the slightest deviations with the energy it otherwise displays only against more considerable infractions, it will attribute to them the same gravity as formerly to crimes. In other words, it will designate them as criminal.
Crime is, then, necessary; it is bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life, and by that very fact it is useful, because these conditions of which it is a part are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law.
Indeed, it is no longer possible today to dispute the fact that law and morality vary from one social type to the next, nor that they change within the same type if the conditions of life are modified. But, in order that these transformations may be possible, the collective sentiments at the basis of morality must not be hostile to change, and consequently must have but moderate energy. If they were too strong, they would no longer be plastic. Every pattern is an obstacle to new patterns, to the extent that the first pattern is inflexible. The better a structure is articulated, the more it offers a healthy resistance to all modification; and this is equally true of functional, as of anatomical, organization. If there were no crimes, this condition could not have been fulfilled; for such a hypothesis presupposes that collective sentiments have arrived at a degree of intensity unexampled in history. Nothing is good indefinitely and to an unlimited extent. The authority which the moral conscience enjoys must not be excessive; otherwise no one would dnre criticize it, and it would too easily congeal into an immutable form. To make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself. In order that the originality of the idealist whose dreams transcend his century may find expression, it is necessary that the originality of the criminal, who is below the level of his time, shall also be possible. One does not occur without the other.
Nor is this all. Aside from this indirect utility, it happens that crime itself plays a useful role in this evolution. Crime implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes. Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take on a new form, and
crime sometimes helps to determine the form f they will take. How many times, indeed, it ig 4 only an anticipation of future morality—a step | toward what will be! According to Athenian law, í Socrates was a criminal, and his condemnation í was no more than just. However, his crime, '| namely, the independence of his thought,- ren- -1 dered a service not only to humanity but to his l country. It served to prepare a new morality and i faith which the Athenians needed, since the tradi- ? tions by which they had lived until then were no ..1 longer in harmony with the current conditions of \ life. Nor is the case of Socrates unique; it is re- i produced periodically in history. It would never i have been possible to establish the freedom of"; thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibit- ' ing it had not been violated before being ■; solemnly abrogated. At that time, however, the ■'■ violation was a crime, since it was an offense', against sentiments still very keen in the average ; conscience. And yet this crime was useful as a -■ prelude to reforms which daily became more \ necessary. Liberal philosophy had as its precur- , sors the heretics of all kinds who were justly punished by secular authorities during the entire . course of the Middle Ages and until the eve of ; modern times.
From this point of view the fundamental facts of criminality present themselves to us in an entirely new light Contrary to current ideas, the i criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable '■ being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange and ; unassimilable body, introduced into the midst of society.3 On the contrary, he plays a definite role , in social Lie, Crime, for its part, must no longer : be conceived as an evil that cannot be too much , suppressed. There is no occasion for self-congratulation when the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level, for we may be certain that this apparent progress is associated with some social disorder. Thus, the number of assault cases never falls so low as in times of wanL4 With the drop in crime rate, and as a reaction to it, comes a revision, or the need of a revision in the theory of punishment If, indeed, crime is a disease, its punishment is its remedy and cannot be otherwise conceived; thus, all the discussions it arouses bear on the point of determining what the punishment must be in order to fulfill this-
36   The Normal and the Pathological
nie of remedy. If crime is not pathological at _ji flje objects of punishment cannot be to cute it, and its true function must be sought elsewhere. . • -
NOTES
1, From the fact that crime is a phenomenon of nor-nml sociology, U does not follow that the criminal is an individual normally constituted from the biological and psychological points of view. The two questions are independent of each other. This independence will Ije better understood when we have shown, later on, the difference between psychological and sociological
facts,
2. Calumny, insults, slander, fraud, etc.
3. We have ourselves committed the error of speaking thus of the criminal, because of a failure to apply our rule {Division du travail social, pp. 395-96).
