A LEVEL

SOCIOLOGYA-Level Paper 3: Crime & Deviance and Theory &

Methods

Topic: CRIME & DEVIANCE

Booklet 2b: Theories of Crime, Deviance, Social Order & Social Control

MARXISM

MARXISM(Traditional Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Subcultural

Theory)IntroductionIn this topic we examine theories of crime that are either Marxist in nature or have been influenced in some way by the Marxist perspective. The Marxist perspective on crime, like the functionalist perspective, adopts a top-down, macro-sociological approach. However, whereas functionalists have sought to explain crime in terms of anomie and subcultures, Marxists see crime in the context of the capitalist system. For Marxists crime is inevitable within capitalism. This is because traditional Marxists believe that capitalism is criminogenic – i.e. its very nature causes crime. Marxists argue that given capitalism is a system that is driven by profit over human needs this naturally results in a polarised society divided by wealth and poverty (rich & poor). For Marxists, social and economic deprivation is a key motivating factor behind crime. Marxists also question the functionalist assumption that crime is predominantly committed by the working class (proletariat), arguing that there is a considerable amount of white collar and corporate crime.

A) THE TRADITIONAL MARXIST APPROACH

There are four key elements of the Traditional Marxist approach which are:1. Criminogenic Capitalism 2. Ruling-Class Hegemony & Law Creation3. Law Enforcement 4. Ideological Functions of Crime

1. Criminogenic Capitalism Traditional Marxists follow Marx’s original beliefs about capitalist society very closely. Hence they agree with the points raised above that the very nature of capitalism creates crime.

i) Bonger – Crimes of the working-class

The early Dutch Marxist Willem Bonger (1916) argued that since the capitalist system is based on greed, selfishness and exploitation, it follows that these values will shape individual's attitudes to life. It was hardly surprising therefore that crime has become an endemic characteristic of such a society. He recognised that many poor people are driven to crime simply by the desperation of their circumstances, eg poverty.

Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working-class – that is, using them as a means to make profit for the bourgeoisie, regardless of the human cost. It is therefore particularly damaging to the working-class and this may give rise to crime in the following ways:

Poverty may mean crime is the only way the working-class can survive, Crime may be the only way they can obtain the consumer goods

encouraged by capitalist advertising,Resulting types of crime?

Alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to frustration and aggression.Resulting types of crime?

For Bonger crime is the natural outcome of the capitalist system which he sees as based upon the exploitation of the working class (the ‘proletariat’).

ii) Gordon – Crime as a rational response to capitalismDavid Gordon (1976) argues, crime is a rational response to the capitalist system and hence it is found in all social classes – even though the official statistics make it appear to be a largely working-class phenomena.

Crime is not confined to the working-class. Capitalism is a ‘dog-eat-dog’ system of ruthless competition among capitalists, while to pursuit of profit encourages a mentality of greed and self-interest. The need to win at all costs or go out of business, along with the desire to become rich, encourages capitalists to commit white-collar and corporate crimes such as tax-evasion and breaches of health & safety laws.

EVALUATION OF CRIMINOGENIC CAPITALISMStrengths – How have these theories been useful?

The main strength of Bonger’s and Gordon’s approach is that it explains why both working and middle-class (white-collar) individuals commit crime, rather than simply focussing on white-collar crime, like other Marxists tend to do, or just the crimes of the lower-classes like Functionalists tend to do.

Weaknesses – How have these theories not been useful? However, their explanations see criminals as victims of their circumstances &

the structure of society. It has therefore been criticised for being too sympathetic towards those that commit crime and ignoring the victims of their behaviour.

Right Realists would argue blaming capitalism for crime completely ignores the issue of personal choice in terms of the committing of crime. They would point out that there are plenty of poor people who do not commit crime. Those who do (usually members of the underclass) make an active choice to break the law – there is nothing automatic (in terms of a response to capitalism) here.

Neo-Marxists, Taylor, Walter and Young also argue criminals choose to break the law, but this is an active challenge to capitalist oppression.

2) Ruling Class Hegemony and Law Creation

For traditional Marxists, laws exist to reflect the interests of the ruling class, rather than reflecting the value consensus. They argue that the domination of the ruling class (bourgeoisie) is achieved through the development of a set of dominant values that reflect their interests and the creation of laws are a key way these interests become a reality.

