|
Answer
|
Hint
|
|
Feminist Evaluations
|
These people question the fact that functionalist theories of crime and deviance appear to ignore gender altogether. There is a gender blindness in the theories: most refer to "lower class boys" but pay no attention to the presence or absence of girls in these subcultures. It is as if females do not exist. Most of the classic functionalist theories do not even blame women: they just ignore them.
|
|
Emile Durkheim (1893, 1897)
|
This sociologist is often seen as the founding father of functionalist sociology. He had an organic analogy for society: various organs (institutions) had to function correctly for the whole to be in good health. Although excessive deviance = symptomatic of unhealthy or dysfunctional society, deviance itself was functional, normal and inevitable.
He suggested that deviance had the following functions: -Boundary maintenance: One way value consensus is reinforced is through the policing of the margins: the formal and informal sanctions used to either reward those who conform or punish those who deviate. Shared disapproval of deviant behaviour strengthens social solidarity.
Even in a "society of saints", there would still be deviance, since it describes any behaviour that goes against the norms, values and expectations of a society. Since all societies have deviance, even though the sorts of behaviour considered deviant might vary from society to society. -Social Change: If no deviance occurred, society would never change; and change can be a very good thing (as long as it is incremental and organic, not radical). The process is: organic process of social change started by society, responding positively to deviant behaviour. Then slowly, that behaviour becomes normal and among, other changes, can lead to alterations in the law (for example, changing attitudes to homosexuality in the 20th century).
He argued that too much or too little deviance was bad for society, suggesting there was either too much or too little social order and control. He argues there was less deviance in pre-industrial society because of the mechanical solidarity of society (nature of the economy and society meant social bonds = very tight). However, the increased isolation and privatised nature of modern industrialised societies increased the likelihood of deviance.
He argued when societies underwent rapid change (such as during industrialisation) there would be increased deviance because of something he called: -Anomie: normlessness or an absence of social control and cohesion.
Evaluations: -Realists (of both left and right) criticise the idea that crime is both normal and functional. They point out that crime is a very real problem for victims and for society and that the sociology of crime and deviance should inform policy‐makers in terms of how to prevent crime. -Marxists argue that he fails to consider where the consensus comes from and in whose interests it exists. They point out that the laws are made by the state, usually working in the interests of the ruling class. Instead of there being a value consensus in the interests of society, there is ideology or hegemony (leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others) in the interests of capitalism. -Other functionalists note that while he goes some way to explain why some societies might have more crime and deviance than others, he does not consider why some individuals or groups in a society commit crime and others do not. While the existence of some crime in society is normal, most people most of the time do not to commit crime. These points, he addresses. |
|
New Right Evaluations
|
These thinkers, like Charles Murray, raise the issue of gender (but not in a way that would satisfy feminists) by suggesting male criminality is mostly women's fault. Matrifocal, single‐parent families do not provide boys with positive male role models and thus contribute to the creation of an underclass. But most of the classic functionalist theories do not even blame women: they just ignore them.
|
|
Travis Hirschi (1969)
|
This sociologist focuses on why most people most of the time do not commit crimes - therefore, how is social control achieved? He identifies 4 "bonds of attachment" that keep people closely linked to the value consensus and
ensure social control and order. These are: 1. Attachment: How much do we care what others think? We might particularly care about what
our spouses or children would think if we committed crimes. 2. Commitment: What have we got to lose? If we have a good job (for example) committing a crime puts a lot at risk. 3. Involvement: How involved are we with society? What takes up our time? If we work and are involved in group hobbies or leisure activities or volunteering, would we have time to commit crime? 4. Belief: To what extent do we believe obeying the law is the right thing to do? How
strong is our personal moral code? Turning this on its head: those who are more likely to commit crimes are those who do not have family attachments, work commitments, get involved in school or have a clear moral code. As such one could paint a picture of a likely criminal as someone marginalised, young and single.
Evaluations: -This sociologist asks a very pertinent question in terms of what stops people committing crime rather than just thinking about why they do commit crime. Of course, they are two sides of the same coin: an absence of the bonds of attachment is suggested as a reason for criminality. This is useful because it introduces ideas of how to prevent crime and how to achieve social order. His ideas have influenced social policymakers in that they are interested in how attachment can be promoted and deviance reduced. Promoting activities for young people, encouraging marriage and employment, encouraging values and morality in education are all ways in which policymakers could try and forge bonds of attachment and reduce deviance. -As with other functionalist sociologists, he doesn't really address the issue of why some members of society have secure bonds of attachment and others are more marginalised. Marxists and feminists would point out that there is not a value consensus that benefits all members of society: instead, society is characterised by conflict. Capitalism produces detached, marginalised individuals deliberately as it creates in the unemployed a reserve army of labour whose existence helps the bourgeoisie keep wage levels down.
|
|
Post-Modernist Evaluations
|
Some of these people focus on the way in which crime is quite pointless, rather than functional. It is something that occurs because of boredom, for some excitement, rather than because of shared subcultural values or in order to facilitate social change.
