Among many influential sociologists who studied and worked closely with Parsons, Robert Merton most forcefully argued against the generalized theorizing Parsons favored. Merton instead emphasized the value of what he called middle-range theory. He carefully explained: sociological theory refers to logically interconnected conceptions which are limited and modest in scope, rather than all embracing and grandiose I focus attention on what might be called theories of the middle range: theories intermediate to the minor working hypotheses evolved in abundance during the day-to-day routines of research, and the all-inclusive speculations comprising a master conceptual scheme from which it is hoped to derive a very large number of empirically observed uniformities of social behavior. Middle-range theories are those that are closely tied in to the empirical realities in societies, articulating the relationships that exist among particular variables, as exemplified by Weber’s Protestant Ethic and durkheim’s Suicide. Like Parsons, Merton emphasized the interrelation between theory and data, but he rejected Parsons’s presumption that data had to be fitted into a general theoretical system applicable to all societies and which would explain all inter-societal structures and subsystems. Instead, Merton emphasized that the main task should be the development of sociological theories applicable to limited ranges of empirical data (e.g., regarding social organization, social class, group conflict, social change, etc.) Showing his intellectual debt to Parsons, nonetheless, Merton too emphasized a functional analysis of society, one that depended on the interplay of theory, method, and research data. He maintained, moreover, that “the clues to the imputed functions are provided almost wholly by the description of the pattern itself” He made an important distinction between motives for, and consequences of, action, and additionally, he distinguished between two types of functions: manifest functions, “those objective consequences contributing to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system,” and latent functions, those objective consequences which “are neither intended nor recognized”. In Merton’s framing, the punishment of crime, for example, has both manifest and latent functions; the manifest function of sending a criminal to prison is to punish the criminal for his wrong-doing, and its latent function is the affirmation of the behavioral norms institutionalized for the community as a whole. Similarly, knowledge of Latin as a requirement for admission to Yale University until the 1930s can be seen as having the manifest function of demonstrating the university’s aspiration to emulate the classical model of education valued historically in Britain (and seen as essential to the intellectual and character building of leaders who would maintain the imperial power of the British Empire). However, given the fact that Latin was not taught in most public schools but was taught in elite private (preparatory) schools populated by children (boys) from the upper class (see Karabel 2005: 22–23, 47, 52), the latent function of this policy was to maintain the exclusive, elite character of Yale. In short, structures and functions mutually impact one another. And Merton argued, “the discovery of latent functions represents important advances in sociological knowledge (1949/1968:122, emphasis in original), in part because such discoveries typically highlight the interdependence of the various elements of a given social structure (1949/1968: 106–107), and the interdependence of various structures in society (e.g., family, education, and the stratification system). SocIAL coNSEQUENcES All social actions can have multiple consequences, either for the whole society or for just some individuals and sub-groups. Some of these consequences may be unanticipated insofar as they were not intended to occur, and though unintended, can be (a) functional, (b) dysfunctional, or (c) irrelevant in a given societal context (Merton 1949/1968: 105). dysfunctional consequences, or social strains and tensions in the social system in its existing form (e.g., regarding immigration or health insurance), can, however, have a positive function. As Merton notes, they can be instrumental in leading to changes in that system (1949/1968: 107). Whether and how this occurs are questions for empirical investigation. STRAIN BETWEEN cULTURE ANd SocIAL STRUcTURE one of Merton’s most significant contributions is his analytical framework explaining the links between social structural and cultural determinants of deviance. While indebted to Parsons’s emphasis on the relevance of cultural values and institutional structures in determining social action, Merton highlighted the variation in cultural values or goals, and showed that the interrelation between goals and their realization was more open-ended than Parsons acknowledged. Thus, he argued that deviance is not simply due to the faulty transmission of cultural values or an individual’s faulty socialization (as a Parsonian analysis would suggest). Rather, Merton argued: some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct. If