Anomie and the Socially Unable:
Creating Crime through Cultural Strain
James Bard
Georgia College
As societies change and develop, the definition and causes of crime evolve. Criminologists all over the world work to find the root causes of crime and policy solutions that can be instilled to prevent these trends. Merton, for example, builds on Durkheimian understandings of society and uses what he calls strain or anomie theory to understand the causes of crime and the groups that are more susceptible to committing them: “too much emphasis on the pursuit of money can weaken norms that dictate the proper way to achieve this goal” (Vito & Maahs, p. 127, 2017). In other words, Merton argues that people commit crime because of the strain that is created when social attainment is greatly aspired for and life course attainment is not possible through legitimate means. Merton expands on this explanation by adding a specific financial goal as a determinant for criminal activity: “People will pursue financial success even if it means violating norms or laws” (Vito & Maahs, p. 127, 2017). While this theory works to create a clear definition of crime, there are many faults in this theory that can be improved upon. This research will work to define these improvements and add to the discussion on the causes of crime.
Anomie Theory
Anomie theory, developed by Merton, stemmed from the ideas that Emile Durkheim instilled into sociology: “Durkheim recognized that the social order was ultimately dependent on an implicit system of values shared by members of a society… and were internalized emotionally in the personality of its members” (Addison, 2013). This explanation of society directly connects with anomie theory. Tonry adds to anomie through a Durkheimian lens by explaining that, “the technically most feasible procedure, whither legitimate or not, is preferred to the institutionally prescribed conduct” (p. 674, 1995). Because, for instance, people feel so emotionally connected to the shared values that a society holds, each member is more willing to act in criminal ways to achieve a goal that is seemingly zenith, required, and impossible to achieve. This is the epitome of anomie theory.
There is, however, further explanation into the specifics in the ways that people react to this strain that is felt. Vito and Maahs, clearly explain the depths of anomie theory by stating that, “Merton offers four possible adaptations to strain produced by the gap between the cultural goal of economic success and the reality of limited access to the proper means: innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion” (p. 127, 2017). These describe people that either work in the social system but use illegal means to achieve monetary success, abandon the goal of monetary success but continue to work in the social system, drop out of the social system all together, or reject the social system and its goals in replace for a new one, respectively. Although the differences between these types of responses seem minute, the ways in which each of them can be seen within the interaction of societal members is pivotal. Merton explains how retreatists, for instance, are exemplified as “psychotics, psychoneurotics, chromic autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards, and drug addicts” (p. 236, 1968). These individuals are people that we can identify within our society. Merton’s anomie theory works to identify why each of these people are where they are.
A Critique and Proposal to Anomie Theory
Although anomie theory focuses on a variety of different ways in which people react to strain caused by social norms and a lack of access to achieve them, it’s holes allow for many of the actions that we see in society to be missed. This theory does, for instance, cover the ways in which lower class people are unable to achieve a social goal, but it does not account for the fact that there are cultural, historical, gendered, raced, and classed differences in what ideal goals might be. Instead of attributing disparities in the socially defined norm using social position and world view, Merton limits his understanding of the world to only include one social norm (financial gain) as the dominant. For some groups across the world, economic gain is not the true definition of success. For many, peace, social change, equality, environmental safety, and others take precedence over economic gain. In this case, many people choose to walk away from monetary gain for other reasons rather than their inability to achieve it.
Many theorists rebut Merton and argue that many additions can be made to his arguments. Robert Agnew, for instance, proposes that American culture places has values that are “highly conductive to the mentality that ‘it’s not how you play the game, it’s whether you win or lose’” (Agnew et al., p. 69, 1996). This argument adds to the discussion on anomie theory by explaining that because the goal of success is continual growth in money (with no limits to its end), even those in wealthier positions have the strong pull to interact with white collar crime to increase monetary capital. While Merton’s theory only describes the actions of those at the lower class, additions to this definition can broaden its reach and strengthen our understanding of social trends in crime. Because of this empty space in Merton’s anomie theory, Agnew suggests that the “failure to achieve positively valued goals, the removal of positively valued stimuli, and the presence of inescapable negative stimuli” should be the “three sources of strain” (Vito & Maahs, p. 129, 2017). These three causes of strain are what differentiate Agnew from Merton and allow him to include more of the trends that are seen within society.
