Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes

Sociological Theories of Crime and Deviance

Functionalism, strain and subcultural theories

Durkheim's functionalist approach

Durkheim (1897) believed that crime was inevitable in modern society and would increase as rapid social change could potentially result in anomie. However, he felt that a certain level of crime was a normal part of a healthy society and would lead to various positive functions such as allowing positive social change to occur and acting as a safety valve to prevent more serious crime. The criminal justice system and punishment also have the function of reminding people of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and promoting social solidarity through reaffirming shared values.

However, Durkheim's theory has been criticised for focusing on social control and conformity rather than explaining why some groups commit more crime than others.

Merton's strain theory

Merton (1938) developed a functionalist explanation of crime and deviance and acknowledged that crime could be dysfunctional for society. He argues that deviance occurs as a result of the strain between socially accepted goals such as achieving material success (the American dream) and socially approved ways of achieving these goals such as hard work in school and the workplace.

Merton argues that in the USA, the American cultural goal is the American dream but that, despite notions of meritocracy, some sections of society lack the legitimate opportunity structures to achieve this goal. This would create anomie for individuals who were excluded from institutional means and would result in crime and deviance.

Merton's strain theory identifies five different adaptations to strain:

• Conformity: Accept both goals and means (university educated professionals, middle class)
• Innovation: Accept goals but reject means (organised crime gang members or petty thieves who commit utilitarian crime, working class due to inadequate socialisation)
• Ritualism: Reject goals but accept means (routine office workers who follow the rules but have no interest in promotion or career, lower middle class who may have been over-socialised to conform)
• Retreatism: Reject both goals and means (dropouts of society, addicts, 'tramps' etc.)
• Rebellion: Want different goals and different means to create a new 'social order' (political radicals and revolutionaries)

Subcultural theories

Subcultural theories developed Merton's notion of strain and agree that the lack of opportunity structures can be used to explain working-class crime and deviance.

Albert Cohen argues that working-class boys would value success goals initially but failure in school due to a lack of legitimate opportunity structures would lead to status frustration. As a result of this frustration the boys collectively inverted or replaced middle-class values of educational success with alternative goals and ways of achieving status, such as truanting.

Cloward and Ohlin identify three working-class subcultures that result from varying degrees of access to illegitimate opportunity structures:

• Criminal subcultures have access to illegitimate opportunity structures and utilitarian crime as they are socialised into a 'life of crime' by members of organised criminal gangs
• Conflict subcultures have little access to illegitimate opportunity structures due to a lack of organised crime gangs in their area but can achieve status through gang violence
• Retreatist subcultures have no access to either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures. They may have failed in the other two types of subculture and 'retreat' into a world of drugs

Miller argues that working-class men were deviant because of their distinctive culture. He argues that lower-working-class culture is characterised by focal concerns, which act as a release from the boredom of their lives and mean that they will inevitably be involved in criminal and deviant activities. For example, the focal concern of 'toughness' will lead to crimes such as fighting while 'excitement' will lead to crimes such as joyriding.

Evaluation of functionalism and strain theories

Strengths:

• Functionalism argues that crime occurs when social solidarity is threatened by a lack of effective social control mechanisms and when institutions such as the family are failing to socialise people into a shared culture
• Both strain and subcultural theories have been influential in social policies aimed at tackling crime

Weaknesses:

• However, New Right sociologists such as Murray (1990) would support Miller's ideas, arguing that there is now a distinct underclass whose values encourage deviant and criminal behaviour
• Marxists argue that strain and subcultural theories ignore corporate crime. Marxist subcultural theorists such as Brake (1980) argue that working-class subcultures develop as a resistance to capitalism rather than through strain
• Feminists argue that strain and subcultural theories are 'malestream' and ignore female crime and deviancy
• Postmodernists argue that rather than there being right subcultures resulting from reasons such as strain, young people belong to 'neo-tribes' that are fluid and diverse, influenced by different lifestyles that are often media-led

Interactionism: labelling theory

Interactionists disagree with the functionalist view of crime and deviance in a number of ways:

• Rather than deviance producing social control, interactionists argue that agents of social control are the cause of crime and deviance
• Rather than taking an absolute definition of deviance, interactionists adopt a relative definition and argue that there is no fixed view of what constitutes deviant behaviour

Rather than official statistics being reliable and generally accurately reflecting patterns of crime, interactionists regard them as being socially constructed and lacking validity. Phenomenologist Cicourel argues that due to police using typifications, crime statistics say more about the way the police operate than actual levels of crime.

