Alex Thio - A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

Pacific Sociological Association
A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

Author(s): Alex Thio
Source: The Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), pp. 139-158
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388629 .
Accessed: 04/10/2013 18:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Pacific Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CRITICALLOOK AT
MERTON'SANOMIETHEORY
ALEX THIO
Ohio University
FormorethanthirtyyearsMerton'sanomietheoryhasbeen
influentialin Americansociologyin generaland the sociology
of deviance in particular.Althoughit may appear in various
guises(Merton,1968: 185-248; Clowardand Ohlin, 1960), the
theoryappearsto be based on the followingsyllogism.(1) The
disjunctionbetween aspirationsand the opportunityfor real-
izingaspirationsproducespressurestowarddeviance.(2) Due to
the pervasiveinfluenceof successideologyin Americansociety,
personsof the lower class,like those of the upper and middle
classes (henceforthto be jointlyreferred
to as "higherclasses"),
tendto hold highaspirationsforsuccessbut,unlikethoseof the
higher classes, suffer from the socially structuredlack of
opportunityfor realizingthe aspirations.That is, lower-class
persons tend to experience a greateraspiration-opportunity
disjunctionthan do higher-class persons.(3) Therefore,lower-
class persons are more likelyto be pressuredtowarddeviance.
While regardingthe firstpremiseas tenable,thispaper will
reviewsome argumentsand data whichsuggestthatthesecond
premiseis based on questionableassumptionsand thatthe facts
employedto supportthe conclusionare also questionable.
PACIFIC SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 18 No. 2, April 1975
@1975 Pacific Sociological Assn.
[1391

[140] PACIFICSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW/APRIL 1975
One may, however,note that therehave been a numberof

critiqueson Merton'sanomie theory.These critiquesmay be
divided into three major types. The firstis largelyfound in
studies that faultthe theoryfornot takinginto account other
importantcausal factorsof deviancesuch as social interaction
and illegitimateopportunityfor success (Cohen, 1965: 5-14;
Cloward, 1959). In the main, they are nonetheless mere
extensions,reformulations, or continuitiesof the theoryrather
than attemptsat a criticalexaminationof its basic assumptions.
The second type of critique is apparentlynot relevant to
Merton's theory.The theoryis plainlymeant to explain the
causation of one type of devianceonly. This devianceis what
Merton refersto as "innovation,"which subsumesthe great
majorityof criminaland delinquentcases. But the criticsseem
to have confusedthe theorywithMerton'smerelydescriptive
paradigmof various types of deviance such as "innovations,"
"ritualism," 'retreatism,"and "rebellion." Thus they have
unjustifiably criticizedthe paradigmforits inabilityto system-
aticallyexplain why one type of devianceratherthan another
occurs (Cohen, 1966: 76-77; Lindesmithand Gagnon, 1964;
Dunham, 1964). And the thirdtype of critiqueoffersdata in
order to disprovethe conclusion which links social class to
crime and delinquency(Karacki and Toby, 1962; Reiss and
Rhodes, 1961). Yet theyfail to questionthe secondpremiseof
the theory which associates greater aspiration-opportunity
disjunctionwithlowerclasses.
SOCIAL CLASS AND ASPIRATION-OPPORTUNITY

DISJUNCTION
The above-statedsecond premiseof Merton'sanomie theory

suggests that due to the influenceof success ideology in
Americansociety,lower-classpersonsare likelyto sufferfroma
larger disjunction between aspirations for success and the
opportunityto achieve success. This implies that the success
ideology engendersabout the same level of aspirationsamong
both the lower and higher classes, but that the "level" of

Thio/MERTON'SANOMIETHEORY [141]
opportunity,by the verydefinitionof the social class system

itself, is lower for the lower classes than for the higher
classes-consequently,lower-classpersons are likely to suffer
froma largeraspiration-opportunitydisjunction.
One mightbe temptedto argue,as Cloward(1959) does, that
Merton's notion of "success opportunity"fails to take into
account illegitimatesuccess opportunity.Althoughthis is a
matter of interestin its own right,it is irrelevantfor the
purposeat hand because Merton'ssecondpremiseas statedhere
does not, as Cloward'semphasison the concept of illegitimate
opportunitydoes, deal withdeviantbehavior.Therefore,forthe
presentpurpose of examiningthe second premisein Merton's
theory alone, one should accept the treatment of
"opportunity" as "legitimateonly." What I shall critically
examineis the assumptionof thepremisethatAmericansuccess
ideologygeneratesabout the same level of aspirationsamong
the lowerand higherclasses.
WhenHymanprovidessome nationalsurveydata withwhich
to challengethis assumption,Merton(1968: 228; italicsin the
original)defendshis positionthus:
Theavailablethough stillscanty evidence, then, exhibits
consistently
intheproportions
differentials oftheseveral socialstrata(embracing
highsuccessgoals).ButwhatHyman failsto note. . is thatfrom
thestandpoint of(my)hypothesis, it is nottherelative proportions
of theseveralsocialclassesadopting thecultural goalofsuccessthat
matter,buttheir absolutenumbers. To saythata larger percentage
of theuppersocialandeconomic strataholdfastto thecultural goal
of successis not to say thatlargernumbers of themthanof
peopledo so. Indeed,sincethenumber
lower-class ofpeopleinthe
topmost stratum identified in these studies is smaller
substantially
thanthenumber in theloweststratum, itis sometimes thecasethat
morelower-classthanupper-class peopleabidebythisgoal.
Two relateddefectsseem to inherein thisdefense.(1) Note
that Merton is here comparingupper-classagainstlower-class
persons,therebyexcludingthose fromthe middle class. In his
defense Merton mistakenlyimplies that his theorydoes not
apply to the middle class at all. But throughoutthe analysisof

