(no subject)
BWAHAHAHA
My life has been consumed by sociology and that goddamned fifty-page study guide (so not kidding.)
Anyway, after the exam I had an essay to write which even though it was relatively short was a bit of a bitch, considering all the other stuff I have to do. I love criminology, honestly, but it's probably my most time-consuming subject, what with the endless dense texts to get through. Plus all my other subjects.
So. For your perusal, since I can no longer gauge whether it is crap or not:
Peanuts and Anomie
The cast of Charles Schulz’s Peanuts is primarily concerned with the search for love: romantic love, platonic love, and everything in between. Many of them actively seek success as well, whether in baseball, art, or the acquisition of material goods. However, not all of the characters have the means to achieve these objectives. In the examination of their goals and how they go about pursuing those ambitions, it becomes evident that each character’s actions fits into one of the categories described by Robert King Merton’s anomic theory.
Anomie was hegemonic from the 1930s-1960s. It considers crime and deviance a “symptom of a specific sort of social disorganization: a lack of fit between culturally prescribed aspirations and socially structured avenues for achieving them” (Beirne and Messerschmidt 327). Thus, crime and deviance are social and group-based phenomena, not simply spatial as the Chicago school assumes. Anomie adheres to the consensus model of society, and thus assumes that culturally legitimate goals are constant and designed for the betterment of their society. Its focus is on how deviants are integrated into the static community. Merton, the founder and main proponent of anomie, linked anomie closely with functionalism and the idea that crime and deviance are social facts, “normal[…]inevitable, and[…]useful” (Beirne and Messerschmidt 296). Like functionalism, anomie assumes people are essentially rational creatures that react according to their position. However, unlike functionalism anomie focuses on the roots of deviant behavior rather than deviance as a social fact.
Anomic theory suggests five reaction categories to the availability and desirability of goals and means. The first and most common is conformity, the only non-deviant reaction. This is the acceptance of “both cultural goals and institutionalized means” (Merton 150). The second is innovation, which is when one desires cultural goals but lacks the means to pursue them in a socially legitimate way. The third is ritualism, in which one abandons cultural goals but continues to act within legitimized means, pursuing something that one no longer wants. Retreatism, the fourth anomic category, occurs when one “relinquishe[s] culturally prescribed goals and [one’s] behavior does not accord with institutional norms” (Merton 160). The last and most dangerous of the five is rebellion. Rebellion is characterized by a shift in both means and goals from acceptance to rejection (Merton 150-163).
The structure of the Peanuts society and its values create a disjunction between what is possible and what is desired for many characters. The culturally defined goals of the Peanuts world are those most abstract of the larger human sphere: love and success. It is assumed that each character craves romance, friendship, material wealth, and personal achievement. The socially legitimate means, on the other hand, are somewhat more complex. Failure of any sort is not tolerated, never simply let slide. No matter how many times Charlie Brown loses a game, his teammates always deride him for it. It is acceptable to chase one’s goals through verbal, intellectual, or physical means: the use of semantics, reasoning, and threats is understood and in fact encouraged. As Charlie Brown often laments, “we never win any ball games, but we have some interesting discussions!” (Schulz). As children, the Peanuts cast craves responsibility and what they perceive to be the values of the adult world. Their perceptions are frequently fuzzy and unclear, but their devotion to avoiding the stigma of strangeness and childishness is razor-sharp. For instance, Linus sees nothing wrong with “pat[ting] birds on the head” (Schulz) until his sister Lucy upbraids him for “mak[ing] us the laughing stock of the whole community” (Schulz). Her primary concern is the judgment of society on deviation from the norm, no matter how harmless.
Charlie Brown wants many things. He wants the love of the little red-haired girl, he wants to be the best baseball manager possible, but most of all he craves the acceptance and love of his peers. However, his social awkwardness, crippling shyness, and physical inadequacies prevent him from achieving these goals. He is an innovator, albeit a failed one. He constantly attempts to please and impress those around him in new ways. It is only these strivings towards conformity that distinguish him from a retreatist; as it is, he hovers on the verge of “defeatism, quietism, and resignation” (Merton 160), though he never quite makes the shift from innovation to retreatism.
Charlie Brown also exhibits some of the positive functions of deviance as defined by the functionalist school. He sets the boundaries of what is and is not socially acceptable; nobody wants to be like him, an “inferior human being” (Schulz). In a similar fashion, he creates group solidarity. His existence as a social pariah and his constant failures encourage a sense of superiority and cliquishness among his peers. As Charlie Brown himself says, “I’m sort of a spiritual scratching post” (Schulz). Rather than giving society a better chance to adapt by providing variation in response patterns, he flees at the first sign of trouble (Schulz). His deviance serves slightly better as a reducer of tension. Mocking and otherwise deriding his failures seem to be practically a sport among the other children. The ways in which Lucy coaxes him into attempting to kick a football seem infinitely varied and have taken on the texture of a game.
Linus and Schroeder, on the other hand, are ritualists. They seek to live on the fringes of society, and crave the safety of the “moral mandates of the society” (Merton 159) above all else. While Linus, perhaps driven by his abusive older sister Lucy, turns to religion and philosophy as “spiritual blotter[s]” (Schulz) to augment his physical security blanket, Schroeder buries himself in his piano, his music, and his idol Beethoven. They are individually pursued by girls surprisingly persistent in their devotion, but each has rebuffed their respective advances time and time again. “I’m not your sweet baboo!” has become a catchphrase for Linus as an inevitably failed attempt to rid himself of Sally, his pursuer. Both have the intellectual and charismatic wherewithal to achieve the culturally defined goals of popularity and success; both have abandoned these goals and chosen instead the seclusion of their solitary pursuits.
Linus’ fascination with religion most likely stems from the lack of protective forces in his life. Neither the adults in his life nor his peers shield him from the harsh realities that his intellect and curiosity drive him to face, so it is natural that he seeks a higher frame of reference. This only serves to underscore his ritualistic tendencies to “individually seek[…]a private escape from the dangers and frustrations[…]inherent in the competition for major cultural goals” (Merton 159). The extension of his religious beliefs to a worship of The Great Pumpkin, despite the disbelief of everyone else in his world, gives him a false sense of meaning and purpose. His intelligence forces him to somewhat acknowledge the peripheral significance of The Great Pumpkin and associated rituals as well as the central importance of his faith (Schulz).
The fact that Schroeder worships his idol, Beethoven, has no explicitly stated reason. It is heavily implied that he is Schroeder’s favorite composer, but this alone is not generally enough to warrant such fervent adoration and emulation. When asked the meaning of life, Schroeder replies without hesitation: “Beethoven! Beethoven is IT, clear and simple!” (Schulz). It is precisely this type of fanatical devotion that often signifies a desire to find meaning in a society of which the conventional goals have become meaningless.
Lucy is a rigid conformist. Moreover, she takes it upon herself to force others to conform as well-not out of any real concern for their well-being, but rather as a form of control. She assumes the role of norm enforcer in the Peanuts world. Her trademark ‘crabbiness’ is based on an overwhelming selfishness and a need to intimidate and control her environment. It is this rigid control that allows her to live fully within the society-defined norms. When situations threaten to keep her from her immediate goals and, by extension, her long-term goals, she is not above doing what is necessary to restore order. However, anomie fails to explain her somewhat senseless violence that occurs at times. She certainly commands respect and is well on her way to achieving her personal goals of material success, power, and love. Yet she frequently lashes out at inoffensive passers-by, even when doing so might undermine the sense of order in the community. This can be explained by the interactionist approach, which centers on the importance of labeling. Although Lucy is a norm enforcer as well as a norm violator, she has internalized the label of ‘crabbiness’ and feels she must live up to a “sustained pattern of deviant activity” (Becker 391).
Snoopy, though a dog, has enough human characteristics to have his own place in society. His status both as Charlie Brown’s alleged property and also as a voiceless, second-class citizen complicates and restricts his personal freedoms. He reacts with rebellion, rejecting both goals and means. He values immediate satisfaction above all else, and rather than treating fantasies as an escape, he constructs elaborate lives as a hobby and views them as goals in and of themselves. When he chases the Red Baron in his imaginary Sopwith Camel, his purpose is not in the actual defeat of the Red Baron-it is the chase itself.
Charles Schulz’s Peanuts is an excellent sample of a microsociety that can be interpreted and viewed through an anomic lens. In addition, a close reading of the disjunctions between means and goals reveals the nuances of each character’s role in the social sphere they have created. The anomic attitudes and coping mechanisms they have adopted reflect their rational responses to their positions in society. Although in the strictly legal sense none of the characters are criminals, the sociological standpoint allows analysis of their society through its own norms and conditions of deviance. If, according to the sociological schools of criminology, crime “consists of an act that offends very strong collective sentiments” (Durkheim 4) then the world of Peanuts is certainly not lacking in this regard.
Works Cited
Schulz, Charles. Peanuts Treasury. New York: United Features Syndicate, 1968.
Beirne, Piers, and James Messerschmidt. Criminology. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, 2006.
Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.
Durkheim, Emile. “The Normal and the Pathological.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.
Becker, Howard S. “Career Deviance.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.
My life has been consumed by sociology and that goddamned fifty-page study guide (so not kidding.)
Anyway, after the exam I had an essay to write which even though it was relatively short was a bit of a bitch, considering all the other stuff I have to do. I love criminology, honestly, but it's probably my most time-consuming subject, what with the endless dense texts to get through. Plus all my other subjects.
So. For your perusal, since I can no longer gauge whether it is crap or not:
Peanuts and Anomie
The cast of Charles Schulz’s Peanuts is primarily concerned with the search for love: romantic love, platonic love, and everything in between. Many of them actively seek success as well, whether in baseball, art, or the acquisition of material goods. However, not all of the characters have the means to achieve these objectives. In the examination of their goals and how they go about pursuing those ambitions, it becomes evident that each character’s actions fits into one of the categories described by Robert King Merton’s anomic theory.
Anomie was hegemonic from the 1930s-1960s. It considers crime and deviance a “symptom of a specific sort of social disorganization: a lack of fit between culturally prescribed aspirations and socially structured avenues for achieving them” (Beirne and Messerschmidt 327). Thus, crime and deviance are social and group-based phenomena, not simply spatial as the Chicago school assumes. Anomie adheres to the consensus model of society, and thus assumes that culturally legitimate goals are constant and designed for the betterment of their society. Its focus is on how deviants are integrated into the static community. Merton, the founder and main proponent of anomie, linked anomie closely with functionalism and the idea that crime and deviance are social facts, “normal[…]inevitable, and[…]useful” (Beirne and Messerschmidt 296). Like functionalism, anomie assumes people are essentially rational creatures that react according to their position. However, unlike functionalism anomie focuses on the roots of deviant behavior rather than deviance as a social fact.
Anomic theory suggests five reaction categories to the availability and desirability of goals and means. The first and most common is conformity, the only non-deviant reaction. This is the acceptance of “both cultural goals and institutionalized means” (Merton 150). The second is innovation, which is when one desires cultural goals but lacks the means to pursue them in a socially legitimate way. The third is ritualism, in which one abandons cultural goals but continues to act within legitimized means, pursuing something that one no longer wants. Retreatism, the fourth anomic category, occurs when one “relinquishe[s] culturally prescribed goals and [one’s] behavior does not accord with institutional norms” (Merton 160). The last and most dangerous of the five is rebellion. Rebellion is characterized by a shift in both means and goals from acceptance to rejection (Merton 150-163).
The structure of the Peanuts society and its values create a disjunction between what is possible and what is desired for many characters. The culturally defined goals of the Peanuts world are those most abstract of the larger human sphere: love and success. It is assumed that each character craves romance, friendship, material wealth, and personal achievement. The socially legitimate means, on the other hand, are somewhat more complex. Failure of any sort is not tolerated, never simply let slide. No matter how many times Charlie Brown loses a game, his teammates always deride him for it. It is acceptable to chase one’s goals through verbal, intellectual, or physical means: the use of semantics, reasoning, and threats is understood and in fact encouraged. As Charlie Brown often laments, “we never win any ball games, but we have some interesting discussions!” (Schulz). As children, the Peanuts cast craves responsibility and what they perceive to be the values of the adult world. Their perceptions are frequently fuzzy and unclear, but their devotion to avoiding the stigma of strangeness and childishness is razor-sharp. For instance, Linus sees nothing wrong with “pat[ting] birds on the head” (Schulz) until his sister Lucy upbraids him for “mak[ing] us the laughing stock of the whole community” (Schulz). Her primary concern is the judgment of society on deviation from the norm, no matter how harmless.
Charlie Brown wants many things. He wants the love of the little red-haired girl, he wants to be the best baseball manager possible, but most of all he craves the acceptance and love of his peers. However, his social awkwardness, crippling shyness, and physical inadequacies prevent him from achieving these goals. He is an innovator, albeit a failed one. He constantly attempts to please and impress those around him in new ways. It is only these strivings towards conformity that distinguish him from a retreatist; as it is, he hovers on the verge of “defeatism, quietism, and resignation” (Merton 160), though he never quite makes the shift from innovation to retreatism.
Charlie Brown also exhibits some of the positive functions of deviance as defined by the functionalist school. He sets the boundaries of what is and is not socially acceptable; nobody wants to be like him, an “inferior human being” (Schulz). In a similar fashion, he creates group solidarity. His existence as a social pariah and his constant failures encourage a sense of superiority and cliquishness among his peers. As Charlie Brown himself says, “I’m sort of a spiritual scratching post” (Schulz). Rather than giving society a better chance to adapt by providing variation in response patterns, he flees at the first sign of trouble (Schulz). His deviance serves slightly better as a reducer of tension. Mocking and otherwise deriding his failures seem to be practically a sport among the other children. The ways in which Lucy coaxes him into attempting to kick a football seem infinitely varied and have taken on the texture of a game.