Although Agnew offers a higher level interpretation of Merton’s anomie theory, there are still many more social trends that are yet to be explained. Applin and Messner add to the conversation on improving the quality of anomie theory by studying a very similar topic to Agnew: “The American Dream—and its companion institutional structure—a structure characterized by the dominance of the economy” (p. 37, 2015). While the results that these researchers found does not contradict previous research, it does add another layer of complexity to the model. In previous studies done by Messner, it was determined that, “with few exceptions, everyone is encouraged to aspire to social ascent, and everyone is susceptible to evaluation on the basis of individual achievements” (Messner and Rosenfeld, p. 69, 2007). This finding aligns directly with the ideas of Agnew and the ways in which upper class people are susceptible to the draw into crime due to temptations to find easier ways to achieve a socially desired goal.
Historically at this point, the issue of class differences in anomie theory had been addressed by these authors. Gender, however, was another aspect of society that seemed to change the ways in which people become involved in crime. Before Applin and Messner’s study on “Her American Dream: Bringing gender into Institutional-Anomie Theory”, a feminist approach was not taken. This study found that, “Women allegedly interpret the American Dream differently than do men, and their performance of institutional roles does not conform to the pattern associated with economic dominance in the institutional balance of power” (Applin & Messner, p. 40, 2015). A feminist theory to this approach shows how there is an imbalance in the ways in which men and women identify what it means to be successful.
The most interesting aspect of this finding is that it is limited to how men and women define the American dream in different ways: “Explains how anomie theory can be gendered. Something that Merton does not explain. “the claim that there is a dominant form of social organization that characterizes American society and the empirical observation that cultural orientations and institutional involvement actually differ dramatically for males and females” (Applin & Messner, p. 36, 2015). Even within the context of the United States, cultural definitions of success differ between genders. When class, gender, and cultural background intersect, then, the number differences in definitions of success multiply; thus, further complicating the originally limited definition of anomie theory presented by Merton.
In recent history, there have been numerous advancements to criminological and sociological theory. As social scientists continue to place the lens on ourselves, we are beginning to understand and broaden previous theories on crime, specifically anomie theory. There is more, however, that can be done to improve the ways that humans provide opportunities for others and ensure that crime is diminished. Although conversations regarding anomie theory are moving in the right direction as researchers focus on the differences in class and gender regarding access, likelihood, and reasons to enter crime, more can be done to better understand the intersectional differences that all humans share. I propose that we continue in this direction of diverse understanding.
There are many aspects of the world, however that anomie theory still needs to build on. For many different people across the world, their characteristics help to determine what defines success in their life. There are also many characteristics within these people’s lives that determine the availability of crime. Anomie theory can be improved by including research on race, age, cultural capital, social capital, and sexual orientation. These traits will help to improve our definition of anomie. Because each of these traits help to determine what a person’s label of success is, it is important to understand these identifications and the trends that are evident within our society, both in incarceration and criminal involvement levels. This understanding will then help to change the ways that people create policy to decrease crime and increase chances of mobility. With the increase in technology, globalization, exploitation, and consumerism, it is important to understand the large variety of ways in which people can be either strayed towards or away from criminal activity.
Works Cited
Addison, B. Jr. (2013). Émile Durkheim. Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://gcsu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=88801526&site=eds-live&scope=site
Agnew, R., Cullen, F.T., Burton Jr., V. S., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, G. (1996). A new test of classic strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 4.
Applin, S., & Messner, S. F. (2015). Her American Dream: Bringing gender into Institutional-Anomie Theory. Feminist Criminology, 10(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114525654
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Glencow, IL: Free Press.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American dream (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University press.
Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2017). Criminology: Theory, Research and Policy. (4th ed.), Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ISBM: 978-1-284-09092-5