4. Although crime is a fact of normal sociology, it does not follow that we must not abhor iL Pain itself has nothing desirable about it; the individual dislikes it as society does crime, and yet it is a function of normal physiology. Not only is it necessarily derived from the very constitution of every living organism, but it plays a useful role in life, for which reason it cannot be replaced. It would, then, be a singular distortion of our thought to present it as an apology for crime. We would not even think of protesting against such on interpretation, did we not know to what strange accusations and misunderstandings one exposes oneself when one undertakes to study moral facts objectively and to speak of them in a different language from that of the layman.
Social Structure and Anomie*
Robert ft Merlon
There persists a notable tendency u/šociological theory to attribute the malfunctioning of social structure primarily to those of man's imperious biological drives which are not adequately restrained by social control, In this view, the social order is solely a device for "impulse management" and the "social processing" of tensions. These impulses which break through social control, be it noted, are held to be biologically derived. Nonconformity is assumed to be rooted in original nature.1 Conformity is by implication the result of a utilitarian calculus or unreasoned conditioning. This point of view, whatever its other deficiencies, clearly begs one question. It provides no basis for determining the nonbiological conditions which induce deviations from prescribed patterns of conduct. In this paper, it will
*"5odnl Structure and Anomie," by Robert K. Merton. American Sociological Review, 3 (193 B), pp. 672-6B2. By pemússicn pf the author and The American Sociological Association.
be suggested that certain phases of social structure generate the circumstances in which infringement of social codes constitutes a "normal" response.2
The conceptual scheme to be outlined is designed to provide a coherent, systematic approach to the study of sociocultural sources of deviate behavior. Our primary aim lies in discovering how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct The many ramifications of the scheme cannot all be discussed; the problems mentioned outnumber those explicitly treated.
Among the elements of social and cultural structure, two are important for our purposes. These are analytically separable although they merge imperceptibly in concrete situations. The first consists of culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests. It comprises a frame of as-pirational reference. These goals are more or less integrated and involve varying degrees of
Social Structure and Anomie   3 7
prestige and sentiment. They constitute a basic, but not the exclusive, component of what Linton aptly has called "designs for group living." Some of these cultural aspirations are related to the original drives of man, but they are not determined by them. The second phase of the social structure defines, regulates, and controls the acceptable modes of achieving these goals. Every social group invariably couples its scale of desired ends with moral or institutional regulation of permissible and required procedures for attaining these ends. These regulatory nonns and moral imperatives do not necessarily coincide with technical or efficiency norms. Many procedures which from the standpoint of particular individuals would be most efficient in securing desired values, e.g., illicit oil-stock schemes, theft, fraud, are ruled out of the institutional area of permitted conduct The choice of expedients is limited by the institutional norms.
To say that these two elements, culture goals and institutional norms, operate jointly is not to say that the ranges of alternative behaviors and aims bear some constant relation to one another. The emphasis upon certain goals may vary independently of the degree of emphasis upon institutional means. There may develop a disproportionate, at times, a virtually exclusive, stress upon the value Df specific goals, involving relatively slight concern with the institutionally appropriate modes of attaining these goals. The limiting case in this direction is reached when the range of alternative procedures is limited only by technical rather than institutional considerations. Any and all devices which promise attainment of the all important goal would be permitted in this hypothetical polar case.3 This constitutes one type of cultural malintegration. A second polar type is found in groups where activities originally conceived as instrumental are transmuted into ends in themselves. The original purposes are forgotten and ritualistic adherence to institutionally prescribed conduct becomes virtually obsessive.4 Stability is largely ensured while change is flouted. The range of alternative behaviors is severely limited. There develops a tradition-bound, sacred society characterized by neophobia. The occupational psychosis of the bureaucrat may he cited as a case in point. Finally,
38   Sadal Structure and Anomie
there are the intermediate types of groups where H a balance between culture goals and institutional I means is maintained. These are the significantly J integrated and relatively stable, though changing, ■% groups.                                                           J