[142] PACIFIC SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW / APRIL 1975
his theory,Mertoneitherimplicitlyor explicitlyrefersto the

comparisonbetweenlower-classpersons,on the one hand, and
both middle-classand upper-classpersons,on the other.In fact,
not long afterhe writesthe above quote, Merton(1968: 228;
italics added) says: "It may even be ...that this disjunction
(between aspirationsand opportunity)is more frequentin the
lower stratathan in the middle strata."This is evidentlywhy
Hyman has attempted to refute Merton's assumption by
presentingthe survey data that show lower-classpersons'
aspirational level as significantlylower than that of both
upper-classand middle-class persons.
Since the absolute number of middle-classindividualsis
substantiallylarge and since the majorityof themhold higher
aspirationsthan do lower-classindividuals,it is understandable
thatMertonpurposelyleavesout themiddleclassin his defense
against the findingspresentedby Hyman. If he includes the
middle class in the controversy at hand, as Hyman'sreviewof
the surveyresearch(henceforthto be referredto as Hyman's
survey)does, Mertonwould have found it untenableto insist
that thereis a largerabsolutenumberof lower-classthanhigher
classpersonswho hold highaspirations.
In sum,what Mertonattemptsto do is to focusattentionon
that part of Hyman'sdata whichMertonbelievesconfirmshis
anomie theoryand to ignorethe other part which refutesit.
This is hardly an objective way of assessingthe presumed
validityof a theory.
(2) For analyticpurposes,however,let us accept Merton's
arbitraryinterpretation of his own theorywhereinhe chooses
to deal with the upper and lower classes but not with the
middle class. Now, the crux of Merton's argumentis that
despitethe lowerproportionof lower-classpersonsholdinghigh
success aspirations,the mere fact that thereis a substantially
largerabsolute numberof lower-classpersonsinevitablymeans
that there are more lower-classthan upper-classindividuals
entertaining highsuccessaspirations.Manycriticsobject to such
an emphasis on the use of absolute numbersrather than
proportionsbecause, as Mizruchi(1964: 134) says, "a socio-

logical theorybased on empiricalevidencederivedfrom

numbersis likelyto offerweakerexplanations thanone based
on proportions." let us go alongwithMertonso
Nevertheless,
thatwe can checkwhether his interpretation-in termsof his
insistenceon absolutenumbers-of Hyman's data is corrector
not.I shalltherefore
reexamine themoreimportant aspectsof
Hyman'sdata. In the following tablefromHyman'sarticle,I
removethe data on themiddleclass-andincludetheabsolute
numbersof cases which are absent in Hyman'soriginal
presentation.
Note thatMertonis correctin emphasizing theobviousfact
thatthereis a largerabsolutenumberof lower-class persons
(721) thanthereis forupper-class persons(430). But he is
wrong in assumingthat with referenceto theirholdinghigh
therearemorelower-class
aspirations thanupper-class
persons.
TABLE 1
The EmphasisOn The Need ForCollegeEducationas
oftheClasses
RelatedTo The Sex and AgeComposition
Percentand num-
ber recommending Total
college education number
Males over40
Wealthyand prosperous 58% (n=85) 147
Lowerclass 29 ( 59) 202
Femalesover 40
Wealthyand prosperous 73 ( 91) 139
Lower class 41 ( 77) 189
Males between21-39 yearsof age
Lower class 35 ( 50) 143
Females between21-39 yearsof age
Lowerclass 43 ( 80) 187
Total samples
Wealthyand prosperous 65 (278) 430
Lowerclass 37 (266) 721
SOURCE: Hyman, 1966: 491.

