Functionalism And Crime
Functionalism and crime:
In this essay I will be talking about the functionalist perspective on crime and deviance and be comparing it with the Marxist view. The main functionalist theories I will be examining are Merton’s strain theory, Cohen’s status frustration and Cloward and Ohlin’s three subcultures. Functionalists argue that crime and deviance is useful and necessary in society as they reinforce the consensus of values, norms and behaviour of the majority non-deviant population.
Functionalists such as Durkheim state that deviancy allows for social changes to occur and this is important for societies in order for it to remain healthy and stable. Durkheim also states that crime moves from functional to dysfunctional when the level of crime is either too high or too low – if crime is too high, it threatens the social order whereas if crime is too low, there will be no social change. However functionalism assumes crime performs positive functions for society e.g. promoting solidarity, but it ignores how it might affect individuals.
Merton argues that people engage in deviant behaviour when they cannot achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. Merton concluded from his American study that the vast majority of individuals share the same goals but don’t have equal access to the means of achieving these goals. For Merton, deviance is the result of a strain between the goals a culture encourages individuals to aim for and what the structure of society actually allows them to achieve legitimately. For example, the ‘American Dream’ emphasises ‘money success’. Americans are expected to peruse this goal by legitimate means such as education and hard work. The ideology claims that American society is meritocratic, but in reality poverty and discrimination block opportunities for many to achieve by legitimate means, and when individuals fail or are excluded from this system, it creates anomie. The resulting strain between the cultural goal and the lack of
In this essay I will be talking about the functionalist perspective on crime and deviance and be comparing it with the Marxist view. The main functionalist theories I will be examining are Merton’s strain theory, Cohen’s status frustration and Cloward and Ohlin’s three subcultures. Functionalists argue that crime and deviance is useful and necessary in society as they reinforce the consensus of values, norms and behaviour of the majority non-deviant population.
Functionalists such as Durkheim state that deviancy allows for social changes to occur and this is important for societies in order for it to remain healthy and stable. Durkheim also states that crime moves from functional to dysfunctional when the level of crime is either too high or too low – if crime is too high, it threatens the social order whereas if crime is too low, there will be no social change. However functionalism assumes crime performs positive functions for society e.g. promoting solidarity, but it ignores how it might affect individuals.
Merton argues that people engage in deviant behaviour when they cannot achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. Merton concluded from his American study that the vast majority of individuals share the same goals but don’t have equal access to the means of achieving these goals. For Merton, deviance is the result of a strain between the goals a culture encourages individuals to aim for and what the structure of society actually allows them to achieve legitimately. For example, the ‘American Dream’ emphasises ‘money success’. Americans are expected to peruse this goal by legitimate means such as education and hard work. The ideology claims that American society is meritocratic, but in reality poverty and discrimination block opportunities for many to achieve by legitimate means, and when individuals fail or are excluded from this system, it creates anomie. The resulting strain between the cultural goal and the lack of