Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining crime (21 Marks) Item A Functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society. Central to their study of crime is the attempt to understand why people break the rules of society. Despite their focus on the importance of shared norms and values, functionalists see a small amount of crime as necessary and beneficial to society. The publicity given to crime highlights the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. However, the beneficial effects of crime for society are limited; too much crime can indicate problems. Durkheim looks at how crime and deviance is inevitable and needed in …show more content…
Furthermore Durkheim doesn’t specify how much crime is good for society before we fall into anomie. New Right sociologists such as Murray would be critical of this as they believe that subcultures which carry out criminal and deviant acts form an underclass which threatens society on the whole rather than strengthening ‘boundary maintenence.However Durkheim doesn’t state why people commit crimes, another functionalist who did was Merton. Merton developed a ‘strain theory’ building on Durkheim’s work. He said that crime was largely committed as a result of individuals not being able to achieve the goals impressed upon them by society (in his case the American Dream). This led people to turn to unconventional means in order to achieve these goals as they believe that happiness wealth and success are all interchangeable. While Merton does accept that everyone is different, he categorizes people into 5 adaptations to the strain; conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. Merton can be criticized as it is hard to believe that all people fit into 5 distinct categories with no overlaps. Furthermore Merton fails to explain non - utilitarianism crime, lots of crime is committed which does not financially benefit the criminals for example vandalism. Merton also fails to explain crime and deviance that isn’t committed as an individual
This particular work will consist of a critical theoretical review and a comparative analysis on two criminological theories. For the comparison I have chosen Marx’s theory of crime and Merton’s strain theory of deviance. My critical comparison analysis will emphasise the central concepts and arguments within both theories and how each theory explains crime. The analysis will then explore modern day studies in which have stemmed from these theories as well as explore the many similarities and differences between these two theories. Exploring the strengths and weaknesses in both approaches and concluding that although both theories are
Strain theory and New Deviancy Theory (NDT) are mirror images of those above. Strain theory understands human nature to be socially constructed, where, committing a crime is produced by society not from individual instincts, favouring a deterministic perspective but also recognising that individuals rationalise from inside their determined position to achieve their aspirations. However, methods of innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion are not included under human rationality. Combining voluntaristic and determinacy is a main feature in NDT, although, they argue that while individuals are born free, they lose their agency in societal frameworks that manage behaviour; the state. The problem with this is that it ignores class conflict and therefore denies the basic causes of crime.
This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.
For example, Merton was influenced over his work and continued to develop the concept of ‘anomie’ in his work relating to the social upheaval that occurred in USA (Burke, 2005, p.99). Smith also argues that the following insights in criminology do have their origins in Durkheim’s work as ‘deviance is, in part, the product of weak moral integration and poor social regulation’ and that ‘social change, such as the transition to modernity, can often generate anomie and with this an increase in the levels of crime.’ (2008)
"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw," (Kazi, 2017). The modern societies around the world put a high importance on preventing criminal activity and rectifying behavior that leads to crime. In an ongoing struggle against corruption, many sociologists, and psychologists have done in-depth research to understand what is the cause of crime in our society. Initially, in 1893, Emile Durkheim first came up with the idea called Anomie Theory to explain why offenses take place in our communities. Durkheim reported that crimes took place in our society because there was a lack of ethical norms and social standards within our communities (Walsh, 2018).However, almost half a century later, Robert K. Merton developed Merton's Strain Theory to thoroughly explain why some people in our society are more likely to commit crimes than the others who don’t. Merton’s Strain Theory argues that corruption not only occurs in our communities because we lack norms in our society, but are also caused by the strains that are present among us as individuals which influence people to commit the crime. In his explanation, people will resort to achieving success through illegitimate means when they are blocked from acquiring success through legitimate means (Walsh, 2018). After studying the classical strain theories, I think that Merton’s Strain Theory explains street crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, and drug dealing better than
Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches and explanations of crime are arguably some of the most controversial, for the reason that they state that it is the ruling class that is responsible for criminalising the working classes, which goes directly against what official statistics and Functionalists believe. However, Marxism and Functionalism do share a similarity in that both believe structures and institutions of society play a very important role in determining how people behave, criminally or otherwise.
The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.
Functionalists see crime deviance in society as a function, in that it serves to remind us, through public condemnation of those who have broken the rules, of our shared values and norms. Furthermore, they suggest that crime is a result of structural tensions and a lack of moral regulations within society. If the
Furthermore it states that humans, being conformists readily buy into these notions. However, access to the means for achieving these goals is not equally available to everyone. Some have the education, social network and family influence to attain these goals. The socially and economically disadvantaged do not have the opportunity, education or necessary social network for attaining material wealth and economic or political power. Thus the strain theory predicts that crime occurs when there is a perceived discrepancy between these goals and the legitimate means for reaching them. Individuals who experience a high level of this strain are forced to decide whether to violate laws to achieve these goals, to give up on the goals pushed upon them by society, or to withdraw or rebel.
Brym, R.J., & Lie, J., & Rytina, S. (2010) Deviance and Crime. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. 3rd Canadian Edition. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Toronto: Nelson
Merton established other forms that an individual might respond such as conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion these explained an individual goal and the access to the means. This can either present a negative or positive outcome. For Merton these responses to deviance show how society strains people hence the name of the strain theory. The strain theory can lead to the triggers of feeling s that can become rage and defeat by society which can lead to a result in crime. The prodigious of society can caused an individual to engage in deviant behavior. These deviant behaviors are not society real and norms. This can explain why people engage in cat fishing.
The theoretical framework of strain theory can be credited to sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim research on formed a platform for other sociologist to further develop strain theories of crime. One of which is Robert Merton. One of Durkheim’s major works that opened the door to further research on strain theories was his book, Suicide. In this book Durkheim sough to understand the why led to one’s own self-destruction. Emile Durkheim studied suicide rates and its association with crisis. Durkheim noticed trends in suicide rates that were associated with economic prosperity and economic crisis.
Introduction: Throughout history there have always been many different theories of crime and why people commit crimes. In the late 1930s a new theory rose to the forefront; this theory was called the anomie theory. Anomie means a lack of ethical standards. The anomie theory was proposed by Roberton Merton. It stated that society, as a whole, generally shares the same goals relating to having success in life; whether that is having a family, wealth, power, or just happiness. Society generally agrees that these are things that are to be sought after. Furthermore, Merton proposed that society, as a whole, also has a list of generally accepted ways to achieve such goals (Merton, 1938). Criminal activity, such as robbery, murder, and corruption, are among the things that are not accepted by society as appropriate means to achieve these goals. Merton’s anomie theory was built upon in 1992 by Robert Agnew who developed the general strain theory. General strain theory argues that when members of society are unable to achieve the general goals that society has set forth, they will, in order to avoid further rejection, further alienate themselves from society. Agnew also argued that if these individuals feel as if their shortcomings were a result of their environment failing them they will likely develop very negative feelings towards society, causing them to
As crime continues to occur, criminologists begin to define new theories to explain our seemingly naturalistic tendencies on what mental processes take place for an individual to actually partake in criminal activity. The symbolic interactionist perspective defines itself by its strong beliefs in the fact that criminals are defined by their social processes. The social process theory states that criminality is a function of people’s interactions with various groups, organizations and processes in society. For example, an individual’s connection with family, school, friends, religion and media would all be main factors in determining how their criminal structure within their personality came
First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the