Anomie Theory in Sociology

Anomie is a state of social instability that happens when society’s norms and values break down or become unclear. The term, coined by sociologist Émile Durkheim, describes how people can feel disconnected, purposeless, or uncertain about what’s right or expected. It often emerges during times of rapid change or inequality, when the usual moral guidelines no longer hold society together

Key Takeaways

Definition: Anomie describes a state of normlessness when society’s rules, values, and expectations lose their power to guide behavior, leaving individuals feeling adrift or disconnected.
Origins: The concept was introduced by sociologist Émile Durkheim in the late 19th century and later expanded by Robert Merton to explain deviant behavior in modern societies.
Causes: Anomie arises during periods of rapid social change, inequality, or cultural conflict, when established norms no longer fit new realities.
Effects: People experiencing anomie may feel purposeless, isolated, or frustrated, while societies may see higher levels of deviance, unrest, or moral confusion.
Examples: Economic recessions, technological disruption, or breakdowns in community life can all produce anomic conditions where shared meaning and cohesion decline.

Durkheim’s Concept of Anomie

Émile Durkheim used the term anomie (literally meaning “without law” or “normlessness”) to describe a social condition where shared norms and values lose their power to regulate people’s behaviour.

In simple terms, it’s when society’s rules break down — people no longer know what’s expected of them, and moral boundaries become unclear.

Durkheim saw anomie as a key problem in modern societies, especially during times of rapid change.

What Is Anomie?

For Durkheim, anomie means a breakdown of social norms — a situation where people no longer feel guided by a shared sense of right and wrong.

It signals a weakening of moral bonds that normally hold communities together.

Main Features of Anomie

Loss of Shared Values: Anomie happens when society’s “collective consciousness” — the shared norms, values, and beliefs that unite people — becomes weak. When this moral glue fades, individuals become less connected and more self-focused.
Lack of Moral Guidance: In times of change, old rules may no longer make sense, but new ones haven’t yet formed. This can leave people feeling lost, anxious, or unsure how to behave.
Weak Social Control: When shared values fade, society struggles to control behaviour. Durkheim believed that moral rules act like a “protective cocoon,” limiting our desires. Without them, people’s wants become unlimited, leading to dissatisfaction and disorder.
Rise of Self-Interest: Without strong moral guidance, individuals tend to put their own interests first, caring less about how their actions affect others.

Why Does Anomie Occur?

Durkheim believed anomie arises when societies go through rapid social or economic change, such as during industrialisation or urbanisation.

These shifts disrupt traditional ways of life and moral expectations.

1. The Shift to Modern Society

Durkheim compared two types of social unity:

Mechanical solidarity: In traditional societies, people share similar work, values, and beliefs.
Organic solidarity: In modern societies, people perform very different roles and depend on each other through complex divisions of labour.

This transition can cause temporary instability — a period of confusion and “normlessness” — until new norms develop.

2. Rapid Change and Instability

Anomie tends to appear during periods of sudden change, when society’s rules can’t keep up.

Institutional Strain: When technology or industry changes quickly, traditional norms become outdated before new ones are fully established. This creates “normative confusion.”
Weakened Institutions: As people move to cities, families and religious institutions lose some of their influence, reducing moral guidance.
Growing Individualism: Modern societies encourage competition and personal success, often at the expense of community and cooperation.
Social Uncertainty: Times of war, economic crisis, or sudden prosperity can all cause instability and confusion about values.

Anomie and Suicide

Durkheim famously explored anomie in his study Suicide (1897). He argued that suicide rates are influenced by social forces, not just personal unhappiness.

He identified anomic suicide, which occurs when people’s lives are disrupted by sudden change and they lose their sense of moral direction.

Anomic suicide tends to rise:

During economic downturns — when people lose jobs, income, or status.
During economic booms — when rapid success or social mobility disrupts familiar routines and expectations.

In both cases, people experience a breakdown in their social ties and limits on desire, leading to frustration and hopelessness.

As Durkheim put it, “The bond attaching people to life slackens because the bond attaching them to society is itself slack.”

Merton’s Strain Theory of Anomie

Merton’s Strain Theory is one of the most important explanations of why people break rules or commit crime.

It comes from the functionalist perspective in sociology, and it builds directly on the work of Émile Durkheim.

Merton argued that deviance and crime are not simply about bad people — they arise from the way society itself is organised.

The Basic Idea

Merton suggested that most societies, especially modern capitalist ones, encourage people to pursue certain goals (like wealth, success, and happiness), but not everyone has the same access to the legitimate ways of achieving them.

This mismatch creates strain.

