Essay: the American Dream Is Killing Us

Strain Theory

Merton

Robert K. Merton (1938) created the original strain theory, referred also as the social structure and anomie theory. Like social disorganization theory, recent strain theories examined social structure as a major factor in crime rates. Merton’s (1938) strain theory focuses on other fundamental factors, such as societal pressures, influencing individuals to achieve a socially accepted goal. Merton (1938) stated that societal pressures pushed individuals into conformity and made individuals believe that that goal would help them gain economic success. He specifically believed that those societal pressures drove an individual to try and achieve a socially accepted goal though they might never be able to achieve that goal (Lilly et al., 2015).

Merton specified that there were two sources, strain, and anomie, of crime and deviance. When an individual is not able to achieve a desired goal, this prevention adds strain. Lilly et al (2015) state that there is more pressure for that individual to divert to deviation because of that strain. Someone who lacks the funds or does not have a well-paying job may start doing small criminal jobs as a way to achieve his or her goals. Merton defines the other source of crime, anomie, as the collapse of rules and conditions in which those existing norms no longer have control over the individual. Thus, individuals need to feel like they are a part of society and if they do not have specific rules to follow, they have difficulties adjusting without those conditions (Lilly et al., 2015). This control over an individual in the form of social norms is crucial, according to Merton (Tibbetts, 2015).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Merton (1938) added to his theory by forming the idea that people can reduce their stress through modes of adaptation. He believed there were five different typologies within modes of adaptation. The first is conformity, which Merton (1938) stated that an individual does not question what the public states as a cultural goal. This is the most common among individuals. They follow the path that society says to follow in order to achieve that goal. Thus, this typology does not need to commit crimes in order to achieve their goals. However, innovationists believe in society’s cultural goals but go about achieving those goals in illegitimate ways, such as committing crimes, in order to achieve their goals. They do not accept what society says to do in order to achieve economic success. The third typology, ritualists, believe that society’s cultural goals cannot be obtained but still accept institutional means. They are not believed to become criminals, but they might be deemed as deviant or unique. Retreats reject both cultural goals and the means to achieve those goals. Thus, they are more likely to deviate and withdraw from the community. The fifth and final typology is rebellion. Rebels are likely to be viewed completely differently from the other modes of adaptation. They reject both cultural goals and the means to achieve those goals. However, they try to replace what society deems as a cultural goal and institutional means. Rebels believe they are committing these acts, not for themselves, but for the greater good. These modes of adaptation, along with Merton’s (1938) other beliefs, were the foundation for another theory named institutional anomie theory, which focuses on additional factors that play a part in anomie.

Messner and Rosenfeld

Messner and Rosenfeld created institutional anomie theory, which builds upon Merton’s (1938) theory by incorporating additional factors, such as economic, political, family, and educational institutions. Chamlin and Cochran (1995) state that “the American culture places a disproportionate emphasis on material success goals” (p. 411). They go on to state that in order to have culturally accepted success, it has to be based upon materialistic characteristics. Chamlin and Cochran (1995) believe that society does not provide alternative means of achievement to prevent the anomic pressures of the American dream from occurring. Thus, having those pressures to achieve economic success paired with weak controls from other social institutions creates an increase in criminal activity, according to Chamlin and Cochran (1995).

Not only does the American culture emphasize material success goals, but the American culture encourages success by any means necessary. Schoepfer (2016) in “Institutional Anomie Theory” continues this idea by stating that:

Institutional anomie theory (IAT) suggests that crime in the United States is driven by immense pressures to succeed and profit monetarily. The collective cultural pursuit of the American Dream commitment to the goal of material success, to be pursued by everyone, through individual competition the impetus for crime (p.1).

When there is a focus on economic gain in the institutional balance of power, the focus on the social control functions of non-economic institutions is then weakened. These weakened social controls can be correlated with an increase in crime. Property-level crime can then be explained as one trying to achieve material success by any means necessary. Individuals will turn to crime in order to succeed if conventional means are not available or do not provide enough for the individual.

Agnew

According to Agnew (1992), Merton only focused on one type of strain or relationship that prevents the individual from achieving the valued goal. However, there is more than one type of strain, according to Agnew. There are three types of strain: Merton’s classic strain which involves being blocked from the desired goal, actual (or believed) removal of positively valued stimuli, and actual presentation of negative stimuli (Agnew, 1992). Depending upon which type of strain the individual is experiencing, that strain is the reason why someone might commit a crime. These types of strains do not focus specifically on economic success, but rather on any positively valued goal. Agnew made a more general outlook on a strain by incorporating positively valued goals (Lilly et al., 2015).

