SOCIOLOGICAL CRIMINOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Social structure refers to patternings in social relations that have some sort of

obduracy. Within this general definition, there are two primary families of more specific

approaches. In the first, ‘structure’ may be used to refer on the macro level to the

abstract organization of reciprocally defined social categories that are seen to comprise

some social whole. In the second, the term can be used to refer to smaller scale ‘social

structures,’ configurations of concrete relationships among individuals without reference

to a notion of a larger societal totality. Martin, J.L. and Lee, M. (2015)

In this topic branches of social structure such as social disorganization theory,

strain theory, theory of anomie etc. will be discuss. To understand

Branches of Social Structure

Social Disorganization Theory

At the root of social disorganization theory is the explanation of variations in

criminal offending and delinquency, across both time and space, as a product of

institutional disintegration. These institutions (family, school, church, friendship, etc.) are

historically responsible to the establishment of organized and cooperative relationships

among groups within the local community. This organization is then linked to the bond

or “sense of belonging” one might feel in regards to their community, which decreases

the likelihood of their involvement in criminal or delinquent behaviors that might

negatively affect that community. (As cited in Capellan, Chinatkindri, and Porter, 2015)
 Thus, varying levels of cooperational organization associated with these

institutions result in variation of reciprocal attachment that the individual might feel in

relation to that community. The result is less social deterrence for crime/delinquency

and higher observed rates of such activity. Social disorganization as an explanation of

crime variations is associated with the rise of individualism, rapid societal change, and

the “disorganizing” or “disintegrative” forces that followed. (As cited in Capellan,

Chinatkindri, and Porter, 2015)

In fact, Sutherland (1939) highlights the effect of industrialization and

urbanization as characterized by inconsistency and conflict as they refer to the

individual experience. Shaw and McKay (1929) built on this in their analysis of crime

variations in Chicago during the early twentieth century. Shaw and McKay’s work has

become one of the most important in terms of cementing social disorganization as an

ecological theory of crime associated with the superseding effects of structural

conditions in relation to individual agency. (As cited in Capellan, Chinatkindri, and

Porter, 2015)

Robert Faris (1948) furthered this structural argument through the explanation of

crime patterns (“social pathologies” in his words) as being related to the weakening of

relationships and referring to it as the bond communities. In a reciprocal nature, Bursik

(1988) points out that crime then contributes to the further destruction of social

organization. It is important to note that the reciprocal nature of crime and

disorganization has been critiqued for its oversimplification in explaining variations in

crime. The major critique centering on the idea the structural conditions cannot be solely

responsible for the existence of crime but should be included in combination with the
potential indicators of agency and action of individuals likely to be involved in such

behaviors. (As cited in Capellan, Chinatkindri, and Porter, 2015)

In response to such critiques, others have made the point that the strength of

social disorganization theory itself lies in its parsimonious ability to explain patterns

using a confirmatory scientific approach. It is the parsimonious orientation of this

approach that lends itself to replication and an ease of interpretation, which became the

foundation of Shaw and McKay’s (1942) contribution to the modern foundation of social

disorganization theory. Since its development in the field of criminology, Shaw and

McKay’s social disorganization theory with its focus on the interaction of neighborhood

structures, social control, and crime has become one of the most frequently tested and

contested theories due to its operationalization and underlying assumptions. This entry

seeks to provide readers with a general overview regarding the origins and foundations

of social disorganization theory, recent developments and advances in the theory, and,

finally, popular critiques of the theory. The foundations and assumptions of social

disorganization theory that are observed in contemporary criminological theory is

primarily the byproduct of intellectual developments in the field of sociology that

occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (As cited in Capellan,

Chinatkindri, and Porter, 2015)

 Foundations of Disorganization theory

The end of the hunter/gatherer period of human history and the dawn of the

Neolithic Revolution around 10,000 BCE provided humans with access to surplus

nutrition, material wealth, and surplus time to study science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics. These social conditions set the foundations for massive urban
planning projects, advances in irrigation and sanitation, and architectural development

to occur around the globe. This allowed humans to begin settling into large villages,

towns, and eventually cities without the constant fear of suffering from famines,

droughts, and other disasters which history has repeatedly demonstrated can result in

mass death and the dissolution of human settlements (Zeder, 1994). Surplus time also

allowed humans to begin organizing socially and producing what we now conceptualize

as communities for providing social controls and cultural capital. Furthermore, the

advent of the industrial revolution in the early twentieth century resulted in the division of

labor, stratification of humans based on socioeconomic status, and densely populated

urban areas to emerge for housing the growing demand for human labor. Different

races and ethnic groups migrated and heterogeneously assimilated into large cities

around the world in search of economic opportunity. However, language barriers,

religious differences, differing values, and ethnic tensions have been documented as

sources of conflict with in neighborhoods housing the labor and thereby impacting the

effectiveness of informal social controls such as schools and religious institutions for

preventing crime and deviance. Although the development of cities has been

considered a monumental achievement in human ingenuity and engineering, it has long

been observed that densely populated urban areas produce unintended and adverse

social conditions that can result in alienation, psychological distress, criminality, and

deviance. Social scientists in particular have observed and theorized that increases in

population density, the ecological context, and the social organizational patterns within

a community can cause humans to disregard popularly held social norms and laws, and

to express deviance or criminality that can be observed on a macro-scale. For example,

in 1897 in his groundbreaking work Suicide, French sociologist Emile Durkheim

collected data from public records and observed through quantitative data analysis that

communities and nations that had highly integrated forms of socioreligious development

and strong social controls through religious leadership also had lower rates of suicide.

