Merton's Theory of Social Strain - Dissertation Example

Merton's Theory of Social Strain Merton's theory of social strain asserts that social values are what lead to deviant behaviors in the society. This has been used by many psychologists and criminologists in explaining some deviant behaviors in the societies. However, Merton's theory of social strain seems to be contradictory to the claims made by the subcultural theories with regard to deviance. Some criminologists believe that the subcultural theories can be used to critique Merton's theory of social strain’s perception of deviance in the society. This pare reviews the extent to which the subcultural theories can be used in the critique of the Merton's theory of social strain. The Merton's theory of social strain which was introduced by argues that social structure is to blame for the high level of deviance in the society. This theory states that social norms and society’s perception of success is what drives those who cannot achieve such standards into deviance. This implies that individuals are forced to either work with the standards set by the society or be deviant. Subcultural theories of crime have a number of things in common. These theories assert that deviance is always a result of an individual’s conformation to the social groups which they belong to. This implies that social groups with norms that are different from those of the main society are likely to be perceived as deviant (Martin 2009, p. 137). These theories have always been used in analysis of criminals and their tendencies. According to Cohen lower working class men usually want to achieve the success as perceived by the mainstream culture, but are unable to do so because of dead-end jobs and failure in education.As a result they conform to delinquent norms and values. Under the delinquent structure “success” has been redefined, making it easier for them to achieve success. This theory is in most cases in agreement with Merton’s theory (Skott-Myhre 2008, p. 212). They both agree that social pressure is what leads to deviance Cloward and Ohlin add more to Cohen’s assertion and introduce three types of subcultures namely: conflict structures, criminal structures, andretreats subcultures. However, Walter B. Miller asserts that deviant is purely as a result of the existence of a lower class subculture with completely different norms and values from the mainstream society(Vito & Maahs 2012, p. 89). He asserts that the norms and values are based on achieving toughness, excitement, and smartness (France 2007, p. 121). David Matza asserts that the moral hold that the mainstream society has on delinquents prevented them from being involved in delinquent activities for most of the times. He uses the remorse that delinquents feel for their crimes as a proof for his claim. A theory such as Merton’s theory of strain might be said to be misleading because it relies too much on the society’s role in providing means for success. If this was true then it would imply that many other people do not get the means to success. Inability of the society to provide means to success cannot be used to explain deviance amongst the youth. It can also not explain while only a certain group chooses to be deviant while others opt for non-deviant behaviors. There was a research that involved adolescent children that was aimed at finding out factors that are more likely to lead to delinquent behaviour. It was discovered that most of the teenagers who had been involved in shoplifting had been involved in it as a result of having desires. However, it was also noticed that among adolescent boys such actions were seen as heroic (Blackman 2010, p.344). Most of the boys who were involved in the study believed that acts of deviance were a sign of bravery. This is something that is not only seen among adolescent, but also in the larger society. During the struggle for equality of the African Americans in the US there were vary many things that were done by the liberators that would by then be termed by deviance. Things like demonstrations can at times be legally categorized as deviance. However, when you look at the cause and the outcome of such occurrences in history you will stop and think if they were really as a result of not being to achieve the normal society’s perception of success. This might be true to some extent, but even if it is true this case was one which the people involved in this “deviance” were not even accorded the chance to attain the “normal success”. Therefore, it can be asserted that deviance or difference in norms and values by some groups in the society might be as a result of the unfair nature of the norms and values held on to by the larger society (Rock 2006, p. 103). Subcultural theories of crime have a number of strengths. One of the strengths of these theories is based on their ability to explain juvenile crime and delinquency. For instance, they have been superior in the explanation of tendencies such as joy-riding, vandalism, and pointless theft (Greener & Hollands 2006, p. 399). These behaviors are mostly common with juvenile gangs and subcultures. This is something that cannot be explained by Merton's theory. For example, Merton's theory theory cannot be used in explaining deviant behaviors such as joyriding(Webber 2010, p. 133). The other strength of these theories in based on their strong emphasis on the role that the peer groups play in delinquency. Merton's theory ignores the fact that the interaction of people especially the youth can lead to deviant values. Instead of focusing on the strain brought by daily life activities these theories focus on the nature of interaction among peers. These theories assert that in the context of the group crime, their crimes are always viewed as normal in the subcultures. The