Crime and deviance are acts that will elicit dissent from society.
They take various forms and involve various concepts and theories. It
will be the aim of this paper to explore those that are considered to
be functional for society.
It was Emile Durkheim who first clearly established the logic behind
the functional approach to the study of crime and deviance[1] when he
wrote The Rules of Sociological Method and The Division of Labour[2].
In those works, Durkheim argued that crime and deviance is “an
integral part of all healthy societies”. He reasoned that crime and
deviance are not only inevitable, but also functional for society and
that they will only be considered dysfunctional when they reach
abnormally high or low levels.
His theory of functionalism rooted from his amazement with how society
was able to keep itself intact amidst the social, political and
economic upheaval provoked by the Industrial Revolution. He found that
the social glue holding everything in place was: value consensus,
social solidarity and collective conscience; and that crime and
deviance had a role in this equation.
“Deviance” is a wide-ranging term used by sociologists referring to
behaviour that is off-tangent from social normalities[3], and that
“crime” is a variant of deviance, only that it “comprises activities
or actions which are deemed so damaging to the interests of the
community” (Pease, 1994) that some form of identification and action
must be done against the perpetrator. It follows that all crime are,
by definition, deviant behaviour, but not all forms of deviance are
criminal[4].
In the pre-industrial days, societies were sm...
... middle of paper ...
... Publishers Ltd., Chapter 6, pp. 330 – 403
8. Kai T. Erickson (nd) Notes on the Sociology of Deviance, in
Howard S. Becker (ed) (1967) The Other Side, Perspectives on
Deviance, Glencoe, The Free Press
9. Robert A. Nisbet (1975) The Sociology of Emile Durkheim, London,
Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., Chapter 7, pp. 209 – 237
Notes:
[1] (Criminology, nd)
[2] (Robert A. Nisbet, 1975)
[3] (Chris Livesey,nd)
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] (Anthony Giddens, 2001)
[7] (Durkheim, nd)
[8] (Chris Livesey,nd)
[9] (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004)
[10] Ibid
[11] (Emile Durkheim, nd)
[12] (Criminology, nd)
[13] (Robert A. Nisbet, 1975)
[14] (Kai T. Erikson, nd)
[15] (Chris Livesey,nd)
[16] Ibid
[17] (Chris Livesey,nd)
[18] Ibid
A strong example of this would be the recent exploits at the Woodstock 99 music festival.
Stephan Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History, 2nd ed. , McGraw-Hill, 1994. Edwin Pfuhl and Stuart Henry, The Deviance Process, 3rd ed., Aldine de Gruyter, 1993. Larry Siegel, Criminology, 4th ed., West publishing, 1992.
In chapter one, Erikson gives a nod of recognition to Emile Durkheim’s work. Erikson notes Durkheim’s assertion that crime is really a natural kind of social activity. I started to think that Erikson may be trying to assert that if crime is a natural part of society, there is an indication that it is necessary in society. Erikson claims that non-deviants congregate and agree in a remarkable way to express outrage over deviants and deviancy, therefore solidifying a bond between members of society. Erikson continues to argue that this sense of mutuality increases individual’s awareness to the common goals of the society.
In the study of Sociology of Deviance, sociologists develop theories and perspective in explaining the account for deviant and studying of how the society reacts. It is an interesting field to study because the difference and changes of deviance and social norms have a significant impact on individuals and groups. In this essay, I will examine varies definitions and perspective of Erikson and Heckerts respectively in respect to the following concepts: deviance serves certain functions for society, the typology of positive and negative deviance and the "middle class norms", and the labelling perspective on deviance.
Emile Durkheim (1901) argued that although definitions of what constitutes deviance vary by place, it is present in all societies. He defined deviance as acts that offend collective norms and expectations. Durkheim believed that what makes an act or appearance deviant is not so much its character or consequences, but that a group has defined it as dangerous or threatening to its well-being (Ferrante, 134).
Goode, E. (2011). Constructionist Perspectives of Deviance. Deviant Behavior (Ninth Edition ed., ). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, Inc..
