联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写留学生作业,Merton Anomie Durkheim
发表日期:2013-09-15 09:17:25 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写留学生作业 > 正文
Merton Anomie Durkheim

How does Merton’s theory of anomie differ from that of Durkheim?

Durkheim usefully conceptualised the phenomenon of anomie, and I consider the context in which this occurred. I look at Durkheim's examples of crime and deviance and his discussion of social solidarity to clarify how his terms are understood. I discuss how, for Durkheim, anomie was a product of social change, resulting in loss of social cohesion and I go on to examine why, for Merton, the concept needed reconsideration.

I examine Merton's view that society is in constant flux and his distinction between anomie and strain toward anomie, between social structure and individual responses, discussing briefly his five 'modes of adaptation, loosely divided into conformity and deviance. Finally, I identify key points of difference between their two theories of anomie.

Emile Durkheim conceptualised the term anomie in The Division of Labour in Society (1893). In this treatise he discusses in detail the subject of social solidarity. Durkheim holds that all members within society are a product of society, bound together by societal bonds.

Durkheim used the term anomie to describe lack of social cohesion or relative normlessness, where bonds break down or are undefined. (p.212) According to Durkheim this blurring of societal bonds causes members of society to become detached from societal regulatory constraints that govern and control their behaviour and aspirations, leaving them with no set guidelines within which to act or to aspire, resulting in anomie.

Durkheim was a positivist; he was not interested in the study of individuals' subjective meanings but aimed to identify and study different social facts. Many forces contributing to anomie can be measured only by their visible effects as some forces are invisible, like gravity. Durkheim studied the observable effects of invisible social forces.

Anomie can be observed through effects such as societal disorganization and deregulation, leading to criminal and deviant behaviour but also social facts as personal as suicide (discussed below). Durkheim suggests that an anomic state is more likely to be present during periods of social unrest, perhaps caused by social changes like increases and decreases of economic prosperity, due to the disruption of traditional values (p.201)

Durkheim believed that crime and deviance were socially constructed. Durkheim saw acts of crime and deviance as an integral part of society’s temporal transition; he suggested that a certain amount of crime and deviance is an essential component of the healthy functioning of society, and he suggested it reinforces society’s moral code and causes social solidarity, change and innovation. Although crime and deviance could threaten the stability of society, Durkheim suggests that a society without crime would also produce an anomic state. (p.226)

In Durkheim’s treatise Division of Labour in Society (1893) he differentiated between two types of societies, characterised by their degree of social cohesion: mechanical solidarity, which has strong social cohesion, and organic solidarity, which has weak social cohesion. Durkheim suggested that society has evolved from a mechanical society, based on similarity, to an organic society, based on difference. (p.226)

Mechanical societies describe the solidarity found in traditional societies; these societies existed before the modern industrial era. In mechanical societies communities were smaller, societal bonds were stronger; people shared collective norms and values which Durkheim described as collective consciousness. These societal bonds were reinforced by people's shared religious beliefs. People in this society performed similar tasks and worked to achieve collective goals which benefited the whole group.

In this type of society individuals were not as dependent on each other as later, organic, societies. In mechanical societies everyone was doing similar work and did not rely on others for their needs; they did, however, rely on society to function adequately as a whole: “In societies where this type of solidarity [mechanical] is highly developed, the individual is not his own master…. Solidarity is, literally something which the society possesses.” (Durkheim, ed Giddens, 1972, p.139)

Durkheim suggests that anomie was less likely to exist in mechanical societies because of society’s strong cohesion. He states "...The state of anomie is impossible whenever interdependent organs are sufficiently in contact and sufficiently extensive. If they are close to each other, they are readily aware, in every situation, of the need which they have of one-another, and consequently they have an active and permanent feeling of mutual dependence." (Durkheim, 1893, p.184)

The second type of solidarity, organic solidarity, Durkheim linked to complex modern industrial societies, suggesting that they "are constituted, not by a repetition of similar, homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts." (p.181) In organic societies the division of labour increases and work tasks become more complex, specialised and individualised.

