Critically discuss Durkheim’s argument that deviance from social norms is healthy in order for a society to function. PDF

Preview

Summary

Functionlist theory, crime, social norms.
Essay shows that Emile Durkheim and his concept that deviance from the social norms is healthy in order for society to function has have much influence on the study of criminology. It is clear that he, and other functional theorists have put forward ma...

Description

Essay Question: Critically discuss Durkheim’s argument that deviance from social norms is healthy in order for a society to function.

Word Count: 2356

To suggest that crime is functional for society may seem odd at first glance. Many view different types of crime as destructive and generally negative. However, Emile Durkheim, a leading sociologist whose work has had significant relevance to studies of crime, suggests that crime and deviant acts in fact provide a function and can be argued as a necessary feature of society (Newburn 2013). This essay will attempt to critically discuss Durkheim’s argument that deviance from social norms is healthy in order for a society to function by looking at some of his different ideas and concepts. It will also look at the limitations of his theory through the ideas of different academics and some instances where deviance may not be functional in order for society to remain in good condition. Some common themes will be used throughout to discuss deviance critically such as labelling theory, anomie, folk devils, modernity, class divisions and power.

When people commit crimes, they are not following the accepted social norms that society has in place. The term crime can be difficult to define, and it is important to acknowledge that it is a term often taken for granted. This is due to its everyday use in conversation or the media, which makes it seem straightforward. When delving into the use of the word crime within criminological studies, we are shown that it has much more complex meanings and roots than it would appear on the surface. One commonly used definition of crime could be to view it as any acts that are a breach or a violation of criminal law, therefore an action that requires prosecution and punishment. However, this should not mean that studies and examples should be limited to crimes that can be convicted in a court, as many occurrences of people deviating from social norms might not be classed as a crime or ‘punishable’ as will be examined further on in this essay (Newburn 2013 p8). The idea of crime develops throughout time and this can be shown through the change in attitudes and law historically. Crime and deviance are socially constructed; therefore, it could be argued that it changes and adapts to represent the social reactions to crime. Durkheim draws attention in his work to the fact that an action or a thought is only viewed as wrong and against the accepted social norms not because it is criminal, but because it only becomes criminal when it disturbs the conscious collective, and interrupts what he refers to as the moral code we have as a society constructed. Therefore, the action only becomes a crime or a deviant act because we decide it should be deemed as wrong (Newburn 2013 p171). This can be analysed in relation to Howard Becker’s labelling theory. 1

It is important to recognise when discussing deviance against social norms, who or what behaviours might be classed as deviant and why. He claims that people are only labelled as deviant once social groups decide that the behaviour the person has committed is wrong. This means, according to Becker and labelling theorists, the criminal justice system can be unfair at times and identifies that there can be bias within the system, which is only functional for people who may get away with crimes such as people of higher classes (Newburn 2013). Howard Becker’s labelling theory suggests that people do not just commit deviant acts because of their background. He says that the real reason people do is because of this labelling from higher powers in society. He believed that no act was just simply deviant, it is only seen as being that way because of social constructions and the way that society chooses to enforce rules and sanctions. Therefore, actions that go against the social norms, for that reason, can change and adapt throughout time (Newburn 2013). Emile Durkheim has been referred to as the founding father of functionalist sociology. His views were that different components of society must provide certain functions properly for the system to work to its best. Deviance was of interest to him as he wanted to see how social cohesion and solidarity would be affected in a period of rapid social and economic changes throughout the period of modernity (McLaughlin and Muncie 2006). Durkheim suggests that a deviance from the accepted social norms serves us well and that not all deviant acts are harmful to society, as some can serve a purpose. One purpose that these defiant acts may serve is that they can promote positive social diversity and change, which ensures that fresh ideas are introduced to represent altering opinions in society (Newburn 2013 p170). An example of this can be the developments in attitudes towards homosexuality. Homosexuality used to be viewed as a disorder, and something that was highly frowned upon (Spector 1997). The decriminalisation of same sex relationships can further display Durkheim’s point that acts are only criminal because people within society have viewed it to be wrong, and that this can also change. It is also argued that it serves the function of reinstating boundary maintenance. When people are deviant, groups collectively come together according to Durkheim and agree that the behaviour is wrong, strengthening social solidarity. This reaffirms social norms and values which makes clear the divergence between what is right and what is wrong, which is arguably healthy and needed in order for society to function better. He also makes clear that too much or too little deviance can cause problems, and that there must be the right balance in order for it to be functional (McLaughlin and Muncie 2006). He acknowledges that if there is not enough social order, then this can cause problems, such as his concept of anomie. Anomie is when an individual’s relationship to the social whole is weak, due to a lack of social regulation. This results in the person feeling meaningless to society and that things will not improve. This therefore can cause the person to commit deviant acts (Cloward 1995). Suicide is often linked with anomie in Durkheim’s work, and 2

