Durkheim on Crime and Societal Development: the Durkheimian School of Comparative Criminology Reconsidered

Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 32 No.1 May 2004 35 DURKHEIM ON CRIME AND SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT: THE DURKHEIMIAN SCHOOL OF COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY RECONSIDERED Stan C. Weeber, McNeese State University ABSTRACT The assumption that crime is associated with urbanization and industrialization has had a strong influ ence on the development of criminology and especially comparative criminology. Indeed, the idea of a crime-development link guided much empirical study in comparative criminology beginning in the 1960s. The source of the assumption is often attributed to Emile Durkheim, although careful readers recall that Durkheim's original writings on crime and societal development stressed the functionality of crime and its universality as opposed to its socially dysfunctional causes and effects. Thus there is reason to question whether Durkheim was the original source. The purpose of this paper is to review what Durkheim had to say about the link het\veen crime and societal development and then to look at the theoretical arguments of the Durkheim-inspired comparative criminologists to see if the latter's ideas were based upon Durkheim's original works. The analysis shows that the theoretical root of Durkheimi:,m comparative criminology is traced to Modernization theory and to various reinterpretations of Durkheim's classic works. The implica tion of these findings is discussed as it relales to the formal education of professional sociologists in the new millennium. The assumption that crime is associated Chang 1976; Clifford 1963. 1964, 1973, 1974; with urbanization and industrialization has Ebbe 1985; Opolot 1976,1979,1980,1981; had a strong influence on the development Messner 1982; Clinard & Abbott 1973; of criminology. As Rogers (1989) points out, Shelley 1981; Olurntimehim 1973; Krohn for most of the twentieth century the disci 1976,1978; Webb 1972; Arthur 1989,1991; pline has concentrated on the city. and espe Neumann & Berger 1988; Bennett 1991; cially on those urban residents who are Bennett, Shields & Daniels 1997; Rogers young, male and poor. Inspired by the Chi 1987. 1989). A considerable number of these cago School. a theory that became very popu scholars reasoned that as societies develop, lar in criminology suggested that lower-class crime increases. They believed that develop conditions lead to cultures of violence and ing societies - as they rapidly industr"lalize, thus to criminality (Cloward & Ohlin 1961; urbanize, and modernize ~ undergo the same Wolfgang 1982; Cohen 1955; Miller 1958; social processes that occurred in Europe and Sykes & Matza 1957). This theory was closely America in the 1900s. ThUS, as people in related to and led to the development of a developing countries migrated to the newly more general approach called the social dis M developing cities, they broke the traditional organization perspective (Thomas & Zna personal, family and community ties of rural niecki 1920; Shaw & McKay 1931, 1942. 1969; village life. Social controls, especially infor Shaw, Zorbaugh, McKay & Cottrell 1929; mal controls, weaken if not disappear, and Sampson & Wilson 1995; Chilton. Teske & deviant and criminal behavior increases (see Arnold 1995; Jackson 1995; Baldassare especially Clinard & Abbott 1973; Shelley 1995; Short & Jenness 1994; Lundman 1981). Because the experience of these peo 1993; Park, Burgess & McKenzie 1928; ple appeared quite close to what Durkheim Bursik & Grasmick 1993; Sampson & Groves had called "anomie" or normlessness, the 1989; Rose & McClain 1990; Anderson 1990; theoretical approach of these comparative Warner & Pierce 1993; Bellair 1997; Wilson criminologists was called the "Durkheimian 1987; Bursik 1988; Gottfredson, McNeil & Modernization" approach (Neumann & Ber Gottfredson 1991; see also the brief but ex ger 1988), and scholars promoting or test cellent review in Short 1997). ing the empirical accuracy of the approach Comparative criminologists linked devel were referred to informally as belonging to opment to crime beginning in the 1960s. the Durkheimian School of comparative when attention was turned to the Third World criminology. (Kayira 1978; Kayode &Alemika 1984; Brillion A careful reader of Durkheim's classic 1974; Wasikhongo 1976; Mushanga 1974; works may express some initial concern 19binovia 1984; Tanner 1970; Kercher 1979; about the Durkheimian School of com para- 36 Volume 32 No. 1 May 2004 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology tive criminologists: such readers may recall tor. Law governs connections between peo how Durkheim stressed the positive func ple, is identifiable, and provides evidence of tions of crime: how crime was normal and the kind of connections existing in a given how the societal reaction to crime promotes society. It is an observable expression of the social solidarity. Moreover, crime is a moral moral bonds existing in a society at a given issue, because by definition it is