Evaluate the usefulness of Marxist theory to our understanding of crime and deviance (40 marks)
Synopticity - Crime & Deviance sociological theory
Marxist explanations of crime and deviance, like their work on other areas like the family and education, rest on an economic and structural analysis of society that sees a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This struggle comprises the attempts by the proletariat to free themselves from the domination of the bourgeoisie as they seek to take over the means of production.
David Gordon argues that crime is an inevitable product of capitalism and the inequality that it generates. He argues that inequalities in wealth and income create poverty and homelessness for
…show more content…
The major problem with Marxist analyses of crime and deviance is with their sweeping generalisations, trying to apply actions to all people that clearly apply to only a minority. Similarly, their assumption that everything is driven by the economic class struggle is hard to sustain. A convincing case can be made that Marxism provides one of the best explanations of many phenomena identified within societies, but the politics of the world has changed and Marxism is no longer the major social movement for liberation from oppression that it used to be, so it is argued that Marxism 's conceptual apparatus has become less relevant. In a society where most people have undergone considerable improvements in their standard of living and where peasant struggles which might have been applicable in the 19th century when Marx was writing seem to be no longer of much relevance. This thus suggests that Marxist theories aren’t useful to our understanding of crime and deviance in contemporary society.
Other writers on crime and deviance strongly disagree with the Marxist analysis. For instance Functionalists might attribute more to imperfect socialisation and see crime as a necessary element of society to help bring about social change but also to reinforce the collective conscience of society. Interactionists criticise Marxists for ignoring the processes involved in criminality and the system, for instance Becker and Lemert focus much more on
‘Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess the usefulness of Marxist approach to an understanding of crime and deviance’ (21 marks)
Crime in the light of critical criminology is an obvious outcome of disparities established in a system. Capitalist economic policies result in economic misery among powerless class in society and certain conditions are created in which adapting the criminal behaviors become the only possible survival strategy. Critical criminology follows the Marxist approach in stating that criminal laws are based on the interests of
Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of
In comparison Merton’s theory put forward a entirely different rationalisation of the causes of crime, and juxtaposing major ideals about who commits these crimes, Marxists points out that absence of egalitarianism of opportunity is at the centre of the capitalist system and Merton contends that not all individuals who lack genuine opportunities look to crime to do so. (Eglin and Hester, 2013).
Crime is the product of the social structure; it is embedded in the very fibres of society. In this essay, I aim to explore different theories as to why crime exists within society and how we as a society therefore construct it. Crime is a social construct; it is always in society and is on the increase. It is inevitable. Where does it come from? It comes from legislation, from the making of laws.
In opposition to all previous perspectives is Marxism. These theorists claim that humans are social beings and are products of their own history. As a result, it does not resolve conflicting approaches, but suggests crime is a justifiable adaptive behaviour for some groups that have been criminalised by more powerful societal members. This entails the problem of specificity, where it focuses on the whole society instead of on individuals or groups. Comparing the paradigm of human nature to Feeley and Simons’ (1992) New Penology, the notion
Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for
Marxists argue that capitalist society actually generate crime because it encourages greed and crime is a response to the inequalities in wealth.
Marxist Theory and Crime and Punishment Throughout human history countless philosophers have risen with what they thought to be the best form of government for society as a whole. Karl Marx may be the most influential philosopher in Russian history. According to The Free Dictionary, Marxism is the concept that “class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society”. With this theory, Marx had a great impact on Russian literature; specifically, Fyodor Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. According the the Marxist theory, one would interpret Crime and Punishment as a perfect example to
In their theories, Marxists say that certain types of crime are more likely to be punished compared to others. Street crimes (brawls, binge drinking, theft, muggings, social unrest and disorder) are more likely to be pursued than white collar crime (fraud, tax evasion, ‘insider training’ and even gambling and prostitution). This is because the capitalist governments who have run the country are sympathetic to those who are of the same belief and class, but have just got carried away with their search for wealth. In this society of greed, the working class have to turn to crime just to stay alive and to obtain the materialistic goods or lifestyle, which is typical to a capitalistic state, and that general standard of living and attitude to life, is enforced on them, when living in this type of society. Money and personal gain, and the ‘every man for himself’ attitude is what life is like in an unfair, and socially unequal way of life under a capitalist government.
In accordance with Marxist theory, it is the views of the powerful that dominate, as they have the ability to make their views prevail. It would then appear that what constitutes a crime is open to debate; moreover, the criminals who we choose to despise, are they no more than mere victims of our own perceptions. Our own social conditioning? To see why this is, we must look to the very basis of society and how it decides what is right or wrong.
Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.
First off, there have been ample amounts of disapproval in relation to the general theory of crime, because many scholars feel that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) failed to include the
The primary goal of Social Conflict is to examine the relationship between the ruling class and the process by which deviance is defined and controlled in capitalist society. The government creates laws and rules to maintain the power and position for the power elite. Centering around a view of society in which the elite class uses the criminal justice system as a means of controlling threats to its status.
From a criminological perspective several criminologists would agree that many of society’s laws are not neutral. Whilst Marxists recognise that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary, “the founders of Marxism thought that crime, same as all other problems of human society, is a direct result of the unjust structure of capitalism” (Marxism and Criminology). Furthermore, Marx argued that one should always ask of the law who benefits from it? And in doing so, one may note that most laws are formulated to protect the interests of the most powerful members in society from those with the least power (Chablis, et al.). It may further be