Functionalist Theory Applied To The British Riots Of 2011
British Riots of 2011
This essay will consider the British Riots of 2011, relating the events specifically to the functionalist perspective of Emile Durkheim and others. It will offer definitions of key terms, identify key concepts and consider opposing arguments from opposing theoretical perspectives. It will apply these concepts to the 2011 Riots and argue that the killing of Mark Duggan by police was not, as many believed, the only reason behind the riots.
Functionalist theory suggests society is a system consisting of a number of different but interdependent parts which contribute to its overall stability and functioning. Auguste Comte helped to develop functionalism as a perspective in the 19th century with Emile Durkheim later comparing society to the human body in an organic analogy – the body is dependant on a series of systems working together to ensure its survival and in the same way, society relies on systems working cooperatively together to ensure its survival.
If all is well in society then there is order, stability and productivity. If this is not so, society must adapt and change in order to regain the lost order and stability. Functionalists believe society …show more content…
is held together by consensus whereby members agree, conform and work collaboratively together to achieve the best result for society as a whole. This contrasts with the views of symbolic interactionalists such as George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer who suggest individuals act according to their personal interpretations of the world. Conflict theory also contradicts the functionalist perspective, instead concentrating on mainly negative, conflict focused and constantly changing aspects of society.
Functionalism is criticised by other perspectives for its conservative outlook, asserting that “it takes for granted that there is a natural, healthy state in society which makes it difficult for it to explain change” (O’Byrne 2011). Secondly there is the notion that functionalism is concerned only with social structure with little regard of individual agency – they are significant only in terms of their places within social systems.
All social groups have rules guiding members on how to behave and which allow them to make sense of the actions of themselves and others - these are known as norms. Members are expected to conform to norms and digressions will be backed by remedies in various forms. Norms are defined by Giddens et al (2014) as “rules of conduct that specify appropriate behaviour in a range of social situations. A norm will either allow certain behaviour or forbid it.” It should be noted that norms are not fixed and are changeable according to culture and time. They provide order and stability without which it would be difficult for society to function successfully.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2014) defines social structure as “the distinctive, stable arrangement of institutions whereby humans in a society interact and live together.” They may not be easily identifiable but are present and affect all areas of an individual’s life.
Social structure can therefore be described as the way in which society is organised into predictable relationships and patterns of interaction. Society uses norms to control acceptable methods of achieving approved values – when these norms and values come into conflict, social structure becomes strained, resulting in either social change or a complete breakdown in the functioning of society. Social structure is not universal, fixed or static – society must be open to adjustment and development in response to change.
Social class is an example of social structure – it affects resources in society to which an individual might have access and may guide and shape behaviour at many levels.
Collective conscious refers to the knowledge and beliefs shared by all the members of a group regardless of size. It allows group members to share common goals, attitudes and behaviours and encourages those with differing views to conform to the views of the group.
Durkheim defined collective conscious as “the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force in society” suggesting a collective conscious exists amongst people in a society of shared norms and values and it is this “glue” that binds society together (O’ Byrne 2011). He argued it results from strong pressure on an individual, both positive and negative. We learn from a young age that some behaviours gain approval while others attract disapproval and once an individual processes this information, they are likely to respond to others in similar ways. As such we can suggest the individual takes on the group values.
Anomie refers to a state in which social norms and guidance for the citizens of a society have broken down. It occurs when society has little or no influence on people’s desire to follow rules and norms, and they are left without moral guidance. Often, individuals do not feel a sense of belonging to the collective society.
Emile Durkheim first introduced anomie in his 1893 book, The Division of Labour in Society in which he observed “the rules of how individuals interact with one another were disintegrating” resulting in people being unable to decide how to act with each other.
He introduced the concept more fully in his 1951 study of suicide where he suggested anomic suicide resulted from the breakdown of social standards necessary for regulating behaviour. He further believed that anomie arises more from a mismatch between person or group standards, wider social standards or a weak social code which results in deviant behaviour. Although the term anomie suggests normlessness, Durkheim never used the word, instead describing anomie as “derangement” or “an insatiable will” (Encyclopaedia Britannica
2014).
When a social system is in an anomic state, common values and meanings are no longer accepted or understood and new ones are yet undeveloped. Durkheim supported the view that when this occurs, evidence of a lack of purpose, a sense of futility and emotional despair can be found amongst its members.
Robert Merton further developed Durkheim’s anomie concept in his 1957 study when he identified a number of forms that anomie can take, including an absence or weakness of shared norms, unregulated behaviour, incompatibility between norms of different institutions and the difference between the goals that are being promoted by an institution and the means of achieving them.
On 11 August 2011, a peaceful protest took place in Tottenham following the killing of Mark Duggan by police. This was followed by some of the worst civil misbehaviour the UK has seen for many years as rioters ran amok in several cities.
