Anomie Theory and Addiction
There is wisdom in the claim of sociologists that social problems, including drug addiction, are socially constructed; as Robert Merton’s theory of anomie explores. Anomie is best defined as “a breakdown in the cultural structure, occurring particularly when there is an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of members of the group to act in accord with them” (Winslow 1968, 1).
The behavior of the addicted is challenging from many perspectives; it poses an obvious challenge to the person willing to quit but unable to do so; it is puzzling for those who want to find theoretical explanation for the rising and diffusion of these forms of self destructive habits; it is socially costly and not pleasant for many. Addiction introduces in consumption behavior the idea of habit as well that of deviance: therefore the development of norms, both at the social and the individual level, and the cognitive mechanism on which they rely on must be taken into account. The individual is not placed in the vacuum but he/she acts in specific context, within formal and informal rules, i.e., an institutional setting. Individual cognition takes place within this framework and perception plays a major role in the generation of actual models of behavior that may be quite different among individuals. That is why some people may believe to be not at risk of addiction; others may be unable to take into account future consequences; others, socialized in high consumption culture, get hooked not because their individual weakness of will but because they are involved in a collective action problem.
Manuella Adrian describes addiction as “an individual behavior that has a social effect, it affects other people; it is also an individual behavior that is controlled at the societal level” (Adrian 2003, 3). And perhaps the best place to start examining addiction, in terms of anomie, is to look closely at youth culture and the individual’s likeliness to engage in deviant behavior. Robert W. Winslow proposes that “Merton’s anomie theory is most fruitful…when it is applied as a model for the analysis of the interpersonal network of structured relations that occur within the adolescent social system (a distinctive social class system that emerges among adolescents in urban, industrialized areas and is independent of the stratification system of adults)” (Winslow 1968, 2).
Drug use within youth culture has traditionally been described as a dysfunctional effort to escape problems stemming from poverty and racism or as an alternative means of making money in the face of underclass isolation from legitimate economic opportunities. Drug use is an increasing problem among teenagers in today’s society. Most drug use begins in the teenage years, making it a critical starting point for the analysis of addiction. During these years adolescents are faced with the difficult tasks of discovering their self identity, clarifying their sexual roles, assenting independence, learning to cope with authority figures and searching for goals that would give their lives meaning. Drugs are readily available, adolescents are curious and venerable, and there is peer pressure to experiment, and there is a temptation to escape from conflicts. The use of drugs by teenagers is the result of a combination of factors such as peer pressure, curiosity, and availability. Drugs addiction among adolescents in turn lead to depression and suicide.
However, it has been shown that the stronger the mutual attachment between the child and the parents, the less likely addiction will be a problem later in life. In a longitudinal experiment completed over multiple decades, studies showed that the effect of the parent-child bond led to personality attributes of greater responsibility, less rebelliousness, and intolerance of deviance. It also showed a link between the adolescent’s ability to cope with any number of problems (interpersonal or intrapersonal) without the need for rebellion (Brook, et al. 2000). And, perhaps, just as important as the parent-child relationship, is the social status of the parent. Delinquency can be predicted by the adult’s socio-economic status with a particular high school area (Winslow 1968). To combat youth addiction, the longitudinal study concluded “that interventions focused on enhancing the parent-child mutual attachment relation should result in a reduction of the risk factor conducive to drug use, specifically during the late 20’s” (Brook, et al. 2000, 13).
In terms of dissecting anomie theory, the adolescent approach has many advantages. Winslow states that “by limiting analysis to the adolescent social system, anomie becomes continuous and complementary with other current theories…and the study of deviance” (Winslow 1968, 5). Interpersonal relationships are far more important in the youth world, where just associating with the so-called “cool” kids (or the “leading crowd”) is regarded as one of the highest social values. Along with the pursuit of material advancements (wearing the right clothes, driving the right car), the “leading crowd” actively set forth a set of classifications for fitting in. When youngsters are not able to integrate into these social standards (usually, but not always, because of their place in the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder) they engage in the “innovation adaptation” as set forth by Merton. Winslow writes that when the youth “cannot obtain status at school through athletic or academic means…they carve a place for themselves in the adolescent community through illegitimate means” (Winslow 1968, 4).