An effective equilibrium between the two ,«} phases of the social structure is maintained as :i, long as satisfactions accrue to individuals who ■'! conform to both constraints, viz., satisfactions ■' from the achievement of the goals and satisfac- \ tions emerging directly from the institutionally ., canalized modes Df striving to attain these ends. '\ Success, in such equilibrated cases, is twofold, 'i Success is reckoned in terms of the product and 'I in terms of the process, in terms of the outcome 1 and in terms of activities. Continuing satisfac- ■:% tions must derive from sheer participation in a ;j competitive order as well as from eclipsing one's 'A competitors if the order itself is to be sustained, "3 The occasional sacrifices involved in institution- f alized conduct must be compensated by social- \ ized rewards. The distribution of statuses and i roles through competition must be so organized A that positive incentives for conformity to roles t and adherence to status obligations are provided .] for every position within the distributive order. ;'j Aberrant conduct, therefore, mny be viewed as a I symptom of dissociation between culturally de- I fmed aspirations and socially structured means.     |
Of the types of groups which result from the "]\ independent variation of the two phases of the | social structure, we shall be primarily concerned .■;] with the first, namely, that involving a dispropor- % tionate accent on goals. This statement must be í recast in a proper perspective. In no group is M there an absence of regulatory codes governing j conduct, yet groups do vary in the degree to 'a which these folkways, mores, and institutional ÍJ controls are effectively integrated with the more ij diffuse goals which are part of the culture matrix. 'J Emotional convictions may cluster about the | complex of socially acclaimed ends, meanwhile j shifting their support from the culturally defined \ implementation of these ends. As we shall see, ■ certain aspects of the social structure may gener- ';. ate countermores and antisocial behavior pre- ; cisely because of differential emphases on goals ] and regulations. In the extreme case, the latter | may be so vitiated by the goal-emphasis that the  1
:j I:
range* of behavior is limited only by considerations of technical expediency. The sole significant question then becomes. Which available means is most efficient in netting the socially approved value75 The technically most feasible
. procedure, whether legitimate or not, is preferred to the institutionally prescribed conduct. As this process continues, the integration of the society becomes tenuous and aaomie ensues. . Thus, in competitive athletics, when the aim of victory is shorn of its institutional trappings, und success in contests becomes construed as •Grinning the game" rather than "winning through circumscribed modes of activity," a premium is implicitly set upon the use of illegitimate but technically efficient means. The star of the opposing football team is surreptitiously slugged; the wrestler furtively incapacitates bis opponent through ingenious but illicit techniques; university alumni covertly subsidize "students" whose talents are largely confined to the athletic field. The emphasis on the goal has so attenuated the satisfactions deriving from sheer participation in the competitive activity that these satisfactions are virtually confined to a success-fill outcome. Through the same process, tension generated by the desire to win in a poker game is relieved by successfully dealing oneself ídut aces, or, when the cult of success has become completely dominant, by sagaciously shuffling the cards in a game of solitaire. The faint twinge of uneasiness in the last instance and the surreptitious nature of public derelicts indicate clearly that the institutional rules of the game are known to those who evade them, but that the emotional supports of these rules are largely vitiated by cultural exaggeration of the success-goal.6 They are micracosmic images of the social macrocosm.
Of course, this process is not restricted to the ■ realm of sport The process whereby exaltation of the end generates a literal demoralization, i.e., a deinstitutionahzatian, of the means is one which characterizes many7 groups in which the two .phases of the social structure are not highly integrated. The extreme emphasis upon the accumulation of wealth as a symbol of success8 in our
■; own society militates against the completely effective control of institutionally regulated modes of acquiring a fortune.9 Fraud, corruption, vice,
crime, in short, the entire catalogue of proscribed behavior becomes increasingly common when the emphasis on the culturally induced success-goal becomes divorced from a coordinated institutional emphasis. This observation is of crucial theoretical importance in exanuning the doctrine that antisocial behavior most frequently derives from biological drives breaking through the restraints imposed by society. The difference is one between a strictly utilitarian interpretation which conceives man's ends as random and an analysis which finds these ends deriving from the basic values of the culture.10
Our analysis can scarcely stop at this juncture. We must turn to other aspects of the social structure if we are to deal with the social genesis of the varying rates and types of deviate behavior characteristic of- different societies. Thus far, we have sketched three ideal types of social orders constituted'by distinctive patterns of relations between culture ends and means. Turning from these types of culture patterning, we find five logically possible, alternative modes of adjustment or adaptation by individuals within the culture-bearing society or group.'1 These are schematically presented in the following table, where (+) signifies "acceptance," (-) signifies "elimination," and (±) signifies "rejection and substitution of new goals and standards."
