As traditional functionalist such as Durkheim, Merton preconceived crime as a result of a society that was in disequilibrium. Like other functionalist, Merton used a macro level of analysis suggesting that the phenomenon of crime is imposed on the actor by the social structure, which is out of balance. Like Durkheim, Merton’s work endeavoured to address the social and cultural norms and values that underpinned social order and/or disorder(understanding criminology by Sandra walklate pg 24) in addressing this issue, Merton asked “what sorts of faulty social conditions force some individuals to act in deviant or criminal manner?” he set to answer this question by stating that deviance are traced to the nature of social structure. Like other functionalist rejecting efforts of individualize as the cause of deviant, he argue that deviance arose in certain groups, not because the human being comprising them are compounded of distinctive biological tendencies but because they are responding normally to the situation in which they find themselves(Merton 1993;pg250).
Merton distinguishes between two important elements of social and cultural structures: culturally define goals(economic activities) and the institutionalised means of achieving them(laws/norm and values that function to maintain an orderly social and economic structure) . The former are those material possession, accomplishment that norms and values encourage us to aspire to. The latter are the distribution of opportunities to achieve these goals in socially acceptable ways. People in USA are socialised into desiring certain cultural goals term as the “American dream”, in which an emphasis upon the goal of success/wealth occur without equivalent emphasis upon the institutionalised means to strive for this goal. .Thus some route are blocked for some individuals because of their social position. Merton therefore argue that other functionalist like Marxist need to pay more attention to the inequalities in society i.e. a student from a lower class background would have less opportunities to enter into higher education and top professional jobs that some from a middle class or upper class background. this might be because of material deprivation or because they have no role- model who understand the educational system or work industry to guard and advice them. This contradiction between the two means; a society where there is a lack of equal opportunity backed up with a strong emphasis on material need as produce “anomie”. American society is anomic because; “there is a structural barrier to women, ethnic minorities, poor and young”. It present what neo-Marxist term as “false ideological of meritocracy” and some segment of the population are under great stress to deviate.
Faced with this, Merton claim that individual can adopt 5 possible modes of adaptation according to whether they accept or reject the cultural goals and/ or the institutional means.
- Conformity- adherence to the practice of belief of the majority. This is the most common mode of adaptation. Conformists are the individuals who want to seek the “American dreams” by reaching there goals through hard work
- Innovation- by innovation they strive to obtain the success by taking advantage of illegal goals available to them in place of less promising conventional means in order to attain success(Akers, pg 114-5). Some are seen as merely “deviant”, and subjectable to informal social controls and censure, while others are proscribed by the criminal law of the relevant jurisdiction(Roger Hopkins Burke). As (Lilly et al 1986) illustrate, at a time when business deregulation had generated many fortunes, some people were encourage by the circumstances to take opportunities to shorten the means to the social goal of wealth through “insider dealing” and similar practices. Box(1983) argues that if an organisation is unable to achieve its goals using socially approved methods, then it might turn illegal method of achieving its goal.
- Ritualism- the ritualist follows the rules obsessively by accepting a lifestyle of hard work, but loses sight of the overall goals (i.e. the inflexible bureaucrat). Such individual goes through the motions of getting an education and had work, yet is not commit to the goal of accumulating wealth or power.
- Retreatist- these are category of social “drop-outs” which includes drug addicts and alcoholics “they are true aliens; they are in society but not of it”(Merton, 1938:677). They abandon both cultural goals and the legitimate means of achieving them.
- Rebellion- Merton suggest that by the time people reach the mode of rebellion, they have completely rejected the story that everyone in society can achieve wealth or power. Thus they reject the means and goals and replace them with an alternative means and goals. Rebel may use social or political activism to replace the goal of personal wealth with the goal of social justice and equality.
Although the influence of Merton’s contributions in Criminology/Sociology is widely acknowledged, it is faced with a number of criticisms; firstly Merton has been blame for relying heavily on official statistics(OF). OF are commonly held to lack validity as they only present “the tip of the ice burg” and does not reveal the “dark-figure”, which refers to the vast number of unrecorded crimes that do not appear in OF( i.e. white-collar crime, corporate crime). thus placing too much emphasis on lower class crime.
It has a weak theory of motivation- in that his original theory some what seems to be empirically unstable(he was unable to produce and empirical data therefore ,some critics are force to say that his work might just be a claim as he doesn’t have any evidence to support them) and seems to lack specify. He does not seem to present a single theory but two: anomie theory and strain theory. (hhtp://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lrbr/subpages/reviews/deflem0207.htm)
He fail to include women in his theory as feminist such as (Leonard 1982; Naffine 1987) noted. Leonard argues vigorously “that the dominant goal in American society is monetary success, and yet he has forgotten at least half of the population with this formulation) however it must be noted that Merton was writing during the time when, women traditionally been socialized to desire, above all else is marriage and family.
Labelling/integrationist theory have (Cohen 1966 p.113) has specifically criticed him for his atomistic and individualistic approach that puts he individual in a box and ignores the process of interaction between the deviant and representation in society. Further more he is accused of being a “cautious rebel” who explains neither the initial existence of inequality, nor the exaggerated on emphasis in society on making money (Taylor, Walton and Yong 1973).