More specifically, Durkheim demonstrated the example of how nations with high rates of

Catholicism being homogeneously practiced also had the lowest rates of suicide. He

attributed this to the fact that the Catholic religion had strong social controls for

preventing deviance and suicidal behavior (Durkheim, 1897). Similarly, in 1899 in his

treatise The Philadelphia Negro, W. E. B. Du Bois used survey data and quantitative

analysis to observe that the crime rates among the recently emancipated African

American residents in the seventh ward of Philadelphia were not the result of racial or

biological characteristics of the inhabitants but were directly related to the social and

environmental conditions that African Americans were forced to endure while living in

densely populated neighborhoods in order to access economic opportunities that were

concentrated near the industrial centers of major cities across the United States. The

conditions that African Americans were forced to accept as a condition of gaining their

livelihood in the densely populated seventh ward included high rates of poverty,

illiteracy, low rates of homeownership and businesses, dilapidated residences, high

rates of illegitimate births, and poor public health outcomes related to disease and death

among residents. Both Durkheim and Du Bois recognized that the social environment

was a byproduct of the interaction between environmental conditions and social

controls. However, neither social scientist exclusively championed a general theoretical

framework to explain the relationship between social disorganization and crime (Du
Bois, 1899). In the early 1920s, at the University of Chicago, Robert E. Park and Ernest

W. Burgess sought to understand the foundations of deviant and criminal behaviors that

humans engaged in when living in or near densely populated urban areas through an

ecological framework called the concentric zone theory. The social ecological theory of

Park and Burgess stated that residents living in a city environment had varying

propensities to engage in criminal behavior based on how close in social and spatial

proximity the residents were to the zone of transition. The zone of transition is

characterized as the parts of the city that are designated for industrial manufacturing

and house low-income residents, particularly those who were racially African American

and recent immigrants seeking direct access to economic opportunities. These

researchers observed that the zones of transition had high rates of poverty,

dysfunctional families, low rates of literacy, and had racially and ethnically

heterogeneous population characteristics. The researchers also noted that the zone of

transition had high crime rates related to alcoholism, prostitution, and violence (Park,

Burgess, & McKenzie, 1925). More specifically, these theorists argued that deviant and

criminal behavior among residents in the zones of transition are not related to individual-

level biological or psychological characteristics but instead are directly related to the

ecological and environmental context in which the residents lived in. Therefore, Park

and Burgess observed that individuals who lived in close proximity towards the

epicenter of the zone of transition also had the highest likelihood of engaging in crime or

becoming a victim of crime. The causal mechanism by which increases in crime

unfolded as individuals live closer to the epicenter of the zone in transition, is described

as being the result of weakened social controls and limited cultural capital due to the
anonymity made possible by densely concentrated urban-industrial environments.

Although, Park and Burgess developed the ecological framework for modeling how

criminality develops across space and time in urban environments, their theory did not

sufficiently outline the causal mechanisms, research methodology, and analytical

techniques for measuring the relationship between high rates of poverty, stability of

residential patterns, and level of racial heterogeneity and how these conditions impact

the rates of deviance and criminality on a macro-scale. Particularly, Park and Burgess’s

(1925) failure to identify and focus on the conceptual importance of operationalizing and

measuring macro-level social controls and its relationship to crime prompted Shaw and

McKay (1942) to produce one of the most frequently tested general theories of social

disorganization (Park, Burgess, & McKenzie, 1925; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Heavily

influenced by Park and Burgess (1925), the social disorganization theory developed by

Shaw and McKay (1942) at the Chicago School in the 1940s, is a recent reformulation

of the idea that crime and deviance are a byproduct of both the physical environment

and social structure and the way in which they interact and are organized can be

studied through an ecological framework. What set Shaw and McKay apart from Park

and Burgess about the ecological foundations of criminality and social disorder was

their conceptualization of social disorganization being the result of a lack of macro-level

social controls in the community. The theorists posited that disorganized urban areas

are primarily lacking in social controls and attribute the high levels of poverty and crime

in urban areas to the dissolution of vital social institutions that generally provide social

control such as the family, schools, and businesses. Shaw and McKay state that

neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility and limited social capital produce
the conditions for crime to emerge and persist. The researchers further posit that high

crime-rates emerge when there is a confluence of high rates of residential mobility, low

rates of homeownership, lack of job stability, high rates of poverty, and increasing

heterogeneity in ethno-racial composition of communities. Three of the primary

theoretical propositions of social disorganization for explaining all crime include

observing and measuring macro level (a) low socioeconomic development, (b) high

rates of residential mobility, and © high rates of ethnic heterogeneity. Shaw and McKay

(1942) developed the use of empirical data, research designs, and analytical

methodology for testing the magnitude of the relationship between the social

environment, social controls, and crime rates. The next section will delve deeper into

the recent developments and applications of social disorganization theory and how it

continues to shape the fields of criminology and criminal justice policy. (As cited in

Capellan, Chinatkindri, and Porter, 2015)

Strain Theory

Robert K. Merton (1938) developed the first major strain theory in criminology.

