R.K. MERTON
Theory building strategy: i.e. methodology & the kind of theory
that he develops. C.W. Mills called his theory as the grand theory. It is too
grand to be of any use.
R. K. Merton who was parson’s student & a lifelong critique
builds this criticism in a systematic way. This criticism is also present in
another statement ‘status quoits ideology be not theory at all. This inadequacy
of parson’s work is fully explicit in Merton’s criticism.
Merton says Parson’s approach to theory building is sterile &
premature & therefore futile. It appears to be motivated by extra scientific
concerns1. Imitating matured sciences like physics.
2. Utilitarian concern because it seeks to answer every problem e.g. Role of
religion, nature of power.
Premature: Parson was trying to answer every question in future
and he was trying to be the Einstein of sociology while sociology did not even
have had a Kepler, Einstein presented a single theory to explain all forces in
universe. This is the ultimate ambition of any science. Parsons is trying to do
that what was justified for physics or physicist like Einstein to entertain such an
ambition but it is premature for sociology & Parsons. In every science, we stand
on the shoulder of grant who stands beneath.
Kepler
Newton
Maxwell
Max Planck
Einstein
Before, Einstein millions of man hours of research had gone into
physics Sociology has not Yet produced a Kepler even, so we cannot directly
hope to produce Einstein. A scientific theory must be rooted in empirical
research i.e. grounded theory according to Merton.
We go to higher levels of generalization &create different theories
into unified model. This is how science proceeds. No such thing has happened
in sociology. So it is premature.
1
Sterile: A theory to be productive because from the existing theory
we can deduce a specific & testable hypothesis which is then presented for
empirical validation. The basis of testability of hypothesis lies in its potential
falsifiablity. It should be possible to disprove it.
It has not been arrived at through empirical research, just logically
connecting different aspects & ideas. So it is a mere ideology. Such kind of all
embracing theories are nothing more than general orientations which suggest the
kind of variables that we must take into account while looking for data.
On the other hand, a truly scientific theory is a clearly formulated,
verifiable statement with specific variables. Parson’s model is not verifiable of
testable. We should have given to the present level of sociology the theories
of middle range as science of society is in its early stages.
Middle Range Theories
1. They are limited generalization.
2. They are sufficiently close to empirical reality so that specific & empirically
viable hypothesis can be deduced from them.
3. They use concepts which can be operationalised.
4. Such theories are grounded theories rooted in empirical data.
5. They transcend the level of mere empirical generalism. They are
sufficiently abstract & general to deal with different spheres of social behaviors
& social strucuture e.g. if there is a theory of conflict, it is general enough to
accounts for different kinds of conflicts e.g. ethnic, class, I.N. inter personal.
6. They cut across the distinction between micro level studies & macro level
generalization. They act as a link providing a bridge between micro sociology &
macro sociology.
7. They don’t make claims to answer all practical problems as the total
sociological systems like that of Parsons which try to offer totoal solution. They
address themselves to only those problems that can be clarified in the light of
available knowledge. Infact, they specify ignorance i.e. they recognize what is
still to be learned to lay the foundations of more certain knowledge.
8. However, the middle range theories do not remain isolated but are
integrated into a wider network of theories.
2
So sociology needs such kind of middle range theories and Merton
regards Durkheim’s theories and Merton regards Durkheim’s theory of suicide
as e.g. of Middle Range theory. Because it is,
1.
Rooted in empirical data.
2.
Not a mere empirical generalization. It is derived from data mere
empirical generalization. But his theory of suicide which states that the rate of
suicide is inversely proportional to solidarity is a more abstract theory. He gave
higher order abstraction.
OPERATIONALISED: externalizing what is an internal
phenomenon i.e. redefining a concept in terms of observable & verifiable
indices. Many sociological concept are abstract & defined in terms of
observable indices e.g. alienation. Alienation is state of mind. It has to be
defined in term of certain indices.
NUMBER OF STRIKES: Worker’s turnover
GROUNDED THEORIES: Arrived at on basis of empirical data.
MICRO LEVEL: Direct observation of small groups. Every science tries to
propound as macro a theory as possible. Don’t jump to macro without micro
research. Move from lower top higher levels.
Even Merton was criticized for his middle range theories.
CRITICISM OF MERTON’S APPROACH
ROBERT BIERSTADT: says that these middle range represent
an anemic type i.e. a very low level of intellectual ambition i.e. a very limited
typeof intellectual ambition. It means a loss of vision & loss of sociological
imagination. The vision of totality is lost. It will lead to loss of macro
sociological inquiry.
All sociology would be decreased to micro
sociologicallevel.
Middle range theory is hardly more than empirical
generalization,
3
FRANCIS: It will lead to fragmentation of knowledge into larg
number of unrelated theories. Merton tries to defend himself saying that basic
aim of macro & middle range theory is same. Middle range theory is the
beginning. They actually integrate rather than fragmenting.
THEORY & FACT (PAPER-II)
Relationship between theory & research:
1. When an empirical generalisation is conceptualized in an abstraction of
higher order, it becomes theory relevant or it takes the form of theory. The
purpose of arriving at a theory through empirical generalisation is to widen or
increase the scope of original empirical findings, whereby seeming by disparate
finding come to be regarded as interrelated.
2. The conversion of an empirical generalisation or a number or empirical
uniformities into theoretic statements leads to fruitfulness of research.
3. A theory provides or establishes a rationale and thereby introduces a ground
for prediction. Thus, contributing to the usefulness of knowledge.
Science stands on theory & research. What is the significance of
each & how do they influences each other?
Merton tries to explain it. E.g. Durkheim’s study of suicide can be
viewed as the rate of psychic morbidity is inversely proportional to solidarity.
Spread of education high literacy, sudden money inflow in Kerala leads to high
anomie which ultimately leads to high anomie which ultimately leads to high
suicide rate.
Consequences of research for theory:
According to Merton, traditionally, a passive role is assigned to the
research of testing & validating existing theory from existing theory, we deduce
a hypothesis. Besides, there are many7 other ways, in which research affects
theory building.
1. Research initates new theories.
4
2. It reformulates existing theories.
3. It refocuses or deflects the focus of the existing theory.
4. It clarifies the theory.
In addition to testing & validating a theory, research influences
theory building in 4 ways.
1.
INITIATES: According to Merton, in the course of research, by chances
by sagacity one may come across unanticipated, anomalous but strategic data
which exert pressure for initating a new theory i.e. serendipity.
2.
REFORMULATES: it may not be the new data that you may across.
But its theoretic pertinence/importance was not realized before e.g. Malinowsky
study in Trobary Islands case of magic. Fraser Knew that in some instances,
magic is practiced & others not Malinowsky developed the concept further.
Found in case of deep sea fishing high degree if anxiety & technique was
inadequate.
3.
REFOCUSSES/ DEFLECTS: actually scientists are like a man on street
searching. He identified questions like:
1.
If there is a general belief among people that leaders are self seeking and
indifferent to people’s needs? Affirmative = anomic
2.
Life is becoming more and more unpredictable and lacking order and
stability? Affirmative= anomie
3.
Existence has no meaning.
4.
One cannot depend on friend and relative for help.
Subjective Indices: Bernard Lander tried to identify objectives indices eg.
1.
If crime rate is high = anomie
2. Population is culturally/ ethnically diverse= anomie
In repeated research, all the hidden concepts of research
become explicit. For a needle under the lamppost scientisat when look at a
phenomena they explain it to the extent that data are available e.g. relationship
between determinants of gender based difference in personality. People through
few differences:
Social science developed- Culture plays role
5
Social biology- Hormonal differences have a bearing on personality
traits.
4. CLARIFIES: All concepts are abstractions. In the course of research, we
operatinalise these concepts & this hidden dimensions of concepts become
manifest e.g. Anomie. Merton has sighted two examples that how depending on
research purpose & technique adopting, different dimension of anomie are made
explicit Interview technique: highlighted psychological collusion collection of
anomie.
FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM
Functionalism came in for sever criticism as a conservative
teleology. As long as this approach was applied for study of small scale
societies, it worked because
1.
They could be directly observed positive society was the basis of
functionalism.
2.
Based on organic analogy
Disposition toward stability & harmony i.e. how does stability,
equilibrium result?, is the question raised by functionalism. Answering it like
biologists would say, body has need for energy, oxygen, transport mechanism,
pumping mechanism if all parts, are doing their work, we sill stay alive.
Society- needs, parts fulfill needs Functional unity & harmony between parts
& whole.
Whatever, they found in society, related it to needs. They could
not account for conflict. They acknowledge conflict, but could not account for
it. His notion of system did not allow Parsons to go that far. The impression of
functional unity is true for civiol societies but not for societies like Afghanistan
(1980-2002) -22 Years of war & destruction, LEBANON- Processual stages.
Afghans were trying to move from advanced primitive is Industrial
society but there was civil war. So, functional analysis was referred to as a
conservative teleology. Merton stepped in at this point. In 1950s, like an insider
who wants to prevent outsiders to attack the house, he wanted to set the house in
order.
6
Merton tried to modify & codify functional analysis so that it could
be adapted to study of contemporary Industrial societies & can be from
conservative teleology criticism.
CLASSICAL FUNCTIONALISM- though was suited to simple societies
could not explain Industrial societies.
Merton while the critiques are labeling functional analysis as
conservative functionalists themselves are trying to defend by claiming their
approach to be radical understanding of religion. It demystified religion.
Merton says both criticism & defense are unwarranted why?
He says conservatism or radicalism both happen to be the attributes
of ideology. Methodology cannot be subjected to such kind if value judgement
e.g. microscope & telescope. But he, says functional analysis, (avoids
categorizing functionalism or structural functionalism as an ideology) because it
is a methodology it assumptions which are questionable but, have never
bothered to test them in the light of empirical data& therefore, those assumptions
have been treated by classical functionalist as self evidently true i.e. a postulate
(a statement which is self evidently true& does not need to be tested. ( Axiom is
even more evidently true) 3 assumptions of functionalists are questionable &
since they have never been subjected to validation, as Merton calls them.
1.
Postulate of functional unity
2.
Postulate of universal functionalism
3.
Postulate of functional indispensability
FUNCTIONAL UNITY
Merton says, it is explicitly stated by Bogardus. But this idea is
present in Merton & Parsons as well. Bogardus said, every social system must
have minimal functional unity i.e. the parts of social system must have a
minimum degree of harmony. He said that we have to demonstrate how need for
functional unity is fulfilled by various structural forms. This is a logical
deduction from organismic system.
Bogardus then jumps to the next stage that how functional unity is
to be attained?
Merton agrees that social system should have certain degrees of functional unity,
practice it should not be converted into necessary concerns of functional unity
because if Bogardus had found functional unity empirically he would have
7
functional disunity. So sociologist is faced with the question that how functional
unity & disunity result? So, he failed to account for conflict in social life.
Universal Functionalism
Merton says that this assumption is most explicity present in the
writing of Malinowsky, every cultural item satisfied some need or the other.
Whatever exists is for the good. Merton says this in addition with the 1 st
postulate which implies that
1.
There is total peace & harmony
2.
Peace & harmony is result of all items that are there, as they are useful.
Although malinowsky was trying to add a corrective to
ethnocentrism 3 possibilities are there
1.
2.
3.
Good: a) society b) Individual
Harm: a) society b) Individual
Help & Harm both
Certain things neither help nor harm. They may indeed be left over
of the past, neither helping, nor harming. There are three possibilities:
Eu functional - Good consequences
Dys functional - Bad consequences
Non functional - Neither good nor bad
These consequences may be good for part of society, individual &
bad for other Parts of society as a whole e.g. People reviving ethnic identity
Good for religion.
Division in the society.
Simultaneously, same thing can be good & bad e.g. Smoking- bad,
but prevents Alzheimer’s disease. Occupation: Presuming good consequences
can lead to Absurd explanations.
Functional indispensability –
Corollary of first two-
8
Automatically follows from the 1st two. If there is harmony in
society & every item exist for good then, it is indispensable – can be interpreted
in 2 ways:
1.
Certain needs indispensable e.g. law and order.
2.
Certain parts are indepensade.
Certain needs indispensable is correct but, not certain parts.
When you arrive at this corollary, you become conservative,
opposing to change in parts. They should have thought, that in case negative
consequences outweigh Eu-functional consequences, part should be replaced by
its functional alternative or functional equivalent to avoid those harmful effects
e.g. Religion as basis of community formation & political mobilization is
harmful. Secular nationalism – alternative, Humanism – alternative
In terms of these 3 postulates, he finds that these ideas should have
been treated as assumptions subjected to empirical validation because they have
been treated as postulates. Functionalism has acquired the tinge of ideology.
No conflict
No change
He goes onto suggest his functional paradigm which he calls as
modification & codification of functional analysis. In light of this criticism
while making formal statement, he lists steps that must be followed while
carrying out functional analysis.
1.
2.
3.
4.
FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM
Items i.e. a social role, social process or any aspect of social organism that is
being studied, that is to be subjected to functional analysis, must be closely
described in detail on the basis of empirical observation such a description will
provided a due to the function performed by the item.