assertion in this case is that deliquescent usually react to their inability to attain the mainstream’s perception of success as a group (Brake 2013, p. 101).Theresponse in this case always seems to have been worked out by the group over a long period of time. This response is usually contrary to the norms and values of the larger society. This reasoning can be used in explanation of crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism (Haenfler 2004, p. 412). For instance, Cohen asserts that most gang crimes have no particular motivation, but just doing it for the sake of doing it. Therefore, it can be said that gang crimes can be a result of deliquescent groups’ search for fun. From the point of view of these groups their actions are usually acceptable. However, subcultural theories can be said to be having evident shortcoming due to their overemphasis on group response to crime while completely ignoring the individual perspective of crime. These theories fail to explain why crimes which are usually more individualistic usually occur. Good examples of such crimes are rape and murder. Rape can be better explained by Merton's theory which would point at social starin as the root cause of such behaviors (Atkinson & Young 2008, p. 201). Subcultural theories fail to explain the causes of crimes that result from passion and desire. Compulsive crimes such as a husband killing the wife after finding out that she was cheating on him are better explained through biological impulses as compared to these theories (Moore 2004, p. 187). From the explanations given by the theories it is clearly evident that there is an overemphasis on gang/group crime. However, Merton's theory of social strain does not entirely focuses on group mentality but rather focuses on the environmental situation. Everyone is viewed as being heavily affected by their peer group (Bennett 2011, p. 495). The theories do not give much consideration individual choice and self-will. The theories can be said to be incomplete because of the fact that they do not really look at the extent to which individual values have an effect to the choices that deliquescent people make (Shildrick 2006, p. 68). They do not explain the source of difference in choices by people from the same social groups, even at times when they might be going through the same situations (Barlow & Kauzlarich 2009, p. 123). These theories do not explain the non-successful middle class individuals who do not resort to deviance. David Matza’s can be said to have partly addressed some of these weaknesses of subcultural theories. He asserts that these theories were based on prediction of far too much delinquency and crime (Taylor, Walton & Young 2013, p. 210). His main theme related ‘drift’ as he considered that delinquents usually drift in and out of delinquency yet not being able to commit to either. He puts emphasis on free will and freedom of choice as important. By making this assertion he responds to many of the critics of the excessively deterministic theories (Wilson 2006, p. 178). The role of the gang or subculture is still important because they may make such activities more likely through active promotion. Apart from the ccultures the expectations from the society can also be said to play a major role in deviance in the society. Therefore it can be said that subcultural theories adds sub-group influence to social expectations to the driving forces behind deviance (Jenks 2004, p. 122). . Most of the people who criticize the subcultural theories do so, on the basis of their logical adequacy. According to Kornhauser delinquency can be termed as a result of many subcultures in the society. At least he points out that this is in accordance to the assertions of the subcultural theories. In this case it can be said that delinquency can be termed to be a result of their being subculture whose beliefs and values encourage practices that are viewed by the society (Williams 2003, p. 66). As much as there might be some truth in Merton’s theory it might still be misleading because it is never certain that unsuccessful youth will turn to the subcultures in questions (Copes & Williams 2007, p. 264). There are also no certainties that the norms and values of these subcultures will be obviously conflicting with the norms and values of the larger community. In the past decade, there have been very many studies that have been carried out with the aim of finding out the relationship between violent behaviour and violent values. One of such studies were carried out specifically for the purpose of studying whether people who are involved in violence have an attitude that is favourable to violence,committed to subcultural values, or have pro-violent values (Hesmondhalgh 2005, p. 33). There was a notable distinction between the concept of attitudes and values. In this case values were defined as “a belief about a preferred mode of conduct”. Attitude on the other hand was defined as “an organization of beliefs about a specific object, or about an ongoing belief about an ongoing activity or situation”. The observation in this case was that in cases where violence was as a result ofcommitment to subcultures the crimes were less frequent as compared to cases when violence was as a result of an individual’s attitude (Dotter 2004, p. 188). Attitude wwas in most cases brought about by the belief that there was something wrong with the norms and values of the general population. Other critiques of the theories of deviance also dispute the assumptions made in these theories terming deviance as a result of a stage of normal human growth and development. To such critiques deviant youth are just normal people who just happen to be going through a certain stage of life (Davies 1999, p. 109). The argument in this case is that deviance