Once the values of the dominant group are accepted as ‘normal’ by the population there exists a hegemony (dominant set of ideas). According to Marxists, the population has been ‘brainwashed’ into believing norms, values & laws reflect the will of the people when in fact they reflect the interests of the ruling-class. Therefore, there exists a RULING CLASS HEGEMONY.

i) Chambliss – Protection of private propertyWilliam Chambliss (1975) argues that laws to protect private property are the cornerstone of capitalist economy. Since the bourgeoisie are most likely to own goods, property, land, etc, it is in their interests that these are protected by law. However, much of these goods have been gained through the exploitation of the working-class, who are then prevented by law from attempting to get back what is, arguably, rightfully theirs.

A striking example of this is the slave trade. Before laws against slavery were introduced, the bourgeoisie would not only exploit the workers for complete profit, as they did not pay them, but the law made those slaves the private property of their ‘owners’. If slaves tried to escape, it was they who were breaking the law and consequently punished. Many aristocratic families have gained their wealth through the slave trade.

ii) Snider – Selective law creationThe ruling-class also have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would threaten their interests.Laureen Snider (1993) argues that the capitalist state (the government) are often reluctant to pass laws that threaten the profitability of large companies. Yet, at the same time, she feels many of the most serious acts of deviance are committed by large corporations. She calculates that the cost of corporate crime, in terms of finance and loss of life, significantly exceeds the cost of burglary and robbery.This shows how laws can be created to protect the financial interests of the ruling class.

EVALUATION OF RULING CLASS HEGEMONY & LAW CREATIONStrengths – How have these theories been useful?

The idea of ruling-class hegemony offers a good evaluation of functionalist views on the acceptance of “value consensus” and in doing so helps us to understand which group in society are deemed to be “dominant”.

Both Chambliss’ & Snider’s arguments support the relativistic view of how

criminal behaviour is defined. If ‘crime’ refers to acts that break the law, but laws are created by people with particular interests in mind, does that mean there are acts that are damaging to society that are not defined as crimes because they threaten the interests of the law makers? This idea is of particular interest to green criminologists (see Booklet 4b).

Weaknesses - How is this theory not useful? The idea of ruling-class hegemony does not account for the fact Britain is

democratic. The people vote in those who make the laws, therefore are they not a reflection of value-consensus?

Not all laws benefit the bourgeoisie. Laws such as the minimum wage, health & safety laws, directly benefit the working class, or do they? (See 4. Ideological Functions) If so this would mean that the nature of law creation has changed.

Feminists argue by focussing on how law makers protect their own interests, Marxists fail to acknowledge that the majority of law makers are also men. Laws are created not only to maintain capitalism, but also patriarchy. Example?

One other important factor is ignored here. Those who create laws are not only ruling-class men, but are also ________________.

3. Law enforcement Traditional Marxists also argue that although all classes commit crime, when it comes to applying the law by the criminal justice system, there is selective law enforcement. It is argued the police and courts focus their attention on the working-class crime and largely ignoring the crimes of the powerful.

i) Reiman – ‘The rich get richer, the poor get prison’Jeffrey Reiman (2001) argues that the more likely a crime is to be committed by higher-class people, the less likely it is to be treated a criminal offence. There is a disproportionately high rate of prosecutions for the kinds of ‘street crimes’ that poor people typically commit, such as burglary and assault. Yet crimes committed by the higher classes, such as health and safety violations and serious tax evasions, the criminal justice system takes a more forgiving view.

ii) Box - Health & Safety?Box provides compelling evidence of selective law enforcement: it is estimated that 14,000 deaths occur in the USA and 600 in the UK annually because some companies break safety regulations and put their employees' health and lives at risk. Very few prosecutions have been brought against such companies. It has been argued that these crimes cost more in monetary terms, and lives, than street crime. Where prosecutions do occur, the penalties are often quite small in terms of fines and publicity against the companies involved.

This can be a particular problem with the globalisation of capitalism, making law enforcement more difficult. For example, the Bhopal Disaster in 1984 involved an American pesticieds company ‘Union Carbide’ which was manufacturing it’s product in India (greater profits, of course). When there

was a gas leak, 4000 people died & 500,000 were injured, however the owner has never faced any prosections.

EVALUATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENTStrengths - How is this theory useful?

