Merton’s “Strain Theory” (1938) is a development of Durkheim’s ideas of anomie or “normlessness”. Anomie, in Merton’s context, can also occur when individuals are unable to follow the “dominant norms” within a society. Merton argues that individuals are socialized into wanting success, material wealth, status and power. When they are unable to achieve this, it results in a “strain” between what we want, and what we can get. One possible response to this “strain” is deviant and criminal behaviour- through innovation (via crime), retreatism (via drugs and cults) or rebellion. Merton also explains the reasons for choosing a deviant and criminal response to a legitimate one through examining the idea of sub-cultures e.g. the working class, who are differentially socialized to accept more deviant ways of achieving the desired ends set by society. However, “Strain Theory” can be criticized, namely by Interactionists who would challenge his claim of everyone sharing similar ends. They would instead point to the differences in objectives between different societies, as well as clear anomalies (as seen in Merton’s theoretical views) such as monks and nuns who seem to eschew material objectives. It can also be seen as too deterministic- especially in regards to his assertion that differential socialization amongst certain socio-economic classes results in a tendency towards deviant and criminal behaviour. ‘Strain Theory” also fails to explain non-economic crime such as rape and violent behaviour. More importantly, it accepts crime statistics as a valid “social fact”, as well as the division between “criminals” and “non-criminals”- something which is at the very least a flawed assumption.
Cohen in “Delinquent Boys” argued that status was a desired and valued social commodity which was denied to those from lower socioeconomic groups due to poor school performance. The lack of status or ‘status deprivation’ then resulted in the development of gangs or sub-cultures through which alternative status could be gained via deviant actions which were in most cases a direct reversal of what could be seen as accepted forms of behaviour. This explanation is important, as low-level deviance often leads to crime. However, Cohen’s sub-cultural theories in relation to the reasons behind crime and deviance can be heavily criticized from a feminist perspective, namely due to the glaring fact that it does not adequately explain how females coped with the idea of ‘status deprivation’- an accusation further reinforced by the fact that Cohen’s work was titled “Delinquent Boys”. Furthermore, it could be argued that Cohen’s theory is at the very least quite deterministic- mainly due to its assumption that boys from working-class and lower socioeconomic groups were invariably destined to fail within the educational system. This point fades in credibility when we take into account that a good proportion of boys from working-class backgrounds have managed to avoid being pulled into the cycle of deviance and crime.
Matza, in “Delinquency and Drift” (1964) argues that deviants do not necessarily reject the wider values and norms of society. He puts forward the idea of a dual-value system in which conventional and subterranean values exist side-by-side, with a conflict between the two varying value systems. This results in a form of normative confusion, especially in the period of transition between childhood and adulthood- resulting in a corresponding rise in deviant behaviour, followed by a settlement back into normal behaviour once the period of confusion has run its course. This explains the reasons behind youth ‘delinquency’ and deviance. However, Interactionists would argue that Matza’s theories do not actually reflect the truth- as some do not fall into the cycle of deviant behaviour caused by the conflict between subterranean and conventional values. They would also criticize the assumption that deviant behaviour is caused by the influence of a ‘value system’, instead emphasising the role of human interaction and the learning process behind this as an alternative reason behind youth deviance and delinquency. Matza also seems to take the idea of “deviant” behaviour at face value- despite the fact that any behaviour, as Marxists would argue, is labelled by those in a higher position of power according to their own interests.
Miller in “Lower Class Cultures as a Generating Milleu of Gang Delinquency” (1962) differs from other sub-cultural theorists by arguing that ‘delinquent’ sub-cultures are an independent cultural phenomenon which is an extension of a separate “lower” culture. He identifies six “focal concerns” of ‘delinquent’ sub-cultures-all of which, when combined, result in what the middle and upper cultures would term as ‘delinquent’ behaviour. However, Miller’s theories seem to contradict the very basis of functionalist sociology- that of society based on consensus- through its claim of three separate and distinct cultures with distinct and separate norms, values and behaviour- which at the very least does not seem like consensus in any form. Furthermore, Miller can be criticized strongly from an Interactionist view, mainly due to the implied sole role of socialization within the individual “low culture” resulting in delinquent behaviour. Interactionists would instead point to the idea of human interaction and “learning through seeing” as a reason for the development of what has been termed ‘deviant’ behaviour.
