The progression away from mechanical type of cohesiveness, according to Durkheim, is inevitable as he saw men as creatures whose desires were unlimited. These desires can only be held in check by societal control. However, when these traditional norms and standards are undermined and social regulations break down there exists no guide to behaviour in social life and individuals are left to their own devices. This property of social structure, displaying an absence of normative standards, is known as 'anomie'. This term depicting a lack of norms, derived from an Ancient Greek word meaning 'lawlessness' (Vold, 1980, ref.ii), was first used by Durkheim to describe a state of society, characterised by normlessness, which inevitably leads to deviant behaviour. The traditional moral standards, previously supplied by religion, are largely broken down by modern societal development and therefore a number of individuals in modern societies have no moral guidance when pursuing their goals and feel that their lives are meaningless. One such type of deviant behaviour that Durkheim centred on is suicide which, he stated was partly caused by anomie. Anomie has also been described as 'moral deregulation' which can be defined as the self-interest and lack of restraint of an individual in pursuing goals at the expense of others. Absolute anomie is empirically impossible but there is differing degrees of this state of normlessness within all societies and also between different groups within one society. So, this state of anomie that Durkheim focused on, that is present in the more advanced organic societies, produces a variety of social maladies, including crime.
In his work, Durkheim focused on social integration, that is the smooth function of society without it breaking down; this, he called 'functionalism'. As its founding father, he looked at social phenomena, establishing their causal origins and then studying their functions. He believed that society was organic, that specific features of it were vital to keep it going as a whole. This homogeneity within the social equilibrium however, will break down, replacing social and moral harmony with the previously mentioned state of anomie. In his 'Division of Labour in Society' and also in 'The Elementary Forms', Durkheim clearly shows that a study of the functions of society is necessary in the understanding of social cohesiveness. Durkheimian sociology pinpoints on morality, integration and social order which, a century later have provided a basis for the development of modern functionalism. Durkheim saw crime as a normal phenomenon in society, it was a necessary event and something that could then be followed up by an opportunity to reassert standards. Obviously he didn't condone all crime but he saw a certain amount of it as functional. Durkheim's functionalism did not attempt to explain the causes of criminal behaviour, but this is something that more recent functionalists have sought to demonstrate. In this respect, it is evident that Durkheim's early works on the theme of functionalism have retained importance and now form a fundamental part of contemporary sociological thought. However, Durkheim can be criticized for his emphasis on functionalism, as it can be seen as being over-simplistic and very limited in that he didn't explain fully the change over time.
Twentieth century functional theorists have attempted to criticize Durkheim and his evolutional emphasis of functionalism. He used biological analogies when describing social phenomena and their processes, but he didn't really link organisms with social structure. The functionalists of this century have removed the emphasis from this evolutionism and organic type of society, but they still recognize the importance of studying parts that perform various functions - together constituting societal structures. Durkheim's original theory of functionalism, however, has been developed since the 1960's and has been incorporated into the geography of crime to describe the social cohesion within society before break down occurs and a state of anomie prevails.
Since Durkheim, various trains of thought and schools of sociology, ecology, anthropology, geography etc. have criticized and developed this influential scholars work and ideas. Radical Marxist's have approached the study of crime and linked it, as with all of their work, to the issue of class struggle inherent in capitalist society. They have stressed that an increasing division between classes within society occurs, together with unstable societal solidarity and integration, which, highlighting Durkheim's idea of anomie, will cause conflicts, strain and hence crime. Marxist's views differ from Durkheim's in that they believed that a change was needed to curb the conflicts, ie. a revolution, whereas Durkheim believed that the situation simply needed improvements. The Marxist view that much crime is a feature of capitalism and that it is a response to class oppression is over-simplistic, as it doesn't account for working-class street crime which is an integral part of the study of crime. Marxism, with its study of criminology, has received a lot of support and attention, more, in fact than Durkheim with his study of deviance, however, Durkheim can still be seen as more useful in the study of criminology, as the original founder of the anomie theory.
Another major influence on the study of criminology has emerged out of the Chicago School, of the 1920's-1940's. Ideas have been developed mainly by Robert Park (1864-1944) and Louis Wirth (1897-1952), who used this field as a basis for the theory and research of urban sociology. In their studies, Park and Wirth developed the concept of 'social disorganization' and the 'subculture' theory. Like Durkheim, they viewed social disorganization as the nature of the zone in transition, referring to urbanisation. This is the area (according to E. Burgess, their fellow Chicago scholar) where crime rates are highest and delinquent behaviour is abundant. This deviance is seen as a consequence of the lack of moral constraints and norms - ie. a state of anomie. Wirth developed Durkheim's ideas of the destructiveness of modern urbanisation when he expanded the idea of a traditional, mechanical society being replaced by a more modern, organic society with different social integration. Wirth, famous for his "Urbanism as a Way of Life" (1938), recognized the importance of the individual, unlike Durkheim, in that he or she has to adapt their behaviour to cope with the new environment of organic solidarity. Wirth claims that the urban environment, with its sinister and unfriendly atmosphere causes all kinds of deviant behaviour; isolation, fragmentation, anonymity, which leads to social disorganization and eventually a collapse of norms and regulations that maintain social cohesion, resulting in anomie and hence crime. In this way, it is difficult to argue whether it is the urban environment itself that causes anomie and therefore crime or simply the sociological idea of anomie as inevitable within society that causes criminal and deviant behaviour.
