In 1938, within his article “Social Structure and Anomie”, American sociologist Robert Merton developed Strain Theory. Heavily influenced by French sociologist Émile Durkheim’s ‘anomie’ theory, a microlevel theory focused on suicide in which Durkheim argued that characteristics of whole communities influence suicide rates, separate of the particular individuals living in those communities (Inderbitzen et al., 2014), Merton formed a macrolevel theory regarding American culture which argued that society can significantly encourage deviancy. Merton’s work is known as Classical Strain Theory (CST) and Robert Agnew later expanded on Merton’s work to establish General Strain Theory (GST). The purpose of this essay is to describe and evaluate Merton’s theory, to discuss the revision of Strain Theory by Agnew and to address the criticism surrounding the Strain Model with interpretations from alternative models and theories.
‘Anomie’, or ‘normlessness’, was defined by Durkheim to be a situation in which an individual sought out illicit methods of pleasure or satisfaction in order to fulfil their socially acquired wants as a result of a lack of collectively established norms. Merton argued that it was the presence of these established norms which encouraged individuals to abstain from crime unless the means to achieve societal norms or goals were not available to them. “Whereas Durkheim had examined normlessness as a condition of imbalance due to the absence of agreed social value (i.e. social goals), for Merton the emphasis was on normlessness in respect to means.” (Thompson, 2002;121). The Strain Model was based on three central assumptions, the first assumption being that there is a degree of consensus amongst all the members of any given society that there are general goals to reach as an individual, such as material wealth (for example owning a property) and educational achievement (such as attending university). If such society has a degree of consensus surrounding the goals which individuals should reach, there is therefore a shared moral order in that society. As these shared morals exist, and because of the consensus of social goals between all those who belong in that society, the result is that they all have the intention to uphold those shared morals. The second assumption of the Strain Model is that a society which holds shared moral orders socialises its members into that moral order and, crucially, is successful in doing so. The final assumption of the Strain Model is that by successfully integrating members who adhere to the shared moral order, society creates a ‘moral animal’ who in turn obeys the societal laws – unless that individual is under enough strain it causes them to break those laws.
Strain, in criminological theory, is defined as a tension or inconsistency between the cultural goals set by society for its members and the established/agreed means of achieving those goals. For example, in strain theory if a society states that everyone should drive a nice car and expects people to achieve this through its agreed means – in current American society, this would be through working hard and saving money until enough is saved to purchase the car – those with the established cultural goal of owning a nice car but without the means to achieve this (i.e. no money or no employment to earn money) may resort to achieving this goal through other (often illegal) methods such as theft. In Merton’s Classical Strain Theory, people who react in this way to strain are innovators, which will be outlined later. Often in contemporary societies, and in the ‘American Dream’ which Merton heavily focuses on, the cultural goals set are mostly material – earning a large salary, owning property, owning a nice car, taking expensive holidays – but there are also values such as being in excellent health, having a large social media following and keeping in line with society’s physical appearance standards (in some societies in particular there is great emphasis on being a specific build and having specific features to conform with the society’s own view of attractiveness), as well as long-standing cultural goals such as being married and having a family. The means for achieving these goals are typically means which result in earning more money, for instance having a high level of educational qualifications, significant experience in particular work sectors or professional skills. Furthermore, living in affluent areas or being raised in a middle/upper class family also contribute to achieving these goals. Under Merton’s theory, society emphasises to all those integrated within it (regardless of class) that in order to achieve these goals, to enjoy life and be successful, money is necessary and is a priority (McLaughlin & Newburn, 2013). It also emphasised that to have money, individuals need a good job and qualifications. Merton argued society suggests that it is achievable for all individuals to live the ‘American Dream’ (which puts an emphasis on material wealth), (McLaughlin & Newburn, 2013) but society does not provide everyone with equal access to the institutionalised means to accomplish the cultural goals. This consequently creates strain on those members of society with little or no means to achieve and is demonstrated in Merton’s Classical Strain Theory through social class which, along with the value of money, is heavily concentrated on.
Merton describes five modes of adaptations in his theory: conformity – those who conform to the cultural goals and have access to the legitimate means to achieve them; Merton states that this is the reaction that the upper/middle classes are most likely to have towards strain and those who react in this way do not deviate from achieving cultural goals through legitimate means – conformists in CST build social solidarity.