On the basis of empirical observation sociologist should look for subjective
dispositions i.e. stated purpose of item or motives and sociologist.
Should distinguish between subjective disposition & objective consequences.
The motive for conformity or deviance should also be identified.
Subjective disposition or motives well provide an idea about manifest function
of the item. The motive for deviance & conformity will give an idea as to
whether psychic needs of individual are fulfilled or not.
9
5. The objective consequences must be distinguished in terms of Eufunction &
dysfunction
6. Distinction between subjective disposition & objective consequences, would
help to distinguish between manifest & latent functions.
Manifest functions are those which are intended & recognized.
Latent functions are those objective consequences which are not
intended & recognized.
Merton admits that he was not the 1st one to distinguish between
manifest & latent. The idea was present in Durkheim’s & Malinowsky’s
functional analysis. He was just systematically explaining & made formal
statement of this distinction.
Durkheim- Religion - When people participle in totem worship
they are not seeking solidarity but solidarity is what results. MalinowskyMagic – drives away anxiety objective consequence
Why this distinction is important?
1. It helps us to explain as to why seemingly irrational activities persist in social
life e.g. Religion. Hopi Indian rain ceremony: - Performing dance & worship
provides supernatural powers for rain. Make fire; let a black smoke cloud go
into sky. This will form rain bearing cloud & give rain. Intended consequence
is irrational but latent function of solidarity is attained.
2. It direct attention to the fruitful fields of enquiry & leads to significant increase
in knowledge e.g. increase in wages in industry. Intended- Make employees
happy Motivate employees to work more. Unintended – more people will go
holidaying, Demands for luxury items increase.
Concern for latent
consequences test knowledge for social phenomenon more.
HAWTHORNE STUDY: Changed behavior of people as they were being
observed, new insights into social phenomenon can be attainted – increase in
knowledge.
3. It also prevents naïve (simplistic) moral judgments, e.g. political machine in
America- political machine is an informal & loose knit organized structure
headed by political base & beneath it are precinct captains, in charge of every
10
unit. Precinct captains maintain informal relation with people. They try to help
people by getting their work done.
They are criticized for being immoral. Merton calls. It naïve judgment.
Actually federal system is defunct in America & Party system is also defunct.
Political machine’s latent function is to solve the problem of inadequacy of
government so distinction between manifest & latent function is very crucial for
sociology.
4. We should also identify while looking for consequences of items, the range of
units served by the item i.e. individual, sub- system (Merton Added it), total
social system. Religion: individual, religious community, society.
5. There should be also empirical identification of the needs at all these levels &
detailed account of mechanism of how these needs are fulfilled.
6. Net balance functions should be arrived at.
7. In case of an item having more dysfunctional consequences, the dysfunctional
consequences may account for conflict. Thus, Functional analysis can also
account for conflict.
8. Secondly, for items with dysfunctional consequences, we should think of
functional equivalents.
Thus, we can account for change as functional equivalent replacing
dysfunctional item. When we look for functional equivalents, we should keep
structural constraints in mind.
(Alternate should integrate with other
subsystem). How change results?
9. Dysfunctional items result in structural strain & accumulation of strain
demands change to relieve strain.
10.
Such a functional analysis should b subject to repeated validation &
investigator should also identify, that if any of the assumption, has brought in
ideological bias. Thus, functional analysis can be used to arrive at theories of
middle range.
DEVIANCE
Any act or behaviour that deviates from the norms is called Deviance:
1. Some degree or variation from the norm is eve3r present. When deviation goes
beyond tolerance limit of the society, only then, it is labeled as deviance.
11
2. Deviance is both rewarded as well as punished by the society e.g. Nobel laureate
propounds a new theory. Reformers begin as deviants, so deviance may be
positively sanctioned or negatively sanctioned.
3. Deviance is relative, to time and place.
What is deviant in one society may not be deviant in another. What is
deviant today may not be deviant tomorrow. On the other hand, the behaviour in
which members of society consciously and deliberately follow the norms are
called as Conformity/ Conformists behaviour.
Deviance has been an important area of stud; Most of these studies are
concerned, particularly with criminal deviance i.e. when act violates from legal
norms and thus invites legal sanctions.
Bio- theories: Among the earliest attempts to account for deviance was in the
field of biology. Italian Dr. Lambroso in late 19th Century, he tried to account
for deviance in terms of biological factor. Deviant is throwback to primitive
from. Those genes dominant in primitive man become dominant deviant is bown
size of jaw, limbs, and body built and so on i.e. bio-deformity leads to deviance.