When drug use does occur among the “leading crowd”, it frequently occurs in the confines of stable and affluent communities where aggregate social conditions do not disadvantage them or place them at greater risk for seeking to escape with drugs. Hence, their recreational use of drugs is more likely to be portrayed as normative, functional, or even as an essentially harmless part of adolescent development. Even when harmful use is acknowledged among the higher-class stratum, it is not defined in terms of aggregate community characteristics that place the adolescent at risk. Instead, an effort is made to distinguish middle-class dysfunctional drug abusers from casual, functioning users in terms of individual factors.
Winslow hypothesized that “youngsters from lower socio-economic backgrounds perceive fewer legitimate opportunities to attain [their] goals than youngsters from upper and middle socio-economic backgrounds” (Winslow 1968, 6). Leading some to categorize lower stratum drug use as dangerous and dysfunctional in the aggregate and to distinguish it from drug use among majority group adolescents; and, in turn, shoring up policies that encourage community crackdowns and punishment of threatening, high-risk, usually inner-city minority drug users. In terms of anomie, drug subcultures in our nation’s poor areas are formed as an adaptation to aggregate community conditions.
The search for causes among social factors, in the adolescent and adult social system, has been conducted mainly by sociologists and social psychologists. Such explanations give greater weight to immediate situational factors but continue to focus on dispositions and pathologies. A number of theorists have devised explanations of drug abuse based on Merton’s concept of anomie. Merton viewed drug dependence as a “retreatist” adaptation to the discrepancy between society’s culturally defined goals and the socially prescribed means for achieving those goals (Adrian 2003). He argued that individuals unable or unwilling to achieve these goals might renounce both the goals and the legitimate means for achieving them and “retreat” or escape through alcoholism, mental illness, vagrancy, or drug addiction.
Social psychological theories of the causes of drug dependence note the relationship between personality variables and interpersonal relations. For example, juvenile drug abusers are often from less cohesive families, are less likely to have someone to help them with their personal problems, and are subject to disturbed relations between family members. Relationships between family members have been noted as important in the genesis of drug dependence. For instance, the longitudinal study from upstate New York drew upon these sources to explain the way in which unresolved conflicts within the family can lead to stress and addiction (Brook, et al. 2000).
Neither individual nor social theories of the causes of drug use offer wholly satisfactory explanations for the phenomenon of drug use. Without additional knowledge about the ways in which predispositions are converted into drug taking, such explanations are of limited value. That is why, perhaps, it would be valuable to dissect the problems with anomie theory in order to get a better understanding of its relationship to addiction. As noted in the study by Richard Featherstone and Mathieu Deflem, “several scholars have blended Merton’s concept of anomie with his theory of strain, thereby discounting the differences between the two concepts” (Featherstone and Deflem, 11). However, this discrepancy could benefit the social good if it integrated the probability of recovery from addiction with its causes.
If the theory were to permit addicts to be rescued from the moralistic clutches of authority figures and medical treatment were to include drug maintenance where indicated, and other forms of social support delivered in a non-judgmental way, this would surely be preferable to the moral busybody’s punitive approach to deviance. Inasmuch as pre-existing psychological problems probably underlie some forms of drug abuse (e.g., self-medication to deal with unpleasant subjective feelings), psychotherapy might also be appropriate in some cases, but it must be acknowledged that many drug users are correct when they assert that they can lead productive, non-criminal lives if merely given their drug of choice without counseling or other interference. Similarly, it is obvious that the lifestyles of many North American street junkies are responsible for attendant health problems that could benefit from medical attention, even if addiction itself is not a disease in the traditional sense.
