Talk:SOCI370/Merton Social Structure and Anomie

In response to Diana, I found Merton's thoughts on deviance as the result of cultural/socially structured (institutionalized) norms clashing important for understanding why people commit deviant acts. Although, this took me into another direction. I would argue that this clash of norms is what gives those in power the ability to define crime, thus, creating crime, criminality and criminals. People in institutions constructing these norms that conflict with cultural norms gives those in power the ability to legitimize their interests (norms) against others. For example, alcohol prohibition in the United States can be seen for some as a clash of culturally constructed norms and socially structured norms. For some cultures alcohol is used for celebration, with dinner etc. Putting a ban on the alcohol to protect the interests of those in power can be seen as a clash of cultural/social norms. From here, those in power are able to label those who consume alcohol during the prohibition as a 'deviant' act.

I definitely agree with your point on alcohol prohibition in the US because in some cultures in Europe for example alcohol is consumed at really young ages as a means of celebration, maturity and parties but is banned from people in the US until they reach the age of 21. It can be seen as a deviant act for under age drinking thus resulting into conflict with conforming to social norms because under age drinking can be seen as cool and most done in the age of high schoolers but because of the legal drinking age, those who do drink while they are under age can be deemed as deviant because they are not following the law. The issue of alcohol prohibition in the US can be seen as contradictory due to social norms that are broken because of the popular culture of under age drinking among teenagers in the US.

Similar to the age restrictions for alcohol consumption in the U.S. and the prohibition, the criminalization of marijuana can be examined in the same perspective. Like you've stated, people with power criminalize certain actions and things as a way to legitimize and prioritize their own interests over others and in doing so, create social/cultural norms that clash with the majority. The idea that marijuana is put on the same level as much harder drugs and resulted in countless arrests and imprisonment for the possession and use of it is baffling when we consider the fact that it has medicinal purposes and is much safer than alcohol and tobacco. This continued narrative of marijuana being dangerous and its criminalization can only be a result of those in power trying to protect their own interests. If we were to examine other parts of society we will only continue to find countless variations of this.

My answer for questions on wiki page: My example for innovation type of deviant behavior is someone wants to get into Havard so he can receive compliments. However, he gets into Havard by an unrecognized way, like faking GPAs, or cheat in exams so he can get into Harvard.

For ritualism, if someone did not satisfy with his job, he did it only for make a living, there is no work ethics about this job, he just did it because he has to.

For retreatism, this is a given up on both pursuing social means and goals. An example can be homeless people. (Not sure for this one.)

A homeless person is most definitely an example of retreatism if the person is lacking the institutional means to achieve the goal of living in a home and getting a job to support him or herself and doesn't feel inclined to try and reach this goal via other means such as stealing. The idea of begging is intesting for this, however because it would seem the person lacks the means, but is striving for the goal of making a living, albeit by unconventional means, which would make him or her an innovator. Do we really think of beggars as innovators? Typically innovators would be people like Bill Gates who did not go to university, but who still ended achieving the goals that are socialized in our society.

Hi Kejing, l think that while homeless people could be an example of retreatism, it cannot be generalized to all homeless people. Retreatism is when someone doesn't desire to fulfill cultural goals or abide by institutional norms. I believe that there are homeless people that desire the cultural goals but face other obstacles that prevent them from attaining it, such as mental health issues or unavailable support. This doesn't make them retreatists because they want to achieve the goals. I think Lianzhen brings up a good point about the way we would define these people. I think it would depend on their situation and the different actions and motivations that they do/have in order to label them in one of the five ways that Merton describes.

I agree with what Vanessa is saying about how some individuals who are homeless may have the desire to fulfill the cultural goal but face obstacles to achieving it. This is a very prominent problem today and we can't really generalize to all individuals as each person is quite different. One example that popped into my mind when there was mention of homeless individuals are those with a criminal record. Once they are released from the prison system, they still face stigma in society and they have a hard time finding a job. They may have the urge to start over and get that clean slate that is told to them but they have these barriers that keep them from it. In turn, this might push them to become homeless and it becomes this ongoing vicious cycle.