	Culture Goals	Institutionalized Means
I.    Conformity n.  Innovation m. Etibialum IV. Rctrcaüsm	+ +	+ +
V.  Rebellion11	±	±
Our discussion of the relation between these alternative responses and other phases of the social structure must he prefaced by the observation that persons may shift from one alternative to another as they engage in different social activities. These categories refer to role adjustments in specific situations, not to personality in toto. To treat the development of this process in various spheres of conduct would introduce a complexity unmanageable within the confines of this paper. For this reason, we shall be concerned
Social Structure and Anomie   39
primarily with economic activity in the broad sense, "the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" in our competitive society, wherein wealth has taken an a highly symbolic cast. Our task is to search out some of the factors which exert pressure upon individuals to engage in certain of these logically possible alternative responses. This choice, as we shall see, is far from random.
In every society, Adaptation I (conformity to both culture goals and means) is the most common and widely diffused. Were this aot so, the stability and continuity of the society could not be maintained. The mesh of expectancies which constitutes every social order is sustained by the modal behavior of its members falling within the first category. Conventional'role behavior on--ented toward the basic values of the group is the rule rather than the exception. It is this fact alone which permits us to speak of a human aggregate as comprising a group or society.
Conversely, Adaptation IV {rejection of goals and means) is the least common. Persons who "adjust" (or maladjust) in this fashion are, strictly speaking, in the society but not of tt. Sociologically, these constitute the true "aliens." Not sharing the common frame of orientation, they can be included within the societal population merely in a fictional sense. In this category are some of the activities of psyebotics, psychoneurotics, chronic autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards, and drug addicts.13 These have relinquished, in certain spheres of activity, the culturally defined goals, involving complete aim-inhibition in the polar case, and their adjustments are not in accord with institutional norms. This is not to say that in some cases the source of their behnvioral adjustments is not in part the very social structure which they have in effect repudiated nor that their very existence within a social area does not constitute a problem for the socialized population.ľ , This mode of "adjustment" occurs, as far as structural sources are concerned, when both the culture goals and institutionalized procedures have been assimilated thoroughly by the individual and imbued with affect and high positive value, but where those institutional procedures which promise a measure of successful attain-
ment of the goals are not available to the individual. In such instances, there results a twofold mental conflict insofar as the moral obligation for adopting institutional means conflicts with the pressure to resort to illegitimate means (which may attain the goal) and inasmuch as the individual is shut off from means which are both legitimate and effective. The competitive order is maintained, but the frustrated and handicapped individual who cannot cope with this order drops out Defeatism, quietism, and resignation are manifested in escape mechanisms which ultimately lead the individual to "escape" from the requirements of the society. It is an expedient which arises from continued failure to attain the goal by legitimate measures and from an inability to adopt the illegitimate route because of internalized prohibitions and institutionalized compulsives, during which process the supreme value of the success-goal has as yet not been renounced. The conflict is resolved by elimianting both precipitating elements, the goals and means. The escape is complete, the conflict is eliminated, and the individual is asocialized.
