Functionalist and Strain Theory of Crime
Functionalist and Strain Theory of Crime and Deviance
Functionalists argue that crime is inevitable, universal, and even functional for society. This counterintuitive claim is one of the most important starting points for the sociology of crime.
Durkheim: Crime is Functional
Crime is Inevitable
Durkheim (1893, 1897) argued that crime exists in every known society and is therefore normal and inevitable:
- Even a "society of saints" would define some behaviour as deviant — the boundary would simply shift to include minor transgressions
- Crime is inevitable because:
- Not everyone is equally effectively socialised into shared norms and values
- In complex modern societies, there is a diversity of lifestyles and values — people interpret rules differently
- In periods of rapid social change, the collective conscience (shared moral framework) weakens, creating anomie — normlessness
Crime is Functional
Durkheim identified two positive functions of crime:
1. Boundary maintenance: crime and punishment reaffirm society's shared norms and values
- The public punishment of criminals reminds the law-abiding majority of the boundaries of acceptable behaviour
- Media coverage of trials and sentencing reinforces collective morality
- Erikson (1966): the punishment of crime is a public ritual that unites the community in moral outrage — a form of collective effervescence
2. Adaptation and social change: some crime is necessary for social progress
- Today's criminals may be tomorrow's reformers — people who challenge existing norms can drive positive change
- Example: the suffragettes broke the law (arson, window-smashing) but brought about women's right to vote
- Example: Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat was a criminal act that helped end racial segregation
- Without deviance, society would stagnate
Other Functions of Crime
Davis (1961): prostitution acts as a "safety valve" — it channels male sexual frustration without threatening the nuclear family
Polsky (1967): pornography serves a similar function — it provides a harmless outlet for potentially dangerous desires
Cohen (1966): deviance acts as a warning signal that an institution is malfunctioning — high truancy rates indicate problems with the education system, not just with individual pupils
Evaluation of Durkheim
| Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|
| Explains why crime exists in ALL societies | Does not explain why particular individuals or groups commit crime |
| Recognises crime can be a force for positive change | How much crime is "functional"? Durkheim acknowledged that too much crime is dysfunctional, but he never specified the tipping point |
| Shows crime reinforces social solidarity | Ignores the victims of crime — crime may be functional for society but devastating for those affected |
| Marxists: crime benefits the ruling class, not society as a whole | |
| Over-romanticises deviance — most crime is not heroic boundary-pushing |
Merton (1938): Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton developed functionalism to explain why some groups are more likely to commit crime than others. His theory focuses on the strain between culturally valued goals and the legitimate means to achieve them.
The American Dream and Anomie
- American society promotes the cultural goal of material success (the "American Dream") — everyone should aspire to wealth, status, and consumer goods
- However, the legitimate means to achieve this goal (education, hard work, good jobs) are not equally available to everyone
- This creates a strain between goals and means — particularly for the working class and marginalised groups
- The resulting anomie (normlessness) pushes individuals towards deviance
Five Responses to Strain
Merton identified five ways individuals adapt to the strain between goals and means:
| Adaptation | Cultural Goals | Legitimate Means | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conformity | Accept | Accept | Work within the system; most common response | Most people — work hard, obey the law |
| Innovation | Accept | Reject | Pursue goals through illegitimate means | Drug dealing, fraud, theft — accept the goal of wealth but use criminal means |
| Ritualism | Reject | Accept | Give up on goals but go through the motions | A bureaucrat who follows rules obsessively but has abandoned career ambition |
| Retreatism | Reject | Reject | Drop out of society entirely | Drug addicts, alcoholics, the homeless — reject both goals and means |
| Rebellion | Replace | Replace | Seek to create a new society with new goals and means | Revolutionaries, political radicals, terrorists |
Key Points
- Innovation is the most important adaptation for understanding crime — it explains property crime as a rational response to blocked opportunities
- The strain is greatest for the lower classes, who have least access to legitimate means — this explains why crime rates are highest among disadvantaged groups
- Merton is explaining crime as a product of social structure, not individual pathology
Evaluation of Merton
| Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|
| Explains why crime rates are higher among the working class and disadvantaged groups | Assumes everyone shares the same goals (material success) — not all societies or individuals are equally materialistic |
| Shows crime is a product of social structure, not individual deficiency | Takes official crime statistics at face value — they may reflect police bias, not real crime rates (Marxists and labelling theorists) |
| Explains utilitarian (money-motivated) crime well | Cannot explain non-utilitarian crime — violence, vandalism, hate crime — which is not motivated by material gain |
| Bridges functionalism and the study of inequality | Too individualistic: focuses on individual responses to strain rather than collective/subcultural responses |
| Does not explain middle-class and white-collar crime — corporate fraud, tax evasion — committed by those who DO have legitimate means | |
| Assumes a clear distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" means — Marxists argue the system itself is illegitimate |
Cohen (1955): Status Frustration and Delinquent Subcultures
Albert Cohen adapted Merton's theory to explain non-utilitarian, collective delinquency among working-class boys.
