See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43481749

Sociology Themes and Perspectives

Article January 2000

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

179 26,087

6 authors, including:

Martin Holborn
The Open University (UK)
2 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Contemporary sociology textbook View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Holborn on 21 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Robert King Merton
1910-

Robert King Merton (b. 1910)

Anomie Revisited

The contemporary functionalist Robert K. Merton developed his early conceptions of

theoretical sociology at Harvard, within the historical and intellectual milieux shared
by his contemporaries Talcott Parsons (Chapter 7) and George Homans (Chapter 8).
One of his earliest and more enduring arguments was formed in the essay "Social
Structure and Anomie" (1938), written and published during the Great Depression in
the United States. The distress of this period appears to have forged a solid tradition
of order that shaped the Harvard mind, a tradition that Merton did not leave behind
when he joined the sociology faculty at Columbia University. However, he was to
modify somewhat the optimistic assessment of equilibrium that pervades that
theoretical sociology founded on the order paradigm.

Merton (1983) credits the then young Talcott Parsons as an important mentor along
with another grand theorist of systems, Pitirim Sorokin. And, as did Parsons, Merton
also came under the influence of the biochemist L. J. Henderson (see Chapter 7).
For several decades, Merton collaborated with Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist whose
major interests were community disorganization and the loss of autonomy. However,
it is to the French "master at a distance," Emile Durkheim, that Merton expressed his
greatest debt and rightly so.

Assumptions

Stated succinctly, Mertons image of human nature is centered in the

Hobbesian/Durkheimian problem of unrealistic expectations, while his image of
society reflects more an interest in balance than in change. Such images are
expressed theoretically in questions of social control, specifically, the relationship

83
between expectations of success and opportunities for success. (We shall explore
these shortly.) Moreover, Merton was to qualify the societal vision of functional unity
and inherent progress attributable to most order theorists.

As to his conception of sociology and its theory, Merton departed markedly from the
macro-level approach of Parsons and others. He came to view theory as the
development of middle-range propositions. Thus, instead of constructing grand and
abstract theories of society, theorists were advised to explain a restricted set of
social phenomena. These modest explanations were then to be verified through
empirical research and then perhaps systematized into theoretical systems of
boarder scope and content. Implicit, then, are Mertons assumptions on the
integrated nature of society, the need to control the victims of false expectations, and
the positivist nature of sociology.

Theoretical Content

Mertons final seminal work was in the form of a theoretical piece, "Social Structure
and Anomie," published in the American Sociological Review (1938). In it, he sought
an explanation for deviant behavior through an explication and refinement of
Durkheims conception of anomie. It is not our purpose to include in this book on
theories of society the more specialized forms of theoretical sociology. However, this
explanation of deviance is centered first of all at the societal level. Please recall that
Merton, as had his historical mentor, wrote in a context of crisis and change. And, as
did Durkheim, Merton focused on deviance as a consequence of structural
disorganization.

In this classification of anomic deviance, Merton explored the relationship between

cultural goals and the structural means to achieve those goals. For this sociologist,
when success goals were universally imposed on the members of society while the
means to achieve them were restricted for some members, deviance could be
expected on a broad scale. As evident in the following schemata, it is the type of
consistency or inconsistency between goals and means that leads to either
conformity or to one of the four "types" of anomic deviance. (See Figure 5.1.)

From Mertons scheme we can understand that the conformist internalizes the
common success goals but also has access to the approved means to realize the
goals. For the other relationships, a condition of goalsmeans dysjunction exists.
The innovator role manifests the adoption of disvalued means (for example, theft) to
realize success. The ritualist follows the rules obsessively but loses sight of the
overall goals (for example, the inflexible bureaucrat). The retreatist abandons both
success and goals and the means to realize them (for example, the drug addict). The
rebel rejects both the traditional goals and means, but envisions new ones as the
basis for a new social order. It should be stressed that Merton saw deviance not in
terms of personality types but as role responses to different forms of dysjunction.

