Functionalist and Strain Theories of Crime

Functionalism is a consensus structuralist perspective that views society as a system of interconnected parts working together to maintain social order. From this starting point, functionalist sociologists have developed distinctive explanations of why crime and deviance exist in every known society. Rather than seeing crime as purely destructive, functionalists argue that it performs important functions for the social system as a whole.

Key Definition: Crime is behaviour that breaks the formal laws of a society and is punishable by the state. Deviance is behaviour that violates the norms and values of a society but may not necessarily be illegal.

Durkheim: Crime as Functional

Emile Durkheim (1893, 1897) was the first sociologist to argue that crime is not only inevitable but also functional for society. He made two key claims:

1. Crime Is Inevitable

Durkheim argued that crime exists in every known society. Even in a hypothetical "society of saints," the most minor infractions would be regarded as serious offences. This is because not every member of society is equally effectively socialised into the shared norms and values (the collective conscience), and because the diversity of modern societies means that different groups develop different subcultures with their own norms.

Key Definition: The collective conscience is the shared set of norms, values, beliefs, and moral attitudes that operate as a unifying force within society.

2. Crime Is Functional

Durkheim identified several positive functions of crime:

Function	Explanation
Boundary maintenance	When criminals are publicly punished, society reaffirms its shared norms and values. Court cases, media reporting, and public outrage remind people of the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Durkheim called this a "degradation ceremony."
Social cohesion	Outrage at criminal acts brings communities together. For example, terrorist attacks often produce a strong sense of national unity and solidarity.
Social change	Some crime challenges outdated norms and paves the way for necessary social change. Durkheim argued that today's criminal or deviant may be tomorrow's pioneer. The Suffragettes' illegal protests, for instance, ultimately led to women gaining the right to vote.
Safety valve	Davis (1961) extended Durkheim's ideas, arguing that acts of minor deviance (such as prostitution) act as a safety valve, allowing individuals to express frustrations without threatening the core values of the family.
Warning device	Cohen (1966) argued that rising crime rates in a particular area can signal that an institution is not functioning properly — acting as a warning that policy change is needed.

The Optimal Level of Crime

Durkheim suggested that there is an "optimal" level of crime for any society. Too little crime would mean a society is excessively repressive and resistant to change. Too much crime threatens social order and cohesion. Crime becomes dysfunctional when it exceeds this optimal level — a concept Durkheim linked to anomie (normlessness), a state in which the collective conscience weakens and individuals feel disconnected from social norms.

Key Definition: Anomie is a state of normlessness in which the shared norms and values that regulate behaviour break down, leaving individuals without clear moral guidance.

Merton: Strain Theory

Robert K. Merton (1938) adapted Durkheim's concept of anomie to explain patterns of crime in American society. Merton argued that crime results from a strain between two elements of the social structure:

Culturally defined goals — In American society, the dominant cultural goal is material success ("the American Dream"). Everyone is socialised to aspire to wealth, status, and consumer goods.
Institutionalised means — These are the legitimate, socially approved ways of achieving the cultural goals, such as education, hard work, and gaining qualifications.

Merton argued that American society places far greater emphasis on the goals than on the means. While everyone is encouraged to pursue material success, the opportunity structure is not equally available to all. Those at the bottom of the class structure face blocked opportunities — they attend underfunded schools, live in disadvantaged communities, and face discrimination in the labour market.

This structural inequality produces a strain to anomie: a gap between what people are encouraged to want and what they can realistically achieve through legitimate means. Individuals respond to this strain in one of five ways.

Merton's Five Modes of Adaptation

Mode	Cultural Goals	Institutionalised Means	Explanation
Conformity	Accept	Accept	Most people continue to pursue the goals through legitimate means, even if their chances of success are slim.
Innovation	Accept	Reject	Individuals accept the goal of material success but use illegitimate means to achieve it (e.g., theft, drug dealing, fraud). This is the most common deviant response and explains utilitarian crime.
Ritualism	Reject	Accept	Individuals give up on the goal of material success but continue to follow the rules. For example, a dead-end office worker who no longer believes in career advancement but rigidly follows workplace procedures.
Retreatism	Reject	Reject	Individuals reject both the goals and the means, effectively dropping out of society. Merton associated this with drug addicts, alcoholics, and vagrants.
Rebellion	Replace	Replace	Individuals reject existing goals and means and seek to create a new society with different values and structures. Revolutionary political movements are an example.

