Abstract
—The author of this paper demonstrates that the sociological concept of
anomie has undergone important transformations when applied in psychiatric
research. It is argued that these transformations are not fully in concordance
with the original theories of anomie as they were set forth by Durkheim
and Merton. Two approaches in social and cross-cultural psychiatry are
examined in this context. First, the concept of anomia
as introduced
and applied in the research of Leo Srole is discussed. Second, attention
is paid to the concept of anomic depression as it was introduced
by Wolfgang Jilek in his research among the Coast Salish Indians.
Key words —anomie,
anomia, anomic depression, sociological theory
INTRODUCTION
This paper critically evaluates
the way in which the sociological concept of anomie has been used in two
approaches in the field of social and cross-cultural psychiatry. First,
Leo Srole's research in social psychiatry is discussed. In this research,
the concept of anomia is introduced to refer to a state of mind
expressed by individuals who, according to Stole, live under conditions
which Durkheim described as anomie. Srole first applied his approach in
a study in Springfield [1] and he later also adopted his
ideas in the Midtown Manhattan Study [2]. Soon after Srole's
first exploratory study of anomia, the concept received widespread attention
in empirical and theoretical studies and it has remained a focus of interest
over recent years. Second, this paper evaluates Wolfgang Jilek's contribution
to the study of mental illness among the Coast Salish Indians of British
Columbia and Washington [3, 4]. Jilek introduced the concept
of
anomic depression
to account for the revival and changed nature
of the guardian spirit ceremonial in Coast Salish Indian society. His study
is of particular relevance because it applies insights deriving from the
sociological theory of anomie in a cross-cultural perspective.
The central thesis of this
paper is that a clear understanding of the sociological theory of anomie
reveals several weaknesses in the theoretical foundations of Stole's and
Jilek's research. While acknowledging that on the empirical level these
approaches may offer fruitful insights to our understanding of mental illness
and its relationship to socio-cultural factors, it is argued that the transformations
which the concept of anomie has undergone in these pieces of psychiatric
research are in several instances no longer congruent with the initial
sociological accounts of anomie.
The argument is developed
as follows. First, an outline is presented of the sociological theory of
anomie, with special attention to the contributions by Durkheim and Merton.
Next, the major elements of Srole's and Jilek's views on respectively anomia
and anomic depression are dealt with. Finally, the main points of critique
to these approaches are discussed in the light of the sociological accounts
of anomie.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
OF ANOMIE: DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
The concept of anomie was
originally introduced in sociology by Emile Durkheim who used the term
at the end of the nineteenth century to offer a sociological insight into
the social problems of his days. After Durkheim, the concept did at first
not get the full attention it was to enjoy in modern sociology. It was
not until the 1940s and especially the 1950s that the concept of anomie
was brought into vogue in sociology, notably since Robert K. Merton's treatise
of the subject. From then onwards, anomie has become one of the truly central
and widely discussed concepts in sociological theory.
Durkheim first employed
the concept of anomie in his doctoral thesis The Division of Labor in
Society in which he devoted a chapter to the "anomic division of labour"
[5, 6]. Here Durkheim argues that under normal circumstances
the division of labour produces social (organic) solidarity. Under exceptional
circumstances, i.e. when all the conditions for the existence of organic
solidarity have not been realized, the division of labour presents pathological
or anomic forms. The conditions for the existence of organic solidarity
are two-fold: first, there should be a system of solidary organs, and,
second, the way in which these organs come together must be predetermined,
i.e. regulated by a set of rules. In the case of industrial or commercial
crises and with respect to the conflict between labour and capital, and
the lack of unity in the sciences, regulation does not exist or is not
in accord with the degree of development of the division of labour. In
these cases, the relations among the organs are not regulated, they are
in a state of anomie.
Durkheim paid further and
far more attention to the concept of anomie in his classical work Suicide
[7].As
Douglas rightly claims [8], Durkheim's study of suicide
starts off with a preconceived idea of man and society. According to Durkheim,
man's needs are in themselves unlimited: reflective thought enables man
to always imagine better conditions and more desirable goals in his life.
Since unlimited desires are insatiable, a force must regulate man's passions:
man's needs must be sufficiently proportioned to his means. The individual
however has no way of limiting his own needs, so it must be done by a force
exterior to him. To Durkheim, it is the central task of society to
play this regulating role: "for it is the only moral power superior to
the individual, the authority of which he accepts. It alone has the power
necessary to stipulate law and to set the point beyond which the passions
must not go" [p. 249]. Under exceptional circumstances, when society is
disturbed by abrupt transitions, it is incapable of regulating man's passions,
it is then in a state of
anomie.
Such abrupt transitions, including
both painful and favourable crises, cause society to lose its effectiveness
in guiding man's behaviour. Durkheim also points out that anomie in the
sphere of trade and industry is a chronic phenomenon. Regulations in the
economic sphere are almost completely absent: "For a whole century, economic
progress has mainly consisted in freeing industrial relations from all
regulation" [p. 254].