Useful for understanding why we hear more about working class crime, as it is punished more openly

Helps to raise awareness of immoral practices of corrupt officials through law enforcement, possibly leading to better regulation.

Looks at the actual cost of working class crime against that of white collar crime, linking to the idea that working-class crime is not dealt with appropriately by law enforcers.

Weaknesses - How is this theory not useful? However functionalists, the New Right and even New Left Realists would argue

that a problem with the Marxist approach is that it almost excuses and minimises working class crime which actually does need enforcement by the law. Street crimes have a definite victim and therefore should be addressed more strongly.

There has also been significant changes to the way the crimes of the ruling-class are dealt with. Phone hacking, MPs expenses, bribery in football are examples of white-collar crimes that have been tackled by the criminal justice system very seriously.

4. Ideological Functions of Crime Traditional Marxists argue that the law, crime & criminals also plays a significant part in supporting the ideology of capitalism.

i) Pearce – The ‘caring face of capitalism’ Laws are occasionally passed that appear to be for the benefit of the working-class rather than capitalism, such as the minimum wage or health and safety laws. However, Frank Pearce (1976) argues that such laws often benefit the ruling-class too. For example, health and safety laws ensure that workers continue to be fit & healthy for work, while the minimum wage has a similar effect whilst increases levels of consumption.

By giving capitalism a ‘caring face’, such laws create a false consciousness among workers that ‘it is not that bad’.

Also, these laws are not rigorously enforced, with firms regularly breaking health & safety laws and increasingly companies use zero hours contracts to minimise pay.

ii) Hall et al – The “fear of crime”The British Marxists Hall et al (1978) argued that the state can use this ‘fear of crime’, specifically a fear of mugging, to justify new police powers, in particular the right to 'stop and search'.

The media plays a central role in creating and maintaining this fear through selective reporting of crime & dramas which often emphasise working-class (& black) criminality.

The heavy policing of working class areas therefore gains the approval of the population who have been convinced that this is where the bulk of criminals live. This diverts the attention away from white collar crime, which is far more damaging to individuals and society as a whole.

Synoptic Link: You should make links to the media and “moral panics” as well as the topic on ethnicity. Remember you get credit for making synoptic links as it shows great depth when looking at as many perspectives as possible.

EVALUATION OF IDEOOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF CRIMEStrengths - How is this theory useful?

This idea has been useful for understanding why the working-class do not rise up and challenge the unfair treatment of their employers and criminal justice system, and even when they attempt to they are prevented by the RSA.

Hall’s ideas on the role of the media have been developed from a New Left Realist perspective in their attempt to explain why black ethnic groups are marginalised by society and experience greater levels of policing.

Weaknesses - How is this theory not useful? New Right Realists argue that the ‘fear of crime’ is not just a media

construction, but is a very real issue caused by high levels of crime in working-class areas (according to the statistics). They would argue that there are areas which are dangerous to go into, hence the media’s highlight of this is not a device to divert attention away from exploitation but a very real way of alerting people to potential crime.

Functionalists argue that by claiming all laws that appear to benefit the working-class are just a smokescreen to cover-up the evils of capitalism is too negative and ignores the progress to worker’s rights and their safety.

Question time:Q1: Outline TWO ways capitalism causes crime. (4)

Q2: Outline THREE ways the criminal justice system maintains and legitimates capitalism. (6)

Let’s analyse: Do you agree that society is criminogenic? Provide examples

to support your argument.

B) THE NEO-MARXIST APPROACHIn 1973, Taylor, Walton & Young published the "New Criminology" which presented the most important neo-Marxist approach to crime. This was a radical departure from the Traditional Marxist view as it combined elements of Marxism and Interactionism (‘Labelling Theory’) within the same study.

Taylor, Walton & Young agree with traditional Marxists that: Capitalist societies are characterised by inequalities in wealth and power

between individuals and these inequalities are the root cause of crime. The state makes and enforces that laws in the interests of the capitalist class

and criminalises members of the working-class. Capitalism should be replaced by a classless society (communism). This would

greatly reduce the extent of crime or even rid society of crime entirely.

Where the New Criminology & traditional Marxism differ, is in their involvement of free-will when explaining crime. New Criminologists are therefore not only critical of Marxist theory, but other structural theories too. Their approach is often referred to a critical criminology.

i) Anti-determinism & ‘Robin Hood’Taylor et al, argue that traditional Marxism is deterministic. For example, it sees workers a driven to commit crime out of economic necessity and sees individuals as puppets on the strings of society. However, Taylor et al take a more voluntaristic view, meaning that we have free-will.

