Introduction
One of the major occupations of students studying crimes is to understand how criminal behaviors come about and why individuals are induced in engaging in deviant or criminal behaviors. Theories on crime and delinquency primarily explores this question to get a better understanding of individuals and society at large. Theorists drew from different fields of sciences such as sociology, psychology and biology, to find answers in uncovering individual motivations and structural inducement.
One such theory that draws not only from sociology, but also from psychology, is the strain theory of Agnew. This paper provides a detailed discussion on the origins and the propositions of strain theory. A comparison on Merton’s and Agnew’s strain theory provided to gain a deeper understanding on the utilization of strain theory in deviance discourses. The second part explores the different criticism faced by strain theory and compares it to other sociological theories of crime behavior. Lastly, the paper concludes with an analysis of opportunities to improve strain theory in such a way that it can be generalizable in across individuals and societies.
Durkheim, Merton and Structural Functionalism
The strain theory can find its roots from exiting concepts put forth by Durkheim’s enduring studies of modern society particularly of anomie, as well as, structural functionalists like Parsons and Merton (Ritzer, 2010). Durkheim, in his characterization of modern industrial society stresses that the man is in the state of anomie or normlessness because of weak collective conscience or the dissimilarities of beliefs, experiences and sentiments. The solidarity in modern societies is held by interdependence from increased division of labor, as oppose to agrarian societies who are solidified by strong similarities in values, and sentiments. The modern society is then characterized with high degrees of individualism and disjunctions to previously held values, hence, the man in modern society is thrown in a state of anomie or normlessness. Thus, crimes are often higher in modern societies than in primitive or agrarian societies where individuals closely adheres to the same moral principles and standards (Ritzer, 2010).
Merton, on the other hand, developed and extended the concept of anomie in regards to deviance. He devised a middle range theory (sociological theories that are not abstract but are based on empirical data) that will explain how individuals are induced to commit deviant behaviors. Merton argued that deviant behaviors are caused by the disjunction of “material and occupational success goals” and the “institutionalized means” of achieving it (Johnson, 2008).
Actors’ act towards achieving a goal, such as finishing school, or being rich. Institutionalized means are the ways in which actors achieve these goals, such as working hard, or studying vigorously. However, due to scarcity of resources and most especially differential access to these resources, not everyone can have the access to institutionalized means hence, they cannot fulfill their goals (Johnson, 2008) Take for instance the institutionalized means to become rich is to get high-paying jobs. However, such occupations sometimes require rigorous educational backgrounds and achievements that some cannot achieve because of lack of resources (i.e. money for tuition fee).
The inaccessibility of means of achieving the goals creates the strain, while the disjunction of goal and means is the evident state of anomie (Ritzer, 2010). This state of anomie, according to Merton, induces individuals to commit different kinds of deviant acts, in which the person can reject the means but accepts the goal (i.e. the innovator steals), or can accept the goal, but reject the means (i.e. the ritualist becomes laziness to work), in some cases, individuals all together reject both goals and means (i.e. the retreatists retreating from the world) and create their own goals and means (i.e. the rebels assert for new world order) (Dillion, 2014). Accordingly, Merton saw that conformity, or acceptance of both goals and means, is the only non-deviant act.
Agnew’s Strain Theory
Agnew’s strain theory may have the traced its roots to Merton’s but, his conception of strain theory and his explanation of criminal behaviors departs from the long standing propositions of structural functionalism—that is structural determinism. His conception draws not only from sociology but also from psychological and motivation concepts. He argued that the disjunction of means and goals is only one type of strain, and that there are other sources of strain such as when people’s expectations and achievements are unmet, when they are inhibited from positive stimuli or are exposed to negative stimuli (Siegel and Worrall, 2012). In addition, Agnew characterizes strain as events and conditions disliked by individuals (Barlow and Decker, 2010). It is important to note, that unlike Merton, Agnew’s strain theory focuses on the individual rather than social structures.
Agnew further explained that not all strain results to criminal behavior. There are conditions that must be met before individuals resort to deviance. First, strains leading to crimes are like to be “high in magnitude” (Barlow and Decker, 2010), that is it is high in degree such severe abuse. It is recurring, or are recent and targets central goals such as safety and security or monetary success. Second, deviant behaviors are likely to happen when strains are unjust and violates “justice norms” (Barlow and Decker, 2010). When people believe that they do not deserve their current situations or treatment, they are more likely to respond with aggression. Lastly, deviant behaviors happen when there are weak social controls (Barlow and Decker, 2010). Individuals resort to criminal behaviors when they are not closely monitored and when their behaviors are less likely to be sanctioned, or they have found ways to overcome social controls and circumvent these sanctions. In contrast, individuals who are monitored by people who are strict in following rules and meting out sanctions for noncompliance are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. Also, high internalization of values (i.e. taught that crimes are immoral) also lowers the chance for deviance (Barlow and Decker, 2010). Lastly, the degrees of strain can also influence the incentives for criminal coping (Barlow and Decker, 2010). In other words, when strain is high, and resorting to criminal behavior is the easiest way to relieve strain, the individuals are more likely to cope with deviant actions.