He argues that all people in the United States are encouraged to strive for the

cultural goal of monetary success. Lower-class individuals, however, are often

prevented from achieving this goal through legitimate means. Their parents may

fail to provide them with the skills and attitudes necessary for school success,

they may live in communities with inferior schools, and their parents often lack

the money to send them to college or set them up in business. As a

consequence, lower-class individuals more often experience strain, with this

strain being a function of the disjunction between their goals and the legitimate
means for achieving them. Merton states that there are several ways to cope with

this strain, some of which involve crime. Individuals may attempt to achieve

monetary success through illegitimate channels, such as theft, drug selling, and

prostitution. They may strike out at others in their frustration. They may engage in

drug use to alleviate their frustration. And they may reject the goal of monetary

success and focus on the achievement of other goals, certain of which involve

crime. Merton noted that most strained individuals live with their strain rather than

cope through crime, and he went on to describe factors that influence the

likelihood of criminal coping – such as the extent to which individuals are

socialized to condemn crime. Merton’s theory led to the development of other

strain theories, including that of his student, Albert Cohen. Cohen (1955) drew on

Merton’s theory to explain the origins of the lower-class, adolescent, male gangs

that were common in the 1950s. Cohen states that lower-class individuals desire

middleclass status, which includes both money and the respect of others. Lower-

class people, however, have trouble achieving such status through legitimate

channels. In particular, lowerclass juveniles are often unprepared for school and

are sometimes humiliated by their middle-class teachers and the middle-class

students with whom they compete. But unlike monetary success, middle-class

status is not a goal that can be readily achieved through illegitimate channels

(i.e., one cannot steal middle-class status). As a result, certain lower-class

adolescents cope with their strain in a different manner. These adolescents

develop an alternative status system in which they can successfully compete.

Their hostility toward the middle class, among other things, leads them to value
those things that the middle class rejects. The middle class values private

property and polite behavior, for example, while these lower-class juveniles value

theft and aggression. This alternative status system takes the form of juvenile

gangs, with the gangs rejecting the cultural goal of middleclass status and

substituting new, criminally oriented goals in its place. Researchers have

questioned Cohen’s argument that lower-class gangs fully reject conventional

values and embrace crime (Agnew, 2000). But his argument that individuals

sometimes adapt to strain by forming deviant subcultures appears to have some

merit (Agnew, 2000). Cloward and Ohlin (1960) developed yet another major

version of strain theory. Like Cohen, they wanted to explain the formation and

nature of lower-class juvenile gangs. And they too argue that the inability to

achieve conventional success goals through legitimate channels contributes to

the creation of gangs. But what most distinguishes their theory is the argument

that any explanation of crime must consider not only the individual’s opportunities

to achieve conventional success goals but also the individual’s illegitimate

opportunities. That is, it must consider opportunities to engage in violence, theft,

drug use and sales, and other crimes. Specifically, are individuals in contact with

others who provide the skills, beliefs, and resources that facilitate these types of

crime? This idea has found contemporary expression in routine opportunities and

rational choice theories, which devote much attention to variation in the

opportunities to engage in crime. Despite their differences, the ‘classic’ strain

theories of Merton, Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin share in common the idea

that strain involves the inability to achieve conventional success goals through
legitimate means. These theories were perhaps the dominant theories of crime in

the 1950s and 1960s. They also had a major impact on public policy, being an

inspiration for the War on Poverty (Agnew, 2000). The War on Poverty was

designed to make it easier for people to achieve material success through legal

channels. It involved programs such as Project Headstart, a preschool

enrichment program, and Job Corps, a jobs training program. But by the 1970s

and 1980s, classic strain theory was being heavily criticized and came close to

being abandoned (e.g., Agnew, 2000; Agnew et al., 1996; Kornhauser, 1978).

Classic strain theory predicts that crime is concentrated in the lower classes, but

many self-report studies in the 1960s and beyond found that the relationship

between class and crime was weak. Relatedly, research revealed the existence

of much white-collar and corporate crime. Furthermore, crime rapidly increased

during the 1960s, despite increasing economic prosperity and a sustained effort

to reduce poverty. Finally, several studies attempted to test classic strain theory

by examining the relationship between aspirations or ideal goals and

expectations or expected levels of goal achievement. These studies focused on

educational and occupational goals, and argued that if classic strain theory is

correct, crime should be highest among those with high aspirations but low

expectations (i.e., those who desire a lot but expect little). Instead, crime was

highest among those with low aspirations and expectations (e.g., Agnew, 2000;

Agnew et al., 1996; Kornhauser, 1978). Classic strain theory, however, has

experienced a revival in recent years. It has been argued that the theory can

explain higher class crime, since success goals are relative rather than absolute.
 That is, people look to others in their reference group when deciding what goals

to pursue and evaluating their levels of goal achievement. Those in higher social

classes often experience strain because they compare themselves to more

privileged others (Passas and Agnew, 1997). This argument also helps explain

the increase in crime during the 1960s. While many people improved their

economic situation, others did not. These others may have experienced intense

strain as they witnessed the economic progress of their friends and neighbors.

