Robert Merton's Strain Theory

Drawing upon Merton’s strain theory and Sutherland and Cressey’s theory of differential association, I argue that the combination of these two theories offer a wholesome explanation of why crime happens. Robert Merton’s strain theory (1938) explains the role of social structure in generating anomie (a sense of lawlessness and alienation) in individuals. The theory claims that there are legitimate means of achievement in our quest for success or celebrated goals, which are imposed by social institutions, and the blocking of these pathways leads to the creation of strain. Merton claims that when in strain, people commonly react through conformity, although instances of innovation, ritualism, and retreatism also occur (pp.141). For example, if

In this case, differential association may be useful in identifying sources of strain not limited to economics, as Sutherland and Cressey argue that associations, and consequently motives for committing crimes, are context-dependent. Moreover, differential association can further explain why people who lack legitimate means to success resort to criminal behavior rather than conformity. Consider an individual who, like many others, has celebrated goals, although this person’s legitimate means to this goal are blocked. Differential association theory states that if criminal behaviors, including techniques of committing the crime, are learned, this person is more likely to pursue illegitimate means to success rather than conforming to the overarching social structure. Conversely, if this person is not engaged with others who exhibit delinquent patterns, they are more likely to not become delinquent in times of strain. Ultimately, strain theory offers a substantial explanation of how criminal behavior is shaped by social structure, and differential association theory provides micro-level explanations that serve to complement the limitations of the broader structural