Factors Leading to Deviation and Anomie

Of the several contributions to deviation and anomie, we shall summarize the seminal contribution made by Robert K. Merton, whose paper encouraged a good many studies.

Anomie is not used by Merton to imply normlessness, the literal meaning of the word. Merton defined anomie as a condition in which an increasing number of members of a social group start losing their respect for the prevailing norms. In other words, it hints at the loss of legitimacy of certain norms. Developing an explanation for such a state of affairs, Merton looked for sociological factors rather than psychological ones, such as personality traits. For anomie to occur, Merton insists on the presence of norms and the orientation of people towards them. Anomie occurs when norms are well-understood, they do not lack clarity, and yet are flouted. A deviation occurs only when we know the point of departure, that is, the norm. If no norm exists, or if people are unaware of its existence, then they certainly cannot be charged with deviation. One violates a rule when one knows that there is a rule; otherwise, it is sheer ignorance. Merton posed a question regarding ‘how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in non-conforming rather than conforming conduct’ (Merton, 1957: 132). One important source of such deviance is found in the relationship between culturally defined goals and culturally acceptable modes of reaching out for these goals.

 

The prevailing goals comprise a frame of aspirational reference. They are the things ‘worth striving for’. They are a basic, though not the exclusive, component of what Linton has called ‘designs for group living’. And though some, not all, of these cultural goals are directly related to the biological drives of man, they are not determined by them (ibid.: 133).

 

He further elaborates:

 

Every social group invariably couples its cultural objectives with regulations, rooted in the mores or institutions, of allowable procedures for moving toward these objectives …. Many procedures which from the standpoint of particular individuals would be most efficient in securing desired values—the exercise of force, fraud, power—are ruled out of the institutional area of permitted conduct …. In all instances, the choice of expedients for striving toward cultural goals is limited by institutionalized norms (ibid.).

 

Let us explain this by way of an example. There is a new provision in open universities in India to allow married and middle-aged women to enrol for bachelor’s courses. The universities have waived the requirement of a high school certificate for them; in fact, the universities openly invite women who have not done their matriculation to appear for an entrance test, and, upon their clearing it, grant them admission to the correspondence course. The only condition is the minimum age—younger, school-going girls cannot use this privilege. In reality, though, many young girls who have failed their higher secondary or high school examinations have succeeded in securing admission to the B.A. courses by submitting false birth certificates. Seen objectively, there is no difference in their levels of intelligence from those who are eligible; it is the relatively young age that is a disqualifier. Similarly, many people now working in corporate offices—BPOs, for example—have earned their jobs by submitting fake photocopies of their marks-sheets; the employers did not have the mechanism to verify their credentials and employed them on the basis of their performance in the interviews. In both cases, the goal of passing the matriculation examination has been undermined to the advantage of those who have failed, and yet secured lucrative jobs in the corporate sector, where there is a heavy demand for manpower at that level.

This aspect of anomie is brilliantly summarized by Merton.

 

The cultural emphasis placed upon certain goals varies independently of the degree of emphasis upon institutionalized means. There may develop a very heavy, at times virtually exclusive, stress upon the value of particular goals, involving comparatively little concern with the institutionally prescribed means of striving toward these goals. The limiting case of this type is reached when the range of alternative procedures is governed only by technical rather than by institutional norms. Any and all procedures which promise attainment of the all-important goal would be permitted in this hypothetical polar case. This constitutes one type of malignant culture. A second polar type is found in groups where activities originally conceived as instrumental are transmuted into self-contained practices, lacking further objectives. The original purposes are forgotten and close adherence to institutionally prescribed conduct becomes a matter of ritual. Sheer conformity becomes a central value …. There develops a tradition-bound, ‘sacred’ society marked by neophobia (ibid.: 133–34).

 

In a footnote, Merton further clarifies the point: ‘This ritualism may be associated with a mythology which rationalizes these practices so that they appear to retain their status as means, but the dominant pressure is toward strict ritualistic conformity, irrespective of the mythology.’

In our discussion on bureaucracy, we had described this as ‘displacement of goals’. Mass copying in examination halls by students is anomic—the students greatly value success in examinations and are not in the least bothered about the manner in which they get it. ‘It is the degree that matters’ to them. The requirement that young lecturers be promoted on the basis of the number of papers published or presented at seminars has resulted in an emphasis on the ‘number’ and not the ‘quality’ of either the research papers or the journals in which they are published. This is also increasingly the case with regard to Ph.D. degrees where full procedure is followed, and under that protective shield sub-standard works are awarded degrees.

Merton took his analysis further to focus on various types of adaptation to cultural patterns—from conformity to deviation. He analysed five types of adaptations based on the acceptance or rejection of cultural goals, or the institutionalized means to attain them. In Table 19.1 the symbol + signifies acceptance, symbol–signifies rejection, and symbol ± signifies the rejection of prevailing values and the substitution of new values (ibid.: 140).

 

Table 19.1 A Typology of Modes of Individual Adaptation

 

We shall briefly explain these types.

