Imagine That You Are Sharing A Cab With Robert Merton

Imagine That You Are Sharing A Cab With Robert Mertonduring Your Cab

During a cab ride through the city’s less affluent neighborhoods, a conversation unfolds about the causes of crime and social problems in inner-city areas. The discussion features prominent sociologists Robert Merton, Clifford Shaw, and Henry McKay, each offering a different perspective rooted in their theoretical frameworks.

Robert Merton’s strain theory provides a compelling explanation for the prevalence of crime in the “bad part of town.” According to Merton (1938), society sets culturally approved goals, such as wealth and success, but not all individuals have equal means to achieve these goals legitimately. This discrepancy creates a state of tension or strain, especially among lower-class residents who face barriers to upward mobility. When legitimate avenues—such as education, employment, and access to resources—are blocked or limited, individuals may resort to illegitimate means, including crime, to attain societal goals. Merton identifies several adaptations to this strain, such as innovation, which involves using criminal methods to achieve success. Therefore, in lower-income neighborhoods, crime emerges as a response to the inability to legally attain success, driven by structural inequalities and blocked opportunities (Merton, 1938). Thus, Merton would argue that economic deprivation, social marginalization, and blocked opportunities are major reasons for criminal activity in lower-class communities.

As the cab stops and Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay join the conversation, they introduce another influential perspective—social disorganization theory. Shaw and McKay (1942) focus on how the social structure and organization within neighborhoods influence crime rates. Their theory emphasizes that crime is more prevalent in areas with high residential turnover, poverty, and ethnic heterogeneity, which undermine community cohesion and informal social control. In such disorganized neighborhoods, residents are less able to enforce social norms or intervene in juvenile delinquency, leading to higher crime rates. According to Shaw and McKay, the root cause of crime in the “slums” is not solely individual pathology but weak social institutions and a breakdown of social cohesion, which inhibit effective social regulation (Shaw & McKay, 1942). This perspective suggests that the structural and social environment plays a crucial role in shaping criminal behavior.

Considering these perspectives, it appears that Merton, Shaw, and McKay might agree in recognizing the influence of structural factors—such as socioeconomic deprivation and neighborhood disorganization—on crime. They all highlight the significance of social and economic context in understanding criminal behavior. However, their explanations differ in emphasis and mechanism. Merton’s strain theory emphasizes individual adaptation to societal pressures and blocked opportunities, viewing crime as a form of responding to structural strain. In contrast, Shaw and McKay focus on neighborhood features and social disintegration, arguing that crime results from social disorganization and weakened community controls rather than solely personal responses to strain.

Despite their differences, these theories can complement each other rather than being mutually exclusive. Combining Merton’s emphasis on societal pressures and individual adaptation with Shaw and McKay’s focus on neighborhood social structure offers a more comprehensive understanding of crime in poor communities. For instance, structural inequalities create the conditions of strain while simultaneously fostering social disorganization in neighborhoods, producing a cyclical pattern that facilitates criminal activity. Therefore, integrating these perspectives can better inform policies aimed at reducing crime—addressing both economic opportunities and strengthening social cohesion within communities.

References

• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
• Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Social disorganization theory: Criminological perspectives. State University of New York Press.
• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.
• Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
• Clifford R. Shaw & Henry D. McKay. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
• Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
• Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Legislative definitions of crime and the social organization of neighborhoods: A test of disorganization theory. Criminology, 30(3), 365–391.
• Agnew, R. (2006). General strain theory and delinquency. Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories, 275–297.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime and networks. In H. McCord (Ed.), Understanding Crime: Perspectives on Its Causes and Control (pp. 377–410). Temple University Press.