Park too, recognized the individual in his work and acknowledged mans untamed desire for achievement right from the start. In this respect, Park, like Durkheim, used social disorganization to describe what occurred when human progress interrupted social cohesion, causing a disruption in moral and social controls. At the same time, Park was an optimist, as he saw this breakdown as positive as well as negative, in that he recognized the makings of freedom and assertion of the individual and the possibility of a new type of societal structure, created as a result of human initiative.
Another important perspective that emerged from the Chicago School was the subculture theory. This is the belief that, together with social disorganization an individual may well get involved in a subcultural group where deviant behaviour and crime are acceptable and expected and there is strong disobedience of moral and social constraints. A study of delinquent boys gangs has been carried out by Cloward and Ohlin (1960 - ref. iii). They recognized the existence of subcultural groups within which a lot of young boys start out as petty thieves and then later in life they get involved in harder adult crime.
The most recent development of Durkheim's ideas, in the field of the study of deviance and the geography of crime has been the work done by Robert K. Merton. Like Durkheim, Merton has focused his discussions on the structure of society and the effects of this structure on the individuals within society. Durkheim's anomie theory has been central to Merton's work which he applied to American society, in order to develop a very influential theory of deviance. Merton revised this theory of normlessness as the strain that is placed on individuals behaviour when social norms contend with social reality. He stressed that in most Western societies (he particularly focused on American society), it is generally taken for granted that everyone must succeed in material wealth. Hard work and determination should be the means by which this success is achieved. However, some individuals do not have access to or opportunities for this progress and there is no consensus on the means by which this is obtained, and so there exists extreme pressure to succeed no matter what. The conflict between means and success leads to deviant behaviour and criminal activities and so these are seen as inherent in prosperity and happiness.
The study of crime today, has developed from theories and ideas, past and present from geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, biologists, ecologists, psychologists, philosophers and historians. All of these influences have added their wealth of knowledge to the field. As previously stated, the geography of crime is mainly centred around the geography of urban lower class crime. This introduces the idea of the 'labelling theory' that has been used to describe higher crime and deviancy rates in particular areas. The area to be so-called 'labelled' is the zone in transition, with specific emphasis on public housing estates. It is not simply areas that are labelled, but groups of people; those, according to Herbert (1982 - ref. iv) that are most likely to commit criminal offenses are the lower classes, unemployed and ethnic minorities. The labelling is done by police, urban managers and also the general public. Once an area (or group of people) is labelled as sporting a high crime rate, it gets a bad name and reputation, and thus receives more policing, more crime is recorded and cumulatively, its reputation and labelling becomes more severe. The zone in transition, relating to crime, is called an area of social disorganization where a state of normlessness, ie. anomie, prevails, leading to deviant and criminal behaviour.
Durkheim can be criticized for the simplicity of some of his ideas and for the empirical way he collected data. His work can also be accused of not wholly representing society, as he focuses on the social cohesion of society and those factors which influence it as a whole, but he tends to ignore the individual; this is not fully representative as every individual acts differently. He could also be criticized for being pessimistic about human nature, stressing that everyone in a traditional, and in fact modern society, needs some level of moral constraint to control their desires and instincts. Despite these criticisms, Durkheim's ideas have been cited and developed by many, to be used as fundamental aspects of criminal studies today. The geography of crime today centres around crime in a spatial sense. In this respect, it is primarily concerned with urban crime, and in more detail crime within inner city areas. As already mentioned, there has been an increasing emphasis on the particular groups that adhere to criminal behaviour, ie. ethnic minorities (according to Herbert), which then brings in the issue of migration. In addition, the fear of crime and hence victimology is becoming more widely studied within the discipline of geography. Although Durkheim developed his own ideas on the topic of criminology, since his time almost a century ago, many people have criticized and developed on his original concepts to form modern day criminology studies. In many text books and extracts on the geography of crime, specifically in R.J. Johnston's Dictionary of Human Geography, Durkheim doesn't even get a mention, however it does relate to theories that he founded, particularly on anomie and functionalism. In this respect, he couldn't be called the founder of the geography of crime, although his beliefs do form integral parts of the sub-discipline today.
REFERENCES
i) Johnston, R.J. (1994) p99
ii) Vold, G.B. (1980) p201
iii) Cloward, R.A. & Ohlin, L.E. (1960) - Delinquency and Opportunity, cited by Giddens, A. (1989) p128
iv) Herbert, D.T. (1982) - The Geography of Urban Crime, cited by Cater, J. & Jones, T. (1989) p83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barlow, H.D. (1993) 6th ed. - Introduction to Criminology, Harper Collins, New York
Cater, J. & Jones T. (1989) - Social Geography, Edward Arnold
Coser, L.A. (1977) 2nd ed. - Masters of Sociological Thought, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. U.S.A.
Downes, D. & Rock P. (1988) 2nd ed. - Understanding Deviance, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Giddens, A. (1989) - Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge
Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (1992) - A Sociology of Crime, Routledge, London
Johnston, R.J. (1994) 3rd ed. - The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
Jones, T.A. (1981) - Durkheim, Deviance and Development: Opportunities Lost and Regained, Social Forces - Vol.27 no.3
Knox, P. (1982) - Urban Social Geography, Longman
Lee, D. & Newby, H. (1989) - The Problem of Sociology, Unwin Hyman, London
Marsh, I. (1986) - Sociology in Focus, Longman Group Ltd.
Peet, R. (1975) - The Geography of Crime: A Political Critique, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 27, no.3
Saunders, P. (1986) - Social Theory and the Urban Question, Hutchinson
Vold, G.B. (1980) 2nd ed. - Theoretical Criminology, Oxford University Press