Moreover, temperament and abilities of individuals can determine how well they cope with the different strain presented to them (Siegel and Worrall, 2012) as well as the different degrees of antisocial behaviors or deviance they exhibit. For example, individuals with explosive temperament are more likely to be abusive. Pleasure seekers, on the other hand, are also more prone to drugs and alcohol abuse.
Criticisms on Strain Theory
Agnew (1985) identified several criticisms on strain theory in general. First, and perhaps the most salient, is that the strain from inconsistency of expectations and aspirations as a determinant for deviant behavior does not follow empirical evidences (Agnew 1985). That is, high expectations and high aspirations does not result to deviant behavior, in fact, studies have shown that people are more likely to result to delinquency when they have low expectations and low aspirations. Moreover, the strain theory has been too focused on criminal behaviors in the lower classes that it fails to look at and explain criminal behaviors in both the middle and upper classes (Agnew 1985). In effect, if strain results for inaccessibility of means to achieve economic success, how can strain theory explain deviant behaviors in other classes? Most importantly, the strain theory, especially Merton’s strain theory assumes that all individuals commonly hold and adhere to the same societal goals and have failed to explain differences and even evolution of these societal goals (Johnson, 2008).
Moreover, critics have been centered on the inability of the strain theory to predict and describe white collar crimes, as it only focuses on criminal behaviors in the lower strata population (Langton, 2004). Finally, more empirical investigation has to be done to understand how strain theory can explain the differences in male and female criminality (Langton, 2004).
Other Sociological Theories of Deviance
This section analyzes other sociological theories of deviant behavior. In analyzing other sociological theories, the readers can gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of strain theory when compared to theories such as critical race and differential association.
There are other sociological theories of deviant behaviors that have challenged some held propositions of strain theory. For example, an examination of critical race theory reveals interesting insights on deviant behaviors by shifting the focus from the individual to the criminal legal system. While the strain theory evaluates the individual and the effects of strain to probability of criminal behavior, the critical race theory evaluates the criminal justice and its evident biases towards white supremacy.
The critical race theory contends that the high conviction rates for African American perpetrators (hence, the perceived high prevalence of crimes among African American communities) are caused by racial and ethnic biases in the legal system (Fuller, 2010). The problem lies not only on individual deviant behaviors, but invariably on how they are evaluated by the criminal justice system. The critical race theory is invariably strong, where strain theory is particularly weak—that is in their examination and critique of the present social structures.
Other sociological deviant theories such as Sutherland’s theory of differential associations. This theory looks at crimes are part of individuals social processes learnings (Carrabine, Cox, Lee, Plummer, and South, 2009). To do crime, one must learn crime and learning is actually a part of individual’s socialization. Moreover, the tendency of conformity or non-conformity to values and norms depend on the “frequency of associations” of individuals to others who commit or do not commit crimes (Carrabine et al, 2009). It contends that individuals may have largely socialized by their peers and environment. Thus, criminal behaviors may not necessarily be motivated by specific strains or personal reasons.
An in-depth examination of these theories provides interesting oppositional views from the strain theory. So far, no one theory has successful explained the generality of deviant acts and the motivation of individuals in engaging in it. The author suggests on also looking at both psychological and biological theories as they are also useful in revealing much about people’s actions.
Conclusion
The strain theory or theory of anomie of Merton and Agnew reveals much about the relationship of social structures and the individual’s behavior. The application of strain theory is extensive, especially in discussions of the prevalence of violence and crimes among the low-income strata. It also shows the evident stratification in today’s modern society as it discloses the different challenges individuals face in achieving their goals. However, it must also be appreciated along with its weaknesses and strengths. More than analyzing the problems with the means, an in-depth reflection of the current predominantly accepted goals must also be done. These goals, as the critical theory would argue, are set by the elite and dominant classes, and that they may be roots to the pervasive inequality in the modern society.
References
Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 65(1), 151–167.
Barlow, H., & Decker, S. H. (2010). Criminology and Public Policy: Putting Theory to Work. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=koAnv3NRfY8C&dq
Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., & South, N. (2009). Criminology: A sociological introduction (2nd Editio). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fuller, John Randolph. 2012. Think Criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporaty sociological theory: An integrated multi-level approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Langton, L. (2004). Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation. University of Florida. Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0004785/langton_l.pdf
Ritzer, G. (2010). Sociological Theory (8th Editio). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Siegel, L., & Worrall, J. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th Editi). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