Be it noted that where frustration derives from the inaccessibility of effective institutional means for attaining economic or any other type of highly valued "success," that Adaptations Ľ, HI and V (innovation, ritualism, and rebellion) are also possible. The result will be determined by the particular personality, and thus, the particular cultural background, involved. Inadequate socialization will result in the innovation response, whereby the conflict and frustration are eliminated by relinquishing the institutional means and retaining the success-aspiration; an extreme assimilation of institutional demands will lead to ritualism, wherein the goal is dropped as beyond one's reach but conformity to the mores persists; and rebellion occurs when emancipation from the reigning standards, due to frustration or to mar-ginalist perspectives, leads to the attempt to introduce a "new social order."
Our major concern is with the illegitimacy adjustment This involves the use of conventionally proscribed but frequently effective means of attaining at least the simulacrum of culturally defined success—wealth, power, and the like. As we have seen, this adjustment occurs when the
40   Sadal Structure and Anämie
individual has assimilated the cultural emphasis on success without equally internalizing the morally prescribed norms governing means for its attainment. The question arises, Which phases of our social structure predispose toward this mode of adjustment? We may examine a concrete instance, effectively analyzed by Lahman,14 which provides a clue to the answer. Lohman has shown that specialized areas of vice in the near north side of Chicago constitute a "normal" response to a situation where the cultural emphasis upon pecuniary success has been absorbed, but where there is little access to conventional and legitimate means for attaining such success. The conventional occupational opportunities of persons in this area are almost completely limited to manual labor. Given our cultural stigmatization of manual labor, and its correlate, the prestige of white collar work, it is clear that the result is a strain toward innovational practices. The limitation of opportunity to unskilled labor and the resultant Idw income cannot compete in terms of conventional standards of ackivement with the high income from organized vice.
For our purposes, this situation involves two important features. First, such antisocial behavior is in a sense "called forth" by certain conventional values of the culture and by the class structure involving differential access to the approved opportunities for legitimate, prestige-bearing pursuit of the culture goals. The luck of high integration between the means-and-end elements of the cultural partem and the particular class structure combine to favor a heightened frequency of antisocial conduct in such groups. The second consideration is of equal significance. Recourse to the first of the alternative responses, legitimate effort, is limited by the fact that actual advance toward desired success-symbols through conventional channels is, despite our persisting open-class ideology,13 relatively rare and difficult for those handicapped by Utile formal education and few economic resources. The dominant pressure of group standards of success is, therefore, on the gradual attenuation of legitimate, but by and large ineffective, strivings and the increasing use of illegitimate, but more or less effective, expedients of vice and crime. The cultural demands made on persons in this situation are incompati-
ble. On the one hand, they are asked to orient their conduct toward the prospect of accumulating wealth, and on the other, they are largely denied effective opportunities to do so institutionally. The consequences of such structural inconsistency are psychopathological personality, and/or antisocial conduct, and/or revolutionary activities. The equilibrium between culturally designated means and ends becomes highly unstable with the progressive emphasis on attaining the prestige-laden ends by any means whatsoever. Within this context, Capone represents the triumph of amoral intelligence over morally prescribed "failure," when the channels of vertical mobility are closed or narrowed16 in a society which places a high premium on economic affluence and social ascent for all its members.17
This last qualification is of primary importance. It suggests that other phases of the social structure besides the extreme emphasis on pecuniary success must be considered if we are to understand the social sources of antisocial behavior. A high frequency of deviate behavior is not generated simply by "lack of opportunity" or by this exaggerated pecuniary emphasis. A comparatively rigidiEed class structure, a feudalist«: or caste order, may limit such opportunities far beyond the point which obtains in our society today. It is only when a system of cultural values extols, virtually above all else, certain common symbols of success for the population at large while its social structure rigorously restricts or completely eliminates access to approved modes of acquiring these symbols for a considerable part of the same population that antisocial behavior ensues on a considerable scale. In other words, our egalitarian ideology denies by implication the existence of noncompeting groups and individuals in the-pursuit of pecuniary success. The same body of success-symbols is held to be desirable for all. These goals are held to transcend class lines, not to be bounded by them, yet the actual social organization is such that there exist class differentials in the accessibility of these common success-symbols. Frustration and thwarted aspiration lead to the search for avenues of escape from a culturally induced intolerable situation; or unrelieved ambition may eventuate in   illicit   attempts   to   acquire   the   dominant
Social Sfructure and Anomle   41
values.18 The American stress on pecuniary success and ambitiousness for all thus invites exaggerated anxieties, hostilities, neuroses, and antisocial behavior.
