Functionalist analysis of crime and deviance

Assess the contribution of functionalism to our understanding of crime and deviance.

Functionalist analysis of crime and deviance begins with society as a whole. It looks for the source of deviance in the nature of society rather than in the biological or psychological nature of the individual. Some functionalists argue although it seems strange, deviance is a necessary part off all societies and that it performs positive functions for the social system.

Durkheim argued that it only becomes dysfunctional (harmful to society) when its rate is unusually high or low. He argued that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for change to occur, yesterday’s deviance must become today’s normality. Since a certain amount of change is healthy for society. Deviance can be a safety valve, providing a relatively harmful expression of discontent. In this way social order is protected. Durkheim argued a state of Anomie can occur when people regard the rights and needs of others as unimportant and they prefer instead to look After there own interests. Durkheim has been criticised as there are many examples of deviant and criminal acts, which are socially destructive and could not be seen as reinforcing collective sentiments.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Merton also agrees with the theory of Anomie, Merton argues that deviance that deviance results not from pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself like Durkheim he begins form the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is, all members of society share the same values. However since members of society are placed in different positions in social structure they do not have the same opportunity of realising the shared values. Merton outlines five possible ways in which members of American society can respond to success goals. The first and most common is conformity. They strive for success by means of accepted channels. A second response is innovation. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means. Merton uses the term ritualism to describe the third possible response. They have largely abandoned the commonly held goals of success. Merton terms the fourth and least common response as retreatism, they have strongly internalised both the cultural goals and the institutional means yet they are unable to achieve success. They resolve this by abandoning both the goals and the means. Rebellion forms the fifth and final response, it is a rejection of both the success goals and institutional means and there replaced by different goals and means. Those who adopt this wish to create a new society. Merton claimed that his analysis shows how culture and structure of society generate deviance. Critics have attacked Merton for not carrying his analysis further, for failing to consider who makes the laws and who benefits from them.

Hirschi added to the functionalists study by examining what binds people to society he said the binds are composed of four elements attachment the extent to which we care about other peoples opinions and wishes, commitment the personal investment that each of us make in our lives. Involvement a person’s level of activity or business interest. Belief a persons conviction that they should obey the rules of society. Hirschi also came up with five factors that weaken social binds this are secrecy the chances a person has of hiding deviant acts. Skill to commit crime. Supply the availability of the necessary equipment. Social support this is linked to subcultures and symbolic support mean that if there is powerful symbolic support for rule breaking it is likely to occur.

Hirschi can be criticised as his concept to used, such as attachment are not tightly defined.