Anomie as a Consequence of Disturbances of Equilibrium in Case of Suddenly
Occurring Social or Personal Changes
A Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology
San Francisco, California, USA
November 17, 2000
Rüdiger Ortmann
Dr.Rüdiger Ortmann
Max-Planck-Institute for
Foreign and International Criminal Law
-Criminological Research Group D-79100 Freiburg
Günterstalstr. 73
Tel: ++49 - 761- 7081235
Fax: ++49 -761- 7081294
e-mail: Ortmann@ruf.uni-freiburg.de
Content
I
Introduction
Merton:
anomie
Durkheim:
anomie
2 open questions:
1.
Why do norms collapse at all?
2.
What is the process of breakdown of norms and the following
development of behavior like?
II
Theory
Summary
a)
b)
III
Empirical results
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IV
balance and stability in everyday behavior
disturbances of balance:
personal, social or economic conditions seriously change
(high) correlation of goals, norms and means
beginning of custody for prisoners: development of violations of discipline
age-crime- curve
radical and political changes (Poland 1988): development of criminality
homicide rates in th U.S.: development from 1900 to 1993
Conclusion
1
Anomie as a Consequence of Disturbances of Equilibrium in Case of Suddenly
Occurring Social or Personal Changes
Rüdiger Ortmann, Max-Planck-Institute, Freiburg, Germany
I
Robert Merton’s theory of anomie – first published in 1938 - is obviously so
ingenious that it is still occupying us today. Merton defines anomie as “cultural chaos”. It
destroys the “basis for calculability and regularity of behavior” and thereby impaires the
„most general functions of social organization“ (Merton 1938, p. 682). This breakdown of
rules and norms controlling behavior occurs if there is no balanced relation in the basic
features of human existence, if there is no “equilibrium” or “balance”.
According to Merton, this is the case if culture prescribes certain goals to all its
members as very important and desirable but fails to stress at the same time the importance of
reaching these goals with legitimate means or actions. Socio-cultural norms can explicitly
allow this weighting of goals and legitimate means (Merton 1974, p. 289). Secondly, this is
the case if culture on the one hand sets these goals of success for all people but does not
provide access to the legitimate means in order to reach these goals equally well. Instead and
according to the social structure it is to the disadvantage of the lower classes. Through this
imbalance – the same goals for everyone but legitimate access only for a few groups – a strain
is cast on the lower classes which leads to anomie and deviant behavior.
In the same way for Durkheim, a predecessor of Merton, anomie is the abolition and
absence of all rules. For Durkheim this absence of rules refers to the relation of systems,
organs or social functions of society but not to individuals. In “The Division of Labor in
Society”, he states as early as 1893, that in the case of anomie certain social functions are no
longer mutually adjusted (Durkheim 1996, p. 422). If the division of labor does not maintain
the inner cohesion of society the reason for this lies in the fact that the relations among the
organs of society are not adjusted but are in a state of anomie.
For Durkheim there is only individual happiness and societal stability if the human
goals and needs are restricted insofar as to correspond to the legitimate means to reach a goal,
which means that there is a balance.
This balance is destroyed by economic crises or sudden wealth. According to
Durkheim, economic crises or breakdowns lead to anomie. But also sudden, abrupt increases
in economic activity or other fortunate, but all too sudden changes lead to anomie. In the first
case sudden impoverishment requires from the individual a new additional restriction of
needs. In the second case there are suddenly totally new possibilities and means. Durkheim
says: You no longer know what is possible and what is not, what is just and what is unjust
(Durkheim 1966, p. 401). In both cases moral education has to start again from the beginning
(Durkheim 1966, p. 400).
2
Two open questions result from Merton’s and Durkheim’s explanations1.
1)
Why do norms collapse at all? What does it mean for the concept of norms that they
can collapse in dependence of other features?
2)
What is the process of breakdown of norms and the following development of
behavior like? Generally this is not described in theories of anomie. They rather describe
deviant behavior in cross-section.
However, there are very important changes of deviant behavior in a longitudinal
perspective: for example in development of age, in the course of 20th century or in phases of
social and political change as seen in the countries of the former Eastern bloc.
The age-crime curve is an example (Figure 1, Farrington 1986). The frequency of
criminality here increases strongly in young years, reaches a maximum at the age of 17 or 18
and then again decreases strongly, while the decrease is not as steep as the increase.