Sheldon and Eleanor Gleuck: Identify mesormorphs, a particular
body built as deviance. A research in British among criminal lodged in prisons
show an extra ‘y’ chromosome percentage of extra ‘y’ Character high in those
lodge in high security prisons. High Glycenira leads to deviance.
Hormonal factors
Men tend to be more aggressive and violent than women. Excess
testosterone may be responsible. Pre-menstrual syndrome in female may result
in deviance. Serotonin imbalance is seen as related to deviant behaviour. May
be genetic factor act as prsssssedisposing factors. Some of these theories are
taken seriously in forensic science. Though sociologist under play the role of
biological factors.
Psychological Theories
1. Those that see deviance as a result of inherited psychic abnormality.
12
2. Acquired as a result of inadequate socialization or Undesirable experience in
social life.
Hans Eysenck: British psychologist: Identified a personality type i.e.
Extraversion. It is an inherited tendency. Such individuals have a craving for
excitement. Do unusual things and end up as deviants.
Neo- Freudians: Relates deviance to socialization failure or incomplete
socialization. Whereby there is under repression. (Society by inculcating norms
and values tries to control Libido driven personality. Where supergo is weak of
individual is not able to re4solve Oedipus or Electra Complex- Male tendency
to seek sexual gratification with mother. Female child sub-consciously attracted
to father.) By adolescence, this complex sublimates. They start identifying with
their mother and father. Where these complexes are not resolved, this can create
deviant tendency.
John Bowlby: in forty four Juvenile thieves: Chronic recidivists i.e. Juvenile
delinquents; habitual tendency to commit crime. Even, if punished, still commit
crime. He pointed out that most juvenile delinquents lacked intimate relation
with mother in childhood. They become in sensual to pain and suffering of
others i.e. become remorseless e.g. Charle Shobhraj- Criminality was lack or
result of intimacy with mother.
Robert G. Andry: Male children who have a hostile relation with their father
e.g. Hitler grew up intensely hating his father. Such people act out their hostility
on others. Hitler’s father intensely maltreated his mother. Both are the cases of
inadequate socialization.
CRITICISM
Sociologists tend to question these theories both biological and
psychological because they treated deviant as abnormal being in a normal
society. This prepares the ground for ill-fit mated out to deviants. Genes have
become scientific substitutes for deviant. Deviant is condemned to ill treated.
13
Sociologists pointed out that a mesomorph may be poor, receives less
neutral in childhood. In adulthood, physically work is more so having muscular
body. They also reject the view that individual is prisoner of early childhood
experience which he simply acts out in late life.
Sociologists say that a deviant is a normal being in an abnormal society.
Bio-psychic personality does not matter at all is over-statement.
Sociological theories supplement them and pointed out the role of social factors
towards deviance. Moreover, the methodology, used in these studies is suspect
as there is no clean distinction between natural and abnormal personality
characteristics.
Durkhiem
One of the earliest sociologists to address this issue. According to him deviance
is unavoidable. There can never be complete socialization. Conscience
collective cannot be fully followed by all. Deviance is also normal & healthy
that some degree of deviance may exist. Conscience collective if becomes too
repressive; it may suppress all tendencies of reforms, innovations. Creative
genius may survive because of weaker hold of conscience collective, will also
enable some criminal to survive. Later on, he related deviance to anomie.
Inadequacy of norms in existing society or co-existence of contradictory norms
are other factors for deviance.
R.K. Merton
Systematic study of deviance begins with the work of R.K.Merton, who in
1936, developed his Paradigm of anomie to account for deviance. It was his
first major work, which brought him into light. It was not based on careful
empirical research and was not middle range theory. He has developed, further
upon Durkheim’s concept of anomie. Whoever, one more dimension of anomie
i.e. lacks or coordination of incongruence between culturally defined goals and
14
structurally avoidable means. Culture in every society, defines some objective of
life, in terms of which life is considered worthwhile e.g. financial success
Structural avenues: How to achieve these goals? E.g. By being genius in
I.T., if there is a lack of coordination between two i.e. means do not take to goal.
Lack of coordination between Cultural approved goals and structurally
available means is what Merton calls anomie. Taking America e.g. American
culture emphasizes pecuniary success as Yardsticts of successful life. Various
ways in which individuals can adapt to this situation. They have worked out
logically not empirically, Idea of middle Range theory came in 1940’s while this
paradigm was published in 1936.
