A criminological theory classic, Messner and Rosenfeld's work repetitively argues that the materialism undergirding the American Dream, the subsumption of all other social institutions to the economic imperative, leads to anomie (the loosening of normative controls) and thus produces the high levels of violent crime seen in the US. Their work extends particularly on the work of sociologist Robert Merton, who posited that universalistic goals but blocked legitimate opportunities to achieved those goals results in crime. Their "twist," though, is that even if everyone had more opportunity, the disproportionate emphasis on economic success in the United States will still lead to crime because value is not given to things like family, civic participation, and the social welfare of others. The cultural shift has to take place first, and they make proposals on how to do this. They do seem mired in some conservative thought, such as when the argue for the importance of the nuclear family unit and children to this picture. While their theory is compelling and helpful in many ways, their strict constructionism is frustrating. They claim that they can explain the vast differences in offending rates between men and women, therefore, by women's more pronounced involvement in the family, but suggest that the less women are tied up in these other institutions, the more likely they are to also offend. This, in my opinion, flies in the face of common sense. Even in other societies where there is much more emphasis on family and social institutions for males, there still exists vast disparities in violent offending. At one point, the constructionists will have to have a dialogue with the positivists who also demand the insertion of biological considerations. Nature and nurture should be accounted for in this broader picture. Other theoretical holes exist: for example, how to account for high rates of crime in countries that don't have the "American Dream" as a cultural imperative.