Should a theory of anomie not be able to explain and describe these developments?
I now suggest a new theory of anomie that provides integrated answers for both
questions and especially explains the development of anomie.23
II
Theory
First of all I briefly summarize the theory.
The theory explains the development and the course of anomie and deviant behavior as
a consequence of massive disturbances of balance. They occur when basic living conditions
change severely. These changes destroy the structure, the adjustment, and the stability of our
normal everydays behavior. Thereby a severe force or dynamics is set free. This dynamics
also exists in daily life but it is usually not visible there. This dynamics proceeds according to
its own rules its aim being the reestablisment of a new balance. In this process, anomie and
deviant behavior appear as a possible variant of adjustment.
I now describe in key words:
a)
Balance and stability in everyday behavior
(1)
Constancy and stability of behavior and convictions are the result of highly opposing
influences on our behavior and our convictions4. The influences compete with and limit each
other. The family for example supports and promotes values that are not very useful in
economic life: Emotional care and protection in the family life is opposed to efficiency and
competition in the economy and the professional life5.
(2)
In times of rapid change stability of behavior or convictions can not develop6.
(3)
If one of the opposing forces is eliminated from the framework or if a new force is
added to it the balance is disturbed7. A struggle for a new balance begins within the system
that is laid out for balance and stability. This also means that a process of change and new
adjustment starts which then leads to a new stability8.
3
(4)
Hence stability is balance. The balance is reached by the balancing of strong dynamic
forces. These forces are set free if the balance is disturbed.
(5)
This stability reached by balancing is the very "basis for calculability and regularity of
behavior" as Merton called it in 1938. It is one of "the most general functions of social
organization" (Merton 1938, p. 682). And this is why it is indispensable.
(6)
In the same sense this struggle for balance is also a struggle for the right way, the right
concept, the right understanding.
In salary negotiations for example the employees often claim more money for their
work and the employers claim more work for the payments. And both sides find their relation
between work and salary appropriate and right. So the concept „appropriate“ is a concept of
balance, too. It is defined and established by the relation between salary and work.
In this the concept of “right” and “appropriate” is a relative one. In a similar way,
Durkheim and Merton define and relativize norms by means or by habits9.
b) Disturbances of balance
The careful adjustment of features and social systems is destroyed if personal, social
or economic conditions seriously change. The former goals lose their validity or new goals
without reliable habits of behavior become important. Former habits of behavior lose their
importance and so one must relearn which means can serve to reach the goals. Convictions,
values and norms lose validity because their concept depends on the whole context and
especially on actions or means that are important to reach the goals. Behavior, and deviant
behavior, too, can by no means remain the same. For the criminal potential has changed. All
this is certainly connected to “strain”. Yet, “strain” alone is definitely not the all important
feature10.
The external disturbance shakes up the existing balance like a massive shockwave or
disruption. The balance of opposing forces influencing behavior is destroyed. This triggers a
process or development which has the goal of reaching a new adjustment, a new balance of
features and social systems. This balance must fit to the new, changed conditions like the old
balance fitted to the old conditions. The process or the change starts with a disturbance of
balance and it comes to a halt when a new balance is found. The strength of the dynamics
depends on the intensity of the external disturbance and on which point of the process you are
looking at.
What does this process look like? It starts with a balance, then external factors destroy
the balance of carefully adjusted opposing forces. Finally, there is a balance again. In
principle, this is the motion of an oscillation. The form of an oscillation also basically depends
on the underlying ability of developing a new balance. It depends on the time when this
happens and it depends on the size of the difference of the old balance compared to the new
one.
4
In a first case, all changes of behavior etc. are only temporary. Absolutely no new,
stable balance develops out of the changed conditions. Hence, there is, for example, no
permament change in the rate of criminality. The whole process is comparable to a car
driving over a pothole. The car’s shock absorber system lifts the car out of its old position of
balance, the car starts to jump and then settles again after a while. In this sense, an external
disturbance triggers a disturbance of balance which takes the form of a dampened oscillation11
as it is called in physics12.