Becker's labelling theory

Interactionists focus on labelling theory and how agents of social control such as the police, judiciary and the media have the power to define less powerful groups as deviant. Becker (1967) argues social groups create deviance by making rules and then labelling those who do not conform to these social controls as 'outsiders'. He argues that 'moral entrepreneurs' have power over individuals and are able to redefine behaviour and laws into what they feel is acceptable.

Primary and secondary deviance

Lemert (1951) differentiates between primary deviance, which constitutes deviant acts that have not been labelled, and secondary deviance, which is the societal reaction caused by acts being publicly labelled.

For labelling theorists, societal reaction to being labelled as deviant has many different consequences:

• The individual can be stigmatised and excluded from 'normal society', as Goffman demonstrated when people are labelled as mentally ill
• The label can become an individual's master status — the main way that others see them (e.g. being viewed as a 'junkie' rather than a father or boss). This is likely to have a negative impact on an individual's self-concept and a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur as they will begin to see their identity in terms of the label
• Becker argues that further societal reaction, such as discrimination in the workplace, may lead to the labelled person following a deviant career, resulting in them joining a subculture who have been similarly labelled

Studies of labelling

Young's (1971) study of hippy drug users illustrates how aspects of secondary deviancy such as police persecution and labelling led to a self-fulfilling prophecy where drug-taking and other subcultural deviant behaviour increased. This process, where labelling and an increased attempt to control behaviour actually create more deviance, is called the deviancy amplification spiral.

S. Cohen's (1972) study of mods and rockers is another example of how labelling, in this case by the media, can lead to deviant amplification via a moral panic.

Braithwaite's shaming theory

Braithwaite (1989) distinguishes between disintegrative shaming, where the criminal is negatively labelled and excluded from society, and reintegrative shaming, which labels the act as bad but not the person themselves. Braithwaite argues that reintegrative shaming avoids the negative effects of societal reaction and can lead to lower levels of crime as offenders will be made aware of the impact of their behaviour and will be accepted back into society without being stigmatised.

Evaluation of labelling theory

Strengths:

• Interactionism illustrates how deviance is a relative concept and how deviance, crime and crime statistics can be socially constructed
• It draws attention to the importance of labelling and its consequences
• It demonstrates the impact of agents of social control at a micro level and how they may create more deviance

Weaknesses:

• Left realists argue that labelling is too sympathetic to the criminal and ignores the victims of crime
• Marxists argue that it ignores the wider, macro origins of labelling and that labelling reflects the power of the ruling class in a capitalist society

Marxism

Rather than social control benefiting everyone, as functionalists suggest, Marxists argue that it benefits the ruling class and works against working-class interests by preventing them rebelling against the injustices of capitalism. Marxists agree with interactionist criticisms of the functionalist view of crime and deviance that official statistics on crime are invalid due to the law being selectively enforced by powerful groups. However, traditional Marxists argue that this occurs at a macro rather than micro level.

They argue that the structure of capitalist society can be seen to explain the causes of crime in three ways:

1. Capitalism is criminogenic

By its very exploitative nature, capitalism results in class inequality and poverty. Gordon (1976) suggests that higher levels of working-class crime are a response to this inequality. He argues that the emphasis on greed, profits, competition and materialism means that crime is a rational response by all social classes to capitalism. This is demonstrated in white-collar crimes, such as tax evasion and fiddling expenses, and corporate crime, such as health and safety violations, share-price fixing and environmental offences caused by pollution. Advertising is seen as encouraging crimes such as theft as a way to acquire the latest 'must-have' goods. Marxists further argue that increasing alienation can cause non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism and violent behaviour.

2. Selective law making and enforcement

Marxists argue that the law reflects ruling-class interest rather than the will of the people as functionalists suggest. Snider (1997) argues that laws that threaten the profit of big business, such as fair trade laws and health and safety legislation, are unlikely to be passed or enforced beyond a minimum level. Chambliss (1970) argues that laws to protect private property are used by the ruling class to maintain the capitalist economy and keep the working class away from its spoils.

3. Ideological functions of crime and deviance

Althusser (1969) argues that the law is an ideological state apparatus which serves the interests of capitalists by maintaining and legitimating class inequality. Selective law enforcement, such as targeting social security scroungers, benefits the rich and powerful as tax fraudsters are rarely taken to court as their crimes are less likely to be treated as criminal offences. Reiman (2001) suggests that white-collar and corporate crimes are under-policed and under-punished. Pearce (1976) argues that the real purpose of laws seemingly passed in the interest of the working class, such as health and safety laws, is to serve capitalism by helping to ensure safe and loyal workers. The occasional prosecution will give the impression that the law is applied fairly and shows the 'caring side' of capitalism.

