Durkheim On Crime

Functionalism: Durkheimian views on Crime Durkheim is viewed as the founder of Functionalist theory and much of his ideas about crime can be found in the Rules of Sociological Method (1895) and The Division of Labour in Society (1893). This piece will only focus on crime because Durkheim's explanation of deviance can be found in his Le Suicide (1897).

In his book the Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim distinguished between the normal and the pathological. To most of us, pathological means something destructive or harmful and as such, we might think that crime is just that. Crime is socially destructive because it breaks up communities and is harmful to us as individuals when we become victims of it. But for Durkheim, it wasn't that simple and crime could actually be something desirable, functional and when at a certain level, where it wasn't too high and wasn't too low, it was an indicator of a healthy society (McLaughlin E, 2003, 65). Durkheim starts out by saying that the majority of interested observers seem to think that crime is always a bad thing. One might argue that this is still the dominant view today as those on the left and the right seek to control or reduce it. Those on the left have advocated economic redistribution, investment in jobs and more recently under New Labour, we saw ASBO'S (1998) and Control Orders (2005) implemented. Those on the right seek tougher punishments for offenders and more swift and certain justice. So both sides of the ideological divide see crime as something pathological or socially harmful but not for Durkheim. Durkheim argues that crime occurs in all societies, it has always been that way and it will continue to be so. For him, mans behaviour has always attracted some kind of penal repression, what we might call judgement and punishments. So those who constitute society, the conscience collective, have always sought to determine what constitutes criminality and this changes over time and between different societies. Only when the rate of crime becomes unusually high does he say that it becomes abnormal or pathological. One way that Durkheim explains the universal and relative nature of crime is to imagine a society of saints. The saints don't seek to harm anyone, or steal or do anything that we might view as a crime. Yet this 'perfect cloister of exemplary individuals' as he describes them, would respond to the most trivial of infractions with the same degree of disgust or disapproval that we would of a murder or rape (McLaughlin E, 2003, 66). If this tells us anything about the nature of crime, it tells us that no matter how hard politicians and other policy makers try, crime will always be with us. If crime were to stop, we would just evolve new sentiments and pass new laws that made merely deviant behaviour like bad taste, a criminal matter. So for Durkheim, crime was a relative concept, not an absolute one. By relative we mean that it is simply a matter of opinion (McLaughlin E, 2003, 66). Durkheim then turns his attention to explaining why criminal acts are committed. He uses more complex language but essentially he is saying that our individual circumstances, our historical experiences, our genes and other influences, mean that our attitudes towards things like behavioural standards or morality won't be the same. So there are plenty of people who differ in their attitudes to the 'collective or average type.' So we can't all think and act in the same way, so some members of society will engage in what the majority view as criminality (Swale J, 2007, 8). Then he says that the collective sentiment cannot and should not be, too strong. These collective sentiments refer to the intensity of moral and legal controls placed upon us by authority. They should only have a moderate energy. If too strong and the population felt repressed, then society wouldn't be able to change, evolve and develop. He says that nothing is good indefinitely and we must be free to criticise the way things are. By challenging and sometimes breaking the law, we ensure that society doesn't stagnate. He argues that the behaviour of some criminals, let's use the example of those engaging in criminal damage or rioting as part of the civil rights movement against racial segregation in 1960's America, are only anticipating future morality; they are taking a step towards what will be. Breaking of the law helps to prepare the way for change and acts as a beacon of light that helps to shape new collective sentiments. So breaking the law can be seen as an act which has functionality by a moral visionary. If we have the freedom to look forward, to be idealistic and to improve society, he also says that the same 'originality' will be open to those to engage in criminality. So crime goes hand in hand with the freedoms that any healthy society needs to remain so. So some criminals break the law to improve society (the moral visionary) and some do it for selfish reasons but that's just part of the natural or normal part of things. Therefore, in his Rules of Sociological Method, crime, at a tolerable level, isn't pathological at all and as such, punishment shouldn't be designed to cure it. Crime is functional as it reminds the majority about what is acceptable and unacceptable, so it helps to bind us together by reaffirming the collective conscience and in doing so, it promotes social solidarity. A criminal trial or 'degradation ceremony' was an essential part of that social process. When we learn about someone accused of a crime and a criminal trial takes place the actions of the accused are made known. Today we tend to learn about such behaviour through the mass media and this contributes to a form of boundary maintenance. We