Define and Explain the various types of “Strain Theory”. Give information about the author and definition and examples of each.
Stress concept is a full concept with an essential part to play in the description of the criminal activity and misbehavior. First, there is a detailed summary of the top strain theories of crime and misconduct, from (Merton, 1938) to (Agnew, 1992). It is suggested that strain concepts have become gradually wider, analyzing more types of strain and concentrating on the description of misbehavior in all public sessions. Second, the social strain theory is compared with social control, self-control, and differential association learning theory. The unique contribution of strain theory to the explanation of delinquency is highlighted. Strain theory directs attention to a category of independent variables ignored or de-emphasized in other methods: namely negative relations with others. It focuses on a fundamentally different set of intervening variables, namely emotions like anger and frustration. This paper, however, will concentrate on the definition of strain theory, its different types and examples.
Definition of Strain Theory
There is no one authoritative definition of strain theory. An overview of theory and research, however, suggests that strain theory has two defining characteristics. First, strain theorists argue that delinquency results when individuals cannot get what they want through legitimate channels. (Elliott, Huizinga & Ageton, 1985), state that strain theory, in its simplest form, postulates that delinquency is the result of frustrated wants or needs. Social control theorists also argue that misconduct may result when individuals cannot get what they want or need. To fully distinguish strain theory from alternative theories, there is a need to consider why the failure to achieve desires may lead to delinquency. That is, there is a need to consider the intervening mechanisms of strain theory.
The second distinguishing characteristic of strain theory, then, is the argument that frustrated wants the pressure or force the person into delinquency. Strain theories propose that there are certain socially generated pressures or forces that drive people to commit crimes. These effects are most commonly portrayed as emotional forces, especially anger and frustration, (Agnew, 1987).
Types of Strain Theory
Strain theories in criminology focus on the inability to achieve ideal goals derived from the cultural system. Durkheim categorized stress into two basic categories: public procedures and individual expertise. These in turn created two common types of strain: architectural and different. Social systems create the surroundings necessary for the evolvement of structural stress and personal encounters cause particular stress. Structural stress applies to people when determining their needs based on the values of community and are in a continuous battle to meet those objectives. Individual stress, on the other hand, is the individually created stress used by individual while searching for a means of conferencing their needs that are described by their personal objectives that they hold themselves.
Agnew Strain Theory
(Padhy, 1900), Argues that, as aspirations increase and expectations decline, delinquency and the amount of deviant act that happen increases in effect to these changes. It begins with the observation that individuals not only seek individual valued goals, but also seek to avoid negative or assertive situations. It may lead to illegal escape attempts o to delinquency based on anger, (Agnew, 1985). Agnew believes that different types of strain can lead to emotional responses, which, in turn, result in different types of crime. For instance, (Agnew & White, 1992), found that strain measures had a moderate effect on drug use, but a substantial impact on delinquency. The strain can be objective or subjective according to the above-stated theory, or it can even be both. Objective strains are events or conditions that are disliked by most members of a given group, (Agnew, 1992). Subjective strains are events or conditions that are despised by the people who are experiencing or have experienced them.
Merton’s Strain Theory
The basis of “the means-end theory of deviance” is that criminal activity types in the gap, discrepancy, or dysjunction between culturally caused ambitions for financial achievements and structurally allocated opportunities of accomplishment. The concept represents fairly consistent economic achievements goals across public class, and the concept efforts to explain why criminal activity is focused on the reduced sessions that have the least genuine opportunities for accomplishment. It is the mixture of the social focus and the public framework that generates extreme stress for deviation, (Merton, 1968).
The reduced sessions are the most susceptible to this stress, or stress, and will maintain their unsatisfied financial ambitions regardless of disappointment or failing. The system can be stable by offering benefits for noneconomic activities, but the stress, or “strain toward anomie” (Merton, 1968) is still surgical in unique concern for result over implicit fulfillment of competition. Partial synchronization of indicates and ends leads to a limited efficiency of the public framework in offering a frequency and of a routine and a condition of “anomie or social disorder supervenes” (Merton, 1968).