Before the 1950’s theorists focused on what the difference was between deviants and criminals from “normal” citizens. In the 1950’s researchers were more involved exploring meaning and reasons behind deviant acts. This led to the most dominant question in the field of deviance, “what is the structural and culture factors that lead to deviant behavior?” This question is important when studying deviance because there is no clear answer, everyone sees deviance in different ways, and how deviance is created. Short and Meier states that in the 1960’s there was another shift in focus on the subject of deviance. The focus was what causes deviance, the study of reactions to deviance, and the study of rule breaking and rule making. In the 1960’s society was starting to speak out on what they believed should be a rule and what should not; this movement create chaos in the streets. However, it gave us a glimpse into what makes people become deviant, in the case it was the Vietnam War and the government. Short and Meier also write about the three levels that might help us understand were deviance comes from and how people interact to deviance. The first is the micro level, which emphasizes individual characteristics by biological, psychological, and social sciences. The second level is macrosociological that explains culture and
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
A famous line from the movie The Usual Suspects goes “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”. This is exactly what Dostoevsky does in his most famous novel Crime and Punishment. Throughout the novel references to God and forgiveness abound. There is a much darker side to what Dostoevsky writes though. If you have God working in your life unfortunately you also have the devil working in your life, and this is what happens to the main character of the book, Raskolnikov. He is given many chances to do the right thing and not sin, yet the devil still provides even more temptations, and gets Raskolnikov to fall into the trap of murder. Yet God does still give you chances for forgiveness and wants you to reject your sin. The devil works in any way he can to get men to sin, but God will send a way to get you to forgive your sins and come back to him and leave the devil’s ways, and that was Dostoevsky’s main point of Crime and Punishment.
Sociologists suggest deviance is a violation of any societal norm. Yet some have suggested deviance is a socially outmoded concept based on a Durkheim’s model of social solidarity. Therefore suggesting now it is obsolete, there is no longer a use for it in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like Australia. According to Roach Anleu (2004) Colin Sumner was one such claimant. Sumner suggested that the sociological concept of deviance and any coherent theoretical development stagnated in mid 1970s, as no agreement on how deviance should be set never happened, therefore there was never an answer to the question, “deviant from what”? Secondly, Sumner states there is no explanation for why deviance is the chosen subject of research, instead of the norms that specify deviance. He believed it only made sense to examine deviance within the framework of social disapproval. Sumner also believed the relationships between deviance, crime, and difference to be unclear. Lastly he thought that the search for a general concept to encompass such a assorted range of activities, problems and situations was misguided because there can be no behavioural unity for such a diverse range of practices. Sumner (1994) suggested that the focus should analysis how deviant categories are constructed and managed by the power relationships that are continually changing. (Sumner 1994), (Roach Anleu 2014) Roach Anleu (2014) describe norms as reflecting some level of consensus and can be laws, rules, regulations, standards, or unspoken expectations. However, within large communities, there can be individuals, and groups whose behaviour is perceived as deviant according to the accepted norms. Those individuals and or groups may not necessarily be consider...
Within this essay there will be a clear understanding of the contrast and comparison between left and right realism, supported by accurate evidence that will support and differentiate the two wings of realism.
Crime is seen to just exist however, that is not the case. It is argued that crime is created through society and that crime is both a social fact and a social construction. We are told daily about the problems in which we are facing from crime by politicians through the media. From this it is argued that crime is in fact a social fact and a social construction. Throughout this essay it looks at what exactly is a social construction and a social fact and if crime is in fact both a social construction and a social fact, it will also look at one of the main theories which will help draw a conclusion to if crime Is both a social fact and a social construction.
In the simplest form, crime is an illegal action which the societies do not support and government punishes for. Crimes and the criminal justice system are witnessed by society every evening newscast, and in every newspaper. The answer to crime seems to be more punishment, more security and, of course, more prisons. To deal with crime, the best way is imprisonment because prisons have many missions such as; punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation and also do a lot to solve the crime problems by using these missions. Therefore, to keep criminals away from society, prisons serve an essential role.
In the American society criminal activity has become a part of the everyday activity. At any given time an individual can turn on the news and there has been some type of criminal activity that is headlining the news. More often then not it is a violent crime. Thanks to the media and exposure to crime on a regular basis as well as the entertainment industry, and other outlets projecting a certain stereotype of crime, and also criminals, society has developed their own definition of each. Society has also developed many myths or misconceptions about crime itself, and has distorted the realities to fit their mythical beliefs.
In contrast, Emile Durkheim argued that crime is a functional part of society; each society has its own rates and types of crimes. Durkheim stated, “What is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality, provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level, which it is perhaps not impossible to fix in conformity with the preceding rules.” (Durkheim, p. 61) Durkheim did not see crime as something habitual or as a symptom of a diseased society. I agree with Durkheim’s opinion of crime and society, I think that crime will not entirely disappear; instead the form itself will change. (Durkheim)