Compare and contrast Durkheims and Marxs analysis of Punishment in Modern Society - Essay Example

Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the views of Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx on punishment in modern society. It discusses how Marx has explained the role of punishment in a society through his theory of alienation, and his emphasis on the exploitation by the capitalists. It also discusses the theory of anomie by Emile Durkheim and his views on punishment and its functional role. In the end the paper compares the views of both these great thinkers and presents the conclusion. Introduction In a broad sense, punishment can be referred to as something that is painful. Punishment is something unpleasant imposed by an authority on an offender because of some wrongdoing. The purpose of punishment is to give justice to the victim and to discourage other people from following the same action in the future. If there is no authority involved then the action is more of a revenge than or an act of hostility rather than a punishment (Rusche et al 1939: 4). Durkheim’s View on Punishment Durkheim is considered the founding fathers of sociology and his theories have greatly influenced the sociological side of criminology. To fully understand his point of view, we must first understand what his assumptions behind the analysis were. Durkheim believed that a society can be understood scientifically. In his first book, the Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim suggested that a society was like a body; a body works with all its parts working in harmony i.e. the hands need the head and the head needs the hands. Similarly, a society cannot function without the individual and the individual cannot function without the society (Durkheim 1984: 58). Durkheim was also of the view that majority of the individuals share a common moral structure in the society, and this defines the individual’s role in the society (Durkheim 1964: 108). However, there is always a group of people that choose to non-conform to the values set by the society. Durkheim saw the non-conformist functional for the society. In his book The Division of Labour in Society, Durkheim talks about anomie, which is social instability caused by lack of moral standards (Durkheim 1984: 38). It can be described as a situation where rules on how to behave with other people were breaking down and thus the people didn’t know what to expect from each other. It is a state where norms are unclear or not present. This deregulation in the society can be traced to two sources: first, the dominance of the economy over other institutions and secondly, the expansion of the industrial society. His point of view was development can only take place at the expense of social regulation and moral discipline, because of the dominance of economic life. In Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim introduced two concepts. Firstly, societies evolved from mechanical (simple and non-specialized) to organic (complex and specialized). In a mechanical society people think and behave alike, and have the same goals. As a society becomes organic, its work becomes more complex, and the people are independent and impersonal. Secondly, he made a surprising argument that anomie would be worse in times of prosperity than in times of recession. His argument was that as prosperity increases, desires increase. At the same time, traditional rules have lost their authority. Individuals cannot find their place in the society without clear rules to help them (Box 1987: 138) Now that we have set the background, what did Durkheim say about crime and punishment? Not much, but the few comments are thought-provoking and interesting. His focus in explaining punishment was not to explain whether punishment was effective in controlling crime or not. It was in fact focused on to explain the function of punishment as a means of maintaining social solidarity (Garland and Young 1983: 98). In his book Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim states that as crime is observed in each in every society, and therefore it is normal. He goes on to say that it is an important element or function for a healthy society (Durkheim 1964: 158). But why is it normal? To answer this question, Durkheim believes that a society draws upon the moral advantages that crime offers. He was of the view that a society would find it difficult to define its moral boundaries if there weren’t any criminals in the society. How do we know that stealing is a crime unless we have those who violate the moral code? Durkheim believed that an individual defines his morality by comparing himself with others. Good can only be identified when contrasted with evil and this is truer in the case of comparing a criminal with a citizen. This way the citizen gets a sense of moral superiority and distinction, and the criminal is regarded as immoral and therefore deserves to be punished (Durkheim 1964: 172). For example, consider a society consisting of saints only. Crime would be unknown in such a society. However, the faults in the society will provoke the same action as it does with normal crime in a society. Therefore if the community has the power to judge and punish, it will