Mertons theoretical contribution to the field of deviance serves as a window to his

later efforts to construct a system of functional analysis. Here he demonstrated his
proclivity for intensive study of a more limited theoretical puzzle. Yet it is obvious that
he sought to explain the puzzle of deviance in the conceptual language of sociology.

84
Like Durkheim, Merton avoided pathological interpretations based on either
biological or psychological variables.

In this theoretical matrix, actors in a social system are constrained by happenings in

the broader sphere of society. Deviant roles are not created by willful intent or
intimate experiences. They occur as patterned responses to a breakdown between
universal expectations (to be successful) and the availability of approved methods to
achieve those ends. Or in Mertons words, when a society professes that every office
boy can become president, while the avenues to such aspirations are socially
limited, the stage is set for deviance on a broad scale.

As with other order theorists, Merton came to focus in his later work on the social
consequences of patterned, predictable, and recurring phenomena (such as
societies, cultures, organizations, and groups). He also conceived of elements within
larger wholes in terms of their contribution to the adjustment of a given system
(Merton, 1968: 104). However, clearly evident in this early work in the theory of
deviance are distinctive properties that were carried throughout his career.

First of all, Merton focused on a more modest theoretical problem (in this case, that
of deviance). Second, his argument held that cultural ideals might in unintended
fashion serve as a source of unexpected role behavior. And finally, he noted that
many are not afforded the legitimate means to reach universal goals. Thus, he
intimated that not all existing practices contribute to the positive integration of the
total society.

By 1949 it was obvious that Merton would attempt to make over functionalism. And
in so doing, he came to modify the central premises of this theoretical system (1968:
73-138). Please understand that traditional functionalism, whether contained in the
organicism of the nineteenth century, or early cultural anthropology, or the emerging
systems approach in sociology (see Chapter 7), conceived of society and culture in
terms of unified wholes. Therefore, all customs, practices, and arrangements were
seen to contribute to the integration of the existing order. Merton took issue, arguing
instead that such a tightly drawn conception might be useful to understand more
homogeneous and smaller societies but that the complex and heterogeneous order
seldom reflects such perfect integration. For Merton, findings about the tightly knit
and traditional society could not be uncritically generalized to all societies.

Traditional functionalism also holds that whatever exists at a structural or cultural

level serves a positive function, a socially necessary purpose, or else it would not
exist. Merton was again to demur, arguing that the consequences of existing social
practices are not uniform for society. Thus, practices might be positive, negative, or
irrelevant for the social order in question. For example, it might be argued that
paying less for womens work has positive functions for the employers paying their
salary and for some men who are paid more to do comparable work. However, the
practice might prove to be dysfunctional not only for women but for a society in which
poverty is rapidly becoming feminized.

In a slightly different vein, Merton theorized that certain rituals or practices have no
important consequences for an existing social order. Such may be mere holdovers
from history. For example, groups such as the Womens Christian Temperance

85
Union are today merely shells of once powerful social movements. Hence, this
organization might be considered nonfunctional for the society at large.

Finally, traditional functionalism also embraces the fallacy of indispensability or

absolute necessity. Every part that exists in a societal or cultural system is seen as
essential and representing the only alternative. For Merton, however, alternative
practices, customs, and forms are often viable. Changing the part therefore, does not
presage the collapse of the whole, and certain parts of a societal system can be
eliminated or modified. Building upon this reformulation of functionalism as a system
of analysis, Merton offered other points of distinction.

First of all, it is not enough to analyze the manifest or apparent functions of social
elements. Modern functionalism must explore the latent or hidden consequences of
these repetitive and enduring patterns. For example, one might argue that poverty is
manifestly dysfunctional for society (as well as the poor) for a number of obvious
reasons. However, if we explore the latent consequences of poverty, we might find a
number of hidden benefits and beneficiaries.

