Strain theory (sociology)

In sociology and criminology, 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 (1957), Albert K. Cohen (1955), Richard Cloward, Lloyd Ohlin (1960), Neil Smelser (1963), Robert Agnew (1992),Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994).

Strain theory

Strain theory is a sociology and criminology theory developed in 1957 by Robert K. Merton. The theory states that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve a socially accepted goals (such as the American dream) though they lack the means, this leads to strain which may lead the individuals to commit crimes. Examples being selling drugs or becoming involved in prostitution to gain financial security.[1]

Strain may either be:

  1. 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
  2. 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.

Derived theories

General strain theory

Main article: General strain theory

General strain theory (GST) is a sociology and criminology theory developed in the 1992 by Robert Agnew. The core idea of general strain theory is that people who experience strain or stress become distressed or upset which may lead them to commit crime in order to cope. One of the key principle of this theory is emotion as the motivator for crime. The theory was developed to conceptualize the full range of sources in society where strain possibly comes from, which Merton's strain theory does not. The theory also focuses on the perspective of goals for status, expectations and class rather than focusing on money( as Merton's theory does). Examples of General Strain Theory are people who use illegal drugs to make themselves feel better, or a student assaulting his peers to end the harassment they caused.[2][3][4]

GST introduces 3 main sources of strain such as:[5]

  1. Loss of positive stimuli (death of family or friend)
  2. Presentation of negative stimuli (physical and verbal assaults)
  3. The inability to reach a desired goal.

Institutional anomie theory

Institutional anomie theory (IAT) is a criminology theory developed in 1994 in by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld. The theory proposes that an institutional arrangement with a market, where the market/economy is allowed to operate/dominate without restraints from other social intuitions like family will likely cause criminal behavior. Derived from Merton's Strain Theory, IAT expands on the macro levels of the theory. IAT's focus centers on the criminal influences of varied social institutions, rather then just the economic structure.[6][7]

Illegitimate opportunities theory

Illegitimate opportunities is a sociology theory developed in 1960 by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin. The theory states that crimes result from a high number of illegitimate opportunities and not from a lack of legitimate ones. The theory was created from Merton's strain theory to help address juvenile delinquency.[8]

Strain theorists

Robert King Merton

Robert King Merton was an American sociologist who argued that society can encourage deviance to a large degree. Merton believed that socially accepted goals put pressure on people to conform. People are forced to work within the system or become members of a deviant subculture to achieve the desired goal. Merton's belief became the theory known as Strain Theory. Merton continued on to say when individuals are faced with a gap between their goals (usually finances/money related) and their current status, strain occurs. When faced with strain, people have five ways to adapt:[1][9]

  1. Conformity: pursing cultural goals through socially approved means.
  2. Innovation: using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain culturally approved goals. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security.
  3. Ritualism: using the same socially approved means to achieve less elusive goals (more modest and humble).
  4. Retreatism: to reject both the cultural goals and the means to obtain it, then find a way to escape it.
  5. Rebellion: to reject the cultural goals and means, then work to replace them.

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 special 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 have 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.

Criticism

Strain theory has received several criticisms, such as:[10][11]

  1. Strain theory best applies only to the lower class as they struggle with limited resources to obtain their goals.
  2. Strain theory fails to explain white collar crime, the perpetrator of whom have many opportunities to achieve through legal and legitimate means.
  3. Strain theory fails to explain crimes based in gender inequality.
  4. Merton deals with individuals forms of responses instead of group activity which crime involves.
  5. Merton's theory is not very critical of the social structure that he says generate the strains.
  6. Strain theory neglects the inter- and intra-personal aspect of crime.
  7. Strain theory has weak empirical evidence supporting it.

Studies

Strain theory was tested following its development. Most of these test examined ideal goals such as occupational goals and individual expectations, which would most ideally lead to crimes if not achieved under rule of strain theory. However, most of the research found that this was not the case. An example of these studies was a study done by Travis Hirschi in the 1969. He analyzes a large body of data on delinquency collected in Western Contra Costa County, California that contrast with strain theory.[12] These results and other criticisms lead to the abandonment of strain theory around the 1970s to the 80s.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Merton, Robert K. (1932). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3 (5): 672–682.
  2. ↑ Agnew, Robert (2001). "Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 38 (4): 319–361. doi:10.1177/0022427801038004001.
  3. ↑ Agnew, Robert (2014). "General Strain Theory". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency: 1892–1900.
  4. ↑ Agnew, Robert (2015). "General Strain Theory and Delinquency". The Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice Krohn/The Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice: 237–256.
  5. ↑ Paternoster, Raymond; Mazerolle, Paul (1994). "General Strain Theory and Delinquency: A Replication and Extension". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 31 (3): 235–263. doi:10.1177/0022427894031003001.
  6. ↑ Messner, Steven; Rosenfeld, Richard (1997). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
  7. ↑ Savolainen, Jukka. "Institutional Anomie Theory". Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets.
  8. ↑ Cloward, Richard; Ohlin, Lloyd (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  9. ↑ Bierstedt, Robert; Merton, Robert K. (1950). "Social Theory and Social Structure; toward the Codification of Theory and Research". American Sociological Review. 15 (1): 140. doi:10.2307/2086413.
  10. ↑ Bernard, T.J. (1984). "Control Criticisms of Strain Theories: An Assessment of Theoretical and Empirical Adequacy". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 21 (4): 353–372. doi:10.1177/0022427884021004005.
  11. ↑ Kornhauser, Ruth (1978). Social sources of delinquency: an appraisal of analytic models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  12. ↑ Hirschi, Travis (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California.

O'Grady W. (2011). "Crime in Canadian Context." Strain/anomie theory 92-94

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/3/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.