Crime is a persistent feature of human societies, prompting considerable effort to understand its causes. Two influential theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain criminal behavior are anomie theory and general strain theory. While both posit that societal or individual-level pressures can lead to deviance, they differ in their scope and focus. Anomie theory, originating with Émile Durkheim and later adapted by Robert Merton, primarily examines how societal structures and the disconnect between cultural goals and legitimate means contribute to crime. General strain theory, developed by Robert Agnew, expands on this by focusing on individual-level psychological and social strains that individuals experience. This essay will argue that while anomie theory provides a foundational understanding of how societal disjunctions can foster crime, general strain theory offers a more nuanced and comprehensive explanation by detailing the various sources of strain and their direct impact on individual propensity for criminal action.
Durkheim, in his seminal work on suicide, first introduced the concept of anomie, describing it as a state of normlessness where individuals lack clear social guidance. He argued that in times of rapid social change or economic upheaval, societal norms weaken, leaving individuals feeling detached and adrift. This lack of regulation could lead to increased deviance as individuals struggle to find their place or regulate their desires. Merton, building on Durkheim’s ideas, applied the concept of anomie specifically to crime in American society. He proposed that American culture places an overwhelming emphasis on achieving economic success (the "cultural goal") without providing equally accessible legitimate means (education, stable employment) for all individuals to reach it. This disjunction, or strain, creates anomie, leading individuals to adapt in various ways. Merton identified five modes of adaptation: conformity (accepting both goals and means), innovation (accepting goals but rejecting means, often leading to crime), ritualism (rejecting goals but accepting means), retreatism (rejecting both goals and means, leading to social withdrawal), and rebellion (rejecting both and attempting to replace them). The "innovator," in Merton's framework, is the most direct link to criminal behavior, resorting to illegitimate means to achieve the culturally sanctioned goal of wealth. For instance, a person from a disadvantaged background who sees wealth as the ultimate marker of success but lacks access to quality education or well-paying jobs might turn to drug dealing or theft to acquire financial resources, illustrating Merton's concept of innovation.
While Merton’s anomie theory effectively highlights the societal pressures and the cultural emphasis on success, general strain theory (GST) offers a broader perspective by detailing a wider array of strain-producing events and their psychological effects. Robert Agnew argues that crime is not just a response to a societal-level gap between goals and means, but rather a direct result of negative relationships and experiences that individuals find strainful. GST posits that individuals are more likely to engage in crime when they experience three primary types of strain: 1) the failure to achieve positively valued goals (e.g., wanting good grades but receiving poor ones; wanting wealth but being poor), 2) the removal of positively valued stimuli (e.g., losing a job, death of a loved one, break-up of a relationship), and 3) the presentation of negative stimuli (e.g., bullying, abuse, discrimination, harsh discipline). These strains, Agnew suggests, generate negative emotions such as anger, frustration, sadness, and fear. If individuals lack the coping mechanisms to deal with these emotions effectively, they are more likely to turn to crime as a way to alleviate the strain, express their anger, or escape the aversive situation. For example, a teenager who is consistently bullied at school (presentation of negative stimuli) may retaliate by fighting or engaging in vandalism to express their anger and assert control, a direct manifestation of GST. Similarly, someone who loses their job (removal of positively valued stimuli) and struggles to find new employment might resort to theft to cover living expenses, illustrating both the failure to achieve valued goals and the removal of positive stimuli.
General strain theory’s strength lies in its focus on the individual’s subjective experience of strain and the mediating role of negative emotions. It accounts for a wider range of criminal behavior, including crimes not directly related to economic success, such as crimes of passion or acts driven by desperation. Furthermore, GST considers individual differences in conditioning factors, such as social support, cognitive abilities, and self-efficacy, which can influence whether an individual succumbs to strain by committing crimes or finds alternative, non-criminal coping strategies. For instance, two individuals experiencing the strain of unemployment might react differently; one with strong social support and problem-solving skills might actively seek new opportunities or retraining, while another lacking these resources might fall into despair and consider criminal alternatives. This individual-level focus makes GST a powerful tool for understanding why certain individuals, even within similar societal contexts, are more prone to criminal behavior than others.
In conclusion, anomie theory, particularly Merton's adaptation, provides a crucial historical and structural lens through which to understand how societal pressures and the disconnect between cultural aspirations and institutionalized means can foster a climate conducive to crime. It effectively identifies innovation as a primary criminal response to this societal anomie. However, general strain theory offers a more granular and psychologically informed explanation, detailing the diverse sources of individual strain, the resultant negative emotions, and the mediating role of individual coping resources in predicting criminal behavior. By shifting the focus to the personal experience of strain and its emotional consequences, GST presents a more comprehensive and adaptable framework for explaining the varied pathways to criminal activity.