Strengths and Weaknesses of Merton's Strain Theory in Understanding Crime - Assignment Example

What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Merton's Strain Theory in Understanding Crime? Question #1 Robert K Merton developed the social strain theory. The theory explains that it is the social structures that influence a person to commit crime. The strain can be individual or structural. A structural strain explains a situation in the society that leads an individual to perceive their needs. An individual strain refers to the situation where an individual faces experiences and frictions that affect their zeal to satisfy their personal needs. These categories of strain can suggest social configurations within society that then force people to become lawbreakers. In his theory, Robert concludes that biological strains cannot explain criminal behaviors in any individuals. This is after an analysis of the biological factors that can develop criminality in an individual. He maintains a clear focus on reasons why individuals develop into criminals. Merton also discusses that the deviant behavior is different among different individuals in different societies. Even on the same society, the rate of deviance is not the same among the criminal members in different subgroups. In this theory, Merton borrows heavily from Durkheim’s theory to explain why cultures affect deviance in different societies. It is clear that culture is a determining factor for criminal behavior in the society. The social and personal situations also influence the criminal behaviors in any society. The society shapes how an individual views their status as members of the same society. Deviant or criminal behavior is likely to develop if an individual’s feels they have a lower status in the society. This is what Merton describes as structural strains. The individual perception of the person towards his or her own self also can develop deviance or criminal behavior. This includes situations where the individual cannot face the guilt of reaching their expectations and satisfaction. Cultural Adaptation Each society has its cultural and societal structure. Culture sets up goals for individuals in society. It is up to the individuals to meet these goals. Societal structure on the other hand facilitates the means for individuals to achieve these goals. It is not necessary for the societal structure to provide the means to achieve the goals. In some situations, it does not provide the avenue for all the individuals in the society (Mooney, 2012 p100). As Merton affirms, it is in a developed society that individuals use the means set up by the society to achieve their goals. The goals are the ones that the society establishes. In such a situation, the goals and the means that the society provides are in balance. Criminal behavior is likely to develop when there is an imbalance in this system. The criminals feel that the society has set up its goals while it does not provide clear means to achieve these goals. They resort to crime to achieve these goals. This means that the society has its cultural structure but lacks the societal structure. Question #2 Merton explains that innovation is accepting the goals and rejecting the societal means set up. This shows that after an individual fails to use the means that the society has set up, they resort to different ways to achieve these goals. These goals differ from the institutionalized means set up by culture and society. Innovation is an important concept in understanding crime and criminal behavior (Brym & Lie, 2010 p300). Deviant behavior in individuals in society develops since they feel the society has set up roles without providing means to facilitate the achievement of these goals. The criminal develop these traits feeling that the only way out is to behave in a deviant way. This is on an effort to facilitate their personal needs and satisfaction. Merton maintains that if an imbalance develops between the cultural and societal structures, deviant or criminal behavior in turn develops. He bases his proposal about this theory on two main tenets. Innovation develops from an individual’s adherence and motivations to cultural goals and an individual’s belief in how to achieve these goals. Through the social strain theory, innovators are individuals who break laws to keep to the standards that the society heavily upholds. The criminals break rules to meet the success goals that culture expects them to have. The criminals have the idea that it is only though innovation that they can have success since the societal structure is weak (Barbara, 2013 p53). Innovation is a concept that further develops thee cultural and societal structure that defines Merton’s social strain theory. Criminal behavior therefore relates aptly with innovation of individuals in the society. Question #3 The strain theory by Merton maintains that the cultural structures set goals and the societal structures create the means of achieving the goals. This means that many people have parallel goals, but they do not all have the identical chances or skills. When these individuals fail to realize society’s prospects through accepted ways such as delayed gratification and hard work, they might try to accomplish success through criminal ways. This is true since they would seek opportunities to meet these goals even if it is on the expense of others. This theory aptly captures the motivation for crime. This is the main contribution in understanding crime as defined by Merton’s strain theory. Merton mentions, for instance, “while the likelihood of accomplishing economic success would be improved by receiving a college education, not all fellows of American people are able to ensure that. Those inferior on the socio-economic hierarchy are predominantly vulnerable due to their moderately underprivileged starting line in the race in the direction of affluence” (Samaha, 2006 p34). In another example, an individuals in as an institution can feel that the school is not giving enough ways of achieving success in examinations. They would organize riots to go against the rules set up by the school. This rioting behavior develops since they feel does not give them enough means to achieve success in their exams. Question #4 Merton's Theory also has its limitations. Albert Cohen discusses some of the main limitations in this theory. As he explains the social strain, theory is too utilitarian. This means that not all deviance is in pursuit of wealth. The social strain theory by Merton bases most of its descriptions on deviant behavior developed in pursuit of wealth. Cohen