Sociology of Crime: Merton’s Anomie, Chicago School, and Subcultures
First Sociology of Crime: Merton and the Chicago School
Merton’s Anomie Theory
Merton discarded the idea that solely regulatory control (or lack thereof) produces anomie. He viewed deviation as a normal adaptation to a competitive environment, not just a biological escape from lacking social control. Merton identified two key elements in a society’s cultural structure:
- Culturally defined goals
- Institutionalized means to achieve them
In a well-regulated society, goals and means are integrated. Poor integration arises from disproportionate emphasis on either goals or means. Individuals derive satisfaction from accepting both. A perfect society values competition, sacrifice, and rewards, encouraging rule obedience. However, Merton argued that American society overemphasizes monetary goals, neglecting the means. The desire for money, regardless of the means, signals poor integration, where success is solely defined by monetary targets. Failure is then seen as an individual, not social, issue.
Merton developed a typology of individual adaptations to this goal-means mismatch:
- Innovation: The innovator uses illegitimate means to achieve socially induced aspirations due to unequal opportunity distribution.
- Ritualism: The ritualist conforms but abandons hope of reward, still playing the game without expecting to win.
- Withdrawal: The withdrawn individual rejects societal values (e.g., psychotics, outcasts, addicts).
- Rebellion: The rebel seeks a new society where merit, effort, and reward align, advocating for radical social change.
Merton’s theory uniquely investigated individual adaptation as subcultural adaptations.
The Chicago School and Social Ecology
The Chicago School extensively researched the city’s social ecology: the distribution of work, residences, public spaces, health, and concentrations of conformity and deviance, using empirical social research. They observed regularities in human activities within urban neighborhoods and ethnic residential areas.
According to Park, sociologists must uncover the mechanisms maintaining social life’s balance. Chicago’s social problems stemmed from uncontrolled migration and the creation of isolated natural areas. This similarity between cultural patterns and natural areas arose because inhabitants were forced together by uncontrollable processes, creating an unhealthy symbiosis. This organic view of natural areas extends beyond geography, considering the environment as a whole. Some environments are pathologically disorganized due to parasitism and social isolation. Biological analogies explained residential district development and crime’s natural areas, suggesting inhabitants’ presence resulted from personal characteristics or selection processes.
Rex and Moore argued that the Chicago theory needed to account for interest groups using political power for their benefit, disadvantaging less organized groups. The processes concentrating black migrants in transition zones also linked race and crime. While immigrants initially lived in high-crime areas, their crime rates eventually matched the general population. Criminality in criminal areas stemmed from opportunity and reward structures, not just demoralization or individual pathology.
The Struggle for Space and Ecological Structure
Individuals are segregated into limited interaction spheres: a) public lands (streets), b) exclusive territories (private clubs), c) interaction territories (specified times, e.g., a bar), d) bodily territories. Social control of territory primarily protects the powerful’s ‘home territory’ through the police system.
Social Disorganization Theory
The Chicago School used a biological analogy, suggesting the symbiotic relationship between human ‘species’ had become imbalanced between competition and cooperation. Deviant behavior arises when intense competition disrupts the biotic balance, driven by migration to and population changes within ‘criminal areas.’ Competition in these areas stems from a lack of standards.
Matza noted that social disruption didn’t affect all social levels. Others linked high crime rates to transitional zones undergoing ‘invasion and succession.’ Thus, socially disorganized areas were associated with crime-supporting values and norms. However, this theory was unsatisfactory. The solution was to reject the consensus view of society, replacing it with a vision of plurality rules. This rejected the pathological view of deviance while maintaining the ecological perspective. Social disorganization became differential social organization, linked to the learning theory of differential association. This theory posits that delinquency arises when pro-delinquent influences outweigh anti-delinquent ones through a learning process, similar to non-criminal behavior. It opposes individual pathology as the sole cause of crime and rejects mere ‘rationalizations.’ However, it doesn’t explain all criminal behavior. Behaviorism suggests crime isn’t solely due to lack of socialization; it can be rationally learned through reinforcements from deprivation or lack of reinforcement of ‘normal’ behavior. New rules may develop, classified as criminal by society. Thus, subcultures emerge where social reinforcers (approval, status, prestige) depend on deviant behavior, including drug use.