Durkheim’s theory of anomie and crime: A clarification and elaboration
| Author | Bruce DiCristina |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815585391 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 49(3) 311–331
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815585391
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Durkheim’s theory of anomie
and crime: A clarification
and elaboration
Bruce DiCristina
Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Dakota,
Grand Forks, ND, USA
Abstract
In contemporary criminology, the proposal of a relationship between anomie and crime
typically is traced to the work of E
´mile Durkheim. Yet, despite the prominence of anomie
theory in this field, Durkheim’s theory of anomie and crime has not been carefully explicated
and elaborated. Durkheim did not provide an extensive discussion of how anomie affects
crime rates, and he certainly did not present anomie as the only cause of crime. Nonetheless,
a careful examination of his rather elusive concept of anomie, together with a few small
inferences, yields a relatively coherent theory of crime that differs from the popular inter-
pretations of his work. The analysis begins with an inquiry into five different conceptions of
anomie that can be abstracted from Durkheim’s writings. This is followed by an examination
of what he implied regarding anomie as a cause of property crime, violent crime, and ‘‘juvenile
crime.’’ The final section explores the effects of anomie on criminal law—that is, on decisions
to define and treat various actions as criminal. Unlike most contemporary anomie theories,
Durkheim’s theory, as elaborated in this article, integrates a theory of crime causation with an
account of criminal law.
Keywords
Anomie, crime, criminal law, Durkheim
With the publication of Robert Merton’s ‘‘Social Structure and Anomie’’ in 1938, dis-
course on the relationship between anomie and crime began its move to the front stage of
criminology.
1
Of course, Merton was not the first theorist to suggest a relationship
between these two phenomena; he simply reconfigured and extended a line of reasoning
that had existed for several decades. More than 40 years earlier, E
´mile Durkheim, in a
fragmented and often implicit manner, proposed a connection between anomie and
crime. Yet, even though anomie became one of the core concepts of twentieth-century
criminology, a thorough examination of Durkheim’s theory of anomie and crime is not
available in the literature of criminology and still warrants attention. Many criminolo-
gists and sociologists have presented analyses that touch on this matter, but they do not
Corresponding author:
Bruce DiCristina, 221 Centennial Drive Stop 8050, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8050, USA.
Email: bruce.dicristina@und.edu
provide a comprehensive review of the different forms of anomie described by Durkheim
and the various ways in which the distinctive forms affect crime rates and criminal law.
2
This article provides a close examination of Durkheim’s largely implicit theory of
anomie and crime. It begins with an exploration of his wavering and somewhat elusive
treatment of anomie, an essential but often neglected first step to understanding and
developing his theory. It then provides an examination of what Durkheim suggested
about the effects of anomie on property crime, violent crime, and ‘‘juvenile crime.’’
The final section explores the noticeable absence and potential role of anomie in
Durkheim’s theory of criminal law. Here, it is suggested that the commonly hypothe-
sized positive relationship between anomie and official crime rates needs to be revised.
3
Durkheim’s anomie
4
Anomie is a fluid concept with a long history. Marco Orru` (1987) traced its development
from the idea of anomia in ancient Greek philosophy to that of anomie in contemporary
American sociology. He concluded that ‘‘the diversity of meanings taken by anomie has
often been greater than their similarity’’ (Orru` , 1987, p. 154). Focusing on the recent
history of anomie, Philippe Besnard (1986, p. 51) also noted the diverse meanings of this
term and added, ‘‘Often it has been used without any precise meaning, performing a
decorative rather than cognitive function.’’ Fortunately, most of this history goes
beyond the scope of this article;
5
we need to be concerned only with the meaning of
anomie in Durkheim’s sociology. Unfortunately, this meaning is not entirely clear.
Five meanings of anomie
Although the literature of criminology devotes considerable space to the examination of
anomie, the overall fluidity of this concept in Durkheim’s works is often ignored by
criminologists. Accordingly, before we can effectively examine his theory of anomie and
crime, we must review the various meanings of this concept in his writings. Across
Durkheim’s major works, five plausible meanings of anomie can be identified.
Durkheim alluded to anomie in several works, but his most explicit discussions of this
concept were presented in The Division of Labor in Society (1893/1984) and Suicide
(1897/1951). In the literature of criminology that examines anomie, the first of these
works appears to be a source of confusion. Sometimes, The Division of Labor receives
almost no attention at all (e.g., Agnew, 1997; Passas, 1995); sometimes, it is cited as if it
presented a conception of anomie that is largely the same as the conception presented in
Suicide (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007); and sometimes, it is described as if it presented
a conception of anomie that clearly differs from the conception presented in Suicide
(e.g., Clinard, 1964; Thome, 2007).
6
As noted below, the third position appears to be the
most accurate, although the imprecision of Durkheim’s descriptions leaves some room
for debate.
In The Division of Labor, Durkheim (1893/1984) discussed anomie in terms of an
abnormal form of the division of labor. He maintained that the division of labor is, or at
least will become, the primary source of social solidarity in modern societies. When it is
well developed, the structure of society consists of a complex yet cohesive system of
specialized and interdependent units. This represents the normal situation. The division
312 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 49(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial