites stimulates them and makes them more impatient of control.’ (Downes and Rock, 1998:118). Control theory was particularly interesting for Durkheim hence his thoughts were strongly influenced by an idea that deviance can be controlled only in strongly integrated society. This notion is strongly based on the opinion that every individual is in fact Homo duplex with two sides of his nature: one driven by instincts, biological, second being social.
Durkheim was the first one to state, that in fact, deviance could be actually profitable for the whole society. Firstly, deviance would have a role of reassurance and creator of common social moral code. Secondly, deviant behaviours could drive society to revaluate its judgement, when it comes to classification of what is, and what is not deviant.
Robert Merton, the creator of strain theory, took Durkheim’s work on anomie as a starting point in his deliberations about American society in 1930s. Merton’s approach was micro-sociological and it is possible to classify it as both structural and functional.
According Merton, the main source of deviant behaviour is social structure. He focuses on the bold contrast between the ‘American Dream’ ethos and reality of harsh economic inequality (Downes and Rock, 1998:124). Merton believed that crime, in fact, is a factor stabilising system and form of diffusion of a potential conflict and ‘reconciles people to disadvantage’ (Rock, 2002:70). In theory, American society was not preventing anyone to accomplish their dreams of elevating their material status. Indeed, there was Old Money and New Money, but the main objective of American society, mostly immigrant, was the fight for their better tomorrow. This mind-set was based on the belief that hard work and utilization of opportunities will lead to fulfilment of American Dream. Yet, in the situation of disadvantaged position, when, for instance, education, money, social background etc. is not given, chances to accomplish certain (material) goals are much lower. According to Merton, this is the moment, when an individual engages into criminal actions. However, he stated that this pursuit of infinite aspirations emerged more from culture, than form internal human tendency, or some would call it nature.
And here, Merton differs in his approach to Durkheim. For Durkheim deregulation led to infinite aspirations, for Merton it was the other way around – this pursuit for better social status leads to deregulation and, as a result, to deviance and crime. Another difference between the sociologists is their opinion on moral aspect of human being. While Durkheim believes in very negative image of human nature (i.e. humans are naturally egoistic and self-centred, crime and deviance is biologically implemented in their nature, and rejecting a possibility of any kind of grist to the mill is simply odd), Merton challenges this view with a question, why is it that the frequency and type of committed crimes and deviances differ from each social structure (Siemaszko, 1993:28)
Even though Marxist theories and Merton’s strain theory generally differ and contrast each other, there is one statement they have in common: consumerism as a source of crime and deviance. However, Marxists blame the existence of crime more on existing inequalities of the capitalist system (Szacki, 2012:501). Karl Marx argued that law and any other version of it (meaning social norms and order) tend to gravitate towards debasing the rights of the poor (Szacki, 2012:501). E. B. Pašukanis correlate criminality and penal repression with capitalistic mode of production and distribution. In case of this theory, it is possible to see criminal act as a form of ‘political manifestation of the class struggle’ (Ferrajoli and Zolo, 1985:75). Apparently, any kind of illegal action or insubordination would be a form of protest against imposed social order.
Marxists reinterpret commonly known labelling theory. What they are stating is, that in fact the poor are more likely to be labelled as ‘deviant’. This assumption is constituted on a view that, since capitalism is based on private ownership, people with no assets, are more prone to become criminal. However, from Marxist perspective, criminal is more of a ‘victim’ and his crimes are simply ‘doing business’ (Macionis and Plummer, 2002:427). Moreover, anyone openly challenging capitalist society is more inclined to be considered a deviant or a criminal. Chambliss describes this phenomenon as a result of the ability possessed by ruling class to actually define the ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ according to their current needs and different dimensions of exploitation. This means that any form of contesting this system is perceived as deviant and/or criminal (Szacki, 2012:505).
From this sociological perspective crime is inevitable due to the social order on that particular moment. Working-class crime is mostly caused by labour exploitation, therefore crime is more of a reaction for individual’s financial status and class affiliation.
Even though both theories differ from each other to a great extent, it is possible to recognise factors that is common for both of sociological streams. Firstly, consumerism builds circumstances for crime, since it creates inequalities. One of the great examples of the influence consumerism has on society are the riots in London in 2011. Main reason for these was greed mixed with young people’s boredom.
Durkheim believed that it was natural for human to gravitate towards crime as a solution of their problems, since it is undoubtedly an easier way to obtain goods of certain kind.
Nonetheless, it is possible to answer to this argument with another one: there are crimes that are not providing any kind of benefit to the criminal (e.g. a doctor making a mistake in patient’s treatment that causes damage, is illegal, but yet, it definitely does not benefit the doctor/criminal). Merton argues with this assumption with more realistic explanation of the phenomena. His theory is currently undeniably the most popular one amongst modern sociologists. Culture and social order as a source and, surprisingly, reason for crime and deviance is obviously less positivist in approach, than Durkheim proposed in his work. Notwithstanding, Durkheim’s observations on possible social benefits of crime and deviant behaviour are quite important. The idea, that crime in fact bonds the society (against this theoretical ‘bad power’), helps to revise certain social norms, but also reaffirms society in its moral code and its definitions of what is good, and what is bad. However, functionalist approach can be easily criticised by its biological argumentation.
Marxist, on the other hand, propose an interesting idea of crime being in fact a form of political protest and deviance a label, used by ruling class to impose order. In fact, the problem with Marxist criminology is, that it is ideological. It also overly justify crimes of the poor, which are not always a reaction to ruling class decisions and can be criticised from ethical point of
view.
Is crime and deviance normal, then? Considering all the arguments given, it is possible to state, that crime-free society does not exist anywhere. Historically, crime and deviance were always present, even if redefined as time passed. It is proved to be useful for certain purposes in social reality. It differs from culture to culture, yet some of it dimensions are always the same. Crime could be then described as an important cog in this machine, or a political statement, or a mean for achieving certain goals. It is always present. And since it is always present, it is acceptable to say that it is normal.