For the surveyshows 266 lower-classversus278 upper-class

individualswho hold highaspirations.
Admittedly,among those of eithersex between 21 and 39
yearsof age, thereare morelower-classthanupper-classpersons
holding high aspirations.This at firstglance may appear to
support, at least partially,Merton's argument.Yet a closer
examinationsuggeststhat even such partial supportmay be
more apparent than real. Hyman's data can be consideredas
partiallysupportingMerton'sargumentonly if theyadequately
measurethe respondents'genuineor realisticaspirationsrather
thanmerelyverbalacquiescencewithhighsuccessgoals.
The successgoals (e.g., the aspirationfora collegeeducation)
measured in Hyman's surveyseem to be mostlyrealisticfor
upper-classindividualsbut largely unrealisticfor lower-class
individuals.Studiesby Rodman (1963), Turner(1964: 80-81),
and Han (1969), forexample,indicatethat lower-classpersons
are likely to merely express their high success aspirations
withoutgenuinelyattemptingto realize them.One mayreason
that if Hyman had controlled for the factor of unrealistic
aspirations,he would have produced a considerablysmaller
number of lower-classperson with high (realistic)aspirations
than thatpresentedin Table 1 above. In consequenceone may
conclude that,contraryto Merton'sargument,thereappear to
be moreupper-classpersons,evenin termsof absolutenumbers,
who hold high(realistic)aspirations.
Whydoes Mertoninsistthatlower-classpersonshold as high
a level of aspirationsas upper-classpersonsdo? Perhapsbecause
he oversimplifies thenatureof,or overestimates the efficacyof,
Americansuccess ideology. To be sure,such an ideologyis so
pervasivethatit inevitablyaffectseventhelower-classcitizenry.
But it seems to affectthemin a characteristic way: it induces
them to entertain(unrealistic)aspirationsso highas to enable
themto identifythemselves withthemoresuccessfulAmericans
normatively orsymbolically-butsuchaspirationsare too highto
be taken seriouslyinsofaras theirconcreteor day-to-day living
is concerned(Thio, 1972: 388). In fact,a rereadingof Merton's
analysis suggeststhat "fantastic" success stories about such

charactersas the fruitjar king,the railroadmagnate,assorted

robberbarons,and millionaireshardlycould be takenseriously
by lower-classpeople. Instead, the same success theme is
apparentlymore meaningfulfor, and thus affectsto a greater
degree,higher-class individualsin theirsocial life.Witness,for
example, "the anguishedwordsof one victimof the American
Dream: 'In thistown,I'm snubbedsociallybecause I onlyget a
thousand a week. That hurts'" (Merton, 1968: 190). It is
obvious thatsuch a victimof the AmericanDream is fromthe
upperratherthanlowerclasses.
I have so far criticallyexamined Merton'snotion of class
differentialsin success aspirations.Now let me turnto Merton's
idea of classdifferentialsbothin aspiration-opportunitydisjunc-
tionand in sociallystructured obstaclesto successgoals.Merton
(1968: 228; italicsin theoriginal)states:
For, as has beenrepeatedly said,thehypothesis doesnot.require

thatlargerproportions or evenlarger numbers in thelowersocial
stratabe orientedtowardthe success-goal, but only that a
number
substantial be so oriented.
Foritis thedisjunctionbetween
induced
culturally highaspirationsandsociallystructuredobstacles
to realizationof theseaspirationswhichis heldto exertdistinct
pressurefordeviant behavior. By a "substantial
number," then,is
meanta numbersufficiently largeto resultin a morefrequent
disjunctionbetweengoalsand opportunity amongthelower-class
stratathanamong themoreadvantaged strata.
upper-class
Again, we can raise some serious questionsabout Merton's

assumption that lower-classpersons are more likely than
upper-classpersons to sufferfrom eitherthe lack of success
opportunityor the disjunctionbetweenaspirationsand oppor-
tunity.
Merton'sdefinitionof "the lack of successopportunity"is
tendentiouslyrestrictivein that it refers to the socially
structured,therebyignoringthe sociopsychologically induced,
obstacles to the achievementof highsuccessgoals. As forthe
empiricalreferentsof "socially structuredobstacles," Merton
often singles out such obvious thingsas the lack of formal

educationand racial discrimination. Since theseare plainly

characteristicof the kindof problemssuffered by lower-class
persons,theyconveniently lead Merton to confirmhisassump-
tion thatlower-class personsare morelikelythanupper-class
persons to experiencedifficulty in realizinghigh success
aspirations. Yet the idea of "sociopsychologicallyinduced
obstacles,"if broughtinto the presentanalysis,can seriously
undermine thatassumption. For it appearsthatpersonsfrom
the higherratherthan fromthe lowerclassesare typically
experiencing the (sociopsychologically induced)difficulty of
theirhighsuccessaspirations.
realizing
The notionof sociopsychologically inducedobstaclesto the
realizationof highsuccessaspirations harksbackto Durkheim's
(1951) conceptof anomie.A rereading of Durkheim suggests
that he attemptedto defineanomiein two ways. (1) He
characterized anomieas a suddenbreakbetweenemergent life
experiences and establishednormative expectations.The sudden
breakmaybe painfulas in thecase of "economicdisaster"or
beneficent as in the case of "theabruptgrowth of powerand
wealth"(Durkheim, 1951: 252). (2) He characterizedanomieas
a constant, chronicstateintermsofhighly developedtradeand
industry(Durkheim, 1951: 254-256).Underthesurface differ-
ence betweenthesetwo characterizations of anomie(i.e., one
emphasizes"abruptchange"and the other"constancy"),the
betweenthemis discernible:
similarity in bothcasesofanomie
the rich ratherthan the poor are uniquelyaffected.As
Durkheim (1951: 253-254)explained:
Poverty
protects
against
(anomie) initself.
itisa restraint
because
No matter
howoneacts,desires
havetodependuponresources
to
someextent;actualpossessions are partlythe criterionof those
aspiredto. So thelessonehasthelesshe is tempted to extendthe
range ofhisneedsindefinitely....
Wealth, on theotherhand,bythe
powerit bestows, deceivesus intobelieving thatwe dependon
ourselvesonly.Reducing theresistancewe encounter fromobjects,
it suggests
thepossibility
ofunlimited success them.
against Theless
limitedonefeels,themoreintolerablealllimitation
appears.