was once a crime in most of Europe. It can also be argued to be viewed as a deviant act. A criticism of this could be that if suicide is or was a deviant act, and therefore is functional for society, then who is this functional for. The victims of suicide and their families would surely not agree that this is functional in any way and identifying it as functional for society could be said to be insensitive. Although, from a Durkheimian point of view, it could be argued that concerning rates of suicide can influence changes, for example an increase in awareness and support for people who are suffering, which would in fact could be argued to be a positive movement for society. Durkheim and his work on functionalism could also be argued to be flawed as he does not clarify why he thinks there is conflict present in our society in the first place. He also does not highlight the fact that not everyone has the same choices and opportunities in society, therefore not everyone can express beliefs and opinions the same. For example, rich people may be able to choose to live and eat wherever they want whereas someone who is homeless does not have the same choices which may affect they way in which they behave (MacDonald 1995). Also, when people do not agree with this consensus or act differently to what people think is right, then they could be viewed as being dysfunctional. This may cause prejudiced reaction to certain groups that are not seen as functional for society and may result in them being labelled in a negative way and even classed as a ‘folk devil’. A ‘folk devil’ is where an individual or a group are portrayed in a negative fashion as different and deviant and as a result are then blames for problem in society. This can turn into a moral panic, which is often where the media intensifies the problem and causes mass hostility and fear through exaggerated and made up gossip. Stanley Cohen developed this concept when he did his studies on the mods and rockers, who he argued were the victims of becoming folk devils due to being portrayed as villains and as outsiders (Cohen 1983). This could cause unfair prejudice towards people or groups who do not fit in, which is unfair and could be argued to serve no function. This idea of who decides what the consensus is will be explored more in the next paragraph. A further criticism of Durkheim’s argument that deviance against social norms are functional and necessary in order to have a flourishing society is that from a Marxist point of view, it could be argued that Durkheim does not acknowledge enough where this consensus of the appropriate and accepted norms and values come from. Although Karl Marx did not do much research in the area of crime and criminal justice, he worked on many different aspects of conflict theory that suggests that there is a strong division between the Bourgeois, who are the dominant class who control the means of production. They are compared to the Proletariat, the lesser class who can only sell their labour power and are oppressed by this (Smith and Natalier 2005). Marx said that Durkheim underestimates the level of conflict and inequality in modern societies in his studies. He claims that the inequalities that the poor faced were huge, and that deviance is defined differently for each group by the 3