The labour force is divided; therefore individuals are no longer working on similar tasks but segregated to individualised tasks. Members of organic societies are highly dependent on each other to produce what they need. Durkheim suggests that this functioning is similar to the functioning of the human body, all different parts working on specialized tasks to sustain the organism as a whole. However if the organ fails to function it causes the other parts of the organism that are reliant on that part to fail as well. This dependence is significant to the survival of society; healthy functioning of the society is based on the reliance of others. (Durkheim, 1893, p. 226)

Organic societies differ from mechanical societies as they are based on differences in individual functions, rather than similarity. These differences can cause members to become detached from society which in turn causes misidentification with society. The breakdown of interpersonal bonds (without which individuals lack guidance and feel detached from society) thus produces anomie.

Durkheim noted that "Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectively, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist." (Durkheim, ed Giddens, 1972, p.113) This organic form of society, he suggested, was the cause of the decline of social cohesion and integration, and the creation of anomie (p.200). This is demonstrated by Taylor, in his publication Durkheim and the Study of Suicide (1982) Taylor's interpretation of Durkheim suggests that suicide is present in modern organic societies because of the decline of social cohesion:

Durkheim held that in modern society there were two principle causes of high (and rising) suicide rates: (egotistic) suicide was higher where individuals were not well integrated into collective social life; and (anomic) suicide was higher when society's norms and values were too weak to regulate individual desires and drives... The relationship between levels of social integration and regulation and suicide rates demonstrated that society exerted an independent influence over the individual. In Durkheim's terms, society was external to the individual, so much so that even such a supremely individual act as suicide had its roots in society. (p.21)

Durkheim suggested that when social conditions change, the traditional norms and values needed for public consciousness no longer remain the same. An anomic detachment from societal restraints frees members of society from limits to their aspirations causing anomic suicide. (Durkheim, 1893, p. 203) Durkheim writes in Suicide (1897) that, “The limits are unknown between the possible and the impossible, what is just and what is unjust, legitimate claims and hopes and those which are immoderate. Consequently, there is no restraint upon aspirations.” (p.253)

Robert Merton elaborated on Durkheim's work on anomie; however, he did not always agree with Durkheim’s theory. Merton adapted the theory of anomie to a general sociological approach to crime and deviance. He considered that deviance was not caused by sudden social change, as suggested by Durkheim, but was, rather, a symptom of a constantly changing social structure. Merton was writing in America at a time when there was inequality between ethnic groups. Merton observed that not all individuals within society have an equal chance of success; he believed that inequality in society blocked people from attaining the means needed to achieve their goals. Many Americans were aiming to achieve “the American dream” and he was interested in how they pursued their goals, and whether or not dreams were equally attainable to everyone. (Merton, 1957, p.121)

Like Durkheim, Merton held that crime and deviance were caused by society: “the functional analyst… considers socially deviant behaviour just as much a product of social structure as conformist behaviour…” (p.121) but Merton's view of deviance is different to Durkheim’s. While Durkheim believed that identifying deviance is a demonstration of society’s norms, and a barometer of cohesion and change, Merton held that crime does not generate social solidarity or social progress and that crime and deviance demonstrate poor societal organization. Merton suggested that society does not evolve from mechanical to organic, but that society is constantly changing and generating new goals - if not necessarily the means by which to achieve these goals. (p.121)

Merton’s theory of anomie is not easily conceptualized in his writings, as he spoke about bothanomie and strain towards anomie, which can be hard to distinguish. For clarity, I have discussed these as if they were two different concepts. Firstly, when Merton talked about anomie, his theory does not refer to the normless societal state identified by Durkheim. Merton suggested “no society lacks norms governing conduct.

But societies do differ in degree to which [such] institutional controls are effectively integrated with the goals which stand high in the hierarchy of cultural values” (p.121) Merton’s theory suggests that there is no decline or undefined presence of societal norms governing behaviour but a disjunction “between valued cultural ends and legitimate societal means to those ends” (Akers, 2000, p.143). Merton’s anomie theory, like Durkheim’s, can be used as an explanation of deviant and criminal behaviour.

