Anomie: Do You Know What This Is Exactly?

Anomie is a very old concept. In fact, it is so old that it was used in the Middle Ages to describe people as “without God or without laws.”  However, the sociologist Émile Durkheim began to work on this idea in a systematic way. Since then, the term has appeared regularly in sociology.

The word anomie refers to the lack of rules and the tendency to break the law. First, it can take place on a collective or individual level. Second, it equates to the lack of guidelines or moral values ​​to guide behavior.

Although the concept of anomie was born in sociology, fields such as political science, anthropology, and psychology also talk about it. It is important to note, however, that all of these fields associate this term with criminal or “deviant” behavior, whether as a result of historical circumstances or as part of a moral evolutionary process.

Anomie and non-conformity

When we talk about anomie, we are talking about tension between the collective and the individual. In short, there is no compliance with the rules. This may be due to the fact that individuals do not think they can comply, even if the rules are reasonable.

For Durkheim, anomie was the result of a breakdown or deterioration of social ties; a separation that subsequently led to a weakening of solidarity.

In other words, if there are no strong ties in a family, a particular group, or society as a whole, individuals do not feel they have to live up to the norms that give group cohesion.

Durkheim pointed out that the division of labor and class was also a form of deterioration of social ties. It introduces forms of injustice and exclusion, which are later reflected in the norms.

Ultimately, these become prescriptions that legitimize situations that go against individuals. This makes people resistant to following the rules.

Anomie and frustration

The American structural-functionalist approach first assimilated the concept of anomie. In this case, they transformed the thought that Durkheim initially worked on, as they emphasized the individual.

It started with the idea that the collective worked well (just because it is collective) and that if a person couldn’t adapt to this, it was that person’s problem and not the whole group’s problem.

Furthermore, many authors point out that deep frustration can arise when a context proposes norms and performance models, but at the same time limits the means or ways to achieve them. For example, when you put everything into being successful and prosperous, but the rules themselves prevent you from achieving this.

Under these conditions, social ties not only weaken. There is also a strong resistance, both passive and active. This is ultimately reflected in a variety of behaviors, including depression, urban violence, crime, and even suicide, among others.

What or who should change?

The issue of anomie and adherence to standards is a complex one. In reality, we can say that no society fully respects and adheres to the rules at all times.

The ideal here would be a collective, where the possibilities for compliance are very broad, while promoting autonomy based on individual ethical responsibility.

Despite this, this type of society is not easy to build, mainly because of economic and social inequality. This problem undoubtedly implies inequality of opportunity.

At this point a very important question arises. Which should realistically be promoted in order to reduce the tensions that lead to transgression or frustration: a change in norms or a change in the individuals?

Of course, answering this question is not easy. A realistic perspective would involve realizing the importance of adapting to reality, however arbitrary it may be. At the same time, this adaptation need not be passive.

On the contrary, it should actually be critical and active. Individuals should therefore deal with this paradox, better tolerate frustration and strengthen their willingness to change.