The Theory
- Working-class boys share the middle-class goal of status and success
- But they face status frustration at school — they are judged by middle-class standards they cannot meet (cultural capital, elaborated code, deferred gratification)
- Unable to achieve status through legitimate means, they experience anomie and form delinquent subcultures that invert mainstream values
- What mainstream society condemns, the subculture celebrates: vandalism, aggression, truancy, and defiance become sources of status within the group
- This explains non-utilitarian crime: vandalism and fighting are not about money — they are about gaining respect and status within the subculture
Evaluation of Cohen
| Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|
| Explains non-utilitarian crime that Merton cannot | Assumes working-class boys start with middle-class values — Miller (1962) argued they have their own distinct cultural values (toughness, smartness, excitement) |
| Shows how subcultures develop as collective responses to blocked opportunities | Only explains male, working-class, juvenile delinquency — ignores female crime, middle-class crime, and adult crime |
| Links education (status frustration) to crime | Matza (1964): most delinquents are not fully committed to the subculture — they drift between conformity and delinquency |
Cloward and Ohlin (1960): Illegitimate Opportunity Structures
Cloward and Ohlin argued that Merton's theory was incomplete because it assumed that everyone had equal access to illegitimate means — they do not.
Three Types of Deviant Subculture
| Subculture | Context | Type of Crime |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal subculture | Areas with an established criminal hierarchy providing role models and apprenticeship opportunities | Utilitarian crime (theft, drug dealing) — a "career ladder" of crime |
| Conflict subculture | Disorganised areas with no criminal hierarchy — no legitimate OR illegitimate opportunity structure | Violence, gang warfare, territorial aggression — crime as an expression of frustration |
| Retreatist subculture | Those who fail in BOTH legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures | Drug use, alcoholism — "double failures" who drop out |
Evaluation of Cloward and Ohlin
| Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|
| Recognises that access to criminal opportunities varies by neighbourhood | Draws too sharp a line between the three subcultures — in reality, they overlap |
| Explains different types of working-class crime in different areas | Like Merton and Cohen, ignores crimes of the powerful |
| Influenced real policy: JFK's Mobilization for Youth programme in the 1960s was based on their theory | Assumes delinquents are specialised into one type of crime — most offenders are versatile |
Summary: Comparing Functionalist/Strain Theories
| Theorist | Key Concept | What It Explains | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Durkheim | Crime is functional; anomie | Why crime is universal | Not who commits crime or why |
| Merton | Strain between goals and means | Utilitarian working-class crime | Cannot explain non-utilitarian or middle-class crime |
| Cohen | Status frustration; delinquent subculture | Non-utilitarian juvenile delinquency | Only male, working-class, juvenile crime |
| Cloward & Ohlin | Illegitimate opportunity structure | Different types of crime in different areas | Overly neat categories; ignores white-collar crime |
Exam Tip
For a 30-mark essay on functionalist theories of crime, present Durkheim (crime is functional), then Merton (strain theory), then Cohen and Cloward & Ohlin as developments. Evaluate each using the other theorists AND using perspectives outside functionalism (Marxism, labelling theory). The most common AO3 points are: (1) ignores crimes of the powerful; (2) takes official statistics at face value; (3) too structural — ignores individual agency.