Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sociology Themes and Perspectives
Sociology Themes and Perspectives
Sociology Themes and Perspectives
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43481749
CITATIONS
READS
157
11,069
6 authors, including:
Martin Holborn
The Open University (UK)
2 PUBLICATIONS 157 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Anomie Revisited
The contemporary functionalist Robert K. Merton developed his early conceptions of
theoretical sociology at Harvard, within the historical and intellectual milieux shared
by his contemporaries Talcott Parsons (Chapter 7) and George Homans (Chapter 8).
One of his earliest and more enduring arguments was formed in the essay "Social
Structure and Anomie" (1938), written and published during the Great Depression in
the United States. The distress of this period appears to have forged a solid tradition
of order that shaped the Harvard mind, a tradition that Merton did not leave behind
when he joined the sociology faculty at Columbia University. However, he was to
modify somewhat the optimistic assessment of equilibrium that pervades that
theoretical sociology founded on the order paradigm.
Merton (1983) credits the then young Talcott Parsons as an important mentor along
with another grand theorist of systems, Pitirim Sorokin. And, as did Parsons, Merton
also came under the influence of the biochemist L. J. Henderson (see Chapter 7).
For several decades, Merton collaborated with Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist whose
major interests were community disorganization and the loss of autonomy. However,
it is to the French "master at a distance," Emile Durkheim, that Merton expressed his
greatest debt and rightly so.
Assumptions
Stated succinctly, Mertons image of human nature is centered in the
Hobbesian/Durkheimian problem of unrealistic expectations, while his image of
society reflects more an interest in balance than in change. Such images are
expressed theoretically in questions of social control, specifically, the relationship
83
between expectations of success and opportunities for success. (We shall explore
these shortly.) Moreover, Merton was to qualify the societal vision of functional unity
and inherent progress attributable to most order theorists.
As to his conception of sociology and its theory, Merton departed markedly from the
macro-level approach of Parsons and others. He came to view theory as the
development of middle-range propositions. Thus, instead of constructing grand and
abstract theories of society, theorists were advised to explain a restricted set of
social phenomena. These modest explanations were then to be verified through
empirical research and then perhaps systematized into theoretical systems of
boarder scope and content. Implicit, then, are Mertons assumptions on the
integrated nature of society, the need to control the victims of false expectations, and
the positivist nature of sociology.
Theoretical Content
Mertons final seminal work was in the form of a theoretical piece, "Social Structure
and Anomie," published in the American Sociological Review (1938). In it, he sought
an explanation for deviant behavior through an explication and refinement of
Durkheims conception of anomie. It is not our purpose to include in this book on
theories of society the more specialized forms of theoretical sociology. However, this
explanation of deviance is centered first of all at the societal level. Please recall that
Merton, as had his historical mentor, wrote in a context of crisis and change. And, as
did Durkheim, Merton focused on deviance as a consequence of structural
disorganization.
In this classification of anomic deviance, Merton explored the relationship between
cultural goals and the structural means to achieve those goals. For this sociologist,
when success goals were universally imposed on the members of society while the
means to achieve them were restricted for some members, deviance could be
expected on a broad scale. As evident in the following schemata, it is the type of
consistency or inconsistency between goals and means that leads to either
conformity or to one of the four "types" of anomic deviance. (See Figure 5.1.)
From Mertons scheme we can understand that the conformist internalizes the
common success goals but also has access to the approved means to realize the
goals. For the other relationships, a condition of goalsmeans dysjunction exists.
The innovator role manifests the adoption of disvalued means (for example, theft) to
realize success. The ritualist follows the rules obsessively but loses sight of the
overall goals (for example, the inflexible bureaucrat). The retreatist abandons both
success and goals and the means to realize them (for example, the drug addict). The
rebel rejects both the traditional goals and means, but envisions new ones as the
basis for a new social order. It should be stressed that Merton saw deviance not in
terms of personality types but as role responses to different forms of dysjunction.
Mertons theoretical contribution to the field of deviance serves as a window to his
later efforts to construct a system of functional analysis. Here he demonstrated his
proclivity for intensive study of a more limited theoretical puzzle. Yet it is obvious that
he sought to explain the puzzle of deviance in the conceptual language of sociology.
84
Union are today merely shells of once powerful social movements. Hence, this
organization might be considered nonfunctional for the society at large.