This theoretical analysis may go far toward explaining the varying correlations between crime and poverty.19 Poverty is not an isolated variable. It is one in a complex of interdependent social and cultural variables. "When viewed in such a context, it represents quite different stHtes of affairs. Poverty as such, and consequent limitation of opportunity, ore not sufficient to induce a conspicuously high rate of criminal behavior. Even the often mentioned "poverty in the midst of plenty" will not necessarily lead to this result Only insofar as poverty and associated disadvantages in competition for the culture values approved far all members of the society are linked with the assimilation of a cultural emphasis on monetary accumulation as a symbol of success is antisocial conduct a "normal" outcome. Thus, poverty is less highly correlated with crime in southeastern Europe than in the United States. The possibilities of vertical mobility in these European areas would seem to be fewer than in this country, so that neither poverty per se nor its association with limited opportunity is sufficient to account for the^yarying correlatioDs. It is only when the' MTconfigirradon is considered, poverty, Hrniterť opportunity, and a commonly shared system of success symbols, that we can explain the higher association between poverty and crime in our society than in others where rigidified class structure is coupled with differential class symbols of achievement.
In societies such as our own, then, the pressure of prestige-bearing success tends to eliminate the effective social constraint over means employed to this end. The "end-justifies-tbe-means" doctrine becomes a guiding tenet for action when the cultural structure unduly exalts the end and the social organization unduly limits possible recourse to approved means. Otherwise put, this notion and associated behavior reflect a lack of cultural coordination. In international relations, the effects of this lack of integration are notoriously apparent. An emphasis upon national power is not readily coordinated with an inept organization of legitimate, i.e., internationally de-
fined and accepted, means for attaining this goat : The result is a tendency toward the abrogation of international law, treaties become scraps of ■ paper, "undeclared warfare" serves as a technical i evasion, the bombing of civilian populations is rationalized,10 just as the same societal situation induces the same sway of illegitimacy among individuals.
The social order we have described necessarily produces this "strain toward dissolution." The pressure of such an order is upon outdoing one's competitors. The choice of means within the ambit of institutional control will persist as long ■ as the sentiments supporting a competitive sys- : tem, i.e., deriving from the possibility of outrank- ' ing competitors and hence enjoying the favorable . response of others, are distributed throughout the entire system of activities and are not confined merely to the final result A stable social structure demands a balanced distribution of affect among its various segments. When there occurs a shift of emphasis from the satisfactions deriving from competition itself to almost exclusive concern with successful competition, the resultant stress leads to the breakdown of the regulatory structure.21 With the resulting attenuation of the institutional imperatives, there occurs an approximation of the situation erroneously held by utilitarians to be typical of society generally wherein calculations of advantage and fear of punishment are the sole regulating agencies. In such situations, as Hohbes observed, force and fraud come to constitute the sole virtues in view of their relative efficiency in attaining goals—which were for him, of course, not culturally derived.
It should be apparent that the foregoing discussion is not pitched on a moralistic plane. Whatever the sentiments of the writeT or reader concerning the ethical desirability of coordinating the means-and-goals phases of the sociál structure, one must agree that lack of such coordination leads to anomie. Insofar as one of the most general functions of social organization is to provide a basis for calculability and regularity of behavior, it is increasingly limited in effectiveness as these elements of the structure become dissociated. At the extreme, predictability virtually disappears, and what may be properly termed cultural chaos or anomie intervenes.
