functionalism

• merton - strain theory 


  sees anomie as a permanent feature of american society

  • society puts pressure on people to achieve within its value consensus
• strain theory

  society presents us with institutionalised means (socially approved ways) of achieving within society’s value consensus
• strain theory

  if institutional means are used to achieve all desired goals, individuals can conform to society’s value consensus and get along happily
• strain theory

  where people can’t access the institutionalised means and goals of society, they experience nomie which leads to strain
• criticism of strain theory

  X too much focus on individual responses to anomie and ignores how different groups respond
• criticism of strain theory

  X doesn’t consider other responses to strain and anomie
• criticism of strain theory

  X doesn’t consider crime amongst successful people who don’t feel strain (white collars crime)
• status frustration - cohen 


  argues that certain groups in society experience more ‘frustration‘ over their lack of status than others
• criticism of strain theory

  focuses on how the w/c youth are denied status in society
• status frustration - cohen 


  groups with denied status develop their set of values that tend to be in direct opposition to mainstream society - due to want of revenge in society
• functionalists argue crime is beneficial for society

  • it can improve social integration and social regulation and is necessary for social change
• durkheim - crime is inevitable and sometimes necessary for society


   crime was inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the shared values and moral beliefs of society

  • since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it was ‘impossible for them to be all alike’ and hence some people would inevitably break the law
• durkheim - crime is inevitable and necessary for society


  deviance would still exist even in a 'society of saints' populated by ‘perfect’ individuals

  the general standards of behaviour would be so high that the slightest slip would be regarded as a serious offence

  • thus the individual who simply showed bad taste, or was merely impolite, would attract strong disapproval.
• durkheim - crime is a social regulation for society


  crime performs the function of social regulation by reaffirming the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

  when a crime occurs and and individuals are punished it becomes clear to the rest of society that the particular action concerned is unacceptable.
• durkheim - crime helps socially integrate society


  crime also to strengthen social cohesion

  • eg. when horrific crimes have been committed, the whole community joins together in outrage and the sense of belonging to a community is therefore strengthened
• durkheim - crime creates social change in society


  criminals perform a crucial service in helping the law to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimising social change
•  durkheim - crime only became dysfunctional when there was too much or too little

  • would cause social order to break down if too little
  • would not be sufficient capacity for positive social change if too much
• X durkheim theorises that ‘crime’ is necessary and even functional but fails to distinguish between different types of crime
• TICK functionalists - the criminal justice system benefits everyone in society by punishing criminals and reinforcing the acceptable boundaries of behaviour

  • X marxist and feminist analysis of crime - not all criminals are punished equally = crime and punishment benefit the powerful for than the powerless
• X functionalists assume that society has universal norms and values that are reinforced by certain crimes being punished in public

  • postmodernists argue society is so diverse, there is no such thing as ‘normal’
• X interactionists suggest functionality of a crime can't be objectively determined and depends on an individual’s relationship to the crime