Finally, traditional functionalism also embraces the fallacy of indispensability or
absolute necessity. Every part that exists in a societal or cultural system is seen as
essential and representing the only alternative. For Merton, however, alternative
practices, customs, and forms are often viable. Changing the part therefore, does not
presage the collapse of the whole, and certain parts of a societal system can be
eliminated or modified. Building upon this reformulation of functionalism as a system
of analysis, Merton offered other points of distinction.
First of all, it is not enough to analyze the manifest or apparent functions of social
elements. Modern functionalism must explore the latent or hidden consequences of
these repetitive and enduring patterns. For example, one might argue that poverty is
manifestly dysfunctional for society (as well as the poor) for a number of obvious
reasons. However, if we explore the latent consequences of poverty, we might find a
number of hidden benefits and beneficiaries.
Such an approach is evident in an essay by an urban sociologist who does not favor
poverty but seeks to explore its "positive functions" (Gans, 1972). Some of these
"benefits" are:
1. Poverty ensures the "dirty" work is done through maintaining a class of people
to fill the menial, temporary, dead-end jobs.
2. Poverty creates jobs for such people as welfare workers, criminal justice
personnel, and pawnshop owners (among others).
3. The poor can be identified and used as scapegoats for alleged or actual
deviance to define and uphold dominant norms.
4. The needy, particularly those disabled or otherwise incapacitated, allow us to
evidence pity, compassion, and charity toward the "less fortunate" (as long as
they are truly needy and deserving).
5. Those in want help the affluent through enhancement of their self-image
(knowing one is better off than other), and by means of their systematic
exclusion from competition for the better jobs. They also provide a purpose for
philanthropic organizations and the bureaucracy designed to help them.
6. The poor have historically built civilizations through slave labor, and through
their poetry and music (jazz, blues, spirituals, and "country") have enriched
the lives of the nonpoor.
7. Finally, the poor absorb the costs of progress (as with urban renewal) and
share disproportionately in the costs of welfare.
Second, functional analysis can be carried out at various levels. One might examine
the total society or culture, or opt to study less general but enduring formal
organizations (such as bureaucracies), or perhaps even family units. Each such
example reflects a different plateau within social order.
Third, Merton also sought to reconcile social determinism and individual volition
(Stinchcombe, 1975). He did so by arguing that the motivated actor selects from
among institutionalized patterns of choice. In effect he acknowledged that the human
86
Critique
The theoretical sociology of Robert K. Merton is best conceptualized as a form of
neofunctionalism developed in response to the criticisms often leveled at is logical
base. However, this effort leaves many substantive points untouched, while several
of its reform raises new questions.
To begin, Mertons work may be an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. For
example, the effort to accommodate change occurs in a theoretical matrix primarily
concerned with adjustment and order. This means that such theory can conceive of
change only in the limited sense of tempering or eliminating certain dysfunctional
parts of the whole, a process that leaves the overall societal system intact. It is clear
that Mertons revision of functionalism does not address change at the societal or
institutional level. His focus was on adjustments that are consistent with the existing
nature of the social system. Thus the underlying dilemma of functionalist (as well as
organist and systems) theory remains untouched. In creating a portrait of order,
societal and cultural patterns emerge as systems of mutually reinforcing elements.
Substantive social change, specifically in the form of new institutions, is simply
unexplained. It can only represent, as it did in Mertons early sociology, a process
pushed by those trapped in deviant roles.
There are other examples of the union of opposites. Merton sought to soften the
Durkheimian image of the social actor as a passive respondent to impersonal and
external forces. And he also acknowledged, as we have seen, the troublesome
ambiguities of social life. However, these are qualifications of functionalism, not
basic departures from its cardinal premises. Merton has not succeeded in freeing the
actor from the subjugation of society. Nor have his concessions to societal
87
88
-/+
Structurally
Defined
Means
+
-/+
Role
Behavior
Explanation
Conformist
Innovator
Ritualist
Retreatist
Rebel
Key + = acceptance of/access to, - = rejection of/lack of access to, -/+ = rejection of culturally
defined goals and structurally defined means and replacement with new goals and means
Source: Perdue, William D. 1986. Sociological Theory: Explanation, Paradigms, and Ideology.
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, pp. 83-89
http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC4044%20Sociological%20Theory/Class%20Sessions/Soci
ological%20Theory/Merton,%20Robert%20King/merton,_robert_king.htm (accessed 8.1.09)
89