Download Ch. 8 S. 1

Chapter 8 Section 1:
Deviance
Obj: Explain the nature and social
functions of deviance; compare the
theories that have been proposed to
explain deviance.
Most people internalize the majority of the
norms in their society. However,
individuals do not internalize every norm.
Even sanctions – the rewards and
punishments used to enforce conformity to
norms – cannot bring about complete
social control. There are always
individuals who break the rules of their
society or the group. Behavior that violates
significant social norms is called
deviance.
The Nature of Deviance
Every society has countless norms that
govern behavior. Some norms deal with
fairly insignificant behaviors, such as
personal cleanliness or table manners.
Other norms are vital to the smooth
operation of a society and the safety of its
members. For example, norms governing
the taking of another person’s life or
property are essential in any society.
Because there are so many norms
governing behavior, occasional violations
are unavoidable. An act that is considered
deviant in one situation may be considered
acceptable in another, even within the
same society. For example, to kill
someone is generally illegal. However, if a
member of the military or a police officer
kills someone in the line of duty, the action
is usually judged quite differently.
What is considered deviant also varies from
society to society. For example, divorce is
legal in the US. However, it is prohibited in
the Philippines. Similarly, an act might be
considered deviant during one period of
time but not in another. Throughout much
of the 1900s it was illegal for stores to do
business on Sunday. However, today most
stores open for at least a few hours each
Sunday.
How do people come to be considered deviant?
Suppose a person gets a speeding ticket. That
person would not be considered deviant on the
basis of this one event. However, if that person
was continually caught driving at high speeds,
such reckless behavior would be considered
deviant. Repeating an offense is not the only
way a person comes to be labeled a deviant. A
person who commits an act that has serious
negative consequences for society – such as
murder, sexual assault, or robbery – is likely to
be labeled as deviant because of his or her
single act.
The labeling of someone as deviant involves two
components. To be considered deviant by
society, an individual must first be detected
committing a deviant act. A person will not be
labeled as deviant unless his or her deviant
behavior is in some way known to other people.
Next, the individual must be stigmatized by
society. A stigma is a mark of social disgrace
that sets the deviant apart from the rest of
society. Stigmas have been used as a form of
social control throughout history. For example,
the ancient Greeks cut or burned signs into the
bodies of criminals to warn others that these
deviants were to be avoided.
The power of the outward sign as a form of
social control is still used today. For
example, prison inmates in the US are
forced to wear special clothing and are
assigned numbers as a visual sign of
stigma. Some people have suggested that
the cars of people convicted of driving
while drunk should be marked in some
way, such as with a decal. This visual sign
would serve both as a warning to others
and as a form of public humiliation.
When sociologists speak of
the stigma resulting from
the label of deviance, they
usually do not mean
outward signs. Rather,
they are referring to the
negative social reactions
that result from being
labeled deviant. According
to sociologist Erving
Goffman, a person labeled
as deviant has a “spoiled
social identity.” He or she
is no longer seen as being
normal or whole.
The Social Functions of
Deviance
In the Rules of Sociological Method, Emile
Durkheim observed that deviance has
some uses in social life. Deviance,
Durkheim suggested, helps to clarify
norms, unify the group, diffuse tension,
and promote social change. Deviance also
serves another positive function not
mentioned by Durkheim – it provides jobs
such as law enforcement.
• Clarifying Norms – Deviance serves to
define the boundaries of acceptable
behavior. When rules are broken and the
guilty parties are caught, members of
society are reminded of the norms that
guide social life. The punishment of norm
violators serves as a warning to others
that certain behaviors will not be tolerated
by society. For example, harsh prison
sentences are intended to discourage
crime. People may choose not to commit
deviant acts if they are aware of how
severe the consequences of those acts
will be.
• Unifying the Group –
Deviance also serves to
draw the line between
conforming members of
society and “outsiders” –
the nonconforming
members. This “us against
them” attitude reinforces the
sense of community and the
belief in shared values.
Durkheim suggested that
deviance is so important to
the maintenance of group
unity, it would have to be
invented if it did not exist
naturally.
• Diffusing Tension –
When people are unhappy
with their lives or social
conditions, they may want
to strike out at society. In
such situations, minor acts
of deviance serve as a
safety valve. These acts
allow individuals to relieve
tension without disrupting
the basic fabric of society.
For example, participating
in unauthorized
demonstrations allows
people to express political
or social discontent without
destroying the social order.
• Promoting Social
Change – Deviance can
help prompt social change
by identifying problem
areas. When large
numbers of people violate
a particular norm, it is
often an indication that
something in society
needs to be changed.
Once alerted to the
problem, individuals in
positions of authority can
take steps to correct the
situation.
• Providing Jobs – Deviance also provides
legitimate jobs for a wide range of people.
Judges, lawyers, police officers, prison
personnel, and parole officers have jobs related
to one aspect of deviance – crime. So too do
crime reporters and criminologists – the social
scientists who study criminal behavior. In
addition, there are many other jobs that are
based in part on the existence of deviance. For
example, workers at clothing manufacturers
might make prison uniforms as well as other
types of clothes.
