Crime And Deviance

Emile Durkheim, a French psychologist writes in the latter part of the eighteenth century and early part of the nineteenth century. He undertakes a functionalist/ structural perspective when applying theory to understand the world; he views society as a system of interrelated parts with widespread consensus about core values and suitable forms of behaviour вЂ" if something exists then it must have a function and a purpose to society.

In Durkheim’s work �The Division of Labour (1964)’ he argued that in rural farming societies people generally tend to be involved in similar activities so the division of labour is therefore minimal. This results in people developing similar ideas, goals, hobbies a, interests and values; they share a �collective conscience’ This collective conscience produces �mechanical solidarity’ which is what Durkheim suggests is the social force holding these agricultural societies together. Industrialisation and urbanisation weaken the collective conscience as they promote a more specialised division of labour. Because people have different social positions and roles/ statuses they will each hold different thoughts, ideas, goals, hobbies and interests. This results in mechanical solidarity disappearing. Durkheim argues that as the division of labour becomes more and more specialised people become dependent on one and other for their basic needs. He calls this social bond �organic solidarity’. We can relate this to the human body; each organ is needed to function in order to support the other, just as society is interdependent on each other.

Durkheim suggests that there are two crucial elements in understanding crime, at first these appear to be slightly contradictory. First, he suggests that a limited amount of crime is necessary and beneficial to society as crime could not exist without some form of deviance taking place. He suggests that patterns of norm violations e.g. rape and kidnapping serve a function as these situations reunite people in an expression of common outrage and disgrace. He states вЂ?crime brings together upright consciences and concentrates them’. So as the media publish incidences like rape and kidnapping they are reaffirming people’s beliefs and sharing morals and beliefs by discussing what is right and wrong. Kay Erikson (1966) extended upon this theory and argued that the deviance present in such incidences serve the important purpose of affirming and reinforcing the cultural identity of social groups. Group members have the opportunity to come together and share a common goal reminding group members what values they share and strengthening social cohesion. He also suggests that deviance allows society to clarify norms and as previously they are vague and unclear bu8t when such an incident occurs, through social reaction society is able to agree on common values. Durkheim and Erikson both suggest that deviance highlights and emphasizes the reward for conformity вЂ" when punishing people for norm violations it reminds others of the reward for conformity.

On the other hand Durkheim claims that too much crime can be bad for society as it can help bring about its collapse. He suggests that crime is not only inevitable but also functional for society. When crime becomes dysfunctional is when the crime rate is unusually high or extremely low. Durkheim argues that all social change appears with some form of deviance, so in order for changes to occur yesterdays deviance must become today’s normality. A certain amount of change is healthy for society вЂ" as like deviance. If within society the collective sentiments (thoughts) are too strong then this will result in there being little deviance, there will not be any change or progress made - if this happens and these ties holding us together are weakened, broken, non-existent or not regular enough to allow norms to be maintained or established then there will be a state of вЂ?normlessness’ (Anomie). He suggests that the collective sentiments must have вЂ?moderate energy’ so they do not abolish individuality. Speed of change in modern society can encourage this temporary unhealthy state to come about.

In �Rules of Socialogcal Method’ Durkheim relates to some crime as �an anticipation of the morality of the future’. So terrorists or freedom fighters may represent the future.

Durkheim argues that crime and deviance is created by integral parts of society (and not a number of small individuals), these integral parts form a crucial function in society.

As previously discussed, Durkheim relates society being held together to two types of solidarity. He argues that in mechanical solidarity we react to crime by punishing the perpetrator to allow those who are obeying the social norms to feel rewrded. This is also similar for organic solidarity although a new form of law is also developed. In organic solidarity, reparation of goods to regain the status quo is all that is needed following an unfair transaction.

Society solidarity is strengthened when society chastises those who o against the law, society members reaffirm the values and build upon the collective conscience. We can look at a present day example of gun and gang crime, media coverage and negative views towards the crimes that are committed in this category enable society to develop strong values and beliefs against such acts.

Durkheim suggests that there is no society which does not have crime вЂ" if society did not have crime this would result in total anomie, society appears therefore to be wholly to blame for crime.

Merton (1957), a functionalist analyst appears to agree with Durkheim that individual behaviour is a product of society although Durkheim theorised about the whole of society, Merton focused on developing a �middle range theory’ of society.

Mertons’ attempt to explain the social world was from the view of a social individual (actor) suggesting that society is not driven by individuals kind service to society вЂ" as Durkheim suggests, but the wants and needs of the individual. Service to society may be an individual aim but is more an вЂ?unintended service to society’.

Merton suggests that society is one form which evolves into others and is always changing and creating new aims and goals, and does not evolve from mechanical to organic like Durkheim suggests. Merton, aslike Durkheim, also believes in social norms and cultural values although he does not say how they are created вЂ" he argues that cultural