Search

This paper assesses the theoretical and policy significance of one of Robert Merton's most influential contributions to modern sociology, the anomie or ‘strain’ theory of deviant behavior. The enduring theoretical significance of strain theory lies in its sociological completeness. Strain theory preserves the interconnection between culture and social structure which is neglected or defined away by cultural and control theories of deviance. In its emphasis on socially structured contradictions in the relations of consumption, strain theory is also broadly consistent with and complements more conflict-oriented theories of crime and deviance. A major weakness of Merton's argument is its failure to clearly distinguish the etiological significance of the distribution of opportunities (mobility) and the distribution of outcomes (equality), which has led to misinterpretations of the policy implications of strain theory. Ironically, these problems are revealed through a kind of self-criticism that applies the basic tools of Mertonian functional analysis to strain theory. The paper concludes that, ambiguities notwithstanding, for purposes of theoretical integration and substantive insight, strain theory remains an important sociological perspective on deviance, especially when set in the context of Merton's broader sociological legacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estate inheritance, a frequently mentioned but rarely examined feature of stratification systems, has been a neglected area of research in sociology. In this paper, several possible causes of the sociological neglect are discussed. The treatment of inheritance patterns in functionalist and conflict theories of stratification is analyzed, and an overview of existing research on inheritance is presented. Finally, a conflict theory of stratification that incorporates the phenomenon of inheritance is proposed, and avenues for further research are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The syntheses of consensus and conflict theory which were developed during the sixties served as a healthy corrective for traditional functional theory but did not exhaust theoretical debate. The identification of such syntheses with empirico-analytic tradition (and dominant control systems) calls forth a second (critical) synthesis which is not complementary, but competing. Despite the fact that both are parallel in many respects, the two theoretical syntheses are differentiated on a number of levels: value assumptions, emphases, epistemology and the implications each possesses regarding the nature of sociological activity. Conflicting interpretations drawn from the two competing paradigms promise to define the fundamental issues within sociological theory during the seventies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]