The True Culprit: How Structural Failures Fuel Crime and Social Discontent
/The True Culprit: How Structural Failures Fuel Crime and Social Discontent
By: Peter Marina, Ph.D.
Anomie: lack of the usual social or ethical standards in an individual or group.
In a world where crime is blamed on individual failings, the real culprit is often obscured: a society rife with structural contradictions and inequality. Emile Durkheim’s concept of anomie indicts our modern social order. As we transitioned from premodern simplicity to industrial capitalism, we dismantled the mechanisms that once provided social cohesion and meaning. The result? A pervasive sense of normlessness and disconnection that fuels crime, not due to inherent tendencies, but due to systemic failure. Our approach to crime is flawed; it’s not the individual who is broken, but a society that has failed its members. Instead of perpetuating punitive measures that address only symptoms, we must confront and dismantle the structural contradictions at the heart of our social fabric.
This article explores the root causes of street and violent crime. For effective policing, it’s crucial to understand the true causes of crime, free from political bias or ideology, which I strive to achieve. Genuine insight comes from the rigorous critique of everything that exists.
Theoretical Underpinnings of Anomie
For Durkheim, anomie, rooted in social transformation, is a cause of social problems in modern life. Anomie emerged from the transition from premodern to modern society—a shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, altering what holds society together.
In premodern societies, mechanical solidarity prevailed. Homogeneity from a simple division of labor fostered shared values, beliefs, and cultural norms, producing strong social cohesion and a collective conscience. The rise of the modern nation-state and industrial capitalism disrupted this order, leading to a complex division of labor and a movement toward organic solidarity.
Modern societies find cohesion in differences, not similarities. The complex division of labor shapes varied thoughts, values, and beliefs, loosening the moorings that bind individuals to social institutions and communities.
This disruption results in anomie, a state of normlessness where individuals feel disconnected from the collective conscience. The loss of shared values and increased complexity can lead to meaninglessness, precariousness, and uncertainty. Durkheim warned that anomie could manifest in higher rates of suicide, depression, crime and other issues as individuals struggle to find place and purpose.
This understanding of Durkheim's notion of anomie provides a foundation for exploring its implications, such as Robert Merton's concept of the innovator and the Chicago School's ecological model of crime.
Theory of Anomie I
Robert Merton's theory explains how structural contradictions between individual means and cultural goals lead to crime. Merton’s concept of the "innovator" shows how individuals, excluded from achieving societal goals through legitimate means, turn to alternative, often illicit, methods.
In a society that glorifies the American Dream, hard work and education are expected to lead to success and wealth. However, when structural inequalities prevent individuals from accessing means to achieve these goals, a contradiction arises. This disparity creates feelings of acute relative deprivation, where individuals perceive themselves as unjustly deprived of the cultural goals of society.
Anomie, a state of normlessness and societal detachment, intensifies these feelings. As social norms become unclear and traditional values erode, individuals experience meaninglessness, precariousness, and uncertainty. This disconnection from societal institutions exacerbates the strain of social exclusion, leading to anomie.
Innovators are individuals who continue to embrace cultural goals but lack legitimate means to achieve them. Instead of conforming, they devise creative and often underground ways to fulfill their aspirations. This can manifest in activities such as developing illegal economies (e.g., drug trafficking or prostitution) or engaging in theft, fraud and other crimes. These actions are attempts to overcome barriers imposed by structural exclusion.
Crime is not merely a result of individual failings but a symptom of broader structural contradictions where societal institutions fail to provide access for all individuals to achieve manufactured cultural goals. The perception of relative deprivation and the resulting anomie drive individuals to seek alternative, often illicit, paths to success.
To reduce street crime, we must either change our cultural goals (American Dream) or ensure everyone has access to the means to achieve these goals (education, good jobs, health care). If we provide equal access to the means, crime rates would drop. Police and tough laws alone cannot solve the problem. Crime results from structural contradictions between cultural goals and access to means. Solving crime requires addressing these contradictions.
Theory of Anomie II
The Chicago School's ecological model explains crime in Chicago’s Zone II, the transition zone, through social disorganization and community instability. Early criminologists linked crime to physical and moral deficiencies, but Park and Burgess examined crime rates across Chicago’s five concentric zones to challenge these views:
· Zone I: Central Business District (CBD)
· Zone II: Transition Zone
· Zone III: Working-Class Zone
· Zone IV: Single-Family Residences and Elegant Apartments
· Zone V: Suburbs and Satellite Cities
Zone II experienced constant demographic turnover due to industrial encroachment. This zone housed immigrants and lower-income residents, leading to high residential mobility. Despite changes, crime rates in Zone II remained high.
This revealed that crime wasn’t tied to ethnicity, race, or poverty but to social disorganization caused by neighborhood turnover. The constant movement hindered the formation of strong social ties, community organizations and collective efficacy—key elements in creating social solidarity and cohesion necessary to prevent crime. Lack of social cohesion and collective efficacy, fostered by institutions like schools, churches and community organizations, contributed to persistent crime.
The root cause of crime in Zone II was community instability, not the residents. Reducing crime requires addressing structural conditions, not punitive measures or racial profiling. Enhancing community engagement, supportive networks, and stable institutions mitigates crime. Tackling root causes like neighborhood instability is crucial. The Chicago School shows crime stems from social disorganization and instability, not inherent traits or poverty. Investing in stable communities and supportive networks reduces crime naturally.
Conclusion
My late friend Jock Young, who called me “delightfully insane,” pointed out that discontent arises from relative, not absolute, deprivation. Poverty alone doesn’t cause dissatisfaction; it can lead to resignation or fatalism. Discontent arises when people compare themselves to others and perceive unfairness or injustice. Exploitative cultures can endure for generations, but it’s the perception of relative deprivation and injustice that fuels discontent.
Anomie, stemming from feelings of relative deprivation due to social inequalities and structural exclusion, underscores that treating crime as an individual problem misses its true nature. Ignoring the structural contradictions behind crime means neglecting broader issues causing suffering. It’s not that individuals are inherently sick, but their sickness reflects a society plagued with structural contradictions.
Instead of blaming individuals, we must address these structural issues. Police, informed by this understanding, can play a crucial role in a reformed justice system that acknowledges the root causes of crime and strives to ensure all individuals enjoy their fundamental human rights. We need radical social transformation into a new historical epoch centered on human rights. Nothing else will suffice. And police can serve as community leaders who protect such human rights. Everyone needs a seat at the table.
Dr. Peter Marina is a sociologist and criminologist at the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse. Along with his father, (retired) Lieutenant Pedro Marina, he teaches human rights policing to law enforcement professionals throughout the United States. He is author of the Human Rights Policing: Reimagining Law Enforcement in the 21st Century with Routledge Press (2022).