Such an approach is evident in an essay by an urban sociologist who does not favor
poverty but seeks to explore its "positive functions" (Gans, 1972). Some of these
"benefits" are:

1. Poverty ensures the "dirty" work is done through maintaining a class of people
to fill the menial, temporary, dead-end jobs.
2. Poverty creates jobs for such people as welfare workers, criminal justice
personnel, and pawnshop owners (among others).
3. The poor can be identified and used as scapegoats for alleged or actual
deviance to define and uphold dominant norms.
4. The needy, particularly those disabled or otherwise incapacitated, allow us to
evidence pity, compassion, and charity toward the "less fortunate" (as long as
they are truly needy and deserving).
5. Those in want help the affluent through enhancement of their self-image
(knowing one is better off than other), and by means of their systematic
exclusion from competition for the better jobs. They also provide a purpose for
philanthropic organizations and the bureaucracy designed to help them.
6. The poor have historically built civilizations through slave labor, and through
their poetry and music (jazz, blues, spirituals, and "country") have enriched
the lives of the nonpoor.
7. Finally, the poor absorb the costs of progress (as with urban renewal) and
share disproportionately in the costs of welfare.

Second, functional analysis can be carried out at various levels. One might examine
the total society or culture, or opt to study less general but enduring formal
organizations (such as bureaucracies), or perhaps even family units. Each such
example reflects a different plateau within social order.

Third, Merton also sought to reconcile social determinism and individual volition
(Stinchcombe, 1975). He did so by arguing that the motivated actor selects from
among institutionalized patterns of choice. In effect he acknowledged that the human

86
condition does not revolve on a changeless normative axis. Everywhere, human
beings confront conditions of ambivalence where the rules are often in conflict.

Fourth, early organists often conceived of society as a self-correcting system,

evolving toward perfection. Merton, while not abandoning the emphasis on
adaptation, considered this a myth. Societies contain incongruities and
contradictions, ambiguities and confusion. In his revision of functionalism, Merton
sought to make its logic fit the old nemesis of change.

Fifth, Mertons multifaceted conception of function introduced a sociological form of

trade-off or net balance. By considering both the (positive) functions and (negative)
dysfunctions of social practices, it is possible to appreciate, if not resolve, the
complexities of social life.

Sixth, the contributions of this sociologist to theories of the "middle range" can be
found in works on deviance, bureaucratic life, mass communication, professional
socialization, and other substantive issues. Some of his more important conceptions
include the reference group and the self-fulfilling prophecy. By means of the former,
he accounted for the relationship between group orientation and self-appraisal.
Through the later, he demonstrated that a widely publicized and believed social
prediction may contribute to the very behavior that confirms the prophecy.

Critique

The theoretical sociology of Robert K. Merton is best conceptualized as a form of

neofunctionalism developed in response to the criticisms often leveled at is logical
base. However, this effort leaves many substantive points untouched, while several
of its reform raises new questions.

To begin, Mertons work may be an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. For

example, the effort to accommodate change occurs in a theoretical matrix primarily
concerned with adjustment and order. This means that such theory can conceive of
change only in the limited sense of tempering or eliminating certain dysfunctional
parts of the whole, a process that leaves the overall societal system intact. It is clear
that Mertons revision of functionalism does not address change at the societal or
institutional level. His focus was on adjustments that are consistent with the existing
nature of the social system. Thus the underlying dilemma of functionalist (as well as
organist and systems) theory remains untouched. In creating a portrait of order,
societal and cultural patterns emerge as systems of mutually reinforcing elements.
Substantive social change, specifically in the form of new institutions, is simply
unexplained. It can only represent, as it did in Mertons early sociology, a process
pushed by those trapped in deviant roles.

There are other examples of the union of opposites. Merton sought to soften the
Durkheimian image of the social actor as a passive respondent to impersonal and
external forces. And he also acknowledged, as we have seen, the troublesome
ambiguities of social life. However, these are qualifications of functionalism, not
basic departures from its cardinal premises. Merton has not succeeded in freeing the
actor from the subjugation of society. Nor have his concessions to societal

87
ambivalence altered an emphasis on a well-integrated (if not perfectly integrated)
normative order.