People still want success (because society teaches them to), but when they can’t achieve it through approved routes like education and hard work, they may turn to other, less legitimate means.

In short:

Society tells people to “dream big” — but not everyone gets a fair chance to make those dreams come true.

From Durkheim to Merton: Rethinking Anomie

Durkheim originally used the term anomie to mean a state of normlessness — when society’s rules and values break down, leaving people feeling lost or disconnected.

This often happens during times of rapid change, such as industrialisation or economic crisis.

Merton redefined anomie.

For him, the problem wasn’t that norms had disappeared, but that people couldn’t live up to them.

Society still tells everyone what they should want, but it doesn’t give everyone equal access to the legitimate ways to get there.

This tension — between the goals we’re taught to value and the limited means available to achieve them — is what Merton called strain.

Goals and Means: The Source of Strain

Merton described two key parts of this social system:

Cultural Goals – the things society encourages us to strive for, such as wealth, success, power, and happiness.
Institutionalised Means – the socially approved ways to achieve these goals, like education, employment, and hard work.

When people can’t reach these goals through legitimate means, strain builds up.

They still feel the pressure to succeed but may resort to deviant or criminal behaviour to get there.

For example, someone might deeply value financial success (goal) but, after being denied opportunities for education or fair employment (means), may turn to theft or fraud instead.

The Five Ways People Adapt

Merton identified five modes of adaptation to explain how people can respond to this tension.

Mode of Adaptation	Cultural Goals	Approved Means	Example or Outcome
1. Conformity	Accept	Accept	Most people follow the rules — they pursue success through education and work.
2. Innovation	Accept	Reject	People still want success but use illegitimate ways to get it — e.g. theft, fraud, or drug dealing.
3. Ritualism	Reject	Accept	People give up on big goals but keep following the rules — e.g. a worker who goes through the motions with no ambition.
4. Retreatism	Reject	Reject	People drop out of both goals and means — e.g. drug users or the homeless who withdraw from society’s expectations.
5. Rebellion	Replace	Replace	People reject existing goals and means and replace them with new ones — e.g. revolutionaries or radicals seeking to change the system.

Merton believed these adaptations explained why some people conform while others deviate — not because of individual weakness, but because of the pressures built into society.

Strain, Social Class, and Crime

Merton used his theory to explain why working-class and poorer people are often overrepresented in crime statistics.

The working class are taught the same goals as everyone else — to be successful and make money — but they have fewer opportunities to do so legitimately.
When they fail to reach success through accepted routes, illegitimate means (like theft or drug dealing) can seem more realistic or rewarding.
Over time, these alternative routes to success may become normalised within subcultures, so that deviant behaviour feels less wrong.

Merton’s key point was that criminals share the same goals as everyone else — they just take different, often illegal, paths to reach them.

Why Merton’s Theory Still Matters

Even though Merton developed his ideas in the 1930s, they remain highly relevant.

Poverty and inequality: His theory helps explain why crime often increases in times of economic hardship — when people feel shut out from legitimate success.
Modern consumerism: Today, society still pressures people to acquire money, possessions, and status. When the system blocks fair access to education or good jobs, strain and resentment grow, leading some toward deviant or criminal solutions.
Media influence: Sociologists like Jock Young have argued that modern media increases strain by constantly showing lifestyles of wealth and consumption that many people can’t realistically achieve.

Later Developments

Merton’s ideas inspired later sociologists to refine and extend the theory:

Cloward and Ohlin (1960): Developed Opportunity Theory, showing that access to illegitimate opportunities (like criminal networks) also affects the type of deviance people turn to.
Robert Agnew (1992, 2006): Created General Strain Theory (GST), expanding the idea beyond economic failure. He argued that strain can also come from emotional stress — like loss, rejection, or bullying — which can also lead to deviance.

Causes of Anomie

Durkheim and Merton both used anomie to explain how social structure and culture interact to shape behavior.

For Durkheim, anomie results from rapid social change and weakened moral bonds.
For Merton, it emerges when cultural ideals of success collide with structural barriers that prevent people from achieving them legitimately.

In both views, anomie represents a loss of moral direction and social cohesion, helping to explain why crime, deviance, and feelings of alienation often rise during times of inequality and transformation.

Durkheim’s View: Rapid Change and Weakened Solidarity

Durkheim saw anomie as a result of large-scale social disruption.

He believed it was most likely to occur during periods of rapid social change, when societies transform faster than their moral order can keep up.

1. From Traditional to Modern Society

Durkheim argued that anomie arose as societies shifted from mechanical solidarity – typical of small, traditional communities – to organic solidarity, characteristic of modern industrial life.