Finally, those studies examining the disjunction between aspirations and

expectations were criticized for not focusing on economic goals (Agnew, 2000;

Agnew et al., 1996; Passas and Agnew, 1997). Also, the inability to achieve

aspirations or ideal goals was said to be a poor measure of strain. Aspirations

have something of the utopian in them, so failure to achieve them does not

generate much strain. More recent studies have found that dissatisfaction with

one’s monetary status and the experience of economic problems, such as trouble

paying bills, are related to crime; these findings are supportive of classic strain

theory (e.g., Agnew et al., 1996, 2008). Contemporary research on stress in

psychology and sociology, however, suggested that the focus of classic strain

theory on the inability to achieve conventional success goals was too narrow. (As

cited by Jang, 2015)

General Strain Theory

In their influential article “An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory,” Agnew and White

(1992) describe strain theory in the following way: “Strain theory focuses on negative

relationships with others; that is relationships in which others do not treat the individual
as he or she would like to be treated” (p. 476). The description of strain presented by

Agnew and White expanded the definitional parameters of this theory by including a

variety of emotional and contextual components of lived experience that were not

specifically tied to the pursuit of goal acquisition or structural inequalities, most

commonly discussed in the criminological literature. Although this new formulation or

revision of strain theory retained the prevention of goal acquisition as a major

contributing factor to subsequent criminal behavior, the definition of strain was

expanded to include the threat of losing something of value, as well as the threat of

experiencing some unwanted negative situation or consequence (Agnew, 2006; Agnew

& White, 1992; Brody, 2001). Taken from this revised theoretical context, the

experience of strain represents a breakdown of social interaction emerging from a

variety of social situations. By focusing on the ways in which individuals respond to

negative life situations, the integrity and uniqueness of those individual solutions to the

experience of strain is retained. However, it is important to note that such a formulation

seems to reject a linear causal relationship between the experience of strain and the

individual’s response to this experience, regardless its specific articulation. Stated

another way, strain does not cause one to react in any specific manner; rather, it

becomes an aspect or factor within the confines of our lived experience that is made

meaningful from the uniqueness of our individual perspective (Agnew, 2006a, 2006c).

Absent the presence of causal determinism, one’s response to strain becomes a fluid

articulation of lived experience that will construct the way in which this specific event

becomes meaningful for the individual (Agnew, 2006a, 2006b; Agnew et al., 2002). In

his book Pressured Into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory, Agnew (2006a)
identifies four specific types of strain: objective, subjective, vicarious, and anticipatory.

Objective strain is defined as an event or condition that most individuals would perceive

as negative. However, Agnew (2006a) admits that the experience of objective strain will

differ based on the “subjective evaluation of the same events and conditions—even

those events and conditions classified as objective strain” (p. 9). In other words, the

meaning of objective strain will only find significance within the specific lived experience

of the individual who is confronting this event or situation. Subjective strain “refers to an

event or condition that is disliked by the particular person or persons being examined”

(Agnew, 2006a, p. 10). Even though Agnew makes a distinction between the objective

and subjective nature of strain, it is clear that the more significant aspect of this

relationship is evoked through the way in which individual perspective provides specific

meaning to this experience. The death of an associate or fellow gang member

represents a situation of subjective strain. Most important here, of course, is not so

much the fact of the individual’s death but the perceived meaning others will give to this

event. For example, a former client used one of his therapeutic sessions to discuss the

murder of his close friend. Although he seemed angered by his personal loss and

potentially bent on revenge, he added that his friend “must have done something to get

shot. No one gets shot for nothing. There ain’t no incident victims in this game.” In this

encounter, the presence of subjective strain not only evokes a specific set of negative

emotions directed toward the perpetrators of this act but also seeks to include, in a very

intentional way, the contextual meaning this act has for a very specific type of shared

lived experience. The additional inclusion of the victim’s possible complicity in this

event, based on his own rulebreaking behavior, allowed this young man to define the
death of his friend differently, which in turn seemed to have a significant impact on his

subsequent behavior (Agnew, 2006a, 2006b). Whereas objective and subjective strains

are more related to the specific individual or group experience of a negative event,

vicarious and anticipated strains are more indirect in nature insofar as they reflect a

“once removed” type of subjective experience. Vicarious strain can be best described as

the emotional response one encounters when something bad happens to a loved one,

close friend, or associate. Anticipated strain represents the belief that one’s current

experience of “strain will continue or that new strains will be experienced” (Agnew,

2006a, p. 12). In the above example, the presence of vicarious strain as represented by

the loss of a close friend can be seen. Vicarious strain is experienced by the young man

through the ambivalent feelings of anger and rationalization used to construct the

meaning of his friend’s death. The possibility of anticipatory strain exists within the

confluence between his specific response to this situation and the way in which his

social context demands or expects him to respond based on how the meaning of this

event is constructed by others. Most important to the above discussion of the various

types of strain identified by Agnew is the fundamentally subjective quality of these

experiences. Although various attempts have been made to generalize the factors of

strain so as to provide quantitative legitimacy to this theoretical perspective, such a

methodological approach ignores the socially constructed reality of these meanings and

lessens the all-too-human quality of these encounters. Strain represents a fundamental

assault on the way in which existence is lived and made meaningful through the

everyday interaction with the social world. Agnew (2006a) admits as much through his

reformulation of this approach. However, because the experience of strain emerges

from a specific moment of lived experience, attempts to generalize this phenomenon do

great harm to the unique quality of this type of human encounter. Furthermore, because

most attempts to explore the experience of strain seem to take for granted the social

contexts from which these encounters emerge, the incongruent aspects of lived

experience are rarely examined with any power or depth. In a more recent article,

Agnew attempts to address the subjective aspects of strain that have been mostly

ignored by more traditional theoretical perspectives in criminology through his

conceptualization of what he identifies as the story line. Agnew (2006b) defines story

line as a “temporally limited, interrelated set of events and conditions that increases the

likelihood that individuals will engage in a crime or a series of related crimes” (p. 121).

