Social control is means to ensure we live in a socially ordered society. The influence of family and friends is known as informal social control, which teaches us to behave in a way that we have perceived to be normal by the people around us. This includes belonging to some form of society or community, for example religion, educational institutions or employment. This fosters a sense of social responsibility as well as duty and honour, giving a reason to conform to socially accepted norms and values. Formal social control is enforced by authorities such as Parliament, who pass laws to determine what is and is not acceptable behaviour, police, who enforce the laws, and the courts and prison service, which impose the punishments for breaking them (Parsons, 2004, p.85).
However, despite social order and control, crime and deviance still occurs. Functionalist Robert Merton (1968) argues that the vast majority of individuals share the same goals but do not have equal access to the means of achieving these goals. Anomie - a lack of values and a feeling of normlessness - is created from failure to succeed, which causes them to innovate and create alternative, often deviant or criminal, ways to achieve common goals such as wealth. Alternatively, they may reject the hope of trying to succeed altogether and retreat from society, turning to drink or drugs instead. However, this does not explain non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism. In contrast, subcultural theories say that crime and deviance is actually conformity for some groups in society; Albert Cohen (1955) said that working class boys, frustrated by lack of opportunities, joined or created groups with alternative cultural values, which tend to be the opposite of mainstream society, so deviant behaviour then becomes the norm (Parsons, 2004, p.72). However, WB Miller (1962) argues that general working class culture encourages law-breaking behaviour as opposed to subcultural gangs, with delinquents simply conforming to the ‘focal concerns’ of their culture.
However, according to Marxism, laws are not the will of the people. It sees crime not as the result of subcultural influences but a consequence of capitalism. Pearce (1976) argued that the laws are created purely in the interests of the ruling class. It is argued that the system is ‘rigged’ against the working class and suggested that ruling class lawbreakers are less likely to be punished – for example, working class crimes such as burglary are treated as the ‘real criminals’ by the media whilst corporate law-breakers get very little media condemnation and are treated more leniently by the justice system (Parsons, 2004, p.76). Crimes such as robbery and property theft is seen by Marxists such as Bonger (1916) as a response to the extremes of wealth and poverty in capitalist society.
However, left realists are critical of the Marxist idea for overlooking the ‘reality’ of crime in Britain by focusing on the problems within capitalism. Kinsey, Lea and Young (1986) say that British policing policy needs to be centred on creating and maintaining good communication between the police and local communities, with the public being allowed to have their say in deciding the policies. Left realists use the ‘square of crime’ to show the interactions between four elements - the state, the public, the offender, and the victim - which affect crime. They argue that all four elements should work together to understand and reduce crime. Lea and Young (2002) argue that a sense of relative deprivation, a feeling of being deprived in relation to similar social groups, is a major factor leading to criminal behaviour as it helps to ‘solve’ the problem. Their idea is that these feelings are compounded by the consumer culture of Britain, mainly influenced by advertising and media. Therefore, criminal activity could be increased by the rising standard of living (Parsons, 2004, p.78).
However, right realists say that if left realism was correct, there would be more crime. Also it does not explain why people who experience relative deprivation see crime as a solution and others do not. Wilson (1975) believes that people commit crime because the slim chances of getting caught and punished are outweighed by the bigger chance of succeeding. He says that in order to reduce law-breaking, harsh punishment should be handed out for even the smallest crimes, resulting in costs always outweighing the benefits and therefore deterring future offenders. Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “One Broken Window” theory says that damage to a neighbourhood must be put right immediately otherwise it risks an image of tolerance to crime, resulting in criminal behaviour increasing and social order breaking down. They even suggest the removal of police supervision from these areas as social order cannot be regained once lost, instead using the resources to prevent other neighbourhoods going the same way (Parsons, 2004, p.79).
In contrast to the idea of looking at society as a whole or strengthening the policing, Postmodernists argue that it is in fact down to the increasing individualisation of people and a breakdown of attachment to society. In modern society, people’s sense of identity has more to do with what they see in the media and the brands they buy into, whilst having less to do with their family or religion. This consumer culture encourages people to be individual and break away from the morals and values of their community. According to the Social Bonds Theory, those who are less attached to society are indeed more likely to commit crime.
In conclusion, despite crime and deviance not being the norm within most people in society, there is plenty of evidence to say it still occurs for many different reasons. Where left realists, Functionalists and Postmodernists agree that consumer culture and personal lack of success may be to blame for a certain extent, it is other ideas such as those of Marxism and right realists who suggest the very things that are supposed to prevent crime, such as policing, authorities and laws, are in fact responsible for it.
Reference List
- Social Bonds Theory - Available online at: http://criminology.wikia.com/wiki/Social_Bond_Theory [Accessed 31st February 2013]
-
Parsons, R (2004) AS Level Sociology: AQA Revisions Guide, UK: CGP Publishings Ltd.
-
Swale, J (2007), Sociology of Crime and Deviance, Oxfordshire: Philip Allan Updates
Bibliography
-
Haralambos M, Holborn M, Heald R (2008), Sociology Themes and Perspectives, London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
-
Bilton T, Bonnet K, Jones P, Skinner D, Stanworth M, Webster A (1981), Introductory Sociology, Macmillan Press Ltd.
-
Csaky T, Hallam G, Von Kotze L, Reed K (2001) A2 Level Sociology: Exam Board AQA, UK: CGP Publishings Ltd.
-
Cameron J, Peace M, Flowers T, Watts D, Wright M, Hart M, Renton N (2008), AQA A2 Sociology, UK: Nelson Thornes
by
kgjxx (student)
