Sociological Perspectives On Crime

A collection of rules authorised by a political body and enforced by those with authoritative power (Open Education Sociology Dictionary, 2017), law is a prevalent part of every society, no matter its size. However, with rules, there are always those who will violate them - an act which we refer to as crime. In this essay I aim to compare two differing sociological perspectives towards crime, the Functionalist and Marxist perspectives, its significance within society, and also if the relevancy they held at the time of writing translates into today’s society.

Firstly, however, it is important to make clear the difference between common sense and sociological explanations. These are often argued to be the same thing, though this is not
the case. Common sense is something which occurs from a shared belief system of norms and values of a majority of people, based upon only their life experience and assumptions. Sociology is something which requires evidence-based explanations, and this is what distances it from being simply a commentary on society. (Andersen & Taylor, 2007)

The first of the two I will address is Functionalism, of which Émile Durkheim was a major theorist.
A fundamental point to his work on crime is the concept of ‘collective conscience’. In his own words, Durkheim (1960, p79) describes this as “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average citizens of the same society”; or simply the shared norms and values which are considered the general standards of all members of a society. It is through this collective conscience that deviance advocates social cohesion (Marsh et al, 2006), a term which alludes to a stable society through the bringing together of its peoples. For example, the mutual social resentment which occurs in response to a crime, especially one which is observed to be despicable. For example, a murder. Such a response underlines not only the universally understood norms and values of that society, but also the perimeters of what is understood to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or acceptable, behaviour - something which aids in the redrawing of moral boundaries. This is referred to as ‘boundary maintenance function’ (Tierney & O’Neill, 2013), and it blends somewhat into Durkheim’s second argument regarding the breaking of laws: that it is an essential and normal part of
society. “Crime is not only observed in most societies of a particular species, but in all societies of all types.There is not one in which criminality does not exist” (Durkheim, 1982, p98). Though crime is seen as something ‘bad’ it is something which is inevitable, and as it cannot be completely eradicated it must provide some kind of function, give something essential to society as a whole (Marsh et al, 2006). Along with the aforementioned boundary maintenance function it provides an ‘adaptive function’, described by Tierney and O’Neill (2013) as an act of law breaking which is ahead of it’s time and brings the introduction of new ideas, allowing the society to adapt to ever changing circumstances and evolve, thus preventing its deterioration. An example which Durkheim (1982, p102) uses is the one of Socrates. "According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal... However, his crime - his independence of thought - was useful not only for humanity but for his country... However, at the time the violation was a crime, since it was an offence against sentiments still keenly felt in the average consciousness." In essence, it was a crime because it went against traditions held amongst that society at the time. However, as these traditions became more outdated and stagnant, the society needed to evolve and progress in tandem with the requirements of its existence, hence the changing of laws.