Merton classified five types of Deviance on the bases of culturally defined
goal and structurally available means:
Conformist
Culturally defined goal= +
and
Means structurally available = +
Accept culturally defined goals and social structure that you also have access
to legislative means which will enable you to achieve these goals e.g. Prakash
Amritraj son of Vijay Amritraj, tennis player, so has means to become tennis
player. Opportunity structure is accessible. Mostly, middle and upper middle
class members respond in this way.
Innovator
Culturally defined goal= +
and Means structurally available = Members of lower class id they have imbibed cultural goals e.g. one of the
many sons of constable dreams of becoming big, becomes D. Abraham Adopts
illegal means to achieve goals because of lack of access to legislative
opportunity structure
Ritualist
Culturally define goal= -
and
Means structurally available = +
15
Those who are member of lower middle class. Very conscious of righteous
conduct, not ready to deviate from means. Sticks to means and loses track of
goals. He becomes stickler for means without reaching for goals.
Retreatist
Culturally defined goal= - and Means structurally available = No access to means, so shuns goals e.g. suicide, drug abuse, alcoholics. This
can happen to any class in social structure.
Culturally defined goal =/- and Means structurally available =+/Abandon existing means and goals and create alternate means and goals
rebels are likely to be drawn from emergent class e.g. Gandhi.
The last four are deviants.
Deviance is a product of social structure. Mostly likely response is
innovation Terrorists may start as rebels, end up as innovators. Merton’s
explanation is called as Structural theory of deviance. Anomie is structural
condition that results in strain and deviance
Criticism
Albert Cohen: Merton’s theory can explain pecuniary deviance i.e.
directed towards financial gains. It does not explain senseless violence,
vandalism, non-pecuniary deviance. Such kind of deviance is a safety valve. In
the case of poor born out of status frustration; mainstream cultural goals are too
far away. Deviant act is a safety value.
This came to be further criticized by Cloward and Ohlins:
IN
Delinquency and opportunity. It does not explain why some people should
become innovators, ritualists etc. Merton and Cohen have already looked at
legitimate opportunity structure. Cloward and Ohlins say there is also
illegitimate opportunity structure, there is Criminal sub-culture. So, pecuniary
deviance is a part of life. People are inducted into criminal sub-culture. Where
even illegitimate opportunity structure is not there and people fail to get
16
legitimate opportunity structure leads to Conflict sub-culture result. Senseless
violence because of status frustration; non- pecuniary deviance. Those who fall
in both legitimate opportunity and ill-legitimate opportunity structure become
Retreatists
.
Walter Miller: Criminals are not always those who fail to gain access to
legitimate opportunity structure. They may not be deviants. May be deviant for
society at large. Character poverty may lead to alternate cultural values e.g.
toughness, smartness- culture of poverty as said by Oscar lew. So try to be
smart at pick pocketing, boxing etc. sustain be in around Delhi, Pardhi in M.P.
They use special instrument to back skull of sleeping people and then role.
It is part of their culture. They worship their Goddess before robbery.
David Matza: Techniques of Neutralisation in A theory of Delinquency
“Delinquent and Drift” says overemphasis on difference between criminal and
non-criminal difference is minor. Even deviants believe in values of society.
This is evident on the basis of his research. In deviants, there is invariably an
attempt at neutralization of deviance. They try to disown the responsibility,
denial of injury; denials that act was basically wrong, condemnation of those
who enforce rules eg. Everybody is corrupt only I am caught everybody is thief,
only small are caught. They appear to higher loyalties eg. Murders are for the
higher cause of religion. Resorting to technique of neutralization shows partial
acceptance of societal rooms and they employ one set of societal norms to be
others.
In his paper “Juvenile Delinquent and Subterranean Values”,
Subterranean Values: Even among law abiding people, there are sub-values to
give expression to yourself eg. Boxing, do what you like. They are at variance
with formal values, but exist among everybody. This explains middle class
delinquent only difference is that young people lay greater emphasis on these
values. Crime becomes a way of overcoming the mood of fatalism. i.e. Feeling
utterly helpless , ignored to acquire mood of humanism e.g.9/11 was an attempt
to make a statement that America are doing something lead. In “Delinquent
and Drift” he explain that young people flit with deviant behaviour and this
explains their ease to abandon delinquent.