Summing up, Durkheim's concept
of anomie in Suicide refers to: (a) the acute ineffectiveness
of
society's regulative power, due to painful or beneficial, but always abrupt,
transitions, and (b) the chronic
lack
of social rules limiting man's
needs in the world of trade and industry. Durkheim employed the concept
to explain differences in (anomic) suicide rates. First, the variations
in suicide rates that occur whenever there is an abrupt disturbance in
society (e.g. financial crises or divorce) are explained by the acute form
of anomie. Second, chronic anomie in the world of trade and industry explains
the prevalence of (anomic) suicide as a regular, constant factor in society.
Merton relates the
concept of anomie to the sociological study of deviant behaviour. He published
his theory first in 1938 [9] and later revised [10]
and extended [11] his initial ideas. Merton's main purpose
was to set out the social and cultural sources of deviant behaviour and
to discover how the social structure can exert a pressure on certain individuals
to engage in non-conforming conduct. He distinguishes two important elements
of social and cultural structures: culturally defined goals, on the one
hand, and the institutionally prescribed means of striving toward these
goals, on the other. Cultural goals and institutionalized means do not
always operate jointly in society: there may be a differential emphasis
on the goals or on the means. Merton describes in particular a social situation
in which there is an exceptionally strong emphasis upon the cultural goals
without a corresponding emphasis upon the institutional norms. Under these
circumstances, human conduct is not guided by the institutionally prescribed
means but by the most effective procedure, whether legitimate or not, of
striving for the cultural goals. When this dissociation between goals and
norms continues, "the society becomes unstable and there develops what
Durkheim calls 'anomie"' [10, p. 135]. Merton's concept of anomie thus
refers to a demoralization, a de-institutionalization of means, resulting
out of a dissociation between cultural goals and institutional norms.
Merton finds an example of
such a disjunction between goals and norms in American culture in which
an emphasis upon the goal of success, monetary success in particular, occurs
without equivalent emphasis upon the institutionalized means to strive
for this goal. Persons facing this social situation then exhibit five possible
modes of individual adaptation according to whether they accept or reject
the cultural goals and/or the institutionalized means. These modes of adaptation
are, according to Merton, differentially distributed over the different
social strata of society, depending on the accessibility of legitimate
means and the degree of assimilation of goals and norms in each stratum.
The first possible mode of
adaptation is conformity: both the goals and norms of society are accepted.
The other four categories can be considered forms of deviant behaviour:
(a) innovation: the institutional means are rejected and replaced by other
means to achieve the culturally prescribed goals, a type of adaptation
which Merton considers especially prevalent in the lower social strata;
(b) ritualism: the individual holds on to the institutional means in spite
of the fact that the cultural goals cannot be reached, the category of
deviant behaviour which Merton expected to be most common in American society;
(c) retreatism: both society's goals and norms are rejected, a form of
deviant adaptation which Merton believed to be the least common; and (d)
rebellion: the rejection of prevailing norms and goals and the substitution
thereof by new values, a mode of adaptation which is a potential for the
formation of subgroups set apart from the rest of the community.
In sum, then, Merton's concept
of anomie refers to a de-institutionalization of social means, caused by
a differential emphasis on the cultural goals and the institutional norms,
and resulting, depending on the characteristics of the social strata, in
five possible types of role behaviour.
For the sake of completeness,
it should be added that after Durkheim and Merton the concept of anomie
has received considerable further attention in the field of sociology.
Parsons [12], for instance, adopted Durkheim's notion
of anomie to denote the "state of disorganisation where the hold of norms
over individual conduct has broken down" [p. 377]. He also developed a
theory of deviant behaviour which he regarded a further elaboration of
Merton's typology of modes of adaptation [13]. Other
modifications or extensions of Merton's theory have been proposed by Dubin
[14], Cloward and Ohlin [15,16] and
Cohen [17, 18]. Suffice it to say that these authors,
amongst others, employ sociological notions of anomie which are not always
fully congruent with the original accounts of Durkheim and Merton. The
concept of anomie has thus also undergone transformations within the
field of sociology. The psychiatric approaches using anomie which are discussed
in this paper, however, claim to be based on the original insights of Durkheim
and Merton which have here been set forth in sufficient detail.
ANOMIA, SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS AND MENTAL ILLNESS
The first approach in psychiatric
research to be considered here was developed by Stole in a study, conducted
in Springfield, Massachusetts, to measure and assess the impact of a series
of 'Anti Defamation League' card advertisements (anti-discrimination and
American Creed messages) that were posted in vehicles of the public transit
system [1]. In this study, Srole found it useful to test
hypotheses with relation to Durkheim's concept of anomie which, according
to Srole, refers to "the breakdown of those moral norms that limit desires
and aspirations" [p. 712]. To this end, he developed a scale to measure
the individual's degree of anomia. Srole applies the term to explore
the "molecular view of individuals as they are integrated in the total
action fields of their interpersonal relationships and reference groups"
[p. 710]. Anomia —Srole uses "social malintegration" and "interpersonal
alienation" as equivalent terms— refers to a socio-psychological condition
of individuals' perception of 'self-to-others distance' and 'self-to-others
alienation', a condition which is considered dependent on both sociological
and psychological processes.
