Merton versus Hirschi: Who Is Faithful to Durkheim’s Heritage?

Abstract

The resurgence of interest in Robert K. Merton’s anomie theory in criminology has largely been a theoretical resurgence, attempting to elucidate the nuances of the theory itself. As the frustration-based “strain” interpretation has faded, several interpreters of Merton’s theory have concluded that at the microlevel, Merton’s is essentially a variant of Hirschi’s control theory. Travis Hirschi argued that Merton’s was “the purest example of a strain theory, contaminated only rarely by assumptions appropriate to a control theory.” Actually, Hirschi fundamentally changed Emile Durkheim’s argument in two ways. First, he located anomie within mechanical rather than organic societies. Second, he substituted a unified, Hobbesian view of human nature for Durkheim’s dualistic view. The result is that Hirschi’s theory is Hobbesian but not Durkheimian. In Hirschi’s theory, the individuals are “free” precisely because they are viewed in isolation from the larger cultural and social structure.