Marxist, Interactionist and Feminist Theories of Crime
Beyond Functionalism: Conflict and Interactionist Theories
The previous lesson examined functionalist and subcultural explanations of crime. This lesson turns to three perspectives that challenge the functionalist premise that law and enforcement serve shared social interests: Marxism, interactionism and feminism. Each argues that who gets labelled “criminal” depends not simply on what a person does, but on their class, gender and ethnic position in a patriarchal and class-divided society.
Chambliss: Differential Enforcement of the Law
William Chambliss, in his landmark study Saints and Roughnecks (1973), provided one of the most vivid demonstrations of how social class shapes the application of the law. Chambliss observed two groups of adolescent boys in a small American town over two years. The “Saints” were eight middle-class boys who regularly truanted, drank and engaged in petty crime. The “Roughnecks” were six working-class boys with similar or lower levels of actual rule-breaking. Despite this, the Roughnecks were consistently stopped, arrested and prosecuted by police; the Saints were almost never. Teachers, police and community members viewed the Saints as “good boys having fun” and the Roughnecks as “headed for trouble.”
Chambliss argued that this pattern illustrates differential enforcement of the law: the law is applied selectively according to the class and social characteristics of the person, not just the act they commit. The Saints’ respectable appearance, access to cars (giving them mobility) and middle-class presentation made them less visible to the police and less likely to be labelled. The Roughnecks’ working-class presentation and visible presence in the town centre made them easy targets for police scrutiny.
Chambliss’s study bridges Marxist and interactionist perspectives. From a Marxist standpoint, the differential enforcement reflects the class bias built into the structure of the criminal justice system: the bourgeoisie shapes law enforcement to protect its interests. From an interactionist standpoint, the study shows how stereotypes shape the labelling process at the micro level of police-citizen encounters.
Chambliss (Saints and Roughnecks, 1973) compared two groups of adolescent boys with similar actual offending behaviour. The working-class Roughnecks were repeatedly arrested while the middle-class Saints were largely left alone. The study demonstrates differential enforcement of the law: the law is applied selectively according to class position, not just criminal behaviour.
The Interactionist Challenge: Becker’s Labelling Theory
Howard Becker, in Outsiders (1963), set out the foundational argument of labelling theory. Becker argued that deviance is not a property of the act itself but of the interaction between the person who acts and those who observe and respond to the act. Whether a label of “deviant” or “criminal” is applied depends on who commits the act, when and where it is committed, who observes it, and the negotiations between the various parties involved.
Once a label has been publicly and officially applied, Becker argued, it tends to become the person’s master status. Before the label, a young person might be seen as a student, a friend, a neighbour. After being officially convicted and labelled a “criminal”, this identity overshadows all others and can follow them into every interaction — with employers, landlords, teachers and family members.
The consequences of master status may trigger what Becker called a deviant career. As the labelled individual is rejected from legitimate social roles, the label itself makes conventional life harder to sustain. This can produce a self-fulfilling prophecy: the individual increasingly identifies with the label and seeks out others who share it.
Primary deviance refers to the original act of rule-breaking before any label has been applied. Secondary deviance occurs when an individual internalises the deviant label and begins to act in accordance with it. The distinction is important: secondary deviance is produced not by the original act but by the social reaction to it.
Becker introduced the concept of moral entrepreneurs — individuals and groups who use their social influence to get particular behaviours defined as deviant. Related to this is the concept of a moral panic: when the media, police and public respond to a perceived threat in a disproportionate and amplified way, the resulting attention can itself increase the visible scale of the problem through deviancy amplification. Critics argue that moral panics have historically targeted specific groups (young working-class men, ethnic minority communities) who are portrayed as “folk devils” — symbols of social threat.
Feminist Theories: Heidensohn and Carlen
Frances Heidensohn, in Women and Crime (1985), offered a feminist explanation for one of the most consistent patterns in crime data: women commit far fewer crimes than men. Rather than explaining this through biology or individual character, Heidensohn argued that women are subject to far more intensive social control than men, making it structurally more difficult for them to deviate. She identified three domains of patriarchal control:
- In the home: Women are expected to spend the majority of their time on domestic labour and childcare. Those who challenge these expectations risk male violence as an assertion of patriarchal authority. Daughters are controlled more strictly than sons — earlier curfews, more restrictions on movement.
- In public: Women face the threat of male sexual violence in public spaces, acting as an informal deterrent against independent movement. The cultural idea of “separate spheres” means that women who occupy public space in non-conforming ways may face ridicule or harassment.
- At work: Women are controlled by male-dominated hierarchies and subjected to various forms of sexual harassment, limiting their organisational autonomy.
Heidensohn’s argument is that women’s lower crime rates are not evidence of superior morality but the result of more intensive control that restricts their opportunities to offend. Sociologists also note the chivalry thesis — the argument that women who conform to feminine stereotypes are treated more leniently by the criminal justice system than men committing similar offences. However, feminist criminologists argue that women who deviate from expected gender roles may conversely be judged more harshly.
Pat Carlen, in Women, Crime and Poverty (1988), studied 39 working-class women who had been convicted of criminal offences. Carlen draws on control theory but foregrounds class alongside gender. She argues that women are controlled through two kinds of deal. The class deal promises working-class women consumer goods and a respectable lifestyle in exchange for their labour. The gender deal offers psychological and material rewards through a male breadwinner in exchange for love and domestic labour. When either or both deals break down — through unemployment, poverty or abusive relationships — crime becomes a rational choice because the usual incentives for conformity are absent.
Heidensohn (Women and Crime, 1985) argues women commit fewer crimes because patriarchal control in the home, public and workplace restricts their opportunities to offend. Carlen (Women, Crime and Poverty, 1988) argues women turn to crime when the class deal and the gender deal both break down, removing the usual incentives for conformity.
Marxist / Chambliss: Strength is the clear empirical evidence of differential enforcement; limitation is that not all class-based policing differences are so stark, and Chambliss’s small US study may not generalise broadly. Interactionist / Becker: Shows how labelling processes operate at the micro level; criticised for not explaining why labels fall on the working class without reference to class power (Marxist critique). Not everyone who is labelled becomes a career criminal (over-deterministic). Feminist / Heidensohn and Carlen: Important corrective to male-centred criminology; Heidensohn has been criticised for making generalisations that do not apply equally to all women across class, ethnicity and age. Carlen’s small sample size limits generalisation. Both perspectives highlight that the sociology of crime cannot ignore gender.