Strain theory (sociology)
In criminology, the strain theory states that social structures within society may pressure citizens to commit crime. Following on the work of Émile Durkheim, Strain Theories have been advanced by Robert King Merton (1938), Albert K. Cohen (1955), Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), Robert Agnew (1992), and Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994). Strain may be either:
- Structural: this refers to the processes at the societal level which filter down and affect how the individual perceives his or her needs, i.e. if particular social structures are inherently inadequate or there is inadequate regulation, this may change the individual's perceptions as to means and opportunities; or
- Individual: this refers to the frictions and pains experienced by an individual as he or she looks for ways to satisfy his or her needs, i.e. if the goals of a society become significant to an individual, actually achieving them may become more important than the means adopted.
Contents |
[edit] Robert Merton
Strain/Anomie Theory Robert Merton
The very definition of the word strain can be used to help understand strain theory. According to Webster’s dictionary strain (in the form of a verb) means to be subjected to tension or stress; to suffer strain. In the form of a noun, strain is known as a great or excessive effort or striving after some goal, object, or effect. Thus, it is rational to grasp how strain theory insinuates that social structures within society may ultimately pressure citizens to commit crime. Like many sociological theories of crime, Robert Merton’s strain/anomie theory has advanced following the work of Emile Durkheim. In Merton’s theory anomie is very similar to the very meaning of the word strain, as he proposed anomie to be a situation in which societies inadvertently bring to bear pressure, or strain, on individuals that can lead to rule-breaking behavior. This pressure, or strain if you will, is caused by the discrepancy between culturally defined goals and the institutionalized means available to achieve these goals. To illustrate this Merton argues that the dominant cultural goal in the U.S is the acquisition of wealth, as a message was depicted that happiness often equated with material success which is often associated with wealth. The socially accepted institutionalized manner of achieving these material goals was believed to be hard work and education, meaning it is widely believed that people who apply themselves to study and work will succeed financially and that those who do not succeed are labeled as either lazy or defective. According to Merton, the problem with this type of society is that the legitimate means for achieving material success are not uniformly distributed. In other words, those from wealthier backgrounds have considerably more access to legitimate means than do those who are economically disadvantaged. As a consequence, anomie, or strain, is generated and produces certain ‘modes of adaptation’, or (simply put) coping strategies, that the disadvantaged use to deal with the pressures that are brought to bear on them. Merton identifies five modes of adaptation: conformity, innovation, retreatism, ritualism, and rebellion. According to Merton, the innovator is the most likely to engage in criminal behavior, as the innovator accepts the socially recognized goals of society, but reject the legitimate means to achieve these goals. Consequently, the innovator uses proceeds from crimes such as fraud, theft, and illegal drug dealing to access culturally defined goals.
Critique of Strain/Anomie theory
Although Merton’s Strain theory continues to play a role in the sociological theorization of crime today, there are limitations to this theory of crime that have been identified. The first critique of this theory, put forth by Albert Cohen, addressed the fact that there is an ample amount of crime/delinquent behavior that is “non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic” (O’Grady, 2011), which highlights that not all crimes are explicable using Merton’s theory. Although Merton could explain crimes such as fraud and theft on the basis of innovation, he is unable to explain youth crimes that are often engaged in for social status rather than material acquisition. Furthermore, Strain/Anomie theory fails to adequately address issues such as race and gender. Additionally, Strain/Anomie theory is unable to explain the phenomena of white collar crime.
[edit] Robert Dubin
Robert Dubin (1959) viewed deviance as a function of society, disputing the assumption that the deviant adaptations to situations of anomie are necessarily harmful to society. For example, an individual in the ritualistic adaptation is still playing by the rules and taking part in society. The only deviance lies in abandoning one or more of its culturally prescribed goals. Dubin argued that Merton's focus on the relationship between society’s emphasized goals, and institutionalized prescribed means was inadequate.
Dubin felt that a further distinction should be made between cultural goals, institutional means and institutional norms because individuals perceive norms subjectively, interpreting them and acting upon them differently. The personal educational experiences, values, and attitudes may predispose an individual to internalize a norm one way. Another individual with different experiences may legitimately internalize the same norm differently. Both may be acting rationally in their own terms, but the resulting behaviour is different.
Dubin also extended Merton’s typology to fourteen, with particular interest in Innovation and Ritualism. Merton proposed that the innovative response to strain was accepting the goal, but rejecting the institutionally prescribed means of achieving the goal. The implication seemed to be that that not only did the individual reject the means, he must actively innovate illegitimate means as a substitute which would not always be true.
Dubin also thought that a distinction should be made between the actual behaviour of the actor and the values that drove the behaviour. Instead of Innovation, Dubin proposed Behavioural Innovation and Value Innovation. Similarly, in Ritualism, he proposed Behavioural Ritualism and Value Ritualism (Dubin, 1959: 147-149). Merton (1959: 177-189) commented on Dubin’s revisions, claiming that although Dubin did make valid contributions, they took the focus off deviancy.
