It follows that when a crime is committed, the legal locomotive will set in to punish the convicted accordingly. Without dwelling into the functions of punishment, the concept of Durkheim’s Degrading Ceremonies must be explained. Through agencies like the mass media and the Courts (when conducting public hearings), criminal behaviour would be publicised. The publicising of these acts functions to make the public aware of the tolerance of society, and also reinforces the society’s opinion of such criminal behaviour. This promotion of “boundary maintenance” brings upon the next function of crime and deviance – integration.
When a crime is so deviant that it far exceeds society’s tolerance, it triggers public alarm and outrage that draws the society together. This can clearly be seen when the nation was shocked by the savage acts of the Yorkshire Ripper; or more recently, the public outcry against controversial “shoot-to-kill” policy of the Metropolitan Police that resulted in the murder of Brazilian immigrant Jean Charles de Menezes. In such cases, Durkheim maintained that criminal behaviour will continually reinforce and increase levels of social solidarity.
Criminal behaviour should also be considered functional as a political whistle that highlights any glaring errors or inflexibilities in laws and policies. For example, if statistics over the years plot a steady rise in the number of people charged for homosexuality, it would send the government a signal that it should perhaps consider amending laws to accommodate homosexuals; or for instance, a modern example would be the impact of the Trafalgar Square Riot. It was such a massive (and criminal) display of disobedience that the government was forced to rethink its position on the Poll Tax.
The manner in which crime and deviation can result in changes to public policies can also be argued that they are necessary, as a function, to prevent the stagnation of society. In Durkheim’s words “To make progress individual originality must be able to express itself” and that they may even have “the originality of the criminal” in relation to the era that individual is set in. He used Socrates and Jesus as examples of the “creative individual” to illustrate how deviance is necessary for the development of new ideas which allows people to make reassessments of present conditions and stimulate change wherever appropriate. Take the former USSR for example. It had a government that was so ruthlessly suppressive towards innovation that eventually, it imploded. On the other hand, Communist China did what was considered to be a betrayal of Marxism – the promotion of entrepreneurship. Despite doing the unimaginable, the end result was a progressive society that enjoys an economy that is booming exponentially.
When we observe crime, deviance and their relation to the legal system, we would certainly draw the connection that crime and deviance had, over the years, crafted an entire career sector for millions of employees. It can therefore be argued that crime and deviance serves a function in keeping these employees employed. There is a plethora of law enforcement related agencies that range from the police force to private security agencies, solicitors and barristers and the recent upward trend in terrorism had certainly led to a quantum leap in the significance of insurance companies. Security has now become such an intricate part in our daily lives that the sudden expulsion of these industries would definitely bring about social turmoil.
Drawing from evidence portrayed above, we can therefore conclude that there are many ways in which crime and deviance are functional in our society. They largely function to create a set boundary of consensus that society should have, it reinforces social solidarity and hence produces a collective conscience that holds society together. Of course, some may argue that these functions are results of crime and deviance to begin with and therefore, can be done without entirely. When appraising this very valid perspective, it should be noted that Durkheim paired his theory of functionalism with the theory of inevitability.
In the “society of saints” which Durkheim had imagined, he claimed that even “the perfect and upright man judges his smallest failings” with severity that would have been reserved for more offensive acts in reality. This theory of inevitability was taken a step further by Erikson when he contends that some people are inherently deviant. Take for example those who were born handicapped or those, by the nature of their (dirty) jobs, are frowned upon despite earning honest money. R.K. Merton then developed the Strain Theory that seeks to demonstrate the tension between what people have been socialised to aspire for and the opportunities that society allows them to achieve those aspirations through legitimate means. In his work (Social Structure and Anomie, 1938), Merton explored the deeply ingrained culture of the American Dream that had structured society so effectively that Americans were socially configured into working towards achieving the American Dream. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people will never achieve this goal simply by working. Consequently, people will seek other means towards this desired end, though not necessarily criminal, they are certainly not conventional.
Merton et al’s works validates Durkheim’s evaluation that although crime and deviance plays an intricate function in society, he did not allocate the burden of blame to deviants. Instead, Durkheim was of the opinion that if an individual deviates, it is only because society had pressured him into doing so as it had failed to allow variations of individual behaviour. In addition, Durkheim also recognised that despite functional, crime and deviance should not be allowed to reach disproportionate levels as this becomes dangerous and in contrast, dysfunctional. Later academics criticised Durkheim and Merton’s works to be over-reliant on statistics which glosses over the true picture of crime; and how they had ignored the theoretical problems of the powerful, who are in a position to resist the process of criminalisation.
As we conclude, in light of the above, that crime and deviance plays an essential part of our social fabric, we should keep in mind that the concept of crime and deviance remains a fluid one: it is relative across societies, cultures and even eras. Consider smoking in the 50s. It was a symbol of youth, wealth and power. In the 80s and 90s, as medical research began to unravel the irrefutable harm smoking causes, it was tolerated as a mild deviance and currently, the U.K is even considering banning smoking in entertainment outlets; while in countries like China, it is perfectly acceptable for both parents to be smoking in close proximity of their child. The statement “deviance is in the eye of the beholder” is certainly a valid one.
(1,500 words)
-end-
Bibliography
-
Anthony Giddens (2001) Sociology (4th edition), Cambridge, Polity Press in assoc. with Black Well Publishers Ltd., Chapter 8, pp. 200 – 241
-
Chris Livesey (nd) “A” Level Sociology A Resource-Based Learning Approach, Unit M1: Basic Concepts, pp. 1 – 13
-
Chris Livesey (nd) “A” Level Sociology A Resource-Based Learning Approach, Unit M4: Functionalism, pp. 1 – 17
-
Criminology (nd) (online) Available from < >(Accessed 25th October 2005)
-
Durkheim (nd) (online) Available from<> (Accessed 25th October 2005)
-
Durkheim (nd) On The Normalty of Crime, in Talcott Parsons et al (ed) Theories of Society, New York, Free Press, pp. 872 – 875
-
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. and Heald R. (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives (6th edition), London, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., Chapter 6, pp. 330 – 403
-
Kai T. Erickson (nd) Notes on the Sociology of Deviance, in Howard S. Becker (ed) (1967) The Other Side, Perspectives on Deviance, Glencoe, The Free Press
-
Robert A. Nisbet (1975) The Sociology of Emile Durkheim, London, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., Chapter 7, pp. 209 – 237
-end-
(Haralambos and Holborn, 2004)