Form and dynamics of this convergence to the old balance can be very different
depending on the dampening. Dampening is a resistance, an inertia against change. In figure 2
(Coletta 1995) the old position of balance is displaced by an external disturbance and is
reestablished after a certain time. In the case of “overshooting”, there is only light dampening,
the system oscillates around its final position of balance, the amplitude becomes smaller until
finally a position of balance is reached13. In other cases of greater dampening the position of
balance is reached without oscillation.
In a second case, a new lasting balance develops, for example a new balance between
the goals and the existing legitimate means. In Merton’s theory, this balance defines a
potential for criminal behavior to which the rate of criminality adjusts slowly and with a delay
(figure 3, Dieckmann & Opp). In figure 3 this happens with great dampening (see/compare
with figure 2). One could also think of an overshooting. The old position of balance first
being “overshot” before being reached permanently. Thus, very many courses of convergence
to a new balance can be explained by the same theory in an integrated manner. The new
behavior here develops with a delay because, according to the theory of learning, time is
needed for the establishment of new behavior. The time lag between cause and effect can in
fact become very big.
What does the process of a disturbance of balance and the appropriate curves describe
with regard to the contents? Why does behavior change and of what kind is the change?
Disturbances of balance isolate former habits and convictions and release them from
their former context. Concepts lose their meaning. Habits, convictions and values are
dislocated precisely because balance is their basis. Two consequences arise: the first is a new
freedom of thinking and behavior and a new independence from former determinants of
behavior and convictions. Secondly, there is the necessity of developing new behavior, new
knowledge and new values enabling the person or the social system to reach important goals
again. A new arrangement, for example of behavior, becomes possible and also is necessary.
A new, especially intense phase of new arrangement and new learning starts14.
By this, the probability of changes – in relation to the existing circumstances up to
then – is increased significantly. These may be changes of behavior or changes in the balance
of social systems. Therefore there is an increased risk of anomie, but only as far as the former
context was conform. And there is an increased chance for conformity if the former context
5
was deviant or in the state of anomie. The crisis is the possible point of return or change– one
way or the other.
In this respect, the course of a disturbance of balance from the old to the new balance
describes the momentary distance from a balance and the probability that a new orientation of
behavior or a new orientation in the balance of social systems can develop.
Whether a new permanent balance develops during this intense phase of new
orientation – and as well where its location is – basically depends on how much lasting
support the new conditions get. This can be the support by the power of the state – as it is for
Durkheim. However, it can also be the case – as it is in times of social, personal or political
radical change – that old conditions disappear permanently and new conditions stay
permanently. In any case, according to the theory of learning, the development of new habits
and new balances take its time. This is also true for the balance of social systems. And
according to the theory of learning, the new is doomed to be impermanent. The old habits and
the old balances though are much more permanent. In this respect, the old balance has an
conservative effect on behavior and the balance of social systems . In case of a deviance from
the balance the system works towards its reestablishment. And its effectiveness disappears
only slowly as time goes by. In this respect, too, it can be possible that a development is partly
withdrawn and approximately ends where it has started.
III
I now report on some empirical results.
The first result corresponds to the question why norms collapse at all.
1.
The independent variables of the theory of anomie – goals, norms and means –
correlate high with each other. According to the results of an empirical study I conducted, an
action which is regarded as adequate to reach a goal is also rated normatively positive. The
correlations between the adequacy of the action and the normative approval range between
.40 and .74 which is very high.15
This confirms that norms are not of an absolute nature. And it confirms Merton’s and
Durkheim’s statement that the availability of adequate means has a strong influence on norms.
Thus, the obligatory norm is not “You must not kill” but “You must not kill
because...”. This “because” pertains to our means to reach the goals. Norms change or
collapse because they are relative and if and because their context changes. Norms are only
changeable via the context.
In the following we are looking at results concerning the course and development of
disturbances of balance. The assumption is in all cases that basic living conditions change
severely.
2.
The theory of balance claims that for example a massive restriction of the existing
means to reach goals triggers a disturbance of balance that follows a typical course. Certainly
the beginning of custody for prisoners is such a massive intervention.
6
Figure 4 shows for a sample of prisoners how the relative proportion for all violations
of discipline develops from the beginning of custody to the release from prison. Immediately
after the beginning of custody a dynamic increase of actions starts. Then a maximum is
reached. A strong decline follows before the curve swings towards a new balance that is
below the maximum.16 The whole process is a confirmation that the curve follows an
integrated process and that it follows the course and the dynamics of a disturbance of balance.