I agree with the example of people having criminal records and are unable to get accepted into the society again. Usually people with a criminal record are rarely hired due to social stigmas. Because they are unable to support themselves, despite them wanting to integrate into the society again, they are unable to. However what about people who are already homeless but refuses to live in social housings? Some homeless people claimed that social housing is like a warehouse and they would rather live on streets and have the freedom. By refusing institutional aid, would it becomes rebellion?

Hi Vanessa, You really pointed out my concern about why I was not sure about defining homeless people as retreatism. Because, when we study sociology, we try to reveal the undercover fact, and for a lot of homeless people, more accurately, they are house-less. Therefore, they might still try to reach the institution means, but they lost the ability to get involved in social activities (lost a place to live). I think that is why I was not sure to say all homeless people are retreatism.

Reading Merton right before getting into the postmodern theorists made me reflect a lot on how the implications of his claims can apply to a world that, as Derrida says, is "decentered". In particular, I have grown to think that individual freedom and especially freedom of speech is so often held up as sacred and pursued to an extreme extent in our society, and it is allowed sometimes to turn into a covert permission to perpetuate violence, due to the lack of "the salutary pressure of society" (Durkheim), namely social sanctions. And here is a paradox that I believe resonates with Derrida's, Lyotard's, and to an extent Merton's claims. In a changing world where the language of the reality that is attempted to be dismissed is the one used to dismiss itself, the dynamics of regulation and integration, and what Merton calls "culturally defined goals" and the means to achieve them, follow a similar logic. Merton's "innovation" embodies that paradox, as we feel encouraged to be "non-conforming" in order to be deemed innovators, unique, creative, which is especially relevant to individuals at the times of mass culture and mass consumption. At the same time, though, we need to be non-confirming through means which are still culturally acceptable to an extent, despite the apparent claim not to be so. An example would be the one pointed out in another thread, which is the difference of perception between a beggar and someone venturing into enterprise after dropping out of school. Do you see examples of this double-standard that goes beyond a discourse of ends and means, and paradoxically embodies our society's fixation with authenticity, though only respected if achieved through a degree of conformity?

As a globalized society, are we promoting the common success-goal of wealth accumulation while many are institutionally restricted from achieving such a goal through sanctioned means? If so, are we subsequently promoting "deviance" on a global scale?

I believe that we cannot simply talk about the world-wide common successful goal as the accumulation of wealth. Like you have mentioned the example of those owners of guesthouses in South Asia, there are places where success seems to not be put in belonging to a higher class. I believe that there’s also a movement where success is seen in how “happy” a person is. This scale of happiness definitely differs among people and may include financial success for some people, however, it can also include factors like finding one’s true love and building a family or following one’s dreams and doing what you love. I’ve noticed that all of these different factors add up differently depending on the person and form “happiness” which is an indication of success. This is why I don't believe that the global society as a whole is promoting the common goal as accumulation of wealth. In this sense I also believe that maybe no one is restricted from achieving the common goal because, if people can gain “happiness” in their own individual way they each has their own means to do so. For example, a person born in the county side who find happiness in living healthy with his/her family is not restricted in achieving this goal like they would be if his/her goal was the accumulation of wealth.

I think that a large portion of the globalized society is in fact promoting the common success-goal of wealth accumulation whether we want it or not. We are almost always socially conditioned to accumulate wealth without even noticing and this is because we are taught from a very young age that we are supposed to finish high school and go to university in order to get a good career. By doing this, we are told that by our parents, teachers, etc. that we will be successful. This transition from post secondary education to future career is taken for granted and we assume that this is how our life is supposed to be. Even though we may individually have different ideas of what “happiness” is, which equates to our “success”, like having a family as Kami mentioned, in order to get that “happiness” we must accumulate wealth because nothing in life comes for free. One’s good health for example is interconnected with their wealth, to have children and a family and for that, you need to accumulate money and so on. At the end of the day our globalized society is driven by our economy. Therefore, I would say that we are promoting “deviance” for people who don’t have the means to receive education or take any of the institutionalized procedures to accumulate wealth.