Srole is well aware of the
fact that both Durkheim's and Merton's concept of anomie refer to a state
of society: Durkheim's anomie as described above and Merton's concept to
denote "the disparity between culturally emphasized goals and socially
inaccessible means to actualize them" [2, p. 272]. Anomia, on the other
hand, refers to an individual state of mind and is, according to Srole,
more related to: (a) MacIver's definition of anomie as "the breakdown of
the individual's sense of attachment to society" [19],
and (b) Laswell's definition of the "lack of identification on the part
of the primary ego of the individual with a 'self' that includes others"
[20].
The scale which Srole developed
to measure the individual's degree of anomia consists of five opinion statements'
of the agree-disagree type. Each statement represents one of five distinct
dimensions of anomia [1, pp. 712-713]: (a) the individual's sense that
community leaders are detached from and indifferent to his needs; (b) the
individual's perception of the social order as essentially fickle and unpredictable,
i.e. orderless; (c) the individual's view that he and people like him are
retrogressing from the goals they have already reached; (d) the individual's
sense of the meaningless of life itself, and (e) the individual's perception
that his framework of immediate personal relationships is no longer predictive
or supportive.
In the Springfield study,
Srole used the anomiascale to test the hypothesis that anomia is associated
with a rejective orientation toward outgroups in general and minority groups
in particular. The results of the study, in which 401 individuals were
interviewed in their homes, confirmed the hypothesis. Moreover, anomia
was found to be significantly related in an inverse direction to the respondents'
socio-economic status as measured by their education and occupation of
head of the household.
In the Midtown Manhattan
Study, Srole applied the anomia approach to an examination of the prevalence
of mental disturbances in a sample of 1660 non-hospitalized Manhattan residents
[2]. The respondents were asked questions about, among
other things, their mental health and socio-economic status. The information
obtained from each respondent was rated by two independently working psychiatrists.
The results showed that in the sample about 18% were mentally well, about
36% showed mild, about 22% moderate and about 25% severe and marked symptoms
of mental illness. In addition, Srole found that in the Midtown Study anomia
was a corollary of mental disturbance [21], and that
anomia was inversely related to socio-economic status independently of
the mental disturbance factor. Thus, the inverse relationship between anomia
and socio-economic status found in the Springfield study was confirmed:
the frequency and intensity of individuals' state of anomia were most heavily
concentrated in the lower socio-economic strata.
ANOMIC DEPRESSION IN COAST
SALISH INDIAN SOCIETY
The second approach which
is critically examined in this paper has been developed by Wolfgang Jilek
in his research on the guardian spirit ceremonials of the Coast Salish
Indians of British Columbia and Washington [3, 4]. In
this study, Jilek introduced the concept of anomic depression to explain
the specific nature of the relation between the socio-cultural context
of Coast Salish Indian society with a particular type of mental illness.
Jilek (partly in collaboration with L. Jilek-Aall) also applied the approach
in a study of initiation rituals in Papua New Guinea [22],
and in accounts of epidemic koro in Thailand [23,
24] and transient psychotic reactions in Africa [25,
26]. The present examination of the concept of anomic depression focuses
on Jilek's study of the guardian spirit ceremonials in Coast Salish Indian
society.
According to Jilek [3,
4], the revival of the Salish Indian guardian spirit ceremonial in
the 1960s reflects an evolution from psychohygienic ritual to ritual psychotherapy.
Jilek argues that the ceremonial in its traditional form responded to a
seasonally limited, goal-directed state of mind, identified by stereotyped
symptoms. This condition was referred to as sya'wan or spirit sickness:
a pathomorphic or illness-like state which inevitably led to the spirit
dance initiation. The initiation was regarded as a necessary test and collective
confirmation of individually acquired spirit powers. In its contemporary
form, Jilek argues, the nature of spirit sickness has changed in response
to the altered socio-cultural conditions of Salish Indian society. Spirit
sickness now refers to a psychosocial syndrome defined as anomic depression.
This
concept is introduced to denote "an affective, psychophysiologic and behavioural
syndrome developing in reaction to alienation from aboriginal culture under
Westernizing influence" [4, p. 46]. The syndrome derives from experiences
of anomie, relative deprivation and cultural identity confusion.