Explaining Deviance
Why do people commit deviant acts? You can
better understand the answers to this question
by considering how the three sociological
perspectives explain deviance. The functionalist
perspective views deviance as a natural part of
society. The conflict perspective explains
deviance in terms of power and inequality. The
interactionist perspective looks at how
interaction among individuals influences
deviance.
• Functionalist Perspective – The major
functionalist explanation, strain theory, was
developed by sociologist Robert K. Merton.
Strain theory views deviance as the natural
outgrowth of the values, norms, and structure of
society. According to Merton, American society
places a high value on certain goals, such as
economic success. However, not everyone in
society has access to the legitimate means to
achieve these goals. For example, individuals
may be prevented from finding a job because of
social conditions or because they lack an
adequate education. Nevertheless, they are
expected to meet this goal, and society judges
them according to how well they do so.
Under the strain of incompatible
goals and means, these
individuals fall victim to
anomie. Anomie is the
situation that arises when the
norms of society are unclear
or and no longer applicable.
It leaves individuals without
sufficient guidelines for
behavior, thus causing
confusion both for individuals
and for society. The concept
was originally proposed by
Emile Durkheim to explain
high rates of suicide in
countries undergoing
industrialization.
Merton suggested that individuals respond to the
culturally approved goals and the legitimate
means of achieving these goals in five ways.
Merton called them the modes of adaptation.
The first and most common response is
conformity. Many individuals in a society accept
both the culturally approved goals and the
means for achieving these goals, their efforts
always involve legitimate means. The other four
modes of adaptation – innovation, ritualism,
retreatism, and rebellion – employ deviant
behavior.
People who use innovation accept the
cultural goals of their society but do not
accept the approved means for reaching
these goals. For example, they want to be
successful in acquiring wealth but reject
the acceptable means to obtain the
wealth. Therefore they innovate, or devise
new means for achieving the goals, and
consequently violate accepted norms.
Thus, they become deviants. Criminals
such as drug dealers and burglars fit into
this category.
Ritualists also find it impossible to achieve
cultural goals by acceptable means.
Instead of violating the norms for
achievement, they abandon the goals
while continuing to observe the expected
rules of behavior. For example, a worker
may pass up opportunities for promotion
rather then face possible failure. A
bureaucrat may make a ritual of upholding
the rules and procedures of the
organization while abandoning personal
goals. The ritual of upholding the norms
becomes an end in itself.
Some individuals, whom
Merton called retreatists,
reject both the cultural
goals and the socially
acceptable means of
attaining them. Unlike
innovators and ritualists,
they make no effort to
appear to share their
society’s goals and
norms. Instead, they
may simply drop out of
society. Examples of
retreatists may include
drug addicts, beggars,
and hermits.
Not all individuals who reflect the cultural goals
and the socially acceptable means to attain them
follow the path of retreatism. Some people rebel.
Rebels want to substitute a new set of goals and
means for the currently approved set. Members
of any revolutionary movement fall into this
category of deviant adaptation.
The four categories of deviant behavior are not
considered equally deviant. Innovators and
rebels obviously pose a threat to society.
Retreatists also are perceived as a serious
problem because they lead what society
considers to be an unproductive life. However,
ritualists are generally not regarded as a serious
threat.
• Conflict Perspective – Conflict theorists
believe that competition and social
inequality lead to deviance. They see
social life as a struggle between those
who possess power – the ruling classes –
and those who do not – the lower classes.
People with power commit deviant acts in
an effort to maintain their position. People
without power, on the other hand, commit
deviant acts for one of two reasons. They
turn to deviance either to obtain economic
rewards or because they have low selfesteem and feelings of powerlessness.
According to conflict theorist Richard Quinney, the
ruling classes label any behavior that threatens
their power base as deviant. Because the lower
classes have only limited opportunities in life,
they are often forced to commit acts defined as
deviant. To protect their power, the ruling classes
then establish ideologies – belief systems – that
explain deviance as a problem found primarily
among the lower classes. Thus, law enforcement
efforts are most often directed toward the types of
crimes committed by the lower classes. As a
result these groups have higher rates of arrest
and conviction. People without power do not
necessarily commit more crimes than do other
people. Rather, they commit the types of crimes
that are most likely to be detected and punished.
• Interactionist Perspective – Interactionists have
offered three major explanations of deviance –
control theory, cultural transmission theory, and
labeling theory. Like strain theory, control theory
explains deviance as a natural occurrence.
However, the focus of control theory is somewhat
different. Control theorists are interested in why
people conform rather than the causes of
deviance. Social ties among individuals, control
theorists propose, determine conformity. Control
theorists suggest that individuals who are
integrated into the community are likely to
conform. Conversely, those who have weak ties to
the community are likely to commit deviant acts.
Communities in which most members have strong
social bonds will have lower rates of deviance
because community members are able to exert
stronger social control over those who deviate.
