Social Structure and Anomie - Robert K. Merton PDF

Social Structure and Anomie Robert K. Merton SUMMARY: Chapter 7, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ by Merton suggests that individuals are not entirely responsible for deviance, but that society’s unobtainable demands lead individuals to be deviant (strain theory). The idea that cultural goals are no...

Social Structure and Anomie Robert K. Merton SUMMARY: Chapter 7, ‘Social Structure and Anomie’ by Merton suggests that individuals are not entirely responsible for deviance, but that society’s unobtainable demands lead individuals to be deviant (strain theory). The idea that cultural goals are not accessible to individuals of all classes is referred to as a blocked opportunity structure, and there are several ways in which individuals respond to this. There are five modes of adaptation listed: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion, with conformity being the most common and retreatism being the least common.​ Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviance. This theory traces the origins of deviance to the tensions that are caused by the gap between cultural goals and the means people have available to achieve those goals.​ Strain theory, developed by Robert K. Merton, argued that society may be set up in a way that encourages too much deviance. Merton believed there was a disjunction between socially approved means to success and legitimate cultural goals.​ Opportunity Structure Definition: The opportunity structure in a society is the distribution of people’s access to occupations and other ways for supporting their lives and achieving goals. The concept plays a central role in Robert Merton’s Theory of Deviance. Merton argues that most societies include some degree of consensus over major values, such as those that define what it means to live a “good life.” If a culture promotes shared values that define people’s goals, but the structure does not provide equal access to legitimate means for achieving those goals, higher levels of deviance will result. People will be more likely to create innovative and illegal ways of achieving the same goals everyone aspires to. Or they may rebel against the system in various ways to protest the unequal opportunity structure. Term Definition Anomie A breakdown of social norms caused by the disjunction between culturally approved goals and institutionalized means. Cultural goals The values and ends a society encourages its  Term Definition members to pursue (e.g., success, wealth). Institutionalized means The socially approved methods for achieving cultural goals (e.g., education, hard work). Malintegration Lack of alignment between goals and means, leading to deviance. Adaptations Different ways individuals respond to the structure of goals and means (e.g., conformity, innovation). Innovation Acceptance of goals but rejection of accepted means (e.g., using crime to get rich). Ritualism Following rules obsessively even after abandoning the goals. Retreatism Giving up on both goals and means (e.g., substance abuse). Rebellion Rejecting societal goals and means and replacing them with alternatives. Open-class ideology The belief that anyone, regardless of class, can succeed if they work hard. Deinstitutionalization The weakening of rules and norms governing behavior. Utilitarianism (in context) A view Merton critiques: that individuals make rational calculations without being shaped by cultural norms. ​ Merton challenges the idea that deviant behavior (like crime) is simply due to unrestrained biological impulses. ○​ Instead, he argues that certain aspects of social structure make deviance a normal response for some individuals. ○​ Conformity is the result of an utilitarian calculus or unreasoned condition. ​ MERTON’S GOAL: ○​ To discover how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct. ​ Social & Cultural Structure Components: ○​ 1. Culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests ​ Aspirations and values that society encourages (wealth, success). ​ Integrated into individuals’ lives with varying levels of emotional attachment. ​ Related to “the original drives of man”, but they are not determined by them. ○​ 2. Institutional norms that define, regulate, & control the acceptable modes of achieving these goals ​ Approved methods and norms for achieving those goals (education, work). ​ These are regulated morally and institutionally, not just technically or efficiently. ​ EX: some efficient ways of securing desired values (theft, fraud, illicit oil-stock schemes) are not socially acceptable. ​ Cultural Malintegration ○​ When goals are overemphasized and institutional means are devalued, deviance increases. ○​ Two extreme forms: ​ 1) Overemphasis on goals: Success becomes everything; people may turn to illegitimate means. ​ 2) Overemphasis on means: Ritualism, where the process becomes sacred and goals fade (e.g., bureaucracy). ​ Social Equilibrium ○​ For a stable society, people must derive satisfaction from both: ​ Achieving goals ​ Following institutional rules ○​ If means are ineffective or satisfaction from following them is low, deviance grows. ​ Anomie: A state of normlessness; breakdown between goals and means. ○​ Occurs when:  ​ Success is everything ​ Means are inaccessible or ineffective ​ Institutional controls weaken ​ Anomie and demoralization occurs when…​ ○​ People can no longer support institutional norms for attaining cultural goals. ​ Merton’s theory of anomie posits that… ○​ Deviance is caused by the discrepancy between the lack of legitimate means and the pursuit of the cultural goal of success. ​ Merton’s 5 modes of adaptation to societal structures: 1.