Mechanical Solidarity: In traditional societies, people shared similar jobs, beliefs, and values, which created strong social bonds and a powerful sense of unity.
Organic Solidarity: In modern industrial societies, people depend on each other through a complex division of labor, but they no longer share the same experiences or beliefs.
The Transition: As people move from close-knit communities to impersonal urban life, moral ties weaken, and individuals begin to feel disconnected from a shared moral code.

2. The Erosion of Social Control

Industrialization and urbanization weakened the traditional institutions that once provided guidance and discipline.

Weakened Institutions: Families, religious groups, and local communities—once key sources of moral teaching—lost much of their influence.
Urban Impersonality: City life replaced intimate, face-to-face relationships with impersonal and fragmented interactions, reducing shared values and collective responsibility.
Ineffective Norms: When social control weakens, people no longer agree on right and wrong. Crime and conflict rise, which in turn further undermine moral order.
Rise of Individualism: Modern societies encourage personal success and self-interest, which can weaken community bonds and promote moral confusion.

3. Cultural Lag and Technological Change

Durkheim also recognized that technological and social progress can outpace moral and institutional development.

Norm Confusion: When new technologies or social roles appear faster than moral rules adapt, a cultural lag forms, creating uncertainty about appropriate behavior.
Material vs. Moral Change: While material progress accelerates, moral institutions evolve more slowly. This mismatch often fuels social tension, inequality, and a sense of purposelessness.

Merton’s View: Strain Between Goals and Means

Robert Merton expanded Durkheim’s idea to explain why individuals break rules in modern capitalist societies.

His strain theory reframed anomie as a tension between cultural goals and the legitimate means to achieve them.

1. The Gap Between Aspirations and Opportunities

In Merton’s model, anomie occurs when people are taught to desire success but lack fair opportunities to achieve it through accepted channels.

Cultural Goals: Society encourages everyone to pursue wealth, success, and happiness—the “American Dream.”
Blocked Opportunities: Yet not everyone has equal access to quality education, stable jobs, or fair wages.
Resulting Strain: This mismatch creates frustration and alienation, leading some individuals to seek alternative, often deviant, paths to reach their goals.

2. Economic Pressure and Inequality

Modern consumer culture intensifies this strain by glorifying wealth and possessions.

Consumerism: Media and advertising reinforce the idea that happiness depends on money and material goods, making financial success a moral expectation.
Structural Inequality: When people cannot reach these goals through legal or accepted means, they may feel shame, anger, or resentment – especially those facing poverty or discrimination.
Coping Through Deviance: According to Merton, people adapt to this pressure in different ways – innovating (e.g., committing crimes), ritualizing rules without meaning, retreating from society, or rebelling to create new norms.

Examples of Anomie

The concept of anomie helps explain why people and societies can lose their sense of direction during times of rapid economic instability or social change.

In modern contexts, anomie can appear in two main ways:

When shared moral values break down, leaving people unsure how to act (Durkheim’s focus).
When individuals feel strain because social barriers block them from reaching culturally valued goals (Merton’s focus).

Below are some examples of how anomie appears in today’s world.

Anomie Caused by Economic Instability

Economic upheaval often creates strain (in Merton’s sense) and weakens the collective moral order (in Durkheim’s sense).

When financial systems fail, or people lose faith in the fairness of opportunity, many experience confusion, frustration, and loss of purpose.

Economic Crises and Downturns

Periods of economic hardship vividly show how anomie arises when people lose the means to achieve success through legitimate channels.

1. The 2008 Great Recession:

The global financial crisis that began in 2008 caused widespread job losses and economic insecurity.

Loss of Legitimate Means: Many people could no longer meet society’s expectations of success through hard work and stable employment.
Family Strain: Families faced increased stress due to unemployment, debt, and housing instability.
Deviant Adaptation: Research shows that property crime often rises during recessions, supporting Merton’s idea that people sometimes turn to illegal or “innovative” ways to meet economic goals when legitimate paths are blocked.

2. Consumerism and Riots:

Merton’s concept also explains unrest linked to deprivation and inequality.

Modern societies teach people to value money and material goods as symbols of worth, yet opportunities to achieve these goals are unequal.

The 2011 riots in London and Manchester, for instance, were interpreted by some sociologists as a reaction to consumerist values combined with blocked opportunities—an expression of anomie in action.

Work Stress and Social Isolation

Even in wealthy nations, rapid economic and technological changes can lead to personal instability and emotional strain.

1. Worker Stress and Suicide:

In highly developed economies, such as France, rising workplace stress and suicide rates have been linked to feelings of powerlessness and alienation.