I agree with Sonia's comment. The harsh reality is that people are more wealth driven when measuring success. Wealth is also an accumulation of material goods that we acquire or in the case of us UBC students, it is also a measure on how easy our education is for us. There are some students who work 2/3 jobs and also balance their courses and others who have enough means to pay for their education without having any job. Our drive to obtain a post-secondary education is so that we can get secure jobs, that pay for the standard of living we as individuals desire to acquire.

Indeed, a solid synthesis makes itself available in terms of discussing "cultural goals" as Merton describes them: wealth accumulation is arguably a cultural goal in any state who conducts or who has been affected by imperialism, and who lives under capitalism, but it is absolutely worth taking into consideration (critically though, in many cases) how other goals exist either alongside, or against the cultural goal of attaining wealth. For example, being "happy" is arguably also a touted cultural goal in Canada, but it can either run contradictory to or right alongside the goal of accumulating wealth depending on what "happiness" is defined as. Happiness is arguably informed by having wealth for many or at least limits how much happiness an individual can gain access to.

Honesty, I believe that we are subsequently promoting "deviance" on a global scale, even without a notice. The common success-goal of wealth is so deeply embedded in our daily life that almost no one could escape from it. Wealth become one of the most significant standard to evaluate people's success. In order to earn a relatively higher social ranking, one has to take the post secondary education, in order to get a better paid job. I totally agree with Namra's point. UBC is a good example for this. One of the reason why many students chose to study in UBC is because they believe that attending UBC could to some extent guarantee that they could get a good paying job and "success" in the future.

I believe that as a globalized society we are promoting wealth accumulation as a goal to a certain extent. However I also agree with Kami that this goal cannot be extended worldwide. I think the divide between the Global North and South is a socioeconomic one in which development and thriving economies are a part of, and thus the goal of wealth accumulation plays a major role. In our society I do think that individuals are socialized to attain higher education that will place them on a path towards a successful career in order to accumulate wealth and higher status. Deviance comes in when individuals fail to achieve this cultural goal by not adhering to these institutionalized means. Through deviance comes the social stigma held against individuals unwilling or unable to partake in the achievement of this goal. It is also important to consider how deviant behaviour is not the same in all cultures and differs depending upon what a particular context or society holds as their cultural goals.

There are five types of individual adoption: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. My example for innovation type of thoughts and behavior, I can think of abortion, it is a deviant behavior in some religion and countries, while it is not in other culture and countries.

Whether it is acceptable or not is determined by the culture and belief in a society. Like in some countries, abortion is regarded as a normal small surgery, for couples who have not decided to have children at that time, it is a common way to terminate the pregnancy, no one will judge them for doing not want to have a baby at this moment and terminate the pregnancy by their choice. Maybe they want to put their energy on career first, or they do not have enough money and time for the baby at that time, the society and public accept this in their moral standard.

While in some other places, abortion is illegal, it against the belief in the society and public moral standard. Abortion is regarded as illegal and villainous, it is disrespected of human's life, people will be punished and judged by the law system and public. I think whether a behavior is deviant or not is based on the culture, background, history, religion and other elements in the specific environment.

I agree with Weijia that contexts in which individuals' actions occur plays into whether it is defined as deviant or non-deviant. I would like to extend this, and suggest that all five types of individual adoption of cultural goals and institutionalized means can either play a positive and/or a negative role in society. Religious/spiritual beliefs seems to be a concept in which conformity is highly internalized due to the prominence of it from the very beginning of individuals' lives. Buddhists' ways of life, tend to be so internalized into the minds of its believers, that since everyone is doing it the conflict between those who are deviant and those who are not are kept to a minimal. However, other religious extremists groups, tend to have the same goals, yet with the small change of institutional means leads to the type transforming in to rebellion. The stress between the two different institutional means, leads to heightened conflict, of which is the "right" way too achieve the goals. This, unfortunately is what leads to many terrorist crimes, in which terror and force is use to change the current acceptable institutional means to the more "deviant" method. In this sense, I find conformity and rebellion to be highly relatable in the context of spiritual and religious beliefs.