Anomie refers to the sociological
concept as introduced by Durkheim and elaborated by Merton. According to
Jilek, Durkheim's concept of anomie indicates "the absence of an effective
normative structure", while Merton applied anomie to "the dissociation
between culturally defined aspirations and socially structured means" [4,
p. 47]. Relative deprivation, as defined by Aberle [27],
refers to the "negative discrepancy between a minority group's legitimate
expectations and actuality" [4, p. 47]. Cultural identity confusion is
a term applied by Leighton et al. [28] to denote
the "weakening of norms derived from membership in a particular cultural
group when the members of this group are brought into close contact with
the contrasting norms of a different cultural group, and are unable to
integrate the two sets" [4, p. 47].
It is the social state of
anomie, in combination with relative deprivation and cultural identity
confusion, that accounts for the main socio-cultural characteristics of
Salish Indian society. More specifically, Jilek [29]
points out a social situation in which the Salish Indians have gradually
been forced into a minority position after the arrival of white settlers.
The structure of the traditional Indian society has disintegrated due to
cultural changes resulting out of a process of imposed rapid Westernization.
The subjective experience of these conditions of rapid cultural change
led in many Indian individuals to a state of anomic depression.
Jilek abstracts the sociodynamic
and psychodynamic pattern of anomic depression from case histories of Indian
patients showing symptoms of spirit sickness. The following sequence of
life experiences is revealed [29]: "acculturation imposed
through Western education —vying for acceptance by White society— attempts
at White identification feelings of rejection, discrimination and relative
deprivation-cultural identity confusion-moral disorientation often with
acting-out behaviour under the influence of alcohol-guilt over the denial
of Indianness-anomic depression which fails to respond to Western medical,
psychotherapeutic and social intervention" [p. 161]. On a theoretical level,
the sequential course of life experiences can be presented in the following
conceptual scheme: anomie-relative deprivation-cultural identity confusion-anomic
depression.
Jilek [3, 4]
shows how anomic depression among Salish Indians is characterized by feelings
of frustration, defeat, discouragement and lowered selfesteem. It is often
associated with randomly aggressive behaviour against self or others, moral
disorientation, and alcohol abuse. Jilek argues that, by accepting anomic
depression as a variant of the traditional spirit sickness (sya'wan),
Salish
ritualists have made anomic depression amenable to ritual psychotherapy.
Thus, the main purpose of contemporary guardian spirit ceremonials is to
treat pathological symptoms and behaviour seen as resulting out of processes
of cultural change; the initiation rituals should be understood as a healing
process, a therapeutic psychodrama that, as the most important therapeutic
aspect, has an ego-strengthening effect of positive reidentification with
native Indian culture.
A CRITICAL EVALUATION
OF ANOMIA AND ANOMIC DEPRESSION
The approaches followed by
Srole and Jilek exhibit certain problems related to their theoretical foundations
on the sociological theory of anomie. First, there are problems concerning
the way in which these approaches transform the concepts of anomie as they
were defined by Durkheim and Merton. Second, there are difficulties concerning
the relationship between anomia and anomic depression, on the one hand,
and anomie, on the other.
Two approaches to anomie:
Durkheim and Merton
Both Srole and Jilek claim
to base their accounts on, first of all, Durkheim's concept of anomie.
However, in their reading of Durkheim's theory, both authors fail to adopt,
firstly, Durkheim's distinct usages of anomie in The Division of Labor
in Society and in Suicide, and, secondly,, Durkheim's distinction
between the acute and chronic form of anomie.
Apart from this and more
importantly, it should be added that in Srole's research, anomia is not
investigated in relation to Durkheim's (or Merton's) anomie but only in
relation to indices of socio-economic status, prejudice to minority groups
and mental illness. Srole in fact questioned the possibility of operationalizing
the sociological concept of anomie for empirical research. He preferred
to measure the individual's degree of anomia since it is "more readily
accessible to the instruments of the researcher than is the operationally
complicated abstraction [of anomie]" [1, p.71]. Seeman [30]
made the same remark when he claimed that anomie's "structural definition,
in any case, remains more a hope (or a guiding orientation) than an empirical
accomplishment". However, Lander [31] has proposed a
set of anomic variables with which the degree of society's state of anomie
could be empirically investigated. In Srole's research, Lander's, or any
other similar, approach to examine society's anomie is not employed.
Jilek's account of anomic
depression, on the other hand, does provide a description of the basic
sociocultural characteristics of Coast Salish Indian society which, according
to Jilek, can be circumscribed as being in a state of anomie. However,
as indicated above and argued elsewhere [32], Durkheim's
concept of anomie does not simply refer to society's lack or ineffectiveness
of norms which, as Jilek argues, characterizes Coast Salish Indian society.