In rapidly changing societies, people often face uncertainty and pressure to constantly adapt—conditions that foster personal forms of anomie.

2. Homelessness as Retreatism:

Merton described some individuals as “retreatists” who reject both society’s goals (like wealth) and its approved means (like employment).

Homelessness often reflects this condition.

People in this situation may experience deep alienation and loss of self-worth, feeling cut off from the norms that once gave life meaning.

Anomie Caused by Rapid Social and Cultural Change

Durkheim’s version of anomie focused on macro-level change – the breakdown of shared norms during modernization, globalization, and cultural transformation.

Modernization, Globalization, and Fragmented Identity

Modern societies are diverse and fast-changing, which can weaken shared values and make moral life more uncertain.

1. Cultural Lag:

Technological innovation often advances faster than moral or legal systems can adapt.

For example, while technology allows for nationwide digital health records, social beliefs about privacy and data use may lag behind, creating moral tension and confusion.

2. Weakening of Traditional Institutions:

As families, religious groups, and local communities lose influence, people gain personal freedom—but also lose the moral anchors that once guided behavior.

This makes deviance and disagreement more likely.

3. Postmodern Fragmentation:

In today’s globalized, postindustrial world, identities are fluid and uncertain.

The rapid pace of change, driven by consumerism and constant online connection, gives people freedom – but can also leave them feeling aimless, disconnected, and without clear values.

Institutional Breakdown: Family and Law

When core social institutions like the family and legal systems weaken, anomie deepens.

Family Instability:

As historian Francis Fukuyama observed, the shift toward service economies and individualism since the mid-20th century has eroded trust and social stability.

Rising divorce rates and absent parenthood have been linked to feelings of alienation and higher rates of youth delinquency.

These trends suggest that weakening family structures reduce the moral guidance once provided by stable kinship networks.

2. Erosion of Legal Authority:

Widespread law-breaking can indicate that existing laws no longer align with social values.

For example, in 1980s Britain, mass protest against the “Poll Tax” led to civil disobedience so widespread that the law had to be repealed.

Durkheim argued that such reactions can sometimes renew social solidarity, as citizens unite to demand fairer norms and restore moral balance.

Anomie and Alienation (Durkheim vs. Marx)

While Durkheim’s concept of anomie focuses on moral confusion and weakened norms, Karl Marx’s idea of alienation comes from a very different tradition – one that focuses on economic exploitation and the structure of capitalism.

Concept	Main Thinker	Root Cause	Focus
Anomie	Émile Durkheim, Robert Merton	Breakdown of shared norms and values	Moral and social disorder
Alienation	Karl Marx	Exploitation and loss of control over labor	Economic and psychological isolation

1. Root Causes

Anomie arises when society changes so rapidly that moral rules and shared values can’t keep up. This can happen during industrialization, urbanization, or times of social upheaval. People lose their sense of moral direction.
Alienation, on the other hand, happens when workers in a capitalist system are separated from the products of their labor, from control over their work, from other people, and ultimately from their own sense of self.

2. Nature of the Condition

Alienation (Marx):

Workers are exploited because the capitalist class owns the means of production and profits from their labor.
Over time, this economic system makes people feel powerless and disconnected—from what they create, from coworkers (who become competitors), and from their human potential.
Alienation can also describe a broader feeling of being controlled by impersonal market forces or systems that seem beyond one’s control.

Anomie (Durkheim/Merton):

Focuses on moral confusion rather than economic exploitation.
For Durkheim, anomie occurs when people lose clear moral guidance due to weakened social bonds.
For Merton, it describes the tension between cultural goals (like success) and blocked opportunities, which can lead to deviance or rebellion.

3. Overlapping Effects

Despite their different causes, both concepts describe disconnection, frustration, and a weakening of social bonds:

Both can lead to a sense of isolation and meaninglessness.
Both can help explain deviant or self-destructive behavior.
Merton’s theory even links anomie to feelings of alienation, suggesting that when people can’t meet society’s demands, they withdraw, rebel, or lose faith in its values.

Critical Evaluation

Both Émile Durkheim and Robert Merton made major contributions to understanding how social breakdown and inequality can lead to crime.

However, their theories of anomie and strain have also faced strong criticism for being vague, overly structural, and limited in scope.

Criticisms of Durkheim’s Concept of Anomie

Durkheim’s original idea of anomie and its link to deviance has been challenged on several grounds.

1. Vague and Difficult to Measure

Durkheim never clearly defined how anomie could be observed or measured.

It’s unclear exactly why weakened norms would lead specifically to crime, rather than to other forms of social change such as protest or withdrawal. This makes the theory hard to test scientifically.