​ Conformity a.​ Accepting both cultural goals + means i.​ EX: wealth, education, status b.​ Most common & widely diffused i.​ If the majority of society did not conform, the stability and continuity of society could not be maintained. c.​ EXAMPLES: i.​ A student who studies hard, graduates, and gets a job to build a successful career. ii.​ An entrepreneur who builds a business through legal channels. iii.​ A nurse who works overtime and follows protocols to climb the career ladder. iv.​ A factory worker who saves money over time to buy a home and support their family. v.​ Immigrants who assimilate and work hard through the educational and employment systems to achieve the “American Dream.” 2.​ Innovation a.​ Accept goals, reject means i.​ EX: wealth b.​ Least common c.​ Most associated with crime d.​ EXAMPLES: i.​ A drug dealer who sells narcotics to make money because traditional jobs don't pay enough.  ii.​ A student who cheats on exams to get high grades and secure scholarships. iii.​ White-collar criminals who engage in fraud, insider trading, or embezzlement to gain wealth. iv.​ A hacker who commits cybercrimes to earn money or status. v.​ A person running a pyramid scheme promising financial success outside legitimate business channels. e.​ Individuals internalize success goals (e.g., wealth) but do not internalize moral restraints on how to get there. f.​ Inadequate socialization will result in the innovation response whereby the conflict and frustration are eliminated by relinquishing the institutional means and retaining the success-aspiration. g.​ Crime becomes a “normal” adjustment to the contradictions of societal expectations. i.​ This situation involves two important features: 1.​ This antisocial behavior is called forth by certain conventional values of the culture AND by the class structure involving differential access to the approved opportunities for legitimate, prestige-bearing pursuit of cultural goals. 2.​ Legitimate effort is limited by the fact that actual advance toward desired success-symbols through conventional channels, despite our persisting open-class ideology, is relatively rare and difficult for those handicapped by little formal education and few economic resources. 3.​ Ritualism a.​ Reject goals, cling to means b.​ People give up on the idea of achieving societal success but continue to follow the rules strictly and robotically. c.​ An extreme assimilation of institutional demand will lead to ritualism wherein the goal is dropped as beyond one’s reach but conformity to the means persists. d.​ EXAMPLES: i.​ A bureaucrat who follows rules to the letter but lacks ambition for promotion or success.  ii.​ A government clerk who performs repetitive tasks with no intention of advancing their career. iii.​ A teacher who no longer tries to inspire students or innovate but still follows the curriculum precisely. iv.​ An assembly line worker who does their job exactly as required but has no interest in upward mobility. v.​ A monk or nun who rejects material success but lives by institutional rules of their religious order. 4.​ Retreatism a.​ Reject both; drop out b.​ People who adjust in this way are in society but not of it c.​ Individuals drop out of the societal race altogether. They neither strive for goals nor follow rules. d.​ EXAMPLES: i.​ A drug addict who lives on the street, no longer pursuing work or education. ii.​ A chronic alcoholic who isolates themselves from social roles and responsibilities. iii.​ A homeless person who has mentally “checked out” of societal expectations (though note: not all homeless individuals fit this category). iv.​ Some members of cults who withdraw completely from societal norms. v.​ Reclusive individuals who voluntarily avoid work, social interaction, and conventional life paths. 5.​ Rebellion a.​ Replace both with new values and means b.​ Individuals reject the existing social order and try to replace both societal goals and means with new values and systems. c.​ Rebellion occurs when emancipation from the reigning standards, due to frustration or to marginalist perspectives, leads to the attempt to introduce a “new social order”. d.​ EXAMPLES: i.​ Revolutionaries who seek to overthrow governments and replace them with new ideologies (e.g., communists, anarchists).  ii.​ Civil rights activists who advocate not just for inclusion, but a redefinition of success and justice (e.g., Black Panthers, Indigenous sovereignty movements). iii.​ Environmental extremists who reject consumerism and capitalism and promote radical ecological living. iv.​ Utopian community founders who attempt to build new societies with alternative values (e.g., intentional communities, some religious sects). v.​ Hacktivist groups (like Anonymous) who challenge governmental and corporate structures, aiming to expose and reform systems. ​ Our egalitarian ideology denies by implication the existence of noncompeting groups and individuals in the pursuit of pecuniary success. ○​ Cultural goals & success-symbols are held in society to transcend class lines, not to be bound by them, yet the actual social organization shows there exists class differentials in the accessibility of these common success-symbols. ​ U.S. society promotes the idea that anyone can succeed (open-class ideology). ○​ This ideology persists even if it’s no longer true—used to justify inequality and prevent rebellion. ○​ The conflict between ideology and structural barriers fosters deviance and disillusionment. ​ Social class impacts access to legitimate means: ​ Lower-class individuals may be blocked from success via institutional paths. ​ Pressure to succeed remains, leading to higher deviance rates. ○​ Case study: Chicago’s vice areas—organized crime flourished where cultural goals were strong, but legitimate means were absent. A Sociological Theory of Drug Addiction Alfred R. Lindesmith 1 | Historical setting & author’s goal ​ Problem: Decades of failed “cures,” high relapse, moralistic rhetoric, thin theory.