These ideas are developed by Lyng in his work on "edgework": the idea that people like taking risks, including involvement in criminal behaviour. And by Katz who explores how crime can seem thrilling and alluring. However, it is possible to develop some of these ideas in terms of functionalist theory. Not everyone is attracted to a life of crime; many people few if any risks. Those who do might be socialised into doing so by belonging to a deviant subculture. Risk‐taking might be a "focal concern". Furthermore, if people commit crime out of boredom, this may relate to the functionalist position that deviance provides a safety valve in society, as described by Kingsley Davis (1976). Minor crime can release some of the tensions in society that, if not relieved, could lead to more significant problems. |
|
Robert Merton (1938)
|
This sociologist created Strain Theory to conclude that Americans were socialised into believing in the American Dream; that a consensus existed about what people's social goals should be: success and material wealth. However, equal access to those goals did not exist: there was a strain between the socially‐encouraged goals of society and the socially‐acceptable means to achieve them. People were socialised into believing that to achieve the American Dream they had to work hard and they would succeed because the society was a meritocracy. Individuals made various adaptations in response to this strain, some of which were likely to lead to crime. The different adaptations were based on either accepting or rejecting the means and/or the goals: Conformist: Means ✓ Goal ✓ Likely crime? ✗ Innovator: Means ✓ Goal ✓ Likely crime? ✓ Retreatist: Means ✗ Goal ✗ Likely crime? ✓ Ritualist: Means ✓ Goal ✗ Likely crime? ✗ Rebel: Means ✓✗ Goal ✓✗ Likely crime? ✓ While some people will conform, work hard and try to achieve success despite the difficulties, others will adapt. The clearest adaptation that might lead to criminal activity is that of the innovator: they still want the material success, but they don't want to work hard at school so they find another route to their ends. While this might mean appearing on X Factor, it could also be robbing a bank. Either could lead to a criminal record. Some might reject both the means and the goal, and drop out of society altogether. These are the
retreatists, and he thought they might commit crimes such as illegal drug use. The other adaptation that might lead to criminal behaviour is rebellion: some people might want to replace the means and the goals with new ones and this could, in some cases, lead to illegal protest or political violence.
Evaluations: -This sociologist explains the idea of anomie in quite a detailed way: as the product of a strain between socially‐accepted goals and the socially‐accepted means to achieve them. While his theory was based on 20th century America, it is transferable to any contemporary, western, developed capitalist society. -He does not consider the source of social goals, nor in whose interests society is socialised into
believing. Marxists would argue that the former is bourgeois ideology; that the latter is in the interests of capitalism. Everyone wants money to purchase consumer goods; they're also socialised into believing the best way to achieve that goal is to work extra hard for their bosses. This is not a value consensus ensuring social solidarity, of the sort that functionalists describe, but rather capitalist ideology or hegemony (leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others), serving the interests of the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat. -He doesn't spend any time considering why some people find it harder to achieve society's goals than others. He doesn't pursue the idea that inequality and unequal opportunities in society are a social problem, nor what the cause of that problem might be. -He doesn't consider why different people have different adaptations. While many people feel that the socially‐accepted means to achieve their goals are too difficult, only a small number of them go on to commit crimes. Why? What makes the majority law‐abiding most of the time? Are there sociological explanations for some people choosing to innovate while others retreat? No potential answers are given with this sociologist. -He doesn't explain why groups of people are deviant in the same way. Most people conform most of the time, but those who don't often socialise together (e.g. gangs). This isn't addressed by this specific functionalist sociologist. -This sociologist presents a possible explanation for some crime; but what about non‐utilitarian crime (crime from which the criminal does not materially benefit)? Although he suggests an explanation for some non‐utilitarian crime (like drug abuse), there is nothing in his theory that would explain fighting or vandalism. While not being able to achieve the American Dream might encourage someone to rob a bank, there is no apparent reason why it would lead to someone to draw graffiti on a bridge or to beat someone up. |
|
Realist Evaluations
|
These sociologists (of left and right) are concerned with functionalist sociology of crime and deviance which explores deviance as an interesting phenomenon, but does not help solve crime as a really existing problem. Certainly, the concept that crime is functional and normal is of little comfort to the victims of crime. Even ideas like strain theory are of limited usefulness to policy‐makers; however, leftist ones would argue that it supports their argument that relative deprivation causes crime; that policies should promote equality. Meanwhile, rightist ones would argue that Hirschi's ideas on social bonds and social control offer some support for their theories. |
|
Marxist Evaluations
|
These people argue that functionalists fail to consider where the rules or the laws come from.