2. Ignores Individual Choice

Critics argue that Durkheim focused too heavily on society’s structures and not enough on individual meaning and motivation.

He didn’t explain why some people commit crimes while others—facing the same social conditions—do not. This makes his theory feel overly general.

3. Overlooks Harmful or “Dysfunctional” Crimes

Durkheim suggested that crime can sometimes serve a positive function by clarifying moral boundaries or strengthening social solidarity.

However, critics point out that some crimes—like rape, child abuse, or domestic violence—have no such function.

These acts are purely destructive and cannot be justified as “useful” to society.

Criticisms of Merton’s Strain Theory

Robert Merton’s version of anomie, known as strain theory, focused on the tension between cultural goals (like success) and the unequal opportunities people have to reach them.

While influential, his theory also has several weaknesses.

1. Limited Scope

Merton’s theory explains economic crimes—like theft, fraud, or robbery—quite well, but it struggles to explain non-economic forms of deviance.

It doesn’t fully account for crimes motivated by anger, emotion, or power, such as violent assaults, hate crimes, or vandalism.
Nor does it explain recreational deviance, like joyriding or football hooliganism, which are not directly linked to blocked economic opportunities.

2. Too Focused on Class and Opportunity

Merton’s approach often assumes crime is mainly a response to poverty and blocked ambition in the lower classes.

It overlooks white-collar and corporate crimes, committed by people who already have access to education and legitimate means of success.
It also assumes that everyone shares the same cultural goals—mainly wealth and material success—but in reality, people hold diverse values. Many professionals prioritize helping others or community service over financial gain.

3. Doesn’t Explain Individual Differences

Merton described several “modes of adaptation” to strain (like innovation, retreatism, ritualism, and rebellion), but he didn’t explain why people choose different paths.

Why does one person facing unemployment turn to crime, another to substance abuse, and another keep working within the system?
His suggestion that working-class families might socialize children into deviant behavior feels unsatisfactory to many critics, as it still downplays personal decision-making.

4. Deterministic and Conservative Bias

As a functionalist, Merton viewed deviance as a product of social structure rather than individual agency.

His theory implies that people’s behavior is largely determined by social pressures, leaving little room for personal choice or creativity.
Critics also see strain theory as conservative, since it accepts society’s existing goals and values (like material success) rather than questioning them.
It portrays rebels and radicals as deviants, not as people who might be pushing for positive social change.

References

Bernburg, J. G. (2002). Anomie, Social Change and Crime. A Theoretical Examination of Institutional‐Anomie Theory. The British Journal of Criminology, 42 (4), 729-742. doi:10.1093/bjc/42.4.729

Boudon, R., & Bourricaud, F. (1989). A critical dictionary of sociology: University of Chicago Press.

Boudon, R., & Bourricaud, F. (2002). Anomie. In A critical dictionary of sociology (pp. 48-51): Routledge.

Cloward, R. A. (1959). Illegitimate means, anomie, and deviant behavior. American sociological review, 164-176.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Illegitimate means and delinquent subcultures. Social Deviance: Readings in Theory & Research, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 45-49.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. The Free Press, New York.

Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: A Study in Sociology. The Free Press, New York.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Sociologie et philosophie.

Hirschi, T. (2017). Causes of delinquency: Routledge.

Inderbitzen-Nolan, H. M., Anderson, E. R., & Johnson, H. S. (2007). Subjective versus objective behavioral ratings following two analogue tasks: A comparison of socially phobic and non-anxious adolescents. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21 (1), 76-90.

Inderbitzin, M., Bates, K. A., & Gainey, R. R. (2016). Deviance and social control: A sociological perspective: Sage Publications.

Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance: Oxford University Press, USA.

Kurtz, L. R., & Turpin, J. (1999). Encyclopedia of violence, peace, and conflict (Vol. 1): Academic Press.

Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3,
672–682.

Merton, R.K. (1949). Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In: Anshen, R.N. (Ed.), The Family: Its Functions and Destiny . Harper, New York, pp. 226–257.

Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In: Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, New York, pp. 185–214.

Merton, R.K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie. In: Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure . The Free Press, New York, pp. 215–248.

Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2012). Crime and the American dream: Cengage Learning.

Messner, S. F., Thome, H., & Rosenfeld, R. (2008). Institutions, anomie, and violent crime: Clarifying and elaborating institutional-anomie theory. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 2 (2), 163-181.

Muftić, L. R. (2006). Advancing institutional anomie theory: A microlevel examination connecting culture, institutions, and deviance. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50 (6), 630-653.

Stark, R., Doyle, D. P., & Rushing, J. L. (1983). Beyond Durkheim: religion and suicide. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 120-131.