among adolescents, especially among the lower class is a result of being in a situation where they lack anything to do as they are in the process of transiting from childhood toadulthood. According to such critiques this is a stage that people go through in life, regardless of whether or not they have been abale to attain the general population’s perception of success (Pratt & Cullen 2005, p. 398). The claim here is that you do not even have to be unsuccessful in your endeavours in order for you to go through this stage of life. According to Matza delinquents also have the same values as the rest of the members of the society. He uses the fact that they can also feel outrage with regard to crime just like the other members of the society (Hagan 1997, p. 122). This goes against the common notion that there are some distinct groups that specifically have values that are of the opposite values from those of the other members of the society. In this case he is trying to assert that most of the delinquents usually view crime just in the same way that the rest of the members of the society view it. If in any case the values were completely different as the theories suggest, then they would have not have had the same sentiments towards crime (Jancovich 2002, p. 312). Some critics also believe that the only difference between the people commonly referred to as delinquents by the society and the other members of the society might just be the fact that maybe adults might have the self-control that is brought about by maturity and experience (Williams 2007, p.582). It will not be a surprise if you happen to come across an adult who claim to have “lost it” during a Christmas party. The adults have the urge of doing some of the things that are commonly associated with delinquent adolescents, but due to the fact that they have the knowledge of the possible consequences they usually fight the urges. This explains why it is a common scenario having grown up men with families discussing their lives when they were in college at a bar while they drink (Hayward & Young 2004, p. 262). Despite the fact that most subcultural theories asserts that subcultures are in most cases associated to marginalized communities, recent researches have proved that there were delinquency was also noticeable among the youths who come from financially stable neighborhood. This is an indication that deviance might afterall have nothing to do with the environment that one grows up in. Some psychologists claim that deviance at the adolescent stage of life is as a result of the urge to discover. People at their adolescent stage usually like to discover for themselves (Kalkhoff 2002, p.66). This urge is what push them to doing even things that they have been told that they are wrong. Sometimes deviance doesn’t have anything to do with belonging to any subcultural groups. You might find that a youth will be involved in an act of deviance not because they had acquired values or norms from a certain subcultural group but just because they are curious to know what will happen in case they do the things that they were told not to do. This can explain why people usually abandon deviant tendencies as they get to adulthood. Some people believe that the media can to some extent be blamed for promotion of some subculture. When to go through movies and music that most the media houses air you will notice that most of them tend to depict violence as a virtue. Unfortunately, these are the movies and music genres that are most attractive to the youth. Some of the youth might not even be attracted to these types of music or film, but will have to conform to them so that they can be viewed as “cool” by their peers. It is common for action movies to depict violence as a way of getting a just end. The same applies to popular music that sometimes have lyrics that can be said to promote violence and crime as positive and brave things. The world has gotten to the level where being “Bad” is viewed as a good thing (Sandberg 2009, p. 538). If you happen to visit a college or even high school you will always notice that the most deviant students are always the most adored. This is always the case whether or not the school is basically for lower, middle, or high class students. This is a clear indication that deviance among the youth does not have anything to do with social classes. Deviance among the youth can also be said to have nothing to do with whether a person is has achieved what the larger society perceives to be successful or not. For a youth, especiallythose in colleges and in high school academic and co-curriculum excellence are what can be termed as success. Therefore, the question in this case is whether young people who have enjoyed both academic and co-curriculum excellence are never deviant. This can never be true. In fact, even the so called “Geeks” at school are in most cases not that good on co-curriculum activities. In most cases you will find that a person who is doing well in both still have time to go out with their friends and involve themselves in activities that the other members of the society would term as deviance (Harding 2010, p. 132). In such a case you cannot say that such an individual is involved I deviance because they have not been able to achieve what the larger society perceives as deviance. However, the notable thing is that those who did not excel elsewhere always tend to overdo the deviant activities. It is clearly evident that the past connection between musical taste, style, and identity are slowly becoming one of the most undermined aspect of human life. Style seems to be going through the process of creation and recreation every day. There is also an evidence of cross-cultural borrowing in the lifestyles led by youth of different classes. Therefore, the