Although Durkheim and others argue in favour of (organic) social change, they appear to view the law as merely a legal reflection of the value consensus of society: a set of rules that almost everyone agrees with. Those who disagree are deviants, or delinquents in subcultures.
However, in reality, laws do not just, or even, reflect the collective conscience of a society, but are created by the powerful: the state. These people argue between themselves about the extent to which the state works in the interests of the ruling class, but they all agree that it usually does. Therefore, laws reflect the interests of a powerful minority rather than the collective conscience of the whole of society. |
|
David Matza (1964)
|
This sociologist presents a functionalist alternative to subcultural theories where he suggests that, in fact, we all share the "delinquent" values that lead some people to criminal and deviant behaviour but that most of us, most of the time, are able to keep them supressed. This is a learned skill, however, so we are more likely to commit crime or engage in deviant behaviour when we are young and less so as we age. As such people are neither conformist nor deviant; instead, people are able to "drift" between both throughout their life.
He suggests that the proof for the existence of these subterranean ("underground") values comes from the fact that people seek to "neutralise" their deviant acts. If people really had a different set of values when they behaved deviantly, they would believe their deviant behaviour was appropriate/correct. However, people quickly seek ways to justify their behaviour or question their responsibility in terms of mainstream values. Therefore, according to him, they must understand and share those values. He suggests that people use a number of techniques of neutralisation: -Denial of Responsibility: "It wasn't me" / "it wasn't my fault". -Denial of Injury: "It didn't hurt" / "they have insurance". -Denial of the Victim: "You deserved it" / "what did you expect?" -Condemnation of the Condemners "You're just as bad" / "You're only blaming me because...". -Appeal to higher loyalties: "I had to help my friends/family" / "I did it for my country / race / religion".
Evaluations: -These "techniques of neutralisation" have the appearance of excuses; they could simply be used in an attempt to avoid censure or punishment, rather than to “drift” back into mainstream values. A criminal can be aware of what most consider unacceptable without sharing that belief. -Others have pointed out that some of these "techniques of neutralisation" may be deviant values. The belief that victims are partly responsible for their victimhood, or that higher loyalties justify crimes might well be examples of the deviant norms and values of a criminal subculture. -This sociologist is correct that many people may be delinquents when they are young and then go on to lead respectable lives as adults, for example, as bank managers or politicians. In such cases, it is not that they have been socialised into a different, minority set of norms and values. Their ability to conform to mainstream values when they mature and take on responsibilities shows that they were as socialised into the value consensus as those who did not participate in deviant behaviour in their youth. |
|
Cloward & Ohlin (1960)
|
These sociologists sought to combine the theories of Merton and Cohen to explain the different kinds of criminal subcultures they identified in contemporary America. Echoing Merton, they argued that there was a "legitimate opportunity structure" (what Merton had meant by the socially‐acceptable means to achieving social goals), but they also identified an alternative "illegitimate opportunity structure" which was available through gang membership.
However, just as not all people could easily access the legitimate opportunity structure and material success (Merton's concept of strain), there could also be a strain in relation to illegitimate opportunity structures. Because someone is unable to become wealthy through working hard and gaining qualifications does not mean that they will easily find a criminal path to wealth and success. Some people live in locations where an existing criminal subculture already exists while others do not. Furthermore, the types of subcultures available vary. This goes some way to explaining why not all those who find legitimate opportunity structures blocked turn to crime.
They suggest three types of deviant subculture: 1. Criminal Subculture: Organised crime (e.g. the mafia) where career criminals can socialise youths into their own criminal career that might result in material success. 2. Conflict Subculture: Gangs organised by young people themselves, often based on claiming
territory from other gangs in so‐called "turf wars". 3. Retreatist Subculture: Those who are unable to access either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures might drop out altogether (as Merton said) but might do so as a group rather than individually. These groups might abuse drugs, for example.