Thio/MERTON'SANOMIETHEORY [1471
In otherwords,anomieis a social conditionthatembroilsthe

upper much more than the lower classes. This is the case
because the upper classes' characteristicinclinationto entertain
veryhigh aspirations(as assumedby Durkheimand evidenced
by Hyman's data discussedearlier)is itselfan obstacleto the
realizationof thoseaspirations.
Durkheim'simplicationis that upper-classpersons' "limita-
tion" on, or obstacle to, the realizationof highaspirationsis
basically subjectiveratherthan objective.Modern sociologists
have explicitlyexpressedthis idea and also providedresearch
data to support it. Rushing(1972: 41-53), for example, has
found that despite the objective fact of their being much
better-off than the poor, the richsubjectivelyperceivethe level
of theirown deprivationas unrealistically high-whilethepoor
perceive theirs as unrealisticallylow. Rushingrefersto this
subjectiveperceptionof deprivationas "relativedeprivation"
because,due to theirphysicaland social separation,the richand
the poor tend to compare theirown goal-acheivement against
that of othersof theirown kind. Thus we may say that the
upper classes typicallysufferfrom"relativedeprivation"(or
"relative lack of success opportunity")whereas the lower
classes characteristically
sufferfrom"objectivedeprivation"(or
"objectivelack of successopportunity").
There is nothingparticularly new or revealingin the finding
that the upper classes are more likelythan the lower classesto
suffer from relative deprivation. Merton himself (1968:
282-283; italics in the original)has culled fromThe American
Soldier some empiricalevidences which suggestthe positive
connectionbetweenthe class factorand relativedeprivation:
The conceptof relativedeprivation is particularly

helpfulin
the
evaluating roleofeducation in with
satisfaction status
orjob,as
well as in some aspectsof approvalor criticism of the
Army....Withhigher levelsofaspirationthanthelesseducated, the
bettereducatedmanhad moreto losein hisowneyesandin the
eyesof hisfriendsby failureto achievesomesortofstatusin the
Army. Hence,frustration
wasgreater forhimthanforothers. ...

Hencewe wouldexpect,at a givenrankanda givenlongevity,

that
thebetter wouldbemorelikely
educated thanotherstocomplain
of
theslowness
ofpromotion(intheArmy).
For all his lengthydiscussionon the concept of relative
deprivationin theverysame book wherehe presentshis anomie
theory (Merton, 1968: 279-440), Merton does not see the
connectionbetweensocial class and relativedeprivationor does
not apply it to his anomie theory.Otherwise,he would have
found untenable his assumptionthat lower-classpersons are
more likelythan upper-classpersonsto experienceobstaclesto
therealizationof highaspirations.
The precedingdiscussionon Merton'sunjustifiablycircum-
scribeddefinitionof "the lack of successopportunity"bringsus
to question his accompanyingtreatmentof "the disjunction
between aspirationsand opportunity."Merton'sdiscussionof
the aspiration-opportunity disjunctionfailsto take account of
the dynamicinteractionbetween aspirationsand opportunity.
More specifically,Merton discusses his assumptionof class-
differentialsin aspirationsas if these aspirationswere not
affectedat all by one's objectivelack of opportunity.
The dynamic relation between aspirationsand the class-
structuredopportunityfor actualizingthe aspirationsseems
highlyimportantinsofaras we are interestedin measuringthe
disjunctionbetween aspirationsand opporunity.On the one
side,therelationmaybe statedthus:
ofpeople's(objective)
The differentiation opportunitybytheclass
systembrings aboutthedifferentiation
oftheir In other
aspirations.
words,thehigherthe classes,thegreater their(objective)
oppor-
tunityand thehighertheiraspirations; thelowerthe
conversely,
classes,thelessertheir(objective) andthelowertheir
opportunity
aspirations.
Assumingthatthe "aspirations"used hereare realisticin that

they are seriouslyentertainedfor guiding one's life, these
by the findings
propositionsseemwell substantiated of Rodman
(1963), Turner(1964: 80-81), and Han (1969). On the other
relationmay be expressedas
side, the aspiration-opportunity
follows:

Thedifferentiation
ofpeople'saspirations
bytheclasssystembrings
aboutthedifferentiation
oftheir(relative)
lackofopportunity. In
otherwords,thehigher theclasses,
thehighertheiraspirations
and
their
thegreater lackofopportunity;
(relative) thelower
conversely,
thelowertheiraspirations
theclasses, andthelessertheir(relative)
lackofopportunity.
These propositionsare inferredfromDurkheim'sdiscussion
of anomie as cited above and fromMerton's(1968: 279-290)
collation and reanalysisof the data on relativedeprivationin
The AmericanSoldier. They are suggestedalso by Rushing's
(1972) and Mizruchi's(1964) empiricalstudies.
One may note that the firstset of propositionsemploys
"opportunity"as the causal factor and "aspirations" as the
effect;thatthe second set of propositionsutilizesaspirationsas
the causal factorand opportunityas the effect;and thatboth
sets of propositionstreat "social class" as the initialcause of
both aspirationsand opportunity.
All this suggeststhat the issue on the relationshipsbetween
social class and aspiration-opportunity disjunction appears
much more complicated than Merton's analysis has allowed.
Contraryto Merton'sassumptionthat the lower class is more
likely to sufferfrom aspiration-opportunity disjunction,the
analysishere suggeststhatthehigherclassestendmoreto suffer
from the problem. Due to their typicalexperienceof lower
aspirationsbut nonethelesssignificant(objective) deprivation,
lower-classpersonscan be said to sufferfroma certaindegreeof
the disjunction between aspirations and opportunity.But
higher-class personsare likely to sufferfroma greateraspira-
tion-opportunitydisjunction because they characteristically
experience both high aspirations and significant(relative)
deprivation.
SOCIAL CLASS AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

