Merton's Theory of Anomie: Understanding Deviant Behavior and Strain in Society, Study notes of Criminology

Download Merton's Theory of Anomie: Understanding Deviant Behavior and Strain in Society and more Study notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Running head: MERTON’S THEORY OF ANOMIE/STRAIN The Anomie Theory: A Short Study by Hildreth R. Hardy Jr.

Anomie has a long history in the social sciences. Anomie has a Greek origin meaning, lawlessness, (Hilbert, 1986) without direction or purpose and was developed in the late nineteenth century by Emile Durkheim (Shoemaker, 2000). Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917 ) first employed the concept of anomie in his doctorial thesis, The Division of Labor in Society (1893) and later wrote more about anomie in his classical work Suicide (1897) (Nisbet 1979, vol. 5) (Deflem, 1989). Durkheim was born in Epinal, France and taught sociology at the University of Bordeaux (Nisbet 1979, vol.5). The word “anomie” has been very popular among American sociologists in the sixties (Besnard, 1988). Walsh (2000, p. 1087) suggests, “society does not cause crime it prevents it by restraining selfish human appetites”. Those engaged in anomie research in the 1960’s were fighting against the revolt against the Chicago School of Sociology (Jaworski, 1990). Anomie first taken from the work of Emile Durkheim has been interpreted in different ways (Martin, 2000). The most notable interpretation of Durkheim’s theory of anomie can be traced to Robert King Merton born 1910 (Nisbet 1979, vol. 13), who focused on the “discrepancy between goals and the means for their attainment” (Martin 2000, p. 75). Merton was born in Philadelphia, PA. and graduated from Temple University in 1931. Merton joined the faculty at Columbia University in 1941 (Nisbet 1979, vol. 13). Discussion of the Theory Both Durkheim’s and Merton’s concept of anomie refers to a state of society (Deflem, 1989). Merton’s theory of anomie is a theory that outlines and discusses deviant behavior (Cohen, 1965). The current tendency is to use Merton’ theory of anomie in a more general form called strain theory (Scarpitti & Nielsen, 1999). It differs somewhat from Durkheim’s in that Merton

achievement as more than a fixed goal toward which one struggled” (Gagnon & Simon 1976, p. 356). In general, discussions it is said that Durkheim created anomie theory to explain one kind of deviance, but Merton expanded on Durkheims theory to show a variety of deviant behavior (Hilbert, 1986). Merton’s strain theory is routed in the assumption that “delinquency results when individuals are unable to achieve their goals through legitimate channels” (Agnew 1985, p. 151). Agnew (1985, p. 151) also goes on to point out that “in such cases, individuals may turn to illegitimate channels of goal achievement or strike out at the source of their frustration in anger”. The most accepted conceptualization of anomie in criminology has been that of Merton ( Martin, 2000). After 1901, anomie disappeared from Durkheims work and was hidden by many of his collaborators (Besnard, 1988). It has been written that Merton is an “impressive and insightful theorist” (Blau 1995, p. 5) and did not align himself with other theorists and methodologists. Unlike Durkheim, Merton does not associate anomie with sudden change, but with anomie or strains built into a social system. Merton’s theory does not focus upon crime, but rather various acts of deviance, which can lead to criminal behavior. Anomie (Martin 2000, p. 83) “is not just the observable discrepancy between one’s material wants and one’s opportunity for achieving those wants”, but is that individuals experience from being in that situation. Merton’s idea of anomie refers to a deinstitutionalization and a demoralization of means that are a result of dissociation between cultural goals and institutional norms (Deflem, 1989). Social rejection and social stigmatism and the rejection of society’s accepted goals and the means of achieving them are the crux of the strain theory (Timor, 2001). Merton notes that there are certain goals which are strongly emphasized by society (education, hard work etc.), but not

everyone has access to the means to attain these goals and this is where anomie sets in. According Shoemaker, ( 2000, p. 94) Merton’s theory of anomie is defined as the “disjunction between cultural goals and structured means for achieving these goals as it affects a large number of people”. Merton presents in his arguments of strain that there are five possible reactions to anomie or strain to use as means for goal attainment (Harary, 1966) also know as the means-end theory of deviance (Shoemaker, 2000). These reactions to strain are conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion (Harary, 1966). The type of reaction that a person uses depends on the person’s reaction to a cultural goal i.e. money and to a legitimate way to achieve it i.e. hard work (Scarpitti & Nielsen, 1999). One should keep in mind that Merton did not distinguish clearly between monetary success and occupational success (Menard, 1995). An attempt will be made to describe each of these reactions. Conformity. Can best be described as people who continue to except the goals sanctioned by society and the means available to them (Harary, 1966). Conformity is not considered a deviant reaction to strain. Conformity is the most common reaction in a very stable society (Shoemaker, 2000). We have both means and goals and a “positive attitude toward both” (Harary, 1966 p. 694). Innovation. Is considered the first deviant reaction to strain. This reaction can best be described as the acceptance of society’s cultural goals, but a rejection of the legitimate means to attain those goals (Shoemaker, 2000). Harary (1966) describes innovation as people who are sympathetic with societal goals, but find that the means are so restrictive that hey turn to new ones. Innovators tend to rely on illegal means in an attempt to achieve monetary success (Scarpitti & Nielsen, 1999). The innovator would be expected to engage in theft (Shoemaker,

