A-Level Sociology: Do We Actually Need Crime? Durkheim, Merton and the Functionalist View of Crime and Deviance
Could a society with absolutely no crime actually be less healthy than one in which some crime occurs?
At first, that sounds ridiculous.
Crime causes victims. It can create fear, destroy property, damage communities and cost society enormous amounts of money. Surely the ideal society would therefore be one with no crime at all?
Émile Durkheim offered a much more surprising argument.
He suggested that crime is not simply something that goes wrong in society. A certain amount of crime is normal, inevitable and potentially functional.
Robert K. Merton later developed ideas about social structure and deviance in a different direction. Rather than simply asking what crime does for society, Merton asked why some societies might actually create pressures that encourage people to become deviant.
Together, Durkheim and Merton give A-Level Sociology students an important introduction to the functionalist approach to crime and deviance.
And they lead us towards a fascinating question:
Could society actually need some deviance in order to function and change?
First: What Is Functionalism?
Functionalism views society rather like a system made up of interconnected parts.
We might compare society with a human body.
The body contains different organs:
heart;
lungs;
brain;
kidneys;
digestive system.
Each performs a different function, but they work together to maintain the whole organism.
Functionalists argue that society operates in a broadly similar way.
Institutions such as:
families;
schools;
religion;
government;
the economy;
the criminal justice system
perform functions that contribute towards maintaining society.
Functionalists are particularly interested in social order.
Why do millions of people manage to live together without society descending into complete chaos?
One answer is that societies develop shared values and norms.
Norms, Values and Social Order
A value is a general belief about what is desirable or important.
Examples might include:
honesty;
respect for others;
personal responsibility;
achievement;
fairness.
A norm is a more specific expectation about behaviour.
For example, if a society values private property, there may be a norm that we do not take another person's possessions without permission.
Most of us follow hundreds of norms every day without consciously thinking about them.
We queue.
We generally wear clothes in public.
We stop at red traffic lights.
We do not normally walk into somebody else's house and make ourselves dinner.
Society works partly because people have learned expectations about acceptable behaviour.
But that creates an interesting problem.
How do we know where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are?
This is where Durkheim's analysis of crime becomes particularly interesting.
Durkheim: Crime Is Normal
Émile Durkheim made the remarkable argument that crime exists in all societies.
Different societies define different behaviours as criminal, but every society develops rules and therefore inevitably produces rule-breaking.
This means that crime cannot simply be regarded as an unusual malfunction.
For Durkheim, some level of crime is normal and inevitable.
Imagine trying to create a society in which everyone behaved identically and shared exactly the same beliefs.
It would be almost impossible.
People differ in:
upbringing;
circumstances;
experiences;
personalities;
opportunities;
beliefs.
There will therefore always be some disagreement about society's rules.
And wherever there are rules, somebody will eventually break them.
Crime Shows Us Where the Boundary Is
One of Durkheim's most interesting ideas is that crime can help clarify society's moral boundaries.
Consider a simple example.
Imagine somebody steals money from an elderly person's purse.
Other people hear about it and respond:
"That's completely unacceptable."
That reaction is sociologically interesting.
The crime has revealed something about society's values.
People's condemnation effectively says:
This is where our moral boundary lies. This behaviour is outside it.
Crime therefore gives society opportunities to reaffirm its norms.
Boundary Maintenance
This idea is often described as boundary maintenance.
Crime and the reaction to crime remind people about the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
The criminal justice system can reinforce those boundaries.
When somebody is:
arrested;
prosecuted;
convicted;
punished,
society publicly demonstrates that certain behaviour is unacceptable.
This does not mean Durkheim believed crime itself was morally good.
The important distinction is between saying:
"Crime is good."
and saying:
"The existence of some crime can perform social functions."
Those are very different arguments.
Crime Can Strengthen Social Solidarity
Durkheim also argued that reactions to crime can strengthen social solidarity.
A dramatic example can occur after a serious crime in a local community.
People may:
support the victim;
attend vigils;
raise money;
cooperate with police;
discuss community safety;
express shared condemnation.
