Robert Merton’s Theory of Anomie
It is rightfully argued that crime, whether or not in a contemporary
society, is an
extremely complex and multi-faceted Phenomena that has puzzled
academics for
many years. Theories that aim to rationalise the causes of crime and
understand the
origin of criminal behaviour are often criticised for being too biased
or deterministic
in their research studies. Many have been of great influence and seen
to explain (to an
extent) the cause of crime but none has fully decoded the mystery of
why people
commit crime. Merton’s anomie theory aimed at explaining deviance from
a
sociological perspective as opposed to previous academic theories on
crime and
criminals.
The first well known study of crime and criminals is that of one who
is often referred
to as the ‘father of criminology’, Cesar Lombroso.
Lombroso’s argument was based around the Darwinian theory of human
evolution
and his theory argued that criminals were a throw back to an earlier
period of human
progression. In other words, they were less evolved humans, with
visible physical
features such as large ears and big lips. His theory suggested that
criminals were born
and not made therefore, where genetically prone to criminality.
Merton’s argument was to the contrary. Rather than observing the
individual criminal
as being subhuman, he questioned societies influence on the
individual. In his 1968
book, Merton argued that ‘it no longer appears to be so obvious that
man is set against
...
... middle of paper ...
... Britain is of a much lower percentage in comparison to that
of America
thus Merton’s argument of the poor most likely to be criminal will not
always fit the
British society.
It is therefore impractical to generalise Merton’s theory and
force-fit it to all
contemporary societies. However, his work has been very influential in
both the
policy making process and criminological theories both in Britain and
around the
western world. Merton’s theory does not explain all crime but it has
great merit in the
ones he attempts to explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Merton. R-(1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. Chapt6
[2] Haralambos and Holborn 2002
[3] Merton. R 1968
[4] Hagedorn 1996 new perspective in criminology, chapter 13
When delving into the various theories under the umbrella of criminology, one must research and gain knowledge about each idea to understand how it stands alone and among all of the theories. These should be compared against each other to determine what similarities they may have, which overlap and strengthen the foundations of understanding criminal behavior. Then they shall be examined for contrasting points, which distinguish and possibly prove weaknesses within the theories. Doing so can help criminologists determine the accuracy and credibility of the theories and help achieve a deeper knowledge of criminals and antisocial behaviors.
Merton received many criticisms toward his theory, Anomie. The basis of them was, Anomie was too general, it did not explain much. It does not explain why individuals choose to commit certain types of crime. A study was examined between aspirations and expectations; there was no evidence with criminal activity. But for being so general, his theory is still one to be most popular coming down to the most cited theory.
Anselm supported the ontological argument because he wanted to clarify that God exists. Deductive and employing priori reasoning is what defines the ontological argument. It begins a statement that is understood to be correct merely be meaning and instituting a proper conclusion for that statement. By employing deductive reasoning it permits Anselm to display what the meaning means. In this paper I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument does depend on Anselm’s confidential faith in God.
In this paper, I will examine the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Anselm defines God as “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,” which means, at least for Anselm, that God must exist because he is the greatest being that can be conceived. Furthermore, he argues that all people, whether or not they believe in the existence of God, at least understand his definition, including the fool who denies that God exist. Anselm, in addition to that, describes two main differences between understanding the definition of God, and understanding God to exist.
Ideally, the theory bases its argument on the economical disadvantages social classes in a society claiming that lower class neighborhoods cause stress, frustration, and disorganization that motivates individuals to commit crimes. For instance, children raised in lower class families face hardships, which in return, creates strains. In the event they succumb to the strains, any slight opportunity to commit a crime, like stealing, is quickly utilized. In addition, children raised in upper class neighborhoods are prone to criminal offenses that are associated with influence. Research by Einstadter, Werner & Stuart (2006) says that criminal offenses, such as drug abuse, are more common to people raised in wealthy families. Therefore, the social backgrounds in which a person is brought up influences the type of criminal acts they engage in. Moreover, social structure influences individuals to commit some crimes and not others. As put forward by Robert Marton, the theory views crime as way of responding to existing conditions that limit one’s ability to achieve economic success in
Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and used the term natural selection to describe it. He proposed that all living species derived from a common ancestor. In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin explained: “if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principles of inheritance, will then tend to produce offspring similarly characterised” (p127).