Merton held that individual goals and aspirations are regulated by societal restraints - unlike Durkheim, who suggested that the anomic state causes no limitation to members' aspirations. Merton suggested these societal restraints put pressure on members of society to conform to societal norms. He held that an anomic state is caused by a de-institutionalization of societal norms. This occurs when society emphasizes culturally preferred goals and their achievement but does not emphasize the culturally approved means to achieve these goals: “any cultural goals which receive extreme and only negligibly qualified emphasis in the culture of a group will serve to attenuate the emphasis on institutionalized practices and make for anomie.” (Merton, 1968, p.235) This disjunction, Merton suggested, is the cause of macro-structural anomie. Merton's structural anomie theory is similar and compatible with what Durkheim suggested as both theories can be used to explain macro-level implications of anomie, but the development of the concept of 'strain' allows the application of the concept of anomie to individual experience of society. (p.189)

This micro-individual level of anomie, Merton suggested, is caused by strain, and an anomic societal state is needed for strain to occur. In turn, the strain experienced by individuals fosters anomie. Merton’s strain theory can also be used as an explanation of deviant behaviour: “cultural (or idiosyncratic) exaggeration of the success-goal leads men to withdraw emotional support from the rules” (p.190). Individuals are more likely to pursue illegitimate means to attaining culturally prescribed goals when they are blocked from accessing the institutionalized means to these goals:

The social structure… produces a strain toward anomie and deviant behaviour. The pressure of such a social order is outdoing one's competitors. So long as the sentiments supporting this competitive system… are not confined to the final result of “success”, the choice of means will remain largely within… social control. When, however, the cultural emphasis shifts from satisfaction deriving from competition itself to almost exclusive concern with the outcome, the resultant stress makes for the breakdown of the regulatory structure. (Merton, 1957, p157)

Merton also suggested that “some individuals are subjected more than others to the strains arising from the discrepancy between cultural goals and effective access to their realization. They are consequently more vulnerable to deviant behaviour.” (p.235) Merton described those who are restricted by inequality. This can be used as an explanation of the suffragette movement: women prevented from achieving their goals were provoked into deviant acts of protest.

Merton identified five types of response to societal pressure: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. (p.136) The first two modes accept, and the last three modes reject societal rules. Firstly, Merton described conformity which he considered the most common response to strain. It describes the process by which people strive to succeed using the most socially acceptable means they have available to them.

This conformity to social values is cohesive of society according to both Merton and Durkheim. The second mode, ritualism, describes individuals who accept they have no opportunity to achieve their goals. These individuals maintain what they have but are discouraged from doing more: they don’t believe they can become more than what they are. In effect, they join the conformists. (p.200)

However, not all people conform. The third mode is rebellion; this describes individuals who have rejected the idea that everyone can achieve success. These individuals have rebelled against the system and rejected socially acceptable means to achieve their goals. The fourth mode is retreatism which occurs when individuals choose to drop out of society, give up on their goals and make no effort to achieve because they see it as impossible. Merton suggested this response is associated with drug addicts and alcoholics. (p.267)

The fifth mode is what Merton called innovation: innovation describes the process through which people conform to atypical forms of acquiring means; however, they also seek success that would be unachievable without taking advantage of illegal goals available to them. (p. 267)Each of these modes of adaptation demonstrates the individual’s response to societal strain arising from anomie; modes that accept societal pressures are not as likely to pursue illegitimate means.

In conclusion, Durkheim suggested that anomie is caused by the undefined presence of social bonds. This undefined presence causes a decline of social cohesion therefore individuals become detached from society and recognise no limits to their behaviour.

Durkheim also suggested that anomie is caused by the decline of social cohesion representative of today’s organic societies, and that mechanical societies found in pre-modern societies had a stronger degree of social integration, reducing the occurrence of anomie. However this view was not shared by Merton; he considered that there has been no time when society lacks norms. He held that the presence of societal norms and their pressure on society and individuals causes anomie and strain towards anomie.

Durkheim and Merton also differ on when anomie occurs. Durkheim suggested that anomie is present during periods of social change due to the disruption of traditional bonds. However, Merton disagrees as he believes that anomie can be found in relatively stable societies. For Merton transition was not from one specific type of social structure to another but a constant state of flux, with changing goals.