Evaluations: -Although their three forms of subculture appear distinct, most criminal gangs would have elements of two or more of these subcultures. Drug use, for example, often plays a part in criminal gangs, while the sorts of "turf wars" carried out by "conflict subcultures" is often linked to organised crime, for instance drug dealing, rather than only being about conflict for its own sake. Thus, it is not clear that they have identified three distinct subcultures. -Like other functionalist subcultural theories, they write about working‐class crime and predominantly about males, yet do not tackle broader issues relating to social class or gender. They do not question why, in the meritocratic society described by most functionalists, working‐class youths are generally denied access to legitimate opportunity structures. Nor do they explain why girls, who are also denied access to these structures, do not react in the same ways that boys do.
|
|
Albert Cohen (1955)
|
This sociologist set out to develop Merton's strain theory and particularly to address questions about why groups commit crimes and why people commit non‐utilitarian crimes. In doing so he developed a theory about subcultures: -The key to subcultural theories is that actually deviants conform to norms and values, they just happen to be different norms and values from the rest of society. -He argued that working‐class boys often failed at school resulting in a low status. A response to this was the formation of subcultures or gangs with values that were largely the reverse of mainstream values. What was deemed taboo or deviant in mainstream society was praiseworthy and good in the subculture. Likewise what was considered praiseworthy in mainstream culture was deviant and discouraged in the subculture. -His theory sought to explain delinquency among particular groups in society (young, working‐class males) and non‐utilitarian crimes. Crimes like vandalism or fighting can be explained by the subcultures inverting the values of mainstream society, turning socially deviant acts into ones that are praiseworthy and a way of achieving status within the group.
Evaluations: -There is a very clear link between Cohen's idea ‐ of a subculture born out of the frustration of working‐class boys at school - and "the lads" identified by Paul Willis in his Learning to Labour (1977). As a Marxist, Willis went on to consider how such subcultures benefited capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Willis’s study, conducted twenty years later, found evidence of the formation of very similar subculture; these findings can be used to support Cohen's general theory. -His suggestion that members of these delinquent subcultures consciously invert the norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. When someone decides to smash up a bus shelter, it seems unlikely that they have consciously thought that mainstream society would consider this act unacceptable, and so praiseworthy in their subculture. Post‐modernist sociologists like Lyng and Katz argue that it is more likely the individual is influenced by boredom or is seeking a "buzz". However, it could be countered that delinquents can be conscious of how deviant acts might provide an access to rewards and status within their group without individually inverting mainstream values every time they deviate. -This sociologist specifically says that this is a phenomenon relating to "working‐class boys" and yet makes very few links between his theory and either social class or gender. Why do working‐class boys particularly struggle to attain status at school or in mainstream society? Other sociologists, like Paul Willis, attempt to address that question, but this one doesn't. Furthermore, why boys? Indeed, if the reason for deviance is frustration at low status, many feminists would suggest that, in 1950’s America, you would expect girls to be the ones forming the deviant subcultures. Therefore, while he describes the real situation (in 1950’s America delinquent subcultures were mostly made up of working‐class boys), he only goes some way towards explaining why this is the case. -He does successfully develop Merton's strain theory to provide an explanation for non‐utilitarian crimes. Therefore, taken together, Merton and this sociologist offer a functionalist explanation for a wide range of deviant behaviour. |
|
Walter Miller (1958)
|
This sociologist suggested that working‐class boys were socialised into a number of distinct values that together meant they were more likely than others to engage in delinquent or deviant behaviour. He described these values as "focal concerns". These values (focal concerns) are: -Excitement: They seek out excitement (particularly when not at work). -Toughness: They wish to prove that they are tough / "hard". -Smartness: They use wit (which might include "smart" remarks). -Trouble: Linked to excitement and toughness, they might well find themselves in trouble. -Autonomy: They wish to be independent and not reliant on others. -Fate: They believe that their future is already decided; what they do won't influence it.
None of these values on their own mean that crime is inevitable (many "lower‐class boys" are also
socialised with these focal concerns and stay out of trouble) but they do make crime more likely. Seeking excitement might lead to non‐utilitarian crime; toughness, smartness and trouble might result in fighting. Autonomy might lead people to take matters into their own hands rather than asking for help; fatalism might mean that they do not consider the consequences of their actions as the future is already written.
Evaluations: -Although subsequent sociologists have found evidence of some of his focal concerns in working‐class communities, it is not clear that what he refers to as the "lower class" really does have such distinct norms and values from the rest of society. Indeed, the argument that they might rather contradicts the classic functionalist idea that the various institutions in society ensure social solidarity and value consensus. -He just talks about boys without really considering gender. Some feminist critics have pointed out that these focal concerns might be masculine values rather than lower‐class ones. However, an alternative view is that many of these "concerns" are also those of working‐class girls, and therefore might be features of "lower‐class" values or indeed of youth in general. As suggested by David Matza, perhaps we all share such "deviant" values but learn not to act on them.
|
|
Kingsley Davis (1967)
|
This sociologist believes that deviance acts as a safety valve for society. He gives the example of prostitution, suggesting that it has a positive function of releasing men's sexual tension (extremely controversial argument).
|
|