Prime Minster David Cameron commented
“Initially there were some peaceful demonstrations following Mark Duggan’s death... understandably the police were cautious about how they dealt with this. However, this was then used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs, first in Tottenham itself, then across London and then in other cities.”
It appeared that the Prime Minister was laying the blame for the riots squarely at the doors of gangs when he added:
“At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are mostly composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes.”
This was later proved not to be entirely the case. A joint study by The Guardian and the London School of Economics found rioters were males aged between 13 and 57 years, coming from a variety of social backgrounds. The study additionally discovered that gangs behaved atypically during the riots, temporarily suspecting animosities with their rivals (LSE 2011).
Rioters cited a variety of grievances which they felt caused the riots. These ranged from economic reasons like high unemployment and insufficient employment opportunities, to social causes such as the feeling they were being treated differently to others – student finance issues, frustration with the way police engaged with communities, disproportionate use of “Stop and Search” powers among young, black males were frequently mentioned as was the death of Mark Duggan (The Guardian 2011).
Many involved in the riots spoke of their sense of injustice at their situations – high levels of unemployment, a lack of job opportunities and having to rely on benefits which were being heavily cut by the Government, which they felt denied them their dignity. They saw the affluent being able to afford the latest technology and branded goods and wanted the same. Alongside the assertion from the rioters that opportunism played a large part in the widespread looting, this could be seen as supporting the view put forward by Merton in his work on anomie – the rioters want what everybody else has but lack the legitimate means of achieving them so resort to illegitimate methods such as looting and violence to achieve their end goal.
Merton calls this innovation – an individual strives to achieve accepted goals but does so in an unacceptable way. It can therefore be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation or rebellion - a combination of rejecting societal goals and means and substituting others.
Although the trigger for the riots was Mark Duggan’s death, combined with a sense of disillusionment and injustice with high levels of unemployment, poverty brought about by strict austerity measures (contrary to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the riots had nothing to do with poverty), the dire economic situation and a feeling that they were being treated differently that led to the mass rebellion that was witnessed over 5 days in August 2011.
This essay has examined the British Riots of 2011 from the functionalist perspective. It offers definitions and explanations of key terms, identifying arguments from opposing theoretical perspectives where appropriate. Furthermore, it suggests the functionalist perspective offers an effective explanation for the riots with Merton’s work being particularly relevant. Finally, the essay argues the reasons for the riots were not solely due to the death of Mark Duggan, but were indicative of a widespread malaise encompassing a variety of situations. REFERENCING
This essay will consider the British Riots of 2011, relating the events specifically to the functionalist perspective of Emile Durkheim and others. It will offer definitions of key terms, identify key concepts and consider opposing arguments from opposing theoretical perspectives. It will apply these concepts to the 2011 Riots and argue that the killing of Mark Duggan by police was not, as many believed, the only reason behind the riots.
Functionalist theory suggests society is a system consisting of a number of different but interdependent parts which contribute to its overall stability and functioning. Auguste Comte helped to develop functionalism as a perspective in the 19th century with Emile Durkheim later comparing society to the human body in an organic analogy – the body is dependant on a series of systems working together to ensure its survival and in the same way, society relies on systems working cooperatively together to ensure its survival.
If all is well in society then there is order, stability and productivity. If this is not so, society must adapt and change in order to regain the lost order and stability. Functionalists believe society …show more content…
is held together by consensus whereby members agree, conform and work collaboratively together to achieve the best result for society as a whole. This contrasts with the views of symbolic interactionalists such as George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer who suggest individuals act according to their personal interpretations of the world. Conflict theory also contradicts the functionalist perspective, instead concentrating on mainly negative, conflict focused and constantly changing aspects of society.
Functionalism is criticised by other perspectives for its conservative outlook, asserting that “it takes for granted that there is a natural, healthy state in society which makes it difficult for it to explain change” (O’Byrne 2011). Secondly there is the notion that functionalism is concerned only with social structure with little regard of individual agency – they are significant only in terms of their places within social systems.
All social groups have rules guiding members on how to behave and which allow them to make sense of the actions of themselves and others - these are known as norms. Members are expected to conform to norms and digressions will be backed by remedies in various forms. Norms are defined by Giddens et al (2014) as “rules of conduct that specify appropriate behaviour in a range of social situations. A norm will either allow certain behaviour or forbid it.” It should be noted that norms are not fixed and are changeable according to culture and time. They provide order and stability without which it would be difficult for society to function successfully.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2014) defines social structure as “the distinctive, stable arrangement of institutions whereby humans in a society interact and live together.” They may not be easily identifiable but are present and affect all areas of an individual’s life.
Social structure can therefore be described as the way in which society is organised into predictable relationships and patterns of interaction. Society uses norms to control acceptable methods of achieving approved values – when these norms and values come into conflict, social structure becomes strained, resulting in either social change or a complete breakdown in the functioning of society. Social structure is not universal, fixed or static – society must be open to adjustment and development in response to change.
