Beyond Anomie: Alienation and Crime Hayden P. Smith Robert M. Bohm Published online: 6 December 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract This paper argues that anomie theories are aspects of the more comprehensive, but neglected theory of alienation. The dominant dimension of anomie theories (particu- larly Durkheim’s version) is normlessness, which is only one of five dimensions of alienation theory. A practical implication of this insight is that anomie theory relies heavily on a Durkheimian focus on the role of normlessness in guiding criminal justice policy, while the other dimensions of alienation theory-powerlessness, meaninglessness, isolation and self-estrangement—have been deemphasized or ignored. By including all dimensions of the alienation concept, an integrated theory of crime and more effective crime control strategies can be formulated. Introduction Durkheim’s theory of anomie has displayed remarkable staying power for more than a century. The theory has been repeatedly revised and expanded. Ironically, none of the versions of anomie theory specifically addresses the linkages between anomie theory and the more comprehensive, but neglected theory of alienation. We contend that the dominant theme of anomie theories (particularly Durkheim’s version) is normlessness, which rep- resents only one of five components of a broader theory of alienation. This emphasis placed on ‘‘norms’’ by anomie theorists continues to support mainstream criminology policies that reinforce equilibrium, control and maintenance of the status quo. In response, we explicate the potential efficacy of the concept of alienation; specifically, this article examines the remaining alienation components of powerlessness, meaning- lessness, isolation and self-estrangement. This endeavor includes an examination of the H. P. Smith (&) Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305 Greene St., Columbia, SC 29208, USA e-mail: SmithHP@gwm.sc.edu R. M. Bohm Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA 123 Crit Crim (2008) 16:1–15 DOI 10.1007/s10612-007-9047-z