In this essay we will assess the usefulness of these functionalist theories, and look at how it helps us explain crime. One functionalist who tried to explain crime is Merton and his strain theory, the strain theory argues that people engage in the deviant behaviour when they are unable to achieve socially approved goals by legitimate means. Merton explanation combines 2 elements; structural factors- society’s unequal opportunity structure, cultural factors- strong emphasis to achieve goals and weak emphasis on using legit means. Merton uses the strain theory to explain some patterns of crime in society, he argues a person’s positioning in society affects the way they adapt or respond to the strain to anomie. Merton gives 5 different types of adaption; Conformity- the individual accepts socially acceptable goal and achieves it through legitimate means, Innovation- Individual accepts the role of success and wealth but uses illegitimate means to achieve them, Ritualism- Individual give up on legitimate goals but still follow strictly to the rules, Retreatism- Individuals reject legitimate goals and means of achieving them e.g drug addicts, the final type is Rebellion- Individuals reject existing goals and means but replace them with new one in desire to bring about revolutionary change.
Functionalism interprets each part of society in terms of how it contributes to the stability of the whole society. The parts all depend on each other. It is believed by functionalist that crime is necessary for a society. Crimes point to the other members of the society what is wrong and what is right. Crime helps economy by creating a jobs for law enforcement officers, psychiatrists, probation officers, etc.
Both types of social control are effective in controlling the behavior of individuals. I believe that formal social control keeps society together. The legal system gives people boundaries and creates a system of what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, Tribunal provides a means of checking whether those laws reflect the majority of society. Therefore the law exists to maintain social unity.
It is defined as: “A structural perspective which argues that although crime and deviance are problematic, they must also be understood as ‘social facts’ and analysed in terms of the possible manifest and latent functions that they perform in enabling the smooth running of the social system as a whole” (McLaughin, 2013, p. 190) This theory focused on the social structures within society at the macro level. Functionalism suggests that not only is crime a part of society, but crime
A clearer understanding of consensus theorists will be examined and the ideologies behind these individuals. The functionalist standard with consensus will be examined to understand how closely related these two groups are. Consensus Theory The burden to place guilt and punishment lies in the hands of the same society the crime was committed against. In society, crimes are committed against one another. A certain level of social norms has to be in order for this sanction to take place.
It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance. According to item A labelling has changed the theoretical base for the study of criminals. Becker emphasises the significance of crime being a social construct; an action only becomes criminal or deviant once society has labelled it so, and that crime can be argued to be a social construction. He introduced the concept of a master label, referring to the label which a person is given which overrides all other labels. When a person is labelled as negatively, society tends to tend them as such, and this master label often becomes internalised, and then a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs.
According to Durkheim, crime is an ‘integral part of all healthy societies’. It’s inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments (the shared values and moral beliefs) of society. Since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it is ‘impossible for all to be alike’. Therefore not everyone is equally reluctant to break the law. Durkheim went on to say that crime isn’t only inevitable, it can also be functional.
Crime can only be a social problem if it breaks rules in the social system. The human societies often have different minds to what a social problem consists of. There are many known definitions of social problems throughout different societies and worldwide. Criminology in the narrow sense is concerned with the study of the phenomenon of crime, and of the factors or circumstances which may have influence on or be associated with the criminal behaviour and the state of crime in general. The understanding of criminology is to see social problems and cause of the crimes and how they have affect on people in society.
“It is a person’s environment that leads them into criminal and deviant behaviour.” This essay will firstly define deviance and crime in sociological terms. It will explore how deviance and crime are defined and who defines them as such. Considering the moral and legal aspects of deviance and crime. Secondly this essay will consider some of the many ideas and perspectives around the reason for and the continuation of crime and deviance in society. As a conclusion this essay will take into consideration whether the perspectives outlined are external or internal in their description of reasons for crime and deviance and try and determine the relevance of the arguments.
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the functionalist approach to society...(33 marks) Functionalism is a macro, consensus theory. They see human behaviour as being influenced by social forces, because it is a macro-scale approach is therefore seen as a strength as it allows functionalist sociologists to observe society, and its institutions, as a whole. Functionalists argue that, individuals are socialised into a shared value which is also known as a value consensus to ensure conformity and social order. However, this functionalists approach is criticised by action theorists, as they argue that individuals create society through their interactions. Marxists may argue that these norms and beliefs are all in interest of the Bourgeoisie and they can prevent or make change by ideological manipulation or force.