[edit] Robert Agnew
In 1992, Robert Agnew asserted that strain theory could be central in explaining crime and deviance, but that it needed revision so that it was not tied to social class or cultural variables, but re-focused on norms. To this end, Agnew proposed a general strain theory that is neither structural nor interpersonal but rather individual and emotional, paying especial attention to an individual's immediate social environment. He argued that an individual's actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli all result in strain. Anger and frustration confirm negative relationships. The resulting behavior patterns will often be characterized by more than their share of unilateral action because an individual will be a natural desire to avoid unpleasant rejections, and these unilateral actions (especially when antisocial) will further contribute to an individual's alienation from society. If particular rejections are generalized into feelings that the environment is unsupportive, more strongly negative emotions may motivate the individual to engage in crime. This is most likely to be true for younger individuals, and Agnew suggested that research focus on the magnitude, recency, duration, and clustering of such strain-related events to determine whether a person copes with strain in a criminal or conforming manner. Temperament, intelligence, interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, the presence of conventional social support, and the absence of association with antisocial (e.g., criminally inclined) age and status peers are chief among the factors Agnew identified as beneficial.
[edit] Akers' operationalization of Agnew's theory: Sources of strain
Akers (2000: 159) has operationalized Agnew's version of the Strain Theory, as follows:
- Failure to achieve positively valued goals:
- the gap between expectations and actual achievements will derive from short- and long-term personal goals, and some of those goals will never be realized because of unavoidable circumstances including both inherent weaknesses and opportunities blocked by others; and
- the difference between the view of what a person believes the outcome should be and what actually results increases personal disappointment. Frustration is not necessarily due to any outside interference with valued goals, but a direct effect on anger, and has indirect effects on serious crime and aggression. Agnew and White (1992) have produced empirical evidence suggesting that general strain theory was positively able to relate delinquents and drug users, and that the strongest effect on the delinquents studied was the delinquency of their peers. They were interested in drug use because it did not appear to represent an attempt to direct anger or escape pain, but "is used primarily to manage the negative affect caused by strain."
Up to this point, strain theory had been concerned with types of strain rather than sources of strain whereas the stress of events can be shown to interfere with the achievement of natural expectations or just and fair outcomes. These may be significant events or minor "hassles" that accumulate and demoralize over time. Frustration leads to dissatisfaction, resentment, and anger — all the emotions customarily associated with strain in criminology. It is natural for individuals to feel distress when they are denied just rewards for their efforts when compared to the efforts and rewards given to similar others for similar outcomes. Agnew (1992) treats anger as the most critical emotion since it is almost always directed outwards and is often related to breakdowns in relationships. Research shows that the stress/crime relationship appears to hold regardless of guilt feelings, age, and capacity to cope when events occur simultaneously or in close succession.
[edit] References
O'Grady W. (2011). "Crime in Canadian Context." Strain/anomie theory 92-94
- Agnew, R. (1992). "Foundation for a General Strain Theory." Criminology 30(1), 47-87
- Agnew, R. & White, H. (1992). "An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory." Criminology 30(4): 475-99.
- Agnew, R. (1997). "The Nature and Determinants of Strain: Another Look at Durkheim and Merton." Pp. 27-51 in The Future of Anomie Theory, edited by R. Agnew and N. Passas. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
- Agnew, R. (2009). "Revitalizing Merton: General Strain Theory." Advances in Criminological Theory: The Origins of American Criminology, Volume 16, edited by F.T. Cullen, F. Adler, C.L. Johnson, and A.J. Meyer. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
- Akers, R. (2000). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
- Cloward, R. (1959). "Illegitimate Means, Anomie and Deviant Behavior." American Sociological Review 24(2): 164- 76.
- Cloward, R. & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. NY: Free Press.
- Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent Boys. NY: Free Press.
- Cohen, A. (1965). "The Sociology of the Deviant Act: Anomie Theory and Beyond." American Sociological Review 30: 5-14.
- Cohen, A. (1977). "The Concept of Criminal Organization." British Journal of Criminology 17: 97-111.
- Dubin, R. (1959) "Deviant Behavior and Social Structure: Continuities in Social Theory." American Sociological Review 24:147-163.
- Durkheim, E. (1897/1997). Suicide. NY: Free Press.
- Featherstone, R. & Deflem, M. (2003). "Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences of Merton's Two Theories." Sociological Inquiry 73(4):471-489. [1]
- Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Messner, S & Rosenfeld, R. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Polk, K. (1969). "Class, Strain and Rebellion Among Adolescents." Social Problems 17: 214-24.
- Polk, K., & Schafer, W. (eds.). (1972). Schools and Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Merton and the Strain Theory [2]