The New Criminology

Taylor et al. (1973), while agreeing with traditional Marxists on issues such as criminogenic capitalism and selective law enforcement, argues that a fully social analysis is required. This neo-Marxist approach combined the traditional Marxist views on inequality with the micro approach of labelling theory and its emphasis on societal reaction and individual meanings. The New Criminology is often referred to as critical criminology as it argues that the sociology of crime and deviance must be critical of the established capitalist order. It also takes on a more voluntaristic approach, arguing that individuals have free will and are able to commit crime for political reasons in response to injustices of the capitalist system.

Marxist subcultural theory

Marxist subcultural theory, which was developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), argued that the working-class youth subcultures developed their styles of clothes, music and language as a form of resistance to the inequality of capitalist society.

Brake (1980) argues that such resistance is 'magical' — an illusion that only appears to solve their problems. He argued that each generation of working-class youth subcultures have resisted their exploitative situation through different sorts of music, clothes etc.

Evaluation of Marxism

Strengths:

• Marxist theory of crime demonstrates how the law reflects differences in power between social groups
• It highlights the impact of selective law enforcement and how corporate and white-collar crime is under-policed
• It has drawn attention to how inequality in society can lead to criminal behaviour

Weaknesses:

• Left realists argue that, by focusing on the crimes of the powerful, Marxists neglect the fact that working-class people are the main victims of working-class crime
• Right realists agree and also argue that Marxism is too critical of the role of the police and the courts, which are a necessary part of social control
• Functionalists would argue that the law is applied equally and that there are numerous examples of the criminal justice system (CJS) acting against the interests of the ruling class, such as MPs' expenses
• Feminists argue that different types of Marxist theory ignore the patriarchal nature of the law and social control
• The New Criminology only provided a framework and did not conduct any research themselves. The 'fully social analysis' they advocated incorporates seven aspects of crime that were too complex
• The New Criminology has been criticised for its emphasis of the political nature of crimes, which is not useful for explaining crimes such as domestic violence and child abuse
• Marxist subcultural theory has been accused of underestimating the extent to which youth subcultures are influenced by the consumerism of capitalism and popular culture from the USA, such as 'gangsta rap' and 'Nike identities'

Realist approaches to the causes of crime and deviance

Both left realist and right realist approaches emerged in the 1980s as a response to what they saw as the failure of existing theories to adequately explain crime and provide practical solutions.

Similarities and differences

Right realists argue that:

• Crime is a real, growing problem that is damaging communities, particularly in urban areas
• Individualism and the pursuit of self-interest lead to the breakdown of family structure and the community and can lead to crime
• Biological differences: Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) claim some people are naturally more aggressive, extrovert and have low intelligence and so commit more crime due to biologically determined factors
• Socialisation: Some families, particularly lone-parent, fail to teach correct values such as self-control often due to the lack of a male role model. Murray (1990) felt that there was a growing underclass who do not share the values of society and so are more likely to commit crime
• Rational choice: Clarke (1980) argued that individuals rationally choose to commit crime because the costs are outweighed by the benefits. Felson (1998) argued that if a motivated offender was in the presence of a 'capable guardian' they would act rationally and not offend

Left realists argue that:

• Relative deprivation: Due to the media and consumerism, we are more aware of how deprived we are in relation to others. This may lead to crime as people feel resentment when they feel others 'unfairly' have more than them, e.g. steal the latest iPhone
• Marginalisation: Groups such as unemployed youth and ethnic minorities may feel powerless as they have no one to represent them. They may turn to crime such as vandalism or violence out of resentment or frustration
• Subculture: As a consequence of relative deprivation and marginalisation, some working-class and black people may seek a collective response and form deviant subcultures. Due to their blocked opportunities, some may turn to street crime

Evaluation of realist approaches

Strengths:

• Left realists have drawn attention towards the reality and fear of crime that exists for some deprived groups
• Both realist theories have been influential in social policies aimed at tackling crime

Weaknesses:

• Left realists' use of subcultural theory and the assumption that crime occurs when there is no value consensus has been criticised. Marxists would argue that left realism has strayed too far away from Marxist views in adopting functionalist concepts to explain crime
• While rational choice may be useful to explain some utilitarian crime, it cannot explain violent crime and crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs
• Marxists and left realists argue that both realist theories neglect corporate crime, which is more damaging to society