a violation time. He thus set out to study legal and moral of the sentiments of the collective conscience development systematically with a view to of the group. These ideas are compatible tracing the different factors affecting forms of with what would later be called structural func bonds, and also the bases of unity and soli tionalism. Thus, at least with respect to the darity. Thus, issues of crime or law violation topic of crime, they may not recall Durkheim were tightly interwoven with a society's de writing about how a societal breakdown or velopment at any point in its history, for this social disorganization leads to crime. is essentially the same as its moral develop Additionally, Durkheim had distinct views ment. He decided that there were two funda about societal development-about the tran mental bases for solidarity, likeness and in sition from a segmental to an organized type terdependence (see generally the review in of society and how the nature of law changes Hadden 1997). -but what exactly did he say about crime Addressing the first kind of solidarity, which rates? Would the rates increase or decrease he called mechanical solidarity, Durkheim as law and society changes? Hence there believed that societies with this type of soli is, initially at least, room for a healthy skepti darity have minimal internal differentiation, cal view that comparative criminologists, in and likeness is therefore a basis of solidar advocating a Durkheimian view, have left ity. In such a society, people are not divided something out or overlooked something in very much as to function. They live remark Durkheim's classic writings. ably similar lives, tend to know one another The purpose of this paper is to explore in fairly small communities, and share many what Durkheim had to say about crime and ideas, beliefs, and experiences. The law societal development in his original writings which governs relations in such a society is on the subject, and then to compare those what Durkheim called repressive or penal views with the arguments constructed by the law. Durkheimian comparative criminologists. Where this kind of law prevails, crime is Are the arguments of the latter based on Durk any act that, regardless of degree, provokes heim's classic views on crime and societal against the perpetrator the characteristic re development, or not? That is the key ques action known as punishment (Durkheim tion to be answered. 1960 70). Durkheim believed that crime was not the breaking of a rule per se but the break DURKHEIM ON CRIMEAND SOCIETAL ing of the bond of social solidarity and the DEVELOPMENT inflaming of the intense social sentiments This section reviews what Durkheim wrote that result in punishment of the offender. In about crime and societal development, as addition, crime has an invariant quality in that well as a careful consideration of the context it is ubiquitous, existing at all times and his in which it is written. We consider three well torical epochs. Speaking of the constancy of known works of Durkheim: The Division of this collective will to punish, he writes: Labor in Society (1960); Rules of Sociologi cal Method (1958); and Suicide (1951 a). These variations of repressive law prove... In The Division of Labor in Society, Durk that the constant Characteristic could not heim argued that the division of labor, far be found among the intrinsic properties of from being responsible for the modern phe acts imposed or prohibited by penal rules, nomena of crime and suicide, actually con since they present such diversity, but rather tributed to something far more significant: a in the relations that they sustain with some firm basis for solidarity. Moreover, the divi condition external to them. (1960 71) sion of labor is a moral phenomenon. To illustrate this, he searched for something that Durkheim believed that crime offends would provide evidence of the strong bonds sentiments which are found among all nor and moral interconnections between people. mal individuals of any given society. These Law, written or unwritten, became this indica- sentiments are strong and they are defined. Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 32 No. 1 May 2004 37 They must be of a certain average intensity. ished. The crime of lese majeste is another Not only are they written upon the conscious example of a crime that in modern times no ness of everyone, but they are deeply written. longer offends a collective consciousness They are in no way halting, superficial ca (Durkheim 1960 164). Once again, though prices of the will, but emotions and disposi Durkheim falls short of saying explicitly that tions strongly rooted within us. The senti crime rates would fall as the division of labor ments, furthermore, must not be simply emerges, his statements above, taken in strongly held; they must also be precise and context, would seem to imply it: if varieties of clear (Durkheim 1960 77-79). crime have disappeared with no new forms Crime, then, in Durkheim's revised defini arising, this would suggest a net decline in tion, is an act that offends the strong, well crime.

Load more