Both Durkheim and Merton agree that crime and deviance are consequences of anomie. However, they differed on whether crime has value to society Durkheim held that some crime and deviance is a product of a normal functioning society, reinforcing solidarity and encouraging social progress, while Merton suggested that crime and deviance demonstrates societal disorganisation.

Durkheim and Merton’s theories differ most strongly on what constitutes the causes of anomie. Durkheim looks at anomie from a structural perspective, whereas Merton looks at the causes of anomie from both a macro and micro level, giving the theory a more detailed explanation. Merton looks in detail at the individual’s response to societal strain - not discussed intensively in Durkheim, as his positivist ontology did not consider individuals' internal motives and drives unless they had objective effects.

For Durkheim anomie is the effect of the breakdown of societal bonds; for Merton, strain is a mechanism of anomie and can occur during anomic societal states: strain towards anomie describes the individual’s battle to obtain the necessary means needed to achieve their goals. Durkheim suggested that during an anomic state individual aspirations are not limited because of the undefined presence of societal norms; without these norms, he suggested, members of society are deluded as to what is realistically achievable (Durkheim, 1897, p.253). Merton's theory, on the other hand, offers an explanation for why social forces influence some people to commit deviant and criminal acts and why some individuals conform to societal pressures and why some do not.

Bibliography

Akers, R. (2000) Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Durkheim, E. (1893) The Division of Labor in Society, tr. W. D. Halls, (1984) New York: Free Press.

Giddens, A. (1972) Emile Durkheim Selected Writings. London: Cambridge University Press

Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. 2ed ed. New York: The Free Press.

Taylor. S. (1982) Durkheim and the Study of Suicide. London: The Macmillan Press.

Thompson, K. (1982) Emile Durkheim. London: Tavistock Publications.

 