​ ​ Aim: Offer a universal, testable sociological explanation for opiate addiction that avoids moralism and psychopathology labels.​ ​ Scope: Opiate (esp. morphine/heroin) addiction; excludes stimulants like cocaine or cannabis.​ 2 | Prevailing explanations Lindesmith rejects ​ Psychiatric / personality‑defect view​ ○​ Addicts cast as “psychopaths,” “inferiors,” escapists.​ ○​ Lacks comparative data (defect rates in general pop.).​ ○​ Begs the question: 14 % of addicts in Kolb’s sample had no prior defect.​ ​ Moralistic causal slogans – “curiosity,” “bad company,” “weak will.”​ ​ Purely pharmacological accounts – ignore why some heavy users escape addiction while others do not.​ 3 | Key distinctions & definitions Term Lindesmith’s meaning Notes Physiological Mere tolerance & withdrawal potential Patient may quit without craving if habituation after prolonged therapeutic dosing ignorant of cause of distress. Addiction Physiological tolerance plus a learned Social‑psychological component is compulsion (“imperious desire”) to use essential. opiates to relieve withdrawal “Hooked” / “has Addict argot for reaching the point where Synonymous with “addict.” a habit” withdrawal distress dictates continued use “Yen” Addict slang for both withdrawal Highlights fusion of physical & symptoms and the craving they generate symbolic levels. 4 | Lindesmith’s core hypothesis (“withdrawal–interpretation theory”) 1.​ Physical pre‑condition: Regular opiate administration long enough to produce withdrawal symptoms.​ 2.​ Critical sociological moment:​ ○​ User recognizes that the emergent distress = lack of opiate (a culturally supplied “significant symbol” in Mead’s sense).​ ○​ User tests the inference—takes opiate → symptoms vanish “almost magically.”​ 3.​ Addiction crystallizes once drug is consciously used to avoid or terminate withdrawal; craving, dose escalation, self‑definition as “dope fiend” follow rapidly.​ 4.​ No known exceptions: Author found zero cases where a person understood withdrawal–drug link, used drug to relieve it, yet failed to become addicted.​ 5 | Supporting evidence & illustrations ​ Addict argot​ ○​ Terms (“hooked,” “yen,” distinction between “pleasure‑user” & “junker”) embed the withdrawal‑central worldview.​ ​ Crucial case series​ ○​ Strauss woman: Six‑month therapeutic morphine → withdrawn w/out knowledge (no addiction); nine years later self‑medicates grief with morphine, recognizes withdrawal, becomes addict.​ ○​ Dr. H.: First surgical course—ignorant, no addiction; second course—self‑administers, grasps withdrawal, becomes addict despite prior “horror” of the habit.​ ○​ Mr. G.: Leaves hospital unaware; violent symptoms → doctor gives test injection; instant relief teaches the connection, addiction begins.​  ​ Negative evidence: Habitual therapeutic patients kept ignorant seldom become addicts; children, severely mentally deficient, or delirious patients (unable to form causal symbol) rarely if ever become addicts.​ 6 | Consequences & derived propositions ​ Reversal of effects:​ ○​ Early use = euphoria; established addiction = drug merely restores normality and staves off misery.​ ​ Relapse dynamics:​ ○​ Memory of drug’s power to control mood & bodily state + persistent cueing by life stress → relapse even after years.​ ​ Medical practice implications:​ ○​ Effective safeguards (keep patient unaware of drug identity; mix with unpleasant meds; no self‑injection) work because they block formation of the interpretation.​ ​ Methodological significance:​ ○​ Demonstrates that case‑data can yield universal, falsifiable propositions.​ ○​ Bridges physiology and culture: bodily signals must be defined through social symbols to shape conduct.​ 7 | Concept map – theories, terms, ideas ​ “Significant symbol” (G. H. Mead) – shared linguistic label linking withdrawal sensation to “need for dope.”​ ​ Cultural milieu – supplies beliefs enabling/forestalling addiction.​ ​ Tolerance vs. withdrawal vs. craving – pharmacological sequence but craving emerges only via symbolic interpretation.​ ​ Addict career – transition: casual use → hooked → identity re‑definition → subcultural assimilation.​  ​ Moralism vs. science – assigning blame obscures causal mechanisms.​ ​ Experimental falsifiability – anyone who replicates the two‑step process should (and does) become addicted; none have disproved.​ 8 | Commentary & debate ​ David Slight’s critique (same AJS issue)​ ○​ Argues theory too morphine‑specific; doubts centrality of withdrawal; notes addicts use multiple drugs; calls for references.​ ​ Lindesmith’s rejoinder​ ○​ Re‑emphasizes universality criterion: explanation must fit all cases, including medically induced addicts.​ ○​ Clarifies addicts do not freely switch to non‑opiates; withdrawal ignorance in hospitals proves his point.​ ○​ Accuses critics of clinging to commonsense “pleasure” view, ignoring counter‑cases.​ 9 | Quick‑reference summary (exam “flash” list) ​ Addiction = withdrawal distress + knowledge of its cause + instrumental use of opiate to relieve it.​ ​ Distinguish habituation (physiology only) from addiction (physiology + symbolic learning).​ ​ Key evidence: addict slang, split‑course medical cases, absence of exceptions.​ ​ Prevention: block patient’s causal interpretation.​ ​ Sociological payoff: shows how bodily processes become social facts through shared meanings.