The second type of reaction to strain is innovation: innovators, as previously mentioned, are those who accept and desire the cultural goals yet have no means to achieve them and thus seek out new, criminal ways to reach these goals society sets for them. Merton states that it is the lower socio-economic classes who feel the most strain and are more likely to have this reaction towards it, therefore the majority of blue-collar crime is committed by lower class innovators. McLaughlin & Newburn (2013) state data suggests that crime rates are higher amongst individuals who are “dissatisfied with their monetary situation and are experiencing a range of monetary problems” (2013;97) and qualitative studies support both this and Merton’s view that crime is motivated by a desire for money (McLaughlin & Newburn, 2013, and Topalli & Wright, 2004). Financial problems and discontent are most common amongst those in a lower socio-economic class, as Merton states, however they are not completely absent from the middle and upper classes.
Ritualism, the third mode of adaptation, encompasses those who have no desire to accept cultural goals but have the institutionalised means to do so if they wished. People who come under the ritualism mode of adaptation do not place as much emphasis on money as Merton/the ‘American Dream’ argues they should do, but work to earn enough to pay bills and live comfortably, with no desire to become as rich as possible; these people value other goals above earning money. Those who react to strain in this way do not conform to Merton’s ideology of the ‘American Dream’ i.e. value material wealth. Valier (2001) criticised Merton for his stress on the existence of a common goal in society. Valier argues that there are in fact a variety of goals that people strive to attain at any one time, and this can vary dependant on an individual’s circumstances, and those who follow the ritualism route in society prove that. Those who have no desire to progress at work, for example, are still adhering to the laws and have the means to maintain the fundamental things needed in life such as food and shelter, but do not buy into the ‘rat race’.
The fourth reaction is retreatism – those who do not have the means to achieve cultural goals, but also do not accept the cultural goals and isolate themselves from society as much as they can (those who are heavily addicted to drugs may fall under this category). Merton stated that “sociologically, these constitute the true aliens. Not sharing the common frame of values, they can be included as members of the society (in distinction from the population) only in a fictional sense” (Merton, 1968;207).
The final reaction to strain is rebellion: this category is for those who want to change society through the rejection of current goals and the implementation of new ones with the views of creating a better society. Taylor, Walton & Laurie (1973) argue that CST cannot account for those who are politically motivated criminals who break the law for political reasons and their commitment to these (for example freedom fighters) as there is no conformity to the ‘American Dream’, nor a financial motivation.
Whilst Merton identifies in his theory that not all members of an entire society react to strain in the same way, hence the five different modes of adaptations, he fails to recognise that within each class, not all individuals (namely lower classes) will react to strain in the same way or fall under the same mode of adaptation i.e. not all lower class members of society are involved in criminal activity in order to achieve their goals, and not all upper class members of society desist from crime in order to achieve or to maintain their goals. Merton does not attempt to explain why different members of society react to strain in different ways (Vito & Maahs, 2015), why not every person in the lower classes of society commits crime, nor does he explain his theory further than in the context of economic crimes. Merton’s focus was too heavily on official figures and this resulted in his narrow outlook.