People who previously had little contact with one another may suddenly discover that they share important values.
Paradoxically, therefore, the violation of a norm can sometimes strengthen people's commitment to that norm.
The crime divides the offender from society but can simultaneously unite other members of society.
Think About a School
A smaller example makes this easier to understand.
Imagine a school has a clear rule against bullying.
A serious bullying incident occurs.
The school investigates it, sanctions the offender and discusses the issue with students.
Assemblies might be held.
Teachers discuss acceptable behaviour.
Students talk about what happened.
The school reinforces the message:
"This is not how members of our community should treat one another."
The original deviance has therefore triggered a reaffirmation of the school's values.
Durkheim would see a similar process occurring throughout wider society.
Deviance Can Also Produce Social Change
Perhaps Durkheim's most fascinating argument is that deviance can help societies change.
Not every person who breaks society's norms is necessarily moving society in a harmful direction.
Sometimes people challenge norms because the norms themselves are changing.
Think about behaviours that were once regarded as unacceptable but later became normal or legally protected.
Social change often begins when somebody challenges an existing expectation.
Today's deviant may occasionally become tomorrow's reformer.
This means a society needs some flexibility.
A society in which nobody ever questioned existing rules could become extremely rigid.
Deviance therefore has the potential to act as an early signal of changing values.
Too Little Deviance Could Be a Problem
This produces a strange functionalist conclusion.
Imagine a society with literally no deviance.
Everyone obeys every rule.
Nobody challenges authority.
Nobody questions traditions.
Nobody proposes radically different ideas.
Nobody pushes against existing moral boundaries.
At first this might sound wonderfully orderly.
But it might also be a society incapable of adapting.
Some deviance may therefore contribute towards social change.
But Can There Be Too Much Crime?
Absolutely.
Durkheim was not suggesting that unlimited crime benefits society.
Too much crime can weaken social order rather than strengthen it.
This connects with another important Durkheimian concept:
Anomie
Anomie describes a condition in which social norms become weakened, unclear or disrupted.
Periods of rapid social change can produce this.
People may become uncertain about:
what society expects;
which values matter;
what behaviour is acceptable;
what goals they should pursue.
If social regulation becomes too weak, deviance may increase.
So Durkheim's position is not:
"The more crime, the better."
It is closer to:
A certain amount of deviance is inevitable and can perform useful functions, but excessive deviance may indicate problems with social integration or regulation.
That distinction is extremely important in an examination answer.
Enter Robert K. Merton
Robert K. Merton took functionalist thinking about deviance in another direction.
Merton was particularly interested in American society.
He noticed that American culture strongly promoted particular goals, especially material success.
People were encouraged to aspire towards:
wealth;
career success;
status;
consumption;
the idea of "making it".
The cultural message might effectively be:
Work hard and you can succeed.
But Merton saw a problem.
People do not all have equal access to the legitimate means of achieving those goals.
The Gap Between Goals and Means
Imagine two people who are both told that financial success is extremely important.
One has access to:
excellent education;
useful social connections;
financial support;
good employment opportunities.
The other experiences:
poor educational opportunities;
unemployment;
poverty;
discrimination;
limited legitimate opportunities.
Both may have learned the same cultural goal.
But they do not have equal access to socially approved ways of achieving it.
Merton argued that this mismatch can create strain.
And people respond to that strain in different ways.
Merton's Five Adaptations
Merton identified five possible responses.
1. Conformity
The person accepts society's goals and accepts the legitimate means of achieving them.
For example:
"I want financial success, so I will study, gain qualifications, find employment and build a career."
This is the response followed by most people.
2. Innovation
The person accepts society's goals but rejects or bypasses the legitimate means.
For example:
"I want money, but I will obtain it through fraud, theft or another illegal route."
This is particularly important for explaining some forms of crime.
The innovator has not rejected society's definition of success.
In a sense, they may have accepted it too strongly.
What they reject is the legitimate route towards obtaining it.
3. Ritualism
The person gives up or reduces commitment to the cultural goal but continues following the legitimate rules.
