#bfunctionalism

[cuturalcapitals]

Here is a suggested plan to give you guidance on how to answer such questions.

Introduction

Functionalists adopt a structuralist, macro, top-down approach to explaining crime. As a theory, functionalism derives from the work of Emile Durkheim and consequently adopts a normative approach; therefore functionalists’ explanation for a social problem like crime tends to focus on inadequate socialisation. AO2 point: Marxists argue that functionalists focus too much on working-class crime and ignore white-collar and corporate crime, while interactionalists argue that they ignore processes like labelling.

Main body

Emile Durkheim used ‘anomie’ to apply to people who have been insufficiently integrated into society’s norms and values. He also identified three characteristics associated with deviance: the normal, the universal and the functional. In the case of the functional, the theory is that in small amounts deviance can promote beneficial social change, unite people in their moral condemnation and set boundaries about what is acceptable.

AO2 point: The advantage of Durkheim’s work is that it provides an explanation for crime in terms of inadequate compliance to norms and values. However, as a theory it struggles to explain why some are more criminal than others or why some types of crime take place.

In response to these criticisms, Robert Merton adapted Durkheim’s anomie (which he felt was used too vaguely) through his ‘strain theory’. He identifies the strain between people’s wants (goals) and their ability to achieve them (means) in a five-fold anomic paradigm.

AO2 point: Merton’s big contribution to the debate lies in linking crime to blocked opportunities, through explaining the crime of ‘innovators’ who share the goal (American Dream) but have to use illegitimate means to achieve them. However, Marxists would point out that white-collar crime and corporate crime cannot be explained by blocked opportunities.

Merton’s ideas are supported in the recent research of several theorists including Carl Nightingale, Philippe Bourgois and, most recently, Robert Reiner and Jock Young.

AO2 point: However, Laurie Taylor described the groupings of his anomic paradigm as over-simplistic: ‘the fruit-machine theory of criminology’. He also came in for criticism from the subcultural theorists for failing to explain the non-material crime of juvenile delinquency.

Albert K. Cohen uses the term ‘reacting formation’ to describe how delinquent youths suffering from ‘status frustration’ respond by inverting the rules to enhance their status based on delinquent activities.

AO2 point: One strength of Cohen’s argument is that it explains non-material crimes like vandalism and graffiti. However, it fails to explain other sorts of crime where the motive may not be status but money or pleasure. Cohen has also been criticised for ignoring female deviance.

Cloward and Ohlin put forward the idea of an ‘illegitimate career structure’ to explain how those denied access to lucrative legitimate employment may be tempted into crime. This overlaps with Merton’s blocked opportunities but they disagree with Merton that lower-class delinquents share the same goals and values as the rest of society.

AO2 point: Although Cloward and Ohlin link crime to three subcultures (criminal, conflict and retreatist) they have been criticised for not explaining why there is also corporate and white-collar crime or how the higher classes are also able to succeed through an ‘illegitimate career structure’.

To explain juvenile delinquency, Walter B. Miller uses the concept of ‘focal concerns’ to refer to the deviant subcultural values into which the lower class are socialised. This portrays youth as autonomous, seeing delinquent behaviour as a normal part of the macho lower-class culture into which they are socialised.

AO2 point: However, Miller has been criticised for also ignoring female deviance and for ignoring the fact that ‘focal concerns’ can be observed across the social-class spectrum. In addition, postmodernists, such as Lyng and Katz, would argue that his analysis ignores the role of emotions in driving crime, although one of his focal concerns is ‘excitement’.

Travis Hirschi’s contribution to the debate is to ask not why some commit crime but why so many people are conformist. He uses the concept of ‘bonds of attachment’ to explain that the more integrated people are to societal norms, values and laws, the less likely they are to commit deviant and criminal acts.

AO2 point: One strength of Hirschi’s argument is that it does explain why most people are conformist and why crime is committed. However, unlike Marxists, he cannot explain why people who are well integrated into society commit white-collar crime.

Conclusion

Most functionalist explanations are linked in some way to the concept of anomie. AO2 point: However, functionalist analysis is preoccupied with working-class crime and does not explain why crime is committed by middle- and upper-class people as well.