Cohen’s Strain Theory
Cohen’s essential point is that, except perhaps for the type of revolt, Mertonian strain concept is not capable of describing the purposeless criminal activity, just for the “fun” of it (Cohen, 1955). Cohen’s dissertation is that classification centered position disappointment is the source of subcultures; malice, non-utilitarianism, and negativism type the material of subcultures; and younger, working-class men describe the submission of subcultures. Cohen’s concentrate is on university centered accomplishment position.
The organization of the school represents middle-class principles for loyalty, complimentary, character, liability, and so forth. It is this milieu where competitors occur for the position, acceptance, or regard. Stress for Cohen is therefore not architectural, but social, situated at the level of team connections. Group relationships are a kind of driver which produces potentialities not otherwise visible, (Cohen, 1955).
For (Cohen, 1977), the significance of having deviant buddies is to help cope with a prevalent problem of authenticity. There is no need for connection, as control concept postulates. Stars become protected from traditional requirements, solving their inner questions and disputes. They may even plan violations that will genuine their team. There is some proof from case analysis in recidivism to recommend that youths in problems do obtain emotional fulfillment from their professional categories in this style. Latest analysis on serious harmful indicates that professional groups have some of the same features as gangs, and impact both men and women in the same guidelines.
Messner and Rosenfeld’s Strain Theory
(Messner and Rosenfeld, 1994) Designed and anomie institutional concept just like Merton’s, sometimes known as “American Dream” concept. The United States desire is a broad, public ethos that requires a dedication to the objective of content achievements, to be followed by everyone, in a large group covered with large international organizations. Their discussion is not only that issue for financial aspects has come to control our lifestyle, but that the noneconomic organizations in the group have maintained to become subservient to the economy. For example, the whole academic system seems to have become motivated by the job, political figures get chosen on the durability of the economy, and despite lip support to family principles, professionals are required to uproot their loved ones in support to business life. Objectives other than content achievements are just not necessary any longer.
The cause of criminal activity is anomie, and the United States Dream encourages anomie. Since the focus is looking for the most efficient way to accomplish financial achievements, crime is seen as an efficient method to make immediate money. Values, principles, and responsibilities are the causal factors, and the nearer they are to those of the industry, the more likely the reasoning of the economy will determine a highly effective public power that encourages the desire for money “by any means necessary.” Since this lawlessness-producing focus is captured up in society’s architectural focus upon the economy, none of the many “wars” on criminal activity will ever be useful.
Cloward and Ohlin’s Strain Theory
The primary focus of the “theory of differential opportunity systems” (Cloward & Ohlin 1960) is on the all the surrounding factors that account for the particular types that criminal activity and deviance can take. Cloward had previously proven how obstructed having access to unlawful as well as genuine possibilities would be a sensible expansion of Mertonian strain concept. A criminal opportunity is more than merely the chance to get away with a legal or deviant act; it includes studying and displaying the necessary for sub-cultural assistance. These principles represent the primary all the surrounding factors in Cloward and Ohlin’s strain concept.
The concept is based upon past work displaying that areas differ by the level legal and traditional principles are incorporated. While the form that actions takes relies on how well legal principles are discovered, the causal procedure is a category connected feeling of disfavor from real or expected failing at accomplishing position by traditional requirements. “Our speculation can be described as follows: the difference between what lower category youngsters are led to like and what is available to them is the resource of a significant problem of adjustment” (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960)
Padhy, P. (2006). Crime and criminology. Delhi: Isha Books.
Agnew, R. (1992). “Foundation for a General Strain Theory.” Criminology 30(1),
Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. NY: Free Press.
Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Agnew, R., & White, H. (1992). “An Empirical Test of General Strain Theory.”
Criminology 30(4): 475-99.
Cohen, A. (1965). “The Sociology of the Deviant Act: Anomie Theory and Beyond.”
American Sociological Review 30: 5-14
Merton, R. (1964). “Anomie, Anomia, and Social Interaction.” In M. Clinard (Ed.),
Anomie and Deviant Behavior (pp. 213-42). New York: Free Press.
Messner, S. & R. Rosenfeld. (1994). Crime and the American Dream.