Durkheim instead applied anomie to denote the lack of ineffectiveness of
society's norms limiting man's passions and needs:
a society is
in a state of anomie only if it loses its regulating power to limit man's
desires. As Parsons [12] has aptly stated, the rules
of society are in Durkheim's perspective at the same time social and moral:
it is because the rules are social and regulating man's conduct that they
are moral. Therefore, Coast Salish Indian society, in which the traditional
norms through a process of acculturation are oppressed by values of Western
origin, is only in a state of anomie when it is ineffective in limiting
individuals' passions and needs, but not, as Jilek seems to suggest, because
of the changed, Westernized and non-Aboriginal origin and nature on the
Indians imposed values. The latter would only be the case if the Western
values promote individuality and 'egoistic' attitudes, a condition which
would indicate a chronic state of anomie as the one Durkheim described
in the world of trade and industry.
It seems then that Jilek
too loosely adopts Durkheim's concept of anomie to refer to processes of
acculturation, Westernization and cultural change. It has however been
argued [32, 33] that, when adopting Durkheim's concept
of anomie, the term should best be reserved to denote the specific meaning
which Durkheim has given it.
Next, with regard to the
use of Merton's concept of anomie, it should be pointed out quite clearly
that Merton's concept of anomie does not
refer to the value-conflict
of a dissociation between culturally defined goals and institutional norms,
as both Srole and Jilek argue. As mentioned before, Merton defines anomie
as a de-institutionalization of means, which is the
consequence
of
the dissociation between cultural goals and institutional norms. Anomie
is conceived of as a "breakdown in the cultural structure, occurring
particularly
when there is an acute disjunction between the cultural norms and the
socially structured capacities of members of the group to act in accord
with them" [11, p. 162, my emphasis]. The dissociation between goals and
norms is thus a sufficient but not a necessary condition for anomie: Merton's
theory sees "the conflict between culturally defined goals and institutional
norms as one source of anomie" [11, p. 190].
Srole and Jilek however equate
the value-conflict of goals and norms with anomie. In Jilek's case, this
misinterpretation of Merton's concept of anomie may be due to the fact
that Jilek only refers to Merton's first approach to anomie [9]
and does not take into account Merton's reformulation [10]
and extension [11] of the theory. Merton foresaw the
problem and admitted that, with regard to the equation of valueconflict
and anomie, "As first formulated, the theory is evidently more than usually
obscure on this point" [11, p. 190n].
Finally, Srole and Jilek
adopt both Durkheim's and Merton's concept of anomie. A combination of
these two sociological approaches is however not unproblematic: first,
and most evidently, it should be reminded that Durkheim and Merton applied
their concepts of anomie to explain different social phenomena, respectively
suicide and deviant behaviour, and, second, more importantly, their definitions
of anomie do not refer to the same condition of society.
As argued above, Durkheim's
concept of anomie refers to a de-regulation, i.e. a de-stabilization (acute
or chronic) of the goals, of society, while Merton applies anomie
to a de-institutionalization of the means
of society. Therefore,
if the two approaches are to be combined, as Srole and Jilek claim to do,
a theoretical framework has to be developed to outline the way in which
society's regulation of goals and its integration by institutionalized
means are interrelated. Such a framework has been presented by Johnson
[34] who argues that regulation and integration are in
Durkheim's approach identical. (It is worth remembering that Durkheim not
only discussed society's regulation, which could lead to the extreme, pathological
states of anomie and its counterpart 'fatalism', but also integration to
society, with as its pathological states 'egoism' and 'altruism'.) Durkheim
defined a lack of integration as ,egoism' (leading to egoistic suicide)
and a lack of regulation as anomie (leading to anomic suicide). Johnson
argues that Durkheim's 'egoism' refers to the weakness of the common conscience.
This weakness results in a lack of social regulation which Durkheim labelled
anomie. Thus, 'egoism' and anomie are, according to Johnson, identical
and the dimensions regulation and integration are unseparable. Among sociologists,
Johnson's view has found support [35] but has also been
criticized since it fails to take into account that Durkheim thought it
necessary to distinguish regulation from integration [36].
In any case, regardless of the fact whether or not regulation and integration
can possibly be combined, and thus whether or not Durkheim's concept of
anomie (referring to regulation) and Merton's anomie (referring to integration)
can be combined, both Srole and Jilek do not offer a framework to support
such a combination.
Anomie as an objective
social condition versus anomia and anomic depression as individual states
of mind
In the light of the above
presented outline of the sociological theories of anomie, it is clear that
Durkheim and Merton apply the concept of anomie to indicate a particular,
though in the case of both authors not identical, state of society. The
anomic state of society should, as Merton [11] rightly
stresses, be clearly distinguished from the experiences of individuals
confronting an anomic society. To denote the individual experiences of
anomie, Srole introduced the concept of anomia. Srole's concept of anomia
and similar notions have gained wide attention in sociology and psychology
[19, 20, 37-50]. A few problems however
with regard to the psychological conceptions of anomie have as yet not
been resolved.