personality in toto”. Jukka Savolainen (2000) writes that Merton’s anomie theory produces two arguments: one that talks about the distribution of crime within the social unit (strain theory) and the other argument addresses the level of criminal activity in the social units (anomie theory). Savolainen ( 2000, p. 1022) suggests that the “American Dream” is dependant upon the “stratification of legitimate economic opportunities”. The strain theory points out that inequality increases crime rates (Kelly, 2000). When inequality is great, the higher the strain, which gives lower class individuals a reason to commit crime (Kelly, 2000). When faced with successful individuals around them, unsuccessful individuals feel a large amount of frustration. When faced with an increase in population a division of labor is produced and this produces an increase in the moral density of the population (Krohn, 1978). William Simon and John Gagnon (1976) suggests that the conditions of the American society are met by Durkheims commercial society. Simon and Gagnon (1976, p. 374) suggests that Merton describes his interpretation of Durkheim’s use of the concept of anomie as a “concept referred to a property of social and cultural structure, not to be a property of individuals confronting that structure”. Merton’s strain theory of deviance is an effort to explain the rates of crime in a given population in relation to laws (Turner, 1990). Blazak (2001, p. 986) writes that the “effects of macro-level anomie can manifest on the micro level as criminal behavior”. Criminological writings are overwhelmed with theoretical models in the discussion of anomie which suggest that the unequal distribution of wealth or opportunity as a source of criminality (Ousey & Augustine, 2001). Anomic conditions serve as “releasers” (Walsh 2000, p. 1086) of criminal behavior, which can sometimes occur at lower thresholds for some. Walsh (2000) argues that being unable to attain resources in a legitimate manner routinely generates a high degree of frustration or

strain and this leads to the quest to achieve the goal by illegitimate means. Criticisms and Revisions of the Anomie Theory Anomie “continues to be shrouded in conceptual difficulty” (Hilbert 1986, p. 1) and “conceptual soundness” (Martin 2000, p.80). Merton’s theory of anomie has been modified by both Cloward and Ohlin and was criticized as being empirically unsupported (Menard, 1995). Walsh (2000) points out that unlike Durkheim, Merton viewed anomie as permanent condition of a capitalist society, which in effect created a disjunction between cultural goals and structural impediments. The Mertonian anomie/strain theory suggests that people are social animals who want to follow social rules, but will only break them when placed under pressure or strain (Walsh, 2000). One prominent revision that is a derivative of the Mertonian theory of anomie/strain is Robert Agnew’s general strain theory (GST) (Walsh, 2000). Agnew’s (2001) general strain theory argues that strains increase the likelihood of negative emotions like anger and frustrations and is tested by examining the effect of strain on crime. Agnew’s more generalized conception of strain offers few empirical investigations (Mazerolle, 1998). Over the past twenty years, “strain theories have been increasingly criticized and deemphasized as dominant explanations of crime and delinquency” (Mazerolle 1998, p. 67). In an effort to invigorate the strain theory Agnew (2001) attempts to expand the theory to explain a broad range of delinquent behavior. In the early days of the Durkheim anomie theory critics argued that this theory was poorly developed in its conceptualization of power and political regulation which in sum presented points of ambiguity (Turner, 1990). Agnew (1985, p.151) provided research that argued against the notion that delinquency results from the blockage of goal seeking behavior, but rather that a major source of frustration (strain) is the blockage of

unpleasant home or school experiences leads to anger and frustration, which can lead to delinquency. Empirical Literature Larry Barnett (1970) projected the anomie theory to adult women who lived in a low-income family housing project. This study showed that religion was an antecedent condition for achievement values. Barnett’s study also showed that there was no relationship between anomie and achievement values, but that education was a key variable in the study. “Higher education is associated with relatively high achievement values and with relatively low anomie” (Barnett 1970, p. 133). Savolainen’s (2000) research tested the theory of institutional anomie by measuring national homicide rates. This study concluded that “economic inequality is a strong determinant of the national homicide rates in societies characterized by weak institutions of social protection” (Savolainen 2000, p. 1036). Menard (1995, p. 169) concluded from his study that the predictive powers of Merton’s anomie theory had been “seriously underestimated” and that the levels of explained variance exceed those commonly obtained in tests of the control theory. Ortmann (2000) concluded through his research that both Durkheim’s and Merton’s statement concerning the availability of adequate means has a strong influence on norms. This conclusion can best be demonstrated as “You must not kill” but “You must not kill because” (Ortman 2000, p.5). In yet another study of strain suggests that macro-level strain has implications for the control of crime, delinquency and problem behavior (Brezina, Piquero & Mazerolle, 2001).

