Functionalist and Subcultural Theories of Crime

Durkheim: Crime Is Normal and Functional

Functionalist sociology begins from the premise that society works like a living organism: its institutions perform necessary functions and, when working well, produce social order and value consensus. Emile Durkheim argued that crime is not simply a social problem to be eliminated — it is a normal feature of every known society. If crime were to disappear entirely, Durkheim reasoned, society would have become so rigid and repressive that even the most minor non-conformity would be treated as a serious offence. A healthy society requires a certain level of deviance to function.

Durkheim identified two functions of crime. First, crime performs a boundary maintenance function: when an offender is publicly punished, the community gathers around the shared moral boundary that has been violated, reaffirming collective values. Court proceedings, media coverage of verdicts and public discussion of serious crimes all serve this ritual function. Second, crime can act as a driver of social change: acts that are initially labelled criminal — civil rights protests, for example — may eventually prompt a rethinking of the law. Yesterday’s criminal can become tomorrow’s reformer.

Durkheim also introduced the concept of anomie — a state of normlessness that arises when the rules holding society together break down. For Durkheim, periods of rapid social change could weaken the norms that regulate individual desires, leading to an increase in deviant behaviour. Robert Merton later developed this concept into a full theory of crime.

Merton: Strain Theory and the Goals–Means Gap

Robert Merton, in his 1938 article “Social Structure and Anomie”, developed Durkheim’s concept of anomie into a systematic theory of crime. He took the argument further in his later book Social Theory and Social Structure. Merton argued that deviance results from the culture and structure of society — not from individual pathology or moral failure.

Merton started from the functionalist premise of value consensus: all members of society are socialised into the same cultural goals, particularly the goal of material success. However, because members of society have different positions in the social structure, they do not have equal access to the institutionalised means — the legitimate routes (education, employment, talent) through which success is achieved. Members of the working class and poor communities are socialised into the same aspirations as everyone else but face far greater structural barriers to achieving them.

This gap between cultural goals and institutionalised means creates a strain that puts pressure on individuals to deviate. The expectation of material success is widely promoted through media and advertising, yet structural barriers (class inequality, educational disadvantage) mean that not all routes to that success are equally available. Merton’s approach was significant because it located the cause of crime in the structure of society, not in the individual.

Merton’s Five Responses to Strain

Merton identified five ways in which individuals can respond to the tension between cultural goals and the available means to achieve them. These are not personality types but modes of adaptation to social structure.

Subcultural Theories: Albert Cohen

Albert Cohen, in Delinquent Boys (1955), extended the strain tradition but shifted focus from individual adaptation to collective, subcultural responses. Cohen argued that working-class boys hold the same success goals as the wider society but, because of cultural deprivation and poor educational prospects, they consistently fail to achieve by mainstream standards.

This failure produces what Cohen called status frustration. Rather than innovating individually (Merton’s route), working-class boys respond collectively by forming delinquent sub-cultures that invert the mainstream values they have been denied. They celebrate vandalism, truancy and theft not because these acts gain material wealth but because they gain status and prestige within the sub-culture. Success at what the mainstream condemns becomes a source of peer recognition — what Cohen called the alternative status hierarchy.

Cohen’s approach adds an important dimension missing from Merton’s theory: it explains non-instrumental crime — acts committed not for economic gain but for status, thrill or group belonging. Critics of Cohen argue that not all working-class young people form delinquent sub-cultures, and that his account overlooks girls and young women entirely.

Evaluating Functionalist and Subcultural Theories

Merton’s strain theory has been influential because it shifts blame for crime from individuals to the social structure. However, critics point out several limitations. Marxist sociologists argue that Merton fails to ask who makes the laws and who benefits from them: focusing on working-class innovation ignores corporate crime, tax evasion and white-collar offending. Interactionist critics argue that Merton assumes a single value system (success goals) shared by all, when in practice values vary across class, gender and ethnicity. Feminist critics note that Merton’s theory is largely silent on women and crime. Cohen has been criticised for overstating cultural deprivation as the cause of working-class failure and for producing an account that applies only to young males in urban settings.