Retreatism vs. Rebellion

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.