Marxist would argue that the “American dream” is a false consciousness, keeping workers from realizing class consciousness and meritocracy is impossible under capitalist as (Steven box; 1983) argues, law and order in capitalist societies are highly selective to benefit the working and upper class.
Despite all these criticisms, Merton’s contribution of anomie has been extremely successful and there has been numerous efforts to extend and review his concept.
Sub-cultural approaches where influenced in their analyses of crime by Merton’s anomie theory. The central concept of this type of their analysis is that crime is normal behaviour, it is not a product of lack of socialization and culture, but of different cultures and values. Societies will normally contain groups, who to some extent share the some of the mainstream culture, but they develop some of their own values. The distinction between sub-cultural theorist such as A. Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin is that; Merton and Durkheim’s explanation of deviant and criminals are purely descriptive i.e. they describe values and argue how these are transmitted in a normal process of socialization, but it does not explain their origins. However sub-cultural theories in some extents look at both the macro and micro concept of analysing deviant acts.
Walter Miller(1962)- in contrast to Merton argue that lower-class possess a distinctive set of values which set them apart from the rest of society. “focal concerns” are values of “toughness”, “excitement”, “fate”, and “trouble”. This was backed up by Howard Parker(1974) study of teenage in east London. He concluded that Teenagers became involved in petty crime simply for the fun and “toughness” of the shared activity. There is a trace of this in our society now; with the mobile video.
- Cohen, unlike Merton see deviance as a collective phenomenon, something which social groups rather than just individuals commit. He fellows Merton in saying that there is an opportunity structure in society. Lower-class youth strive to embrace the norms and values of the mainstream society, but lacked the means to achieve success and thus suffered from “status frustration”; they therefore reverse or replace the dominant cultural goals by getting involved in delinquent activities i.e. joyriding. However Cohen’s analysis is also subject to criticisms- why don’t’ all working-class boys embrace the delinquent sub-culture as they are all expose to the same strain. And furthermore he fails to provide any empirical data to back up his analysis, thus is there any validity in this?
Cloward and Ohlin(1960)- again influenced by Mertorian strain theory argued that there are more than one way in any society to the “legitimate opportunity structure” and middle class have greater access to these. Depending on their situations individuals form either; a criminal subculture(which provides an illegitimate opportunity structure), conflict sub-culture(petty crime) or retreatist sub-culture(characterise by high level of drugs).
Matza(1964)- with his concept of drift, challenged these sub-cultural ideas. He argue that criminals actually have the same cultural values as others. However they use what he termed “techniques of neutralisation” to justify their actions. They may for example deny that what they have done is not wrong, justifying themselves i.e. by saying “I had to steal to get clothes for my children” they thus drift into “subterranean values” because they think they can get away with it.
The Chicago school(1920’s) criminologists such as Park and Burgess(1925) argue that most crime occur in the “zone of transaction” in city centre and residential areas were there are high rates of migration, unemployment and prostitutions take place. Shaw and Mackey(1942) use prison and courts records of juvenile delinquents to explore this and came out with similar explanations. This is still evidenced study in Sheffield by (Baldwin and bottoms 1976) suggests that crime tend to be concentrated in areas which are socially and economically deprived.
just like Merton, sub-cultural theories have focus exclusively on lower-class male youths and excuse any explanations of crime committed “by persons of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation” (Sunderland 1949).These sort of crime have an enormous cost that far outweigh those associated with “conventional crimes”. They incurred governments, tax-payers money. Crime committed in work place such as case of sexual and racial discrimination and minimum wages law and yet these are over looked.
The concept of anomie has developed from various explanations, Merton work and explanation being the most influential. It helps to explain youth crime and deviant behaviour. It however fails to offer an explanation for crime such as those committed by powerful people in society i.e.( state and corporate crime) and domestic violence and focus exclusively on working class youth male crime- is this because they are easier targets? For example the powerful can protect themselves; as they control the news agenda therefore they control what makes it as news. Despite these criticisms, the concept of anomie continue to exert influence on contemporary criminologists’ such as (Agnew 1992) and (Messner and Rosenfel 1997) provide the usefulness of anomie theory in explaining youth crime in our society today.
REFERENCE:
Durkheim. E. (1893) “Division of labour”
Merton. R . K ( 1938 ) social structure and anomie
Hierney J criminology theory and content
Macionis JJ; plumer K – sociology-a global introduction
Walkdate S. – (2007) understanding criminology current theoretical debates 3th edition
Hopkins Burke R. (2002) an introduction to criminology theory cullompton uk willan
Imogene L. Moyer (2001) –criminological theories – traditional and non-traditional voices and themes, sage
Kidd W, Abbot D, Czerniawski G, (2004) – Heinemann sociology, Heinemann
Alex Thio (April 1975)- a critical look at Merton’s Anomie theory, the pacific sociological view vol. 18, no.2
Jones, S.(2001) criminology London, Butterworth’s
Vold G, Bernard T, Snipes J. (2002)- Theoretical criminology 5th edition- oxford OUP
Htt://uregina.ca/~gingrich/026f99- accessed 18th January 2007
