The Division of Labour - Essay Example

? Number] Critically evaluate the Durkheim criminological perspective French sociologist Emile Durkheim has devised and elaborated the concept of anomie in his book “The division of Labour”. In his book he has described the root cause behind the criminal acts of individuals in any society. In his structuralism theory, he stresses that controversial State policies act as a foundation for criminal behaviour. Hence, from a macro-sociology perspective deregulation in the society is a reaction from the people, who have been left with no choice rather than to act wrong so to prevent them self from harm. This state of confusion among people of the State is due to the rapid or unrealistic alterations in the norms (Franzese, 34). Therefore, individuals become unaware of others expectation and thus, behavioural chaos begins in the State. Consequently, uncertain, absence of norms and its perplexity among public leads to their intended or unintended exploitation. Durkheim believed that unexpected behaviour is a direct product of norm less society. His study of society signified the aspect of crime and control and also that crime was a by-product of social change. Moreover, he stressed on the causes that can provoke moral and ethical deregulations. After the evolution of societies (Industrialization), society was divided into mechanical and organic type. These societies distinguish the behaviour of individuals in certain ways according to their preset certain norms. (ibid) Mechanical society had similar norms, type of engagement, mental compatibility and same team objectives. On the other hand, Organic societies were intricate in their very nature, their task and objectives were difficult to attain. Hence, people became absorbed in their personal objectives and social bonds became insignificant and distant. This change led to collapse of norms and morals, which were previously practiced by the individuals of a society due to their mutual understanding. Therefore, when unity and norms were discarded, the new generation emerge in a norm-less society; where they became perplexed about the prevalent standardize morals. Unbalanced, frequently changed norms can create adjustment issues, which eventually leads to frustration, deviance and clashes in the society. His theory was based on the evidence of great economic depression, which brought massive change in economic and fiscal policies and along with these came the skyrocketing rate of offense, deviance and suicide. Hence, sudden change in the norm causes anomie and anomie eventually promotes transgression. Hence, according to Durkheim, anomie can happen in times of opulence or collapse of any State. Durkheim’s theory entailed the concept of social control and he emphasized on the significance of bond. He elaborates that when individuals are unable to formulate bond and find them self bondless, they invent their personal norms for the sake of survival, and their norms usually conflict with the prevalent social norms; and as a results crime emerges. The aspect of bondlessness is apparent in young teenage offenders and gangs criminals. The recent teenage shooting trend in USA is an evident example of such behaviour. Crime emerged when lower-class or middle class faced financial dilemma and they became deficient to fulfill their basic needs. Moreover, Durkheim’s criminal offenders were not necessary intentional offenders of law, many at times they merely disagreed or disregarded the established law. This does not necessarily involve a natural or vicious desire to break norm. Therefore, according to him, if society needs submissive individuals or public, then it needs to mentor and train all the individuals according to a fundamental norm mechanism. This will facilitate them all and will instill the element of obedience in them. Moreover, it will allow common understating among all for standardized basic norms and will ensure informal control. Hence, the above mentioned scenario was present in ancient times, when religion was a single code of conduct among diverse societies and it was easy to recognize and identify any norm according to one’s religious believes. According to Durkheim, this process also becomes the liability of the State a type of informal control, which is not possible due to its intricate nature and magnitude. Durkheim describes that moral conducts are intrinsic or inevitable for human beings, due to their very nature of social beings; they cannot consider life without values and beliefs (Ruddell, 42). Thus, crime is a process for norm-less individuals to test the limitation of their behavioral belief. This is a kind of behaviour which is looked down upon or is viewed as forbidden by the communities. Individuals with norms and morals tend to avoid negative social norms and on the other hand, bondless individuals examine their own capability to go against the norm, that is committing the criminal act. Criminal or offender has strong belief on his conduct of interest and his dependence on other relations is mere and insignificant. Hence, he leads his own life and is not liable for any social norm due to his deviant acts. According to Durkheim, crime cannot be eradicated from the society as diversity among people will always be present and human beings are designed to recognize differences acutely (Larsen, 159). Moreover, in a changing world revolutionary leaders are initially alleged for crime (objection of prevalent law), but later on they became initiators and heroes of a massive revolutionary change. Like Martin Luther King, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and