3.
The age-crime curve (Figure1, Farrington 1986) takes a course quite similar to the
development of the relative proportion for all violations of discipline during custody. This
correspondence is of importance to the theory. Our claim is that the age-crime curve is also
the result of a massive disturbance of balance.
In respect to the age of the persons of this figure it is very plausible to say that a
massive change of conditions has disrupted and destroyed the former agreements and
adjustments. Thus, the age-crime curve is an expression of an integrated, general process. A
great part of the changes it describes is independent from factual changes in living
conditions.17
4.
According to the theory, the radical social and political changes which have taken
place in the countries of the Eastern bloc at about the time of the fall of the Berlin wall (19881990) must trigger a disturbance of balance as well. Because these changes are deep and
dramatic in every respect.
The upper curve of figure 5 shows the development of “burglary” in Poland ((Kury &
Obergfell-Fuchs 1996, p. 141).18 In accordance with the theory, a dramatic increase begins in
1988. A maximum is reached in 1990. Up to then, nothing special has happened. After that
however, a change in three areas can be seen: after reaching the maximum burglary rates
decreases again; the decline is flatter/slower than the increase; and then there is obviously a
tendency towards a new balance. All three areas can be explained by the theory of balance.
5.
Finally, I want to discuss the development of the homicide rates in the United States in
th
the 20 century from the perspective of the theory of balance:
In figure 6 from „Crime and the American Dream“ (Messner & Rosenfeld 1997, p.
25), a first oscillation is apparent. It proceeds from 1900 to 1960. A second oscillation starts at
about 1960. The first development contains several features of a dampened oscillation: the
steep increase, the reaching of a maximum, and the “overshooting”. Then a following decline
can be seen which is flatter than the increase. After that there is the apparent tendency that the
development leads towards a new balance.
Something very meaningful must have happened in1900 or before, something that
thoroughly destroyed the balance of the social systems and required a new adjustment.19 The
same is true for the 1960s. The steep increase in this second phase lets us expect that here,
too, a new “overshooting” with a following decline of homicide rates will occur.
7
IV
Conclusion
All in all there are good reasons for our theory of balance in explaining the
development of anomie. It makes it possible to explain in an integrated manner several very
different phenomena and it provokes, I hope, interesting considerations.
NOTES
1
These remarks on Merton’s theory of anomie join up with similar analyses that partly point
to open questions and problems of the theory. And partly, these analyses – beeing convinced
of the richness of Merton’s theory –also demand further work or development of the theory.
The well known controversy between Bernard and Agnew thus is about the question whether
Merton’s theory – as Bernard says – only “refers to properties of social structures , not
properties of individuals” (Bernard 1987a, p. 265). In a study testing the theory of anomie,
published in the “Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency”, Menard claims
categorically in 1995 – nearly 60 years after the first publication of the theory: “Merton’s
theory of anomie and deviant behavior has not been tested adequately” (Menard 1995, p.
136). He himself subsequently introduces the feature “sex” as an anomie-theoretic variable in
his test of theory, which in my opinion is wrong. It can be concluded that there still are
differing opinions on the question which statements does Merton’s theory of anomie
precisely make. Finally, Messner and Rosenfeld (1994; 1997) develop a new theory of anomie
in “Crime and the American Dream”.
2
Detailed in Ortmann (2000).
3
If a theory is really able to explain the age-dependent development of deviant behavior (agecrime curve) then according to Hirschi & Gottfredson it can also explain deviant behavior in a
cross-section. Following this the authors state in the context of a “maturational reform” of the
age-crime curve: “if the social situation of the person can explain the decline in crime with
age, it can also explain differences at any given age” (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1986, p. 56f.).
4
Further, stability develops by the solidification of balances and the relations between the
features. According to learning theory this happens by renewal and confirmation of what
already exists.
5
see Messner & Rosenfeld 1997.
This however is only possible in times of relative constancy and stability. The solidification
of balances and relations between features and systems presupposes constant corroboration,
confirmation, reinforcement and renewal of what exists – which needs a lot of time.
6
7
8
For example by a change in living conditions.
The concept of balance occurs again and again in Merton’s theory of anomie. Several
statements of Merton (1938) prove this:
"...balance between cultural goals and institutional means" (Merton 1938, p. 673 f.).