decide that such actions are wrong and punish them as such. In other words, it can be said that crime is a relative function of the society (Garland 1991: 65). In the long run, criminals and crimes are a necessary part of the society for its evolution and development of law and morality. Therefore, in this sense it is useful. Not only does it help in differentiating between right and wrong, but it also has a vanguard quality. According to Durkheim, crime can appear as an anticipation of the morality to come. For example, modern freedom fighters like Nelson Mandela, Gandhi etc were locked up in prison before our time but they have now become a hero of our times. A society needs those who break unjust laws and suffer criminal sanctions for the sake of future justice. Therefore, according to Durkheim, crime can be progressive (Morrison 1995: 205). Durkheim had developed two laws of penal evolution. The first was that the more severe the punishment, the more absolute is the central power of authority and the less developed the society is. Thus in industrial societies the collective conscience of the society is embodied in law rather that religion, so crimes could be seen as wrongs against the individual rather than to the society. To support his point, Durkheim demonstrated that in ancient times the forms of punishment have changed from death with torture and mutilation to lesser forms of punishment like the electric chair (Durkheim 1984: 126). In his second law, Durkheim develops the idea of punishments having lesser intensity, suggesting as the society progresses imprisonment will become the main punishment replacing death and torture (Durkheim 1984: 133). Critics of Durkheim like Garland (1991: 247) say that Durkheim’s analysis is too focused in the expressive function of punishment that all other explanations are discarded. Nevertheless, Garland (1991: 252) highlights the fact that Durkheim’s insight into the role of punishment seems to echo in recent debates about getting tough on crime. Similarly, Mead in the Psychology of Punitive Justice contends that the anger that the society feels towards criminals amounts to cultural sublimation of the instincts and hostilities to one that is socially acceptable (Mead 1918). Marx’s Views on Punishment Before Karl Marx, crime was seen as an act of deviance against the law of god and his chosen ones (i.e. kings). It was Karl Marx who introduced the idea that social condition surrounding the criminal might be one of the factors that forces an individual to steal. His writings had a profound impact on criminology by taking into account the social forces that compelled an individual to commit crime. Therefore, making the first stride towards a more balanced look at criminals (Greenberg 1991: 45) Like Durkheim, he also wrote very little on crime and punishment. But whatever he wrote in his book, Class Conflict and Law coupled with his writing on economics and class conflicts creates a philosophy that is influential as much as his economic writings. His perspective on punishment is focused on capitalism and the relations between production and society. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie maintain the state for their own ends through their wealth and power. He was of the view that the elites had the power to control the definition of crime and therefore crimes like corporate crime, and cheating on income tax goes unnoticed, while other crimes committed by the proletariat are severely punished like robbery, theft, rape etc. He therefore saw laws as a tool of the elites to exploit the working class and carry the influence of the bourgeoisies (Greenberg 1991: 55). Marx saw no difference between a robbery and the downsizing of a factory worker caused by shrinking profits. He was of the view that by downsizing the bourgeoisie creates an environment where the worker is forced to commit crimes both for survival and as a protest to the capitalist system that controls him (Marcionis et al 2002: 26). Marx also explains the purpose of punishment and laws through his theory of alienation. In this theory, Marx suggests that every person’s well being in a society is in conflict with others. Therefore the criminal justice system can be seen as a mean to regulate this rivalry of interests. Marx therefore saw the same institution that regulates crime as the institution that breeds it. This therefore removes some guilt from the criminals for their crimes, due to the fact that criminals are being wrongly punished for actions caused by the system (Ritzger 2000: 35). According to Marx, there are four types of alienation: 1) alienation of workers from productive activity: 2) alienation of workers from human species: 3) alienation of workers from the product of labor: 4) alienation of workers from fellow humans. In the first type of alienation, that is alienation of workers from productive activity means that the workers work for the capitalist industrialist and not for themselves. This means that the product that they make is for profits and not for their needs. In the second type of alienation, alienation of workers from human species means that the workers are reduced to working like machines, i.e. the workers are exploited. In the third type of alienation is the