This critical review will focus on and discuss the session on “The Criminality of Behaviour I”, and its related text by Robert Agnew (2012). The focus points are the classical strain theory, as well as the general strain theory. Agnew (2012) outlines Merton’s classical strain theory and builds up from its criticism to generate his general strain theory. This review will be focusing on the foremost critiques made by Agnew in his text and will produce further criticisms on the theories studied. Finally, the review shall conclude having offered a general understanding of how comprehending theoretical approaches can be beneficial when trying to interpret their legacies in today’s methods when handling crime.
Previously, deviance was explained by classical, biological and psychological approaches (Chamberlain, 2015). While these approaches primarily focused on the individual, criminologist progressively shifted their focus on sociological explanations of crime. Analysing the criminal behaviour of individuals was not considered as enough to understand the immensity of crime and thus, deviance started to be considered in terms of “social structures and forces, which are external to the individual but in many ways are also internalised within them in the form of shared cultural understandings, norms and values” (Chamberlain, 2015:72).
Merton suggested that crime resulted from strain; the difference between one’s economical goal and his actual institutionalised means to achieve this goal (Merton, 1938). Consequently, when individuals were not able to achieve their economical goal with legal institutionalised means, they would resort to illegal ones to achieve their goal (Merton, 1938). However, Merton’s strain theory withstood several critiques. Indeed, by focussing on the lower class, Merton’s theory disregarded crimes committed by higher socioeconomic classes, although all classes engaged with deviant acts (Agnew, 1985). In addition, Merton’s theory did not explain why only some individuals were using deviant behaviour when confronted with strain (Agnew, 2012). In response to this criticism, Agnew suggested that individuals experienced negative emotions such as fear and anger as a result of several forms of strain. Crime thus befell when individuals pursued criminal means to cope with their negative emotional state. (Agnew, 2012). According to Agnew, an individual’s coping mechanisms are the key factor when determining whether or not an individual will make the use of crime. Moreover, in order to explicate all crimes rather than crimes only committed by the lower class, Agnew extended Merton’s definition of strain. Instead of defining strain as “a symptom of dissociation between culturally prescribed aspirations” (assuming the common societal monetary goal) “and socially structured avenues for realising these aspirations” (Merton, 1938: 674), Agnew argues that strain is caused by the difference between one’s aspirations towards any goal(s) and the means to achieve this goal (Agnew, 1992). Agnew’s theory consequently enables the explanation of any forms of crime, especially crimes such as domestic abuse, sexual assault and drug use where the goal is not financial; crimes that could not be explained by the strain theory prior Agnew’s contribution. Indeed, if a man sets a goal to have sexual intercourse with a woman, but is refused to do so for example, the individual may resort to deviant acts, such as sexual assault, to achieve his goal.
In addition to his revision of Merton’s strain theory, Agnew enhanced his theory by inserting two additional origins of strain: the loss of a positive stimuli, such as the loss of property and the presentation of a negative stimuli, such as bullying (Agnew, 2012). The negative emotions provoked by these strains may thus lead an individual to seek deviant behaviours as means to cope with those emotions (Agnew, 2012). A member of any social class could experience the loss of a positive stimuli, such as the failure to find a suitable partner, and be presented to a negative stimuli, such as the death of a friend. By introducing these additional strains, Agnew therfore enabled the strain theory to explain crimes amongst all socioeconomic classes rather than just the lower class.
In his strain theory, Merton provided five possible adaptations individuals use when dealing with strain: conforming by achieving one’s goal of financial success through legitimate means, innovating by achieving the same goal but with illegitimate means, retreating by rejecting the common societal goal and the means to achieve it, ritualizing by adhering to the means to achieve the societal goal but rejecting the goal and finally rebelling, by rejecting both the common societal goal and its means and creating new ones. (Merton, 1938). However, it could be argued that Merton was incapable of explaining why some individuals chose one adaptation over another and why only some individuals resorted to crime. Agnew build upon this criticism by expanding upon Merton’s arguments and provided a justification for why one might choose one adaptation over another, as well as why only some individuals resort to illegitimate means (Agnew, 1992). According to Agnew, the difference in individuals’ adaptation of strain results in the alterations of their coping mechanisms. Therefore, Agnew suggested three different types of coping mechanisms: behavioural, cognitive and emotional (Agnew, 1992). The first coping occurs when one acts to solve the apparent cause of his negative state permanently. The second coping takes place when one attempts to minimise or deny his negative emotional state. The latest coping occurs when one does not seek to deny or solve his emotions, but only decides to reduce them (Agnew, 1992).
While Agnew’s general strain theory was a great improvement on Merton’s theory, it exhibits its own criticisms. Agnew was critiqued for creating a theory which was too general, with unlimited factors that could be translated as being strains (Jensen, 1995). This can be argued to be problematic since testing a limitless number of factors would make the strain theory impossible to prove false (Jensen, 1995). However, to address these critiques, Agnew amended his theory to clarify which strains were more likely to result in crime. To do so, Agnew suggested two categories of strains: objective, and subjective strains (Froggio & Agnew, 2007). Prior to this research, strains were understood to be universally stressful and all considered as “objective strains. However, Froggio and Agnew (2007) argue that objective causes of strain were not equally stressful to all individuals. For example, a parental divorce might be perceived as very stressful for one but of little concern for another. Froggio and Agnew thus used self-report surveys to ask respondents to assess the negative influence of certain factors, such as academic failure. The results showed that not all participants perceived the same negative events to be equally significant in participating to their negative emotional state, as opposed to what was previously assumed. With their findings, Froggio and Agnew have consequently influenced the way in which strains are evaluated in future research of the theory and additionally changed the way in which strains are considered to influence crime. Agnew’s theory thus recognises that factors perceived to be especially negative by those experiencing them are positively correlated with a superior probability of criminal behaviour (Froggio and Agnew, 2007).
To conclude, by addressing the critiques of classical strain theorist Merton, Agnew reinstated strain theory as an acceptable and respectable theory of crime and deviance in the criminological world. Moreover, by responding to contemporary critiques, Agnew has revised his theory to clarify which types of strain are more likely to cause deviant behaviour. As illustrated through the course of this critical review, the strain theory has been supported by studies and is likely to be used to explain deviant behaviour in a contemporary context as well as in the future. The London Riots, resulting from the death of Marx Duggan, a young black man, shot dead by a police officer are a perfect contemporary example of Agnew’s strain theory applied in contemporary criminology. The individuals who took part in the riots were indeed presented with the negative stimuli of a denied justice and were subject to the loss of a positive stimuli: the loss of an individual from their community. The protestors were thus frustrated and angry and used deviant acts such as the destruction of police vehicles and local business as a coping mechanism.