Ecological Theorists, who base their arguments on Functionalist principles, would argue that the causes of crime can be found within the physical environment- within which individuals and groups develop according to their social and physical circumstances. Tonnies, through his theories of Gemeinschaft or social relationships in a small scale environment and Gesellschaft or social relationships in a large-scale, urban environment, built on Durkheim’s claim that larger societies with weaker informal social bonds tended to have higher rates of delinquency and crime. Park, in “Human Ecology”, noting the disruptive effects of immigration on communities, argues that groups “struggling for space” within an urban environment would invariably affect behaviour, cause a degree of normative confusion, and result in crime and deviance. Although this theory is to a good extent supported by what we can term “common sense” evidence, it can be argued that this does not apply to all social or migrant groups, noting cases within which migrant groups are able to integrate well and without trouble. Interactionists would argue that Park’s theories are overly simple as they ignore the concept of “space with a social meaning”- with groups fighting for the symbolic and social status of the “space”, and not for the space itself. Park may also be mistaken in identifying “space” as the factor up for grabs, as instead it could be the jobs, or material wealth available within the space in question that is the matter for competition. The idea of “struggle for space” also fails to explain crimes of passion, which are not related to space, or the material rewards it contains. Tonnies’s work could be criticized for taking society from an excessively macro-sociological view. It would be possible in this case to point at the existence of coexisting sub-cultures (communities within a city) providing the informal social bonds which he claims are lost when a society expands in size.
Shaw and McKay, in their “Social Disorganization Theory” explicitly tried to link the idea of area to human and criminal behaviour. They did this through an analysis of the “Concentric Zones” of a city. They claimed that the “zone of transition” or inner city had higher crime than others- due to what they termed “high human turnover” as migrant groups moved in and out. This led them to argue that crime was not a consequence of one group but a consequence of no single group being able to settle in properly. This theory is predominantly backed by the clear fact that areas termed as “inner city” do indeed have higher crime. However, this theory can be criticized for being too simple, and also because Shaw and McKay’s idea of “concentric zones” do not fit in with any city- which have a mixture of different zones in different areas. Furthermore, the idea of an area in constant “transition” contradicts Functionalist ideas, because the “norm” of “disorganization” cannot exist within a society based upon consensus. Marxists would criticize the very idea of blaming crime on the environment, instead pointing to other causes, such as desperation due to oppression and deprivation resulting in crime.
Functionalist, ecological and sub-cultural theorists of Crime and Deviance all suffer from a key flaw- their blind belief in the validity of crime statistics upon which they base their theories and work on. This is aptly summed up by Durkheim’s assumption of Crime Statistics as a “social fact”. This is not necessarily and is usually not true because Crime Statistics are generally flawed, mainly due to the fact that they do not record all crime, under-record certain types of crime such as domestic crime, and most importantly, only show us the actual rate of reported crime, not crime itself. Functionalist theories also glaringly ignore the concept of “power” in defining the idea of what “crime” and “deviant behaviour”, opting instead to consign this to a so-called “consensus”. Marxists would instead point to the idea of crime being classified as crime by those in power- the Capitalist Ruling Class, for their own economic and political advantage. The “high rate of working-class delinquency” cited by both Matza and Miller and used as a basis for their studies is perhaps a result of either over-policing, which itself can be seen by Interactionists as policing according to public perceptions/demands, or by Marxists as a form of oppression.
In conclusion, it can be said that although Functionalist theories do indeed go a long way in explaining the reasons for Crime and Deviance, they do leave a lot to be desired- mainly through failing to take into account the concept of power in relation to crimes and law-making, and their overly deterministic view of society and the manner in which it shapes and forms human behaviour. However, it should be said that Functionalist theories are useful in explaining crime and deviance- perhaps with the use of other complimentary theories or triangulation and methodological pluralism to balance out the clear problems and challenges associated with Functionalist theory.