涂尔干有益的概念化失范的现象,我认为发生这种情况的背景下。我看涂尔干犯罪和越轨行为的例子,和他讨论社会团结,以澄清他所理解的。我将讨论如何,涂尔干,失范是社会变革的产物,导致社会凝聚力的丧失,和我一起去研究为什么,默顿的概念需要重新审议。
我检查默顿认为,社会在不断的变化,他的失范和应变之间的区别对失范,社会结构和个人的反应之间,简要地讨论他的五个'模式相适应,大致分为合格和越轨。最后,我确定他们两个失范理论之间的差异的关键点。
涂尔干的概念在社会分工(1893年)的长期失范。在这篇论文中,他详细讨论了社会团结的主题。涂尔干认为,社会内的所有成员都是社会的产物,结合在一起的社会债券。
涂尔干用于的长期失范来形容缺乏社会凝聚力或相对的无规范感,其中债券打破或未定义。 (第212页)根据涂尔干的社会债券模糊导致的社会成员成为脱离社会的监管约束,支配和控制自己的行为和愿望,使他们没有设置指引内行事或向往,导致失范。
涂尔干是一个实证主义者,他是不感兴趣的个人的主观意义的研究,但旨在确定和研究不同的社会事实。可以许多奉献失范的力量只能由他们明显的影响,因为有些力量是无形的,就像重力测量。涂尔干研究无形的社会力量的明显影响。
失范可观察到的影响,如社会的解体和放松管制,导致犯罪和越轨行为,但也是社会事实的个人自杀(见下文) 。涂尔干提出的失范状态,更可能是存在期间可能引起的社会变化,如增加和减少的经济繁荣,社会动荡,由于传统价值观中断(第201页)
迪尔凯姆认为犯罪和越轨行为的社会建构。涂尔干看到犯罪和越轨行为的社会的时空过渡的一个不可分割的组成部分;他建议一定犯罪和越轨行为,是社会的健康运作的一个必不可少的组成部分,和他建议它强化了社会的道德代码,并导致社会团结,变革和创新。虽然犯罪和越轨行为可能会威胁到社会的稳定,涂尔干认为,还会产生一个没有犯罪的社会失范状态。 (第226页)
在涂尔干的论述司的劳动协会(1893年) ,他区分两种类型的社会,其社会凝聚力的程度:机械,具有很强的社会凝聚力,团结和有机团结,其中有薄弱的社会凝聚力。涂尔干认为,社会已经从机械的社会,基于相似性,一个有机的社会,基于差异。 (第226页)
机械社会描述发现在传统社会的团结;现代工业时代之前就存在这些社会。在机械的社会,社区规模较小,社会债券更强;人分享集体涂尔干形容为集体意识的规范和价值观。这些社会债券,加强由人民共享宗教信仰。在这个社会里的人执行类似的任务,努力实现集体目标,全团受益。
在这种类型的社会中,个体是不依赖于对方后,有机,社会。在机械的社会,每个人都在做类似的工作,并没有依赖别人为他们的需求,但是,他们没有依靠社会作为一个整体,充分发挥作用: “在这种类型的团结[机械]高度发达的社会中,个人是不是自己的主人......团结是,从字面上社会拥有的东西。“ (涂尔干, ED吉登斯, 1972年,第139页)
涂尔干认为,失范是不太可能存在的机械的社会,因为社会的强大的凝聚力。他指出:“ ...失范状态是不可能的,相互依存的器官时,有足够的接触和足够广泛的,如果它们彼此靠近,他们很容易知道,在每一种情况下,它们有一个另一个需要,因此他们有一个积极和永久的相互依存的感觉。 “ (涂尔干,1893年,第184页)
第二种类型的有机团结,团结,涂尔干与复杂的现代工业社会,这表明他们“构成,而不是由一个重复相似,同质化的细分,而是由一个系统的不同器官,每一种都有特殊的作用,这本身是有区别的部分形成的。 “ (第181页)在有机社会劳动力的增加和工作任务的分工变得更加复杂化,专业化,个性化。
劳动力划分,因此个人不再工作类似任务,但个性化的任务分开。有机的社会成员都高度依赖于对方出示他们需要什么。涂尔干认为,这种运作是相似的,对人体的运作,所有的专门任务工作的不同部分,以维持机体作为一个整体。然而,如果不能进行正常的器官,它导致是依赖于该部分失败,以及生物体的其他部分。这种依赖性是显着的社会的生存,健康的社会的运作是基于对他人的依赖。 (涂尔干,1893年,第226页)
有机社会不同,在个别功能上的差异,而不是相似,因为它们都是基于机械社会。这些差异可能会导致成员成为脱离社会,这反过来又导致社会误认。际债券的崩溃(没有个人缺乏指导和感觉跟社会脱节)从而产生失范。