Judith W. Ross states that “applying anomie theory to health care access may explain why a history of deprivation discourages complaining and why being accustomed to receiving needed services encourages people to speak out when they lose benefits” (Ross 1992, 1). In the same regard, it could also be said that if medicalization were the only politically-marketable way to treat addiction it could wean the public away from the criminal justice approach that is susceptible to so much social disruption and waste of resources; it could be an imperfect but tolerable interim solution: the best deal that could be struck in today’s political climate.
However, that is not the case and attempting to prohibit the user from acquiring them mostly combats drug addiction. Drug prohibition is a worldwide system of state power. Global drug prohibition is a “thing,” a “social fact” (another Durkheim term). Drug prohibition exists whether or not we recognize it, and it has real consequences. The ironic twist provided by a Mertonian perspective is nicely illustrated in the matter of drug supply. The public perspective expressed most commonly by law enforcement agencies and politicians is that drugs are too easy to obtain. Prohibition follows as a logical consequence of this view. For users, by contrast, drugs are too difficult to obtain. Hence prohibition becomes a problem, not a solution, it is a dysfunction.
Robert Merton sheds light on the tendency we have identified for the “drug problem” to be framed in terms of the interests, concerns and definitions of institutions in society at large. He draws an important distinction between manifest and latent problems. A manifest social problem is one where certain objective conditions (e.g., drug use) are identified and recognized as being at odds with social values shared by society. On the other hand, a latent social problem also constitutes an objective condition which is at odds with the values held by society (or a sub-set of society), but is not recognized as being so (e.g., social stigma caused by drug illegality) (Adrian 2003).
Merton suggests that a range of factors contribute to the selective identification of particular problems as “manifest” or their remaining “latent” and hidden. Firstly, Merton argues that undesirable conditions that are not intended, but are the by-products of actions directed by the goal to improve some other more pressing concern, rank low on the scale of social concerns as these are recognized and defined. Hence, the unforeseen outcomes of drug prohibition for drug users may be perceived as just the unfortunate fallout of upholding the moral standards of the community; and, by default, a major factor in the cause of drug addiction. In this case, the manifest problem at hand is deviance from moral norms for behavior. Merton notes, “These unintended and undesired consequences of purposive action may become a focus of attention, but they are less apt to mobilize pressure for preventative or remedial measures than those problems that violate the prevailing morality” (Merton 1971, 816). Furthermore these unwanted results of “purposive action” are often perceived as intractable or as part of a Devil’s bargain. Merton notes that people hold a “tacit conviction that whatever is, is inevitable, and so might as well be ignored” (Merton 1971, 813). The outcome, as noted by Merton, could be a complacent and fatalistic orientation towards the unanticipated effects of directed social action.
The fact that certain social problems rise to “manifest” status and others remain “latent” may be also be accounted for in terms of the existence of categorical differences. Merton suggests that social problems can be usefully divided into two broad classes: “social disorganization” and “deviant behavior”. Social disorganization refers to a situation in which a given social system is failing or inadequate. In such cases, the interrelated statuses and roles are functioning in such a way that the collective purposes of that particular social location, as well as the individual objectives of its members, are less fully realized than they might be in an alternative workable system. Alternatively, deviant behavior refers to actions which depart significantly from the conduct proscribed by the norms set out for people, which vary according to their social status. Thus, social problems that fall into the category of social disorganization refer to technical, instrumental or coordination errors in the social system, such as inability to provide members with the skills and opportunities needed to fulfill their social roles. By contrast those relating to deviance grow from moral and cultural roots as people fail to live up to the normative requirements of their social positions; and, subsequently, are far more prone to addiction (Merton 1971).