First, specifically with
respect to Stole's concept of anomia, the correlation which Srole found
between socio-economic status and anomia has been confirmed [43-46],
but also rejected or modified in other empirical studies. Roberts and Rokeach
[47], for instance, found that, when education was held
constant, there is no relation between anomia and socio-economic status,
while Killian and Grigg [48] discovered that socio-economic
status is inversely related to anomia only for whites and urban Negroes,
but not for rural Negroes. Srole's initially found correlation between
anomia and socio-economic status thus seems to be empirically variable
and cannot be assumed to be universally valid.
Second, it has as yet not
been unequivocally established to what extent and in what way anomie, as
a state of society, and anomia, as an individual state of mind, are related
to one another. According to Merton [49], amongst others
[43, 44, 50], the proportion of anomic
individuals within a society, as a measurement of the prevalence of anomia
within that society, gives an indication of the degree of anomie of that
society. Srole [1] however suggests that anomie and anomia
are mutually indicative of each other; their relationship is reciprocal.
(It is this a priori assumption that probably caused Srole not to investigate
anomia in relation to anomie. If anomic and anomia are reciprocally related,
an assumption upon which there is no agreement, an investigation of one
of the two variables is indeed sufficient since the proven existence of
one variable would necessarily imply the existence of the other.)
If we now take a second look
at Jilek's concept of anomic depression, it is evident that, since Jilek
applies the concept to a psycho-physiologic and behavioural syndrome of
individuals, anomic depression refers to anomia rather than to anomie.
Consequently, what is called for in Jilek's approach is a specification
of the nature of the relationship between (a) individuals' anomic depression,
conceived of as a variant of anomia, and (b) society's (presumed) state
of anomie. Jilek clarifies this relationship by relating anomie to the
concepts of relative deprivation and cultural identity confusion (see above).
However, the combined use of these concepts poses another problem.
Jilek's combination of the
three concepts related to anomic depression rests on a reductionist view
of, especially, Durkheim's sociological concept of anomie, because Jilek
explains a psychosocial syndrome of individuals, anomic depression, by
referring to a particular state of society. Reductionist interpretations
of Durkheim's theory have been suggested in sociology. Lindenberg [51],
for instance, argues that Durkheim's sociological theory can in fact be
translated in a psychological-reductionist approach. It has however also
been argued [52], and the author of this paper agrees,
that Durkheim's theoretical assumptions are clearly sociologistic and cannot
be reduced to psychological propositions.
Therefore, when adopting
Durkheim's concept of anomie, as Jilek claims to do, a reductionist view
of sociology is not acceptable. Durkheim [53] clearly
stated that social facts can only be explained by and can thus only explain
other social facts. Moreover, social facts, as they form a reality sui
generis,
cannot
be equated with their individual manifestations. Social facts, in Durkheim's
perspective, then form "a category of facts with very distinctive characteristics:
it consists of ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual,
and endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him"
[p. 3]. Within the Durkheimian perspective, individual experiences such
as anomic depression cannot be explained by reference to a state of society
such as anomie. It should be remembered that Durkheim did not relate the
concept of anomie to individual incidents of (anomic) suicide but to the
total of (anomic) suicides committed in a given society during a given
period of time and "this is not simply a sum of independent units, a collective
total, but is itself a new factsui generis, with its own unity,
individuality and consequently its own nature-a nature, furthermore, dominantly
social" [7, p. 46]. Hence, although Jilek claims to rely on Durkheim's
concept of anomie —Srole makes the same claim but, as argued before, does
not investigate anomie in his studies— the psychological-reductionist approach
of anomic depression neglects some of the basic theoretical assumptions
of Durkheim's sociology.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have tried
to demonstrate that, when a clear understanding of Durkheim's and Merton's
sociological theory of anomie is taken into account, the transformations
of the concept of anomie in Srole's and Jilek's contributions to social
and cross-cultural psychiatry encounter difficulties in their theoretical
foundations.
Summing up, this paper yielded
the following criticisms:
(a) Srole does not
investigate anomia, an individual state of mind, in its relation to the
social state of anomie;
(b) Jilek carelessly uses
Durkheim's (and Merton's) concept of anomie to denote processes of acculturation,
Westernization and cultural change;
(c) both Srole and Jilek
wrongly equate Merton's concept of anomie with the valueconflict of cultural
goals and institutional norms;
(d) in both approaches,
a theoretical framework to combine Durkheim's with Merton's concept of
anomie is not offered; Srole arguably assumes a reciprocal relationship
between anomia and anomie;
(f) Jilek's relationship
between the (presumed) state of anomic and anomic depression, a term referring
to anomia rather than to anomie, rests on, in the Durkheimian perspective
unacceptable, reductionist assumptions.
This sociological evaluation
does not deny the fruitfulness of some of the interesting insights which
Srole and Jilek have offered. Srole's anomia concept has deservedly received
wide attention in many empirical and theoretical studies. The hypothesis
that anomia is related to socio-economic status and mental illness is indeed
worth investigating since it could lead to marked progress in our understanding
of the socio-cultural determinants effecting mental disturbance.