In assuming that there is a more frequent disjunction
between aspirationsand opportunityamong membersof the

lower class than among those of the higherclasses, Merton

concludes that "the greatestpressurestoward deviation are
exertedupon the lower strata" (Merton, 1968: 198). Perhaps
because of the extremedifficultyin directlymeasuring"the
pressurestoward deviation," Merton and his followershave
relied on rates of deviantbehaviorto representthe concept.
Thus the conclusion of Merton's anomie theory may be
rewordedas follows: lower-classpersonsare more likelythan
higher-classpersonsto become deviantsor to commitcrimeand
delinquency.
The validityof thisempiricalstatementdependsverymuch
on the definitionof "deviance." In general,if by deviance is
meantthe officiallyknownor reporteddeviance,thenMerton's
conclusionappearsto be valid.However,if by devianceis meant
the officiallyunknownor unreporteddeviance,thenMerton's
conclusionprobablyfailsto be empiricallysupported.For the
officiallyknown deviance is more likely to be committedby
personsbecause the formerare
lower-classthan by higher-class
both less sophisticatedin committingdeviance (e.g., armed
robbery,burglary,assault,and so forth)and more likelyto be
prejudiced and discriminatedagainst in the law enforcers'
exerciseof theirdiscretionarypower forarrestand conviction.
On the other hand, the officiallyunknowndevianceis more
likelyto be perpetratedby higher-class
individualsbecause they
are more sophisticatedin perpetratingdeviance (e.g., tax
evasion, embezzlement,corporate price-fixing,and so on)
withoutgettingdetectedby the law enforcersand if detected,
less likely to be arrested,and if arrested,less likely to be
convicted.
These factshave been eitheropenlyor tacitlysuggestedby
manysociologists.(See, forexample,a reviewof thissubjectby
Hood and Sparks, 1970: 11-79.) What interestsus here is the
mannerin which Merton characteristically presentshis argu-
mentto confirmhis theory.Earlierin thispaperwe saw thatin
orderto verifyhispremisethatlower-classpersonssufferfroma
larger aspiration-opportunity disjunction, Merton fails to
grapple with thedisagreeablenotionsof realisticaspirationsand

relativedeprivationthough he is apparentlyaware of them.

Now, in like manner,in order to verifyhis conclusionthat
lower-classpersonsare more likelyto commitdeviantacts, he
fails to come to grips with the disagreeabledata about the
prevalenceof white-collarcriminality thoughhe is actuallyand
clearly facedwith them.
Perhapsbecause of the "obvious" and popularlyheld notion
that lower-classpersons are more prone to become criminals
and delinquentscomparedto higher-class persons,Mertonseems
to thinkthat it is not necessaryto provideany researchdata in
his theoretical analysis to strengthenhis assertion on the
connectionbetween lower-classpositionand deviantbehavior.
He offersno data whatsoeverabout crimesand delinquency
commonly committed by lower-classpersons. Instead, he
supplies multitudinousexamples of "smart" dealings on the
part of upper-classcriminals.For instance,he cites various
formsof upper-classcriminality: "corrupting legislatures,
appro-
priatingresources,organizingmonopolies,and crushingcompe-
titors" (Merton, 1968: 223). Furthermorehe cites several
studies of self-reported criminalitywhich show, among other
things,that ninety-ninepercentof the "respectable" citizens
studiedhave admittedtheirinvolvement in criminaloffensesof
one typeor another.
Yet in orderto buttresshis thesisthatlower-classpeople are
more likely to commit deviantacts, Mertonapparentlyfeels
compelled to proffersome positive evidence. This kind of
evidencemay be found in manyofficialstatistics,particularly
the FBI's UniformCrimeReports. But Mertonis too sophisti-
cated to explicitly invoke those seriouslybiased statistics.
Insteadhe alludesto themas follows:
Butwhatever ratesofdeviant
thedifferential intheseveral
behavior
andweknowfrom
socialstrata, manysources thattheofficial
crime
statistics
uniformlyshowinghigherratesin thelowerstrataarefar
fromcompleteor reliable,it appearsfromour analysis thatthe
greatest toward
pressures are
deviation exerted uponthelower strata
[Merton, 1968:198].

This is indeed a curiousway of defendinghis anomietheory.

