Comparing Functionalist and Traditional Marxist Perspectives on Crime E

There are many theories on why crime exists as well has who is committing the crimes and the underlying reasons behind it The two main perspectives being Traditional Marxist and Functionalist both with different views they share very little in common, however they do agree that society shapes the individual and not the individual that shapes society. What is meant by that is that we are all products of our upbringings and learn through socialisation what our beliefs are, what we agree on personally and often shared beliefs and the understanding of what is 'the norm; through our primary interaction with others beginning at home and continuing onto schooling and work. Our beliefs aren't always set in stone and can change through time and growth and the interaction with others once outside the family domain. There are many explanations beginning with Durkheim who was a functionalist, there is Merton who doesn't totally agree with Durkheim but adopted his theory on 'Anomie' and made it his own. In addition there is Hirschi whose theories mirrored that of Durkheim's and before concluding, Marxist view on crime will be looked at. The Functionalist view on crime and society is likening it to the human body to explain it functions. The body has it organs whereas society has it institutions. Functionalists have an interest in the functions of crime, hence the name and are interested in how crime contributes to society as a whole. There is a belief that society is based on consensus or agreement of shared beliefs and values of what is considered to be 'the norm', the views hare then passed on through socialisation. Share values and beliefs o... ... be deviant within a corporate structure although should it occur it is highly unlikely the public would be made aware of it. However the question of mental state of an individual hasn't even been raised by any of the sociologists to explain why a person may offend. Merton seemed to make a lot of sense but there seemed to be something missing in his explanations on why crime exists why some commit and others don't, perhaps the reality is there is no definite answer on why it exists. BIBLOGRAPHY Durkheim, E (1985/1987) Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London: Routledge Erikson, K J. (1966) Wayward Puritans, New York: Wiley Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of delinquency, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Merton, R. (1938) Social Structure and Anomie, American Sociological Review, Vol 3, 672-683