We should also recall that theoretical systems are, by definition, given to

explanation. Mertons reformulation of functionalism has rendered it a form of
analysis. Whether this is a blessing or a curse depends upon ones assumptions
about sociology. As a system of explanation, functionalism seeks to answer the
"why" of existing patterns by showing their purposes as well as their necessary
consequences of the system as a whole. However, Mertons reformulations
(including the concept of dysfunction) encourage us to analyze the consequences of
social practices while selectively rejecting their necessity or positive value. And this
introduces an important problem. Traditional functionalists do have an answer, albeit
a recurring one, for why a social or cultural phenomenon exists: It is necessary for
the whole; it contributes to the adaptation of society. Mertons logic, however, cannot
account for why a dysfunctional element exists and still remain functionalist logic.

Finally, whatever the intentions or beliefs of its makers, functionalism lends itself to a
conservative ideology. This is because the issues of conflict, inequality, state
coercion, and other sources of disharmony and change simply do not fit the logic of
this theory. Through purging functionalism of those premises that have drawn critical
fire, Mertons efforts may have created a more perfect conservatism. In the final
(functionalist) analysis, he has cast society as a system that adapts and survives
irrespective of some mistakes, normative ambiguity, and human volition.

Here the criticisms of functionalist thought are blunted in part through the forging of a
conceptual elasticity. Functions become dysfunctions, the positive becomes
negative, and society survives and adapts through trade-offs. By such means, social
systems of whatever range become less rigid, more able to adapt while remaining
the same.

(Mooney, Knox, and Schacht 2000:90-92; Perdue 1986:84-86)

Mooney, Linda A., David Knox, and Caroline Schacht. 2000.

Understanding Social Problems. 2d ed. Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth.

Perdue, William D. 1986. Sociological Theory: Explanation,

Paradigms, and Ideology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing
Company.

88
 Robert Merton's Classification of Anomic Deviance
(also known as Merton's Five Types of Adaptation)
Culturally Structurally
Role
Defined Defined Explanation
Behavior
Goals Means
Conformity occurs when individuals accept the
culturally defined goals and the socially
legitimate means of achieving them. Merton
+ + Conformist suggest that most individuals, even those who
do not have easy access to the means and
goals, remain conformists.
Innovation occurs when an individual accepts
the goals of society, but rejects or lacks the
socially legitimate means of achieving them.
Innovation, the mode of adaptation most
+ - Innovator associated with criminal behavior, explains the
high rate of crime committed by uneducated and
poor individuals who do not have access to
legitimate means of achieving the social goals
of wealth and power.
The ritualist accepts a lifestyle of hard work, but
rejects the cultural goal of monetary rewards.
This individual goes through the motions of
- + Ritualist getting an education and working hard, yet is
not committed to the goal of accumulating
wealth or power.
Retreatism involves rejecting both the cultural
goal of success and the socially legitimate
- - Retreatist means of achieving it. The retreatist withdraws
or retreats from society and may become an
alcoholic, drug addict, or vagrant.
Rebellion occurs when an individual rejects both
culturally defined goals and means and
substitutes new goals and means. For example,
-/+ -/+ Rebel rebels may use social or political activism to
replace the goal of personal wealth with the goal
of social justice and equality.

Key + = acceptance of/access to, - = rejection of/lack of access to, -/+ = rejection of culturally
defined goals and structurally defined means and replacement with new goals and means

Source: Perdue, William D. 1986. Sociological Theory: Explanation, Paradigms, and Ideology.
Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, pp. 83-89

http://www.bolender.com/Dr.%20Ron/SOC4044%20Sociological%20Theory/Class%20Sessions/Soci
ological%20Theory/Merton,%20Robert%20King/merton,_robert_king.htm (accessed 8.1.09)

89

View publication stats