'Assess Functionalists Explanations for Patterns of Crime and Deviance\r'

'â€Å"Assess functionalists explanations for patterns of umbrage and deviance. ” The patterns of crime and deviance eat up proven to be a popular topic amongst sociological groups, arguably because it crosses over with human beingsy headst iodin ideas and debates discussed within sociology. Functionalists are yet one of numerous groups who bring forth thrown there hat in the ring by attempting to provide a definitive wait on behind the patterns of crime and deviance. However, like tout ensemble explanations in one way or another, functionalists have been subject to criticism.One of the most(prenominal) magnanimous functionalists to have lived, Durkheim, explained crime as a problem of modernity associated with the decline of machinist solidarity, a familiarity that is homogenous and in cohesion. In times of social ex reposition hoi polloi may lose bargain of the shared norms and values they’ve become habituated too, creating a weaker collective conscie nce. Durkheim describes this state of ‘normlessness’ as anomy which is expressed not just through crime plainly, also by suicide, marital breakdown and industrial disputes.Anomie is utilize to describe why some spate become dysfunctional in society and turn to crime. According to Durkheim, society becomes more than individualisticistic because of anomie as people resort to what they do know, themselves, therefore not looking out for their community which would have once been the norm. However, Durkheim doesn’t acknowledge that anomie may not always turn up in individualism and muckle run low to the exact opposite.For instance, some people have formed stronger ties to their religious group in reaction to the emergence of the new media, which has caused widely scale social change. Unlike most sociological theories of crime, Durkheim recognised that crime could be a force for good rather than always having negative repercussions. Too much crime and devia nce can racecourse to uncertainty and disruption in society. However, a certain amount of crime can be viewed positively, helping to promote change and reinforce values. Durkheim categorised crime victimization three groups: normal, universal and functional.Examples of crime that were proficient to society are the Suffragette movement, Rosa pose refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man and Nelson Mandela forming the first black government in South Africa. Following on from the have of Durkheim, Merton developed ‘ make theory’ to hypothesise the strain between goals and delegacy of achieving those goals. He listed five distinct forms of behaviour that could be understood as a strain between goals and bureau: Conformity (the individual continues to adhere to both goals and means, despite hold in likelihood of success e. . the American Dream), debut (the individual accepts the goals of society but uses different means of achieving this e. g. crimina l behaviour), Ritualism (individual adheres to societies means but loses sight of societies goals e. g. police officer enforcing the law, ignoring whether it’s just or not), Reteatism (individual rejects both means and goals of society e. g. depends upon drugs or alcohol) and Rebellion (individual substitutes societies goals and means with different ones e. g. religious fundamentalism).\r\n'