Toward a General Theory of Anomie The Social Psychology of Disintegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Though anomie is one of sociology’s most unique conceptual contributions, its progenitor, Emile Durkheim, was notably ambiguous about its meaning. Consequently, its use in contemporary sociology has varied wildly. In part, the confusion surrounding anomie stems from Durkheim’s insistence that it iscausedbyderegulation, which has resisted operationalization. Nevertheless, careful consideration of the “four faces” of anomie most prominent in the sociological canon—that is, (1) the anomic division of labor, (2) anomic suicide, (3) Mertonian strain, and (4) the micro-level symbolic-cultural versions—reveals that disruption and disintegration, rather than deregulation, are the common threads woven through each. Drawing from this insight, a new theoretical conceptualization for anomie is offered that defines it as (a) a social psychological force operating at both the (b) individual- or “meso”/corporate unit-level of social reality that results from (c) chronic or acutedisruptionsthat, in turn, generate (d) real or imagined disintegrative pressures. Furthermore, disruptions are not only predicated on the real or imagined loss of social ties (dissolution), but also on the real or imagined loss of attachment to a coherent social reality (disjunction) and/or physical space (dislocation). This recalibration allows anomie to enter into deeper dialogue with a wide range of other phenomena that may in fact share some overlapping elements with anomie related to the pain of potentially losing cherished social relationships and the motivation toward self-harm, anti-socialandeven pro-social behaviors to escape this social pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".