According to Travis Hirschi, a leading control
theorist, people develop strong social bonds in
four ways. First, they form attachments with
others – parents, teachers, and friends – who
accept the norms of society. Second, they have a
strong belief in the moral codes of society,
accepting that some behavior is simply wrong.
Third, they show commitment to traditional
societal values and goals, such as getting a good
education or job. Finally, they are fully involved in
nondeviant activities – leaving no time for deviant
behavior. People who display strong attachment
and commitment to, belief in, and involvement
with their community are likely to conform. On the
other hand, people who lack these qualities are
more likely to engage in deviant acts.
In a recent study, Travis
Hirschi and Michael
Gottfredson have
suggested that
conformity is the result
of self-control. People
with strong self-control
conform, and those
with weak self-control
do not. Socialization –
particularly during
childhood –
determines a person’s
level of self-control.
In the sociologist’s view,
children develop high
levels of self-control if
their parents punish
them for deviant
behavior and reward
them for conformity.
Children who grow up
without such parental
interest in their
behavior develop low
self-control and are
more prone to
deviance.
Socialization is also central to the cultural
transmission theory. This theory explains
deviance as a learned behavior. Deviant
behavior is learned in much the same way
that nondeviant behavior is learned –
through interaction with others. However, in
the case of deviant behavior, the interaction
is primarily among individuals who are
engaging in deviant acts. Thus, the norms
and values being transmitted are deviant.
As a result, the individual is socialized into
deviant behavior rather than into socially
acceptable behavior.
The concept of differential association is
at the heart of the cultural transmission
theory. This concept refers to the
frequency and closeness of associations a
person has with deviant and nondeviant
individuals. If the majority of a person’s
interactions are with deviant individuals,
the person is likely to be socialized into
patterns of deviant behavior. On the other
hand, if the person’s associations are
primarily with individuals who conform to
society’s norms, that person is more likely
to conform.
American sociologist and criminologist Edwin
Sutherland first proposed the concept of
differential association. He suggested that the
learning of deviant behavior occurs in primary
groups. People become deviant or conformist in
the same way that they become fluent in a
particular language. They have personal
relationships with people who do those things.
Cultural transmission theory views all individuals
as conformists. The difference between deviants
and the rest of society lies in the norms to which
each chooses to conform. The deviant individual
conforms to norms that are not accepted by the
larger community. The nondeviant conforms to
socially accepted norms.
Gresham Sykes and David Matza offered an
extension to Sutherland’s concept of differential
association. They noted that some people show
strong commitment to society’s norms yet still
engage in deviance. Through techniques of
neutralization, people suspend their moral
beliefs to commit deviant acts. These
techniques, which are learned through the
process of social interaction, act as a block on
the controls that discourage deviant behavior.
Sykes and Matza identified five techniques –
denying responsibility, denying injury, denying
the victim, condemning the authorities, and
appealing to higher loyalties.
When accused of a deviant act, some people deny
responsibility. A person might claim that the act was
an accident or that was the result of a force beyond
his or her control – such as a lack of parental
supervision. Other people accept responsibility for
their behavior, but they deny that has caused any
harm. Such a person may ask “If no one was hurt,
has a crime really been committed?” Similarly,
people sometimes accept responsibility but deny the
victim. A person may claim that “he had it coming,”
or “she got what she deserved.” On occasions,
people condemn the authorities to justify their
actions. “The police and the courts are corrupt,” he
or she may claim, “so they have no right to accuse
others.” Finally, some people claim that their
loyalties to a particular group are more important
than loyalty to society. He or she committed the act
“to protect my family” or “to help my friend.”
Instead of focusing on why people perform
deviant acts, labeling theory focuses on
how individuals come to be identified as
deviant. Labeling theory is heavily
influenced by the work of sociologists
Edwin Lemert and Howard Becker.
Labeling theorists note that all people
commit deviant acts during their lives.
These acts range from the minor to the
serious. Yet not everyone is labeled as a
deviant. Labeling theorists suggest that
this is because deviance is of two types:
primary and secondary.
Primary deviance is nonconformity that
goes undetected by those in authority. The
occasional deviant act and acts that are
well concealed both fall into this category.
Individuals who commit acts of primary
deviance do not consider themselves to be
deviant and neither does society.
Secondary deviance, on the other hand,
results in the individual being labeled as
deviant and accepting the label as true.
The process of labeling an individual as deviant is
usually accompanied by what sociologist Harold
Garfinkel called a degradation ceremony. In
some kind of public setting – such as a trial – the
individual is denounced, found guilty, and given
the new identity of deviant. For the individual,
this is a life-changing event. People begin to
judge practically all of his or her actions in light
of the deviant label. For all intents and purposes,
being a deviant becomes the person’s master
status. In many instances the label of deviant
restricts an individual’s options in the larger
society and forces him or her into a deviant life
style. The label of deviant is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Labeling people as deviants and
treating them as such, may encourage them to
commit more deviant acts.