capitalists, so is therefore not fair or functional for many members of society. This means that the consensus of agreed norms and values are decided by people who are in power, and even though both commit acts of deviance, both are punished differently. This can also be due to the rich being able to afford costly lawyers who may even know people within the criminal justice system, which the working class usually would not be able to afford. Marx also looks at the different types of crime that are committed by different groups, which Durkheim again does not acknowledge when he speaks about crime and deviance broadly (Sparks and Simon 2013). Elite members are more likely to commit crimes they will not be prosecuted for, like crimes commonly known as ‘white collar crimes’ which are usually financially motivated crimes such as fraud. Whereas, the working class are more likely to engage in acts of street crime such as assault, theft and robbery (Newburn 2013). This questions and highlights a gap in Durkheim’s work of why some deviant acts are okay and healthy for the system, when others aren’t depending on class systems. Work by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1964) suggests that the state and people in power make the law in order to suit them and their interests. They acknowledge that this is a complex argument and is not as simple as powerful people just deciding what they want and then making it law, but more about understanding the ways in which the law operates inconspicuously as an instrument of political and ideological control. Durkheim does not account for these Marxist points of view or these structural power inequalities in his work. Much of Durkheim’s work, as mentioned previously, was done with the aim of examining if solidarity could remain within a period where there were many social and economic changes going on in the world (Smith and Natalier 2005). Mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity were the two types of society that he identified. In mechanic societies, he claimed that individuals and groups have a greater sense of solidarity through sharing common interests like religion or working for the same reasons. In an organic society, he says this is much harder for people as they take on so many different roles and there is a bigger division of labour, resulting in a lack of collective conscious and a rise in individualism (Hayward et al. 2010). Durkheim identifies a clear difference between a precontemporary society and a modern society. He says before modernity people had a clear social and moral place in the world with strong values and these have been broken down throughout time, as has mechanic solidarity, resulting in several issues in society, deviance being a possibility (Cloward 1959). A highly controversial analysis made by Kingsley Davis (1937) on deviance in society is one where he argues that prostitution serves an important function for contemporary society. Davis suggests that prostitution contributes to our society in a functional manner as it provides employment for young, attractive women. He also claimed that it acts as a safety valve as it allows men, instead of leaving their wives and breaking up the family, to experiment sexually and express 4

desires they have that their partner may not be able to provide. This is again highly controversial and in no way the opinion of myself. To conclude, Emile Durkheim and his concept that deviance from the social norms is healthy in order for society to function has have much influence on the study of criminology. It is clear that he, and other functional theorists have put forward many sustainable ideas of why deviance can be functional within society in situations. Although many people agree and have built on his work, many people also disagree and there are limits to his conclusions. As Karl Marx points out, the way in which we view appropriate social norms and what deviance is can be highly influenced by people who are in power, which raises concerns. Also, if people who are of a high class can commit deviant acts and essentially get away with it then this is only functional for them and not other people in society. It also means that people who are ‘different’ face prejudice and at risk of being labelled as deviant, just because they do not follow this consensus that society has. I conclude that there are good arguments for certain features of functionalist theory, but overall it is one that is controversial and that misses many important factors in its application.

Reference List

Cloward, R. (1959) Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behaviour. American Sociological Review, 24 (2), pp. 164-176. 10.2307/2089427 [Accessed: 2 March 2019].

5

Cohen, S. (1973) FOLK DEVILS AND MORAL PANICS: THE CREATION OF THE MODS AND ROCKERS. Urban Life and Culture, 2 (3), pp. 380-381. 10.1177/089124167300200308 [Accessed: 4 March 2019]. Davis, K. (1937) The Sociology of Prostitution. American Sociological Review, 2 (5), p. 744. 10.2307/2083827 [Accessed: 5 March 2019]. Hayward, K., Maruna, S. and Mooney, J. (2010) Fifty key thinkers in criminology. 1st . ed. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. MacDonald, K. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions. 1st . ed. London: Sage Publications. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1964). The German ideology. 1st ed. Moscow: Progress Publishers. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (2006) The Sage dictionary of criminology. 2nd . ed. London: SAGE. Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. 2nd . ed. Oxon: Routledge. Smith, P. and Natalier, K. (2005) Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives. 1st . ed. London: Sage Publications. Sparks, R. and Simon, J. (2013). The SAGE handbook of punishment and society. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications, pp.23-40. Spector, M. (1977) Legitimizing homosexuality. Society, 14 (5), pp. 52-56. 10.1007/bf02700829 [Accessed: 3 March 2019].

6...