Matza (1969: 97) has describedand explainedit in thisway:
It mayseemas if Merton tookaccountof Wallerstein andWyle's

study(whichshowsthe prevalence of higher-classcrimes)and
grappledwiththedubiousreliability ofofficialestimates regarding
the distributionof deviation,but thisis not so. His citationof
Wallersteinand Wyle'sstudywas meantto disarmratherthan
its
appreciate implications forsociology's
favoriteaffinity(between
lower-classpositionand criminality).Insteadof challenging the
or dismissing
findings, themsardonically,Merton usedyetanother
technique: he citedthestudyapprovingly andthenignored it.Not
knowing quite what to do with theirexplicitchallenge to the
basis,hesimply
statistical reiterated
hiscontention.
In some ways, Merton'srelianceon, and disarmingdefense

of, the seriouslyclass-biaseddata resemblethe early psycho-
logists' reliance on, and disarmingdefense of, the seriously
race-biasedIQ tests which were widely used duringthe First
World War (Thio, 1973: 4). Compare,for example, Merton's
above-quoted argumentwith that of Yerkes, a renowned
psychologistof theperiod:
(The IQ tests)are to some extentinfluenced by educational

acquirement, butin themainthesoldier's and
inbornintelligence
not the accidentsof environment
determinehismentalrating or
grade in theArmy...(and) thenegro is
soldier of low
relatively
1963:368].
[quotedbyGossett,
gradeintelligence
The foregoingsuggeststhat if Merton had not been too

inclinedto provehis theoryhe would probablyhaverestatedit
as follows.Under the pervasiveinfluenceof Americansuccess
ideology, (1) higher-classpersons are likely to hold levels of
aspirationsso high that they sufferfromrelativedeprivation,
wherebythey are pressuredtoward the performanceof such
deviant acts as tax evasion, embezzlement,political skuldug-
gery, corporateprice-fixing,and other so-called "white-collar
crimes."And (2) lower-classpersonsare likelyto hold relatively
high (though low if compared to the case of higher-class

persons) aspirationsand yet sufferfromobjectivedeprivation,

wherebythey are pressuredtoward the performanceof such
deviant acts as armed robbery,burglary,assault, and other
so-called"streetcrimes."
CONCLUSIONAND IMPLICATIONS
Merton's anomie theory is seriouslyflawed by its over-

simplificationof the relationshipbetweensocial class,on the
one hand, and aspiration-opportunity disjunctionand deviant
behavior,on the other.Why,then,has the theoryexertedsuch
a stronginfluenceon Americansociologyor on thesociologyof
deviance? Let me attempt to answer with the following
speculations.
(1) Merton's theory seems to dovetail with the prevailing
stereotypednotion about lower-classpersons: they are more
likely than those of other classes to become criminalsand
delinquents. Such a notion is particularlyreflectedin the
differential
treatmentagainstthe poor by law enforcement and
social welfareagencies.This stereotypednotion is repeatedly
reinforcedby the greaterfrequencyof publicizingthosecrimes
committed by predominantlylower-classpersons, such as
homicide,robbery,burglary, rape, and otherso-called"serious
crimes" or street crimes.Furthermore,the "law and order"
sloganstouted by manypoliticalleadersand concernedcitizens
gear the generalpublic's attentiontoward these characteristi-
cally lower-class crimes. On the other hand, those crimes
committedby predominantlyupper-classpersons,such as tax
evasion,corporateprice-fixing,violationof anti-trust
laws, and
the like are comparativelyundetectedand, if detected and
prosecuted,not consideredby thegeneralpublicas cause foras
great a concern as the lower-classtypes of crime.The more
frequentattentiongiven to, and the strongerpassionindulged
against, the lower-classcrimes,then, help to strengthenthe
generalpublic's prejudiceagainstlower-classpersonsinsotaras
suspectinggeneral criminaltendencyis concerned.It is plain

that such a social climate is naturallyreceptiveto Merton's

anomietheory.
(2) Merton'sinordinaterelianceon theeasilyobservablefacts
about deviance(as "officiallyknowndeviance"is by definition
observable)seems compatiblewithsociologists'prevailing scien-
tificethosthatemphasizesobservability as almostthe onlybasis
for accepting somethingas fact. As a result,the relatively
unobservable(i.e., to the sociologistand thoughobviouslynot
to the subject himself)is likelyto be deemphasizedor even
ignored.This inevitablymeans that sociologistsare compelled
to deemphasize or even ignore the relativelyunobservable
deviantacts committedby upper-classpersons.It is therefore
understandablethat for the practicalreason of conveniencein
acquiring data sociologists tend to be more interestedin
officiallyknownthan unknowncrimeand delinquency.And it
is furtherunderstandable thatsince this officiallyknowncrime
and delinquencyis more likelyto be committedby lower-class
persons,Merton'stheoryis accordinglyconfirmed.
(3) Insofaras the factorof social stratification
is leftout, the
major premiseof Merton'sanomie theoryis apparentlyvalidin
thatthe disjunctionbetweenaspirationsand the opportunity to
realizethe disjunctionbetweenaspirationsand theopportunity
to realizetheseaspirationsproducespressurestowarddeviation.
In this regard,Merton(1968: 235) has cited widelydivergent
studies on norm deviationin such areas as interdisciplinary
research on science, mass communicationbehavior,religious
orthodoxy,and a militaryprison.' All of these appear to
underpin"the general conception" (the major premise)that
"any culturalgoals which receiveextremeand only negligibly
qualified emphasis on the culture of a group will serve to
attenuatethe emphasison institutionalized practicesand make
foranomie" (Merton,1968: 235).
What is suggestedin this "general conception" and in the
cited studiesis thattheoveremphasis on a culturalgoal tendsto
induce so higha level of aspirationsin individualsthattheyare
prone towardthe use of illegitimate means to achievethegoal.
Such is the case because, as Mertonhas repeatedlystressed,the