also discuss that the social strain theory is too atomistic. This relates to its aspect that adapting to strain is too simple. It does not provide an apt explaining of the complexities in adapting to social strain. As Cohen explains this theory is too mechanistic. The theory does not provide room for understanding the role of group or individual processes. This theory also does not accept the role of subcultures that pervade almost every society. From the social strain, an individual needs recognition and respect from other members of the society. Cohen furthers this theory and explains that the position and status of an individual in society can influence criminal behavior. He mentions, “The weight on attaining financial success, nonetheless, is not harmonized by a simultaneous normative stress on what “means” are genuine for attainment of the preferred goals” (Lilly et al. 2011 p100). An individual develops criminal behavior when they realize they do not have a position in society. This results to status frustration. The American dream is a situation that an individual wants to amass more wealth by not so hard methods. This explains some categories of individuals in the social strain theory by Merton. The ambition to lead the American dream can lead an individual into crime. Carlen discusses the limitations of the social strain theory and furthers to explain that some individuals develop into criminals in an effort to survive in the society. This is a valid reason since the cultural goals and the societal means can pressure on individual to find a way out. They then resort to crime since they cannot develop any new means to meet these goals. Survival is the main reason why individuals develop into criminals. They engage innovation to help them survive and still maintain their status as members of the society. Robert Agnew furthered the social strain by proving that this theory focuses on depicting crime was only common for lower-class individuals in society. It is true that criminal behavior pervades the whole society, even the middle, and the upper class practice crime. This informed his different portrayal of social strain based on feelings and not economic and social class. Agnew agrees that strain from outside can create feelings of fear, defeat and despair in an individuals. The feeling that becomes most applicable to criminal behavior is anger. Anger lowers a person’s inhibitions, incites a person’s actions and increases their desire to revenge (Krohn et al. 2009 p138). Agnew affirms that individuals develop anger when they blame their actions to other people. Through anger and frustration, an individual develops criminal behaviors. In principle, overall strain theory projected that a surge in strain would develop an increase in anger, which may in turn lead to an escalation in crime. Question #5 The theory cannot explain expressive crimes. The theory is based on majorly instrumental crimes. The theory maintains that individuals resort to crime since they cannot develop means to achieve the goals set by their cultures. This explains instrumental crimes since they entail criminal activity based on using crime as a stepping-stone for achieving personal and societal structures (Andrews & Bonta, 2010 p150). This explains a situation where an individual engages in a robbery to buy get money to buy a nice car. Without the criminal activity, attaining the car was impossible. This is unlike another person in the society who would use genuine means to attain the nice car. The social strain theory is based on the premise of instrumental crime. An expressive crime on the other hand means that an individual commits crime without a purpose except to accomplish the action, which they desire. For example, assault and murder are expressive crimes. They certainly do nothing but permit the criminal to express their desires and wishes. Question #6 In general, the strain theories focus on portraying the low class as the individuals who majorly participate in crime. All the theories define the low class individuals as innovators. There is a clear streak in describing individuals in the lower class as the lot susceptible to commit crime. The lower class also has their expectations and aspirations strained. This is unlike the middle and upper class that have their expectations generalized as necessary. There is depiction of criminal traits in the lower class societies. This means that the middle class does not have deviant behavior (Curra, 2011 p423). The theories also do not focus on explaining the deviant motivation. They generally focus on issues that make an individual to commit crime and not their intentions. The strain theories also accept the easy normative definitions of deviance and its relation with criminal behavior. All the theories focus on official statistics to depict deviant behavior. There is no single theorist that conducted his or her own research. Question #7 The strain theories play an important role in explaining deviant or criminal behavior among the members of the society. The social strain theory bases criminal behavior on cultural structures and societal structures. The culture sets goals and the society provides the means of achieving these goals. Individuals are likely to develop criminal traits when they feel there is an imbalance in this system. The theories are based on adherence of the individuals to the societal and cultural goals and means. The theories also have limitations in the sense that they portray the low class as the only members of a society that practice crime. From the theories, it is clear to say that they only explain instrumental crimes. Expressive crimes are left out in explaining the motivation for such crimes. Bibliography ANDREWS, D. A., & BONTA, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Access Online via Elsevier. BARBARA, K. (2013). Essentials of sociology. [S.l.], Wadsworth. BRYM, R. J., & LIE, J. (2010). Sociology: your compass for a new world, the brief edition. Belmont, California, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. CURRA, J. (2011). The relativity of deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine Forge Press, an Imprint of Sage Publications. KROHN, M. D., LIZOTTE, A. J., & HALL, G. P. (2009). Handbook on crime and deviance. Dordrecht, Springer. LILLY, J. R., CULLEN, F. T., & BALL, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif, SAGE Publications. MOONEY, L. A. (2012). Understanding social problems. Toronto, Nelson Education. SAMAHA, J. (2006). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA, Thomson/Wadsworth. Read More