17
The Ecology of crime: Chicago School: They tried to explain deviance in
terms of social ecology. Two sociologists Cliffard Shaw and Henry McKay
conducted survey in Chicago by dividing city into 5 Zones and collected data
from Juvenile court. They found variation in same in various zones.
Inner city: 5terms greater than suburban zone called inner city as “Zone of
transition” because of high population turnover. High rate of population
turnover prevents former social relations from developing and results in social
disorganization, consisted of poor, migrants, ethnically diverse, lacked stable
employment, males. Family and community ties were very weak, neighborhood
ties weak, prostitution, social drinking. Migrants moved to higher income areas
once they have established making room for new arrivals.
Sub-urban area: Marries stable employment, more family ties leads to low rate
of crime. Particular setting encourages crime. These are all structural theory of
crime opposed to this developed interactionists and Marxist view.
Interactionist
Structuralist: social structure responsible for crime
Interactionists: Interaction process responsible for crime
Structuralist theory: Explain primary deviance, not secondary deviance i.e. why
people take crime as a carrier.
Howard Becker: in “Labelling Theory”
Give the dog a bad name, there are all chance that he will live up to that
expectation. To steal is far more common, than being called a thief. Society
applies label in context of behaviour. The behaviour becomes deviant when
other labels it as such. Whether or not the label is applied will depend on how
the act is interpreted by the audience. This depends on who commits the act,
when and where it is committed, who observes the act and the negotiations
between various actors involved in interaction situation. Once that label is
given, it becomes a master status and loses opportunity on other fronts. No
choice but to take to crime for livelihood. They mix up with those who are
similarly labeled. In this context, he confirms his deviant identity. Within the
group deviant subculture develops which provides ways of avoiding trouble with
commentional society. Deviant identification tends to become controlling one.
18
Finally, he becomes professional criminal as the activity becomes more central
and as the reason of police against deviant activity becomes stronger.
Erving Goffmann
Total institutions like psychology hospitals and prisons lead to lot of
individual of developed activity. Other’s account of yours is trusted more. Over
a period of time you are convinced of being a lunatic. Through a series of
interactions, pressure is placed upon the inmate to accept the institutions
definitions of himself. He himself is he inmate of various supports which help
to maintain former self concept. Some become institutionalized and believe
themselves unable to function in the outside world. There is a period of
temporary disculturation which means that the former inmate must relearn some
of the basic recipes living in the outside world. The most lasting consequences
is lable of ex-mental patient of ex-convict. So interaction process in total
institutions results in deviance as they reinforce rather than reduce deviance.
Aaron V. Cicourel: in “The Social Organisation of Juvenile Justice”.
Observed how interaction between police and criminals led to labeling of people
as criminal. Cicourel through his research in two Californian cities found that
higher rates of deviance in lower strata are due to the differential treatment by
the police. Police interrogate those, whom they consider suspicious, wrong and
strange. Such meanings re related to people from low income areas. Further, a
juvenile officer attaches meanings to people coming from broken homes, poor
school performance, and low income families etc. as more likely to be deviants
middle class families negotiate with the officer and assure him of taking proper
care of their child and so a middle class child only regarded as ill, rather than
criminal. Thus, justice is negotiable.
So delinquents are produced by agents of social control.
Edwin M. Lemert
He made distinction between primary and secondary deviation.
19
Primary Deviance: Which consists of deviant acts before they are publicly
labeled? Secondary Deviance: is the response of individual or group to
societal reaction. The statistical data is based on secondary deviants. But
actually, the deviance may be so wide spread in the society that it may be normal
in statistical terms. But, once the person is labeled as deviant, the original
causes of deviance may receds and give way to disapproving and isolating
reactions of society. Thus societal reason can be seen as the major cause of
deviance.
He Proved this point in his paper ‘Stuttering among the North Pacific
Coastal Indians”. He found absence of stuttering among North American
Indian. However, it was prevalent among the tribes living in North Pacific
Coastal area of British Columbia and famous orators. Children and parents are
anxious about any speech irregularity and response with guilt and shame. This
societal reason actual creates stutter. Thus, a society action about particular
form of deviance actually produces it.
Chicago School: Bernard Lander in his study of Baltimore city argues that
social disorganization provides key to explaining social deviance.
It echoes the view that rate of delinquent is related to economic factors. It tries
to link structural and sub-structural theories with theory of community.
