Durkheim's Theory That Crime Is Normal in Society
This short essay examines Émile Durkheim's sociological claim that crime is "normal." The paper explains that Durkheim does not endorse criminal behavior but argues that the conditions producing crime are inherent to human nature, and that social institutions arose precisely to constrain those impulses. It further explores how fear of crime motivates people to surrender individual freedoms in exchange for collective security, thereby enabling society to exist. The essay concludes by critically evaluating this perspective, questioning whether society's origins lie purely in fear, why effective criminals rarely seize power, and why cultural institutions with no crime-fighting function still emerge.
- Introduction: What Durkheim Means by 'Normal' Crime: Durkheim's claim that crime is normal explained
- Crime as a Condition of Social Order: Fear of crime enables social cooperation and order
- Critical Evaluation of Durkheim's Perspective: Three objections challenge Durkheim's negative social origins
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens by immediately clarifying a common misreading — that "normal" does not mean "acceptable" — which shows careful engagement with the source text.
- It moves logically from exposition of Durkheim's argument to a multi-point critical evaluation, demonstrating analytical rather than merely descriptive thinking.
- The critique raises three distinct objections (negative origins of society, the puzzle of criminal dominance, and non-crime-related institutions), giving the argument breadth within a compact format.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses the "explain then critique" structure common in philosophy and social theory essays. The writer first steelmans Durkheim's position — presenting it as charitably and clearly as possible — before systematically identifying its weaknesses. This approach demonstrates intellectual fairness and signals that the writer understands the theory deeply enough to evaluate it.
Structure breakdown
The essay has two clear movements: (1) an expository section that unpacks Durkheim's claim about the normality of crime and its role in motivating social cooperation, and (2) a critical section that challenges the theory on three grounds. A single reference to Durkheim's Rules of Sociological Method anchors the discussion in the primary source.
Introduction: What Durkheim Means by 'Normal' Crime
When the sociologist Émile Durkheim states that crime is normal, he does not mean that crime should be accepted by society. However, he does advocate the view that the conditions necessary for crime are, in effect, hardwired into the human animal. The reason that societal laws and institutions have developed is to contain those impulses. Human beings in a state of nature, without such constraints, would not be virtuous beings.
Crime as a Condition of Social Order
Crime is, to some degree, necessary, Durkheim believed, because without it society would, in effect, not exist. In other words, human beings would not surrender their freedoms to a general institution without the fear of losing their life or property to crime. People are willing to concede some of their freedoms — and thus enable society to exist — in exchange for freedom from fear and the security that social boundaries offer, as people rally together in opposition to crime.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.