aspirationsfar outstripthe opportunityfor reachingthe goal

and thus help to createa wide aspiration-opportunity disjunc-
tion. But note that the concept of class does not necessarily
inhere in this general premiseor in the cited studies. It is
thereforea case of non sequiturfor Mertonto misapplythe
tenable premiseto both the untenableminorpremiseand the
untenable conclusion. To put it differently, the untenable
minor premiseon the inverserelationshipbetween class and
aspiration-opportunity disjunctionand the untenable conclu-
sion on the inverse relationshipbetween class and deviant
behaviordo not followlogicallyor empirically fromthetenable
major premise on the between
positiverelationship aspiration-
opportunitydisjunctionand norm deviation.Withoutexamin-
ing Merton'sanomie theoryin termsof its syllogisticformas
has been done in thispaper,manysociologiststoday stillcling
to it like, in' Merton's (1959: 177) own words for another
purpose,"sociologicalbarnacles."
Finally,fromthe reexaminationof Merton'sanomie theory,
two largerimplicationscan be drawn.First,fromthepragmatic
point of view, Merton'stheoryhas greatlycontributedto the
perpetuationand consolidationof the prevailingstereotyped
notions, prejudicial attitudes, and discriminatorypractices
againstthe poor. Severalfactorsmay have made thiscontribu-
tion possible. (1) The largelyuncriticalcitationof the theory
has appeared in many introductorysociology textbooks.(2)
There are numerousstudentswho have taken only one or two
sociology courses whereinthey are likely to have had their
prejudicesagainstthe poor reinforcedby Merton'stheory.And
(3) manystudentsmay have been misledby Merton'sfrequent
pronouncementabout his anomie theory as scientificor
value-free-e.g.,"It should be apparentthat (my) discussionis
not pitchedon a moralisticplane" (Merton,1968: 213).
It may be worth noting that from the standpoint of
discussinga theoryqua theoryit hardlyseems necessaryfor
Merton to declare his anomie theory as scientific.Such a
declarationcan hardlyenhancethe validityof his theory.If it
can, we may as well bringback into our sociologicaldiscourse

the Nazi scientists',white psychologists',and other white

academicians'racial theory.There is, afterall, some underlying
similaritybetweenMerton'sanomie theoryand the Nazi and
whitescholars'racialtheory.As Merton'stheoryis ideologically
againstthe powerlesspoor, but in favorof thepowerfulrich,so
is theNazi and whitescholars'racialtheoryideologicallyagainst
the powerless non-Aryansand blacks, but in favor of the
powerfulAryansand whites.Like Merton,the Nazi and white
scholarswould not have consideredtheirtheoryas ideologically
motivated.Consequently,againlikeMerton,theydeclaredtheir
theoryas scientific.
Secondly, from the intellectualpoint of view, Merton's
theorymay serve as an instructiveillustrationof the hazard
involved in developingtheoryon the basis of available but
unexamined"facts," particularlyif the factsare as obvious as
those derivedfromcommonsensicalor popularlyheld notions
about crime and delinquency. This suggeststhat Merton's
theory has been developed to interpretex post facto the
"higher"crimeand delinquencyratesamongthe lower classes.
Contraryto manysociologists'belief,Merton'stheoryis not a
pure reformulationof Durkheim's concept of anomie. In
reexaminingMerton's analysis,one is hard put to find any
genuineresemblancebetweenMerton'sand Durkheim'sconcept
of anomie. In fact,Merton'sconcept of anomie is a perversion
of Durkheim's;Mertonsees the poor as more likelyto suffer
fromanomiewhileDurkheimviewstherichas morelikelyto be
victimsof anomie.
But all thisis not to suggestthatpost factuminterpretation
should be banished from the development of sociological
theory.Rather,the qualityor validityof the data should first
be examined carefullybefore it can be used for developing
theory.Such a warningmay sound too obvious.That could be
the reasonwhy Mertonfailsto attendto it in his discussionon
the generaltopic of post factuminterpretation (Merton,1968:
147-149) and also failsto takeit seriouslywhenhe analyzesthe
empiricalbasis of his anomie theory.The result is that his
anomietheoryis seriouslyflawed.