The first type of strain is Merton’s classic strain, which is when one cannot achieve their desired goal. Agnew (1992) states that this strain can be subdivided even more into three different subtypes: the difference between aspirations and actual achievements, the difference between expectation and actual achievements, and the difference between just outcomes and actual outcomes (Lin et al., 2011). The first subtype described what can be seen with classic strain theory, which is what one wants versus what one actually has. Agnew (1992) believed that the second subtype, the difference between expectation and actual achievements, troubled individuals more. Aspiration can be derived from what society might deem appropriate. However, expectations can be derived from one’s personal experience and can be more specific than society’s generalized goal of economic success (Lin et al., 2011). An individual may be expected to achieve the same goals as those before him or her, such as receiving the same status as their parents or achieving the same economic success as their siblings. Thus, when these individuals cannot live up to those expectations, they might seek other means to accomplish this expectation. The third subtype, Agnew (1992) states, is when an individual seeks out fair rules regarding their goals (Lin et al., 2011).

Agnew (1992) also argued that strain can be derived from the removal of positively valued stimuli. These stimuli can be valued relationships, such as family or friendships, and/ or materialistic. When an individual loses these positively valued stimuli, it can cause them to deviate in order to fill that void. Thus, they might turn to drugs or alcohol to seek refuge. In cases where someone might have caused a loss of value, such as a drunk driver killing a loved one, the individual might seek revenge upon that person (Lilly et al., 2015).

The last type of strain includes the presentation of negative stimuli, according to Agnew (1992). Negative stimuli can be abuse upon an individual or neglect. It can also include illness or something devastating to something materialistic, like an earthquake destroying their home. These individuals might try and avoid the negative stimuli by deviating. They might use drugs or alcohol to try and stop or relieve the negative stimuli. Aggression can be the result of this type of strain in cases where the individual is trying to seek revenge (Lilly et al., 2015).

Agnew (1992) focused on what causes an individual to commit a crime, as well as, what might deter an individual from committing a crime. According to Lilly et al. (2015), those two characteristics can make up an experienced theory of crime. Lilly et al. (2015) go on to state that certain factors help deter individuals from choosing a life of crime. These factors include but are not limited to, strong social bonds, resources to help with coping, being intelligent, and prevention methods towards illegitimate means. These factors differentiate from factors that can cause crime, such as antisocial characteristics and low self-control (Lilly et al., 2015).

Research has found that, when strain occurs, the chances of crime increase. Agnew and White (1992) researched the relationship between strain and delinquency by focusing on adolescents. They stated that negative stimuli, such as life events and where the adolescents were located, could cause delinquency and deviant behavior (Agnew and White, 1992). Another study conducted by Baron (2004) focused on homeless street youth and how forms of strain, such as emotional or sexual abuse, homelessness, and being a victim of other crimes, can lead them to commit crimes. Baron (2004) found that the strain examined supported strain theory in the theory that strain causes criminal behavior. Katz (2000) found that early introductions to negative stimuli can cause females to commit crimes in the future. She used the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, focusing on females, to find her research (Katz, 2000). Having that strain of childhood victimization, as well as discrimination, can explain why women become involved in crime, according to Katz (2000). Thus, her research supports the ideas in strain theory. According to Mazerolle and Maahs (2000), strain and anger can be related to criminal behavior. Thus, relating back to the presentation of negative stimuli can create aggressive behavior.

Political Environment

The political environment can influence how the youth act. Strain theorists focus on social problems in regards to strain theory. Ever since the 1980s and the 1990s, the United States has been focused on greed and the American Dream (Lilly et al., 2015). Youth are brought up in a society where focusing on competitiveness and materialism is the norm. Thus, they are influenced to achieve the American Dream by any means possible. This brings dissatisfaction to the youth, which leads them to seek other opportunities that might include deviant behavior. Along with the emphasis on greed in the 1980s, there was a strong conservative viewpoint that blamed social problems on an individual (Lilly et al., 2015). Social inequalities, along with poverty, emerged and still continue in today’s society. Those who are affected by social inequalities and poverty are more likely to involve themselves in delinquent behavior as a result of the political environment (Lilly et al., 2015).

Garbarino and Violent Youth

Garbarino’s (2015) theory incorporates many other criminological theories, such as strain, biosocial, and social disorganization theories. He states that internal and external factors can affect how an individual perceives choices and their consequences. Garbarino (2015) states that the war zone mentality can cause youth to become violent. Not only that, but past traumas such as abuse can also bring youth to become violent. This trauma that they experience can affect adolescents’ brains easily because their brains are not mature enough to make rational decisions, according to Garbarino (2015). Youths are more likely to make mistakes in their adolescent years because their reasonable judgment is not yet developed. Thus, they might gear toward deviant behavior because they do not know any better (Garbarino, 2015).