涂尔干指出,“人是他更是脱离任何统称,也就是说,他住作为一个利己主义者更容易自我毁灭。 ” (涂尔干, ED吉登斯, 1972年,第113页)他建议,这种有机的社会形态,是社会凝聚和融合的下降的原因,并创立失范(第200页) 。这表现在泰勒,泰勒的解释涂尔干涂尔干在他的出版物和自杀的研究(1982)表明,自杀是目前在现代有机的社会,因为社会凝聚力下降:
涂尔干举行,在现代社会中有是两个高和上升的自杀率原则的原因:自杀(自我中心) ,地方个人都没有很好整合到集体的社会生活;和自杀(道德沦丧)是更高的社会的规范和价值观时太弱,调节个人的欲望和驱动器...各级社会融合和监管和自杀率之间的关系表明,社会对个人施加的独立危险因素。社会在涂尔干的条件,是外部个人,以至于即使是这样一个超级个体的自杀行为有其根源在社会。 (第21页)
涂尔干认为,社会条件发生变化时,公众意识需要传统的规范和价值观不再保持不变。一个从社会约束失范支队释放社会成员的限制他们的诉求,导致失范自杀。 (涂尔干,1893年,第203页)涂尔干自杀(1897年)中写道, “这些限制是未知的可能与不可能之间,什么是公正,什么是不公正的,合法要求,希望和那些无节制。因此,有没有克制后的愿望。 “ (第253页)
阐述涂尔干的失范工作的罗伯特·默顿(Robert Merton) ,然而,他并不总是同意与涂尔干的理论。默顿适应失范理论一般犯罪和越轨社会学的方法。他认为越轨行为并非由于突发的社会变革,如涂尔干建议,但是是一个不断变化的社会结构,而是一种症状。默顿被写在美国的时候,有种族群体之间的不平等。默顿指出,并不是所有的个人在社会中拥有平等的成功机会;受阻实现必要手段来实现自己的目标的人,他认为,在社会不平等。许多美国人的目标,实现“美国梦” ,他很感兴趣,他们如何追求自己的目标,以及是否梦想同样每个人都可以实现的。 (默顿, 1957年,第121页)
涂尔干一样,默顿认为,犯罪和越轨行为引起社会: “功能的分析师认为社会越轨行为的社会结构的产物一样多为循规蹈矩的行为......” (第121页) ,但默顿越轨行为的看法是不同的涂尔干的。迪尔凯姆认为识别偏差是一个社会的规范和示范的凝聚力和变化的晴雨表,默顿认为,犯罪不会产生社会团结,社会进步和该犯罪和越轨行为表明贫穷的社会组织。默顿认为,社会不从机械到有机演变,但社会是不断变化的,产生了新的目标 - 如果没有一定的手段来实现这些目标。 (第121页)
默顿的失范理论不容易概念化在他的著作中,他谈到失范和对失范的压力,这可能是很难区分。为了清楚起见,我已经讨论了这些,就好像它们是两个不同的概念。首先,当默顿谈到失范,他的理论不涂尔干确定无准则的社会状态。默顿提出的“没有一个社会缺乏规范管理行为。
但社会是程度不同,其中[等]机构控制的目标,站在高层次的文化价值观“ (第121页) ,默顿的理论认为,社会规范行为也没有下降或不确定的存在,有效整合但脱节“文化两端之间的和合法的社会手段,这些目标” (埃克斯, 2000年,第143页) 。默顿的失范理论,如涂尔干的,可以用来作为解释的越轨和犯罪行为。
默顿认为,个人的目标和愿望是受社会约束 - 不像涂尔干,建议失范状态,导致不限制成员的愿望。默顿认为,这些社会约束施加压力的社会成员,以符合社会规范。他认为失范状态是由一个制度化的社会规范。发生这种情况时,社会强调文化的首选目标和他们的成就,但不强调文化认可的方法来实现这些目标: “任何文化目标,文化的一组中的极端,可以忽略不计合格强调它将衰减强调制度化实践和失范。 “ (默顿, 1968年,第235页)这脱节,默顿建议,是宏观结构失范的原因。默顿的失范理论结构是相似和兼容什么涂尔干建议为这两个理论可以被用来解释失范的宏观层面的影响,但“应变”的概念发展失范概念的应用允许个人社会经验。 (第189页)
这种微观个体层面的失范,默顿建议,通过应变引起的,道德沦丧的社会状态所需要的应变发生。反过来,个体所经历的应变促进失范。默顿的应变理论也可以用来作为一种越轨行为的解释: “文化(或特质)夸张的成功目标,男人们就会撤回规则” (第190页)从情感支持。个人可能更愿意采取不正当手段,以实现文化规定的目标时,他们阻止访问的制度化手段实现这些目标:
社会结构走向失范和越轨行为产生的应变。这样一个社会秩序的压力胜过竞争对手。的情绪支持这个竞争激烈的系统...只要不局限于“成功”的最终结果,仍将主要内...社会控制手段的选择。然而,当文化源于竞争本身满意的结果几乎完全关注重点转移,由此产生的应力使击穿的监管结构。 (默顿, 1957 , P157 )
默顿还建议说:“有些人受到比别人更多的从文化的目标和有效的访问他们的实现之间的差异所产生的应变。因此他们更容易越轨行为。 “ (第235页)默顿描述那些谁受不平等。这可以用来作为解释的妇女参政运动:妇女无法实现自己的目标,惹到越轨行为的抗议。
默顿确定了五种类型的社会压力:符合,创新,形式主义, retreatism和反叛。 (第136页)前两种模式接受,最后三种模式,拒绝社会的规则。首先,默顿描述符合他认为是最常见的反应应变。它描述的过程,人努力成功使用最具社会可接受的方式,他们有提供给他们。
这符合社会价值观Merton和涂尔干的社会凝聚力。第二种模式,形式主义,介绍个人谁接受他们没有机会实现自己的目标。这些人保持他们有什么,但不鼓励做更多:他们不相信,他们可以成为超过它们是什么。实际上,他们加入墨守成规。 (第200页)
然而,并不是所有的人都符合。第三种模式是叛乱,这说明个人谁拒绝的想法,每个人都可以取得成功。这些人却违背了​​系统和,拒绝社会可接受的方式来实现自己的目标。时发生的个人选择辍学的社会,放弃自己的目标和努力实现的,因为他们看到它不可能第四种模式是retreatism的。默顿认为,这种反应是与吸毒者和酗酒。 (第267页)
第五个模式是什么默顿所谓的创新:创新描述的过程,人们通过它符合非典型形式获取手段,但是,他们也追求成功,不利用非法提供给他们的目标将无法实现。 (第267页)每个个体的反应失范对社会产生的应变适应这些模式表明,接受社会压力的模式,是不是可能采取不正当手段。
总之,涂尔干认为,失范的社会债券所造成的不确定存在。这种不确定的存在导致社会凝聚力下降,因此,个人成为社会脱离,并承认自己的行为没有任何限制。
涂尔干也有人认为是造成社会凝聚力下降代表今天的有机社会失范,和前现代社会中发现,机械社会有较强的社会融合程度,减少失范现象的发生。然而,这种观点是不共享默顿,他认为一直没有时间当社会缺乏规范。他认为,社会规范的存在和他们对社会和个人的压力会导致对失范的失范和应变。
涂尔干和默顿还对失范发生时。涂尔干认为,失范是社会变革的由于破坏传统债券的期间。然而,默顿不同意,因为他认为,可以找到相对稳定的社会失范。对于默顿过渡不是一种特定类型的社会结构,但不断变化的状态,不断变化的目标。
涂尔干和默顿都同意犯罪和越轨行为失范的后果。然而,他们不同的犯罪是否具有价值,社会涂尔干认为,一些犯罪和越轨行为是一个正常运作的社会的产物,加强团结和促进社会进步,而默顿认为,犯罪和越轨行为表明社会的解体。
涂尔干和默顿的理论失范的原因是什么构成了最强烈的不同。涂尔干失范从结构的角度来看,而默顿看起来失范的原因,无论是从宏观和微观层面,使理论更详细的解释。详细在默顿看起来个人的响应社会的应变 - 没有涂尔干深入讨论,他的实证主义的本体没有考虑个人的内部动机和驱动器,除非他们有其客观效果。
对于涂尔干失范是影响的社会债券明细; ,默顿,应变是一种机制失范,期间可能出现的社会失范状态:对失范的应变描述个人的战斗,以获得所需的必要手段来实现自己的目标。涂尔干认为,在一个失范状态个人抱负不限,因为社会规范未定义的存在,他建议,如果没有这些规范,社会成员被迷惑,什么是现实可行的(涂尔干, 1897年,第253页) 。默顿的理论,另一方面,提供了一种解释社会力量的影响,为什么一些人犯下越轨和犯罪行为,以及为什么有些人的社会压力,为什么有些不符合。
参考书目
埃克斯, R. (2000)犯罪学理论介绍,评估和应用。洛杉矶: Roxbury的。
涂尔干, E. (1893)在社会劳动,TR司。 W. D.大厅, (1984)纽约:免费新闻。
吉登斯, A. (1972)涂尔干精选著作。伦敦:剑桥大学出版社
默顿, R.K. (1957)社会理论和社会结构。 2ED ED 。纽约:自由出版社。
泰勒。 S. (1982) ,涂尔干和自杀的研究。伦敦:麦克米伦出版社。
汤普森, K. (1982)涂尔干。伦敦:塔维斯托克刊物。