Critically Compare and Contrast Functionalist and Traditional Marxist Perspectives On Crime.
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 1
CRITICALLY COMPARE AND CONTRAST FUNCTIONALIST AND TRADITIONAL MARXIST PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME
There are many theories on why crime exists as well has who is committing the crimes and the underlying reasons behind it The two main perspectives being Traditional Marxist and Functionalist both with different views they share very little in common, however they do agree that society shapes the individual and not the individual that shapes society. What is meant by that is that we are all products of our upbringings and learn through socialisation what our beliefs are, what we agree on personally and often shared beliefs and the understanding of what is 'the norm; through our primary interaction with others beginning at home and continuing onto schooling and work. Our beliefs aren't always set in stone and can change through time and growth and the interaction with others once outside the family domain. There are many explanations beginning with Durkheim who was a functionalist, there is Merton who doesn't totally agree with Durkheim but adopted his theory on 'Anomie' and made it his own. In addition there is Hirschi whose theories mirrored that of Durkheim's and before concluding, Marxist view on crime will be looked at.
The Functionalist view on crime and society is likening it to the human body to explain it functions. The body has it organs whereas society has it institutions. Functionalists have an interest in the functions of crime, hence the name and are interested in how crime contributes to society as a whole. There is a belief that society is based on consensus or agreement of shared beliefs and values of what is considered to be 'the norm', the views hare then passed on through socialisation. Share values and beliefs originate from the family and re-enforced through education, the media and the judiciary system. Functionalists see crime to have a function in society however not a primary one in that it provides jobs and can set standards for enforcement and laws are introduced or are looked at to further set boundaries
An amount of crime is good whereas too much crime is bad and could bring about societal collapse bringing further anarchy and confusion. I was Emile Durkheim who began the study that gave birth to functionalist approaches to crime. Merton brought about further study when he developed his 'strain theory' in the 1930's during the 'great depression' where there were large amounts of unemployment and changes occurring at that time in the US. Merton believed that crime was rife due to values not imitating what was actually happening economically at that time. Thirty years later Hirschi introduced his 'control theory', which was based upon Durkheim's early studies, he agreed with Durkheim on crime being the norm in society.
When a serious crime is committed and thus becomes public knowledge through media attention, functionalists believe that there are bonds within society that are strengthened and a sense of horror is felt. Durkheim called this a 'collective conscience', however not all people follow the masses in mutual horror and can prefer their own needs to those of others. Durkheim had a belief in crime and deviance not
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 2
just being the makeup of a few 'sick' individuals but is part of society and performs an important function. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
When a serious crime is committed and thus becomes public knowledge through media attention, functionalists believe that there are bonds within society that are strengthened and a sense of horror is felt. Durkheim called this a 'collective conscience', however not all people follow the masses in mutual horror and can prefer their own needs to those of others. Durkheim had a belief in crime and deviance not
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 2
just being the makeup of a few 'sick' individuals but is part of society and performs an important function. But there are criticisms in his theories and he doesn't completely explain why some people offend whereas others do not and there is no argument on laws and their validity on how they benefit society as a whole. Marxists would strongly criticise the way Durkheim seems to be ignorant of the 'concepts of power' and how a small number of people in power have an influence in setting laws and boundaries whereas the majority have no sat at all and to abide by these laws.
Another sociologist who shared Durkheim's view was Erikson; in the 1960's he took Durkheim's ideas on 'boundary settings and maintenance functions of crime' and altered it. Erikson showed how Durkheim had failed to explain differences in power and he showed how crime sets boundaries but added that it only seemed to be in the interests of the powerful therefore making a connection between the Functionalist and Marxist perspective. However, Merton took Durkheim's theory of 'anomie' (a state of normlessness) and showed it to be too vague and made his own alteration to the concept to show how a dysfunction between 'goals and means'. This proved that a person could commit a crime in order to be successful due to pressure from society to achieve certain goals. His argument stemmed from a view based on the 'American Dream' concept in the US in the 1930's. He believed that an obsession to make money to gain possessions and wealth was shared by many but an overwhelming number of people were not in a position to obtain those means legally.
Merton's adaptation of 'Anomie' described it to be based on 'relative deprivation' and he created five responses to 'Anomie' the first being conformity, this is when a person accepts the goals and the means and basically remains a law-abiding citizen. Innovation, a response to acception of the goals but rejection of the means therefore a person is more likely to commit crimes to obtain financial rewards. Ritualism, an acception of the goals and conformity to the means but lack of sight of any goals or may simply 'go through the motions' with no real interest in the outcome. Retreatism, both goals and means are no longer an interest and the person may simply drop of out of the rat race entirely. Rebellion, rejection of the society based on success and obtaining of goals, usually a person who has radical views and has complete disregard for value set by society, perhaps a terrorist. Merton has been criticised ands it has been assumed that he gives no real explanation on why one person offends and another doesn't, this seems to be untrue as he does argue the different types of behaviour that working class are more likely to feel less guilty for committing a criminal act that a middleclass person would.