lifestyle of young people continues changing as they continue interacting. One thing that is notable is that young people from different classes have allot in common. There was a time when rap music would be associated with the young African Americans who lived in the low class neighbourhoods. However, things have changed and almost everyone is listening to rap music, regardless of their social classes and age (Carrington 2009, p.144). This is a clear indication that times are changing and that it will be hard for someone to say that there are some social factors that can be used in identification of people belonging to certain subcultural groups. As discussed herein it is undeniable that the subcultural theories can be used in understanding of deviance and delinquency especially among the youth. However, they can also be used in the critique of Merton's theory of strain.The main shortcoming of Merton's theory of strain in accordance to the subcultural theories is that it does not consider the effect that interactions might have on values and behavior. Furthermore, if strain led to deviance then almost everybody would be deviance because everybody have gone through strenuous situation at a given point in life. It will also be important for such theories makeprovision for applying for other adolescents with special needs or deformations. Finally, it is important to know that times are changing and behaviours of adolescents are changing every day. There are a lot of borrowing cultures that makes it impossible to associate deviance among young people to their involvement with subcultural groups. Bibliography Atkinson, M & Young, K 2008, Deviance and social control in sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. Barlow, HD & Kauzlarich, D 2009, Explaining crime: a primer in criminological theory, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. Bennett, A 2011, “The post-subcultural turn: some reflections 10 years on.” Journal of youth studies, 14(5), 493-506. Blackman, S 2010, “Youth subcultures, normalisation and drug prohibition: The politics of contemporary crisis and change&quest.” British politics, 5(3), 337-366. Brake, M 2013, The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures (Routledge Revivals): Sex and Drugs and Rock'n'Roll?. Routledge. Carrington, K 2009,Offending youth: sex, crime and justice , The Federation Press, Sydney. Copes, H & Williams, JP 2007, “Techniques of affirmation: Deviant behavior, moral commitment, and subcultural identity.” Deviant Behavior, 28(3), 247-272. Davies, S 1999, “Subcultural explanations and interpretations of school deviance. Aggression and violence. Davis, F 1992, Fashion, culture, and identity, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dotter, D 2004, Creating deviance: an interactionist approach, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek,CA. France, A 2007, Understanding youth in late modernity, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Greener, T & Hollands, R 2006, “Beyond subculture and post-subculture? The case of virtual psytrance.” Journal of youth studies, 9(4), 393-418. Haenfler, R 2004, “Rethinking subcultural resistance core values of the straight edge movement.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(4), 406-436. Harding, DJ 2010,Living the Drama Community, Conflict, and Culture among Inner-City Boys,University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hagan, J 1997, “Defiance and despair: Subcultural and structural linkages between delinquency and despair in the life course.” Social Forces, 76(1), 119-134. Hayward, KJ & Young, J 2004, “Cultural criminology: Some notes on the script.” Theoretical Criminology, 8, 259-274. Hesmondhalgh, D 2005, “Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above.” Journal of youth studies, 8(1), 21-40. Jancovich, M 2002, “Cult fictions: Cult movies, subcultural capital and the production of cultural distinctions.” Cultural Studies, 16(2), 306-322. Jenks, C 2004, Subculture: the fragmentation of the social. Sage. Kalkhoff, W 2002, “Delinquency and violence as affect-control: Reviving the subcultural approach in criminology.” Electronic Journal of Sociology, 6(3). Martin, G 2009, “Subculture, style, chavs and consumer capitalism: Towards a critical cultural criminology of youth.” Crime, media, culture, 5(2), 123-145. Moore, D 2004, “Beyond subculture in the ethnography of illicit drug use.” Contemp. Drug Probs., 31, 181. Pratt, TC & Cullen, FT 2005, “Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis.” Crime and justice, 373-450. Rock, P 2006, Sociological theories of crime. Oxford University Press. Sandberg, S 2009, “Gangster, victim or both? The interdiscursive construction of sameness and difference in self‐presentations.” The British journal of sociology, 60(3), 523-542. Shildrick, T 2006, “Youth culture, subculture and the importance of neighbourhood.” Young, 14(1), 61-74. Skott-Myhre, HA 2008, Youth and subculture as creative force creating new spaces for radical youth work, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Taylor, I, Walton, P & Young, J 2013, The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge. Vito, GF & Maahs, JR 2012, Criminology: theory, research, and policy, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury, Mass. Webber, C 2010, Psychology & crime, SAGE, Los Angeles. Williams, JP 2003, “The straightedge subculture on the Internet: A case study of style-display online.” Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 107, 61-74. Williams, JP 2007, “Youth‐Subcultural Studies: Sociological Traditions and Core Concepts.” Sociology Compass, 1(2), 572-593. Wilson, B 2006, Fight, flight, or chill subcultures, youth and rave into the twenty-first century, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal. Read More