Social structure and crime

Social structure and crime

Student’s name

Instructor

Institution

Date

Introduction

There are factors in the society that play a significant role in the occurrence of crime or discrimination. Durkheim and Merton use sociological concepts to explain the causes of immoralities. They provided explanations on how social structures control the ability of an individual to engage in behaviors and activities that don’t conform to societal norms. Durkheim explains anomie using the difference in suicide rates across different religions (Nam, Parboteeah, Cullen & Johnson, 2014). He compared the differences between Protestants and Catholics, women and men, single and engaged people, and soldiers and civilians. Merton (1938) uses social structure and anomie to explain the origin of deviant behaviors in an individual. The two theorists have similarities in defining certain abnormalities in the society. This paper discusses what Merton draws from the concepts of Durkheim in explaining the contributions of social factors to deviant behaviors.

Merton borrows a lot from Durkheim. The former understood the influence of social factors on deviant behaviors by comparing different groups of people. His main interest was the reason why rates of deviance vary across different societies and different subgroups within a given society. He explains that individuals in the low class don’t have the same opportunities people in the high-class have. The comparison is evident in the way Durkheim explains the role of social factors on suicide rates across different religions, sexes and so on (Durkheim & Thompson, 2004). The data from his study showed that there was a low suicide rate among the Catholics was a result of their social structures that are different from Protestants.

Merton (1938) adopts a concept from Durkheim to analyze the situations in which the society creates deviance and disunity. Both employed anomie but using different terms. In Durkheim’s usage, anomie is the phenomenon where cultural norms deviate as a result of a sudden change (Durkheim & Thompson, 2004).  He gave the example of anomic suicide, which increased when members of the society are not able to achieve goals they pursue. In the theory of social structure and anomie, Merton changes the concept slightly to the situation where there is no consistency between norms of society that defines success in life and the norms that describe the appropriate ways of achieving success. The variables that define success and ways of achieving success are goals and means respectively. Merton (1938) used anomie as an explanation for the deviant behavior and its variation across different societies. Durkheim used the concept to explain suicide and its variation across different groups of people.

Conformity results when individuals agree with both goals and means of the community. Another idea that Merton draws from Durkheim is the criterion of classifying the outcomes of nonconformity in the society. The classification is hierarchical.

Conclusion

The two sociologists used some similar concepts in explaining abnormalities in the society. The existence of immoral actions and behaviors are influenced by social structures which vary from society to the other. The similarity between the explanations from the two theorists is due to the fact that they explain two different abnormal phenomena that are caused by the same factors, specifically social structures. Merton and Durkheim argued that deviant behaviors and suicide, respectively, are not only caused by biological and psychological factors but also social forces. The solutions of immoral behaviors and activities in the society should consider the influence of social structure.

References

Durkheim, E., & Thompson, K. (2004). Readings from Emile Durkheim. Psychology Press.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American sociological review, 3(5), 672-682.

Nam, D. I., Parboteeah, K. P., Cullen, J. B., & Johnson, J. L. (2014). Cross-national differences in firms undertaking innovation initiatives: An application of institutional anomie theory. Journal of International Management, 20(2), 91-106.