alienation of the workers from the product. This means that instead of the product belonging to the worker, it belongs to the industrialist who sells it without consulting with the worker to make a profit. This alienation also includes the fact that the worker also doesn’t know anything about the production process. They play such a small role in the whole process that the workers feel that instead of them, the assembly line is responsible for the final product. The fourth and last type of alienation is alienation of workers from fellow humans. Marx was of the view that people wanted to work cooperatively. However, because of capitalism workers are forced to work with strangers and to compete with their fellows both inside and outside the organization. Therefore a universal competition becomes a norm (Ritzgard 2000: 41-56). Marx saw punishment as a means to control the supply of labour. Research shows that the severity of punishment is directly tied to the value of labour in the society (Rawls 1999). When labour is scarce and has high value i.e. during times of economic boom the severity of punishment is relatively lenient. Whereas when the labour is abundant i.e. during times of recession the punishments become more intense (Rawls 1999). Another Marxist perspective on punishment is the principle of less eligibility. This view states that in order to prevent the unemployed workers from committing crimes, the environment provided to criminals in prison should be worse than they are likely to endure outside the prison. This would serve as a deterrent for the lowest social class. This view limited penal reforms because punishment and prison conditions couldn’t be approved beyond a certain point (Hudson 2003: 102). The problem with Marx’s perspective is that it fails to explain why does crime exists in countries that were founded on Marxist principles. It also seems to blame everything on capitalism. This monolithic view of criminality shows the shallowness of Marx’s theory. Marxist also fails to take into account the individual motivation for committing a crime (Giddens 2000: 358). Comparing Marx and Durkheim Both Durkheim and Marx agree to the fact that human characteristics, needs and wants change and develop as the society evolves and develops. Both of them are strong critics of the capitalist economies and support the socialist political system (Ritzger 2000: 157). The main difference between Durkheim and Marx stems from the assumption they make about the nature of human beings. Marx assumed that a person is kind and humble until he is corrupted by the forces in the society. On the other hand, Durkheim assumed the opposite. He said that man should be controlled by the society as he will look for new ways to deceive and corrupt the society as a whole (Morrison 1995: 174). Another difference in their views is that Durkheim strongly believed that an individual’s personality is influenced by the environment in which he grows. He also believed that in every individual there is a struggle between morality and wickedness; between good and evil. On the other hand, Marx believed that there is no conflict between the individual and the society. According to Marx, the society is made up of individuals, and not the other way around. (Morrison 1995: 176). Conclusion So Durkheim was a functional theorist who believed that the modern society was organized and industrial. He believed in evolution and said that shared values and norms are eroded by industrial development. On the other hand, Marx was a conflict theorist who believed the modern society consisted of conflicts between the workers and the capitalists. He believed in revolution and said class relations are antagonistic, unequal, exploitative and alienating. References Box, S. (1987) Recession, Crime and Punishment Durkheim, E. (1984) The Division of Labour in Society Durkheim, E. (1964) The Rules of Sociological Method Durkheim, E. (1996) ‘The Normal and the Pathological’ in Muncie, J. et al (eds) Criminological Perspectives, ch.6 Durkheim, E. (1984) ‘Two Laws of Penal Evolution’ in Lukes, S. & Scull, A. (eds) Durkheim and the Law, ch.4 Garland, D. (1991) Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, Oxford: Clarendon  Garland, D. & Young, P. (eds) (1983) The Power to Punish, Heinemann  Giddens, A (2000) Capitalism, socialism, and social theory. Cambrigde: University Press Hudson, B. (2003) Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives and Controversies in Modern Penal Theory, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford Uni Press Macionis, J & Plummer, K (2002) Sociology, A Global Introduction, 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall Marx, Karl. 1991. “Marx and Engels on Crime and Punishment.” Pp. 45-56 in Crime and Capitalism: Readings in Marxist Criminology. Edited by David Greenberg. Palo Alto: Mayfield. Mead, GH. (1918) The Psychology of Punitive Justice. American Journal of Sociology Morrison, K. (1995) Marx, Durkheim, Weber Rusche, Georg and Otto Kirscheimer (1939) Punishment and Social Structure. New York: Columbia University Press. Rawlings, P. (1999) Crime and Power: A History of Criminal Justice 1688-1998, Essex: Longman Ritzer, G (2000) Classical Sociological Theory. USA: McGraw-Hill Read More