The story line represents some type of unexpected change in the normal existence of

the individual, which disrupts normal day-to-day lived experience. This disruption, rather

than representing the introduction of yet another factor related to subsequent criminal

behavior, comes to symbolize a disruption of personal meaning for the individual, whose

truth is now threatened by the presence of this dangerous intrusion on lived experience.

Although Agnew (2006b) continues to agree with those who tend to focus on

background and situational factors as legitimate explanations of crime, he argues that

the “neglect of storylines is a major shortcoming of criminological research” (p. 120).

Absent from this overemphasis of quantifiable variables is the lived meaning these

factors and situations hold for the individual relative to their subsequent criminal

behavior. Story lines represent the way in which individuals construct the meaning of

their personal experience and give flesh to those situational factors that are most often

emphasized by traditional criminological research. Most significant then to Agnew’s use

of story lines is the way in which this approach recognizes the importance of individual

perspective when attempting to understand criminal behavior. Those factors that help

lead an individual to a criminal lifestyle are never value-free and never separate from

the lived reality that provides them their specific meaning. Such facts are always

contextual to the specific lived experience of the individual, and lose much of their

significance when examined outside of this unique frame of reference. Story lines help

to reconfigure the relationship between the factors believed responsible for criminal

behavior and the subjective experience from which these “facts” are inseparably linked.

( As cited by Polizzi, D. (2011)

Anomie Theory

Durkheim is the first sociologist to introduce the concept of anomie into sociology.

Durkheim discusses his notion of anomie for the first time in “The Division of Labor in

Society”, and later more concretely in “Suicide”. In “The Division of Labor in Society”,

Durkheim claims that social life comes from similarity of social “consciousness and

division of social labor” (1964:226), and argues that the division of labor creates social

solidarity under normal circumstances, but sometimes produces contrary results.

According to Durkheim, as the labor is divided into many parts due to the industrial

developments and the changes in society, it is quite common to witness some problems

in the division of labor (1964:353). Moreover, Durkheim says, “If, in certain cases,

organic solidarity is not all it should be, it is certainly not because mechanical solidarity

has lost ground, but because all the conditions for the existence of organic solidarity

have not been realized” (1964:364-365). He also maintains, “If the division of labor does

not produce solidarity in all the cases, it is because they are in a state of anomy”. At this
point, failure of organic solidarity and emergence of the state of anomy refer to the

same idea that solidarity organs do not work efficiently and effectively in the

maintenance of the roles of the individuals and the rules of the social unity. Durkheim

exemplifies this with the problems in the industrial life. In that, the industrial life

decreases the level of interaction between the units. Due to the specialization, workers

may lose their sense of unity and common solidarity (1964:359). Emergence of the new

rules may not be understood among the workers. Therefore, Durkheim maintains that

anomic forms can be present in the conflict between the workers and the employers

(1964:370-373). In this case, for Durkheim, the relationship among social organs needs

to be regulated in order to sustain solidarity among them. However, the division of labor

is not a root cause for the state of anomie, but instead it is a source of social solidarity, if

regulated necessarily. Durkheim claims that “society is not only something attracting the

sentiments and activities of individuals with unequal force but it is also a power

controlling them” (1951:241). Therefore, for Durkheim, the individuals confront with

social anomie on the occasion of breakdown of the social system. Anomie occurs as a

result of abrupt crises, political, economic and social changes. During these periods,

society attempts to adjust to the new conditions, but it may dissolve and cannot sustain

moral regulation at large. Moreover, social structures may not regulate the expectations

and behaviors of the individuals. Durkheim describes the lack of social control as

follows: “The limits are unknown between the possible and the impossible, what is just

and what is unjust, legitimate hopes and claims and those which are immoderate.

Consequently, there is no restraint upon aspirations.... Appetites, not controlled by

public opinion, become distorted... and more impatient of control. The state of… anomie
is thus further heightened by passions being less disciplined, precisely when they need

more disciplining” (Durkheim 1951:253). In that sense, anomie is a state of

“declassification” and “deregulation” in which the individuals lose their current state and

decrease to a lower state than the previous one. For Durkheim, “all the advantages of

social influence are lost” … and society cannot adjust the new situation, while suffering

from losing previous position (1951:252-253). Durkheim exemplifies social anomie in a

profound manner with his categorization of anomic suicide. In a general sense,

Durkheim defines anomic suicide as the result of “man’s activities’ lacking regulation

and consequent sufferings” in the following period of time (1951:258). In relation to this

social change, Durkheim explains suicide cases with the macro-level causes such as

“social deregulation and moral degradation” in society (1951:254). Anomic suicide

occurs during the economic crisis in society. Therefore, he also calls this type of anomie

as “economic anomie” (Durkheim 1951:259). As a result of abrupt changes in the social

life, the social institutions lose their ability to fulfill functions and cannot accomplish its

tasks accordingly. For Durkheim, “in anomic suicide society’s influence is lacking in the

basically individual passions, thus leaving them without a check-rein” (1951:258). Then,

the members of society experience normlessness. In other words, the individuals lose

the meaning of life. Moreover, they also cannot adapt to their new environment, and fail

in changing their lifestyles according to the new conditions in their social environment.

Durkheim states that anomic suicide is inevitable under these circumstances. Durkheim

also believes that industrialization abolishes the limits on human passions and

behaviors, while alleviating the influence of society on people in control of needs and

desires. For Durkheim, “unlimited desires are, by definition, insatiable, and insatiability
is rightly considered a sign of morbidity” (1951:247). More simply, social anomie is

inevitable for people living without any limit. In that, they face with misery in case of any

significant change such as loss of status, economic capital or property due to economic

crisis. Durkheim’s main emphasis is that the human beings should be balanced with a

moral order that regulates and limits the behaviors of them (1951:248). In that, human

beings have moral needs as well as physical needs. As long as social authority provides

moral needs, physical needs will also be balanced. Durkheim claims that although

religion appears to relatively lose its power on the individuals, moral order is still

required for the regulation of the needs and the expectations of different groups in

society. Religion consoles the lower classes…“by informing them of the providential

nature of social order, that share of each class was assigned by God himself, and by

holding out the hope for just compensation in a world to come in return for the

inequalities of this world” (1951:254). On the other hand, achieving economic prosperity

frees industrial and commercial occupational groups from any type of authority including

moral order of society and religion. For them, sustaining economic well-being replaces

all human law. Wealthy people are haunted by greed for more and the feeling of infinity

for desires. In the end, Durkheim adds that, “society has grown to accept them and is

accustomed to think them normal” (1951:255-257). Therefore, the influence of moral

system and the reality of life are felt alike between upper and lower classes. In this

regard, Durkheim maintains that due to loss of moral values, “disorder is greatest in the

economic world” and therefore, people from industrial and commercial positions are

readily victims who will be stricken by social anomie. Therefore, the greatest number of

suicides is observed among these occupational groups. In comparison to this group,

lower classes are less influenced by social anomie, as their needs and expectations

from the life are quite modest (1951:257). Durkheim also gives us another form of

anomie called as “domestic anomie” (1951:259) which occurs due to the divorce, death

of spouse, and singlehood. Durkheim sees marriage as a social institute regulating

sexual life of the individuals. Marriage sustains social equilibrium between men and

women in society (1951:270). According to this, any change in marital status may

produce different results for men and women (1951:266). After the end of marriage,

men may not adjust new period without a spouse, and attempt to commit a suicide

because of social anomie characterized by lack of moral control, normlessness and loss

of meaning in the life. Moreover, unmarried men also face with social anomie, as they

lack moral authority sustained by the marriage. In that sense, Durkheim states that men

frequently become victims of domestic anomie, as they need more social control on

them. However, domestic anomie is not serious problem for women (1951:271-272).

Similar to Durkheim’s approach, Merton attempts to discover the impact of social

structure on the individuals, which lead them to social anomie. He also refines his study

by analyzing the impact of cultural motives and social norms on the individuals (Coser

and Rosenberg 1969:504). Durkheim’s ideas on social anomie help Merton improving

his own original ideas within the American functionalist tradition. In general, Merton’s

theory of anomie is based on the “analysis of behavior deviating from prescribed

patterns of conduct” and the explanation of how “frequency of deviant behavior varies

within different social structures and how it happens that the deviations have different

shapes and patterns in different social structures” (Merton 1968:185). Merton explains

social anomie in a more constructed way. He claims that anomie emerges in a situation
that cultural goals and institutional means are in a conflict. In other words, the

individuals encounter with social anomie, when they attempt to reach cultural goals with

inadequate institutional means or without any means. This state of conflict also results

in a breakdown of values at societal as well as at the individual level. Merton aims at

finding how social structure affects the individuals in a way that they adopt non-

conformist behavior rather than conformist behavior (1938:672). Similar to Durkheim’s

ideas on anomie, Merton asserts that malfunctioning of social system is certainly

influential on the individuals in the sense that it may generate anti-social behavior due to

“dissociation of culturally defined goals and socially structured means” (1938:674). For

Merton, cultural goals and institutional norms are said to be in order or in equilibrium, as

long as two of them are in harmony. If cultural goals and acceptable means are

conflicted with each other, then “the integration of society becomes tenuous and anomie

ensues” (1938:674). Anomie has certainly an impact on individuals in the sense that it

forms the structural basis for deviant behavior. Fraud, corruption, vice and crimes

appears to be common because of the disjunction between culturally induced goals and

institutional emphasis (Merton 1938:675-676). At this point, Merton underlines that anti-

social behavior emerges as a result of restraints imposed by society, which supports the

overall idea that society exerts pressure on the individuals. He also concludes that

social constraints on the individuals shape the range of individuals’ behaviors.

According to this, he develops five modes of adaptation that refers to the individual

responses to social anomie. The modes of adaptation also indicate the disequilibrium

and equilibrium between cultural goals and institutional means (1938:677). Merton’s

adaptation categories “refer to role behavior in specific types of situations, not to

personality”. Merton also asserts that the categories are not absolutes in the sense that

“people may shift from one alternative to another as they engage in different social

activities” (1968:194). According to this theoretical framework, in “The Social Theory of

Social Structure” Merton (1968) defines the modes of adaptation as conformity,

innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. Conformity refers to that individuals

conform to institutional means and easily attain the cultural goals. If the individuals

achieve conformity, then there exists equilibrium in the social system (1968:195).

