Theory Being Posed in "The Normal and the Pathological"

Theoretical Argument

Crime is a normative aspect of any social construct. That however does not in any way imply that a criminal is a set of or his psychological and biological endowments, if that may be called so. These are actually two very different queries on altogether different premises. The differentiation is better captured when sociological pursuits (fraud, slander, calumny, insults, etc.) are ingrained into the discussion about criminality. It also discount the fact that criminality should be looked down upon, though crimes are an accepted social construct. In ways similar to an individual avoiding pain, so does the society abhor crime. As an extension, similarly as pain cannot be wished away and does form a feature of life, so does criminality about a social structure. That is however not at all to defend crime. Such a posit would be against the moral obligations that has tangible outcomes and become rather unacceptable to a layman if spoken in the same tongue. (Emile Durkheim, 2008).

In one of the most compelling statements made in the context, that of divergence from normative and acceptable social behavior, Durkheim has emphasized on the observation that if throughout criminality has sustained in all cultures and societies then, it must be accepted that it is part and parcel of any society. Criminal activities alone should not be construed as a sign of a deprecated society. It is, he says, the diversity of thought that is allowed that leads to deviant behavior and leads to crime. It is this very divergence of that is causative of change, which again is the very essence of life. Stagnant society is an impossibility even in its very notion. Thus Durkheim states that we beget crime in exchange for allowing for freedom of expression and thought. That should then not be understood as meaning that a better society has more criminality imbued in it. Indeed the rising crime rates are not tolerable by any stretch of imagination. Durkheim offers no explanation for crime, its meaning or causes. He states that they (crimes) only give an insight into the 'pathological' state of a society. He only ventured as far to dispel some prevalent definitions of normative behavior. He explains that those behavioral traits change with time and prevalent conditions. A very acceptable behavior in one time frame and societal structure could be acceptable as the conditions prevailing then would be deemed not only normative but also a requirement. However, the same behavior in changed social conditions and in a different time frame could be unacceptable and termed as a crime. Thus, crime is not 'pathological' as often construed. It is only a wide deviation from the acceptable normative behavior of a particular time and state of society. Deviances are acceptable and engender change. In removing crimes altogether we would have curtailed freedom itself, Durkheim, states. Consequently, intolerance towards crimes to that extent would mean putting an end to the change that is a requirement of a progressive society. In as much, crimes are the torchbearers of change and hence evolution (Emile Durkheim, 2008).

Durkheim was not a criminologist. He does not proffer to explain the manifestation of crime. He sees society as a collective body that has a structure in which each part performs its designated role towards completion of all requirements as required. He then chooses to leave space for deviation, rejection, or conflict as he chooses to call it. Suppression of individual point-of-view by the invisible pressure applied by social commitments and requirements of social obligations and structure are conflicts. The society functions normatively - if and only if - all components work in tandem and are in agreement with each other. Collective sense is a 'thing' according to Durkheim that is reflected in everyone. It is not in confinement of an individual yet it pervades the society. Along those lines, crime can then be defined as the naming of an action or course of action that society collectively believes to be so. Such an action that is not liked generally by people is crime and is only culturally relative according to Hobbes, people are held guilty of certain actions but those people were only people before being labeled 'criminal'. The social construct expects the society to behave in an anticipated way. Durkheim differs with Hobbes' contention by offering an illustration. Leave a new-born in a desert with adequate necessities and after a couple of decades, he contends you would not find anything like a full grown human being. It'll be something different. What? He refuses to indulge in that. That he will not possess qualities required of, living normatively in a society is the only extent to which Durkheim chooses to go. If, in another case a survivor of a shipwreck is found after similarly long duration, the society will still accept that he has only been transformed. His change will be accepted only as a deviation. The society accepts that changes have been internalized, and now he is a different person. Whereas Hobbes suggests that such an individual will have the full freedom of expressing his independence and hence he will no longer be 'criminalized' for his actions. Therefore, he shall indulge in his delinquencies. (Emile Durkheim, 2008).