Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article is well-written and clearly structured. The text demonstrates substantial research, primarily based on secondary sources. However, it presents some important theoretical problems, perhaps due to the complexity of the topic at stake: Durkheim and anomie. Although the title of the article is "Durkheim, Anomie, Crime, and Punishment", the bulk of the text focuses on the concept of anomie, as it is treated not by Durkheim, but by some of his commentators. A first problem with this is that the position of this concept in Durkheim's general sociology is absent. As you know, this sociology is remarkably consistent and well articulated, and criminology is, for Durkheim, a special sociology, dependent on that general sociology. By reconstructing this sociology, it can be seen that the concept the concept of anomie has a marginal role there. It appears, above all, in Suicide as one type among others. The concept of anomie was borrowed from the Suicide by some North American sociologists who gave it a use and a prominence to explain crime that never had in Durkheim’s works. The most important and consistent case, in my opinion, is that of Merton—but it should be noted that Merton completely reconceptualizes the concept of anomie. Therein lays its strength and its interest. In the article, Merton's concept is treated as if it clarifies Durkheim, when what Merton actually does is construct a distinct sociological concept, one that cannot be found in Durkheim's texts.  Perhaps, this is because, in Durkheim, anomie does not attain the status of a sociological concept.

In the other hand, crime and punishment do have the status of (central) concepts in Durkheim's sociology. In The Social Division of Labor and The Rules of the Sociological Method, they play a central role and are defined with notable clarity within the framework of a functionalist sociology — they are, at the same time, a central illustration of that sociology. There are also some texts of great criminological importance, but the article does not cite them (E.g. Two Laws of Penal Evolution). In all these works, Durkheim defines crime and punishment, showing its social functions, pointing out its fundamental role in the production and reproduction of society, and presenting the problems that, in his view, modern societies face in this regard. Regrettably, all of this is absent in the article, which, as stated, focuses primarily on the treatment of anomie and some of its relations with crime, mostly in the view of some commentators of Durkheim work.

As it is pointed out in the article, Durkheim is not clear when it comes to identifying the causes of crime. What should be added is that Durkheim is remarkably clear when defining crime within a functionalist framework. And the same applies to punishment. The article would benefit greatly from addressing both concepts in a straightforward manner. This would lead it to reconstruct the core of Durkheim`s sociology, and his criminology. Only then, it is possible to clarify what anomie is in the Durkheimiam framework, and what role it plays in relation to crime —if any. In any case, it is worth to mention that Durkheim's explanation of crime is not causalist but functionalist —whatever problems the functionalist explanation may have, this is crucial when discussing Durkheim’s sociology of crime. Steven Lukes' classic work is particularly qualified toll for gaining deeper insight into these matters.

Author Response

Comments:

In my opinion, the article is well-written and clearly structured. The text demonstrates substantial research, primarily based on secondary sources. However, it presents some important theoretical problems, perhaps due to the complexity of the topic at stake: Durkheim and anomie. Although the title of the article is "Durkheim, Anomie, Crime, and Punishment", the bulk of the text focuses on the concept of anomie, as it is treated not by Durkheim, but by some of his commentators.

 

A first problem with this is that the position of this concept in Durkheim's general sociology is absent. As you know, this sociology is remarkably consistent and well articulated, and criminology is, for Durkheim, a special sociology, dependent on that general sociology. By reconstructing this sociology, it can be seen that the concept the concept of anomie has a marginal role there. It appears, above all, in Suicide as one type among others. The concept of anomie was borrowed from the Suicide by some North American sociologists who gave it a use and a prominence to explain crime that never had in Durkheim’s works. The most important and consistent case, in my opinion, is that of Merton—but it should be noted that Merton completely reconceptualizes the concept of anomie. Therein lays its strength and its interest. In the article, Merton's concept is treated as if it clarifies Durkheim, when what Merton actually does is construct a distinct sociological concept, one that cannot be found in Durkheim's texts.  Perhaps, this is because, in Durkheim, anomie does not attain the status of a sociological concept.

 

Author’s Reply: I cited and incorporated findings from Two Laws of Penal Evolution, as suggested by the first reviewer.

 

Comments:

In the other hand, crime and punishment do have the status of (central) concepts in Durkheim's sociology. In The Social Division of Labor and The Rules of the Sociological Method, they play a central role and are defined with notable clarity within the framework of a functionalist sociology — they are, at the same time, a central illustration of that sociology. There are also some texts of great criminological importance, but the article does not cite them (E.g. Two Laws of Penal Evolution). In all these works, Durkheim defines crime and punishment, showing its social functions, pointing out its fundamental role in the production and reproduction of society, and presenting the problems that, in his view, modern societies face in this regard. Regrettably, all of this is absent in the article, which, as stated, focuses primarily on the treatment of anomie and some of its relations with crime, mostly in the view of some commentators of Durkheim work.

 

As it is pointed out in the article, Durkheim is not clear when it comes to identifying the causes of crime. What should be added is that Durkheim is remarkably clear when defining crime within a functionalist framework. And the same applies to punishment. The article would benefit greatly from addressing both concepts in a straightforward manner. This would lead it to reconstruct the core of Durkheim`s sociology, and his criminology. Only then, it is possible to clarify what anomie is in the Durkheimiam framework, and what role it plays in relation to crime —if any. In any case, it is worth to mention that Durkheim's explanation of crime is not causalist but functionalist —whatever problems the functionalist explanation may have, this is crucial when discussing Durkheim’s sociology of crime. Steven Lukes' classic work is particularly qualified toll for gaining deeper insight into these matters.

 

Author’s reply: Thank you for your suggestions. However, addressing these points would change the nature and focus of the manuscript, and it is not the point of my article. Therefore, I did not incorporate them in the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is, overall, well-organized and clearly written. However, I found the discussion to be somewhat superficial. Two main issues seem to contribute to this impression:

1. Limited Contribution to Existing Discussions on Durkheim’s Theory
　The manuscript addresses Durkheim’s theory and its relationship with crime and punishment, but these issues have already been discussed in works such as Garland (1990), which is cited in the paper. The manuscript seems to add relatively little to these established discussions.
　While the nature of the Encyclopedia journal may not demand novel findings, if that is the case, the paper would be expected to achieve a certain degree of comprehensiveness. However, key texts such as The Two Laws of Penal Evolution and The Rules of Sociological Method, both essential to Durkheim’s writings on crime and punishment, are not cited. Furthermore, although the author may have judged it less directly relevant to the paper’s focus, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life also offers important discussions on morality and could have been considered.
　Additionally, and this is an issue often observed in English-language scholarship, the manuscript references only English translations and not the original French texts. This anglocentric approach leaves a negative impression, particularly for readers—like this reviewer—who are non-native English speakers.

2. Lack of Engagement with the Later Reception of Collective Consciousness
　The paper does not address how the concept of collective consciousness has been received and developed in subsequent sociological theories. This is a point worth exploring. For instance, the briefly mentioned concept of social disorganization could be compared and contrasted with collective consciousness or anomie, which might offer the paper greater originality and theoretical depth.

The following are minor points:

3. L. 116: As noted by Taylor, Walton, and Young: Crime…is persistent
　→ Add a quotation mark before “Crime”?

4. L. 122: DiCristina writes that
　→ Add a colon after “that”.

5. L. 123: his views on the causes of crime
　→ This line should be indented.

6. L. 185: those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective
　→ conscience collective should be italicized, as it appears in Garland’s original text.

7. L. 366: Garland, D. (1990). The sociology of punishment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press., p. 29.
　→ The cited work should be Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory?

8. L. 368 and L. 370: Dicristina
　→ This should be corrected to “DiCristina” in both instances.

Author Response

Comments:

The manuscript is, overall, well-organized and clearly written. However, I found the discussion to be somewhat superficial. Two main issues seem to contribute to this impression:

 

1. Limited Contribution to Existing Discussions on Durkheim’s Theory

The manuscript addresses Durkheim’s theory and its relationship with crime and punishment, but these issues have already been discussed in works such as Garland (1990), which is cited in the paper. The manuscript seems to add relatively little to these established discussions.

While the nature of the Encyclopedia journal may not demand novel findings, if that is the case, the paper would be expected to achieve a certain degree of comprehensiveness. However, key texts such as The Two Laws of Penal Evolution and The Rules of Sociological Method, both essential to Durkheim’s writings on crime and punishment, are not cited. Furthermore, although the author may have judged it less directly relevant to the paper’s focus, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life also offers important discussions on morality and could have been considered.

 

Additionally, and this is an issue often observed in English-language scholarship, the manuscript references only English translations and not the original French texts. This anglocentric approach leaves a negative impression, particularly for readers—like this reviewer—who are non-native English speakers.

 

Author’s Reply: I cited and incorporated findings from Two Laws of Penal Evolution, and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, as suggested by the second reviewer.

 

Comments:

2. Lack of Engagement with the Later Reception of Collective Consciousness

    The paper does not address how the concept of collective consciousness has been received and developed in subsequent sociological theories. This is a point worth exploring. For instance, the briefly mentioned concept of social disorganization could be compared and contrasted with collective consciousness or anomie, which might offer the paper greater originality and theoretical depth.

 

Author’s reply: Thank you for your suggestions. However, addressing these points would change the nature and focus of the manuscript, and it is not the point of my article. Therefore, I did not incorporate them in the revision.

 

Comments:

The following are minor points:

 

3. L. 116: As noted by Taylor, Walton, and Young: Crime…is persistent

    → Add a quotation mark before “Crime”?

 

4. L. 122: DiCristina writes that

    → Add a colon after “that”.

 

5. L. 123: his views on the causes of crime

    → This line should be indented.

 

6. L. 185: those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective

    → conscience collective should be italicized, as it appears in Garland’s original text.

 

7. L. 366: Garland, D. (1990). The sociology of punishment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press., p. 29.

    → The cited work should be Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory?

 

8. L. 368 and L. 370: Dicristina

→ This should be corrected to “DiCristina” in both instances.

 

Author’s Reply: I made all the suggested grammatical and typing revisions suggested by the second reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I have examined your review on the relation between anomie and crime in Durkheim and offer extensive comments aimed at strengthening historical grounding conceptual precision and analytical depth. The observations follow the order of a standard review and maintain a respectful yet demanding tone.

Historical context in the introduction
Begin with a concise panorama of France during the Third Republic. Industrial expansion rural to urban migration the stock market crash of 1882 and an accelerating process of secularization created visible tensions in social regulation. Referencing strike statistics suicide rates and parliamentary debates on penal reform will show that anomie and crime emerged for Durkheim as theoretical responses to concrete historical processes.

Clarification of anomie
Anchor the definition in two passages one from The Division of Labor in Society that links social regulation to solidarity and another from Suicide that describes anomie as the absence of moral rules guiding individual desires after economic or social crises. Explicitly contrast Durkheim’s concept with later reinterpretations such as those by Merton to prevent the reader from conflating distinct theoretical traditions.

Exact meaning of the term crime
Explain that in Durkheim crime is not any act listed in a penal code but rather a sign of collective moral sensitivity. Revisit the chapter on the normality of crime to show that punishment expresses the strength of the collective conscience. This clarification prevents a purely causal reading where more anomie simply produces more crime.

Sequence from anomie to suicide to crime
Reconstruct carefully Durkheim’s logic. Normative crisis appears first in suicide because that act reveals the individual left without moral guidance. Only when disorganisation persists does criminal conduct rise as institutional regulation weakens. Compare this sequence with present day empirical studies that track economic downturns shifts in regulatory density and crime rates. A table with at least five recent empirical contributions will illustrate where the Durkheimian hypothesis is confirmed qualified or rejected.

Handling of secondary literature
Select two central claims from authors such as Smith and DiCristina reproduce the corresponding lines from Durkheim and state precisely where each interpretation converges or diverges. A textual confrontation of this sort is necessary for a critical rather than merely descriptive discussion.

Method for selecting sources
Even a qualitative review benefits from methodological transparency. Specify databases searched the time span languages considered and criteria for exclusion. A brief PRISMA-like diagram listing author year document type and reason for inclusion will enhance trust in your selection process.

Integration of recent empirical evidence
To demonstrate Durkheim’s continued relevance insert contemporary examples. Comparative research on southern European cities after the financial crisis of two thousand eight and studies connecting labour precarity with interpersonal violence in Latin America reveal how regulatory gaps still correlate with criminal outcomes. These cases illustrate both the explanatory power and the limits of the Durkheimian thesis.

I trust these detailed suggestions will help transform your manuscript into a historically informed conceptually precise and analytically compelling review.

Sincerely

Author Response

Comments:

Historical context in the introduction: Begin with a concise panorama of France during the Third Republic. Industrial expansion rural to urban migration the stock market crash of 1882 and an accelerating process of secularization created visible tensions in social regulation. Referencing strike statistics suicide rates and parliamentary debates on penal reform will show that anomie and crime emerged for Durkheim as theoretical responses to concrete historical processes.

Clarification of anomie: Anchor the definition in two passages one from The Division of Labor in Society that links social regulation to solidarity and another from Suicide that describes anomie as the absence of moral rules guiding individual desires after economic or social crises. Explicitly contrast Durkheim’s concept with later reinterpretations such as those by Merton to prevent the reader from conflating distinct theoretical traditions.

Exact meaning of the term crime: Explain that in Durkheim crime is not any act listed in a penal code but rather a sign of collective moral sensitivity. Revisit the chapter on the normality of crime to show that punishment expresses the strength of the collective conscience. This clarification prevents a purely causal reading where more anomie simply produces more crime.

 

Author’s reply: I clarified that to Durkheim, crime is a sign of collective moral sensitivity, as suggested by the third reviewer. 

 

Comments:

Sequence from anomie to suicide to crime: Reconstruct carefully Durkheim’s logic. Normative crisis appears first in suicide because that act reveals the individual left without moral guidance. Only when disorganisation persists does criminal conduct rise as institutional regulation weakens. Compare this sequence with present day empirical studies that track economic downturns shifts in regulatory density and crime rates. A table with at least five recent empirical contributions will illustrate where the Durkheimian hypothesis is confirmed qualified or rejected.

 

Author’s reply: I added information between anomie and suicide, as suggested by the third reviewer.

 

Comments:

Handling of secondary literature: Select two central claims from authors such as Smith and DiCristina reproduce the corresponding lines from Durkheim and state precisely where each interpretation converges or diverges. A textual confrontation of this sort is necessary for a critical rather than merely descriptive discussion.

Method for selecting sources: Even a qualitative review benefits from methodological transparency. Specify databases searched the time span languages considered and criteria for exclusion. A brief PRISMA-like diagram listing author year document type and reason for inclusion will enhance trust in your selection process.

Integration of recent empirical evidence: To demonstrate Durkheim’s continued relevance insert contemporary examples. Comparative research on southern European cities after the financial crisis of two thousand eight and studies connecting labour precarity with interpersonal violence in Latin America reveal how regulatory gaps still correlate with criminal outcomes. These cases illustrate both the explanatory power and the limits of the Durkheimian thesis.

I trust these detailed suggestions will help transform your manuscript into a historically informed conceptually precise and analytically compelling review.

 

Author’s reply: Thank you for your suggestions. However, addressing these points would change the nature and focus of the manuscript, and it is not the point of my article. Therefore, I did not incorporate them in the revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion this text is better informed, both conceptually and bibliographically, than the previous version.However, I find the overall argument not entirely clear. In Durkheim’s sociology, the notion of anomie occupies a secondary position and is not fully consistent with his broader criminological framework. The article reflects this tension, since it attempts to address and situate the concept, though not entirely convincingly. I must apologize, as I am unable at present to provide further arguments to substantiate this view or to offer constructive suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you for your further review. I have made further changes to try to make the paper clearer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the reviewers’ comments. While it seems that not all points have been fully incorporated, I believe the manuscript has reached a level of quality appropriate for publication in the journal. Therefore, I would recommend acceptance.

Author Response

Thank you for your further review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of your manuscript. I appreciate the clarifications you have added, particularly regarding Durkheim’s conception of crime as an expression of collective moral sensitivity, as well as the brief link established between anomie and suicide. These additions improve the text, but the revisions overall remain rather limited.

Several of the main suggestions from the previous review have not been fully addressed. The manuscript would still benefit from stronger historical contextualization, clearer textual anchoring of the concept of anomie, and a more systematic reconstruction of the sequence anomie–suicide–crime. A deeper engagement with secondary literature and methodological transparency in the selection of sources would also strengthen the argument. Finally, I strongly recommend the integration of recent references from the past 3–5 years, which would considerably enrich the manuscript and highlight its current relevance.

In its current form, the manuscript remains primarily descriptive. I believe that further revisions along these lines would significantly enhance its analytical depth and overall contribution.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your continued revisions. As I have indicated, the major point of this article is to examine the relationship between anomie and punishment, a la Durkheim. So, more grounding between anomie and suicide is not central to the article. In this revision, I did, however, locate newer studies that pertain to the argument of the essay. They are summarized at the end of the article. I hope these revisions will suffice. Thank you again.