The Functions of Crime in the Theories of Emile Durkheim and Robert King Merton - Literature review Example

Compare and contrast the functions of crime in the theories of Emile Durkheim and Robert King Merton? Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton represent theearly theories who develop crime theories and tried to explain causes and factors of criminal behavior. Durkheim focused on the impact of larger social developments on criminal behavior. He perceived the rapid evolution of criminality in the mid-nineteenth century in terms of the larger social changes accompanying the urbanization and industrialization of society (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). Merton developed a theory of anomie, the most widely acknowledged explanation of deviant behavior Both Durkheim and Merton were concerned by the high crime rates of industrialized society and suggested that these rates might exceed "the normal" and indeed be pathological. Durkheims most significant theoretical contribution to the field of criminology is his formulation of the concept of anomie. According to Durkheim’s theory, society has the need and the moral right to regulate the behavior of its citizens. When society is in a state of rapid transition, the rules of society break down and people no longer can appraise their situation, "ambition was perpetually stimulated but never satisfied (Walter 1972). This condition Durkheim called “acute anomie” (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990, p. 54). Chronic anomie occurs when overwhelming importance is attached to economic progress as the supreme goal in and of itself and secondary consideration is given to the regulation of human conduct and the control of individual ambition. These conditions which prevailed in the nineteenth century contributed significantly to the variety of social problems observed in that society (Durkheim 1992). According to Merton’s theory, deviance is most likely in societies in which success is a major societal objective but where many of the inhabitants are unable to acquire the material possessions or social status that denote success. His theoretical argument is formulated in terms of the societally recognized goals that individuals strive for and the institutionalized means used to regulate access to these desired objectives (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). Merton recognizes that these goals and means are not equally available to all individuals because of the differentiated class and ethnic structure of American society. Striving for success within a society that is achievement oriented, some individuals for whom traditional paths to achievement are closed follow illegitimate or deviant means to attain success within that society Although this theory was originally developed in terms of American society, it has been applied to many of the worlds other industrialized societies as an explanation of the persistence of criminal behavior (Merton 1967). The other similarity between Durkheim and Merton is an understanding social impact on an individual and his behavior. The possibility of varied acquaintances in modern, complex society led to the formulation of the theory of differential association, which holds that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with others. The extent to which criminal norms and habits are acquired is determined by the intensity and duration of the association. The mechanisms for learning criminal behavior are no different from any other kinds of learning. Briefly, stealing is no more motivated by the desire for material goods than is honest employment. In the latter case, however, the individual is sufficiently committed to the societys norms and values to channel his desires through legitimate means while in the former case, the individual will pursue his goals by illegitimate methods (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). In contrast to Durkheim, Merton underlines that anomie theory addresses the impact of urban life on modern man suggesting that conflicts often arise in contemporary society because what man strives to attain is not accessible to him. This situation is characteristic solely of modern society because limited social mobility existed before the advent of industrialization. Individuals in agrarian society could expect to maintain a life-style very similar to that maintained by their parents or grandparents. They had no reason to expect more in the future and consequently in premodern societies an individual had little opportunity to feel any conflict between his level of achievement and that which was accessible. Therefore, anomie is a new phenomenon unique to the conditions of modern society (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). Durkheim applied his theory applies to neighborhoods affected by intense internal immigration where common values are not held by members of the particular community. Urban neighborhoods with unusually high crime rates have existed traditionally because many area residents do not share the law-abiding norms of their fellow urban dwellers. By supporting similar populations for centuries these so-called disorganized neighborhoods had considerable stability until the advent of modernization (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). With increasingly rapid urbanization, traditionally stable neighborhoods were besieged by an influx of migrants unaccustomed to the conditions of urban life, resulting in particularly high rates of criminality. Only as society makes the transition from a primarily rural to an urban society does the theory of social disorganization become a primary explanation of criminal behavior. Delinquent subculture theory, like the theories of social disorganization and differential association, is predicated on the conditions of a highly urbanized society. For without the concentration of humanity in urban areas and the relaxed adult supervision that accompanies city life, little opportunity would exist for the formation of delinquent subcultures. Juvenile delinquency was itself a rare phenomenon prior to the advent of industrialization because youths had little independence and were closely supervised by their parents. The urban environment and parental employment outside of the home have contributed to the development of youth crime that is frequently peer oriented and, therefore, conducive to delinquent subcultures (Durkheim 1992). Durkheim believed that the degeneration of urban life, of which crime was one of the most visible symptoms, should be attributed to the transition from the Gemeinschaft to the Gesellschaft. This change occurs when individuals move from a traditional, familyoriented life to the impersonal and transient life of the city. Crime and other manifestations of social and personal disorder were consequences of this significant societal transition (Durkheim 1992). Durkheims analyses of the social situation did not provide such ominous predictions for future crime trends (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). According to his analysis, urban life would suffer most during the initial stages of rural to urban migration because the new urban residents would be unaccustomed to life without the usual controls that result from intimate personal associations. After the initial transition, Durkheim believed that human adjustment would result in a stabilization of social patterns. Durkheim never reexamined the relationship between crime and development at later stages of industrialization (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). A retrospective view of the impact of nineteenth-century development on crime has been left to other scholars. These larger social conditions had a direct impact on the life of the workers family and resulted in the breakdown of familial relations, individual disorientation, and anomie all of which contributed to increased rates of criminality. A restoration of social order occurred only with the deceleration of the urbanization process that allowed the established urban residents to acclimate themselves to their new conditions, without the impediment of the masses of new urban migrants (Walter 1972). In contrast to Durkheim, Merton pays a special attention to materials possession and class relations between people. Merton underlines that the growing preindustrial bourgeoisie were satisfied with their social and economic gains and therefore were not subject to relative deprivation. After the industrial revolution and with increased urbanization, the social situation was transformed as urban residents were exposed to more material possessions, and social mobility increased (Gottfredson and Hirsch 1990). No longer were individuals compelled to live their lives at the same economic level as that of their parents, and cities provided ample personal models to emulate. The urban environment of industrialized societies made large numbers of individuals feel deprived in comparison to the standard of living of their fellow city residents. The city provided increased exposure to material possessions and greater financial expectations for those who resided there. Therefore, one of the unfortunate consequences of the increasingly urbanized society was a growth of property crime as individuals attempted to compensate illegally for their perceived deprivation (Walter 1972). In sum, both theories have some limitations but they help to understand the impact on community and social relations on criminal behavior of individuals. While these theoretical differences may at first appear to be fundamental, a closer examination of these approaches to crime during the nineteenth-century industrial revolution reveals certain striking similarities. These theories, unlike explanations of criminal behavior for the preindustrial perio, attest that a very significant and irrevocable change had occurred in the structure of society he advent of the industrial revolution, therefore, represents a break with the old order of society and the substitution of new ways of living, and consequently different patterns of criminal behavior. To these social theorists, crime is indicative of larger changes in the social order and assumes a significance greater than previously attributed to it. The booming crime rates of the first part of the past century are tangible evidence of the massive transition heralded by the advent of the industrial revolution. Bibliography Durkheim, E. 1992, The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press. Gottfredson, M., Hirsch, T. 1990, A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press; 1 edition. Merton, R. K. 1967, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press. Walter A. Lunden, 1972, "Emile Durkheim ", in H. Mannheim, Pioneers in Criminology, Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation, pp. 385-98. Read More