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Merton along with Parsons was one of the dominant figures in American
sociology till 1970s. According to a survey of sociology textbooks published in
America after WW-II, it has been found that Merton and Parsons dominate
textbook up to 1980s. Although from late 1970s Marx’s influence stated
declining. Conflict theory & interactionists were also sighted along with Merton
and parsons. He has been called discipline builder.
Prophetic sociology is priestly sociology. Prophet is a visionary while
priest is a ceremonialist. Priest tells how exactly ceremolny to be reformed is.
He is concerned about procedural details while prophet is concerned about moral
issues Larger question of life are raised & answered by the prophet .
20
What is right for society?
How to carry out research, elaborate details of method – priestly. There is a
shift in sociology from prophetic mode to priestly mode. So according to Peter
Hamilton, as a sociologist Robert Merton stands at a cross road between
getting sociologists of the 19th and early 20th centuries & professional and
institutionalized sociology of the present day.
Among those who facilitated this transition, Merton takes one of the major
credits. 19th century and early 20th century sociology’s orientation was more
intellectual, concerned with fundamental problems of life addressed to very
limited group of people. After WW-II, became popular discipline & this man,
sociology was developed as a result of rapid expanse of popular & sociology
was being seen as prerequisite of sustained economic growth sociology is used
to solve practical problems of social life.
Merton was first to pursue this. He directed & professionalized sociology.
Merton is one of the influences in the rise of standard American sociology.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Character of standard American sociology
Contemporary focus: Aim of study is a contemporary issue.
Functional theoretical approach locating social phenomena in their structure
An interest in developing a theory.
A sophisticated empirical research approach.
Considerable degree of moral & political detachment.
1. Whole research is focused on contemporary issues, so more practical in its
orientation.
2. Functional orientation methodologically adopting functional approach at the
same time seeing phenomenon in broader structural concept.
3. Through research develop a theory.
4. Lot of care being given to develop refined methods of research.
5. Not adopting a moral stance.
21
Merton facilitated this transition to great extent.
These
methodological concerns earned him a label – sociologist. WW-II was
following by a rapid economic growth & use of more advanced technique
prolonged was triggered technological breakthrough. American only 4% of
youngsters who should have been in collage was in collage as per age in 1901.
At end of 20th century more than 70% were in college.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Education came to be integrated more & more with economic.
Importance fields of interest for Merton
Methodology including concern with nature of sociologist theory
Sociology of science.
Deviance
Urban sociology
Mass communication particularly advertising & propaganda..
Sociology of professions including medical profession.
CRITICISM
Functional analysis:
Merton made of a very significant
contribution by adapting functional analysis to study of Modern Industrial
Society. Functional Analysis was unable to account for conflict & change
through the concept of dysfunction & functional alternative. Merton tried to
eliminate conservation & teleological bias. However, Merton himself did not
follow all the procedural steps that he had suggested in his functional paradigm.
In 60s & 70s. his interest was drifted away from functional analysis to structural
analysis.
His concept of dysfunction: there’s nothing in his theory model to predict that
which aspect will result in dysfunction. Only in retrospect one can find out so.
His use of term functional alternative has been found to be little absurd because
what he is calling functional alternative is structural alternative as he talks of one
part replacing the other.
Conservative bias still persists in his analysis because the model is suitable to
stable western societies. Not suitable to under 3 rd world societies with
widespread conflict.
His analysis of political machine is a conservative teleology. Just because
political machine is there, he calls it indispensable.
22
According to Elvin Gouldner, Merton’s essay on social structure & anomie is
like using Marx to pry open Freud i.e. Marxian analysis to understand mind. He
begins like a rebel where he admits that not everything in society works for
advantage of everyone. Structural avenues are of no use to that present critique
of capital society i.e. intercontradiction of capitalism. Subsequently he went on
to make peace with establish interest i.e. status quo. Merton has not
systematically analyzed power system & their implication.
RANDALL COLINS: Conflict thinker argued that if there is a central theme
that underlies all of Merton’s work it is an effort to diffuse stratification issues.
May be Mc Carthian Political climate had something to do with it. Even in
Merton’s sociology of science, he explains how science developed as a result of
Protestantism.
Colins says there were also commercial & military ethos behind
e.g. Galileo hired by Duke of Milan to improve trajectory of his canon shot.
Merton made a comparison between Marxist & functionalist
approach, but ended up in favours of functionalism. Gouldner accuses him
of converting Marxist student to functionalist. While he criticized naive moral
judgment, Merton falters in developing a moral stance. In becoming netural, he
is favoring the powerful.
23
24