One of their fundamental arguments is that criminals choose to break the law. They see crime as a meaningful action and a conscious choice by the actor (an interactionist idea). Also, they argue crime often has a political motive, such as the minors riots in the 1980s, which are people fighting back against the injustices of the capitalist system (clearly a Marxist view).

These two ideas paint a picture of the Robin Hood character, who steals from the rich to give to the poor, and simplifies the New Criminology view. The ‘Robin Hood’ view is supported by the fact that many crimes involve the redistribution of wealth – the poor in the inner city steal from the rich in the suburbs, or the lower-class stealing trainers from JD sports (a massive symbol of capitalism).Deviants are therefore not passive victims of capitalism who simply turn to crime but they are actively addressing capitalist inequality.

ii) A ‘Fully Social Theory of Deviance’

Taylor et al, aim to create a ‘fully social theory of deviance’ – a fully comprehensive theory of crime & deviance that would help change society for the better.In their view, a complete theory of deviance would need to unite six aspects:

The wider origins of the deviant act, in the unequal distribution of wealth and power in capitalist society.

The immediate origins of the deviant act – the particular context in which the individual decides to commit the act.

The act itself and its meaning to the actor, eg, was it a form of rebellion against capitalism?

The immediate origins of the social reaction – the reactions of those around the deviant, such as police, family and community to discovering the deviance.

The wider origins of the social reaction in the structure of capitalist society – especially the issue of who has the power to define actions as deviant and to label others and why some acts are treated more harshly than others.

The effects of labelling on the deviants future actions – eg, why does labelling lead to deviance amplification in some cases but not others?

For Taylor et al, these six aspects are interrelated and need to be understood together as part of a single unified theoryEVALUATION OF NEO-MARXISM/NEW CRIMINOLOGYStrengths - How is this theory useful?

Neo-Marxists/New Criminologists offer an updated version of Traditional Marxism which is useful as it combines elements of interactionism, making it a more comprehensive theory of crime & deviance.

New Criminology is useful because it allows Marxist principles to be applied in a modern context (a criticism of Traditional Marxism is that is far too outdated)

New Criminologists have a very clear aim; by producing a ‘fully social theory of deviance’ they propose how to improve social inequality rather than just offering an explanation of it, like traditional Marxists.

The New Criminology did lay the foundations for later radical approaches, such as New Left Realism which was developed by Jock Young (from Taylor, Walton & Young).

Weaknesses - How is this theory not useful? Feminists criticise the New Criminology as it does not address issues of

gender (a criticism also leveled at Marxists). For example, how would they explain crimes such as rape?

Realist Theories criticize the New Criminology justifying working-class crime and in doing so not considering the victims of crimes.

New Left Realists believe that New Criminologists have romanticised the working class criminal by painting him as a ‘Robin Hood’ character stealing from the rich. In reality, working class crime is most likely committed against members of the working-class.

C) MARXISM AND SUBCULTURAL THEORY

Marxists have also offered an insight into the development of working class subcultures in Britain and their relationship to crime and deviance.

Exam point:The Marxist explanation of subcultural crime can be used as a further point for a question on Marxist explanations of crime, but is also necessary for a question on subcultural explanations of crime and can be used to evaluate functionalism & subcultural strain theory.

i) Cohen – Class StructurePhil (not Albert) Cohen believes that subculture is a response to capitalist inequality, as members of youth subcultures tend to come from the lowest paid strata of society (the working-class). Therefore, Cohen argues subculture is an attempt to deal with a class structure imposed on the proletariat by the ruling class.

He points out the distinct subcultures that have been developed in the East End of London. East End culture has been virtually destroyed through redevelopment and the youth subculture has therefore got to be seen as an attempt to retrieve some of the elements of the old Working class lifestyle. A good case in point here would be the skinheads who appeared in the late 1960s. Their whole dress and the emphasis on protecting territory would be seen as an attempt to recapture the old community spirit.Fast forward to today. Can you think of any working-class subcultures that have emerged that can be interpreted as a response to class inequality?

ii) Willis – Neo-Marxist View of ‘The Lads’Synoptic link: Explain Willis’s theory for why working class ‘lads’ join deviant subcultures.

