Parsons on the other hand, in his socialisation system model of how society functions and fit together describe social structures as consisting of “cultural, social, personality systems and behavioural organism” (Turner, 2000. p.116) which are mutual and interdependent hence, contributing to the functioning of the system and “maintenance of equilibrium” (Wallace and Wolf, 1991. p.39). He argues that if there is a disturbance to the system, the system responds as part of its function to return stability. Therefore, this disturbance is positive in the sense that it makes the society come up with better solutions, thus encouraging progress. For example an increase in crime will result in new approaches like greater preventative measures.
On causes of deviance and crime, major distinctions between functionalist and all other theories are the former apparent positive view of ordinary deviant behaviour as not being a threat to the social order but rather part of its function. And also its analysis focuses on the society as a whole instead of the psychological or biological nature of an individual.
According to Durkheim, there are two elements in understanding crime, which at first sight appears to be slightly contradictory. A limited amount of crime is “necessary and beneficial” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.332) to society as it helps reinforce “collective conscience-shared values and moral beliefs” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p332) so much so that society could not exist without some form of crime. In this he seems to be suggesting that crime is not only inevitable but also functional. On the other hand, he sees too much deviance or crime as bad for the society as it can cause a state of anomies. Thus it only becomes “dysfunctional-harmful” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.333) when its rate is unusually “high or low” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p333). He further argues that if collective consciences are too strong there will be little deviance or crime and neither will change or progress occur. Furthermore, social changes begins with some form of unacceptable deviance or crime and for their to be change, a renegotiation of acceptable and unacceptable actions happens to determine the form of change. This he points is because certain amount of change is “healthy for society” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.333). For example Durkheim might say that past criminal activities have caused or influenced the penal legal system to change with times, thus making society work better.
Like Durkheim, Merton argues that deviance and crime are “normal” (Giddens, 1997. p.177)) aspects of society, but he does not argue that deviance and crime are required to generate solidarity or to achieve social progress. He rather suggests that a social structure “ like in the American system inequalities and demands” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.333) exerts pressure upon certain individuals hence they engage in nonconforming instead of conforming behaviours. He also argues that society should best be considered as a cross between “cultural goals”(Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.333) of a society- that is what it hold its members should strive for, example wealth, richness, respect, good job or family and the “means” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.334) that are believed, legally or morally, to be legitimate ways that individuals should attain these cultural goals example via education, employment or hard work. On the other hand, Merton argues that if the culture does not offer equal access to legitimate means to achieving the goals, rather than individuals joining together to challenge the system they blame themselves and turn onto “illegitimate careers” (Giddens, 1997. p.177) instead, hence a state of anomie occurs. He explains that individuals respond to blocked opportunity by adapting to either illegitimate means of pursuing goals (innovation) or playing by the rule and conforming (ritualism) sometimes by rejecting both goals and means (retrealism) and “seeking own rewards” (Giddens, 1997. p.177) example alcoholism and other times (rebelling) by rejection and challenging of both goals and means. Merton sees these responses as functional to the society as they serve to release the tension, therefore preserving the social system stability.
Critics of functionalism however, points that it is imprecise due to its little opportunity for “testing of its data and evidence” (Harvey, MacDonald and Hill, 2000. p.11) and lack of recognition that some of the problems faced by individuals are caused by the society for example, discrimination against black and disabled people. It is also criticised for seeing all forms of deviance as purely caused by individual “poor and inadequate” (Browne, 1998. p.244) socialisation or personal traits and also for neglecting the “power play relationship” (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004. p.334). Some feminist approach have also attacked functionalism for neither emphasising on conflict, or considering it to be an “integral part of the social world” (Dominelli, 1997. p.17) nor considering change to be dramatic but rather evolutionary. Feminist argues that this therefore supports and “justifies existing structures” (Dominelli, 1997. p.17) which tends to be male dominated thereby ignoring the past and women contributions to the society.
My understanding of deviance and crime relevant to social work values and practice because it has helped me view them from a different perspective rather than a simplicity view based on assumptions as advocated by the media. And although, I do not fully agree with some of the assumptions in functionalist argument about crime I would however point that it has highlighted an important aspect on some of the benefits of deviance. I have also developed a better insight and awareness to some of the causes and underlying assumptions on crime, which in social work practice is beneficial to the practitioner and client. These benefits would include the ability to work in an anti-oppressive and non-judgemental approach in promotion of social justice for the perpetrators and victims of crime. As social work involve care and control, I belief my understanding will be relevant in social work by enabling me in identifying and exposing some of the injustices, inequalities and power play that exist within social work structures and practice. This will be through drawing on various sociological theories on deviance and crime.
As argued in my essay functionalism tends to stress values over interests, and although this shows the independent importance of ideas and the links between power and social agreement, it neglects the constraining aspects of power and the importance of individuals conflicting aims and objectives. Similarly, it emphasises on social control and importance of security over and at the expense of change and interests that cannot be met without dramatic social changes. Although deviance has some benefits it is important that this is not advocated for in a modern society due to the fact that the punishment often given to individuals violates their human rights.
References:
Browne, K. (1998). An Introduction to Sociology, 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Cree, E. V. (2000). Sociology for Social Workers and Probation Officers. London: Routledge Publishers.
Dominelli, L. (1997). Sociology for Social Work. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Publishers.
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology, 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology, 4th ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Haralambos, M and Holborn, M. (2004). Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 6th ed. Hammersmith, London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Macionis, J.J and Plummer, K. (1997). Sociology: A Global Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishers.
Turner, S. B. (2000). The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Wallace, A. R and Wolf, A. (1980). Contemporary Sociological Theory: Continuing the Classical Tradition, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishers.