I agree with the above comments as well. I think that different cultures and communities will have different values and therefore the definition of deviance will be different. And expanding on the idea of social values and cohesion, deviance also plays a big part in crime and what is illegal. As society sets the rules which then become law it also sets the standards of what deviance is. Also, deviance can be a way in which one can act out in an attempt to change the laws. For example, LGBTQ laws were only changed after certain individuals acted out and rebelled against the social norms. This rebellion, one of Merton's 5 types of deviance are not only used by people that reject rules and goals of culture, but is in fact used to create a sort of counterculture in which new goals and rules are then created. This counterculture may then be what is socially accepted if it gains enough of a following.

I believe that there are different levels of deviant behavior in our society. The extent to which an act is thought to be deviant is highly dependent on time, culture and social movement. Adding on to Christopher's point on how different values within a community define the level of deviance, the values that change over time in one culture, or society, are also an example of changing values. A large way that we see this in our contemporary society is in the change to the traditional life-course, particularly in terms of marriage culture. Many young couples living in high economically developed nations choose to cohabit before marriage or have children outside of marriage. These actions were not long ago deemed highly deviant. However, social movement and change has made these the new accepted norms.

I think people act deviant in order to achieve a specific goal they are normally unable to attend. I agree with Norfar, as the extent of the deviant act is dependent on time, culture, and social movements, but i feel as if there must be an event in the individuals life in which he or she is given the choice to become deviant to achieve this goal, or achieve it through an institutionalized mean. But leading on to what i said earlier, when an individual whom is not confident in himself or herself in achieving such goal through the institutionalized way, they act deviantly and find the "easier" way to get their goal. For a really basic example; When an individual who forgot he or she has a test tomorrow, and is unprepared, rather than cramming in all the information he needs to know right before the test, he may cheat to achieve the passing mark he desires.

Merton states that retreatism is when there is a rejection of both cultural goals and institutionalized means. He also says that rebellion is the rejection of prevailing cultural goals/institutional means and the substitution of new ones. I find it difficult to clearly draw the distinction between the two.

My question follows: is retreatism not constituted within rebellion? It seems to me that retreatism is a natural and necessary mode of adaptation within a rebellion. Put differently, rebellions cannot happen without retreatism in place first.

In class we discussed the equilibrium in society that gets disrupted when society becomes unstable and there is a transformation in the institutional means and, as follows, in the cultural goals. I scrolled through lists of rebellions/revolts/wars in our history. It seems that in these pinnacle moments, perhaps Merton's mode of adaptation, retreatism, is in effect. But this retreatism is only one instance of the rebellion (i.e. the other mode of adaptation). If we bring back Marx's model of social change, we know that his model ends with the communist revolution. Retreatism is one instantaneous mode of adaptation because the proletariats reject the present goals and means prescribed by society. Marx, though, suggests that there arises a new structure of goals and means for individuals; that is, a communist system. In Merton's reading, this new communist system is a reshaping of the normative and social structure, which is (the mode of adaptation of) rebellion.

I disagree regarding your argument that rebellion cannot be without retreatism, as both are quite different responses to anomie. My interpretation of retreatism would not allow it be a precursor of Merton's rebellion. Simply because in retreatism the individual has no desire to succeed in reaching cultural goals through these institutionalized norms, or abide by them. For instance, this could be someone who decides to live off the grid in order to have 0 contact with society. At most, I can see retreatism being more correlated with a latent function of the rebellion adaptation in essence of the formation of subcultures. A retreatist mentality does not need to happen in order for rebellion to occur as rebellions are more so acts of destruction and violence etc to resist conformity (and also in order to re-define said goals/norms). Lastly, Merton's adaptation theories are put in place in order to define both criminal/non-criminal responses to strain. Thus, a retreatist would not necessarily be committing criminal responses to strain as much as a rebellionist would when responding to strain.

Hi Adriano, thank you for clarifying the differences. I agree with you in saying that retreatism is "a latent function of the rebellion adaption in essence of the formation of subcultures". My first impression from the reading was that retreatism is constituted within rebellion, but I see, now, what you mean in the nuances that exist.