Hirschi supported Durkheim's explanations, however he asked the question why don't people commit and not why people do. He created his own model of explanation and the type of bonds we care within society that consisted of four elements; Attachment, deals with how we care for others or have an inability not to have concern, typically a psychopath. The second element commitment, based on personal input into our own lives, for example our work and home environment, material things we own and our children and their education in comparison to a single male living in a
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 3
bed-sit on benefits whom is more likely to offend due to a sense of having little to lose. The third, Involvement, a business person involved in legitimised dealings is less likely to offend due to having little time to do so. Then there is belief, a person who abides by the rules and conforms to the norms and acceptable standards within society and perhaps is totally against rule breaking.
Marxism has a different slant on why crime exists and the origins of law enforcement compared to the functionalist view. Marxism began with Karl Marx and others after him have shared his view and added their own. His idea in the class divide between the richest in society or the bourgeoisie and those on the lower rung of the societal ladder, the working class, has long been documented. A Marxist would say that the stigma surrounding who actually commits the most criminal offences would lie at the feet of the less fortunate and well-off in society and the stereotypical offender would be young, black and male. This would be backed up in their view has being highly probably and due to relative deprivation and oppression by those who have on those who have not. Or there could be a feeling of pressure brought on by media hype and the constant change in products evolving in to better more desirable ones.
When Emile Durkheim stated that 'law is a reflection of the will of the people', Marxist's would totally disagree, they believe that 'law is a reflection of the will of the powerful' The argument that economic power and status gives political and social power and the rich can manipulate the lower classes to pass laws only to benefit themselves. An example of laws produced to suit the purpose of higher classes is the 1994 Public Order and Criminal Justice Act; this gave the state new influences on the prevention of gatherings of small numbers of people and disallows their activities which had once been abided. In particular the laws on trespass and squatting have been tightened tremendously. This removal of civil liberties seems to limit the powers of protest for the majority although to explain why enforced it would seem the law itself was put in place as a smoke screen and coveted to serve as a repellent for a small number of disruptive individuals.
There are different types of crime and there are different types of criminal. Corporate or white collar crime is rarely heard of and often dealt with behind closes doors away from prying eyes of the media. Should a worker have a fatal accident at work and the health and safety standards we lax or breached it cannot be compared to a more personal killing on a street corner in the dead of night? Marxist view on this is to say that laws are in place only to apply to those less fortunate in society and are in place to protect the hierarchy against blame. Other types of crime include fraud and tax evasion by larger establishments and are often cone unreported and not treated as seriously. Steven Box pointed out that the corporate crime is far more serious a problem that people think as there is a domino effect caused by it being unchecked beginning with unpaid taxes to cost on the environment onto health and welfare benefits which effect the public in the long run. Box claimed that these type of crimes although less personal were far more damaging that the average street crime as it cost the highest amount of loss of money across a larger scale. Attacks on employees with
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 4
over 500 killed each year and 18,000 injured an estimated 300 deaths were the result of a breach in health and safety regulations. Consumers suffer through misleading advertisement and faulty substandard goods being sold costing the consumer dearly. There is a clear concept of profit over standards being the primary objective and the desire for power and status coupled with fierce competition against establishments within the same sectors in order to survive, so placement of blame on an individual is extremely difficult.
Example of negligence where blame could not be placed is shown in the highly publicised sinking of the cross-channel ferry Herald of Free Enterprise in 1989. The tragic death toll of over 100 was investigated and found that the person responsible for closing the bow doors had fallen asleep, a clear case of negligence, however when questioned it emerged that the individual was overworked and that it was normal practise to leave bow doors open when leaving the docks to achieve faster exiting time. This was purely of the purpose of profit and the fact that staffing levels were at a minimum came from higher members of the company so no action was brought against either the company nor the person responsible for the closing of the bow doors as it was viewed that no crime was committed.
Marxism has it criticisms and concepts that aren't always backed up with fact. There isn't any clear argument regarding individual motivation to commit crime only that it gets completely caught up with the concept that capitalism is the root cause. The view on high crime and the criminal being the black working class youth and biased policing and that they are simply forced into crime due to unfair laws only suiting the purpose of the wealthy and more privileged. It doesn't explain how someone of a middle class background could fall into and take on a crime spree. There is a belief in the manipulation of values, that laws are created to control and enforcement to further re-iterate the control but dismisses entirely that an individual may simply by their own choosing become a criminal.
Looking at both perspectives it is easy to see the problems they both have in explaining crime and where they seem to make perfect sense. Both concepts were interesting and provided thought and the pioneers of both set precedence and have long since been adapted by others. Hirschi seemed a little too vague in his explanations with very little backup in his theories and his model of four elements seemed flawed. How could he say that a law-abiding person isn't likely to offend and he offers no proof to support his suggestion? He also states that a businessperson would be too involved in business matters not to commit a crime, Marxist would totally disagree, and they would say that he is more likely to be deviant within a corporate structure although should it occur it is highly unlikely the public would be made aware of it. However the question of mental state of an individual hasn't even been raised by any of the sociologists to explain why a person may offend. Merton seemed to make a lot of sense but there seemed to be something missing in his explanations on why crime exists why some commit and others don't, perhaps the reality is there is no definite answer on why it exists.
Michelle Deluce Tutor: Joanne Green CRIMINOLOGY
Page 5
BIBLOGRAPHY
Durkheim, E (1985/1987) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London: Routledge
Erikson, K J. (1966) Wayward Puritans, New York: Wiley
Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
Merton, R. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie, American Sociological Review, Vol 3, 672-683
