When Structure Breaks Down: How Anomie and Strain Shaped Criminology

From Positivism to Social Structure

Jul 27, 2025

Before we get into anomie and strain theory, it’s worth remembering where they came from. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, criminology was dominated by positivist thought, with explanations rooted in biology (like Cesare Lombroso’s phrenology) and psychology (such as IQ testing and personality profiling). These theories were often individualistic and pathologising.

But as industrialisation and urbanisation created rapid social change, and with the emergence of modern capitalism, new sociological perspectives emerged. Scholars began asking: What if crime wasn’t just about flawed individuals, but about flawed systems?

That question leads us directly to the emergence of anomie and strain theories, two of the most foundational perspectives in criminology.

Durkheim & the Birth of Anomie

The concept of anomie was first introduced by French sociologist Émile Durkheim in The Division of Labour in Society (1893) and developed further in Suicide (1897). Durkheim argued that crime is a normal and even necessary part of society - not a sign of dysfunction, but a by-product of social change.

Durkheim’s big idea was that societies undergoing rapid transformation (e.g. industrialisation) can experience a breakdown in shared norms and values. This state of normlessness - anomie - leaves people unclear about what’s expected of them, producing anxiety, instability, and, in some cases, suicide or deviant behaviour.

“Anomie is a condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals” — Durkheim (1897)

Durkheim viewed crime as functional: it reinforces social boundaries, allows for social evolution, and reveals the limitations of current laws. But in times of change, when mechanical solidarity (based on sameness) is replaced by organic solidarity (based on difference and interdependence), social cohesion can weaken, and crime may increase.

Merton’s American Twist: Strain & Opportunity

In the 1930s, American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded Durkheim’s theory in a uniquely American context. In Social Structure and Anomie (1938), Merton argued that the United States promotes a “cultural goal” of economic success - the so-called American Dream - but access to legitimate means of achieving it is not equal. This disjunction between goals and means produces strain, particularly among those who lack access due to class, race, or geography. For Merton, strain is not temporary. It is a persistent structural feature of unequal societies.

Merton’s Five Modes of Adaptation:

Conformity: Accept cultural goals and institutional means (e.g. most students, workers).
Innovation: Accept goals but use illegitimate means (e.g. drug dealers, white-collar criminals).
Ritualism: Reject goals but rigidly follow the rules (e.g. a bureaucrat going through the motions).
Retreatism: Reject both goals and means (e.g. chronic addicts or the unhoused).
Rebellion: Reject existing goals/means and substitute new ones (e.g. radical political activists).

These categories show how people navigate blocked opportunities. Importantly, Merton viewed innovation as the most criminogenic response, especially in societies obsessed with wealth.

From Gangs to Institutions: Later Developments

Merton’s work inspired others to explore how specific groups adapted to strain:

Albert Cohen (1955) studied working-class boys who experienced “status frustration” in middle-class school systems, forming delinquent subcultures as a solution.
Cloward & Ohlin (1960) developed Differential Opportunity Theory, arguing that just as access to legitimate success is unequal, so is access to illegitimate success (e.g. criminal networks, gang cultures).
These ideas linked strain theory to subcultural theory, showing how inequality manifests in group behaviour.

Meanwhile, Messner & Rosenfeld (2007) developed Institutional Anomie Theory, arguing that the American Dream undermines non-economic institutions (family, education) and fosters crime by making monetary success the only success.

General Strain Theory: Beyond the Economic

In 1992, Robert Agnew pushed the theory further with his General Strain Theory (GST). Agnew argued that strain wasn’t just about failing to achieve monetary goals. It could stem from:

The removal of positive stimuli (e.g. losing a loved one)
The presence of negative stimuli (e.g. abuse, bullying)
Blocked goals (e.g. academic failure)

These strains produce negative emotions like anger, frustration, or depression - which, without adequate coping mechanisms or support networks, can lead to criminal behaviour. Agnew also introduced ideas like vicarious strain (seeing others suffer) and anticipated strain (expecting future harm), showing how deeply emotional and psychological strain can be.

Key Takeaways

Durkheim introduced the idea that crime is normal and anomie occurs during rapid social change.
Merton argued that societal structure creates strain when cultural goals (like the American Dream) are not matched by access to legitimate means.
Adaptations to strain, such as innovation or rebellion, help explain different types of criminal or deviant behaviour.
Later theorists expanded strain theory to include emotional, cultural, and institutional dimensions, making it more applicable to contemporary society.

Call to Action

Want more deep dives like this? Share this post, and let me know what concepts you’d like explored next.

If you're into critical criminology, inequality, and the politics of crime, follow me across platforms via my LinkTree, and let’s keep the conversation going.

Coming Up Next…

In Part 2 later this week, we’ll critically assess the strengths and limitations of anomie and strain theories, including their bias, assumptions, and blind spots.

Stay tuned.

Paul.