Merton's anomie (1938) explains crime through the strain between a cultural goal imposed on everyone —success— and legitimate means distributed unequally. Relative deprivation is a concept from social psychology —Stouffer used it in 1949, Runciman developed it in 1966— which reached criminology with Judith and Peter Blau (1982) and with left realism: what breeds resentment is not lacking something, but lacking it in comparison with a reference group and feeling that difference to be unjust. Merton compares the person with a goal; relative deprivation compares them with other people.
| Relative deprivation | Anomie (Merton) | |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Stouffer, 1949; Runciman, 1966; Blau and Blau, 1982; Lea and Young, 1984 | Robert K. Merton, 1938 |
| What is compared | What I have with what others like me have | What I want with what I can get |
| Key element | The reference group and the sense of injustice | The cultural goal and institutional means |
| Emotion | Resentment, grievance | Frustration |
| What it predicts | More crime where there is more visible inequality, not more poverty | More crime among those whose ascent is blocked |
| Crime it explains best | Violent and expressive crime too | Economic crime, through innovation |
// What they shareThe common ground
They agree on what they deny: that poverty, in itself, causes crime. There are very poor societies with little crime and rich ones with a great deal, and both theories explain why: what matters is not how much one has, but the distance from something. Both also place the origin of the problem in social structure rather than the individual, and both lead to the same general recommendation: reducing inequality does more for safety than increasing punishment.
// Where they partThe differences that matter
The term of comparison. In Merton the yardstick is the same for everyone: economic success. In relative deprivation it depends on who each person compares themselves with, which is why someone objectively well off can feel it. An executive paid less than his peers may be more aggrieved than a poor worker surrounded by poor workers.
Injustice. For Merton the blockage is enough. Relative deprivation asks for something more: that the difference be experienced as illegitimate. Runciman put it precisely: there is deprivation when someone lacks something, sees that others have it, wants it and regards it as reasonable to have it. Without that last condition there is no grievance, only want.
The kind of crime. Merton's innovation is instrumental: one offends to obtain what cannot be had another way. The Blaus' study found that inequality, especially inequality tied to race, predicted violence in American cities. Grievance does not seek to gain anything: it seeks release.
// One villain, two readingsErik Killmonger
Erik Killmonger is an almost textbook case of relative deprivation, and Merton explains only half of him. With anomie, the reading is of a boy from Oakland with blocked means who innovates. But Killmonger's are not blocked: he studied at MIT, was an elite officer, and has climbed as high as it is possible to climb. What drives him is not an unreachable goal. It is a comparison. He knows Wakanda exists: a country of people like him, with a wealth and technology that would have changed life in his neighbourhood, and which chose to hide. He has a reference group —his own family—, sees what that group has, wants it and regards never having had it as an injustice. It is Runciman's definition in full. That is why his project is not to get rich but to settle accounts, and why the answer is violent.
The mistake everyone makes
Treating relative deprivation as another name for anomie, or for poverty. What is distinctive is the word relative: it measures not what is missing, but the perceived distance from a reference group. And it is worth remembering who uses it in criminology: it is the central concept of Lea and Young's left realism, which combines it with marginalisation and subculture.
Which villains each one explains
Case files the archive analyses with each theory. The number is the total; the list shows the first ones.
Sources · further reading
- Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Blau, J. R. & Blau, P. M. (1982). "The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime". American Sociological Review, 47(1).
- Merton, R. K. (1938). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review, 3(5).
Theory questionsFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between relative deprivation and Merton's anomie?
Merton's anomie explains crime through the gap between a common cultural goal —success— and the legitimate means available. Relative deprivation explains it through the gap between what a person has and what their reference group has, when that difference is perceived as unjust.
What is a reference group?
It is the group a person compares themselves with to assess their own situation. Relative deprivation depends on it: the same objective situation may be lived as sufficient or as a grievance depending on who one compares oneself with.
Why does inequality predict crime better than poverty?
Because what breeds resentment is not absolute want but comparison. Studies find that rates of violence are more closely associated with a society's degree of inequality than with its level of poverty.