The post-industrial revolution period, marks a turning point in in perceptions towards crime and the motives behind it. While the industrial revolution resulted in an imminent influx of the working class in the cities in seek for employment due to the falling standards of living in the agrarian areas, poverty was not initially considered to be the prime cause of crime in any circumstance. Police reports1 even went as far to suggest the existence of an attraction in a individual towards a criminal life. Therefore, it could be argued whether such reports are suggestive of the existence of a separate criminal class in British society, yet in the longer term, as proposed by Professor S.E Finer2, the report caused the manifestation of a new attitude amongst the public, that downplayed the effect of “want” due to austerity. Interestingly nonetheless, prison admissions showed considerable proportionality with the state of trade and the price of wheat,3 which thus implies that crime realities were not accommodated in the public eye. Notions of a “criminal class” were very popular from the mid-19th to the beginning of the 20th century; such views claimed the impossibility of individuals to maintain permanent employment, even if they so desired and similarly that “honest habits”4 would never deign to unlawful acts, even if stimulated by “extreme hardships”. As a result, this proposes cyclical infatuations and obsessions with committing crime that could not be contained.
In Anselm’s Ontological Argument, he is trying to prove that God exists. He used two preconditions to prove this argument. The first precondition is the important idea of this argument, he said that because the greatest things not only exist in the mind, but it also exists in the reality. The second precondition is that there is nothing greater than God can be conceived. So the conclusion for this argument is that God exists. In this paper, I am going to critique the Anselm’s ontological arguments for God exists. I believe that his argument is based on concepts that he defined, and he used those concepts which he thought was true to prove that the God exists.
This paper seeks to discover if, political correctness has introduced social deconstruction to Merton’s unifying idea of social institutions like the American Dream and if the theory’s assumptions on criminal deviance are still applicable to this new model of social discourse.
To commit a crime or not to commit crime, a question that seems self-explanatory but is an ongoing struggle that appears in all societies. Sociologists look to explain this crime and deviance and have developed many theories as an explanation. The anomie theory was developed to explain crime and deviant behaviour in America, and the relationship between crime and social structure. Robert Merton was the leading sociologist in the development of the anomie theory and said crime occurred because there is a disjunction between society’s culturally set goals of success and the legitimate means of obtaining those goals. However, the legitimate means to obtain cultural success are not equal to everyone with emphasis on the inequality of ethnic and
An Essay on the "Rediscovery" of Mendel's Work. Gregor Johann Mendel is widely considered as the founder of modern genetics as a result of his now famous pea plant experiments that were carried out between the years of 1856 and 1863. The experiments ultimately established the numerous rules of heredity that are referred to in genetics to this day (Nirenberg, n.d.). Additionally, he is known for coining the genetic terms "recessive" and "dominant" in an effort to refer to certain traits in the experiments, such as green peas being recessive and yellow ones dominant. His work was published in 1866 establishing the actions of "invisible" factors now known simply as genes in providing for visible traits in predictable ways.
Durkheim’s and Merton’s use of the term anomie differed in one fundamental way; while Durkheim viewed anomie as the lack of rules to restrain society, Merton viewed anomie as the overregulation inhibiting attainment of culturally accepted goals. These differences stemmed from their different contexts and views on the use of the criminal. However, through the medium of anomie theory, both sociologists have attempted to explain crime through using the social structure of a society. Overall, anomie theory is successful in describing many middle class crimes but fails to explain why senseless crimes occur and why some people undertake crime whilst others
Genetics is defined as the study of heredity, or the passing of traits from parent to offspring. Known as the Father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, through his research with garden peas, contributed much to the field of Genetics with his three laws: the Law of Segregation, the Law of Independent Assortment, and the Law of Dominance (“Mendelian Laws of Inheritance” n.d.). Mendel’s research was centered on the physical attributions, or phenotype, of pea plants passed from parent to offspring, such as seed color, seed shape, flower color, etc. Mendel selectively cross pollinated purebred plants with particular phenotypic traits and recorded the outcomes over generations. This experiment became the basis of the nature of genetic inheritance ("Basic Principles of Genetics” n.d.). Although Mendel’s research revolved around plants, his conclusions on heredity are applied to all living things.
(Anselm P. 395) There is no way to use a word such as God as a being or an existence
I now know that criminology prefer to highlight the correlations between crimes’ social climates and criminals’ psychological states of mind. While some argues that criminal behavior is a result of individuals’ association with criminal peers, other claims that crime is a reflection of an individual’s genetic disadvantages. I have come to learn that there are no universally agreed formulas on decoding crimes and criminal behaviors. What we have, however, is a manual full of academic opinions and subjective views that have emerged alongside of the development of criminology. At the same time, the volume of conflicting perspectives that I have stumble upon in studying criminology reminded me again that the success of our current assessment models has yet to be determined. Thus, the study of criminology is an appropriate practice that will further prepare me to conduct meaningful research on legal studies and to provide accurate and in-depth findings in the near