Though Emile Durkheim and Robert K. Merton are two of the most influential theorists in the Functionalist school of sociological theory and they had similar views on concepts such as socialization and empirical analysis of sociological theory, they had differing views on the concept of anomie and they developed different typologies related to their individual definitions of the concept.
Durkheim, who was most concerned with the concepts of integration and regulation in society, developed a pathological framework, of which anomie was one of the key components. He defined four pathological states of society: egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism. Each state represents an extreme on the continuums of integration and regulation, leaving equilibrium to fall somewhere in the center of the four extremes. Egoism, defined as too little integration, Durkheim characterized as “…excessive individualization and withdrawal due to Durkheim views anomie to be the result of a society’s inability to control the whims of the individual through the imposition of cultural norms. Merton, however, takes a slightly different view of what anomie is. For Merton, anomie is “a discontinuity between cultural goals and the legitimate means available for reaching them.” (Wallace and Wolf, 55) To a certain extent, Merton’s definition mirror’s Durkheim’s, however Merton chose to take a slightly different approach to the concept of anomie and examination of Merton’s framework makes it clear that Durkheim’s definition of anomie is not appropriate for all the cases that Merton presents.
Rather than taking the pathological approach of his colleague, Merton builds a framework for his definition of anomie based on what he terms ‘modes of adaptation’. In this more microsociological system, Merton matches the individual’s acceptance or rejection of cultural goals against the individual’s access to and/or use of institutionalized means to achieve that goal. He defined five different ‘modes of adaptation’ in this way: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. These modes lie on a continuum ranging from total acceptance of cultural goals and the institutionalized means to achieve them (conformity) to complete rejection of cultural goals and the means the individual is expected to utilize (retreatism and rebellion). Anomie exists in the realms of innovation and ritualism where individuals either accept socially defined goals and find themselves with an inability or unwillingness to use the socially acceptable means to reach their goals (innovation) or individuals reject socially defined goals, but ‘go through the motions’ with socially acceptable means (ritualism). It is in these two modes of adaptation that it is possible to see the similarity in Durkheim’s and Merton’s different definitions of anomie.
Taking a closer look at ritualism, it can be seen that this mode of adaptation is an example of Durkheimian anomie. The individual suffers from normlessness in the form of a lack and/or a rejection of socially acceptable goals. Merton’s definition coincides with Durkheim’s in this case because a lack of social regulation is the most likely cause for an individual to resort to ritualism. A similar lack of regulation can be seen in individuals who resort to innovation. In this case, however, the lack of regulation occurs in the individual’s access to or interesting making use of socially defined means.
In both cases we can see Durkheim’s definition at work; it seems however, that Merton has taken Durkheim’s theory a step farther. Merton’s focus on functionality as well as dysfunctionality caused him to view anomie with an eye toward deviance and alternatives to social norms. As a result he created a definition that, rather than being a blanket definition on the macrosociological level, was more specific and applied anomie on a more microsociological level which allowed for varying types and kinds of anomie.
Though Emile Durkheim and Robert K. Merton used different definitions of anomie and different frameworks on which to build their theories, it seems that the biggest difference was the scope each used as the focus of his framework. When one takes into account Durkheim’s ‘big picture’ approach and compares it with Merton’s ‘smaller picture’ approach, we can see the similarities of their definitions appreciate what each offers to the Functionalist study of society.
References:
Kivisto, P. (2005). Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited. Sage Publications, Inc. 3rd Ed. 59-91.
Wallace, R. A., Wolf, A. (2006). Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition. Prentice Hall. 6th Ed. 15-57.
