Robert K.Merton developed on Durkheim work and noted that crime rates rises with industrialisation more in urban areas than rural areas and that it was a lower class phenomenon. Using America as an example, Merton noticed how the American dream was pushed in these societies, that all members of society have an equal opportunity of achieving success. Emphasis was placed on success and relatively little importance was given to the accepted ways of achieving this success. As such, American society is unstable and unbalanced. There is a tendency to reject the “rules of the game” and to strike for success by any available means. When this occurs, anomie is the consequence. There are two main ways in which members could respond to success goals. Innovation is the response that rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, in particular crime. The 2nd is the retreatists who have internalised both the cultural goals and the institutionalised means yet they are unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by adopting both the goals and the means of reaching them and are unable to cope and “drop out” of society, defeated and resigned to their failure.
However, critics of Merton’s works have stated that he neglects the power relationships in society as whole, within which deviants and conformity occur.
Shaw and McKay looked at the zones of transition in metropolitan areas in Chicago where they found that the crimes rates in inner city areas were much higher than that of the outer. This was suggested due to the social disorganisation that existed in inner city areas. Such things as extended school, the change in nature of the family i.e. increase divorce rates and single parents families results in the increase of decentred identities and an increase in frustration and anomie. Thus people did things they normally wouldn’t such as crime.
Sub cultural theories explain deviance in terms of the subculture of a social group. They argue that certain groups develop norms and values that are to some extent different from those help by other members of society.
Juvenile delinquency became apparent in the 1950’s where a range of acts started to appears like truancy and vandalism to joyriding, gang fighting and drug taking. These sorts of crimes are associated with young people known as “youth culture.”
Merton said that these sorts of crimes happened because these people felt like losers, however this wasn’t the case, since delinquency was carried out for the fun of it; to show off in front of their friends.
Albert Cohen, a structural functionalist conducted an observation study on teddy boys. He found out that working class males were the ones who carried out the delinquent acts and that it was a youth phenomenon. He does agree with Merton that they are innovators, who grew up with the American dream and are “losers.” But the problem with Merton is that he says that individuals feel dislocated and then deviate, but they don’t do this individually according to Cohen but “collectively”- in a subculture. Deviance isn’t an individual response, but a group thing that experience anomie and frustration.
Merton also said that they’re innovators, but they aren’t really, since they aren’t making money and neither are the retreatists- it doesn’t explain non-instrumental crimes that is done for a laugh.
Cohen said that the delinquent couldn’t succeed at the mainstream norms and values, no matter how hard they try. So they replace these norms and values with ones they can succeed at. It isn’t that they reject the mainstream norms and values, but they invert them; they turn them upside down therefore everything that is said to be good by society the delinquent sticks two finger up at them.
According to Cohen, working class children experience delinquency, however this correlation wasn’t found using the cultural deprivation theory. Culture is deprived and blocks opportunity leading to anomie, and then to delinquency, therefore is it a legitimate opportunity structure. It maybe an illegitimate opportunity structure therefore an established pattern of crime.
In Britain, delinquency was a phenomenon of the new working class estate, yet on these estates delinquency was also found. The sense of community or culture explains why delinquency wasn’t equally spread amongst the working class.
Cloward and Ohlin accept Merton’s theory i.e. crime and deviance is down to blocked opportunity, that leads to anomie. However say “how the deviance is acted out depends on the nature of the community.” Working class people living in an established working class area had an established criminal structure; therefore young people will drift into it when they experience anomie. Thus there will be little delinquency, being an illegitimate opportunity structure. However is there is no established criminal structure, a conflict sub-culture develops. I.e. delinquent subculture.
Similarly in areas where there is a legitimate opportunity structure, there seemed to exist a retreats subculture whereby such things as drugs and alcohol abuse was found to be conducted by middle class youth. However, Cohen’s argument of status frustration is too simplistic and has to be further defined. The idea of status frustration and anomie because of blocked opportunity has an empirical problem; generally delinquents came from a working class background, however some working class people didn’t have clocked opportunities, yet they were still delinquents, so anomie here didn’t develop because of blocked opportunity.
An alternative view is that the working class lacks socialisation, therefore delinquents act out in an exaggerated way to their norms and values.
Miller didn’t see juvenile delinquents as a reaction to failure but as a result of these children into being socialised into working class culture. He looked at working class subcultures and found out to be certain focal concerns that mark them from other subcultures. Being tough; especially in physical terms is a key part in the identity of a working class person. There is also an emphasis on being smartly dressed. This can be connected in making people think that they re clever and can crack a joke or either as being cunning and sly. Working class subcultures also seen as being fatalistic; they live for the moment and do not defer gratification. They also display autonomy in that they are independent from authority; that if you need to sort something out you go and do it directly with them. Lastly they like to let themselves go in that they like to gamble and do such things that the middle class wouldn’t do.
It was seen by miller that working class children act out these focal concerns in an exaggerate manner and at the inappropriate times. To him, he saw the reason for this not to be down to status frustration but status integrity. Because of extended schooling, identities became less centred and there became a need to build an identity, and all of these focal concerns lead to dysfunctional delinquency.
However this can all be criticised using the Marxists critique they say that mainstream culture reflects the culture of the ruling class, which is imposed on us, and is designed to socialise us into this culture so exploitation can be facilitated and at the same time rendering exploitation invisible. They do not see delinquency as dysfunctional but endemic, and that is a logical ongoing consequence of capitalism. They reject the concept of cultural deprivation and say that the culture of the working class is a logical consequence due to their relationship to the forces of production.
In conclusion, it can be seen that functionalists see crime and deviance as a functional phenomena a low level. That it enhances social integration for the maintenance of society. However, they see larger crimes as dysfunctional whereby people have not been adequately socialised into the social structure.