Society has a sound social order within itself. Moreover, conformity, defined by Merton

as the conventional role behavior, allows people to form a society at the aggregate

level. Without conformity, “stability and continuity of society could not be maintained”

(Merton 1938:677). Merton categorizes remaining four types of adaptations to the social

order on the basis of acceptance or rejection of cultural goals and institutional means

(1968:193-211). Innovation points out individuals conform to the cultural goals but do

not attain institutional means. In other words, the individuals are in a situation in which

they are constrained by the social system. For that reason, Merton thinks that the

individuals may develop other behavioral forms including crime in order to reach the

cultural goals. This point can also be exemplified with the “American Dream”. Many of

the American people realize this dream, as it is a kind of cultural goal. However, many

others cannot achieve this goal, as they do not have adequate institutional means such

as wealth, education, health and so forth (Merton 1968:195-203). This frustration

motivates the individuals to use illegitimate means to succeed. This state of deviance

also explains the crime rates in the US, as Merton illustrates, the criminal tendency

emerges as a result of the social constrains. Merton refers to the cultural value of
material success in America as one of the causes for anomie: “Americans are

admonished not to be a quitter for in the dictionary of American culture, as in the lexicon

of youth, there is no such word as fail. The cultural manifesto is clear: one must not quit,

must not cease striving, and must not lessen his goals, for not failure, but low aim, is

crime” (Merton 1968:193). However, social institutions do not provide the individuals

with equal means to attain the cultural goals. On the other hand, the American culture

portrays material success as the “American Dream” for all living in the USA.

Nevertheless, as Merton indicates, realistically a certain segment of the population is

endowed with the material success in a traditional way. The other portion of society

finds different alternatives to achieve the cultural goals, even if it is attained through

crime. Therefore, Merton concludes, “the American stress on pecuniary success and

ambitiousness for all thus invites exaggerated anxieties, hostilities, neuroses and

antisocial behavior” (Merton 1938:680). Merton’s third mode of adaptation, ritualism,

explains that the individuals do not comply with the cultural goals but they significantly

abide by the institutional means. Merton asserts that these groups of people adopt

institutional means in order to protect their positions in the social system (Merton

1968:203-207). Retreatism is the most radical one among other individual responses to

the social constrains. In that, the individuals prefer to be passive toward cultural goals

and institutional means. They are indifferent to the social life. For Merton, they are “in

society but are not of it” (Merton 1938:677). Merton exemplifies the group of people who

retreat from the social life as "psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants,

vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards, and drug addicts" (Merton 1938:677). For

Merton, they are fictional part of the population. Yet, their existence in society may also
cause a problem for the individuals of socialized population. The last mode of

adaptation is also as original as the other categories. In that, the people who adapt to

rebellion type tend to reject all cultural goals and institutional means. They are inclined

to reinvent their own goals and means. For Merton, rebellious people will be the new

ruling class of society (1968:209-211). (As cited by Irmak, F.& Çam, T. ,2014)

Relative Deprivation Theory

Relative deprivation (RD) is the judgment that one is worse off compared to some

standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment. Social scientists use RD to

predict a wide range of significant outcome variables: willingness to join protests,

individual achievement and deviance, intergroup attitudes, and physical and mental

health. But the results are often weak and inconsistent. To determine whether these

results reflect measurement or theoretical deficiencies, the authors conducted a meta-

analytic review of 210 studies (representing 293 independent samples and 186,073

respondents). RD measures that (1) include justice-related affect, (2) match the

outcome level of analysis and (3) used higher quality measures yielded significantly

stronger relationships. Marx (1847) captures the intuitive appeal of relative deprivation

(RD) as an explanation for social behavior. If comparisons to other people, groups or

even themselves at different points in time lead people to believe that they do not have

what they deserve, they will be angry and resentful. Relative deprivation (RD) describes

these subjective evaluations Thus, RD is a social psychological concept par excellence.

It postulates a subjective state that shapes emotions, cognitions, and behavior. It links

the individual with the interpersonal and intergroup levels of analysis. It melds easily

with other social psychological processes to provide more integrative theory – a prime
disciplinary need (Pettigrew, 1991). Moreover, RD challenges conventional wisdom

about the importance of absolute deprivation for collective action, individual deviance

and physical health. And it has proven useful in a wide range of areas. Researchers

have invoked RD to explain phenomena ranging from poor physical health (Adler, Epel,

Catellazzo & Ickovics, 2000) to participation in collective protest (Newton, Mann &

Geary, 1980) and even susceptibility to terrorist recruitment (Moghaddam, 2005).

Indeed, the concept has been used throughout the social sciences (Walker & Smith,

2001), from criminology (e.g., Lea & Young, 1993) and economics (e.g., Yitzhaki, 1979)

to political science (e.g., Lichbach, 1990) and history (Snyder & Tilly, 1972). Smith, HJ

Pettigrew, TF (2015)

Cultural Deviance Theory

Since its inception as a discipline, sociology has studied the causes of deviant behavior,

examining why some persons conform to social rules and expectations and why others

do not. Typically, sociological theories of deviance reason that aspects of individuals'

social relationships and the social areas in which they live and work assist in explaining

the commission of deviant acts. This emphasis on social experiences, and how they

contribute to deviant behavior, contrasts with the focus on the internal states of

individuals taken by disciplines such as psychology and psychiatry.

Sociological theories are important in understanding the roots of social problems such

as crime, violence, and mental illness and in explaining how these problems may be

remedied. By specifying the causes of deviance, the theories reveal how aspects of the

social environment influence the behavior of individuals and groups. Further, the
theories suggest how changes in these influences may yield changes in levels of

deviant behaviors. If a theory specifies that a particular set of factors cause deviant

behavior, then it also implies that eliminating or altering those factors in the environment

will change levels of deviance. By developing policies or measures that are informed by

sociological theories, government agencies or programs focused on problems like crime

or violence are more likely to yield meaningful reductions in criminal or violent behavior.

