Introduction to Merton's strain theory

Robert Merton, a functionalist sociologist, built on Emile Durkheim's idea of anomie to explain why people from lower social classes, such as the working class or those in poverty, are more likely to commit crimes. Anomie refers to a state of normlessness or confusion in society, where individuals feel frustrated because social rules fail to guide them effectively towards their goals. This occurs because of a mismatch between what society encourages people to aim for and the realistic ways to achieve it.

Merton's theory focuses on how capitalist societies promote certain values that can lead to deviance. He argues that crime is not just about individual failings but stems from structural problems in society. This approach helps explain patterns of offending, particularly why economic disadvantage is linked to higher crime rates.

Cultural goals and institutional means in capitalist societies

In many Western societies, like the UK and USA, there is a strong cultural emphasis on achieving material success, such as wealth and financial security. This is seen as the primary goal that everyone should strive for.

Cultural goals

These goals are shared through socialisation, creating a consensus that monetary achievement is the mark of success. In the USA, this is captured in the 'American Dream', the belief that anyone can become prosperous through talent and effort, regardless of their starting point. Figures like Barack Obama are often cited as examples.

Institutional means

Institutional means are the socially approved ways to reach these goals, including education, employment, and career progression. Capitalist societies are often described as meritocratic, meaning they reward people based on merit - like hard work, intelligence, and skills - rather than factors such as social background, gender, or ethnicity.

However, Merton points out a key problem: the social structure does not provide equal access to these means for everyone. This creates a strain, or gap, between the goals society promotes and the actual opportunities available. As a result, some groups, especially those from lower social classes, find their paths blocked. They may recognise that the system is unfair, with advantaged groups having better chances of success. This frustration can lead to anomie, prompting deviant or criminal behaviour as people seek alternative ways to cope.

The five adaptations to strain

When faced with blocked opportunities, individuals respond in different ways. Merton identifies five possible adaptations, which are reactions to the strain between cultural goals and limited means. These adaptations explain why some people turn to crime, while others do not. Not all adaptations lead to crime; some result in conformity or other forms of deviance.

Merton's five adaptations:

• Conformity - Individuals accept both the cultural goals and the legitimate means to achieve them. They continue working hard within the system, obeying laws, even if success is uncertain. This is the most common response and does not lead to crime.
• Innovation - People accept the goal of material success but reject the legitimate means because they see them as ineffective. Instead, they 'innovate' by using illegal methods, such as theft or fraud, to gain wealth. This group forms the majority of criminals, according to Merton. For example, athletes who use banned substances to win medals are deviant innovators.
• Ritualism - Individuals abandon the goal of material success, realising it is unattainable, but stick rigidly to the legitimate means, like following job rules obsessively. This can lead to deviance, such as bureaucrats who enforce regulations strictly to the point of inefficiency, but it rarely involves crime.
• Retreatism - People reject both the goals and the means, withdrawing from society altogether. They might turn to activities like drug addiction, alcoholism, or vagrancy. In extreme cases, this can include criminal acts or even suicide as a form of escape.
• Rebellion - Individuals reject both the existing goals and means, aiming to replace them with new ones for ideological or political reasons. This can involve extreme actions, such as terrorism or revolutionary violence, to impose alternative values on society.

These adaptations show how strain can push lower-class individuals towards crime, as they are more likely to experience blocked opportunities. Innovators and retreatists, in particular, contribute to higher offending rates in disadvantaged groups.

Evaluation of Merton's strain theory

Merton's ideas have been influential in sociology, offering a structural explanation for crime that goes beyond individual blame. However, the theory has both strengths and limitations, which are important for understanding its relevance today.

Strengths of the theory

• Contemporary relevance - Sociologists like Jock Young apply Merton's concepts to modern 'bulimic societies', where working-class and minority ethnic groups are denied opportunities yet encouraged to pursue success, leading to 'bingeing' on crime for status and wealth.
• Explains root causes - As noted by Sumner, Merton highlights how alienation from unattainable material goals in capitalist societies drives crime, providing insight into economic motivations for offending.

Limitations of the theory

• Lack of explanation for individual differences - It does not clarify why some people facing the same strain choose crime (e.g., innovation), while others conform, retreat, or rebel.
• Focus on economic crimes - The theory mainly accounts for crimes with financial gain, such as theft, but ignores non-economic offences like violence or sexual crimes that lack material motives.
• Ignores group crimes - It fails to explain offences by youth gangs, which often stem from social bonds or thrill-seeking rather than purely material goals.
• Oversimplifies goals - People often pursue multiple aims, such as family happiness or work-life balance, not just material success, which Merton overlooks.
• Underestimates middle- and upper-class crime - By emphasising blocked opportunities, the theory downplays white-collar and corporate crimes, which arise from abundant opportunities rather than their absence.