Merton argued in Classical Strain Theory that blue collar crime encompasses crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, assault or low level drug dealings which are committed by members of the lower classes. Sutherland (1949) defines white collar crime as crimes committed by members of society with high social status in the course of their profession, such as official corruption and embezzlement; white collar crime is committed by respected members of society and is often motivated through greed, whereas blue collar crime is more often motivated by need. Merton expands on this further and distinguished two kinds of depravations in society that produce strain: absolute deprivation and relative depravation. Merton states that Absolute Deprivation (poverty) is the lack of the basic, necessary tools needed to live such as food, clothing and shelter. In Classical Strain Theory, it is the lower classes that experience strain as a result of absolute deprivation. Relative Deprivation, then, refers to those who feel dissatisfaction when they compare themselves to others around them who have more than what they have and as a result desire to have the equal or more. Generally, those who experience Relative Deprivation are from middle or upper classes, and this can lead to ‘white-collar’ crimes. Merton’s CST is based on monetary gain and makes the assumption that all those in society have the same goal. Merton does not consider that different classes may have different goals and that, as Cloward and Ohlin argue, people “aspire to achieve only what is realistically possible for them to achieve” (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960;78 cited in Inderbitzen et. al, 2015). Plum (2016) argues that “strain theory accounts inadequately for crimes beyond the narrow scope of street crimes… The motivations behind white-collar crime offenders can be sophisticated. Functionalist and strain theory assume people’s inherent goodness; people are driven by social factors to crime and deviance” yet this is not always true. Control theory offers an alternative perspective: it argues people do not commit crime due to a risk of others viewing them negatively and losing their approval, which relates more to white-collar crimes where those in higher social status roles do not want their peers’ view of them to change. Alternatively, upper classes commit white-collar crime in order to maintain the societal goals they have achieved in order to not lose any material gains as well as to maintain their image as respected and valued members of their firms and society (Soltse, 2016). This “better explains cases of many highly-educated officials embezzling company funds thinking they would not get caught; they do not need the money, but their motivations are that of greed” (Plum, 2016). Williams (2012;351) proposes that the unequal distribution of wealth and “the feeling of unfairness arising from that inequality” is what causes crime and this can include white-collar crimes committed as a cause of relative deprivation; the feeling of inequality is not limited to those in the lower socio-economic classes but there is the distorted thinking/greed involved with white-collar crime committed as a result of feelings of inequaility.
It is important then to consider the source of the goals themselves, and who benefits from these goals being the aspiration for the whole of a society. Merton does not discuss the origins of the values in society and therefore neglects to consider in whose best interest these American Dream social goals and norms are. Bonger and Marxist perspectives present that a capitalist political-economic system divides society into bourgeoisie and the public and that the interests of the bourgeoisie are encompassed in the laws as the ‘ruling class’. In CST, this would result in those in upper classes creating the goals for the American Dream. A system based on exploitation and inequality creates a continuous ‘class conflict’ between the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This in turn builds resentment and feelings of inequality which can lead to selfishness and breed a lack of social moral feelings, or shared morals, thus eliminating the ‘moral animal’ assumed in CST. For example if a wallet had fallen out of someone’s pocket and the victim had not noticed, there is no moral thought process of ‘this money is not mine, I should tell them they dropped it’; this is replaced with the feelings of resentment and selfishness and results in the theft of the wallet, producing more crime as argued and evidenced by Bonger. Lower classes are socialised into trying to achieve goals set by upper classes which are perhaps unattainable to them because they don’t have the means to do so. For the bourgeoisie this ensures that those in lower classes rarely achieve monetary success/the ‘American Dream’. In Classical Strain Theory, Merton suggests that everyone needs to achieve financial success and thus those in the lower classes who want to achieve this are socialised into believing that the way to do this is to work harder or longer hours for their bosses (except for those who are innovators); however this does not result in members of society feeling as though they are treated well or that this is just/ fair and as such this could encourage the innovative mode of adaptation. This counteracts the social solidarity ensured by conformists in reaction to strain. Merton stated that it is a result of feeling more pressure, due to lack of means and unrealistic social norms, that those in lower social classes commit crime more so than those in upper classes. Merton did not, in this argument, take into account any thoughts surrounding peer pressure as many subcultural theorists have developed on and he considered crime as a result of an individual, not a group (Cohen, 1955). Merton further suggested that lower- class individuals are more likely to commit crime because they are less socialised and consequently do not adhere to conventional norms (McLaughlin & Newburn, 2013).
Subcultural theorists have developed on Merton’s CST to discuss peer pressure, rejection and cultural theories regarding strain. Merton fails to comment on the fact that most people in society conform to the norms the majority of the time, but those who don't conform often socialise together. In modern society, those who socialise together and commit crime are labelled (such as gangs) and this leads to those within that subculture rejecting the values and institutionalised means of the society they feel is rejecting and labelling them, therefore directing them further towards using criminal means to achieve their goals. Agnew (1985) argues that this is pain-avoidance behaviour by adolescents who do not have the means to achieve their goals and crime is committed out of frustration towards this strain. Cohen (1955) argues that status frustration is a factor: his work focused on ‘delinquent sub-culture’ and determined that as a result of being isolated in the middle-class dominated schools, lower class boys would struggle to conform to the values of the school often resulting in feelings of exclusion from the middle-class students and teachers. As a coping mechanism, these boys would seek out others from the lower class in a similar situation in order to soothe their ‘status anxiety’. In reaction to their rejection from the middle-class society within the school, the lower-class boys would reject the middle-class norms and thus create their own ‘delinquent sub-culture’. Reaction to strain as a coping mechanism is discussed in Agnew’s General Strain Theory.
