The Work Of Emile Durkheim

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Robert Merton utilize the works of Durkheim using his idea of the theory of anomie. While Durkheim focus on the strain that resulted at the individual levels and the decrease of societal restraint. Merton focused on the norms of the individuals of society along with the cultural imbalance that exists between the goal and the norms of the individuals. Merton views crime as a normal response to the conditions that limits the opportunities for some individuals to obtain the economic success for which we are all strive to achieve.

Later in works Merton reformulated the anomie theory which focused on the special strains in different populations of people mainly trying to explain gang delinquency. Two major theories that explain urban, lower-class, make gang delinquency were done by Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin. Cohen discovered that most delinquent behavior usually occurred when they were among others mainly in a gang never on an individual basis. This makes explaining Merton’s theory impossible. Cohen states the criminal actions were considered methods of gaining status among their delinquent peers. He went further to say that gangs have separate culture from others which carry different sets of values. The difference in Merton and Cohen theories

During the past few decades the theories of criminology have changed from a structural explanation to a more social-psychological concept. During the past few years this form of theoretical approach has become more credibility. Merton created the idea of classic or traditional strain theories. The main focus of these traditional theories was to block opportunities to attain successful goals generate a pressure that leads to criminality. However, this pressure is structurally produced, but not at the individual level.

As the years went on the classical strain theories began to be widely criticized. Several empirical studies that were conducted failed to support any of Merton’s ideas in his theories, therefore during the 1970s the influence that strain theories had in criminology began to fade away.

Nevertheless, some ideas of classical strain theories continued to influence American criminology. Such is the case with relative deprivation theory (Box, 1981), Messner and Rosenfeld’s theory of crime and the American dream (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001), and, in particular, Agnew’s general strain theory (henceforth, GST). However, while the first two theories still lack a good amount of empirical evidence and mostly concern the American criminal phenomenon, GST is well known and has been widely tested. Today, Agnew’s GST is a solid theory, and not only has accumulated a significant amount of empirical evidence, but has expanded its primary scope by offering explanations of phenomena outside criminal behavior, such as eating disorders.

Anomie can be broken down into two levels. The first of these levels is the macroside of anomie, which is manifest in the inability of society to set limits on goals and regulate individual conduct. The microside of anomie, also known as strain theory, is focused on the reasons behind the increased likelihood of deviance that results from the breakdown of society. According to this microside of anomie, the decrease in societal regulations creates an increase pressure to commit deviant acts (Agnew and Passas, 1997:2-3).

Agnew and Passas (1997:4) addressed the similarities between the macrolevel of anomie and control theory but asserted that the microlevel theory of strain should be considered separate from control theory. Agnew (1992:48) also compared strain theory to control theory and social learning theory. The theories differ in the type of social relations that they stress and the motivations on which they are based. While control theory rests on the premise that the breakdown of society frees the individual to commit crime, strain theory is focused on the pressure that is placed on the individual to commit crime (Agnew, 1992:49). Social learning theory is based on the forces from a group that lead to a positive view of crime (Agnew, 1992:49). According to strain theory, individual deviance is caused as a result of negative treatment from others, and this results in anger and frustration (Agnew, 1997a:31). Control theory, however, is based on the absence of significant relationships with nondeviant others, and social learning theory is based on positive relationships with deviant others (Agnew, 1992:49).

The popularity of strain/anomie theory declined in the late 1960’s due to the lack of empirical evidence put forth by researchers and the political climate of the decade (Agnew and Passas, 1997:4-5). The lack of supporting data can be attributed to several flaws in the original research methods employed by the researchers (Agnew and Passas, 1997:5). Inappropriate methodology, oversimplification of theory, and a neglect of the previous revisions resulted in a body of work that misrepresented the original purpose of anomie/strain theory (Agnew and Passas, 1997:5-7). Along with these flaws, current theorists have argued that empirical data actually supports the theory (Agnew, Cullen, Burton, Evans, and Gregory 1996:700).