week1 db -- new course
ismails95
Chapter6-TheNormalandthePathological.pptxCJ 240 Deviance and Social Control
Functionalism: The Normal and the Pathological Emile Durkheim
What makes something a crime?
Can society get rid of crime?
What would happen if we did?
Intro
Durkheim – a founder of the functionalist perspective
All of society’s social institutions (like parts of the human body) contribute to its continuing existence
Deviance is present cross culturally and over the entire course of history
It is not an illness or pathology of the system – in fact it contributes to society’s positive functioning
provides a means of introducing social change (as behaviors move from deviant to respectable)
If ppl stopped engaging in it immediately, we would have to redefine acts now considered deviant as acceptable
Crime is an integral part of society
Crime is not merely inevitable – it is a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies
crime is normal bc a society exempt from it is utterly impossible
Crime = an act that offends certain very strong collective sentiments
If society were to have no crime, the sentiments crime offends would have to be found in all individuals
Assuming this could be realized, it would mean that crime would merely change its form
Robbery and simple bad taste offend the same altruistic sentiment – respect for that which is another’s
However, this sentiment is less grievously offended by bad taste
Since the average person has not sufficient intensity to react keenly to bad taste – it is treated with greater tolerance
BUT if this sentiment against theft grows stronger such that it silences the inclination in all ppl to steal, we will become more sensitive to the offenses which previously only offended him slightly
We will react against them with more energy
Imagine a society of saints – exemplary individuals
Faults which appear trivial to the layman, will create the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness
The perfect and upright man judges his smallest failings with severity
Formerly acts of violence against ppl were more frequent than they are today – bc respect for individual dignity was less strong
As this has increased, these crimes have become more rare
There can not be a society in which the individuals do not differ more or less from the collective type
What confers the character of criminal upon them is not the intrinsic quality of a given act but that definition which the collective conscience lends them
Crime then is necessary – in fact it is useful
Conditions upon which crime is necessary are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law
Law and morality vary from place to place and time to time
The transformations are possible only if the collective sentiments at the basis of morality are not hostile to change
To make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself
Crime plays a useful role in this evolution
In certain cases it directly prepares society for this change
Where crime exists, collective sentiment is flexible enough to take on a new form – crime sometimes helps determine that new form
Ex: Socrates – (criminal) independence of his thought
It would be impossible to establish the freedom of thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibiting it had not been violated before being solemnly abrogated