Agnew’s development of General Strain Theory (GST) defines strain as ‘“relationships in which others are not treating the individual as he or she would like to be treated” (Cote, 2002). Agnew argued that Classical Strain Theory was too narrowly focused and did not focus on a broad enough aspect of strain. He created the following types of strain most likely to result in crime: when strain is seen as unjust; when the strain becomes too much and an individual feels they can no longer cope and must take action; when the strain is associated with low social control and when there is pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. Agnew argues that the reaction to strain is a function of both individual characteristics and the characteristics of the strain that is being experienced. This coincides with Cohen’s theory as the ‘status anxiety’ felt by lower-class boys as a result of pressure from the middle-class resulted in incentive to engage in criminal coping.
Agnew argues that in General Strain Theory, strain is objective or subjective; subjective strain is defined as “events or conditions that are disliked by the people who are experiencing (or have experienced) them” (Agnew, 2001;321) and objective strain is “events or conditions that are disliked by most members of a given group” (Agnew, 2001;320). Agnew (2001) argues that the circumstances and strains most likely to lead to crime are parental rejection, excessive discipline, neglect and abuse, negative secondary school experiences, work in the secondary labour market, homelessness (particularly youth homelessness), abusive peer relations, criminal victimisation and experiences with racial/ethnic prejudice or discrimination. Agnew does comment that this list represents types of strain which are both related and not related to crime (Agnew, 2001). He argues that “the inability to achieve certain success goals – particularly educational and occupation goals – is not related to crime, whereas the inability to achieve other success goals – like the rapid acquisition of much money – is related to crime.” (Angew, 2001;347). Agnew’s developments on Merton’s theory stress that all strains produce a negative emotional feeling or state, and this encourages a reaction, as opposed to monetary hardship or desire.
As previously mentioned, the idea that an individual can be pressured into a crime was developed into strain theory by Agnew. This pressure could be as a result of social grouping – all those in the same environment are committing crimes and therefore those who are not committing crimes have been labelled as criminals by association, thus encouraging those who are not criminals to respond in a criminal manner to the labelling – Agnew’s GST surrounding negative emotions as a response to strain could also be at play in this scenario as the individual responds to the negative labelling of them from society. Criminal responses could also be a result of peer pressure – being included, particularly for young people, is important and in order to be accepted by their peers they may succumb to deviant / criminal behaviours. Agnew and Brezina (2015) argue that those individuals who join gangs do so to achieve social status goals – whether or not that be through pressure or choice. The strains described by Agnew above stimulate negative emotions resulting in motivation to act upon the strain.
In conclusion, Merton’s Classical Strain Theory was a thought-provoking theory which allowed others to develop on his workings, but he failed to consider a number of key factors when dealing with strain. Merton placed too much emphasis on material wealth, and only connected his theory to crimes of an economic nature. Merton’s face value approach to statistics meant that he overestimated blue-collar crime and as such viewed crime as a predominantly lower class problem. Merton’s inability to recognise that not all those in society are working towards the same goal led to a very limited view on his theory. In addition, “the disjunction between aspirations or ideal goals and expectations is not likely to generate much strain. Rather, the disjunction between expectations and actual achievements – something not measured in [Merton’s] research – is most relevant to strain”. (McLaughlin & Newburn, 2013). Criticisms such as the above were taken into consideration in Agnew’s revision of General Strain Theory and this allowed for some of the key concerns of Merton’s theory to be resolved. Agnew’s GST encouraged the inclusion of emotive reactions to strain and how this has the potential to lead to criminal activity. General Strain Theory acknowledges that strain can be subjective or objective and introduced the arguments of being pressured into and of coping ability towards strain. Agnew’s developments on the Strain Model have significantly improved the theory however there is still opportunity for this theory to expand and develop further.