Value of Anomie Theory The theory of anomie can be linked with other theories such as cultural transmission and differential association (Cohen, 1965). The anomie theory can be also linked to more recent theories such as sub-cultures. Kelly (2000, p. 5370) suggests that anomie “has shown that for violent crime the impact of inequality is large, even after controlling for the effects of poverty, race, and family composition”. “Although most crimes are committed by the most disadvantaged members of society, these individuals face greater pressure and incentives to commit crime in areas of high inequality”. Agnew (2001) defines objective strains and subjective strains as derivative of the general strain theory. The strain theory has led to an explanation of middle-class delinquency (Agnew, 1985). The strain theory has its value when strain is represented as an educational expectation rather than a dysjunction based on occupational measures (Farnsworth & Leiber, 1989). Conclusion Classic sociologists such as Durkheim and Merton have opened the world of anomie to a countless number of sociologists. The theory has demonstrated a capacity to explain delinquency among individuals and the potential to explain delinquency rates over time and between groups. The macro implications of the theory in future research should focus on additional forms of environmental hate and examine the link between aversion and delinquency (Agnew, 1985). In sum, Merton’s concept of anomie refers to a deinstitutionalization of social means and depending on the characteristics of society; five possible roles of behavior are available.

Harary, F. (1966). Merton Revisited: A New Classification for Deviant Behavior. American Sociological Review, 31 (5), 693-697. Hilbert, R. A. (1986). Anomie and the Moral Regulation of Reality: The Durkheimian Tradition in Modern Relief. Sociological Theory, 4 (1), 1-19. Jaworski, G. D. (1990). Robert K. Merton's Extension of Simmel's Ubersehbar. Sociological Theory, 8 (1), 99-105. Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82 (4), 530-539. Krohn, M. D. (1978). A Durkheimian Analysis of International Crime Rates. Social Forces, 57 (2), 654-670. Martin, R. (2000). Anomie, Spirituality, and Crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16 (1), 75-98. Mazerolle, P. (1998). Gender, General Strain, and Delinquency: An Empirical Examination. Justice Quarterly, 15 (1), 65-91. Menard, S. (1995). A Developmental Test of Mertonian Anomie Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32 (2), 136-174. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3 (5), 672-

Merton, R. K. (1997). On the Evolving Synthesis of Differential Association and Anomie Theory: A Perspective from the Sociology of Science. Criminology, 35 (3), 517-525. Nisbet, R. (1979). The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5). USA: World Book-Childcraft International, Inc. Nisbet, R. (1979). The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 13). USA: World Book-Childcraft International. Ortmann, R. (2000, November). Anomie as a Consequence of Disturbances of Equilibrium in Case of Suddenly Occurring Social or Personal Changes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA. USA.

Ousey, G. C., & Augustine, M. C. (2001). Young Guns: Examining Alternate Explanations of Juvenile Firearm Homicide Rates. Criminology, 39 (4), 933-967. Savolainen, J. (2000). Inequality, Welfare State, and Homicide: Further Support for the Institutional Anomie Theory. Criminology, 38 (4), 1021-1042. Scarpitti, F. L., & Nielsen, A. L. (1999). Crime and Criminals: Vol.. Contemporary and Classic Readings in Criminology. Los Angeles, CA: Claude Teweles. Shoemaker, D. J. (2000). Theories of Delinquency: Vol.. An Examination of Explanations of Deliquent Behavior (Fourth ed.) New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1976). The Anomie of Affluence: A post-Mertonian Conception. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (2), 356-378. Smith, D. N. (2001). Anomie, Solidarity, and Conflict: French Sociology and the Limits of Dialogue. Sociological Quarterly, 42 (1), 69-78. Timor, U. (2001). Balagan: Delinquency as a Result of the Lack of a Center of Norms and Consciousness. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45 (6), 730-748. Turner, J. H. (1990). Emile Durkheim's Theory of Social Organization. Social Forces, 68 (4), 1089 - 1103. Walsh, A. (2000). Behavior Genetics and Anomie/Strain Theory. Criminology, 38 (4), 1075- 1 107.