Deviance And Social Control

When Auguste Comte coined the term ‘sociology' to refer to a positivistic or scientifically proven approach to study human society and social life, he gave rise to the central idea of the structural-functionalist perspective on deviance and conformity (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). This sociological perspective provides a macro-level analysis that focuses on the structure of society and the roles of social institutions such as government and family, to provide its members with stable patterns of social structures (Goode, 2008). Many people tend to associate negative implications when they come across deviant actions —any behavior such as crime that breaks from commonly accepted norms or expectations— and assume that society would be better off without them.

On the contrary, functionalists point out that deviance is a common part of human existence and that some deviance is actually healthy for our society as they can strengthen norms and social unity to name a few (Clinard & Meier, 2008). Perhaps one of the earliest systematic sets of theories on deviance from the functionalist perspective were launched by two prominent sociologists, Emile Durkheim and Robert King Merton (Clinard & Meier, 2008). During Durkheim’s suicide study in the nineteenth century, he first developed the concept of Anomie, which refers to a state where social norms no longer bring about social order and consequently resulting in a form of deviance—suicide (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013). Durkheim stated that people living in times of revolution or war for instance, would experience anomie and may become deviant because rapid social change or unforeseen social situations often stop them from adhering to conventional social norms (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013).

In 1938, an American sociologist named Robert Merton translated Durkheim’s Anomie theory into Anomie-Strain theory by re-conceptualizing the original concept of anomie (Goode, 2008). To Merton, anomie is the breakdown of social norms that results from society placing great importance or emphasis on culturally defined goals but failing to provide all its members with legitimate, acceptable means and opportunities to achieve them (Goode, 2008). According to Merton, culturally defined goals are “legitimate objectives for all or for all diversely located members of society,” such as monetary and material success (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). Thus, while people aspire for the same goals, in reality social structure places certain limitations on who can achieve them through legitimate means (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). Consequently, some social groups particularly the poor and lower-class individuals feel compelled to attain those goals through illegitimate or illegal means, including deviant conducts like theft, prostitution, and illegal drug selling (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). That is how deviant behavior happens in the society using Merton’s Anomie-Strain theory (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). It is obvious that Merton’s theory is entirely different from Durkheim’s which mentions that the deviant action of suicide is due to the absence of social norms (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013).

To further elaborate his theory, Merton also drew up a typology of different responses to show how members of an anomie society choose to cope with their situation (Goode, 2008). According to Merton, the most common response is conformity, which indicates that the majority of people accepts both culturally defined goals and chooses law-abiding ways for reaching them (Goode, 2008). Becoming a doctor, a lawyer, and striving for financial success by becoming successful and affluent in one’s career through institutionalized means, is an example of conformity— the most common mode of adaptation (Clinard & Meier, 2008). The second type of response is called innovation, which Merton highlights that it is largely found among lower-class people, who work towards the culturally prescribe goals by illegal means such as pickpocketing, pimping, and robbery (Clinard & Meier, 2008). Merton views the second mode of adaptation as “normal” where the access to conventional means in a society is limited (Clinard & Meier, 2008). The third type of response is known as ritualism, which is a kind of partial withdrawal practiced by an individual who gives up on achieving cultural goals, but he or she still abides by all the rules and legal means of society (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013).

An example of a ritualist would be an obstinate bureaucrat who insists to adhere all rules and regulations in every detail, but has forgotten that the purpose of his job is to serve the public (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013). A ritualist goes with the flow of everyday life and does not have the intention to deviate (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013). Next, Merton refers to the fourth type of response as retreatism, which occurs due to repeated failure encountered by an individual when he or she attempted to achieve culturally defined goals with or without legitimate means (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013). As a result of that, despair retreatists such as drug addicts, psychotics, and chronic drunkards, reject and withdraw themselves from both social goals and institutionalized means (Thio, Taylor, & Schwartz, 2013). Finally, rebellion represents the fifth type of adaptation to anomie, which is an attempt to overthrow the existing dominant goals and means, and replace them with new goals and new means (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017). Revolutionaries and political radicals are examples of rebels whose aim is to remove stresses and strains in an anomie society (Thompson & Gibbs, 2017).