George Merton Research Paper
Merton’s theory of the Social Structure and Anomie is one of the most well renowned and cited theories of strain and deviance as it encompasses the ability to account for the strain produced due to hindered opportunity within the relentless pursuit of economic success (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 289). The ladder theory is valid in determining deviancy amidst the lower working classes within the societal hierarchy, it may also interpret the causation of street crimes; however, it is fails to define and account for criminality amongst the rich and powerful (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 289). Merton’s theory of strain largely fails to acknowledge the influencing dynamics that the wealthy encompass, such as power and prestige, and they associated regulatory process
…show more content…
459). Regardless of the minor modifications made within his theory, Merton has done little to resolve the basic problem, leading his concepts to have a “double meaning” (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). For instance, “it is not clear from Merton’s discussions whether legitimate means refers to opportunities or outcomes, to access, to access to momentary rewards or momentary rewards themselves” (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). Furthermore, Merton’s use of “legitimate means” and “differential access” is also ambiguous (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). On a superficial level, the latter terms may refer to the various distribution of legitimate opportunities for the institutionally permitted attainment of socially promoted goals, however Merton continuously contradicts this terminology within his illustration (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). So, if the producing theorist himself remained conflicted and uncertain of his own thoughts and the manner in which his theory ought to be applied, it is without question that secondary scholars adding to/or replicating his findings may misunderstand the language and perceive it as simplistic and superficial. Additionally, due to such discrepancies within the terminology, the overall theory may be discredited and disregarded due to inadequate accountability towards the clarification of a social
459). Regardless of the minor modifications made within his theory, Merton has done little to resolve the basic problem, leading his concepts to have a “double meaning” (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). For instance, “it is not clear from Merton’s discussions whether legitimate means refers to opportunities or outcomes, to access, to access to momentary rewards or momentary rewards themselves” (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). Furthermore, Merton’s use of “legitimate means” and “differential access” is also ambiguous (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). On a superficial level, the latter terms may refer to the various distribution of legitimate opportunities for the institutionally permitted attainment of socially promoted goals, however Merton continuously contradicts this terminology within his illustration (Rosenfeld, 1989, p. 459). So, if the producing theorist himself remained conflicted and uncertain of his own thoughts and the manner in which his theory ought to be applied, it is without question that secondary scholars adding to/or replicating his findings may misunderstand the language and perceive it as simplistic and superficial. Additionally, due to such discrepancies within the terminology, the overall theory may be discredited and disregarded due to inadequate accountability towards the clarification of a social