Garbarino (2015) states that the war zone mentality is when one grows up and lives within an environment that has assumed violence as a normal way of life. Some children who witness violence or are brought up in a dysfunctional home behave violently because they do not know how to appropriately respond another way. Not only does witnessing violence affect a child’s emotional functioning, but it also affects their behaviors inside and outside of school. It can affect their overall general health and their cognitive functioning. The level of violence in the family can be attributed to how the child will grow up. If they do not have positive stimuli in their life, the child can possess social-emotional and cognitive difficulties in their adolescent years, because they do not understand how to cope with the environment they are living in. If a criminal was placed in a different environment growing up, they may have never become a criminal. In the war zone environment, these youths grow up thinking that violence and aggression are a normal part of life. Thus, they become emotionally damaged and conform to deviant behaviors (Garbarino, 2015).

The Case of Duke Jimenez

In Garbarino’s (2015) Listening to Killers, Duke Jimenez was twenty-three when he was interviewed. Garbarino states that:

The grotesque savagery of the attack is a mystery. I have seen the autopsy report, and it indicates a total of twenty stab wounds. This has all the makings of a ‘rage’ or ‘frenzy’ killing, but such murders typically involve some intense passion arising from the relationship of the killer to the victim (at least in the killer’s mind) or from psychotic delusion. (p. 105).

One would think that this act of murder is unbelievable. Jimenez’s backstory can provide an explanation for his actions. He grew up in an area with an extreme war zone mentality. He had little history with the victim, besides a simple passing of him urinating in her lawn. Because he grew up in a war zone mentality, he grew up with developmental issues. Urinating on her lawn may seem like a simple criminal act to some; those who grow up with a war zone mentality believe this is a bigger issue. They might become more upset and aggressive over a simple act that occurred. However, Garbarino (2015) stated that Jimenez did not seem as an aggressive individual. In fact, he seemed “soft and passive” according to Garbarino (2015, p. 105). He goes on to state that Jimenez is more of a family man, with him robbing the victim only because he needed money for his child support. Jimenez grew up around cultural and familial violence, with his father shooting his older sister. His father was absent his entire life, and his mother was psychologically absent, with being drunk most of his life. Jimenez went by his middle name (Duke) instead of his actual first name (Juan) because he was named after his father, according to Garbarino (2015). Jimenez was emotionally attached to his mother, while she was never emotionally available. This caused a strain in his life (negative stimuli) that pushed him to drug abuse.

Jimenez experienced negative stimuli (father killing older sister, along with an alcoholic mother), along with the removal of positively valued stimuli (family structure and older sister). Because of these factors, he turned to crime and killed a loving mother in order to deal with the negativity that surrounded him (Garbarino, 2015). Thus, strain theory can explain Jimenez’s actions. Garbarino’s theory can also provide an explanation. Jimenez told Garbarino (2015) that “in school, [he] was a kid loving life. At home all that stuff was going on and [he] thought it was normal” (Garbarino, 2015, p. 106). Garbarino’s (2015) theory states that because he grew up in that environment, his underdeveloped brain believes that violent behavior is normal. Both theories would state that his past experiences and his childhood are the causes of his violent behavior.

Policy Implications of Garbarino and Strain

Strain policy implications believe that expanding opportunities and taming the American dream will help decrease strain in life. Lilly et al. (2015) state that creating programs that help with providing resources, job opportunities, and equality will help prevent strain from occurring. Providing a prison rehabilitation program will help offenders get out of prison on better footing. With this program, they will be able to earn an educational degree. Thus, they will be able to get jobs because they earned an education. Strain theory has also provided a variety of delinquency prevention programs, such as Mobilization of Youth (Lilly et al., 2015). Students from disadvantaged neighborhoods should be able to have the resources as well as positive influences in order to obtain a better future.

The second policy implication is taming the American dream. Messner and Rosenfeld (2001), quoted from Lilly et al. (2015) state:

The criminogenic tendencies of the American Dream derive from its exaggerated emphasis on monetary success and its resistance to the limits on the means for the pursuit of success. Any significant lessening of the criminogenic consequences of the dominant culture thus requires the taming of its strong materialistic pressures and the creation of a greater receptivity to socially imposed restraints (p. 92).

Strain theory states that the American dream is the main reason why crime rates are high in America (Lilly et al., 2015). Some people highly value the American dream and would do anything to achieve that goal. Thus, changing what society views as success is deemed impossible and requires caution when executing.