RETRACTION NOTICE: Exploring cross-national variation in anomie and victimization
| Author | Michelle N. Harris,Brent E. Teasdale,Mindy S. Bradley |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370819839620 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Retraction Notice
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(4) NP1
RETRACTION NOTICE:
© The Author(s)
Article reuse guidelines:
Exploring cross-national
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/
DOI: 10.1177/1477370820920744
variation in anomie and
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
victimization
At the request of the authors, with the agreement of the Journal Editor and SAGE
Publishing, the following article has been retracted.
Michelle N. Harris, Brent E. Teasdale and Mindy S. Bradley (2019) Exploring cross-
national variation in anomie and victimization. European Journal of Criminology. Epub
ahead of print 11 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1477370819839620
The authors notified the Editor and SAGE of a coding error on the main variable,
anomie, discovered after publication. This coding error reverses the pattern of the
reported findings. The main argument presented in the paper does not therefore hold.
839620EUC0010.1177/1477370819839620European Journal of CriminologyHarris et al.
research-article2019
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(4) NP2-NP23
Exploring cross-national
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
variation in anomie and
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819839620
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819839620
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
victimization
Michelle N. Harris
Georgia State University, USA
Brent E. Teasdale
Illinois State University, USA
Mindy S. Bradley
University of Arkansas, USA
Abstract
Durkheim emphasizes that anomie is a systemic condition that occurs when society cannot
regulate the behavior of its members; the lack of societal regulation results in a state of
normlessness (that is, anomie) and the high potential for deviant behavior to occur. Empirical
tests of Srole’s (1956) anomia scale are often micro-level investigations, which fail to situate this
conceptualization of anomia within the larger Durkheimian context. We apply Durkheim’s (1933,
1951) theoretical framework to incorporate multi-level empirical tests of Srole’s anomia and
additional correlates. Utilizing data from the fifth round (2010) of the European Social Survey, the
association between anomie and victimization is evaluated across countries. Results from a multi-
level logistic regression model suggest that countries that experience higher levels of anomie
also have higher rates of victimization, controlling for individual-level perceptions of anomia
and structural characteristics of countries. These findings have important crime prevention
implications regarding incorporating both macro- and micro-level correlates of crime.
Keywords
Anomie, criminological theory, cross-national, multi-level theorizing
Corresponding author:
Michelle N. Harris, Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia State University, PO Box 3992,
Atlanta, GA 30302, USA.
Email: mharris78@student.gsu.edu
Harris et al.
NP3
Introduction
The criminological concept of anomie is generally understood as a result of a weakness
of social regulation, leading to a state of relative normlessness. According to Durkheim
(1933), burgeoning division of labor and individual differences weaken a society’s abil-
ity to produce fulfilling and satisfying social relationships among its members of society.
Weakened social regulation creates conditions wherein people lack attachment to society
and their concomitant roles and obligations. As Merton explains, anomic conditions are
those in which moral rules have ‘lost their savor and their force’ (1964: 226). Thus, a
common theme throughout studies of anomie is uncovering how the moral rules guiding
individual behaviors ultimately emerge from sustained interactions and the social soli-
darity that derives therefrom.
Perhaps because of its interconnection between the moral and the social, conceptual-
izations of anomie have been expanded at both micro and macro levels. On the one hand,
scholars have pointed out that both Durkheim and Merton called for macro-level analy-
ses of crime. By describing the breakdown of society based on the increasing division of
labor and economic priorities, their works emphasize that social structural conditions
should be considered as factors that induce deviance (Lilly et al., 1989; Zembroski,
2011). Consistent with this perspective, a number of macro-level studies have applied the
concept of anomie to explore sociopolitical changes (Cao, 2004; Chamlin and Cochran,
1995; Messner et al., 2008; Sampson and Bartusch, 1998; Savolainen, 2000; Schoepfer
and Piquero, 2006; Thorlindsson and Bernburg, 2004; Zhao and Cao, 2010).
