General Strain Theory: Origins and Implications

In the realm of modern criminological research and discourse, General Strain Theory (GST) stands as a prominent and influential framework. This paper seeks to delve into the essence of General Strain Theory, its historical roots, and its place within the landscape of criminological theories. While specific research findings pertaining to General Strain Theory will be discussed elsewhere, this exploration aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of why GST holds a pivotal position in contemporary criminology.

Origins of General Strain Theory

General Strain Theory can trace its lineage back to the classical strain theory that originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Agnew, 1992).

For a considerable period, strain theory reigned supreme as the leading explanation for deviant behavior. However, by the 1970s, this dominance began to wane, with other theories, such as differential-association, social learning, and social control, emerging to take its place and relegating it to the margins of criminological discourse (Cole, 1975).

Yet, what exactly is strain theory? Rooted in the seminal works of Émile Durkheim and Robert Merton, strain theory revolves around the concepts of anomie and, of course, strain.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Criminology

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

At its core, strain theory posits that, while society shares common goals of self-sufficiency and material success, the means to achieve these goals are unequally distributed across various socioeconomic strata. The resulting disjunction between aspirations and attainability, leading to experiences of strain, triggers a state of anomie characterized by normlessness. In such a state, societal norms lose their sway, and individuals may reject self-regulatory values (Featherstone & Deflem, 2003).

Strain theory argues that the pressure generated by this disparity between expectations and actual opportunities can drive individuals, particularly those in disadvantaged circumstances, toward deviant paths in pursuit of otherwise unattainable goals. Alternatively, individuals may recalibrate their objectives, pursuing more achievable but often non-conventional markers of success, such as "toughness" or "respect." While variations of strain theory exist, they generally orbit around this central concept.

The Transformation: From Traditional to General Strain Theory

Throughout the late 20th century, empirical support for traditional strain theory began to wane, leaving unanswered questions about its explanatory power, especially in cases where crime occurred within affluent circles, seemingly devoid of the typical strains theorized in the traditional framework. However, one sociologist, Robert Agnew, played a pivotal role in reinvigorating interest in strain theory during the 1980s. In a series of papers, Agnew critiqued traditional strain theory and proposed novel perspectives.

In a 1985 paper, Agnew introduced the concept of "blockage of pain-avoidance" as an additional cause of strain leading to deviant behavior. These writings laid the groundwork for a revitalized strain theory—one that offered a broader and more encompassing perspective (Agnew, 1985). In 1992, Agnew formally presented his comprehensive vision of this "General Strain Theory," a theory that shifted its focus from broader subculture perceptions and financial objectives to a more individualized perspective, emphasizing immediate social environments (Agnew, 1992).

General Strain Theory expanded the scope of strain to encompass not only financial goals but also personal aspirations, such as academic success or social popularity. Additionally, Agnew introduced the concept of "removal of positively valued stimuli" as a form of strain. This includes perceptions of unfairness arising from a lack of recognition or insufficient compensation for extra efforts. The third source of strain outlined was the presence of negative stimuli, such as experiences of child abuse or other significant stressors. Intriguingly, these facets of strain drew inspiration from research in fields beyond traditional criminology, such as psychology and sociology (Agnew, 1992).

By broadening the definitions of strain, Agnew provided a theoretical basis for understanding various types of criminal behavior, far beyond what traditional strain theory had encompassed. An essential aspect of Agnew's work was not merely listing forms of strain but also outlining the connections between different strains and the mechanisms through which they could drive an individual toward delinquency. This innovative approach allowed for greater empirical support than traditional strain theory had ever achieved.

The Rise of General Strain Theory

Robert Agnew's pioneering work captured the attention of the criminological community, marking the beginning of a new era. In the decades following its introduction, General Strain Theory steadily gained popularity on a global scale. Research efforts focused on GST have yielded promising results (Sung Joon & Johnson, 2003).

Continued data collection and analysis have refined and expanded General Strain Theory. Agnew himself remains active, continually studying, modifying, and contributing to his theory (Baron, 2007). Researchers from around the world have conducted numerous studies that provide substantial support for GST, demonstrating its applicability to a wide range of criminal phenomena, including terrorism, drug abuse, and disparities in crime rates among social classes, racial groups, and genders (Agnew, 2010) (Kaufman, Rebellon, Thaxton, & Agnew, 2008).

While General Strain Theory has garnered substantial support and explanatory power in various contexts, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. As Agnew himself pointed out, GST does not account for strains arising from non-social factors, such as accidents or illnesses (1992). In its current state, GST serves as a framework for assessing the likelihood of deviant behavior rather than offering a comprehensive explanation of when and how crimes occur.

Additionally, GST faces challenges in the methodological rigor of testing. Some researchers have raised concerns about the accuracy of testing methods employed in GST studies (Froggio, 2007). There is also research suggesting that while strain may lead to specific types of criminality, it may not directly contribute to non-aggressive delinquency. Thus, GST, while promising, remains an unproven theory, awaiting further investigation and expansion.

The Unfinished Journey

In its current state, General Strain Theory serves as a foundation for future inquiries and explorations. While it shows promise in addressing numerous aspects of criminal behavior, more extensive research is necessary to validate its veracity and potential fully. General Strain Theory offers a multifaceted lens through which to examine the nature of crime, but it must undergo further scrutiny and refinement before it can emerge as a comprehensive alternative to other established theories.

As the scientific community continues to grapple with the complex challenge of testing a wide spectrum of strains and their potential impacts on deviance, it is essential to maintain a critical and open-minded approach. While GST has earned praise in its early stages, only time and rigorous investigation will reveal whether it can live up to its potential. For now, General Strain Theory stands as an intriguing framework, leaving numerous avenues for future research and inquiry wide open. Its future appears promising, but it remains a work in progress, an ever-evolving theory that holds the promise of shedding new light on the enigmatic nature of deviant behavior.