Linus and Schroeder, on the other hand, are ritualists. They seek to live on the fringes of society, and crave the safety of the “moral mandates of the society” (Merton 159) above all else. While Linus, perhaps driven by his abusive older sister Lucy, turns to religion and philosophy as “spiritual blotter[s]” (Schulz) to augment his physical security blanket, Schroeder buries himself in his piano, his music, and his idol Beethoven. They are individually pursued by girls surprisingly persistent in their devotion, but each has rebuffed their respective advances time and time again. “I’m not your sweet baboo!” has become a catchphrase for Linus as an inevitably failed attempt to rid himself of Sally, his pursuer. Both have the intellectual and charismatic wherewithal to achieve the culturally defined goals of popularity and success; both have abandoned these goals and chosen instead the seclusion of their solitary pursuits.
Linus’ fascination with religion most likely stems from the lack of protective forces in his life. Neither the adults in his life nor his peers shield him from the harsh realities that his intellect and curiosity drive him to face, so it is natural that he seeks a higher frame of reference. This only serves to underscore his ritualistic tendencies to “individually seek[…]a private escape from the dangers and frustrations[…]inherent in the competition for major cultural goals” (Merton 159). The extension of his religious beliefs to a worship of The Great Pumpkin, despite the disbelief of everyone else in his world, gives him a false sense of meaning and purpose. His intelligence forces him to somewhat acknowledge the peripheral significance of The Great Pumpkin and associated rituals as well as the central importance of his faith (Schulz).
The fact that Schroeder worships his idol, Beethoven, has no explicitly stated reason. It is heavily implied that he is Schroeder’s favorite composer, but this alone is not generally enough to warrant such fervent adoration and emulation. When asked the meaning of life, Schroeder replies without hesitation: “Beethoven! Beethoven is IT, clear and simple!” (Schulz). It is precisely this type of fanatical devotion that often signifies a desire to find meaning in a society of which the conventional goals have become meaningless.
Lucy is a rigid conformist. Moreover, she takes it upon herself to force others to conform as well-not out of any real concern for their well-being, but rather as a form of control. She assumes the role of norm enforcer in the Peanuts world. Her trademark ‘crabbiness’ is based on an overwhelming selfishness and a need to intimidate and control her environment. It is this rigid control that allows her to live fully within the society-defined norms. When situations threaten to keep her from her immediate goals and, by extension, her long-term goals, she is not above doing what is necessary to restore order. However, anomie fails to explain her somewhat senseless violence that occurs at times. She certainly commands respect and is well on her way to achieving her personal goals of material success, power, and love. Yet she frequently lashes out at inoffensive passers-by, even when doing so might undermine the sense of order in the community. This can be explained by the interactionist approach, which centers on the importance of labeling. Although Lucy is a norm enforcer as well as a norm violator, she has internalized the label of ‘crabbiness’ and feels she must live up to a “sustained pattern of deviant activity” (Becker 391).
Snoopy, though a dog, has enough human characteristics to have his own place in society. His status both as Charlie Brown’s alleged property and also as a voiceless, second-class citizen complicates and restricts his personal freedoms. He reacts with rebellion, rejecting both goals and means. He values immediate satisfaction above all else, and rather than treating fantasies as an escape, he constructs elaborate lives as a hobby and views them as goals in and of themselves. When he chases the Red Baron in his imaginary Sopwith Camel, his purpose is not in the actual defeat of the Red Baron-it is the chase itself.
Charles Schulz’s Peanuts is an excellent sample of a microsociety that can be interpreted and viewed through an anomic lens. In addition, a close reading of the disjunctions between means and goals reveals the nuances of each character’s role in the social sphere they have created. The anomic attitudes and coping mechanisms they have adopted reflect their rational responses to their positions in society. Although in the strictly legal sense none of the characters are criminals, the sociological standpoint allows analysis of their society through its own norms and conditions of deviance. If, according to the sociological schools of criminology, crime “consists of an act that offends very strong collective sentiments” (Durkheim 4) then the world of Peanuts is certainly not lacking in this regard.
Works Cited
Schulz, Charles. Peanuts Treasury. New York: United Features Syndicate, 1968.
Beirne, Piers, and James Messerschmidt. Criminology. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing, 2006.
Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.
Durkheim, Emile. “The Normal and the Pathological.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.
Becker, Howard S. “Career Deviance.” Theories of Deviance. 5th ed. Ed. Stuart H. Traub and Craig B. Little. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 1999.