Jilek's research of the guardian
spirit ceremonials has also proven its significance, especially with regard
to the cross-cultural perspective. Jilek has convincingly demonstrated
how many Coast Salish Indians expressing symptoms of spirit sickness (alcohol
abuse, anxiety, depression) show significant improvement of behaviour and
symptoms after initiation in the guardian spirit ceremonial. The therapeutic
effects of the initiation rituals have to be acknowledged and Jilek rightly
adopts a non-ethnocentric approach in the study of these rituals and argues
"at no time should culturally sanctioned ritual practices be interpreted
as illogical or irrational thinking and as evidence of mental illness"
[26, p. 56].
In conclusion, the present
sociological examination of anomie's transformations in psychiatric research
draws attention to one of the fundamental problems and challenges in attempts
at combining insights deriving from the social and the medical sciences,
in general, and from sociology and psychiatry, in particular. A combination
of the knowledge gained in both scientific domains is obviously most desirable
and can lead to useful contributions in the study of mental illness and
its relation with the socio-cultural characteristics of society. It should
however be evident that attempts at such a combination must take into account
not only the empirical findings but also the full weight of the implications
of the theoretical achievements in both sociology and psychiatry. In the
case of Srole's and Jilek's accounts, which, as I have argued, in several
instances represent, in Kleinman's words [54], a 'misuse'
of the social sciences, this implies that the criticisms of this paper
should be considered to support their approaches with a more justified
use of the sociological concept of anomie.
REFERENCES
1 . Srole
L. Social integration and certain corollaries: an exploratory study. Am.
Social. Rev. 21, 709-716, 1956.
2. Srole
L., Langner T. S., Michael S. T., Kirkpatrick P., Opler M. K. and Rennie
T. A. C. Mental Health in the Metropolis: The Midtown Manhattan Study
(Revised
and enlarged edition). New York University Press, New York,
1978.
3. Jilek
W. G. Salish Indian Mental Health and Culture Change: Psychohygienic
and Therapeutic Aspects of the Guardian Spirit Ceremonial.
Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, Toronto, 1974.
4. Jilek
W. G. A quest for identity: therapeutic effects of the Salish Indian guardian
spirit ceremonial. J. Op. Psychical. 8, 46-51, 1977.
5. Durkheim's
central ideas on the concept of anomie are compiled in: Durkheim E. On
anomie. In Images of Man (Edited by Mills C. W.), pp. 449-485.
Braziller,
New York, 1961.
6. Durkheim
E. The Division of Labor in Society (Translated by Simpson G.) The
Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1933 [originally published in 1893].
7. Durkheim
E. Suicide: A Study in Sociology (Translated by Spaulding J. A.
and Simpson G. and edited with an introduction by Simpson G.). Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London, 1952 [originally published in 1897].
8. Douglas
J. The Social Meanings of Suicide, p. 25. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J., 1967.
9. Merton
R. K. Social structure and anomie. Am. Social.Rev. 3, 672-682, 1938.
10. Merton
R. K. Social structure and anomie. In Social Theory and Social Structure
(Revised
and enlarged edition), pp. 131-160.
The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.,
1957
[originally
published as: Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In
The
Family: Its Functions and Destiny
(Edited by Anshen R. N.),
pp.
275-312.
Harper & Row, New York, 1949.
11. Merton
R. K. Continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie. In Social
Theory and Social Structure (Revised and enlarged edition), pp. 161-194.
The
Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.,
1957.
12. Parsons
T. The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with a Special
Reference to a Group of Recent European Writers.
The Free Press, New
York, 1968.
13. Parsons
T. The Social System, pp. 249-321. The Free Press, New York, 1951.
14. Dubin
R. Deviant behavior and social structure: continuities in social theory.
Am.
Social. Rev. 24, 147-164, 1959.
15. Cloward
R. A. Illegitimate means, anomie and deviant behavior. Am. Social. Rev.
24, 164-176, 1959.
16. Cloward
R. A. and Ohlin L. E. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent
Gangs. The Free Press, New York, 1960.
17. Cohen
A. K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. The Free Press,
Glencoe, Ill., 1955.
18. Cohen
A. K. The sociology of the deviant act: anomie theory and beyond. Am.
Social. Rev. 30, 5-14, 1965.
19. MacIver
R. M. The Ramparts We Guard, pp. 84-92.
Macmillan, New York, 1950.
20. Laswell
H. The threat to privacy. In Conflict of Loyalties (Edited by MacIver
R. M.). Harper & Bros, New York,
1952.
21. Srole
L. Interdisciplinary conceptualization and research in social psychiatry.
Unpublished paper read before the American Sociological Society, Detroit,
1956.
22. Jilek
W. G. and Jilek-Aall L. Initiation in Papua New Guinea: psychohygienic
and ethnopsychiatric aspects. Papua New Gain. med. J. 21, 252-263,
1978.