Merton argues that social disorganization is less likely to be understood as a social problem than is deviance, to the extent that the latter is visible and accountable as an action that is at odds with the norms shared (to a greater or lesser extent) in society. As with the unintended consequences of purposive behavior, parties who are vying for the recognition of problems generated by social disorganization may be unable to draw attention to their causes by pointing to norms that have been violated (Merton 1971). In terms of illicit drug use and addiction this theme is well illustrated. The issues that are amplified (in both popular discourse and academic research) are those arising from the deviant, norm-breaking behavior of users. By contrast, issues that constitute states of social disorganization resulting from the unintended consequences of prohibition (e.g., reduced access to health services) may rank as low profile matters in the order of public concerns (Ross 1992).
Furthermore, we should not forget the important role played by people and institutions in positions of power in determining what does and does not constitute a social problem. In the absence of consensus on an objective criteria with which to compare the seriousness of various social concerns, the values held by powerful interests within society will play a key role in determining which troubles are deemed significant; what is functional and what is dysfunctional, who owns the “real” problem (Merton 1971). However, as Merton notes, “the sociologist need not order the importance of social problems in the same way as the man in the street”, nor are we obliged to order the importance of social issues in accordance with the values of those groups currently enjoying positions of authority (Merton 1971, 811).
Yet if the sociologist is to go beyond common-sense analyses of deviance when constructing a dissection of addiction, how is this to be done? Again Merton provided a clue with his concept of the social dysfunction. We can define social dysfunctions in terms of their relation to social disorganization. Where social disorganization refers to generic failures or inadequacies in the functioning of a given social system, social dysfunction refers to the specific failures of a particular part of that system in meeting particular requirements, for particular people in a given social location. To analyze a social problem in terms of its dysfunctions is to examine “a designated set of consequences of a designated pattern of behavior, belief, or organization that interfere with a designated functional requirement of a designated social system” (Merton 1971, 839). In other words, functionality and dysfunctionality need to be specified in very concrete ways as they apply to specific groups, interests and action patterns in the addiction framework. Because the social system is highly stratified, social patterns or states of affairs may be functional for some elements of the social system and dysfunctional for others. While benefits may exist for particular groups as a result of drug prohibition, differential and contradictory effects will necessarily be experienced in other components of the social system and in diverse social locations. Consequently there is a strong requirement to specify the perspective from which dysfunctions will be considered, and the social groups who will be affected by them.
By studying social dysfunctions we may shed light on conditions within our society that are at odds with the values that are commonly shared, and may serve to make “latent” social problems visible. Where social dysfunctions relate to conditions maintained by social policy, such knowledge may serve as a basis for future decisions and allow for the parties who will bear the consequences of policy decisions to stake a claim for participation in relevant debates. Merton observes that by conducting relevant analyses, “sociological knowledge eventually presses policy-makers to justify their social policies to their constituencies and the larger community” (Merton 1971, 807). Informed by such a mandate, this paper has gone beyond common-sense categories in an attempt to define drug addiction in a new way. That is to say, to try to understand the problems or dysfunctions generated by drug prohibition as experienced by drug users; and the probability of drug addiction that is likely to take hold of the user.
REFERENCES
Adiran, Manuella. How Can Sociological Theory Help Our Understanding of Addictions? Substance Use & Misuse. June 2003, Vol. 38 Issue 10, p.1385-1423.
Brook, Judith S., Martin Whiteman, Stephen Finch and Patricia Cohen. Longitudinally Foretelling Drug Use in the Late Twenties: Adolescent Personality and Social Environmental Antecedents. Journal of Genetic Psychology. March 2000, Vol. 161 Issue 1, p. 37-52.
Featherstone, Richard and Mathieu Deflem. Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences of Merton’s Two Theories. Sociological Inguiry. November 2003, Vol. 73 Issue 4, p. 471-489.
Merton, Robert. Social problems and sociological theory. In his Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc, 1971.
Ross, Judith W. Social Workers, Health Care, and Anomie. Heath & Social Work. November 1992, Vol.17 Issue 4, p. 243-245.
Winslow, Robert W. Status management in the adolescent social system: a reformation of Merton’s anomie theory. British Journal of Sociology. June 1968, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p. 143-160.