Despite their importance, deviance theories disagree about the precise causes of

deviant acts. Some look to the structure of society and groups or geographic areas

within society, explaining deviance in terms of broad social conditions in which deviance

is most likely to flourish. Others explain deviant behavior using the characteristics of

individuals, focusing on those characteristics that are most highly associated with

learning deviant acts. Other theories view deviance as a social status conferred by one

group or person on others, a status that is imposed by persons or groups in power in

order to protect their positions of power. These theories explain deviance in terms of

differentials in power between individuals or groups.

This chapter reviews the major sociological theories of deviance. It offers an overview of

each major theory, summarizing its explanation of deviant behavior. Before reviewing

the theories, however, it may prove useful to describe two different dimensions of theory

that will structure our discussion. The first of these, the level of explanation, refers to the

scope of the theory and whether it focuses on the behavior and characteristics of

individuals or on the characteristics of social aggregates such as neighborhoods, cities,

or other social areas. Micro-level theories stress the individual, typically explaining

deviant acts in terms of personal characteristics of individuals or the immediate social

context in which deviant acts occur. In contrast, macro-level theories focus on social

aggregates or groups, looking to the structural characteristics of areas in explaining the

origins of deviance, particularly rates of deviance among those groups. Theories of

deviance also vary in relation to a second dimension, causal focus. This dimension

divides theories into two groups, those that explain the social origins of norm violations

and those explaining societal reactions to deviance. Social origin theories focus on the

causes of norm violations. Typically, these theories identify aspects of the social

environment that trigger norm violations; social conditions in which the violations are

most likely to occur. In contrast, social reaction theories argue that deviance is often a

matter of social construction, a status imposed by one person or group on others and a

status that ultimately may influence the subsequent behavior of the designated deviant.

Social reaction theories argue that some individuals and groups may be designated or

labeled as deviant and that the process of labeling may trap or engulf those individuals

or groups in a deviant social role.

These two dimensions offer a four-fold scheme for classifying types of deviance

theories. The first, macro-level origin theories, focus on the causes of norm violations

associated with broad structural conditions in the society. These theories typically

examine the influences of such structural characteristics of populations or communities

like the concentration of poverty, levels of community integration, or the density and age

distribution of the population on areal rates of deviance. The theories have clear

implications for public policies to reduce levels of deviance. Most often, the theories

highlight the need for altering structural characteristics of society, such as levels of

poverty, that foster deviant behavior.

The second, micro-level origin theories focus on the characteristics of the deviant and

his or her immediate social environment. These theories typically examine the

relationship between a person's involvement in deviance and such characteristics as the

influence of peers and significant others, persons' emotional stakes in conformity, their

beliefs about the propriety of deviance and conformity, and their perceptions of the

threat of punishments for deviant acts. In terms of their implications for public policy,

micro-level origin theories emphasize the importance of assisting individuals in resisting

negative peer influences while also increasing their attachment to conforming lifestyles

and activities.

A third type of theories may be termed micro-level reaction theories. These accord

importance to those aspects of interpersonal reactions that may seriously stigmatize or

label the deviant and thereby reinforce her or his deviant social status. According to

these theories, reactions to deviance may have the unintended effect of increasing the

likelihood of subsequent deviant behavior. Because labeling may increase levels of

deviance, micro-level reaction theories argue that agencies of social control (e.g. police,

courts, correctional systems) should adopt policies of "nonintervention."

Finally, macro-level reaction theories emphasize broad structural conditions in society

that are associated with the designation of entire groups or segments of the society as

deviant. These theories tend to stress the importance of structural characteristics of

populations, groups, or geographic areas, such as degrees of economic inequality or

concentration of political power within communities or the larger society. According to

macro-level reaction theories, powerful groups impose the status of deviant as a

mechanism for controlling those groups that represent the greatest political, economic,
or social threat to their position of power. The theories also imply that society can only

achieve reduced levels of deviance by reducing the levels of economic and political

inequality in society.

The rest of this article is divided into sections corresponding to each of these four

"types" of deviance theory. The article concludes with a discussion of new directions for

theory—the development of explanations that cut across and integrate different theory

types and the elaboration of existing theories through greater specification of the

conditions under which those theories apply.

REFERENCES

 Capellan, J. A., Chinatkindri, S. and Porter, J. R. (2015) Social Disorganization

Theory. Retrived from DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx169

 Encyclopedia (2019) Deviance Theories. Retrieved from

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-

transcripts-and-maps/deviance-theories

 Irmak, F.& Çam, T. (2014). An overview of Durkheim and Merton’s social

anomie. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2) pp. 1297-1305.

Retrieved from DOI: 10.14687/ijhs.v11i2.3083

 Jang, S. J. (2015) Strain Theories and Crime. Retrieved from DOI:

10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.45088-9
 Martin, J.L. and Lee, M. (2015). Social Structure. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-

chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd

edition, Vol 22. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 713–718. ISBN: 9780080970868

 Polizzi, D. (2011) Agnew’s General Strain Theory Reconsidered: A

Phenomenological Perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology. 55 (7) pp. 1051–1071 Retrieved from DOI:

10.1177/0306624X10380846

 Smith, HJ Pettigrew, TF (2015) Advances in Relative Deprivation Theory and

Research. Social Justice Research, 28(1). Retrieved from DOI 10.1007/s11211-

014-0231-5