"An effective equilibrium between the two phases of the social structure" (Merton 1938, p.
674).
"...involving a disproportionate accent on goals.." (Merton 1938, p. 674).
"The equilibrium between culturally designated means and ends becomes highly unstable
with the progressive emphasis on attaining the prestige-laden ends by any means whatsoever"
(Merton 1938, p. 679).
Additionally, Merton says that if we want to evaluate the influence of culture and social
structure on anomie and deviant behavior we must compare the effects of culture and social
8
structure and relate them to each other. Not a single variable – culture or social structure – is
determining deviant behavior but the combined effect of both variables. For Merton, poverty
alone does not encourage criminality.
Durkheim follows the same logic. For Durkheim, there is individual happiness and societal
stability only if man’s goals and needs are restricted until they correspond to the legitimate
means to reach the goals. Durkheim calls this very special, so to say desirable behavior
equilibrium.
The logic of Messner & Rosenfeld in „Crime and the American Dreams“ is quite similar.
Here, the social institutions – family, education, polity and economy – have a partly opposing
influence on deviant behavior or on the features supposedly influencing deviant behavior. In
this respect, the social institutions compete, they struggle for influence on behavior, they
balance and one is stronger and another weaker.
„Any given society therefore will be characterized by a distinctive arrangement of social
institutions that reflects a balancing of the sometimes competing claims and requisites of the
different institutions, yielding a distinctive institutional balance of power. Further, the nature
of the resulting configuration of institutions is itself intimately related to the larger culture“
(Messner & Rosenfeld 1997, p. 67 f.).
9
For Merton (and Durkheim) there is a clear relation between norms and means. This
relativizes norms because they have a reason. In the sense of my theory of balance, I see this
relation as balance: In their rating of actions and other influences on their life men can only
rate as normatively good what is beneficial to them.
10
This is an essential difference to the theory of Agnew.
An oscillation is „A periodic motion about an equilibrium position“ (Isaacs 1996, p. 298).
An equilibrium is „...a state of a system in which forces, influences, reactions, etc., balance
each other out so that there is no net change“ (Isaacs 1996, p. 134). In this case, the behavior
influenced by these forces remains constant for a certain time.
11
12
The precise course of the car’s oscillation basically depends on the dampening.
“Dampening” of behavior might possibly be understood as resistance against any form of
change, as a kind of inertia. Thus, you can get quite different curves by varying only one
parameter (dampening) although it is still the same process. In a very simple case like our car,
an old balance is displaced due to an external disturbance and is replaced after a while.
13
Dampening makes the amplitudes of subsequent oscillations smaller and the incline of the
curve becomes flatter. Additionally, the time required for an oscillation decreases with the
strength of dampening (the frequency decreases).
14
In this situation, a person acts quite independently from a personal, social and cultural
context and is not very integrated in the system. More than other people, the person frequently
decides anew. Habits of behavior and a system of behavior are poorly developed. This results
in a pattern of behavior Hirschi & Gottfredson describe in “A General Theory of Crime”,
although they give a totally different explanation as for them personality is the basic factor:
“In sum, people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical
(as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal, and they will tend
therefore in criminal and analogous acts. Since these traits can be identified prior to
the age of responsibility for crime, since there is considerable tendency for these traits
to come together in the same people, and since the traits tend to persist through life, it
seems reasonable to consider them as comprising a stable construct useful in the
explanation of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990, p. 90 f.)
15
Details: An empirical study was conducted that followed a version of Merton’s theory of
anomie. In this version, the features of theory are especially clearly defined, but they are
defined as features of individuals (Diekmann & Opp 1979). Subsequently, deviant behavior
depends on the following independent variables: (1) a person’s goals and their
importance/intensity for the person; (2) the intensity/importance of norms pertaining to
9
concrete actions helpful to reach concrete personal important goals; (3) the degree of the
existing means to reach the personal important goals by concrete actions.
Main results:
(1) “Norms” and “means” correlate very high. An action regarded as adequate or efficient
to reach a goal is also rated normatively positive, independent from the action’s
character. The correlations here range between .40 and .74 (Ortmann 2000, p. 385,
392).