Social class is an example of social structure – it affects resources in society to which an individual might have access and may guide and shape behaviour at many levels.
Collective conscious refers to the knowledge and beliefs shared by all the members of a group regardless of size. It allows group members to share common goals, attitudes and behaviours and encourages those with differing views to conform to the views of the group.
Durkheim defined collective conscious as “the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force in society” suggesting a collective conscious exists amongst people in a society of shared norms and values and it is this “glue” that binds society together (O’ Byrne 2011). He argued it results from strong pressure on an individual, both positive and negative. We learn from a young age that some behaviours gain approval while others attract disapproval and once an individual processes this information, they are likely to respond to others in similar ways. As such we can suggest the individual takes on the group values.
Anomie refers to a state in which social norms and guidance for the citizens of a society have broken down. It occurs when society has little or no influence on people’s desire to follow rules and norms, and they are left without moral guidance. Often, individuals do not feel a sense of belonging to the collective society.
Emile Durkheim first introduced anomie in his 1893 book, The Division of Labour in Society in which he observed “the rules of how individuals interact with one another were disintegrating” resulting in people being unable to decide how to act with each other.
He introduced the concept more fully in his 1951 study of suicide where he suggested anomic suicide resulted from the breakdown of social standards necessary for regulating behaviour. He further believed that anomie arises more from a mismatch between person or group standards, wider social standards or a weak social code which results in deviant behaviour. Although the term anomie suggests normlessness, Durkheim never used the word, instead describing anomie as “derangement” or “an insatiable will” (Encyclopaedia Britannica
2014).
When a social system is in an anomic state, common values and meanings are no longer accepted or understood and new ones are yet undeveloped. Durkheim supported the view that when this occurs, evidence of a lack of purpose, a sense of futility and emotional despair can be found amongst its members.
Robert Merton further developed Durkheim’s anomie concept in his 1957 study when he identified a number of forms that anomie can take, including an absence or weakness of shared norms, unregulated behaviour, incompatibility between norms of different institutions and the difference between the goals that are being promoted by an institution and the means of achieving them.
On 11 August 2011, a peaceful protest took place in Tottenham following the killing of Mark Duggan by police. This was followed by some of the worst civil misbehaviour the UK has seen for many years as rioters ran amok in several cities.
Prime Minster David Cameron commented
“Initially there were some peaceful demonstrations following Mark Duggan’s death... understandably the police were cautious about how they dealt with this. However, this was then used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs, first in Tottenham itself, then across London and then in other cities.”
It appeared that the Prime Minister was laying the blame for the riots squarely at the doors of gangs when he added:
“At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are mostly composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes.”
This was later proved not to be entirely the case. A joint study by The Guardian and the London School of Economics found rioters were males aged between 13 and 57 years, coming from a variety of social backgrounds. The study additionally discovered that gangs behaved atypically during the riots, temporarily suspecting animosities with their rivals (LSE 2011).
Rioters cited a variety of grievances which they felt caused the riots. These ranged from economic reasons like high unemployment and insufficient employment opportunities, to social causes such as the feeling they were being treated differently to others – student finance issues, frustration with the way police engaged with communities, disproportionate use of “Stop and Search” powers among young, black males were frequently mentioned as was the death of Mark Duggan (The Guardian 2011).
Many involved in the riots spoke of their sense of injustice at their situations – high levels of unemployment, a lack of job opportunities and having to rely on benefits which were being heavily cut by the Government, which they felt denied them their dignity. They saw the affluent being able to afford the latest technology and branded goods and wanted the same. Alongside the assertion from the rioters that opportunism played a large part in the widespread looting, this could be seen as supporting the view put forward by Merton in his work on anomie – the rioters want what everybody else has but lack the legitimate means of achieving them so resort to illegitimate methods such as looting and violence to achieve their end goal.
Merton calls this innovation – an individual strives to achieve accepted goals but does so in an unacceptable way. It can therefore be seen that change can occur internally in society through either innovation or rebellion - a combination of rejecting societal goals and means and substituting others.
Although the trigger for the riots was Mark Duggan’s death, combined with a sense of disillusionment and injustice with high levels of unemployment, poverty brought about by strict austerity measures (contrary to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the riots had nothing to do with poverty), the dire economic situation and a feeling that they were being treated differently that led to the mass rebellion that was witnessed over 5 days in August 2011.
This essay has examined the British Riots of 2011 from the functionalist perspective. It offers definitions and explanations of key terms, identifying arguments from opposing theoretical perspectives where appropriate. Furthermore, it suggests the functionalist perspective offers an effective explanation for the riots with Merton’s work being particularly relevant. Finally, the essay argues the reasons for the riots were not solely due to the death of Mark Duggan, but were indicative of a widespread malaise encompassing a variety of situations. REFERENCING