They continue going through the approved routines without expecting to achieve the culturally celebrated outcome.
4. Retreatism
The individual rejects both the cultural goals and the approved means.
They effectively withdraw from the conventional expectations of society.
Merton associated this category with people who have disengaged from mainstream social goals and institutions.
5. Rebellion
The person rejects existing goals and means and attempts to replace them with alternatives.
This is different from retreatism.
The rebel does not simply withdraw.
They want a different system.
A Simple Way to Remember Merton
Students can organise Merton's model like this:
| Adaptation | Accept goals? | Accept legitimate means? |
|---|---|---|
| Conformity | Yes | Yes |
| Innovation | Yes | No |
| Ritualism | No | Yes |
| Retreatism | No | No |
| Rebellion | Replace | Replace |
This table is worth learning because it turns what initially appears complicated into a very logical model.
But Does Merton Really Say We "Need" Crime?
This is an important distinction.
Durkheim's argument directly addresses the functions of crime.
Crime may contribute towards:
boundary maintenance;
social solidarity;
adaptation;
social change.
Merton is doing something slightly different.
He is primarily explaining why deviance occurs.
His argument suggests that crime can sometimes be produced by the structure of society itself.
That makes Merton's theory particularly interesting.
Instead of asking only:
"What is wrong with the criminal?"
Merton encourages sociologists to ask:
"What pressures within society might make certain forms of deviance more likely?"
That changes the focus from individual morality towards social structure.
Durkheim and Merton Together
Put the two thinkers together and we get a powerful functionalist picture.
Durkheim asks:
Why does crime exist in every society, and what functions might it perform?
Merton asks:
How might society's own goals and unequal opportunity structures generate deviance?
Durkheim therefore helps us understand the social functions of deviance.
Merton helps us understand the structural pressures producing some forms of deviance.
Both move us away from the simple idea that crime exists merely because some individuals are "bad people".
A Practical Classroom Thought Experiment
I like sociology questions where students have to test a theory rather than simply memorise it.
Try designing the perfect crime-free society.
Your objective is:
ZERO DEVIANCE.
Nobody must ever violate a social norm.
Now decide how you would achieve it.
Would everyone need identical values?
How would you deal with disagreement?
Could people criticise the government?
Could young people challenge their parents' values?
Could scientists challenge accepted ideas?
Could campaigners demand changes to laws?
Could musicians, artists and writers deliberately shock people?
At what point does eliminating deviance begin to eliminate individuality and social change?
Suddenly Durkheim's apparently bizarre argument becomes much more interesting.
Applying Durkheim to Modern Society
Suppose a previously unknown form of online fraud becomes widespread.
Initially, society may not have adequate laws or even an agreed understanding of the behaviour.
Eventually there is public concern.
The media discuss it.
Police develop new approaches.
Governments may introduce legislation.
Banks improve security.
People learn new rules about online behaviour.
A form of deviance has forced society to clarify its boundaries and adapt its institutions.
That is a very Durkheimian way of examining social change.
Applying Merton to the Same Society
Now consider a society saturated with images of material success.
Young people repeatedly see:
luxury cars;
expensive holidays;
designer clothing;
enormous houses;
wealthy influencers.
The cultural message is:
Success means possessing these things.
But legitimate access to those goals varies enormously.
Merton would ask whether a large gap between culturally encouraged aspirations and genuine opportunities could produce strain.
Some people will conform.
Some may lower their ambitions.
Some may disengage.
And some may innovate through illegitimate means.
The important sociological question therefore becomes not simply:
"Why did this individual commit a crime?"
but:
"What features of society may have contributed to the conditions in which this type of crime occurs?"
Evaluation: Functionalism Does Not Explain Everything
A strong A-Level answer must move beyond description.
There are significant criticisms of both approaches.
Does Durkheim Exaggerate the Benefits of Crime?
Saying that crime may produce social solidarity can sound very different when viewed from the perspective of a victim.
A violent assault may generate public condemnation, but that does not compensate the victim for the harm suffered.
Functionalism can therefore appear to concentrate on the needs of society while paying insufficient attention to individuals who experience crime.