1. Conformity. In stable societies, conformity to goals and to institutionalized means is closely observed by the members. ‘It is, in fact, only because behaviour is typically oriented towards the basic values of the society that we may speak of a human aggregate as comprising a society. Unless there is a deposit of values shared by interacting individuals, there exist social relations, if the disorderly inter-actions may be so called, but no society.’
2. Innovation. Societies that lay stress on the success goal encourage individuals to adopt ‘institutionally proscribed but often effective means’ to attain the ‘simulacrum of success’. Individuals who regard the prescribed means as facilitators but find them dysfunctional may look for other alternative ways of reaching the goal faster and in an economical way. These may be desirable or undesirable, depending on a society’s cultural norms. For example, corrupt practices may be adopted after unnecessary delays resulted from closely following procedures. The officers may be paid a bribe under the table to hasten the process—the client spends the extra money only to expedite matters, and the officer protects himself by not deviating from the prescribed procedures. The fallout is the greater delays experienced by those clients who do not pay the bribe. This way of getting things done is innovation—but against the cultural values that decry corruption. A senior officer in the same outfit may research the causes of delay and change the procedure, or devise other mechanisms to speed up the process. The use of computers, for example, in making rail reservations was an innovation. Of course, people may innovate further and even dodge the computer to attain personal ends.Merton refers to several researches which show that ‘specialized areas of vice and crime constitute a “normal response to a situation where the cultural emphasis upon pecuniary success has been absorbed, but where there is little access to conventional and legitimate means for becoming successful”, (1957: 145). There are two salient features of these situations: (i) ‘incentives for success are provided by the established values of the culture’; and (ii) ‘the avenues available for moving toward this goal are largely limited by the class structure to those of deviant behaviour. It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for deviation.’ Using this theoretical line, Merton believes that there are varying correlations between poverty and crime. He forcefully argues that Poverty as such and consequent limitation of opportunity are not enough to produce a conspicuously high rate of criminal behaviour …. But when poverty and associated disadvantages in competing for the cultural values approved for all members of the society are Linked with a cultural emphasis on pecuniary success as a dominant goal, high rates of criminal behaviour are the normal outcome’ (ibid.: 147). 
3. Ritualism. Such behaviour occurs where cultural goals are somewhat undermined, but people continue ‘to abide almost compulsively by institutionalized norms’. It may be hard to describe such behaviour as deviant as adherence to procedures is clearly observed, but in theoretical terms, it marks a departure from the cultural model that requires a commitment to goals as well. When a bureaucratic set-up becomes a stumbling block despite strict adherence to procedures, it ceases to serve the function for which it was created. In government work, it is emphasized that officers should not only be fair, but ‘also appear to be fair’. In actual practice, every care is taken to make an act ‘appear fair’, whereas under that guise unfair treatment is meted out. Officers appear to be fair but are not really fair in their dealings. ‘Thus it may be conjectured that some ritualists, conforming meticulously to the institutional rules, are so steeped in the regulations that they become bureaucratic virtuosos, that they over-conform precisely because they are subject to guilt engendered by previous nonconformity with the rules’ (Merton, 1957: 152).
4. Retreatism. This type of adaptation—in fact, non-adaptation—is rather rare, but is one of the logical categories in which there is rejection of both the cultural goals and institutional means. Such maladaptation can be seen among people who are in the society, but are not of it. They are alienated people. The adaptive activities of ‘psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards, and drug addicts’ are illustrative of retreatism. These people may shift to other modes of adaptation. This occurs when the interiorized moral obligation for adopting institutional means conflicts with pressures to resort to illicit means (which may attain the goal) and the individual is shut off from means which are both legitimate and effective …. The conflict is resolved by abandoning both precipitating elements, the goals and the means. The escape is complete, the conflict is eliminated, and the individual is asocialized (ibid.: 153–54). These are the ‘socially disinherited’, who have none of the rewards yet few of the frustrations attendant upon seeking them. ‘Retreatism is manifested in nostalgia for the past and apathy in the present.’
5. Rebellion. ‘This adaptation leads men outside the environing social structure to envisage and seek to bring into being a new, that is to say, a greatly modified social structure. It presupposes alienation from reigning goals and standards’ (p. 155). ‘When the institutional system is regarded as the barrier to the satisfaction of legitimized goals, the stage is set for rebellion as an adaptive response. To pass into organized political action, allegiance must not only be withdrawn from the prevailing social structure but must be transferred to new groups possessed of a new myth.’ This occurs when there are large-scale frustrations in the prevailing social structure, and when hope is created through the provision of an alternative structure devoid of such frustrations. Students of revolutions have discovered that it is not the most depressed strata who organize the revolutionary group; it is on their behalf, and through organizing them, that members of the rising class lead such revolutions. The depressed or oppressed groups have neither the means and resources, nor the intellectual ability to fashion an alternative myth—or an ideology—and provide leadership. Studies of trade unions have indicated that even in India, leadership for these unions is provided by outsiders. India’s former President, V.V.Giri, was described as a Trade Union Leader. George Fernandes provided leadership to the trade union of railway workers when he was not even a railway employee.

Merton distinguishes between rebellion and ressentiment—a technical term used by Nietzsche and further developed by Max Scheler in 1912. Ressentiment has three elements: (i) diffuse feelings of hate, envy, and hostility; (ii) a sense of powerlessness; and (iii) a continual re-experiencing of the impotent hostility. ‘The essential point distinguishing ressentiment from rebellion is that the former does not involve a genuine change in values …. Rebellion, on the other hand, involves a genuine transvaluation, where the direct or vicarious experience of frustration leads to full denunciation of previously prized values…’ (1957:156).