NOTES
1. For comparable ofnormdeviation

illustrations in otherareasofsocialbehavior
suchas foundin the army,a governmental bureaucracy,and the Sovietfirm,see
Cohen,1966: 78-82. Of course,all thisdoes not meanthataspiration-opportunity
disjunctionalwaysleadsto normdeviation, butratherthatit wouldalwayslead to
normdeviationonlyif all otherthingswerebeingequal (i.e., in thesensethatthe
statement idealization"as has been discussedby Lopreatoand
is a "theoretical
Alston,1970). Or to put it differently, tendencyfor,not a
thereis a significant
completedetermination of, normdeviationif aspiration-opportunitydisjunction
obtains.
REFERENCES
Cloward,RichardA.
1959 "Illegitimatemeans,anomieand deviantbehavior."Amer.Soc. Rev.24
(April):164-176.
--- andLloydE. Ohlin
1960 Delinquency andOpportunity. NewYork:FreePress.
Cohen,AlbertK.
1966 DevianceandControl.Englewood N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Cliffs,
Dunham,H. Warren
1964 "Anomieand mentaldisorder,"pp. 128-157in MarshallClinard(ed.)
AnomieandDeviantBehavior. NewYork:FreePress.
Durkheim, Emile
1951 Suicide.NewYork:FreePress.
T. F.
Gossett,
1963 Race The Historyofan Idea in America. Dallas:SouthernMethodistUniv.
Press.
Han,WanSang
1969 "Two conflicting themes;commonvaluesversusclassdifferential values."
Amer.Soc. Rev.34 (October):679-690.
Hood,RogerandRichardSparks
1970 KeyIssuesinCriminology. London:WorldUniversity Library.
Hyman,Herbert H.
1966 "The valuesystems classes,"pp. 48-499in Reinhard
of different Bendix
and SeymourMartinLipset(eds.) Class,Status,and Power.New York:
FreePress.
Karacki,LarryandJackson Toby
1962 "The uncommitted adolescent:candidatesforgangsocialization."Soc.
Inquiry32 (Spring):203-215.
Lindesmith,AlfredR. andJohnGagnon
1964 "Anomieand drugaddiction,"pp. 158-18 in MarshallClinard(ed.)
AnomieandDeviantBehavior. NewYork:FreePress.
Lopreato,JosephandLetitiaAlston
1970 "Ideal typesand the idealizationstrategy." Amer.Soc. Rev. 35 (Feb-
ruary):88-96.

Matza,David
1969 Becoming Deviant.Englewood N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Cliffs,
Merton,RobertK.
1959 "Social conformity,deviation,and opportunity-structures: a comment on
the contributions
of Dubinand Cloward."Amer.Soc. Rev. 24 (April):
177-189.
1968 SocialTheoryandSocialStructure. NewYork:FreePress.
Mizruchi,Ephraim Harold
1964 SuccessandOpportunity. NewYork:FreePress.
Reiss,AlbertJ.andAlbertLewisRhodes
1961 "The distribution of juveniledelinquency in the social classstructure."
Amer.Soc. Rev.26 (October):720-732.Rodman,Hyman
1963 "Thelowerclassvaluestretch." SocialForces42 (December):205-215.
Rushing,WilliamA.
1972 Class,Culture,andAlienation.Lexington, Mass.:D. C. Heath.
Thio,Alex
1972 "Towarda fullerviewofAmerican successideology."PacificSoc. Rev.15
(July):381-393.
1973 "Classbias in thesociologyof deviance."Amer.Sociologist 8 (February)
1-12.
Turner,RalphH.
1964 TheSocialContextofAmbition. SanFrancisco:Chandler.


Alex Thio - A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Alex Thio - A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alex Thio - A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacific Sociological Association

A Critical Look at Merton's Anomie Theory

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

One may, however,note that therehave been a numberof

SOCIAL CLASS AND ASPIRATION-OPPORTUNITY

The above-statedsecond premiseof Merton'sanomie theory

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

opportunity,by the verydefinitionof the social class system

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

his theory,Mertoneitherimplicitlyor explicitlyrefersto the

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

logical theorybased on empiricalevidencederivedfrom

SOURCE: Hyman, 1966: 491.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

For the surveyshows 266 lower-classversus278 upper-class

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

charactersas the fruitjar king,the railroadmagnate,assorted

For, as has beenrepeatedly said,thehypothesis doesnot.require

Again, we can raise some serious questionsabout Merton's

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

educationand racial discrimination. Since theseare plainly

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

In otherwords,anomieis a social conditionthatembroilsthe

The conceptof relativedeprivation is particularly

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

Hencewe wouldexpect,at a givenrankanda givenlongevity,

Assumingthatthe "aspirations"used hereare realisticin that

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

SOCIAL CLASS AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

lower class than among those of the higherclasses, Merton

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

relativedeprivationthough he is apparentlyaware of them.

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

This is indeed a curiousway of defendinghis anomietheory.

It mayseemas if Merton tookaccountof Wallerstein andWyle's

In some ways, Merton'srelianceon, and disarmingdefense

(The IQ tests)are to some extentinfluenced by educational

The foregoingsuggeststhat if Merton had not been too

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

persons) aspirationsand yet sufferfromobjectivedeprivation,

Merton's anomie theory is seriouslyflawed by its over-

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

that such a social climate is naturallyreceptiveto Merton's

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

aspirationsfar outstripthe opportunityfor reachingthe goal

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

the Nazi scientists',white psychologists',and other white

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

1. For comparable ofnormdeviation

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

This content downloaded from 129.8.242.67 on Fri, 4 Oct 2013 18:05:24 PM

You might also like