Who Decides Which Values Society Shares?
Durkheim's approach can imply that society possesses a broad value consensus.
Conflict theorists challenge this.
Marxists, for example, would ask whether laws reflect the interests of all members of society equally.
They might argue that law and criminalisation can reflect inequalities in wealth and power.
Feminist approaches might similarly examine whether laws and criminal justice institutions have historically reflected gender inequalities.
The question then becomes:
Whose moral boundaries are being maintained?
Merton and Crimes That Are Not About Money
Merton's theory works particularly well for certain forms of economically motivated crime.
It is less obviously successful at explaining:
violence committed in anger;
vandalism;
sexual offences;
domestic abuse;
some forms of cybercrime;
crimes committed by wealthy people who already possess legitimate opportunities.
Not all crime is an attempt to achieve culturally approved success goals.
What About the Powerful?
Merton's theory is often applied to disadvantaged groups because blocked opportunities may generate strain.
But wealthy and powerful people also commit crimes.
Corporate fraud is an obvious challenge.
If someone already has wealth, education, status and opportunity, can their offending really be explained by blocked legitimate opportunities?
A defender of strain approaches might argue that cultures promoting continual competition and ever-increasing success can produce pressure even among successful people.
But this requires a more sophisticated application of the theory.
Society Is Not a Machine
There is also a broader criticism of functionalism.
Comparing society with an organism can be useful.
But human beings are not organs.
We think.
We disagree.
We interpret situations differently.
We challenge rules.
We create new values.
Society is therefore far more contested and unpredictable than a biological system.
Interactionists would argue that we also need to examine how certain people and behaviours actually become labelled as deviant in the first place.
A Strong Examination Comparison
If an examination asks you about functionalist explanations of crime and deviance, avoid writing two disconnected mini-essays.
Connect the theories.
A useful line of argument is:
Durkheim explains why crime is inevitable and potentially functional, whereas Merton explains how structural strain can generate particular forms of deviance.
Then develop the comparison:
Durkheim focuses primarily on what crime can do for society; Merton focuses more strongly on what features of society can produce deviance.
That distinction demonstrates understanding rather than simple recall.
The Bigger Question: Do We Need Crime?
Perhaps "need" is slightly too strong.
Nobody needs to become the victim of burglary, fraud or violence.
But Durkheim's argument forces us to distinguish between individual acts of crime and the sociological significance of deviance.
A society without any deviance would require extraordinary conformity.
Nobody would test boundaries.
Nobody would challenge norms.
Nobody would expose weaknesses in existing rules.
Nobody would push society towards different values.
That might produce order.
It might also produce stagnation.
Durkheim therefore presents crime as something much more complicated than simple social failure.
Merton adds another uncomfortable insight: society may sometimes help generate the very deviance that it subsequently condemns.
If a culture tells everybody that they must achieve particular goals while distributing legitimate opportunities unequally, strain should not surprise us.
Conclusion: Crime Tells Us Something About Society
The great value of Durkheim and Merton is that they encourage us to stop looking at crime solely as an individual problem.
Durkheim asks us to look at what happens after norms are broken.
Boundaries become visible.
Shared values may be reinforced.
Social solidarity can develop.
And occasionally deviance helps society change.
Merton asks us to look before the crime occurs.
What goals has society encouraged?
What legitimate opportunities are available?
What happens when aspirations and opportunities do not match?
Neither theory tells us that individual crimes are desirable.
Instead, they pose a much more interesting sociological question:
What if crime is not simply evidence that society has failed, but also a way of revealing how that society works?
That is where sociology becomes much more interesting than simply learning definitions for an examination.
It asks us to look beyond the offender and examine the society around them.
And once we do that, crime and deviance become not merely things society reacts to, but windows through which we can examine its values, inequalities, boundaries and capacity for change.
#AlevelSociology #Sociology #CrimeAndDeviance #Durkheim #Merton #Functionalism #Anomie #StrainTheory #SocialTheory #SociologyRevision #Alevels #Education #ExamRevision
