4.3.1 - Functionalist Theories of Crime
This lesson explains why functionalists see crime as a normal product of social life rather than simply the result of bad individuals. You will learn how Durkheim and Merton link crime to social order, anomie, blocked opportunities and inequality, and you will build clear evaluation lines you can reuse in short answers, Item-led 10-mark questions and broader 30-mark Crime and Deviance essays.
Functionalist starting point
Functionalism is a structural, consensus perspective. It starts from the idea that society depends on value agreement, socialisation and social control. Families, schools, religion and the law help teach shared norms, while sanctions encourage conformity. From this view, the key sociological question is not just why some people break rules, but how crime relates to the wider needs and tensions of society.
Functionalism
A structural consensus theory which sees society as a system of interdependent parts that work together to maintain social order.
Collective conscience
Durkheim's term for the shared norms, values and moral beliefs that bind members of society together.
Functionalists therefore treat crime as a social fact. They look for causes in the organisation of society, not just in individual psychology. That is why functionalist theories are especially interested in socialisation, culture and identity on the one hand, and social differentiation and unequal opportunity on the other. Crime can reveal how strongly people are integrated into society and whether its goals and rules fit people's real life chances.
Durkheim on crime and anomie
Emile Durkheim — argued that crime is normal, inevitable and sometimes functional. No society can produce total conformity because people have different experiences, pressures and levels of commitment to shared values. Even in a highly moral society, some behaviour would still be judged deviant because moral boundaries always have to be drawn somewhere.
Durkheim also argued that crime can perform positive functions. First, it supports boundary maintenance: when society punishes offenders, it reminds everyone what counts as acceptable behaviour. Second, crime can strengthen social cohesion because public condemnation brings people together around shared moral sentiments. Third, some deviance helps produce social change. Acts once condemned can later appear progressive if they expose outdated laws or unfair rules. Adaptation and change are distinct from boundary maintenance: some rule-breaking challenges a moral boundary rather than reaffirming it.
Punishment matters here too. For Durkheim, courts, prisons and other forms of formal social control do more than hurt the offender. They symbolically repair the damage done to the collective conscience and restate the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.
Anomie
A state of normlessness or weak social regulation in which shared rules become unclear, conflicting or less effective.
Durkheim linked higher levels of crime to modern industrial society. Urbanisation, geographical mobility and secularisation weaken traditional forms of informal social control, while rapid social change can leave people unsure about what rules still apply. In that situation, anomie increases and deviance becomes more likely.
The suffragettes broke laws and were punished as troublemakers, yet their actions also helped expose the limits of existing rules and contributed to long-term change in women's political rights. A functionalist would use this to show how deviance can challenge old norms and push society to adapt.
A strength of Durkheim's view is that it explains why crime exists in every known society and why public reactions to crime are sociologically important. He turns our attention away from the individual offender alone and towards the role of law, punishment and moral boundaries in maintaining social order.
Crime, reaction and regulation
Durkheim separates the existence of crime from the effects of society's reaction. Different experiences make complete conformity impossible, while punishment can reaffirm a shared moral boundary. Calling crime normal does not mean every offence is harmless or that more crime is always beneficial.
Regulation also matters. Rapid change can make expectations unclear and produce anomie; excessive disruption may damage rather than sustain order. This distinction lets us explain why a society can contain some crime without having collapsed, while still treating victims' harms and weakened regulation seriously.
Merton's strain theory and adaptations
Robert K. Merton — adapted Durkheim's idea of anomie to explain crime in a society that strongly promotes material success. Merton argued that many people are socialised into the same cultural goals, such as wealth, status and visible success, but they do not all have equal access to the legitimate means of achieving them, such as education, stable employment and career opportunities.
Strain theory
Merton's theory that crime can result from the gap between culturally approved goals and the legitimate means available to achieve them.
When there is a gap between goals and means, people experience strain. This does not mean everyone under pressure becomes criminal, but it does mean that structural inequality can create pressure towards deviance. Merton therefore links crime to class inequality and blocked opportunities. His theory is especially useful for explaining some forms of working-class acquisitive crime because those with fewer legitimate chances of success may still be judged against the same success standards.
Merton identified five modes of adaptation to strain:
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account