we can locate groups primarily subject to such pressures, we should expect to find fairly high rates of deviant behavior in these groups, not because the human beings comprising them are compounded of distinctive biological tendencies but because they are responding normally to the social situations in which they find themselves. (Merton 1949/1968: 186, emphasis in original) Thus for Merton, socially deviant behavior, just like socially conforming behavior, is a product of a particular social structural circumstances. Merton distinguished between the goals, purposes, and interests that a given society defines as culturally acceptable, and the acceptable norms and institutionalized means for attaining those goals. Individuals have freedom in choosing the means used to attain desired cultural goals – for example, the money to support the culturally valued goal of a consumer lifestyle can be attained through a variety of means: family inheritance, winning the lottery, working in a financially rewarding occupation, stock market investment, theft, or embezzlement. Merton’s framework highlights the outcomes that are likely when individuals’ social structural location prevents them from being able to attain desired cultural goals (e.g., prestige, success). He argues that when a gap or discrepancy exists between the goals affirmed in society and access to the institutional means to attain them – or, we should note, when institutional access is blocked as a result of poverty, racism, sexism, etc. – individuals adapt their behavior, either rejecting the culturally acceptable goals, or rejecting the institutional means for their attainment. These options lead to various socially patterned ways by which individuals respond to the goals – means dilemmas encountered, adaptations which Merton (1949/1968: 194) sketched; see Box 4.3. Merton’s typology thus introduces the conformist, who accepts cultural goals and society’s approved means for their attainment; the innovator, who accepts the goals but finds new ways to achieve them; the ritualist, who, though rejecting the culturally sanctioned goals, nonetheless passively goes along with the behavior necessary to achieve those goals; the retreatist, who opts out of both the goals and the goal-behavior; and finally, the rebel, who rejects the cultural goals and the institutionalized means but who substitutes new goals and means of his or her own. The conformist accepts the cultural goal of academic success and conforms to professors’ expectations of course-work requirements toward excellence; the innovator accepts the goal of academic success but finds ways to circumvent the professor’s assignments by stealing ideas and papers posted on the internet and passing them off as his or her own work; the ritualist rejects academic ambition but dutifully goes along with all of the required course work; the retreatist disavows any interest in academic work and makes no effort to do well in class; the rebel rejects offers of admission from elite colleges and instead goes off to the mountains, spending time perfecting his skiing technique but with no interest in enhancing his status or prestige (culturally acceptable goals) by participating in ski competitions (Merton 1949/1968: 193–211) Because Merton’s typology highlights “individual” adaptation, this may obscure how the access of whole groups in society to the institutional means toward the achievement of cultural goals gets blocked by the larger social structure. For example, inner-city adolescents in the US, like those in the suburbs, accept the cultural goals of economic success and consumption – something highlighted by the popularity of rap songs celebrating consumption (e.g., Kanye West’s “Flashing Lights” or Blood Raw/Young Jeezy’s “Louie”). But the interrelated effects of poverty and racism on the education provided in some inner-city neighborhoods mean that the relevance of school fades as the appropriate institutional means toward economic success. In such contexts, some inner-city residents (whether innovators or rebels) might turn to (illegal) means (e.g., selling drugs, crime) as a way of acquiring the culturally affirmed consumer lifestyle (e.g., MacLeod 1995: 231). Merton’s typology is useful, therefore, because it high lights how a functional analysis can be helpful in explaining “social problems,” and more generally, in highlighting the conjoint institutional and cultural conditions that can variously produce and predict social deviance. It also illuminates the several possible sources of strain toward deviance (or anomie) that can exist in society, given that so many diverse goals can characterize any individual’s social context. different forms of success – economic, academic, athletic, artistic, military – are given greater affirmation by some families, groups, or communities than by others; and, in addition to success and prestige, society also emphasizes the values of civic duty, loyalty, neighborhood spirit, etc. There are, therefore, many opportunities for discrepancies to arise between cultural goals and the institutionalized means toward achieving them, depending on the individual’s social situation.