Comparing Functionalist and Traditional Marxist Perspectives on Crime

2326 Words5 Pages

There are many theories on why crime exists as well has who is

committing the crimes and the underlying reasons behind it The two

main perspectives being Traditional Marxist and Functionalist both

with different views they share very little in common, however they do

agree that society shapes the individual and not the individual that

shapes society. What is meant by that is that we are all products of

our upbringings and learn through socialisation what our beliefs are,

what we agree on personally and often shared beliefs and the

understanding of what is 'the norm; through our primary interaction

with others beginning at home and continuing onto schooling and work.

Our beliefs aren't always set in stone and can change through time and

growth and the interaction with others once outside the family domain.

There are many explanations beginning with Durkheim who was a

functionalist, there is Merton who doesn't totally agree with Durkheim

but adopted his theory on 'Anomie' and made it his own. In addition

there is Hirschi whose theories mirrored that of Durkheim's and before

concluding, Marxist view on crime will be looked at.

The Functionalist view on crime and society is likening it to the

human body to explain it functions. The body has it organs whereas

society has it institutions. Functionalists have an interest in the

functions of crime, hence the name and are interested in how crime

contributes to society as a whole. There is a belief that society is

based on consensus or agreement of shared beliefs and values of what

is considered to be 'the norm', the views hare then passed on through

socialisation. Share values and beliefs o...

... middle of paper ...

... be deviant within a corporate structure although should

it occur it is highly unlikely the public would be made aware of it.

However the question of mental state of an individual hasn't even been

raised by any of the sociologists to explain why a person may offend.

Merton seemed to make a lot of sense but there seemed to be something

missing in his explanations on why crime exists why some commit and

others don't, perhaps the reality is there is no definite answer on

why it exists.

BIBLOGRAPHY

Durkheim, E (1985/1987) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London:

Routledge

Erikson, K J. (1966) Wayward Puritans, New York: Wiley

Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press

Merton, R. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie, American Sociological

Review, Vol 3, 672-683

Open Document