摘要：The article deals with the reception, and failed reception, of the Merton’s theory of deviance since the 1980’s. It is here argued that this reception has been selective, in that it has focused on his notion of relative deprivation and on Strain Theory. Moreover, the reception has differed in its extension, depth of analysis, and orientation, which has concerned Merton’s past or present work. The secondary literature has dwelt on the conceptual relationship between the theories of relative deprivation, social strain, and social disorganization. It has also evaluated the consistency and persuasiveness of their argumentation. The size of this secondary literature on Merton’s theory of deviance, and its controversial character as well, point to its enduring relevance for empirical research and for contemporary sociological theory.
其他摘要：The article deals with the reception, and failed reception, of the Merton’s theory of deviance since the 1980’s. It is here argued that this reception has been selective, in that it has focused on his notion of relative deprivation and on Strain Theory. Moreover, the reception has differed in its extension, depth of analysis, and orientation, which has concerned Merton’s past or present work. The secondary literature has dwelt on the conceptual relationship between the theories of relative deprivation, social strain, and social disorganization. It has also evaluated the consistency and persuasiveness of their argumentation. The size of this secondary literature on Merton’s theory of deviance, and its controversial character as well, point to its enduring relevance for empirical research and for contemporary sociological theory.