Anomie as absence of norms or rules finally develops because norms do not exist
independent from other features/variables but develop and receive their meaning in a
context. If the context is changed massively, norms cannot remain constant. This is the
case for Merton and Durkheim.
(2) The goals and means correlate high, too: goals that seem to be reachable for a subject
are considerably more important than goals that do not seem to be reachable. The
correlations here range between .25 and .60 (Ortmann 2000, p. 376, 385).
This means: if culture – as for Merton – sets goals as important for its members it is
implied that these goals can be reached. In this respect, the setting of goals is a
promise that these goals can be reached.
16
The basic reason for the unsteady course of the curve after the 12th month is that the
sample gets smaller (as more prisoners are released from prison).
17
This corresponds descriptively with the statement of Hirschi & Gottfredson: “crime
declines with age” (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1986, p. 57). However, the theoretical arguments
are different. For Hirschi & Gottfredson, after reaching the maximum the age-crime curve
follows the typical development of declining criminality, for which there is no detailed
explanation. Yet, for the theory of balance there is an explanation: increase and decline form
an integrated process, the decline resulting from the dynamics of the increase. This can (for
example) be observed by the fact that the steepness of the decline correlates with the
steepness of the increase. In my opinion, it is only possible to understand the reason and
course of the decline by taking into account the increase. For the decline is also causally a
consequence of the increase. However, Hirschi & Gottfredson do not take into account the
increase.
18
Very similar curves – that „overshoot“ as well – exist for example for „robbery“ in Russia.
The exact moment when these meaningful changes occurred can only be roughly estimated
because the time-lag between cause and effect is unknown.
19
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1987). On testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 24, 281-286.
Bernard, T. (1984). Control criticisms of strain theories. An assessment of theoretical and
empirical adequacy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(3), 353-372.
Bernard, T. (1987a). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 24, 262-280.
Bernard, T. (1987b). Reply to Agnew. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24,
287-290.
Coletta, Vincent P. (1995). Physics. Los Angeles, California: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.
Diekmann, A. & Opp, K.-D. (1979). Anomie und Prozesse der Kriminalitätsentwicklung im
10
sozialen Kontext. Vorschläge für die Weiterentwicklung und Formalisierung der
Anomietheorie [Anomie and the development of deviant behavior in a social context].
Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 8, 330-343.
Durkheim, E. [1897] (1973). Der Selbstmord [suicide]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Durkheim, E. [1893] (1996). Über soziale Arbeitsteilung [The Division of Labor in society]
(2.nd ed.). 2. Aufl., Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Durkheim, E. (1966). Über die Anomie [About anomie]. In W. C. Mills (Ed.), Klassiker der
Soziologie (pp. 394-436). Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer.
Farrington, D. (1986). Age and Crime. In Tonry, M.; Morris, N. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: An
Annual Review of Research (Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago, London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Gottfredson, M. R. und Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, California
Stanford University Press.
Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1986). The distinction between crime and criminality. In T. F.
Hartnagel & R. A. Silverman (Eds.), Critique and explanation (pp. 55-69). New Brunswick,
Oxford.
Isaacs, A. (ed.). (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Physics. Third edition. Oxford; NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kury, H. & J. Obergfell-Fuchs (1996). Crime Development and Fear of Crime in Postcommunist Societies. In: Szamato-Saeki & D. Wójcik (eds.): Impact of Political and Social
Change on Crime and ist Image in Society. 51st International Course of Criminoloy, pp. 117146. Warsaw, Poland: Zaklad Kryminologii.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672682.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Merton, R. K. (1974). Sozialstruktur und Anomie [Social Structure and Anomie]. In F. Sack
& R. König (Eds.), Kriminalsoziologie (2nd ed., pp. 283-313). Frankfurt a.M.: Akademische
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Messner, S. F. & Rosenfeld, R.. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Messner, S. F. & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: ,
second edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Ortmann, R. (2000). Abweichendes Verhalten und Anomie. Entwicklung und Veränderung
abweichenden Verhaltens im Kontext der Anomietheorien von Durkheim und Merton
[Deviant behavior and anomie. Development and change of deviant behavior in the context of
the theories of anomie by Durkheim and Merton]. Kriminologische Forschungsberichte Vol.
89. Freiburg/ Brsg.: Eigenverlag des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches und
internationales Strafrecht.
11
FIGURES
12
13
14