numerous significant leaders. The study of criminology also sheds light on the issues related to crime and law of the land. Hence, norm less individuals who consider them self free from all obligations are actually connected with their biological or sentimental relations. The pessimistic impact of their influence makes the former a victim of crime, where their position is only passive to the alleged crime, but their association to the offender makes them victims of crime. Furthermore, he elaborates that victims of crime can vary in their nature they can be agents of criminal acts, can have law breaking behaviour at a young age and can be from an organisation of a prohibited occupation like prostitution or pornography. These victims have a potential to destroy them self to get rid of immoral actions or to disassociate them self from norm less conducts (Cotterrell, 131, 1999). Hence, according to research single or bondless individuals are more prone to attempt suicide as a result of criminal or personal repression. Mostly these victims of crime find them self alone, bond less, uncompassionate, unloved and uncared. Hence, due to their financial, social, economical or social status, they commit suicide to get rid of these intricate social issues. Simultaneously, after the organic mode of society i.e. industrialization the notion of victim of crime also changed. Before it, legal and moral code of conducts acted as a foundation for the transgressing behaviour. Later on, with the social evolution, these trends also broke down and eventually exploitation of law began, but in these exploitations the members on the receiving end became the victims (Powers, 62). Since Durkheim’s theory revolves around the notion of society where individuals are bound to accept and obey preset norms. Therefore, they have the obligation and inclination to submit them self to it; in some way or the other and their behaviour is also shaped by its restrictions and flexibility. Hence, formal and informal control domains begin from absolute household control. This is the primary stage for an individual to learn its action and reactions according to the limit mentioned by the superior. Thus, informal control phenomena is not a State’s responsibility, but can be instilled in children at a tender agent by their guardians. Furthermore, he describes that simple societies were a prime example of informal control. Their individuals were bonded into close kinship and thus, rarely violated any social or religious norm. Durkheim was pioneer sociologist who established the liability mechanism of a society. He laid emphasis on the society to establish juridical relationship (Cotterrell, 199, 2005). This juridical relationship will revive the law and order through informal control mechanism. Control entails a sense of belonging and association, when individuals are bondless they tend to feel control free state. When the population grew by leaps and bond, the notion of control began to diminish and sense of belonging to others; started vanishing. This was the time when informal control factors like values and beliefs could have saved the nations from becoming control free (Chriss, 110). Formal control means to control the disagreement of norm via imprisonment. This idea also entails the gravity of the criminal act, injuring and breaching law requires a concrete penalty, but expression of one’s opinion should not be formally controlled. Hence, punishment was formulated as a communal response to the violation of the set norm to guarantee social harmony. Therefore, punishment and imprisonment is a process to ensure, strengthen and preserve communal conscience and social values. The individuals on the receiving end of the punishment receive the social condemnation on their chosen norm or belief or conduct and for potential offenders it’s a learning moment. Hence, the prime example of informal control can be a Muslim society, where each member is liable for his own action and hence, individuals receive a standard for conducts and reward mechanism, if they fulfill certain personal and social responsibilities without the presence of authorities. Thus, true practicing Muslims depict instilled values of their religious beliefs. They act regardless of their choice or likes, and act only to benefit all in the society (Fish, 102). Conclusively, Durkheim theory emphasized on value based society for the integration of norms formally or informally. Works Cited: Top of Form Chriss, James J. Social Control: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2007. Print.Bottom of Form Top of Form Cotterrell, Roger. E?mile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain. Edingburg: Edingburgh University Press, 1999. Print. Top of Form Cotterrell, Roger. Law's Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Print. Top of Form Fish, M S. Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Top of Form Franzese, Robert J. The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma. Springfield, Ill: Charles C Thomas, 2009. Print. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Larsen, Nick. The Canadian Criminal Justice System: An Issues Approach to the Administration of Justice. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2008. Print. Top of Form Ruddell, Rick. America Behind Bars: Trends in Imprisonment, 1950 to 2000. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC, 2004. Print. Powers, Charles H. Making Sense of Social Theory: A Practical Introduction. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Print. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Read More