23. Jilek
W. G. and Jilek-Aall L. A koro epidemic in Thailand.
Transcult.
Psychiat. Res. Rev. 14, 57-59, 1977.
24. Jilek
W. G. and Jilek-Aall L. The metamorphosis of 'culture-bound' syndromes.
Soc. Sci. Med. 21, 205-210, 1985.
25. Jilek
W. G. and Jilek-Aall L. Transient psychosis in Africans. Psychiat. Clinica
3, 337-364, 1970.
26. Jilek
W. G. Culture and psychopathology revisited.
Culture 3, 51-58, 1983.
27. Aberle
D. F. The Peyote Religion among the Navaho, pp. 322-329.
Aldine,
Chicago, Ill., 1966.
28. Leighton
D. C., Harding J. S., Macklin D. B., Macmillan A. M. and Leighton A. H.
The
Character of Danger, p. 387. Basic Books, New York, 1963.
29. Jilek
W. G. Anomic depression, alcoholism and a culture-congenial Indian response.
J.
Stud. Alc. Suppl. 9, 159-170, 1981.
30. Seeman
M. Empirical alienation studies: an overview. In Theories of Alienation:
Critical Perspectives in Philosophy and Social Sciences
(Edited by
Geyer R. F. and Schweitzer D. R.), p. 279. Martinus Nijhoff Social
Science Division, Leiden, 1976.
31. Lander
B. Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. Columbia University
Press, New York, 1954.
32. Derksen
A. T. Anomie is niet identiek aan normloosheid bij Durkheim.
Mens en
Maatschappij 55, 186-189, 1980.
33. Horton
J. The dehumanization of anomie and alienation: a problem in the ideology
of sociology. Br. J. Sociol. 15, 283-300, 1964.
34. Johnson
B. D. Durkheim's one cause of suicide.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 30, 875-886,
1965.
35. Marks
S. R. Durkheim's theory of anomie. Am. J. Social. 80, 329-364, 1974.
36. Hynes
E. Suicide and homo duplex: an interpretation of Durkheim's typology of
suicide. Social. Q. 16, 87-104, 1975.
37. Ansbacher
H. L. Anomie, the sociologist's conception of lack of social interest.
J. Individ. Psychol. 15, 212-214, 1959.
38. Davol
S. H. and Reimanis G. The role of anomie as a psychological concept. J.
Individ.
Psychol. 15, 215-225, 1959.
39. Lester
D. Anomie and the suicidal individual.
Psychol. Rep. 26, 532, 1970.
40. McClosky
H. and Schaar J. H. Psychological dimensions of anomy. Am. Sociol. Rev.
30, 14-40, 1965.
41. Reinhardt
A. M. and Gray R. M. Adjustment to society: interrelations among anomia,
social class, and psychiatric impairment. In Explorations in Psychiatric
Sociology (Edited by Roman P. M. and Trice H. M.), pp. 185-207.
Davis,
Philadelphia, Penn., 1974.
42. Riesman
D., Glazer N. and Denney R. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing
American Character (Abridged edition). Yale University Press, New Haven,
Conn., 1961.
43. Mizruchi
E. H. Success and Opportunity. The Free Press, New York, 1964.
44. Mizruchi
E. H. Alienation and anomie: theoretical and empirical perspectives. In
The
New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C.
W. Mills (Edited by Horowitz L.), pp. 253-267. Oxford University Press,
New York, 1965.
45. Bell
W. Anomie, social isolation, and the class structure. Sociometry 20,
105-116,
1957.
46. Meier
D. L. and Bell W. Anomia and differential access to the achievement of
life goals. Am. Sociol. Rev. 24, 189-202, 1959.
47. Roberts
A. H. and Rokeach M. Anomie, authoritarianism and prejudice.
Am. J.
Sociol. 61, 355-358, 1956.
48. Killian
L. M. and Grigg C. M. Urbanism, race and anomia. Am. J. Sociol. 67,
661-665, 1962.
49. Merton
R. K. Anomie, anomia and social interaction: contexts of deviant behavior.
In Anomie and Deviant Behavior (Edited by Clinard M. B.), pp. 213-242.
The Free Press, New York, 1964.
50. Williams
R. M. American Society: A Sociological Interpretation.
Knopf, New
York, 1951.
51. Lindenberg
S. Three psychological theories of a classical sociologist.
Mens en
Maatschappij 50, 133-153, 1975.
52. Goddijn
H. P. M. Anomie. Universitaire Pers, Leiden, 1970.
53. Durkheim
E. The Rules of Sociological Method
(Translated by Solovay S. A.
and Mueller J. H. and Edited by Catlin G. E. G.). The Free Press, Glencoe,
Ill., 1938.
54. Kleinman
A. Some uses and misuses of the social sciences in medicine. In Metatheory
in Social Sciences (Edited by Fiske D. W. and Schweitzer R. A.), pp.
222-245. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1986.