Applying Strain Theory

Merton's theory explains why crime rates are higher among the working class and lower class: they experience the greatest strain between the cultural goals they are encouraged to pursue and the legitimate opportunities available to them. It also explains why most crime is property crime (innovation) — individuals are seeking the material success that legitimate channels have denied them.

Evaluation of Durkheim

Strengths

Challenges common-sense views — Rather than treating crime as simply pathological, Durkheim shows that it can serve important social functions. This is a genuinely sociological insight.
Highlights the link between crime and social solidarity — Events such as the response to the 9/11 attacks demonstrate how crime can unite communities and reinforce shared values.
Recognises the role of crime in social change — The example of the Suffragettes illustrates how deviance can challenge unjust norms and lead to progressive reform.

Limitations

Functionalism neglects the victims of crime. Arguing that crime is "functional for society" ignores the real suffering experienced by individuals who are robbed, assaulted, or murdered. Who benefits from crime — society as a whole, or just the powerful?
Durkheim does not explain why particular individuals or groups are more likely to commit crime. His theory operates at the level of the social system and says little about individual motivation.
The concept of an "optimal" level of crime is impossible to define or measure. How would we know when crime has exceeded the optimal level? This makes the concept unfalsifiable.
Marxists argue that Durkheim ignores the role of power. The collective conscience may reflect the values of the ruling class rather than genuine consensus. Laws may protect the interests of the powerful rather than society as a whole.

Evaluation of Merton

Strengths

Explains patterns in official statistics — Strain theory accounts for why most convicted criminals are working-class and why property crime is the most common type of offence.
Shows how both conformity and deviance arise from the same social structure — This is a more nuanced approach than simply blaming individuals for their criminal behaviour.
Merton took a structural approach — He moved beyond individualistic explanations of crime to identify the role of social inequality in producing criminal behaviour.
Real-world application — The theory has influenced government policy. For example, programmes such as Operation Head Start in the USA aimed to widen access to legitimate opportunities for disadvantaged youth.

Limitations

Too deterministic — Not everyone who experiences strain turns to crime. Merton does not explain why some individuals in disadvantaged positions conform while others innovate or retreat.
Ignores non-utilitarian crime — Merton's theory struggles to explain crimes that are not motivated by material gain, such as vandalism, assault, or hate crime.
Assumes value consensus — Merton takes for granted that everyone shares the same cultural goal of material success. In reality, there is considerable diversity in what people value.
Ignores corporate and white-collar crime — Merton focuses on working-class crime, yet innovation could equally apply to middle-class fraud and corporate crime. Why do the already wealthy commit crime?
Marxists argue that Merton fails to question why capitalist society produces the goals and the inequality in the first place. He takes the system for granted rather than seeking to change it.
Interactionists argue that Merton relies on official statistics, which reflect police and court decisions rather than the true distribution of crime. The working class appear to commit more crime partly because they are more likely to be policed and prosecuted.

Connecting Durkheim and Merton

Both theorists are working within the functionalist tradition and share the view that crime arises from the structure of society rather than from individual pathology. Durkheim focuses on the functions of crime for the social system, while Merton focuses on the structural causes of crime — specifically, the unequal distribution of opportunities in a society that promotes shared goals. Together, they provide a macro-level explanation that links crime to social inequality and the breakdown of norms.

However, both theories have been criticised for being too structural and deterministic. They say little about the meaning of crime from the perspective of the criminal, and they neglect the role of agencies of social control (police, courts, media) in defining and creating crime. These gaps are addressed by interactionist and labelling theories, which we will examine in a later lesson.

Exam Tip: In a 30-mark essay on functionalist theories of crime, you should cover both Durkheim and Merton in detail. Structure your answer by explaining each theory (AO1), applying it to examples (AO2), and evaluating it from alternative perspectives — particularly Marxist and interactionist critiques (AO3). Remember that the best answers integrate evaluation throughout rather than bolting it on at the end.