42  Sadal Structure and Anomie
1^
This statement, being brief, is also incom-lete It has not included an exhaustive treatment nf the various structural elements which predispose toward one rather than another of the alternative responses open to individuals; it has neglected, but not denied the relevance of, the factors detenmning the specific incidence of these responses; it bas not enumerated the various concrete responses which are constituted by combinations of specific values of the analytical variables; it has omitted, or included only by implication, any consideration of the social functions performed by illicit responses; it has not tested the full explanatory power of the analytical scheme by examining a large number of group variations in the frequency of deviate and conformist behavior; it has not adequately dealt with rebellious conduct which seeks to refashion the social framework radically; it has not examined the relevance of cultural conflict for an analysis of culture-goal and institutional-means malinte-gration. It is suggested that these and related problems may be profitably analyzed by this scheme. /
NOTES
1.  E.g., Ernest Jenes, Social Aspects of Psychoanalysis, 28, London, 1924. If the Freudian nation is a variety of the "original sin" dogma, then the interpretation advanced in this paper may be called the doctrine of "socially derived sin."
2. "Norma!" in the sense of a culturally oriented, if not approved, response. This statement does not deny the relevance of biological and personality differences which may be significantly involved in the incidence of deviate conduct Our focus of interest is the social and cultural matrix; hence we abstract from other factors. It is in this sense, 1 take it, that James S. Plant speaks of the "normal reaction of normal people to abnormal conditions." See his Personality and the Cultural Pattern, 248, New York, 1937.
3. Contemporary American culture has been said to tend in this direction. See André Siegfried, America Comes of Age, 25-37, New York, 1927. The alleged extrenje(7) emphasis on the goals of monetary success and material prosperity leads to dominant concern with technological and social instruments designed to produce the desired result, inasmuch as institutional controls become of secondary importance. In such a situation, innovation flourishes  as the  range of means
employed is broadened. In a sense, then, there occurs the paradoxical emergence of "materialists" from an "idealistic" orientation. Cf. Durkheun's analysis of the cultural conditions which predispose toward crime and innovation, both of which are aimed toward efficiency, not moral norms. Durkheim was one of the first to see that "coutrairement mix idées couranles le criminel n'apparait plus comme un etre radicalement insocia-ble, comme tine sort ď element parasiiaire, de corps etrauger et inassimilable, introduit au sein de ]a societě; e'est un agent regulier de la vie sociale" (Contrary to common thinking, the criminal no longer appears as a totally unsociable human being, as a sort of parasite, alien and unassimilahle, introduced in the midst of society; he is a regular member of social life). See Les Regies de la Methode Sociologique, B6-89, Paris. 1927.
4. Such ritualism may be associated with a mythology which rationalizes these actions so that they appear to retain their status as means, but the dominant pressure is in the direction Df strict ritualistic conformity, irrespective of such rationalizations. In this sense, ritual has proceeded farthest when such rationalizations are not even called forth.
5. In this connection, one may see the relevance of Elton Maya's paraphrase of the tide of Tawney's well-known boDk. "Actually the problem is not that of the sickness of an acquisitive society; it is that of the acquisitiveness of a sick society." Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, 153, New York, 1933. Mayo deals with the process through which wealth comes to be a symbol of social achievement. He sees this ns arising from a state of anomie. We are considering the unintegrated monetary-success goal as an element in producing anomie. A complete analysis would involve both phases of this system of interdependent variables.
6.  It is unlikely that interiorized norms are completely eliminated. Whatever residuum persists will induce personality tensions and conflict The process involves a certain degree of ambivalence. A manifest rejection of the institutional norms is coupled with some latent retention of their emotional correlates. "Guilt feelings," "sense of sin," "pangs of conscience" are obvious manifestations of this unrelieved tension; symbolic adherence to the nominally repudiated values or rationalizations constitute a more subfle variety of tensiojinl release.
7. "Many," and not all, unintegrated groups, for the reason already mentioned. In groups where the primary emphasis shifts to institutional means, i.e., when the range of alternatives is very limited, the outcome is a type of ritualism rather than anomie.
8.  Money has several peculiarities which render it particularly apt tD became a symbol of prestige
Social Structure and Anomie  43