Crime Analysis within Social Theory - Essay Example

? The following is an analysis of crime in relation to two schools within social theory that have been influential. Presented in the following, is 'conflict theory' and 'functionalism'. Both theories have their roots in the nineteenth century as Karl Marx's thought was critical to the development of conflict theory, and Emile Durkheim was important to functionalism. Demonstrated, will be the basic tenets of both theories in relation to crime with a few instances that will serve to show how these theories explain deviance. Both theories will also be examined insofar as their limitations. It will be argued that among the theories in question, conflict theory is more comprehensive than functionalism, but still limited in terms of the scope of explanation. It will be argued that both theories lack a basic explanation of psychology or the human agents involved in criminal behaviour. Thus, while both theories explain crime and deviance on a 'macro-level', they present problems on the micro level by not providing sufficient explanation for individual deviance. It will be argued that functionalism was a useful model in an era where society was less fragmented, while 'social conflict' continues to be a useful model because the material conditions underlying crime have persisted. CONFLICT THEORY The notion of conflict theory, is one which is grounded or established in the basic Marxist principle of the class struggle, p. “crime as a legal definition of human conduct is created by agents of the dominant class in a politically organized society” [Adler & Adler, Ed., 2000, p. 65]. In Marxist terms, what Quinney argues is that the law essentially exists to serve the interests of the ruling class. Conversely, deviance and the social construction along with the legal constructions of definitions of deviance, has the further agenda of protecting the interests of a particular group of people in society. That is, the interests of those who construct and often enforce the law. For instance, it is not often that there are homeless schizophrenic individuals with no higher education sitting in the Supreme Court, or indeed Parliament. In short, it can be said that conflict theory is one which explains the causes of crime in terms of material conditions, but also measures or establishes the important corollary of “power” [Adler & Adler, Ed., 2000, p. 65] constructions of any given society. In these terms, it can be maintained that this approach through ‘material’ measures, is also empirical, and as such, this paper is arguing that it provides the most adequate theory in terms of an assimilation of conflict theory, differential association and labeling theory . In this sense, some more comments on the empirical details of conflict theory ought to be raised and examined. A good example of the ‘empirical’ nature of ‘conflict theory’, and by ‘empirical’, it is implied in terms of employing a pronounced consideration of material conditions, is the notion of property. As the author in question argues, the structure of power is also established through wealth, and this represents property. In these terms, property is regarded as one of the most core or central rights within Western industrialized democracies. That is, if it is ‘capital’ and ‘property’ which are that which determine wealth and power, and in turn, there is a basic desire to maintain this, it follows that by strictly protecting property class interests or class conflict is perpetuated. Another important component of the theory in question, anticipates how ‘differential theory’ can improve upon this foundation. In conflict theory, one of the cornerstones for explaining law in terms of class structure, and power relations, is the notion of ‘socialization’. To maintain that there is in a sense, a coercive nature to law in the sense that there is a bonding of the educated and class elite along with, on the other hand, an association which occurs similarly among the more impoverished classes. For instance, it is a statistic of the judicial system in general, that there are more individuals from poor socio-economic backgrounds within penal institutions, than individuals from financially more secure situations [Conley, 2003, p. 289]. Conversely, it is also true that those who constitute the legal profession itself, or indeed politics, tend to be from privileged socio-economic circumstances. In these terms, the explanation is similarly a foundation like to the extent that these forms or types of empirical evidence are readily measurable. The approach taken by conflict theory, is such that the ‘socialization’ of the social classes is important for the general understanding deviance. As the author stresses, in this sense: “People construct their own patterns of action in participating with others.... It follows, then, that the probability that persons will develop action patterns with a high potential for being defined as criminal depends on structured opportunities, learning experiences, interpersonal associations and identifications, and self conceptions”. [Adler & Adler, Ed., 2000, p. 67]. As is stressed by the author, the ‘definers’ and the ‘defined’ in the nature of deviance is crucial for understanding the conflict between the classes, however, there are some limitations to this approach which will be examined in relation to the next theory which is functionalism. FUNCTIONALIST That deviance is an extension of social attitudes, is a given in social theory. Among the more traditional or ‘functional’ schools of thought in regard to deviance, such an idea is axiomatic. For example, Durkheim and many of his followers maintained that crime and deviance are entirely dependent on “social condemnation” and “common indignation” [Gomme, 1998, p. 71]. In general, social phenomenon are explained in a functionalist framework in terms of understanding a perceived “goal” [Gomme, 1998, p. 63]. Phrased in simple terms, burglaries can often be explained in terms of the goal of accumulating wealth, and in turn, a corollary to such an explanation might point to the low social strata from which most common burglars come from (corporate theft is another social strata but with a similar goal). Further, Durkheim and functionalist school argue that crime and deviance occur to greater degrees along with a number of social transformations which cause a general state of turmoil [Kelly, Ed., 1996, p. 50-1]. Such factors in this sense include, p. “social disintegration, social deregulation, and rapid social and economic change” [Gomme, 1998, p. 73]. Concerning the two high consensus crimes in question, Albert Cohen’s theory concerning “status frustration” [Gomme, 1998, p. 68-9] does much to explain some the causal variables of the murders in question. In both instances of murder, poverty and social class were central variables. If the ‘norm’ are those values of the “middle class” [Gomme, 1998, p. 68], and if social frustration occurs as a result of an inability to achieve these norms, then, some preliminary understanding of the consensus crimes in question, can be ascertained through a functionalist paradigm. Although it is difficult to determine given the facts presented in the lower consensus forms of crime, a similar argument can be made. By a 'lower consensus crime', it is implied that the form of deviance is not as universally recognized as a major one, like murder [Ritzer and Ryan, 2011, p. 138]. So, for example, if, body piercing and raves occur among youth (people in their 20’s) and these individuals are being systemically kept out of the norm (e.g. they have significantly higher rates of unemployment), then, functionalism could also serve to explain their behaviour in terms of the general degree of social and economic disintegration, but also the frustration that ensues when individuals realize that the ‘norm’ is beyond their discernible reach. In other words, there is little information provided concerning ‘why’ this form of deviant behaviour occurs, as opposed to explanations using a functionalist theory for major forms of deviance. There are, however, a number of limitations to the functionalist approach. For example, how are these attitudes of the ‘norm’ or the ‘social attitudes’ both shaped, and in turn, perceived by those who can be said to be frustrated by them? Toward this end of explanation, ‘symbolic interactionism’ does much to explain both the social construction of “labelling” forms of “deviance” [Gomme, 1998, p. 99], but this paradigm also explains the social dynamics which are at the root of how such attitudes are disseminated, and thus acquired by any given individual in a socious. Expressed in terms of “social control theory”, these symbolic meanings can be viewed to cause both “inner” and “outer” controls [Gomme, 1998, p. 80ff.]. An inner control are those values which an individual has been socialized within, and which are assimilated and appropriated as one’s own, and outer controls are those which are more direct – the symbolic and real factors of the ‘law’ as a mainstream form of establishing what is ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’ conduct, for example. Travis Hirschi, for example, outlines the complexity of socialization whereby values on a macro-level of the family and a given social class or ethnic group, become assimilated by those individuals who have been raised in those particular environments [Gomme, 1998, p. 82-3]. In general, the theories in question relate to one-another with respect to the centrality of ‘socialization’ as a means of explaining certain forms of behaviour, such as ‘deviance’. In short, the means by which these theories explain behaviour, is toward drawing upon the social or societal variables which both go into explaining the various motives behind forms of behaviour, but also toward explaining particular social backgrounds of the individuals involved. The principal differences in these theories, can be expressed more in terms of emphasis – that is, where the social forces which explain a particular ‘goal’ in functionalism is emphasized, by contrast, in ‘power control’ theory, the emphasis is posited or placed on those social forces that determine aspects such as ‘class structure’ or the process of social marginalization. Functionalism, it can be said is limited in regard to how far a causal explanation goes for crime. Having now provided an overview of both 'conflict theory' and 'functionalism', some of the limitations of both approaches will be examined. It can be said that as 'macro-level' theories, both approaches are limited in regard to capturing a more individualized explanation for crime. With 'social conflict' theory, an explanation that focuses on the material conditions underlying crime, cannot adequately address the exceptions to the rule, so to speak. While there is a correlation between poverty and crime, how far a causal relation exists is uncertain. It is not the case that under all circumstances, poverty leads to crime or deviance. Consider, for example, the high incidence of property types of crime in connection with substance abuse issues [Bean, 2003, p. 87]. While it is true that there are high instances of drug-addicted individuals committing theft for the purposes of addiction, it is not strictly a poverty issue. That is, the motivation is to acquire money to feed the addiction, so to speak, the problem can more be said that addiction itself is the more significant variable. In other words, take away the addiction, and the material or property related theft would likewise disappear. In other words, there are many instances of crime where there is the appearance of material conditions underlying deviant behaviour, but there are often other variables than strictly material conditions to consider. Likewise with functionalism. There are limitations with regard to the theory being too general. Durkheim argues, for example, where there is population density, there are higher instances of crime. However, this is a model that is limited in regard to problems of “cross cultural” comparisons [Carrabine and Lee, 2009, p. 70]. While it is true that crime rates are high in the United States under those circumstances, it is comparatively low in Japan [Carrabine and Lee, 2009, p. 70]. There are obviously other variables to consider when comparing cross-cultural considerations with a functional model. Likewise, it has been argued that functionalism is a model that works only when there are “shared values”, however, in a “postmodern” society where values are more “fragmented”, functionalism is limited as a model of explanation [Carrabine and Lee, 2009, p. 70]. That is, in Durkheim's era and with his followers, there was greater cultural hegemony that allowed for a model based on 'shared values'. In the contemporary world, multicultural diversity makes a 'shared values' position difficult to establish. Conflict Theory and Functionalism have both been influential as models of explanation for criminology. Conflict theory is focused on examining the basic material conditions of society, and in turn, the power relations that reinforce and legitimate these conditions. As there is a high incidence or correlation between poverty and crime, social conflict theory goes far as an interpretive model. However, there are many exceptions to the rule on this front. It is a basic fact that there are other variables to consider, as all poor people do not commit crimes. Functionalism is an approach that reduces crime to 'values' and 'aims' and examines culture or social values as the means for explaining deviance. It too has limitations insofar as society is far more complex than it was when functionalism emerged, and likewise, there are too many cross-cultural differences that make functionalism a thorough model for explanation. This analysis has compared the 'material conditions' underlying crime over and against the 'cultural' or 'social conditions'. Both have strengths and limitations, but it can be said that the limitations of functionalism are a matter that are historical. It was a model that was effective when values were shared, and by contrast, the material conditions underlying crime continue or persist making this a more viable approach in spite of some limitations. WORKS CITED, p. Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler (Eds.). 2000, Constructions of Deviance. Social Power, Context, and Interaction. Third Edition, Wadsworth, Belmont CA.. Bean, Phillip (Ed.), 2002, Crime. Critical Concepts in Sociology, Taylor and Francis, New York. Carrabine, E, Cox, P, Lee, M, Plummer, K, and South, N, 2008, Criminology, p. A Sociological Introduction, Routledge, London. Conley, Dalton, 2003, Wealth and Poverty in America, Blackwell, Oxford. Gomme, Ian McDermid. 1998, The Shadow Line, Harcourt Brace & Company, Toronto. Hester, Stephen and Peter Eglin, 1992, A Sociology of Crime, Routledge, London. Kelly, Delos H.(Ed.). 1996, Deviant Behavior. Fifth Edition. St. Martin's Press, New York. Ritzer, G., and Ryan, Michael 2011, The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, Blackwell, Oxford. On the Influence of Social Conflict Theory and Functionalism in the study of Criminology. A Comparative Analysis. Read More