Evaluate Functionalist Explanations of Crime and Deviance

Functionalism, a structuralist perspective, posits that society operates like a biological organism, with various parts working together to maintain equilibrium. Applying this to crime and deviance, functionalists argue that while seemingly dysfunctional, they are actually integral to a healthy society, serving specific purposes.

Durkheim, a founding father of sociology, argued that crime is inevitable in any society. Even in a hypothetical "society of saints," minor transgressions would be designated as deviant, highlighting the relative nature of crime. He argued that crime performs two crucial functions. Firstly, it reinforces collective conscience by uniting society against wrongdoers, reaffirming shared values and norms. Secondly, crime can be an engine for social change. Acts deemed deviant in one era might become accepted later, pushing societal boundaries and prompting progress (e.g., homosexuality).

Erikson expanded on this, arguing that public degradation ceremonies, such as criminal trials, serve to publicly shame the deviant and reinforce social boundaries, contributing to social cohesion.

Furthermore, deviance can act as a "safety valve," allowing for the controlled release of societal pressures. Davis argued that prostitution, while considered deviant, can actually stabilize families by providing an outlet for sexual desires outside of marriage. Similarly, Polsky argued that pornography can serve as a substitute for potentially harmful sexual behaviors.

Merton's "strain theory" provides a more individualistic explanation within the functionalist framework. He argues that strain arises from the disconnect between culturally defined goals (e.g., economic success) and the legitimate means to achieve them. This strain can lead to five modes of adaptation, including conformity, innovation (achieving goals through illegitimate means), and rebellion, which challenges both goals and means.

However, functionalist explanations are not without their criticisms. Marxists argue that functionalists fail to acknowledge the role of power in defining and responding to crime. Laws, they argue, are created by the ruling class to protect their interests, and the powerful are more likely to evade punishment. Moreover, focusing on the functions of crime ignores the real harm it inflicts on victims. Left Realists, for example, emphasize the devastating impact of crime on individuals and communities.

Furthermore, Durkheim has been criticized for failing to explain why certain individuals are more prone to crime than others. Merton's assumption that financial success is a universal goal has also been challenged, and his theory struggles to explain crimes that are not economically motivated. Matza further critiques subcultural theories (e.g., Cohen, Cloward & Ohlin, Miller) for their deterministic view of deviance, arguing that individuals are not simply driven to crime but exercise agency in their actions.

In conclusion, while functionalist perspectives provide valuable insights into the societal role of crime and deviance, they suffer from several shortcomings. Their emphasis on social order often overlooks the experiences of individuals and the unequal distribution of power within society. Furthermore, their focus on the functions of crime often neglects its negative consequences. Therefore, while acknowledging the contributions of functionalism, it is essential to consider alternative perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of crime and deviance.