Functionalism And Crime Essay

Functionalism, being a consensus structuralist theory, looks at society as the source of crime and deviance contrary to the individual self. Believing control mechanisms such as the Police and Law Courts are necessary to control social order (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004). Durkheim considered crime to be inevitable in all societies and resolved that it should therefore be expected, suggesting crime and deviance in advanced societies would be more prolific than those less developed. Functionalists contend there is a positive impact seen through a certain amount of deviance, Durkheim believing that if society was too saintly, then the smallest of crimes would be seen as serious. For social change in society to occur, there must be some form of deviance to induce …show more content…
Not accounting for the fact that those young people who choose to be deviant normally grow out of that behaviour. Merton only focuses on monetary, social goals, but people have different ideas of satisfaction, not all who face social strain commit criminal or deviant acts. There is no reference to crime patterns identified in social groups, based on gender or locality etc (Browne et al., 2009).
Cohens view on Merton’s strain theory challenged his focus on monoculture arguing if a single dominant culture is present then there must be other cultures by default (subcultures), suggesting the idea of status frustration rather than Durkheim and Merton’s anomie. Delinquent gangs operating within their own cultural norms and values, using their own language or attire, defining their own subculture. Ignoring material wealth in favour of status gained through non-utilitarian delinquency, this deviant behaviour acting as a safety valve, seen as an early warning system (Thompson,