EVALUATION OF MARXIST SUBCULTURAL THEORY Strengths - How is this theory useful?

These views offer an alternative to the functionalist explanations of subcultural crime & deviance.

Willis in particular combines Marxist & interactionist ideas for the cause of subcultural crime and deviance and in doing so rejects the traditional Marxist view that the working-class and not conscious to ruling-class hegemony.

Weaknesses - How is this theory not useful? Much of this work can be seen as focussing on a narrow period in time and is

therefore outdated. It also only focusses on white, male, working-class subcultures that gained

large media attention, and therefore fails to explain the variety of subcultural forms, especially in terms of gender and ethnicity.

It has been pointed out that the middle-class do join subcultures too – particularly youth subcultures and this has been recognised as long ago as the 1960s where the Hippies originated from university campuses.

IN CONCLUSION

So, how useful is the Marxist perspective overall?Marxism has been incredibly useful in offering an alternate explanation of crime to the dominant functionalist perspective in the following ways:

It rejects the picture painted by official statistics and offers explanations of both working-class & middle-class crime

It takes a relativistic view of crime, and questions who makes and enforces the law & who benefits which functionalists fail to recognise

It explores the power & influence of dominant groups in society. It has also been useful in developing later theories such New Left Realists and

has been adapted to incorporate interactionist ideas in the case of the New Criminology.

Despite its uses however, it has been accused by feminists of being ‘gender blind’ by failing to acknowledge crimes by gender, and in doing so also takes too much notice of patterns of crime highlighted in official statistics. Secondly, Marxism sides with the working-class, whether it is traditional Marxism seeing the working-class as victims of criminogenic capitalism, the neo-Marxists seeing the w/c as modern versions of ‘Robin Hood’ making a political statement or Marxist subcultural theory seeing the w/c as grouping together as a reaction to capitalist inequality. In doing so, Realist theories argue Marxists fail to take into account the victims of crime.

Question time: STRETCH & CHALLENGEi) Marxist are concerned with the amount of white-collar crime in

capitalist society. Use Merton’s ‘strain theory’ from Booklet 2a, to explain white collar crime.

ii) Use the idea of subculture, from either a functionalist or Marxist perspective to explain white-collar crime.

EXAM FOCUS Below is an example of the type of questions you may get asked in the exam, based on this booklet. The key skills are in bold.

Item A Some sociologists argue that official statistics provide an inaccurate view of the social distribution of crime in society; emphasising crime as a working-class phenomena. This, they claim, is due to selective law creation & enforcement by the criminal justice system which is a reflection of ruling-class interests. As a result the ruling-class remain the dominant group in society and capitalist inequality continues.However, other sociologists argue this offers a too sympathetic view of working-class crime.

A-LEVEL QUESTIONS

Q1: Outline TWO ways selective law creation maintains capitalist inequality. (4)

Q2: Outline THREE ways capitalism causes crime. (6)

Q3: Applying material from Item A, analyse TWO ways crime legitimates and maintains ruling-class hegemony. (10)

Q4: Applying material from Item A and your own knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of the Marxist perspective to an understanding crime & deviance. (30)

EXAM GUIDANCEQ1 & Q2 are short questions and you do not need to include authors/studies/perspectives for full marks.Do not spend too long on these questions. ‘Get in, get out’!

Q3 should include the following for full marks: Brief introduction defining any key concepts in the question and/or

identifying the relevant perspective/theory. TWO detailed points that directly address the question. Each making

reference to relevant authors/studies/evidence/theory. At least one application of material from the item. Brief conclusion that analyses/evaluates the overall information, ie, which

point is the most significant/convincing and/or evidence that undermines the arguments overall.

10 marks = 15 mins = 1 ½ sides of writing.

Q4 should include the following for full marks: Introduction defining any key concepts in the question and outlining the

debate you are going to consider in the essay. At least FOUR detailed points that directly address the question. Each

making reference to relevant authors/studies/evidence/theory. EVALUATION – There must be alternate arguments and criticisms presented

for any chance of higher marks. This is the key skill you are being assessed on.

At least one application of material from the item. Conclusion that analyses/evaluates the overall information, ie, which

argument is the most significant/convincing and/or evidence that undermines the arguments overall.

30 marks = 45 mins = At least 4 sides of writing.