Chapter 8 Section 1 Deviance Obj Explain the

Chapter 8 Section 1: Deviance Obj: Explain the nature and social functions of deviance; compare 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 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 1900 s 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 selfcontrol.

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.