are reminded about what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. Finally, Durkheim argues that low crime rates are not something we should congratulate ourselves about. He argues that in a time of want, or poverty the rate of assault will be statistically low but the reason for this is that social actors do not have the funds to go out and socialise and thus get into conflicts with others. One might extrapolate this idea to other forms of crime too in that during the 1930's depression theft was low as few had much worthy of stealing. As we get richer and have more consumer durables like mobile phones we should not be surprised that theft increases. As such, assault and theft can be framed as an indicator of a healthy and vibrant economy (McLaughlin E, 2003, 68). In the Division of Labour in Society (1893) Durkheim attempted to explain that as societies develop they tend to become more prone to crime and this had a certain inevitability about it. For example, in a less developed society like the ones that existed before industrialisation, there was a simple division of labour. Our economic roles were passed on down the generations, say from father to son. So there wasn't the aggressive competition that we see today. People didn't have civil rights and this prevented them from experiencing geographical mobility because they were tied to the land by powerful obligations. Therefore, where you were born was probably where you died and this prevented the development of contradictory ideas that might have challenged the traditional orthodoxy. So the people in the villages and hamlets had a similar experience and outlook on life. Add to this the powerful influence of religion and you have what Durkheim referred to as mechanical solidarity. Mechanical solidarity was a form of social cement which was strong in that it bound people together to form a stable society. A society bound together by mechanical solidarity was one where norms and values were widely shared. All this has consequences for crime because Durkheim is clearly suggesting that the conscience collective was acting in a way to prevent high crime rates. He then develops this argument further by saying that as industrialisation occurs, the division of labour becomes far more complex. Economic roles are differentiated and allocated on a competitive basis. We experience geographical and social mobility, we urbanise and life in general becomes more impersonal. The influence of religious morality and the guidelines it produces also have less control over us and taken together, one might argue that this is a recipe for higher levels of crime. We are not bound together to the same degree and shared norms and values are weaker. In fact, for Durkheim, we are bound together more by shared economic interdependence rather than shared norms and values. Although he had a fairly optimistic view about the future in that he thought that we would come to appreciate each other for the economic roles we perform and how this would benefit us all, he did describe this type of society as one characterised by organic solidarity. Here then, the social cement is much more brittle and vulnerable to fracture. This could result in anomie, a kind of normlessness where social norms were unclear, vague or they simply weren't strong enough to prevent crime from increasing to a level where it was dysfunctional. Therefore, mechanical and organic solidarity and anomie are all useful in explaining Durkheim's views on crime and deviance. Now a few criticisms: As a macro sociologist, he seemed overly focused on the big picture and the social functions of crime. As such, he didn't give enough attention to the individual experience of crime, the victimology. The dysfunctions are only noted once the rate of crime becomes pathological. Thus an elderly person who is assaulted cannot be comforted by knowing that their experience might contribute to boundary maintenance or was a price worth paying for the freedoms we enjoy. For Interpretivists, the Durkheimian view ignores the social actors first order constructs, why we act in the ways we do and how we make sense of the social world. It ignores the subjective thought processes that help to inform our understanding of crime. Also, crime can be seen to benefit the rich and powerful and as it justifies the control and repression of the working class or ethnic minorities. For Marxists the laws in capitalist society are not a reflection of the collective conscience but the values and interests of the bourgeoisie. Finally, what use is all this for the examination? Here a four examples. 1. Durkheim can be used to explain the nature of order and social control. 2. Some questions might ask about how to solve crime. So Durkheim can be used to say that unless crime is unusually high, we shouldn't try to solve it because it's perfectly normal. Any penal repression should not be too weak and should not be too strong either. 3. Other questions ask why crime occurs and Durkheim can be used to explain this by making reference to the Rules of Sociological Method; our circumstances, our history and our genes. 4. Durkheim could be used to criticise those on the right who desire far more social control, deterrence, retribution and other forms of penal repression. For Durkheim, this might lead society to stagnate and it would not be able to evolve or develop.

Bibliography McLaughlin E (2003) Criminological Perspectives, Sage Publications, London Pilkington A et al (2005) Sociology in Focus, Causeway Press, Lancashire Swale J (2007) Sociology of Crime and Deviance, Advanced Topic Master, Philip Allan Updates, Oxfordshire www.asbos.co.uk/AboutASBOs.aspx durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/dl.html