On the other hand, some classic works argued that Durkheim’s work demonstrates an
early commitment to micro-sociological levels of analysis by honing in on the break-
down of the individual’s sense of attachment to society (MacIver, 1950). In this vein,
scholars have focused on the lack of identification the individual feels with him/herself
and others (Laswell, 1952). Moreover, work by Srole (1956) on the perception of inter-
personal situations among individuals has been viewed through a Durkheimian lens
(Martin and Stack, 1983; Stack, 1981).
Recent conversations as to the future of criminological research underscore the impor-
tance of multi-level theoretical development in criminology. For example, in his presi-
dential address, Rosenfeld (2011) urges micro-criminologists to accommodate
sociocultural contexts and, in doing so, situate individual behavior ‘with reference to
relevant cultural and structural features of a given society at a given moment in history’
(Rosenfeld, 2011: 2). Rosenfeld stresses classic works of Emile Durkheim, Talcott
Parsons, Karl Polanyi, and C. Wright Mills as ‘essential building blocks for the study of
the big picture of crime’ (2011: 1). In other words, scholars must incorporate the role of
social institutions and their effects on crime. Messner (2012) issues a parallel challenge
to macro-criminologists, encouraging macro-level scholars to find ways to integrate
theoretical approaches with differing units of analysis, which he argues can lend valuable
insights for crime prevention.
Anomie and strain-based theories (Merton, 1938, 1968; Messner et al., 2008; Srole,
1956) are a fertile ground for multi-level conceptualization and testing. In the current
study, we draw on the anomie framework to construct a multi-level empirical test of
anomie and victimization, while controlling for additional correlates across countries. In
NP4
European Journal of Criminology 17(4)
doing so, we aim to situate individual criminal events in their social context. Using data
from the European Social Survey, we compare the individual-level vs. country-level
effects of anomie on victimization, specifically exploring if and how anomic conditions
of society predict victimization, while controlling for individual-level perceptions of
anomia and other national characteristics.
Literature review
Durkheim (1933, 1951)
Durkheim describes the concept of anomie as a persistent condition rooted in the struc-
ture of society (1933, 1951). Anomie can be considered a social construction, a way of
motivating and channeling human conduct to achieve valued cultural goals. In Division
of Labor, Durkheim (1933) explains that the division of labor was a consequence of both
the growth of the population of society and the density of that growth. The transforma-
tion of social solidarity results from an increase in the dynamic density, that is, interac-
tion within and between social groups, and the resultant division of labor associated with
growth (Merton, 1938). The division of labor occurs to keep pace with the demands on
the modes of production, meaning that, as societies become larger and denser, the ‘strug-
gle for existence is more acute’ (Durkheim, 1933: 266). Durkheim (1933) urged the need
for a normative system owing to human’s’ unique unlimited ability to imagine more or
better circumstances beyond their current position, believing people have insatiable
desires that could not be controlled individually. Thus, societal norms exist to regulate
and control these appetites. Indeed, members of society collectively formulate or accept
rules (that is, regulatory norms) that dictate acceptable behaviors (Messner et al., 2008).
Durkheim briefly considers some ‘abnormal forms’ of the division of labor, which
‘normally produces social solidarity.’ Where solidarity is not produced, ‘it is because the
relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a state of anomy’ (1933:
368). It is apparent that Durkheim is here calling attention to both a structural and a nor-
mative pathology. The latter is seen in his claim that ‘a body of rules’ will normally come
to regularize the relations of divided functions, and that the absence of these rules creates
a lack of harmony of such functions. The former, the structural problem, refers to a defi-
ciency of social interaction that impedes these norms of exchange from spontaneously
emerging. In societies where social institutions are imbalanced, behavior is not (or is
inadequately) regulated, Durkheim contends that citizens exist in a state of anomy (1933:
368).
Additionally, Durkheim (1933) postulated that, although society’s collective con-
science was dissipating, it would be replaced by a different form of solidarity based on
the industrial revolution. Division of labor was a phenomenon in which the social envi-
ronment evolved from mechanical solidarity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial