what is deviance essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Explaining Deviance

Learning objective.

• State the major arguments and assumptions of the various sociological explanations of deviance.

If we want to reduce violent crime and other serious deviance, we must first understand why it occurs. Many sociological theories of deviance exist, and together they offer a more complete understanding of deviance than any one theory offers by itself. Together they help answer the questions posed earlier: why rates of deviance differ within social categories and across locations, why some behaviors are more likely than others to be considered deviant, and why some kinds of people are more likely than others to be considered deviant and to be punished for deviant behavior. As a whole, sociological explanations highlight the importance of the social environment and of social interaction for deviance and the commision of crime. As such, they have important implications for how to reduce these behaviors. Consistent with this book’s public sociology theme, a discussion of several such crime-reduction strategies concludes this chapter.

We now turn to the major sociological explanations of crime and deviance. A summary of these explanations appears in Table 7.1 “Theory Snapshot: Summary of Sociological Explanations of Deviance and Crime” .

Table 7.1 Theory Snapshot: Summary of Sociological Explanations of Deviance and Crime

Functionalist Explanations

Several explanations may be grouped under the functionalist perspective in sociology, as they all share this perspective’s central view on the importance of various aspects of society for social stability and other social needs.

Émile Durkheim: The Functions of Deviance

As noted earlier, Émile Durkheim said deviance is normal, but he did not stop there. In a surprising and still controversial twist, he also argued that deviance serves several important functions for society.

First, Durkheim said, deviance clarifies social norms and increases conformity. This happens because the discovery and punishment of deviance reminds people of the norms and reinforces the consequences of violating them. If your class were taking an exam and a student was caught cheating, the rest of the class would be instantly reminded of the rules about cheating and the punishment for it, and as a result they would be less likely to cheat.

A second function of deviance is that it strengthens social bonds among the people reacting to the deviant. An example comes from the classic story The Ox-Bow Incident (Clark, 1940), in which three innocent men are accused of cattle rustling and are eventually lynched. The mob that does the lynching is very united in its frenzy against the men, and, at least at that moment, the bonds among the individuals in the mob are extremely strong.

A final function of deviance, said Durkheim, is that it can help lead to positive social change. Although some of the greatest figures in history—Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. to name just a few—were considered the worst kind of deviants in their time, we now honor them for their commitment and sacrifice.

Émile Durkheim wrote that deviance can lead to positive social change. Many Southerners had strong negative feelings about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement, but history now honors him for his commitment and sacrifice.

U.S. Library of Congress – public domain.

Sociologist Herbert Gans (1996) pointed to an additional function of deviance: deviance creates jobs for the segments of society—police, prison guards, criminology professors, and so forth—whose main focus is to deal with deviants in some manner. If deviance and crime did not exist, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people in the United States would be out of work!

Although deviance can have all of these functions, many forms of it can certainly be quite harmful, as the story of the mugged voter that began this chapter reminds us. Violent crime and property crime in the United States victimize millions of people and households each year, while crime by corporations has effects that are even more harmful, as we discuss later. Drug use, prostitution, and other “victimless” crimes may involve willing participants, but these participants often cause themselves and others much harm. Although deviance according to Durkheim is inevitable and normal and serves important functions, that certainly does not mean the United States and other nations should be happy to have high rates of serious deviance. The sociological theories we discuss point to certain aspects of the social environment, broadly defined, that contribute to deviance and crime and that should be the focus of efforts to reduce these behaviors.

Social Ecology: Neighborhood and Community Characteristics

An important sociological approach, begun in the late 1800s and early 1900s by sociologists at the University of Chicago, stresses that certain social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods raise the odds that people growing up and living in these neighborhoods will commit deviance and crime. This line of thought is now called the social ecology approach (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008). Many criminogenic (crime-causing) neighborhood characteristics have been identified, including high rates of poverty, population density, dilapidated housing, residential mobility, and single-parent households. All of these problems are thought to contribute to social disorganization , or weakened social bonds and social institutions, that make it difficult to socialize children properly and to monitor suspicious behavior (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008; Sampson, 2006).

Sociology Making a Difference

Improving Neighborhood Conditions Helps Reduce Crime Rates

One of the sociological theories of crime discussed in the text is the social ecology approach. To review, this approach attributes high rates of deviance and crime to the neighborhood’s social and physical characteristics, including poverty, high population density, dilapidated housing, and high population turnover. These problems create social disorganization that weakens the neighborhood’s social institutions and impairs effective child socialization.

Much empirical evidence supports social ecology’s view about negative neighborhood conditions and crime rates and suggests that efforts to improve these conditions will lower crime rates. Some of the most persuasive evidence comes from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (directed by sociologist Robert J. Sampson), in which more than 6,000 children, ranging in age from birth to 18, and their parents and other caretakers were studied over a 7-year period. The social and physical characteristics of the dozens of neighborhoods in which the subjects lived were measured to permit assessment of these characteristics’ effects on the probability of delinquency. A number of studies using data from this project confirm the general assumptions of the social ecology approach. In particular, delinquency is higher in neighborhoods with lower levels of “collective efficacy,” that is, in neighborhoods with lower levels of community supervision of adolescent behavior.

The many studies from the Chicago project and data in several other cities show that neighborhood conditions greatly affect the extent of delinquency in urban neighborhoods. This body of research in turn suggests that strategies and programs that improve the social and physical conditions of urban neighborhoods may well help decrease the high rates of crime and delinquency that are so often found there. (Bellair & McNulty, 2009; Sampson, 2006)

Strain Theory

Failure to achieve the American dream lies at the heart of Robert Merton’s (1938) famous strain theory (also called anomie theory). Recall from Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” that Durkheim attributed high rates of suicide to anomie, or normlessness, that occurs in times when social norms are unclear or weak. Adapting this concept, Merton wanted to explain why poor people have higher deviance rates than the nonpoor. He reasoned that the United States values economic success above all else and also has norms that specify the approved means, working, for achieving economic success. Because the poor often cannot achieve the American dream of success through the conventional means of working, they experience a gap between the goal of economic success and the means of working. This gap, which Merton likened to Durkheim’s anomie because of the resulting lack of clarity over norms, leads to strain or frustration. To reduce their frustration, some poor people resort to several adaptations, including deviance, depending on whether they accept or reject the goal of economic success and the means of working. Table 7.2 “Merton’s Anomie Theory” presents the logical adaptations of the poor to the strain they experience. Let’s review these briefly.

Table 7.2 Merton’s Anomie Theory

Despite their strain, most poor people continue to accept the goal of economic success and continue to believe they should work to make money. In other words, they continue to be good, law-abiding citizens. They conform to society’s norms and values, and, not surprisingly, Merton calls their adaptation conformity .

Faced with strain, some poor people continue to value economic success but come up with new means of achieving it. They rob people or banks, commit fraud, or use other illegal means of acquiring money or property. Merton calls this adaptation innovation .

Other poor people continue to work at a job without much hope of greatly improving their lot in life. They go to work day after day as a habit. Merton calls this third adaptation ritualism . This adaptation does not involve deviant behavior but is a logical response to the strain poor people experience.

One of Robert Merton’s adaptations in his strain theory is retreatism, in which poor people abandon society’s goal of economic success and reject its means of employment to reach this goal. Many of today’s homeless people might be considered retreatists under Merton’s typology.

Franco Folini – Homeless woman with dogs – CC BY-SA 2.0.

In Merton’s fourth adaptation, retreatism , some poor people withdraw from society by becoming hobos or vagrants or by becoming addicted to alcohol, heroin, or other drugs. Their response to the strain they feel is to reject both the goal of economic success and the means of working.

Merton’s fifth and final adaptation is rebellion . Here poor people not only reject the goal of success and the means of working but work actively to bring about a new society with a new value system. These people are the radicals and revolutionaries of their time. Because Merton developed his strain theory in the aftermath of the Great Depression, in which the labor and socialist movements had been quite active, it is not surprising that he thought of rebellion as a logical adaptation of the poor to their lack of economic success.

Although Merton’s theory has been popular over the years, it has some limitations. Perhaps most important, it overlooks deviance such as fraud by the middle and upper classes and also fails to explain murder, rape, and other crimes that usually are not done for economic reasons. It also does not explain why some poor people choose one adaptation over another.

Merton’s strain theory stimulated other explanations of deviance that built on his concept of strain. Differential opportunity theory , developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), tried to explain why the poor choose one or the other of Merton’s adaptations. Whereas Merton stressed that the poor have differential access to legitimate means (working), Cloward and Ohlin stressed that they have differential access to illegitimate means . For example, some live in neighborhoods where organized crime is dominant and will get involved in such crime; others live in neighborhoods rampant with drug use and will start using drugs themselves.

In a more recent formulation, two sociologists, Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (2007), expanded Merton’s view by arguing that in the United States crime arises from several of our most important values, including an overemphasis on economic success, individualism, and competition. These values produce crime by making many Americans, rich or poor, feel they never have enough money and by prompting them to help themselves even at other people’s expense. Crime in the United States, then, arises ironically from the country’s most basic values.

In yet another extension of Merton’s theory, Robert Agnew (2007) reasoned that adolescents experience various kinds of strain in addition to the economic type addressed by Merton. A romantic relationship may end, a family member may die, or students may be taunted or bullied at school. Repeated strain-inducing incidents such as these produce anger, frustration, and other negative emotions, and these emotions in turn prompt delinquency and drug use.

Deviant Subcultures

Some sociologists stress that poverty and other community conditions give rise to certain subcultures through which adolescents acquire values that promote deviant behavior. One of the first to make this point was Albert K. Cohen (1955), whose status frustration theory says that lower-class boys do poorly in school because schools emphasize middle-class values. School failure reduces their status and self-esteem, which the boys try to counter by joining juvenile gangs. In these groups, a different value system prevails, and boys can regain status and self-esteem by engaging in delinquency. Cohen had nothing to say about girls, as he assumed they cared little about how well they did in school, placing more importance on marriage and family instead, and hence would remain nondelinquent even if they did not do well. Scholars later criticized his disregard for girls and assumptions about them.

Another sociologist, Walter Miller (1958), said poor boys become delinquent because they live amid a lower-class subculture that includes several focal concerns , or values, that help lead to delinquency. These focal concerns include a taste for trouble, toughness, cleverness, and excitement. If boys grow up in a subculture with these values, they are more likely to break the law. Their deviance is a result of their socialization. Critics said Miller exaggerated the differences between the value systems in poor inner-city neighborhoods and wealthier, middle-class communities (Akers & Sellers, 2008).

A very popular subcultural explanation is the so-called subculture of violence thesis, first advanced by Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti (1967). In some inner-city areas, they said, a subculture of violence promotes a violent response to insults and other problems, which people in middle-class areas would probably ignore. The subculture of violence, they continued, arises partly from the need of lower-class males to “prove” their masculinity in view of their economic failure. Quantitative research to test their theory has failed to show that the urban poor are more likely than other groups to approve of violence (Cao, Adams, & Jensen, 1997). On the other hand, recent ethnographic (qualitative) research suggests that large segments of the urban poor do adopt a “code” of toughness and violence to promote respect (Anderson, 1999). As this conflicting evidence illustrates, the subculture of violence view remains controversial and merits further scrutiny.

Social Control Theory

Travis Hirschi (1969) argued that human nature is basically selfish and thus wondered why people do not commit deviance. His answer, which is now called social control theory (also known as social bonding theory ), was that their bonds to conventional social institutions such as the family and the school keep them from violating social norms. Hirschi’s basic perspective reflects Durkheim’s view that strong social norms reduce deviance such as suicide.

Hirschi outlined four types of bonds to conventional social institutions: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

• Attachment refers to how much we feel loyal to these institutions and care about the opinions of people in them, such as our parents and teachers. The more attached we are to our families and schools, the less likely we are to be deviant.
• Commitment refers to how much we value our participation in conventional activities such as getting a good education. The more committed we are to these activities and the more time and energy we have invested in them, the less deviant we will be.
• Involvement refers to the amount of time we spend in conventional activities. The more time we spend, the less opportunity we have to be deviant.
• Belief refers to our acceptance of society’s norms. The more we believe in these norms, the less we deviate.

Travis Hirschi’s social control theory stresses the importance of bonds to social institutions for preventing deviance. His theory emphasized the importance of attachment to one’s family in this regard.

More Good Foundation – Mormon Family Dinner – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Hirschi’s theory has been very popular. Many studies find that youths with weaker bonds to their parents and schools are more likely to be deviant. But the theory has its critics (Akers & Sellers, 2008). One problem centers on the chicken-and-egg question of causal order. For example, many studies support social control theory by finding that delinquent youths often have worse relationships with their parents than do nondelinquent youths. Is that because the bad relationships prompt the youths to be delinquent, as Hirschi thought? Or is it because the youths’ delinquency worsens their relationship with their parents? Despite these questions, Hirschi’s social control theory continues to influence our understanding of deviance. To the extent it is correct, it suggests several strategies for preventing crime, including programs designed to improve parenting and relations between parents and children (Welsh & Farrington, 2007).

Conflict and Feminist Explanations

Explanations of crime rooted in the conflict perspective reflect its general view that society is a struggle between the “haves” at the top of society with social, economic, and political power and the “have-nots” at the bottom. Accordingly, they assume that those with power pass laws and otherwise use the legal system to secure their position at the top of society and to keep the powerless on the bottom (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). The poor and minorities are more likely because of their poverty and race to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. These explanations also blame street crime by the poor on the economic deprivation and inequality in which they live rather than on any moral failings of the poor.

Some conflict explanations also say that capitalism helps create street crime by the poor. An early proponent of this view was Dutch criminologist Willem Bonger (1916), who said that capitalism as an economic system involves competition for profit. This competition leads to an emphasis in a capitalist society’s culture on egoism , or self-seeking behavior, and greed . Because profit becomes so important, people in a capitalist society are more likely than those in noncapitalist ones to break the law for profit and other gains, even if their behavior hurts others.

Not surprisingly, conflict explanations have sparked much controversy (Akers & Sellers, 2008). Many scholars dismiss them for painting an overly critical picture of the United States and ignoring the excesses of noncapitalistic nations, while others say the theories overstate the degree of inequality in the legal system. In assessing the debate over conflict explanations, a fair conclusion is that their view on discrimination by the legal system applies more to victimless crime (discussed in a later section) than to conventional crime, where it is difficult to argue that laws against such things as murder and robbery reflect the needs of the powerful. However, much evidence supports the conflict assertion that the poor and minorities face disadvantages in the legal system (Reiman & Leighton, 2010). Simply put, the poor cannot afford good attorneys, private investigators, and the other advantages that money brings in court. As just one example, if someone much poorer than O. J. Simpson, the former football player and media celebrity, had been arrested, as he was in 1994, for viciously murdering two people, the defendant would almost certainly have been found guilty. Simpson was able to afford a defense costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and won a jury acquittal in his criminal trial (Barkan, 1996). Also in accordance with conflict theory’s views, corporate executives, among the most powerful members of society, often break the law without fear of imprisonment, as we shall see in our discussion of white-collar crime later in this chapter. Finally, many studies support conflict theory’s view that the roots of crimes by poor people lie in social inequality and economic deprivation (Barkan, 2009).

Feminist Perspectives

Feminist perspectives on crime and criminal justice also fall into the broad rubric of conflict explanations and have burgeoned in the last two decades. Much of this work concerns rape and sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and other crimes against women that were largely neglected until feminists began writing about them in the 1970s (Griffin, 1971). Their views have since influenced public and official attitudes about rape and domestic violence, which used to be thought as something that girls and women brought on themselves. The feminist approach instead places the blame for these crimes squarely on society’s inequality against women and antiquated views about relations between the sexes (Renzetti, 2011).

Another focus of feminist work is gender and legal processing. Are women better or worse off than men when it comes to the chances of being arrested and punished? After many studies in the last two decades, the best answer is that we are not sure (Belknap, 2007). Women are treated a little more harshly than men for minor crimes and a little less harshly for serious crimes, but the gender effect in general is weak.

A third focus concerns the gender difference in serious crime, as women and girls are much less likely than men and boys to engage in violence and to commit serious property crimes such as burglary and motor vehicle theft. Most sociologists attribute this difference to gender socialization. Simply put, socialization into the male gender role, or masculinity, leads to values such as competitiveness and behavioral patterns such as spending more time away from home that all promote deviance. Conversely, despite whatever disadvantages it may have, socialization into the female gender role, or femininity, promotes values such as gentleness and behavior patterns such as spending more time at home that help limit deviance (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004). Noting that males commit so much crime, Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind (1988, p. 527) wrote,

A large price is paid for structures of male domination and for the very qualities that drive men to be successful, to control others, and to wield uncompromising power.…Gender differences in crime suggest that crime may not be so normal after all. Such differences challenge us to see that in the lives of women, men have a great deal more to learn.

Gender socialization helps explain why females commit less serious crime than males. Boys are raised to be competitive and aggressive, while girls are raised to be more gentle and nurturing.

Philippe Put – Fight – CC BY 2.0.

Two decades later, that challenge still remains.

Symbolic Interactionist Explanations

Because symbolic interactionism focuses on the means people gain from their social interaction, symbolic interactionist explanations attribute deviance to various aspects of the social interaction and social processes that normal individuals experience. These explanations help us understand why some people are more likely than others living in the same kinds of social environments. Several such explanations exist.

Differential Association Theory

One popular set of explanations, often called learning theories , emphasizes that deviance is learned from interacting with other people who believe it is OK to commit deviance and who often commit deviance themselves. Deviance, then, arises from normal socialization processes. The most influential such explanation is Edwin H. Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory , which says that criminal behavior is learned by interacting with close friends and family members. These individuals teach us not only how to commit various crimes but also the values, motives, and rationalizations that we need to adopt in order to justify breaking the law. The earlier in our life that we associate with deviant individuals and the more often we do so, the more likely we become deviant ourselves. In this way, a normal social process, socialization, can lead normal people to commit deviance.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association was one of the most influential sociological theories ever. Over the years much research has documented the importance of adolescents’ peer relationships for their entrance into the world of drugs and delinquency (Akers & Sellers, 2008). However, some critics say that not all deviance results from the influences of deviant peers. Still, differential association theory and the larger category of learning theories it represents remain a valuable approach to understanding deviance and crime.

Labeling Theory

If we arrest and imprison someone, we hope they will be “scared straight,” or deterred from committing a crime again. Labeling theory assumes precisely the opposite: it says that labeling someone deviant increases the chances that the labeled person will continue to commit deviance. According to labeling theory, this happens because the labeled person ends up with a deviant self-image that leads to even more deviance. Deviance is the result of being labeled (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).

This effect is reinforced by how society treats someone who has been labeled. Research shows that job applicants with a criminal record are much less likely than those without a record to be hired (Pager, 2009). Suppose you had a criminal record and had seen the error of your ways but were rejected by several potential employers. Do you think you might be just a little frustrated? If your unemployment continues, might you think about committing a crime again? Meanwhile, you want to meet some law-abiding friends, so you go to a singles bar. You start talking with someone who interests you, and in response to this person’s question, you say you are between jobs. When your companion asks about your last job, you reply that you were in prison for armed robbery. How do you think your companion will react after hearing this? As this scenario suggests, being labeled deviant can make it difficult to avoid a continued life of deviance.

Labeling theory also asks whether some people and behaviors are indeed more likely than others to acquire a deviant label. In particular, it asserts that nonlegal factors such as appearance, race, and social class affect how often official labeling occurs.

Labeling theory assumes that someone who is labeled deviant will be more likely to commit deviance as a result. One problem that ex-prisoners face after being released back into society is that potential employers do not want to hire them. This fact makes it more likely that they will commit new offenses.

Victor – Handcuffs – CC BY 2.0.

William Chambliss’s (1973) classic analysis of the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks” is an excellent example of this argument. The Saints were eight male high-school students from middle-class backgrounds who were very delinquent, while the Roughnecks were six male students in the same high school who were also very delinquent but who came from poor, working-class families. Although the Saints’ behavior was arguably more harmful than the Roughnecks’, their actions were considered harmless pranks, and they were never arrested. After graduating from high school, they went on to college and graduate and professional school and ended up in respectable careers. In contrast, the Roughnecks were widely viewed as troublemakers and often got into trouble for their behavior. As adults they either ended up in low-paying jobs or went to prison.

Labeling theory’s views on the effects of being labeled and on the importance of nonlegal factors for official labeling remain controversial. Nonetheless, the theory has greatly influenced the study of deviance and crime in the last few decades and promises to do so for many years to come.

Key Takeaways

• Both biological and psychological explanations assume that deviance stems from problems arising inside the individual.
• Sociological explanations attribute deviance to various aspects of the social environment.
• Several functionalist explanations exist. Durkheim highlighted the functions that deviance serves for society. Merton’s strain theory assumed that deviance among the poor results from their inability to achieve the economic success so valued in American society. Other explanations highlight the role played by the social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods, of deviant subcultures, and of weak bonds to social institutions.
• Conflict explanations assume that the wealthy and powerful use the legal system to protect their own interests and to keep the poor and racial minorities subservient. Feminist perspectives highlight the importance of gender inequality for crimes against women and of male socialization for the gender difference in criminality.
• Interactionist explanations highlight the importance of social interaction in the commitment of deviance and in reactions to deviance. Labeling theory assumes that the labeling process helps ensure that someone will continue to commit deviance, and it also assumes that some people are more likely than others to be labeled deviant because of their appearance, race, social class, and other characteristics.

For Your Review

• In what important way do biological and psychological explanations differ from sociological explanations?
• What are any two functions of deviance according to Durkheim?
• What are any two criminogenic social or physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods?
• What are any two assumptions of feminist perspectives on deviance and crime?
• According to labeling theory, what happens when someone is labeled as a deviant?

Agnew, R. (2007). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory . Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city . New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Barkan, S. E. (1996). The social science significance of the O. J. Simpson case. In G. Barak (Ed.), Representing O. J.: Murder, criminal justice and mass culture (pp. 36–42). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Barkan, S. E. (2009). The value of quantitative analysis for a critical understanding of crime and society. Critical Criminology, 17 , 247–259.

Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bellair, P. E., & McNulty, T. L. (2009). Gang membership, drug selling, and violence in neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 26 , 644–669.

Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, B. (2011). A Primer on crime and delinquency theory (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bonger, W. (1916). Criminality and economic conditions (H. P. Horton, Trans.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Cao, L., Adams, A., & Jensen, V. J. (1997). A test of the black subculture of violence thesis: A research note. Criminology, 35, 367–379.

Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11, 24–31.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2004). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, W. V. T. (1940). The ox-bow incident . New York, NY: Random House.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs . New York, NY: Free Press.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang . New York, NY: Free Press.

Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–538.

Gans, H. J. (1996). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Griffin, S. (1971, September). Rape: The all-American crime. Ramparts, 10 , 26–35.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mears, D. P., Wang, X., Hay, C., & Bales, W. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46, 301–340.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American dream . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14 , 5–19.

Pager, D. (2009). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Renzetti, C. (2011). Feminist criminology . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Sampson, R. J. (2006). How does community context matter? Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime rates. In P.-O. H. Wikström & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms, and development (pp. 31–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology . Philadelphia, PA: J. P. Lippincott.

Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2007). Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places . New York, NY: Springer.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence . London, England: Social Science Paperbacks.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

What is Deviance: Definition, Causes, Types, Theories, Examples

Deviance is deflecting from and rejecting socially acceptable standards. The article explains the meaning and definition of deviance. Further, it elaborates on what causes deviance within society. The article also explains the types and situations that give rise to deviant behaviour. It also highlights why deviance is important and required in society.

Society is compared to a living organism by eminent sociologist Herbert Spencer. He referred to various social functions as organs or parts that operate simultaneously to make society work. As there are parts that fit perfectly in society, there are also some that do not.

Deviance is a sociological concept visible in everyday life and societal events. It can be defined as following an unconventional path, breaking norms, rules or regulations and doing something not accepted and welcomed by society. Not abiding by the said and unsaid standards of the community is called deviance. It is looked at as an aversion or aberration since it is not perceived as normal.

The deviation is usually coined with the term crime since a crime (of any level) is far from the socially acceptable behaviour of individuals. Crime is a deviant behaviour but every form of deviance is not a crime. Deviance often occurs when an individual or group breaks the set expectations of society or community and any activity or action they undertake is considered amoral within society.

As well as this, sociologists argue that deviance is an ambiguous term and that it is often committed unknowingly, as people are unaware of what constitutes deviance and what does not. Also sometimes a particular event is considered to be deviant when it crosses a limit, which is usually set by society. For instance, drinking with friends and family occasionally is considered to be okay in almost all societies but drinking regularly and being an alcoholic, underage drinking is considered deviance and is often looked down upon.

Causes of Deviance- 

There are various individualistic causes of deviance and the reason behind deviant behaviour might vary from person to person. However, they can be classified and grouped into three major causes.

• Psychological causes of deviance-

The impact on the mind and thinking can be caused by the environment in which an individual is raised. Seeing deviant behaviour frequently can also ignite deviance among individuals and groups. Coming in the close vicinity of deviances like substance abuse, drugs and alcohol consumption, smoking and gambling give rise to the same pattern. The excessive use or the negative impact of social media has a psychological impact on the mindset of individuals and the rise of feelings like desperation, inequality, injustice, revenge or the attitude of being a rebel, being unique is developed among individuals. Anomie or cultural frustration might also play a huge part in deviance. For instance, a woman in the middle east might be considered deviant because she wears a short skirt, though it is considered to be normal in many countries. However, it may not be acceptable in some middle eastern countries, and women may act out against it because of their feelings of repression and doing the opposite of what is considered to be deviance.

• Biological causes of deviance- 

In the case of biological factors behind deviance, the functioning and development of the brain and mental capacity of an individual, their health, physical attributions and genetics play a pivotal role. Italian physician Cesare Lombroso has also defined deviance in criminals by stating that a certain quality of traits exists in their behaviour or genes and stated such individuals as born criminals. Historically the biological cause behind deviance was one of the first findings and establishment behind understanding the concept of deviant behaviour. It addresses the instincts, inherited qualities, and physical structure of an individual as scientific proof behind deviance and criminal mindset and behaviour of an individual. However, there are no such hard pieces of evidence suggesting that biological qualities or genetics play a role in deviance. It is also emphasized under this theory that there is an extra chromosome present in individuals who generally resort to crime. Although a majority of sociologists refute this theory as it has proved to be impractical.

• Sociological causes of deviance-

The social upbringing of people also plays an important part in the cause of deviance. The social background, upbringing, socialisation, family problems, rejections faced by society, social and religious beliefs, and poverty plays an important role in causing deviant behaviour. The judgements and labelling done by society create various emotions among individuals. A good job, a decent house and a luxury vehicle are some of the social goals that society states, and there are time limits that are also adopted over the generations to achieve these goals. There is pressure to achieve these goals by a desirable age and the ways and means of achieving these goals are unequally distributed within society which might sometimes lead to aggression. For example, a young individual residing in urban slums might face various issues like poverty, unhygienic living conditions, lack of jobs and social stigma or bias toward being a slum dweller. He/she might also lose certain opportunities because of it and might feel like indulging in ways that would help them attain their social goals. Additionally, it can result in deviant behaviour such as money laundering, blackmailing, phishing scams, or pickpocketing. Deviant behaviour is not present in individuals by birth according to this approach but is developed because of social surroundings and happenings.

Types of deviance-

When a social norm is violated it results in a form of deviance. According to Robert.K.Merton, a person’s adherence to social and cultural goals and eagerness and ambition to achieve those goals by any means plays an important role in the rise of deviance. To illustrate how deviance can result from a variety of causes, below listed are a few examples of possible responses people give when faced with pressure, resistance, and a lack of resources:

• Conformity – The idea and concept of adhering and conforming to certain social norms and toeing the line might ignite the sparks of deviance. Always behaving and acting at par with the expectations indeed result in deviance but it also depends on society. For instance, women were confined to housework for ages in different societies, confining themselves just to the social role of homemaker made them act upon it, deviate from social norms and demand the right to education and employment as well. Nevertheless, now it is common to see women work in society but initially, it was considered deviant behaviour and even now is perceived as one in certain societies.
• Innovation – When there is external pressure put upon the individual to achieve a specific goal within a given time, the individual generally conforms and accepts the traditional norm or deviates and denies it. Additionally, sometimes it accepts the goal or the social expectations but innovates the way or process to attain that specific means. For instance, earning bread and butter for themselves and their family is a major responsibility of a person. Traditionally, one would gain an education and work or operate a business to accomplish it. But some individuals unable to achieve their means or finding it difficult to follow the said path deviate and innovate their ways of earning money which might not be acceptable to society. An example of this would be theft.
• Ritualism – Ritualism can be defined as a way in which individuals reject their social values and goals. They don’t conform or deny and deviate from them. They simply reject those goals and don’t consider them as their ultimate goal. This is not a negative form of deviance since people are not rebelling and engaging unconventionally. For them, the goal might not be as important as labelled by society. In ritualism, individuals tend to work hard as they would to reach their goals and attain values without actually bothering and caring about the result. They are complacent and okay with not achieving their means. A most common example of deviance is visible in the career choices of people. Some people work hard day and night in huge corporations just so they can earn more and more money, whereas some people work hard not so that they can gain more money but rather to find happiness, satisfaction, contentment and passion in their work.
• Retreatism – Sometimes individuals develop the urge to deny the social norms, values and conventional methods altogether. Rather than conforming to traditional values or innovating their aims and methods, they completely reject the normal way of life that is expected and accepted by society. They don’t choose any illegal form or way of life to achieve their means but simply deviate themselves from society. In other words, they drop out of society. Because they are so deeply ingrained in the conventional procedure, they are unable to break it. In this case, dropping out of society is the only way to solve their predicament. Hence, retreatism refers to the passive rejection of achieving success and living a respectable life. For instance, a bohemian is an individual who is considered to live an unconventional way of life by society and is considered deviant.
• Rebellion – Rebellion is one step ahead of retreatism. It not only denies and deviates from the normal expectations, socio-cultural norms and goals of society but also expects a change and revolution in the already existing system. Individuals look for complete change and destruction of the present social order and construction of a new and drastic order which is relevant to the coming times. These individuals within society and the community are viewed as rebels. They want to transform how things function and don’t want to settle with retreating and giving up on the goals or simply innovating a new path and way. For them, the replacement of conventional methods and manners is more important. Rebellion can range from small-scale to large-scale.

For instance, women fighting for their rights, from the right to education to the right to abortion. Women are rebelling against the traditional rules and regulations that restrict them and fighting for new and modern laws that do them justice.

Importance –

Deviance means deviating from the regular functioning of society and denying socially acceptable norms. However, these deviances that occur in society also have a specific positive impact on individuals and communities within society. The importance and significance of the role played by deviance in the development of society.

• Deviance brings positive outcomes within society. The deviance which was palpable in society pertinent to rejecting gender roles has resulted in various positive changes. Deviance helps in introducing new concepts and welcomes and accepts the already existing social norms and behaviours that were once considered taboo. For instance, the upliftment of women and the LGBTQ+ community in recent years is a result of deviance. The oppression and suppression of different individuals and communities give rise to rebellion and that has, in turn, introduced various novel laws like equal pay for all genders and LGBTQ+ marriage laws. In short, deviance plays a role in the development and upliftment of society.
• Deviance portrays the good and bad in society. Deviant behaviours like crime, pimping, rape, murder, and domestic assault are all formal examples of deviant behaviour. For these are not socially acceptable and do not conform to the norms and values of society, they are considered formidable. For instance, when marital rape was considered deviant behaviour with the help of resistance and revolution, various laws were formulated to criminalise it in many countries. The social norm of adhering to the wish and order of the husband after marriage was challenged. It helped people and society to understand the gruesome crime and thus formulate rules and laws to protect women.
• It is also believed that deviance plays a huge part in uniting people. People become aware of what is right or wrong and acceptable or unacceptable within society and thus tend to act for and against it. This spurs unity and integrity among people and strengthens their bonds and communication. All major revolutions and independence moments were born out of rebellion and there was massive participation of people. They were attached to a specific movement and cause based on the common belief that connected them. Indian war of independence or the Chinese Communist Revolution connected people to a single cause and it was deviance that was generated by previous rulers that gave rise to rebellion. Thus, unity can also play a significant role in unifying society and bringing them together.

Theories of Deviance-

Deviance and crime have been studied since the beginning of sociology, and scholars have developed theories about their causes. A group of causes and theories can be further divided into three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. These theories help to understand the significance and cause behind deviance.

• Functionalism – Sociologists believing in functionalism support the role played by deviance in the effective and successful functioning of society. Emile Durkheim believes that deviance gives rise to collective conscience and helps people and society to understand what is moral and what is not. Robert Merton explained the strain theory stating that even though people have the same conventional aims, not all of them have the social capacity and resources to act and achieve them, hence giving rise to deviance. Social disorganisation theory under the concept of crime and deviance also assumes that the absence of social order in society gives rise to disorder, deviance and crime.
• Conflict Theory – Karl Marx developed the conflict theory where he stated the difference between two social groups and the inequality that exists between them. Sociologists have strived to comprehend the relationship between conflict and deviance. The concept established by Marx helped to understand the connection of deviance with power and money. C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite also explained the existence of a small group of affluent people who have control of power and money in their hands and how it connects with social deviance in society.
• Symbolic Interactionism – The concept and meaning of deviance attached to various actions and behaviour keep on changing from time to time, so sometimes when people are doing something they are unaware that what they are doing is considered to be deviant by society. It can be formal deviance like civil crime or informal deviance which varies from society to society like same-gender love or same-gender marriage. This is where the labelling theory comes into place. People often are labelled for the crime they commit. Formal deviance like theft or murder can be understood as a serious label but informal patterns of deviance like being intoxicated around children or consuming alcohol and drugs at a young age give rise to labels that stay with individuals throughout their life. Even if they want to change themselves. This labelling is done by society sometimes leaves a mark on individuals, turning them towards committing deviance.  

Characteristics-

• Deviance doesn’t need to be an absolute crime. It can be a form of deviation and change in terms of beliefs, norms, values and traits. The act of incest is deprecated in many societies, although it may not be considered a gruesome offence but is considered taboo.
• Deviance changes from society to society and is also dependent upon social stigma. For instance, the Public Display of Affection might not be socially acceptable and be considered a stigma in a few societies while in some it can be widely accepted.
• Deviance is also associated with the time and period during which it exists and is considered.  The use of surrogacy and adoption as alternative modes of pregnancy was once looked down upon and considered deviant, but these methods are now slowly being accepted by society.
• There are two types of deviance. One is formal crimes like stealing, human trafficking, unethical hacking and so on. Deviance can also be informal, such as cheating on a spouse or taking someone’s possessions without consent, which are not punishable but unwelcome in society.
• It also depends on the ratio of deviant to non-deviant populations. There might also be a tendency to consider these acts as normal if the number of deviant populations is large enough, for instance, acts of terrorism in some countries that are war-torn.

Also Read: Crime is a Social Phenomenon

Examples of deviance-

• Earlier people used to perceive and believe that the Earth is a flat surface and when various scientists like Pythagoras and Columbus stated that the Earth is round it was refuted by many and was considered deviant in the early stage. Although it was not socially acceptable by the people and by the church, it eventually gained acceptance with the help of evidence.
• Same-gender relationships, marriage and adoption were impossible and unimaginable at one time and were also considered to be deviant. They had to go through a phase of rebellion and transformation to be legally and socially accepted. Even now it is considered to be deviant in a few societies and religions. In many cultures, same-gender relationships are treated as abnormalities and with disrespect.
• Deviance differs according to the culture, tradition and environment of a society and country. Children moving out of their parent’s house and living independently is a common norm in Western and European countries. The practice, however, is not favoured in some traditional Asian and Islamic societies. As a result, Asian parents tend to have a greater influence over their children’s lives. Children moving out or making rapid decisions on their own are considered to be against social values and deviant.
• Few countries like France take their weekends seriously as a time to refresh and rejuvenate themselves and don’t entertain work calls and emails during that period. However, the situation is quite opposite in many societies where people tend to work on weekends as well. Those working in such an environment might be unwelcomed and considered deviants if they unknowingly contact colleagues for work during weekends in a society that views weekends as workfree.
• In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to show an inch of skin and should be covered with the help of a Burqa while in France there is a complete Burqa ban which doesn’t allow covering of the face. Although, it is based on religious and cultural beliefs, what is deviant in one society is not in other.

Deviance is thus an inevitable part of society but at the same time, there are always measures present in society to correct deviant behavior.

https://openstax.org/books/

https://study.com/learn/lesson/d

https://www.verywellmind.com/socially-acceptable-to-socially-deviant-addictions-22243

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

https://www.britannica.com/

Isha Rane is a sociology graduate with a keen interest in research and analysis, focusing on areas such as Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Resources, and Public Policy. She is an avid reader, particularly enjoying books about the history and political scenario of India. Isha also likes to write about pressing issues and topics that require a voice in the conversation. Her career aspirations lie in the development sector. Additionally, she has a passionate interest in mythology and calligraphy.

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance and Crime

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Describe the functionalist view of deviance in society through four sociologist’s theories
• Explain how conflict theory understands deviance and crime in society
• Describe the symbolic interactionist approach to deviance, including labeling and other theories

Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

Functionalism

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with the way the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Strain theory and social disorganization theory represent two functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.

Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance

Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, when Black students across the United States participated in sit-ins during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society (1893). Seeing a student given detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that playing hooky isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get detention.

Durkheim’s point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the “collective conscience,” which are the beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” he said (1893). He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. For example, in large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more severely.

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory , which notes that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. From birth, we’re encouraged to achieve the “American Dream” of financial success. A person who attends business school, receives an MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. That MBA-turned-CEO may have grown up in the best school district and had means to hire tutors. Another person may grow up in a neighborhood with lower-quality schools, and may not be able to pay for extra help. A person may have the socially acceptable goal of financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to Merton’s theory, an entrepreneur who can’t afford to launch their own company may be tempted to embezzle from their employer for start-up funds.

Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it.

• Conformity : Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
• Innovation : Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
• Ritualism : People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream.
• Retreatism : Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some people who beg and people who are homeless have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success.
• Rebellion : A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.

Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control. An individual who grows up in a poor neighborhood with high rates of drug use, violence, teenage delinquency, and deprived parenting is more likely to become engaged in crime than an individual from a wealthy neighborhood with a good school system and families who are involved positively in the community.

Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A person isn’t born as someone who will commit crimes but becomes one over time, often based on factors in their social environment. Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989) found that poverty and family disruption in given localities had a strong positive correlation with social disorganization. They also determined that social disorganization was, in turn, associated with high rates of crime and delinquency—or deviance. Recent studies Sampson conducted with Lydia Bean (2006) revealed similar findings. High rates of poverty and single-parent homes correlated with high rates of juvenile violence. Research into social disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs that teach basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity. (Lally 1987)

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as positive functions of society. They see them as evidence of inequality in the system. They also challenge social disorganization theory and control theory and argue that both ignore racial and socioeconomic issues and oversimplify social trends (Akers 1991). Conflict theorists also look for answers to the correlation of gender and race with wealth and crime.

Karl Marx: An Unequal System

Conflict theory was greatly influenced by the work of German philosopher, economist, and social scientist Karl Marx. Marx believed that the general population was divided into two groups. He labeled the wealthy, who controlled the means of production and business, the bourgeois. He labeled the workers who depended on the bourgeois for employment and survival the proletariat. Marx believed that the bourgeois centralized their power and influence through government, laws, and other authority agencies in order to maintain and expand their positions of power in society. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the foundation for conflict theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with wealth and power.

C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite

In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite , a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. Mills’ theories explain why celebrities can commit crimes and suffer little or no legal retribution. For example, USA Today maintains a database of NFL players accused and convicted of crimes. 51 NFL players had been convicted of committing domestic violence between the years 2000 and 2019. They have been sentenced to a collective 49 days in jail, and most of those sentences were deferred or otherwise reduced. In most cases, suspensions and fines levied by the NFL or individual teams were more severe than the justice system's (Schrotenboer 2020 and clickitticket.com 2019).

Crime and Social Class

While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within society. The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of $15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (FB1 2010). In comparison, when former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC 2009).

This imbalance based on class power is also found within U.S. criminal law. In the 1980s, the use of crack cocaine (a less expensive but powerful drug) quickly became an epidemic that swept the country’s poorest urban communities. Its pricier counterpart, cocaine, was associated with upscale users and was a drug of choice for the wealthy. The legal implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of crack was punishable by a ten-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff 2011). This inequality in the severity of punishment for crack versus cocaine paralleled the unequal social class of respective users. A conflict theorist would note that those in society who hold the power are also the ones who make the laws concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit them, while the powerless classes who lack the resources to make such decisions suffer the consequences. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, states passed numerous laws increasing penalties, especially for repeat offenders. The U.S. government passed an even more significant law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (known as the 1994 Crime Bill), which further increased penalties, funded prisons, and incentivized law enforcement agencies to further pursue drug offenders. One outcome of these policies was the mass incarceration of Black and Hispanic people, which led to a cycle of poverty and reduced social mobility. The crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010, when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project 2010).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how societies and/or social groups come to view behaviors as deviant or conventional.

Labeling Theory

Although all of us violate norms from time to time, few people would consider themselves deviant. Those who do, however, have often been labeled “deviant” by society and have gradually come to believe it themselves. Labeling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.

Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behavior begin to change after his or her actions are labeled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff, and soon enough, develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out even more and breaking more rules; the student has adopted the “troublemaker” label and embraced this deviant identity. Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or grandfathers. Others see themselves as beggars, convicts, or addicts.

Techniques of Neutralization

How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done by Sykes and Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. Have you ever used any of these techniques?

Let’s take a scenario and apply all five techniques to explain how they are used. A young person is working for a retail store as a cashier. Their cash drawer has been coming up short for a few days. When the boss confronts the employee, they are labeled as a thief for the suspicion of stealing. How does the employee deal with this label?

The Denial of Responsibility: When someone doesn’t take responsibility for their actions or blames others. They may use this technique and say that it was their boss’s fault because they don’t get paid enough to make rent or because they’re getting a divorce. They are rejecting the label by denying responsibility for the action.

The Denial of Injury: Sometimes people will look at a situation in terms of what effect it has on others. If the employee uses this technique they may say, “What’s the big deal? Nobody got hurt. Your insurance will take care of it.” The person doesn’t see their actions as a big deal because nobody “got hurt.”

The Denial of the Victim: If there is no victim there’s no crime. In this technique the person sees their actions as justified or that the victim deserved it. Our employee may look at their situation and say, “I’ve worked here for years without a raise. I was owed that money and if you won’t give it to me I’ll get it my own way.”

The Condemnation of the Condemners: The employee might “turn it around on” the boss by blaming them. They may say something like, “You don’t know my life, you have no reason to judge me.” This is taking the focus off of their actions and putting the onus on the accuser to, essentially, prove the person is living up to the label, which also shifts the narrative away from the deviant behavior.

Appeal to a Higher Authority: The final technique that may be used is to claim that the actions were for a higher purpose. The employee may tell the boss that they stole the money because their mom is sick and needs medicine or something like that. They are justifying their actions by making it seem as though the purpose for the behavior is a greater “good” than the action is “bad.” (Sykes & Matza, 1957)

Social Policy and Debate

The right to vote.

Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.

Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than ten years later, she is still feeling the sting of her sentencing. Why? Because Mississippi is one of twelve states in the United States that bans convicted felons from voting (ProCon 2011).

To Strickland, who said she had always voted, the news came as a great shock. She isn’t alone. Some 5.3 million people in the United States are currently barred from voting because of felony convictions (ProCon 2009). These individuals include inmates, parolees, probationers, and even people who have never been jailed, such as Leola Strickland.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, states are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in “rebellion or other crime” (Krajick 2004). Although there are no federally mandated laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony disenfranchisement .

Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process? Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn’t the only instance in which ex-felons are denied rights; state laws also ban released criminals from holding public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting property (Lott and Jones 2008).

Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds. Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately target poor minority members, denying them a chance to participate in a system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to their disadvantage (Holding 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from society?

Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub 2006). His conclusions established differential association theory , which suggested that individuals learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. For example, a young person whose friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable. Sutherland developed a series of propositions to explain how deviance is learned. In proposition five, for example, he discussed how people begin to accept and participate in a behavior after learning whether it is viewed as “favorable” by those around them. In proposition six, Sutherland expressed the ways that exposure to more “definitions” favoring the deviant behavior than those opposing it may eventually lead a person to partake in deviance (Sutherland 1960), applying almost a quantitative element to the learning of certain behaviors. In the example above, a young person may find sexual activity more acceptable once a certain number of their friends become sexually active, not after only one does so.

Sutherland’s theory may explain why crime is multigenerational. A longitudinal study beginning in the 1960s found that the best predictor of antisocial and criminal behavior in children was whether their parents had been convicted of a crime (Todd and Jury 1996). Children who were younger than ten years old when their parents were convicted were more likely than other children to engage in spousal abuse and criminal behavior by their early thirties. Even when taking socioeconomic factors such as dangerous neighborhoods, poor school systems, and overcrowded housing into consideration, researchers found that parents were the main influence on the behavior of their offspring (Todd and Jury 1996).

Travis Hirschi: Control Theory

Continuing with an examination of large social factors, control theory states that social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection from society. Individuals who believe they are a part of society are less likely to commit crimes against it.

Travis Hirschi (1969) identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society:

• Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic partners.
• Commitment refers to the investments we make in the community. A well-respected local businessperson who volunteers at their synagogue and is a member of the neighborhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a person who doesn’t have a career or ties to the community.
• Similarly, levels of involvement , or participation in socially legitimate activities, lessen a person’s likelihood of deviance. A child who plays little league baseball and takes art classes has fewer opportunities to ______.
• The final bond, belief , is an agreement on common values in society. If a person views social values as beliefs, they will conform to them. An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park, because a clean environment is a social value to them (Hirschi 1969).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/7-2-theoretical-perspectives-on-deviance-and-crime

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

What is Deviance?

Deviance is norm-breaking behaviour. Sociologists argue that deviance is context dependent – what is deviant depends on the situation you are in, such as the country and the historical period.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 16, 2022 by Karl Thompson

Deviance refers to rule-breaking behaviour of some kind which fails to conform to the norms and expectations of a particular society or social group.   

Deviance is closely related to the concept of crime, which is law breaking behaviour. Criminal behaviour is usually deviant, but not all deviant behaviour is criminal.

The concept of deviance is more difficult to define than crime. Deviance includes both criminal and non-criminal acts, but it is quite difficult to pin down what members of any society or groups actually regard as deviant behaviour. Downes and Rock (2007) suggest that ambiguity is a key feature of rule-breaking, as people are frequently unsure whether a particular episode is truly deviant or what deviance is. Their judgement will depend on the context in which it occurs, who the person is, what they know about them and what their motives might be.

Societal and Situational Deviance

Plummer (1979) discusses two aspects of defining deviance, using the concepts of societal deviance and situational deviance.

Societal deviance refers to forms of deviance that most members of a society regard as deviant because they share similar ideas about approved and unapproved behaviour – murder, rape, child abuse and driving over the alcohol limit in the UK generally fall into this category.

Situational deviance refers to the way in which an act being seen as deviant or not depends on the context or location in which it takes place. These two conceptions of deviance suggest that, while there may be some acts that many people agree are deviant in one society, those acts defined as deviant will vary between groups within a society. Whether or not an act is seen as deviant often depends on:

The historical period – definitions of deviance change over time in the same society as standards of normal behaviour change. For example, cigarette smoking used to be very popular, now it is illegal to smoke in restaurants or buses.

The place or context – nudity is often seen as deviant in public (though in itself it is never criminal), but rarely in private; playing loud music is deviant on public transport, but not at music festivals, and drinking to excess is deviant almost anywhere, but not necessarily in pubs or clubs.

The social group – What may be regarded as unacceptable at a societal level may be regarded as acceptable in small groups or even whole age cohorts – binge drinking and sexual promiscuity are two such examples. 

The context dependency of deviance

The context dependency of deviance simply refers to the idea that deviance is socially constructed – whether or not an act is seen as deviant depends on the historical period, the place, and the group witnessing the act.

The context dependency of deviance can be illustrated by a simple example:

Wearing a mini skirt is Deviant in Saudi Arabia:

But its clearly not on Tik Tok in Western Culture…

Task: Try to come up with your own examples which illustrate the Context Dependency of Deviance.

Discussion Question: Is there any act which is inherently deviant (deviant in every context)?

This material forms part of the introduction to the Crime and Deviance option within A-level Sociology

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 7. Deviance, Crime, and Social Control

Learning objectives.

7.1. Deviance and Control

• Define deviance and categorize different types of deviant behaviour
• Determine why certain behaviours are defined as deviant while others are not
• Differentiate between methods of social control
• Describe the characteristics of disciplinary social control and their relationship to normalizing societies

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

• Describe the functionalist view of deviance in society and compare Durkheim’s views with social disorganization theory, control theory, and strain theory
• Explain how critical sociology understands deviance and crime in society
• Understand feminist theory’s unique contributions to the critical perspective on crime and deviance
• Describe the symbolic interactionist approach to deviance, including labelling and other theories

7.3. Crime and the Law

• Identify and differentiate between different types of crimes
• Evaluate Canadian crime statistics
• Understand the nature of the corrections system in Canada

Introduction to Deviance, Crime, and Social Control

Psychopaths and sociopaths are some of the favourite “deviants” in contemporary popular culture. From Patrick Bateman in American Psycho , to Dr. Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs , to Dexter Morgan in Dexter , to Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock and Elementary , the figure of the dangerous individual who lives among us provides a fascinating fictional figure. Psychopathy and sociopathy both refer to personality disorders that involve anti-social behaviour, diminished empathy, and lack of inhibitions. In clinical analysis, these analytical categories should be distinguished from psychosis , which is a condition involving a debilitating break with reality.

Psychopaths and sociopaths are often able to manage their condition and pass as “normal” citizens, although their capacity for manipulation and cruelty can have devastating consequences for people around them. The term psychopathy is often used to emphasize that the source of the disorder is internal, based on psychological, biological, or genetic factors, whereas sociopathy is used to emphasize predominant social factors in the disorder: the social or familial sources of its development and the inability to be social or abide by societal rules (Hare 1999). In this sense sociopathy would be the sociological disease par excellence. It entails an incapacity for companionship ( socius ), yet many accounts of sociopaths describe them as being charming, attractively confident, and outgoing (Hare 1999).

In a modern society characterized by the predominance of secondary rather than primary relationships, the sociopath or psychopath functions, in popular culture at least, as a prime index of contemporary social unease. The sociopath is like the nice neighbour next door who one day “goes off” or is revealed to have had a sinister second life. In many ways the sociopath is a cypher for many of the anxieties we have about the loss of community and living among people we do not know. In this sense, the sociopath is a very modern sort of deviant. Contemporary approaches to psychopathy and sociopathy have focused on biological and genetic causes. This is a tradition that goes back to 19th century positivist approaches to deviance, which attempted to find a biological cause for criminality and other types of deviant behaviour.

The Italian professor of legal psychiatry Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909) was a key figure in positivist criminology who thought he had isolated specific physiological characteristics of “degeneracy” that could distinguish “born criminals” from normal individuals (Rimke 2011). In a much more sophisticated way, this was also the premise of Dr. James Fallon, a neuroscientist at the University of California. His research involved analyzing brain scans of serial killers. He found that areas of the frontal and temporal lobes associated with empathy, morality, and self-control are “shut off” in serial killers. In turn, this lack of brain activity has been linked with specific genetic markers suggesting that psychopathy or sociopathy was passed down genetically. Fallon’s premise was that psychopathy is genetically determined. An individual’s genes determine whether they are psychopathic or not (Fallon 2013).

However, at the same time that he was conducting research on psychopaths, he was studying the brain scans of Alzheimer’s patients. In the Alzheimer’s study, he discovered a brain scan from a control subject that indicated the symptoms of psychopathy he had seen in the brain scans of serial killers. The scan was taken from a member of his own family. He broke the seal that protected the identity of the subject and discovered it was his own brain scan.

Fallon was a successfully married man, who had raised children and held down a demanding career as a successful scientist and yet the brain scan indicated he was a psychopath. When he researched his own genetic history, he realized that his family tree contained seven alleged murderers including the famous Lizzie Borden, who allegedly killed her father and stepmother in 1892. He began to notice some of his own behaviour patterns as being manipulative, obnoxiously competitive, egocentric, and aggressive, just not in a criminal manner.He decided that he was a “pro-social psychopath”—an individual who lacks true empathy for others but keeps his or her behaviour within acceptable social norms—due to the loving and nurturing family he grew up in. He had to acknowledge that environment, and not just genes, played a significant role in the expression of genetic tendencies (Fallon 2013).

What can we learn from Fallon’s example from a sociological point of view? Firstly,  psychopathy and sociopathy are recognized as problematic forms of deviance because of prevalent social anxieties about serial killers as types of criminal who “live next door” or blend in. This is partly because we live in a type of society where we do not know our neighbours well and partly because we are concerned to discover their identifiable traits as these are otherwise concealed. Secondly, Fallon acknowledges that there is no purely biological or genetic explanation for psychopathy and sociopathy.

Many individuals with the biological and genetic markers of psychopathy are not dangers to society—key to pathological expressions of psychopathy are elements of an individual’s social environment and social upbringing (i.e., nurture). Finally, in Fallon’s own account, it is difficult to separate the discovery of the aberrant brain scan and the discovery and acknowledgement of his personal traits of psychopathy. Is it clear which came first? He only recognizes the psychopatholoy in himself after seeing the brain scan. This is the problem of what Ian Hacking (2006) calls the “looping effect” that affects the sociological study of deviance (see discussion below).  In summary, what Fallon’s example illustrates is the complexity of the study of social deviance.

7.1. Deviance and Control

What, exactly, is deviance? And what is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham Sumner, deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether folkways, mores, or codified law (1906).  Folkways are norms based on everyday cultural customs concerning practical matters like how to hold a fork, what type of clothes are appropriate for different situations, or how to greet someone politely. Mores are more serious moral injunctions or taboos that are broadly recognized in a society, like the incest taboo. Codified laws are norms that are specified in explicit codes and enforced by government bodies. A crime is therefore an act of deviance that breaks not only a norm, but a law. Deviance can be as minor as picking one’s nose in public or as major as committing murder.

John Hagen (1994) provides a typology to classify deviant acts in terms of their perceived harmfulness, the degree of consensus concerning the norms violated, and the severity of the response to them. The most serious acts of deviance are consensus crimes about which there is near-unanimous public agreement. Acts like murder and sexual assault are generally regarded as morally intolerable, injurious, and subject to harsh penalties. Conflict crimes are acts like prostitution or smoking marijuana, which may be illegal but about which there is considerable public disagreement concerning their seriousness. Social deviations are acts like abusing serving staff or behaviours arising from mental illness and addiction, which are not illegal in themselves but are widely regarded as serious or harmful. People agree that they call for institutional intervention. Finally there are social diversions like riding skateboards on sidewalks, overly tight leggings, or facial piercings that violate norms in a provocative way but are generally regarded as distasteful but harmless, or for some, cool.

The point is that the question, “What is deviant behaviour?” cannot be answered in a straightforward manner. This follows from two key insights of the  sociological approach to deviance (which distinguish it from moral and legalistic approaches). Firstly, deviance is defined by its social context. To understand why some acts are deviant and some are not, it is necessary to understand what the context is, what the existing rules are, and how these rules came to be established. If the rules change, what counts as deviant also changes. As rules and norms vary across cultures and time, it makes sense that notions of deviance also change.

Fifty years ago, public schools in Canada had strict dress codes that, among other stipulations, often banned women from wearing pants to class. Today, it is socially acceptable for women to wear pants, but less so for men to wear skirts. In a time of war, acts usually considered morally reprehensible, such as taking the life of another, may actually be rewarded. Much of the confusion and ambiguity regarding the use of violence in hockey has to do with the different sets of rules that apply inside and outside the arena. Acts that are acceptable and even encouraged on the ice would be punished with jail time if they occurred on the street.

Whether an act is deviant or not depends on society’s definition of that act. Acts are not deviant in themselves. The second sociological insight is that deviance is not an intrinsic (biological or psychological) attribute of individuals, nor of the acts themselves, but a product of  social processes . The norms themselves, or the social contexts that determine which acts are deviant or not, are continually defined and redefined through ongoing social processes—political, legal, cultural, etc. One way in which certain activities or people come to be understood and defined as deviant is through the intervention of moral entrepreneurs.

Becker (1963) defined moral entrepreneurs as individuals or groups who, in the service of their own interests, publicize and problematize “wrongdoing” and have the power to create and enforce rules to penalize wrongdoing. Judge Emily Murphy, commonly known today as one of the “Famous Five” feminist suffragists who fought to have women legally recognized as “persons” (and thereby qualified to hold a position in the Canadian Senate), was a moral entrepreneur instrumental in changing Canada’s drug laws. In 1922 she wrote The Black Candle , in which she demonized the use of marijuana:

[Marijuana] has the effect of driving the [user] completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be severely injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility…. They are dispossessed of their natural and normal will power, and their mentality is that of idiots. If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of its addict (Murphy 1922).

One of the tactics used by moral entrepreneurs is to create a moral panic about activities, like marijuana use, that they deem deviant. A moral panic occurs when media-fuelled public fear and overreaction lead authorities to label and repress deviants, which in turn creates a cycle in which more acts of deviance are discovered, more fear is generated, and more suppression enacted. The key insight is that individuals’ deviant status is ascribed to them through social processes. Individuals are not born deviant, but become deviant through their interaction with reference groups, institutions, and authorities.

Through social interaction, individuals are labelled deviant or come to recognize themselves as deviant. For example, in ancient Greece, homosexual relationships between older men and young acolytes were a normal component of the teacher-student relationship. Up until the 19th century, the question of  who slept with whom was a matter of indifference to the law or customs, except where it related to family alliances through marriage and the transfer of property through inheritance. However, in the 19th century sexuality became a matter of moral, legal, and psychological concern. The homosexual, or “sexual invert,” was defined by the emerging psychiatric and biological disciplines as a psychological deviant whose instincts were contrary to nature.

Homosexuality was defined as not simply a matter of sexual desire or the act of sex, but as a dangerous quality that defined the entire personality and moral being of an individual (Foucault 1980). From that point until the late 1960s, homosexuality was regarded as a deviant, closeted activity that, if exposed, could result in legal prosecution, moral condemnation, ostracism, violent assault, and loss of career. Since then, the gay rights movement and constitutional protections of civil liberties have reversed many of the attitudes and legal structures that led to the prosecution of gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. The point is that to whatever degree homosexuality has a natural  or inborn  biological  cause, its deviance is the outcome of a social process.

It is not simply a matter of the events that lead authorities to define an activity or category of persons deviant, but of the processes by which individuals come to recognize themselves as deviant. In the process of socialization, there is a “looping effect” (Hacking 2006).  Once a category of deviance has been established and applied to a person, that person begins to define himself or herself in terms of this category and behave accordingly. This influence makes it difficult to define criminals as kinds of person in terms of pre-existing, innate predispositions or individual psychopathologies. As we will see later in the chapter, it is a central tenet of symbolic interactionist labelling theory , that individuals become criminalized through contact with the criminal justice system (Becker 1963). When we add to this insight the sociological research into the social characteristics of those who have been arrested or processed by the criminal justice system —variables such as gender, age, race, and class— it is evident that social variables and power structures are key to understanding who chooses a criminal career path.

One of the principle outcomes of these two sociological insights is that a focus on the social construction of different social experiences and problems leads to alternative ways of understanding them and responding to them. In the study of crime and deviance, the sociologist often confronts a legacy of entrenched beliefs concerning either the innate biological disposition or the individual psychopathology of persons considered abnormal: the criminal personality, the sexual or gender “deviant,” the disabled or ill person, the addict, or the mentally unstable individual. However, as Ian Hacking observes, even when these beliefs about kinds of persons are products of objective scientific classification, the institutional context of science and expert knowledge is not independent of societal norms, beliefs, and practices (2006).

The process of classifying kinds of people is a social process that Hacking calls “making up people” and Howard Becker calls “labelling” (1963). Crime and deviance are social constructs that vary according to the definitions of crime, the forms and effectiveness of policing, the social characteristics of criminals, and the relations of power that structure society. Part of the problem of deviance is that the social process of labelling some kinds of persons or activities as abnormal or deviant limits the type of social responses available. The major issue is not that labels are arbitrary or that it is possible not to use labels at all, but that the choice of label has consequences. Who gets labelled by whom and the way social labels are applied have powerful social repercussions.

Making Connections: Careers in Sociology

Why i drive a hearse.

When Neil Young left Canada in 1966 to seek his fortune in California as a musician, he was driving his famous 1953 Pontiac hearse “Mort 2.” He and Bruce Palmer were driving the hearse in Hollywood when they happened to see Stephen Stills and Richie Furray driving the other way, a fortuitous encounter that led to the formation of the band Buffalo Springfield (McDonough 2002). Later Young wrote “Long May You Run” as an elegy to his first hearse “Mort,” which he performed at the closing ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Rock musicians are often noted for their eccentricities, but is driving a hearse deviant behaviour? When sociologist Todd Schoepflin ran into his childhood friend Bill who drove a hearse, he wondered what effect driving a hearse had on his friend and what effect it might have on others on the road. Would using such a vehicle for everyday errands be considered deviant by most people? Schoepflin interviewed Bill, curious first to know why he drove such an unconventional car. Bill had simply been on the lookout for a reliable winter car; on a tight budget, he searched used car ads and stumbled on one for the hearse. The car ran well and the price was right, so he bought it. Bill admitted that others’ reactions to the car had been mixed. His parents were appalled and he received odd stares from his coworkers. A mechanic once refused to work on it, stating that it was “a dead person machine.” On the whole, however, Bill received mostly positive reactions. Strangers gave him a thumbs-up on the highway and stopped him in parking lots to chat about his car. His girlfriend loved it, his friends wanted to take it tailgating, and people offered to buy it. Could it be that driving a hearse isn’t really so deviant after all? Schoepflin theorized that, although viewed as outside conventional norms, driving a hearse is such a mild form of deviance that it actually becomes a mark of distinction. Conformists find the choice of vehicle intriguing or appealing, while nonconformists see a fellow oddball to whom they can relate. As one of Bill’s friends remarked, “Every guy wants to own a unique car like this and you can certainly pull it off.” Such anecdotes remind us that although deviance is often viewed as a violation of norms, it’s not always viewed in a negative light (Schoepflin 2011).

Social Control

When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can receive a speeding ticket. A student who texts in class gets a warning from a professor. An adult belching loudly is avoided. All societies practise social control , the regulation and enforcement of norms. Social control can be defined broadly as an organized action intended to change people’s behaviour (Innes 2003). The underlying goal of social control is to maintain social order , an arrangement of practices and behaviours on which society’s members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee handbook and social control as the incentives and disincentives used to encourage or oblige employees to follow those rules. When a worker violates a workplace guideline, the manager steps in to enforce the rules. One means of enforcing rules are through sanctions . Sanctions can be positive as well as negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms. A promotion at work is a positive sanction for working hard. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being arrested is a punishment for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social control.

Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. Although shoplifting, a form of social deviance, may be illegal, there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch one’s nose. That doesn’t mean picking your nose in public won’t be punished; instead, you will encounter informal sanctions . Informal sanctions emerge in face-to-face social interactions. For example, wearing flip-flops to an opera or swearing loudly in church may draw disapproving looks or even verbal reprimands, whereas behaviour that is seen as positive—such as helping an old man carry grocery bags across the street—may receive positive informal reactions, such as a smile or pat on the back.

Formal sanctions , on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm violations. If a student plagiarizes the work of others or cheats on an exam, for example, he or she might be expelled. Someone who speaks inappropriately to the boss could be fired. Someone who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. On the positive side, a soldier who saves a life may receive an official commendation, or a CEO might receive a bonus for increasing the profits of his or her corporation. Not all forms of social control are adequately understood through the use of sanctions, however. Black (1976) identifies four key styles of social control, each of which defines deviance and the appropriate response to it in a different manner. Penal social control functions by prohibiting certain social behaviours and responding to violations with punishment. Compensatory social control obliges an offender to pay a victim to compensate for a harm committed. Therapeutic social control involves the use of therapy to return individuals to a normal state. Conciliatory social control aims to reconcile the parties of a dispute and mutually restore harmony to a social relationship that has been damaged. While penal and compensatory social controls emphasize the use of sanctions, therapeutic and conciliatory social controls emphasize processes of restoration and healing.

Social Control as Government and Discipline

Michel Foucault notes that from a period of early modernity onward, European society became increasingly concerned with social control as a practice of government (Foucault 2007). In this sense of the term, government does not simply refer to the activities of the state, but to all the practices by which individuals or organizations seek to govern the behaviour of others or themselves. Government refers to the strategies by which one seeks to direct or guide the conduct of another or others. In the 15th and 16th centuries, numerous treatises were written on how to govern and educate children, how to govern the poor and beggars, how to govern a family or an estate, how to govern an army or a city, how to govern a state and run an economy, and how to govern one’s own conscience and conduct. These treatises described the burgeoning arts of government, which defined the different ways in which the conduct of individuals or groups might be directed. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532), which offers advice to the prince on how best to conduct his relationship with his subjects, is the most famous of these treatises.

The common theme in the various arts of governing proposed in early modernity was the extension of Christian monastic practices involving the detailed and continuous government and salvation of souls. The principles of monastic government were applied to a variety of non-monastic areas. People needed to be governed in all aspects of their lives. It was not, however, until the 19th century and the invention of modern institutions like the prison, the public school, the modern army, the asylum, the hospital, and the factory, that the means for extending government and social control widely through the population were developed.

Foucault (1979) describes these modern forms of government as disciplinary social control  because they each rely on the detailed continuous training, control, and observation of individuals to improve their capabilities: to transform criminals into law abiding citizens, children into educated and productive adults, recruits into disciplined soldiers, patients into healthy people, etc. Foucault argues that the ideal of discipline as a means of social control is to render individuals docile. That does not mean that they become passive or sheep-like, but that disciplinary training simultaneously increases their abilities, skills, and usefulness while making them more compliant and manipulable.

The chief components of disciplinary social control in modern institutions like the prison and the school are surveillance, normalization, and examination (Foucault 1979). Surveillance refers to the various means used to make the lives and activities of individuals visible to authorities. In 1791, Jeremy Bentham published his book on the ideal prison, the panopticon or “seeing machine.” Prisoners’ cells would be arranged in a circle around a central observation tower where they could be both separated from each other and continually exposed to the view of prison guards. In this way, Bentham proposed, social control could become automatic because prisoners would be induced to monitor their own behaviour.

Similarly, in a school classroom, students sit in rows of desks immediately visible to the teacher at the front of the room. In a store, shoppers can be observed through one-way glass or video monitors. Contemporary surveillance expands the capacity for observation using video or electronic forms of surveillance to render the activities of a population visible. London, England, holds the dubious honour of being the most surveilled city in the world. The city’s “ring of steel” is a security cordon in which over half a million surveillance cameras are used to monitor and record traffic moving in and out of the city centre.

The practice of normalization refers to the way in which norms, such as the level of math ability expected from a grade 2 student, are first established and then used to assess, differentiate, and rank individuals according to their abilities (an A student, B student, C student, etc.). Individuals’ progress in developing their abilities, whether in math skills, good prison behaviour, health outcomes, or other areas, is established through constant comparisons with others and with natural and observable norms. Minor sanctions are used to continuously modify behaviour that does not comply with correct conduct: rewards are applied for good behaviour and penalties for bad.

Periodic examinations through the use of tests in schools, medical examinations in hospitals, inspections in prisons, year-end reviews in the workplace, etc. bring together surveillance and normalization in a way that enables each individual and each individual’s abilities to be assessed, documented, and known by authorities. On the basis of examinations, individuals can be subjected to different disciplinary procedures more suited to them. Gifted children might receive an enriched educational program, whereas poorer students might receive remedial lessons.

Foucault describes disciplinary social control as a key mechanism in creating a normalizing society . The establishment of norms and the development of disciplinary procedures to correct deviance from norms become increasingly central to the organization and operation of institutions from the 19th century onward. To the degree that “natural” or sociological norms are used to govern our lives more than laws and legal mechanisms, society can be said to be controlled through normalization and disciplinary procedures. Whereas the use of formal laws, courts , and the police come into play only when laws are broken, disciplinary techniques enable the continuous and ongoing social control of an expanding range of activities in our lives through surveillance, normalization, and examination. While we may never encounter the police for breaking a law, if we work, go to school, or end up in hospital, we are routinely subject to disciplinary control through most of the day.

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance

Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories attempting to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

Functionalism

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Social disorganization theory, strain theory, and cultural deviance theory represent three functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.

Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance

Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, when black students across the United States participated in “sit-ins” during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society (1893). Seeing a student given a detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that playing hooky isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get a detention.

Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control. In a certain way, this is the opposite of Durkheim’s thesis. Rather than deviance being a force that reinforces moral and social solidarity, it is the absence of moral and social solidarity that provides the conditions for social deviance to emerge.

Early Chicago School sociologists used an ecological model to map the zones in Chicago where high levels of social problem were concentrated. During this period, Chicago was experiencing a long period of economic growth, urban expansion, and foreign immigration. They were particularly interested in the zones of transition between established working class neighbourhoods and the manufacturing district. The city’s poorest residents tended to live in these transitional zones, where there was a mixture of races, immigrant ethnic groups, and non-English languages, and a high rate of influx as people moved in and out. They proposed that these zones were particularly prone to social disorder because the residents had not yet assimilated to the American way of life. When they did assimilate they moved out, making it difficult for a stable social ecology to become established there.

Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A person is not born a criminal, but becomes one over time, often based on factors in his or her social environment. This theme was taken up by Travis Hirschi’s  control theory  (1969). According to Hirschi, social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds. Many people would be willing to break laws or act in deviant ways to reap the rewards of pleasure, excitement, and profit, etc. if they had the opportunity. Those who do have the opportunity are those who are only weakly controlled by social restrictions. Similar to Durkheim’s theory of anomie, deviance is seen to result where feelings of disconnection from society predominate. Individuals who believe they are a part of society are less likely to commit crimes against it. Hirschi (1969) identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society:

•   Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic partners.
• Commitment refers to the investments we make in conforming to conventional behaviour. A well-respected local businesswoman who volunteers at her synagogue and is a member of the neighbourhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a woman who does not have a career or ties to the community. There is a cost/benefit calculation in the decision to commit a crime in which the costs of being caught are much higher for some than others.
• Similarly, levels of involvement , or participation in socially legitimate activities, lessen a person’s likelihood of deviance. Children who are members of Little League baseball teams have fewer family crises.
• The final bond, belief , is an agreement on common values in society. If a person views social values as beliefs, he or she will conform to them. An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park because a clean environment is a social value to that person.

An individual who grows up in a poor neighbourhood with high rates of drug use, violence, teenage delinquency, and deprived parenting is more likely to become a criminal than an individual from a wealthy neighbourhood with a good school system and families who are involved positively in the community. The mutual dependencies and complex relationships that form the basis of a healthy “ecosystem” or social control do not get established. Research into social disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs that teach basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity. In the same way, the Chicago School sociologists focused their efforts on community programs designed to help assimilate new immigrants into North American culture. However, in proposing that social disorganization is essentially a moral problem—that it is shared moral values that hold communities together and prevent crime and social disorder—questions about economic inequality, racism, and power dynamics do not get asked.

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is, in a sense, a normal behaviour in a functioning society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory , which notes that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. From birth, we are encouraged to achieve the goal of financial success. A woman who attends business school, receives her MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. A person may have the socially acceptable goal of financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to Merton’s theory, an entrepreneur who can not afford to launch his own company may be tempted to embezzle from his employer for start-up funds. The discrepancy between the reality of structural inequality and the high cultural value of economic success creates a strain that has to be resolved by some means. Merton defined five ways that people adapt to this gap between having a socially accepted goal but no socially accepted way to pursue it.

• Conformity : The majority of people in society choose to conform and not to deviate. They pursue their society’s valued goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
• Innovation : Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
• Ritualism : People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These “social ritualists”  focus on conformity to the accepted means of goal attainment while abandoning the distant, unobtainable dream of success.
• Retreatism : Others retreat from the role strain and reject both society’s goals and accepted means. Some beggars and street people have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success. They drop out.
• Rebellion : A handful of people rebel, replacing a society’s goals and means with their own. Rebels seek to create a greatly modified social structure in which provision would be made for closer correspondence between merit, effort, and reward.

As many youth from poor backgrounds are exposed to the high value placed on material success in capitalist society but face insurmountable odds to achieving it, turning to illegal means to achieve success is a rational, if deviant, solution.

Critical Sociology

Critical sociology looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as necessary functions of society, but as evidence of inequality in the system. As a result of inequality, many crimes can be understood as crimes of accommodation , or ways in which individuals cope with conditions of oppression (Quinney 1977). Predatory crimes like break and enters, robbery, and drug dealing are often simply economic survival strategies. Personal crimes like murder, assault, and sexual assault are products of the stresses and strains of living under stressful conditions of scarcity and deprivation. Defensive crimes like economic sabotage, illegal strikes, civil disobedience, and eco-terrorism are direct challenges to social injustice. The analysis of critical sociologists is not meant to excuse or rationalize crime, but to locate its underlying sources at the appropriate level so that they can be addressed effectively.

Critical sociologists do not see the normative order and the criminal justice system as simply neutral or “functional” with regard to the collective interests of society. Institutions of normalization and the criminal justice system have to be seen in context as mechanisms that actively maintain the power structure of the political-economic order. The rich, the powerful, and the privileged have unequal influence on who and what gets labelled deviant or criminal, particularly in instances when their privilege is being challenged. As capitalist society is based on the institution of private property, for example, it is not surprising that theft is a major category of crime. By the same token, when street people, addicts, or hippies drop out of society, they are labelled deviant and are subject to police harassment because they have refused to participate in productive labour.

On the other hand, the ruthless and sometimes sociopathic behaviour of many business people and politicians, otherwise regarded as deviant according to the normative codes of society, is often rewarded or regarded with respect. In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite , a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favour of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. Mills’s theories explain why celebrities such as Chris Brown and Paris Hilton, or once-powerful politicians such as Eliot Spitzer and Tom DeLay, can commit crimes with little or no legal retribution.

Crime and Social Class

While functionalist theories often emphasize crime and deviance associated with the underprivileged, there is in fact no clear evidence that crimes are committed disproportionately by the poor or lower classes. There is an established association between the underprivileged and serious street crimes like armed robbery and assault, but these do not constitute the majority of crimes in society, nor the most serious crimes in terms of their overall social, personal, and environmental effects. On the other hand, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an underpunished and costly problem within society. White-collar or corporate crime refers to crimes committed by corporate employees or owners in the pursuit of profit or other organization goals. They are more difficult to detect because the transactions take place in private and are more difficult to prosecute because the criminals can secure expert legal advice on how to bend the rules.

In the United States it has been estimated that the yearly value of all street crime is roughly 5 percent of the value of corporate crime or “suite crime” (Snider 1994). Comparable data is not compiled in Canada; however, the Canadian Department of Justice reported that the total value of property stolen or damaged due to property crime in 2008 was an estimated $5.8 billion (Zhang 2008), which would put the cost of corporate crime at $116 billion (if the ratio holds in Canada). For example, Canadians for Tax Fairness estimates that wealthy Canadians have a combined total of $170 billion concealed in untaxed offshore tax havens (Tencer 2013). “Tax haven use has robbed at least $7.8 billion in tax revenues from Canada” (Howlett 2013).

PricewaterhouseCoopers reports that 36 percent of Canadian companies were subject to white-collar crime in 2013 (theft, fraud, embezzlement, cybercrime). One in ten lost $5 million or more (McKenna 2014). Recent high-profile Ponzi scheme and investment frauds run into tens of millions of dollars each, destroying investors retirement savings. Vincent Lacroix was sentenced to 13 years in prison in 2009 for defrauding investors of $115 million; Earl Jones was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2010 for defrauding investors of $50 million; Weizhen Tang was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2013 for defrauding investors of $52 million. These were highly publicized cases in which jail time was demanded by the public (although as nonviolent offenders the perpetrators are eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence). However, in 2011–2012 prison sentences were nearly twice as likely for the typically lower-class perpetrators of break and enters (59 percent) as they were for typically middle- and upper-class perpetrators of fraud (35 percent) (Boyce 2013).

This imbalance based on class power can also be put into perspective with respect to homicide rates (Samuelson 2000). In 2005, there were 658 homicides in Canada recorded by police, an average of 1.8 a day. This is an extremely serious crime, which merits the attention given to it by the criminal justice system. However, in 2005 there were also 1,097 workplace deaths that were, in principle, preventable. Canadians work on average 230 days a year, meaning that there were on average five workplace deaths a day for every working day in 2005 (Sharpe and Hardt 2006). Estimates from the United States suggest that only one-third of on-the-job deaths and injuries can be attributed to worker carelessness (Samuelson 2000).

In 2005, 51 percent of the workplace deaths in Canada were due to occupational diseases like cancers from exposure to asbestos (Sharpe and Hardt 2006). The Ocean Ranger oil-rig collapse that killed 84 workers off Newfoundland in 1982 and the Westray mine explosion that killed 26 workers in Nova Scotia in 1992 were due to design flaws and unsafe working conditions that were known to the owners. However, whereas corporations are prosecuted for regulatory violations governing health and safety, it is rare for corporations or corporate officials to be prosecuted for the consequences of those violations. “For example, a company would be fined for not installing safety bolts in a construction crane, but not prosecuted for the death of several workers who were below the crane when it collapsed (as in a recent case in Western Canada)” (Samuelson 2000).

Corporate crime is arguably a more serious type of crime than street crime, and yet white-collar criminals are treated relatively leniently. Fines, when they are imposed, are typically absorbed as a cost of doing business and passed on to consumers, and many crimes, from investment fraud to insider trading and price fixing, are simply not prosecuted. From a critical sociology point of view, this is because white-collar crime is committed by elites who are able to use their power and financial resources to evade punishment. Here are some examples:

• In the United States, not a single criminal charge was filed against a corporate executive after the financial mismanagement of the 2008 financial crisis. The American Security and Exchange Commission levied a total of $2.73 billion in fines and out-of-court settlements, but the total cost of the financial crisis was estimated to be between $6 and $14 trillion (Pyke 2013).
• In Canada, three Nortel executives were charged by the RCMP’s Integrated Market Enforcement Team (IMET) with fraudulently altering accounting procedures in 2002–2003 to make it appear that Nortel was running a profit (thereby triggering salary bonuses for themselves totalling $12 million), but were acquitted in 2013. The accounting procedures were found to inflate the value of the company, but the intent to defraud could not be proven. The RCMP’s IMET, implemented in 2003 to fight white-collar crime, managed only 11 convictions over the first nine years of its existence (McFarland and Blackwell 2013).
• Enbridge’s 20,000 barrel spill of bitumen (tar sands) oil into the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, in 2010 was allowed to continue for 17 hours and involved twice re-pumping bitumen into the pipeline. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report noted that the spill was the result of  “pervasive organizational failures,” and documents revealed that the pipeline operators were more concerned about getting home for the weekend than solving the problem (Rusnell 2012). No criminal charges were laid.

Feminist Contributions

Women who are regarded as criminally deviant are often seen as being  doubly deviant . They have broken the laws but they have also broken gender norms about appropriate female behaviour, whereas men’s criminal behaviour is seen as consistent with their aggressive, self-assertive character. This double standard also explains the tendency to medicalize women’s deviance, to see it as the product of physiological or psychiatric pathology. For example, in the late 19th century, kleptomania was a diagnosis used in legal defences that linked an extreme desire for department store commodities with various forms of female physiological or psychiatric illness. The fact that “good” middle- and upper-class women, who were at that time coincidentally beginning to experience the benefits of independence from men, would turn to stealing in department stores to obtain the new feminine consumer items on display there, could not be explained without resorting to diagnosing the activity as an illness of the “weaker” sex (Kramar 2011).

Feminist analysis focuses on the way gender inequality influences the opportunities to commit crime and the definition, detection, and prosecution of crime. In part the gender difference revolves around patriarchal attitudes toward women and the disregard for matters considered to be of a private or domestic nature. For example, until 1969, abortion was illegal in Canada, meaning that hundreds of women died or were injured each year when they received illegal abortions (McLaren and McLaren 1997). It was not until the Supreme Court ruling in 1988 that struck down the law that it was acknowledged that women are capable of making their own choice, in consultation with a doctor, about the procedure. Similarly, until the 1970s, two major types of criminal deviance were largely ignored or were difficult to prosecute as crimes: sexual assault and spousal assault.

Through the 1970s, women worked to change the criminal justice system and establish rape crisis centres and battered women’s shelters, bringing attention to domestic violence. In 1983 the Criminal Code was amended to replace the crimes of rape and indecent assault with a three-tier structure of sexual assault (ranging from unwanted sexual touching that violates the integrity of the victim to sexual assault with a weapon or threats or causing bodily harm to aggravated sexual assault that results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim) (Kong et al. 2003). Johnson (1996) reported that in the mid-1990s, when violence against women began to be surveyed systematically in Canada, 51 percent of Canadian women had been the subject to at least one sexual or physical assault since the age of 16.

The goal of the amendments was to emphasize that sexual assault is an act of violence, not a sexual act. Previously, rape had been defined as an act that involved penetration and was perpetrated against a woman who was not the wife of the accused. This had excluded spousal sexual assault as a crime and had also exposed women to secondary victimization by the criminal justice system when they tried to bring charges. Secondary victimization occurs when the women’s own sexual history and her willingness to consent are questioned in the process of laying charges and reaching a conviction, which as feminists pointed out, increased victims’ reluctance to lay charges.

In particular feminists challenged the twin myths of rape that were often the subtext of criminal justice proceedings presided over largely by men (Kramar 2011). The first myth is that women are untrustworthy and tend to lie about assault out of malice toward men, as a way of getting back at them for personal grievances. The second myth, is that women will say “no” to sexual relations when they really mean “yes.” Typical of these types of issues was the judge’s comment in a Manitoba Court of Appeal case in which a man plead guilty to sexually assaulting his twelve- or thirteen-year-old babysitter:

The girl, of course, could not consent in the legal sense, but nonetheless was a willing participant. She was apparently more sophisticated than many her age and was performing many household tasks including babysitting the accused’s children. The accused and his wife were somewhat estranged (cited in Kramar 2011).

Because the girl was willing to perform household chores in place of the man’s estranged wife, the judge assumed she was also willing to engage in sexual relations. In order to address these types of issue, feminists successfully pressed the Supreme Court to deliver rulings that restricted a defence attorney’s access to a victim’s medical and counselling records and rules of evidence were changed to prevent a woman’s past sexual history being used against her. Consent to sexual discourse was redefined as what a woman actually says or does, not what the man believes to be consent. Feminists also argued that spousal assault was a key component of patriarchal power. Typically it was hidden in the household and largely regarded as a private, domestic matter in which police were reluctant to get involved.

Interestingly women and men report similar rates of spousal violence—in 2009, 6 percent had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years—but women are more likely to experience more severe forms of violence including multiple victimizations and violence leading to physical injury (Sinha 2013). In order to empower women, feminists pressed lawmakers to develop zero-tolerance policies that would support aggressive policing and prosecution of offenders. These policies oblige police to lay charges in cases of domestic violence when a complaint is made, whether or not the victim wished to proceed with charges (Kramar 2011).

In 2009, 84 percent of violent spousal incidents reported by women to police resulted in charges being laid. However, according to victimization surveys only 30 percent of actual incidents were reported to police. The majority of women who did not report incidents to the police stated that they dealt with them in another way, felt they were a private matter, or did not think the incidents were important enough to report. A significant proportion, however, did not want anyone to find out (44 percent), did not want their spouse to be arrested (40 percent), or were too afraid of their spouse (19 percent) (Sinha 2013).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how societies and/or social groups come to view behaviours as deviant or conventional. The key component of this approach is to emphasize the social processes through which deviant activities and identities are socially defined and then “lived” as deviant. Social groups and authorities create deviance by first making the rules and then applying them to people who are thereby labelled as outsiders (Becker 1963). Deviance is not an intrinsic quality of individuals but is created through the social interactions of individuals and various authorities. Deviance is something that, in essence, is learned.

Deviance as Learned Behaviour

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant behaviour developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub 2006). His conclusions established differential association theory , stating that individuals learn deviant behaviour from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. A tween whose friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable.

A classic study of differential association is Howard Becker’s study of marijuana users in the jazz club scene of Chicago in the 1950s (Becker 1953). Becker paid his way through graduate studies by performing as a jazz pianist and took the opportunity to study his fellow musicians. He conducted 50 interviews and noted that becoming a marijuana user involved a social process of initiation into a deviant role that could not be accounted for by either the physiological properties of marijuana or the psychological needs (for escape, fantasy, etc.) of the individual. Rather the “career” of the marijuana user involved a sequence of changes in attitude and experience learned through social interactions with experienced users before marijuana could be regularly smoked for pleasure.

Regular marijuana use was a social achievement that required the individual to pass through three distinct stages. Failure to do so meant that the individual would not assume the deviant role as a regular user of marijuana. Firstly, individuals had to learn to smoke marijuana in a way that would produce real effects. Many first-time users do not feel the effects. If they are not shown how to inhale the smoke or how much to smoke, they might not feel the drug had any effect on them. Their “career” might end there if they are not encouraged by others to persist. Secondly, they had to learn to recognize the effects of “being high” and connect them with drug use.

Although people might display different symptoms of intoxication—feeling hungry, elated, rubbery, etc.—they might not recognize them as qualities associated with the marijuana or even recognize them as different at all. Through listening to experienced users talk about their experiences, novices are able to locate the same type of sensations in their own experience and notice something qualitatively different going on. Thirdly, they had to learn how to enjoy the sensations: they had to learn how to define the situation of getting high as pleasurable. Smoking marijuana is not necessarily pleasurable and often involves uncomfortable experiences like loss of control, impaired judgment, distorted perception, and paranoia. Unless the experiences can be redefined as pleasurable the individual will not become a regular user. Often experienced users are able to coach novices through difficulties and encourage them by telling them they will learn to like it. It is through differential association with a specific set of individuals that a person learns and assumes a deviant role. The role needs to be learned and its value recognized before it can become routine or normal for the individual.

Labelling Theory

Although all of us violate norms from time to time, few people would consider themselves deviant. Often, those who do, however, have gradually come to believe they are deviant because they been labelled “deviant” by society. Labelling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behaviour to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviours themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviours. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures. As Becker put it, “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the offender. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour people so label” (1963).

It is important to note that labelling theory does not address the initial motives or reasons for the rule-breaking behaviour, which might be unknowable, but the importance of its social consequences. It does not attempt to answer the question why people break the rules or why they are deviant so much as why particular acts or particular individuals are labelled deviant while others are not. How do certain acts get labelled deviant and what are the consequences?

Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labelling theory, identifying two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behaviour begin to change after his or her actions are labelled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labelled that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff, and soon enough, develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out even more and breaking more rules, adopting the “troublemaker” label and embracing this deviant identity.

Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or grandfathers. Others see themselves as beggars, convicts, or addicts. The criminal justice system is ironically one of the primary agencies of socialization into the criminal “career path.” The labels “juvenile delinquent” or “criminal” are not automatically applied to individuals who break the law. A teenager who is picked up by the police for a minor misdemeanour might be labelled as a “good kid” who made a mistake and then released after a stern talking to, or he or she might be labelled a juvenile delinquent and processed as a young offender. In the first case, the incident may not make any impression on the teenager’s personality or on the way others react to him or her. In the second case, being labelled a juvenile delinquent sets up a set of responses to the teenager by police and authorities that lead to criminal charges, more severe penalties, and a process of socialization into the criminal identity.

In detention in particular, individuals learn how to assume the identity of serious offenders as they interact with hardened, long-term inmates within the prison culture (Wheeler 1961). The act of imprisonment itself modifies behaviour, to make individuals more criminal. Aaron Cicourel’s research in the 1960s showed how police used their discretionary powers to label rule-breaking teenagers who came from homes where the parents were divorced as juvenile delinquents and to arrest them more frequently than teenagers from intact homes (Cicourel 1968). Judges were also found to be more likely to impose harsher penalties on teenagers from divorced families.

Unsurprisingly, Cicourel noted that subsequent research conducted on the social characteristics of teenagers who were charged and processed as juvenile delinquents found that children from divorced families were more likely to be charged and processed. Divorced families were seen as a cause of youth crime. This set up a vicious circle in which the research confirmed the prejudices of police and judges who continued to label, arrest, and convict the children of divorced families disproportionately. The labelling process acted as a self-fulfilling prophecy in which police found what they expected to see.

7.3. Crime and the Law

The sociological study of crime, deviance, and social control is especially important with respect to public policy debates. In 2012 the Conservative government passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, a controversial piece of legislation because it introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and sex-related offences, restricted the use of conditional sentencing (i.e., non-prison punishments), imposed harsher sentences on certain categories of young offender, reduced the ability for Canadians with a criminal record to receive a pardon, and made it more difficult for Canadians imprisoned abroad to transfer back to a Canadian prison to be near family and support networks. The legislation imposes a mandatory six-month sentence for cultivating six marijuana plants, for example. This followed the Tackling Violent Crime Act passed in 2008, which among other provisions, imposed a mandatory three-year sentence for first-time gun-related offences.

This government policy represents a shift toward a punitive approach to crime control and away from preventive strategies such as drug rehabilitation, prison diversion, and social reintegration programs. Despite the evidence that rates of serious and violent crime have been falling in Canada, and while even some of the most conservative politicians in the United States have begun to reject the punitive approach as an expensive failure, the government pushed the legislation through Parliament. In response to evidence that puts into question the need for more punitive measures of crime control, the Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, “Unlike the Opposition, we do not use statistics as an excuse not to get tough on criminals. As far as our Government is concerned, one victim of crime is still one too many” (Galloway 2011). What accounts for the appeal of “get tough on criminals” policies at a time when rates of crime, and violent crime in particular, are falling and are currently at their lowest level since 1972 (Perreault 2013)? One reason is that violent crime is a form of deviance that lends itself to spectacular media coverage that distorts its actual threat to the public.

Television news broadcasts frequently begin with “chaos news”—crime, accidents, natural disasters—that present an image of society as a dangerous and unpredictable place. However, the image of crime presented in the headlines does not accurately represent the types of crime that actually occur. Whereas the news typically reports on the worst sorts of violent crime, violent crime made up only 21 percent of all police-reported crime in 2012 (down 17 percent from 2002), and homicides made up only one-tenth of 1 percent of all violent crimes in 2012 (down 16 percent from 2002). In 2012, the homicide rate fell to its lowest level since 1966 (Perreault 2013). Moreover, an analysis of television news reporting on murders in 2000 showed that while 44 percent of CBC news coverage and 48 percent of CTV news coverage focused on murders committed by strangers, only 12 percent of murders in Canada are committed by strangers. Similarly, while 24 percent of the CBC reports and 22 percent of the CTV reports referred to murders in which a gun had been used, only 3.3 percent of all violent crime involved the use of a gun in 1999.In 1999, 71 percent of violent crimes in Canada did not involve any weapon (Miljan 2001).

This distortion creates the conditions for moral panics around crime. As we noted earlier, a moral panic occurs when a relatively minor or atypical situation of deviance arises that is amplified and distorted by the media, police, or members of the public. It thereby comes to be defined as a general threat to the civility or moral fibre of society (Cohen 1972). As public attention is brought to the situation, more instances are discovered, the deviants are rebranded as “folk devils,” and authorities react by taking social control measures disproportionate to the original acts of deviance that began the cycle. For example, the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for the cultivation of marijuana is framed in the Safe Streets and Communities legislation as a response to the infiltration of organized crime into Canada. For years newspapers have uncritically published police messaging on grow-ops and the marijuana trade that characterizes the activities as widespread, gang-related, and linked to the cross-border trade in guns and more serious drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Television news coverage often shows police in white, disposable hazardous-waste outfits removing marijuana plants from suburban houses, and presenting exaggerated estimates of the street value of the drugs. However a Justice Department study in 2011 revealed that out of a random sample of 500 grow-ops, only 5 percent had connections to organized crime. Moreover, an RCMP-funded study from 2005 noted that “firearms or other hazards” were found in only 6 percent of grow-op cases examined (Boyd and Carter 2014). While 76 percent of Canadians believe that marijuana should be legally available (Stockwell et al. 2006), and several jurisdictions (Washington State, Colorado, and Uruguay) have legalized marijuana, the Safe Streets and Communities Act appears to be an attempt to reinvigorate the punitive messaging of the “war on drugs” based on disinformation and moral panic around marijuana use and cultivation.

The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to crime are difficult to resolve at the level of political rhetoric. Often, in the news and public discourse, the issue is framed in moral terms and therefore, for example, the policy alternatives get narrowed to the option of either being “tough” on crime or “soft” on crime. “Tough” and “soft” are moral categories that reflect a moral characterization of the issue. A question framed by these types of moral categories cannot be resolved by using evidence-based procedures. Posing the debate in these moral terms narrows the range of options available and undermines the ability to raise questions about what responses to crime actually work.

What Is Crime?

Although deviance is a violation of social norms, it is not always punishable, and it is not necessarily bad.  Crime , on the other hand, is a behaviour that violates official law and is punishable through formal sanctions. Walking to class backwards is a deviant behaviour. Driving with a blood alcohol percentage over the province’s limit is a crime. Like other forms of deviance, however, ambiguity exists concerning what constitutes a crime and whether all crimes are, in fact, “bad” and deserve punishment. For example, in 1946 Viola Desmond refused to sit in the balcony designated for blacks at a cinema in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where she was unable to see the screen. She was dragged from the cinema by two men who injured her knee, and she was then arrested, obliged to stay overnight in the male cell block, tried without counsel, and fined.

The courts ignored the issue of racial segregation in Canada. Instead her crime was determined to be tax evasion because she had not paid the 1 cent difference in tax between a balcony ticket and a main floor ticket. She took her case to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia where she lost. In hindsight, and long after her death, she was posthumously pardoned, because the application of the law was clearly in violation of norms of social equality. As you learned previously, all societies have informal and formal ways of maintaining social control. Within these systems of norms, societies have legal codes that maintain formal social control through laws, which are rules adopted and enforced by a political authority. Those who violate these rules incur negative formal sanctions. Normally, punishments are relative to the degree of the crime and the importance to society of the value underlying the law. As we will see, however, there are other factors that influence criminal sentencing.

Types of Crimes

Not all crimes are given equal weight. Society generally socializes its members to view certain crimes as more severe than others. For example, most people would consider murdering someone to be far worse than stealing a wallet and would expect a murderer to be punished more severely than a thief. In modern North American society, crimes are classified as one of two types based on their severity. Violent crimes (also known as “crimes against a person”) are based on the use of force or the threat of force. Rape, murder, and armed robbery fall under this category. Nonviolent crimes involve the destruction or theft of property, but do not use force or the threat of force. Because of this, they are also sometimes called “property crimes.” Larceny, car theft, and vandalism are all types of nonviolent crimes. If you use a crowbar to break into a car, you are committing a nonviolent crime; if you mug someone with the crowbar, you are committing a violent crime.

As we noted earlier in the section on critical sociological approaches, when we think of crime, we often picture street crime , or offences committed by ordinary people against other people or organizations, usually in public spaces. An often overlooked category is corporate crime (“suite crime”), or crime committed by white-collar workers in a business environment. Embezzlement, insider trading, and identity theft are all types of corporate crime. Although these types of offences rarely receive the same amount of media coverage as street crimes, they can be far more damaging. The current economic recession in the United States is the ultimate result of a financial collapse triggered by corporate crime. An often-debated third type of crime is victimless crime . These are called victimless because the perpetrator is not explicitly harming another person. As opposed to battery or theft, which clearly has a victim, a crime like drinking a beer at age 17 or selling a sexual act do not result in injury to anyone other than the individual who engages in them, although they are illegal. While some claim acts like these are victimless, others argue that they actually do harm society. Prostitution may foster abuse toward women by clients or pimps. Drug use may increase the likelihood of employee absences. Such debates highlight how the deviant and criminal nature of actions develops through ongoing public discussion.

Making Connections: the Big Pictures

Hate crimes.

In the early morning of January 4, 1998, a 65-year-old Sikh caretaker in Surrey, B.C., was beaten to death in the parking lot of the Guru Nanak Sikh temple by five white-supremacist skinheads, aged 17 to 25, as he was about to open the temple for early morning worship. The skinheads were part of a group that called itself White Power. They had been to an all-night drinking party when they decided they were going to vandalize some cars in the temple parking lot. They encountered the caretaker Nirmal Singh Gill and took turns attacking him. In trial it came out that the eldest of the skinheads had recently been released from the military because of his racist beliefs. Another had a large Nazi flag pinned to the wall of his apartment. In an intercepted telephone call from the investigation leading to the skinheads’ arrest, one was recorded as saying, “Can’t go wrong with a Hindu death cause it always sends a f’n message” ( R. v. Miloszewski  1999). Attacks motivated by hate based on a person’s race, religion, or other characteristics are known as hate crimes . The category of hate crimes grew out of the provisions in the Criminal Code that prohibit hate propaganda (sections 318 and 319) including advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, or the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.

In 1996, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code was amended to introduce hate motivation as an aggravating factor in crime that needed to be considered in sentencing (Silver et al. 2004). In 2009 Statistics Canada’s  General Social Survey on Victimization reported that 5 percent of the offences experienced by victims of crime in Canada were believed by the victims to be motivated by hate (approximately 399,000 incidents in total) (Perreault and  Brennan, 2010). However, police reported hate crimes totalled only 1,473 incidents in 2009. About one-third of the General Social Survey respondents said they reported the hate-motivated incidents to the police. In 2011 police-reported hate crimes had dropped to 1,322 incidents. The majority of these were racially or ethnically motivated, but many were based on religious (especially anti-Semitic) prejudice or sexual orientation. A significant portion of the hate-motivated crimes (50 percent) involved mischief (vandalism, graffiti, and other destruction of property). This figure increased to 75 percent for religious-motivated hate crimes. Violent hate crimes constituted 39 percent of all hate crimes (22 percent accounted for by violent assault specifically). Sexual-orientation-motivated hate crimes were the most likely to be violent (65 percent) (Allen and Boyce 2013).

Crime Statistics

What crimes are people in Canada most likely to commit, and who is most likely to commit them? To understand criminal statistics, you must first understand how these statistics are collected. Since 1962, Statistics Canada has been collecting and publishing an archive of crime statistics known as the Uniform Crime Reports Survey  (UCR). These annual publications contain data from all the police agencies in Canada. Although the UCR contains comprehensive data on police reports, it fails to take into account the fact that many crimes go unreported due to the victims’ unwillingness to report them, largely based on fear, shame, or distrust of the police. The accuracy of the data collected by the UCR also varies greatly. Because police and other authorities decide which criminal acts they are going to focus on, the data reflects the priorities of the police rather than actual levels of crime per se.  For example, if police decide to focus on gun-related crimes chances are that more gun-related crimes will be discovered and counted.

Similarly, changes in legislation that introduce new crimes or change the categories under which crimes are recorded will also alter the statistics. To address some of these problems, in 1985, Statistics Canada began to publish a separate report known as the General Social Survey on Victimization (GSS). The GSS is a  self-report study. A self-report study is a collection of data acquired using voluntary response methods, based on telephone interviews. In 2014, for example, survey data were gathered from 79,770 households across Canada on the frequency and type of crime they experience in their daily lives. The surveys are thorough, providing a wider scope of information than was previously available. This allows researchers to examine crime from more detailed perspectives and to analyze the data based on factors such as the relationship between victims and offenders, the consequences of the crimes, and substance abuse involved in the crimes. Demographics are also analyzed, such as age, ethnicity, gender, location, and income level.

The GSS reports a higher rate of crime than the UCR. In the 2009 GSS on Victimization , only 31 percent of criminal incidents experienced by respondents were reported to police (Perreault and  Brennan 2010). Though the GSS is a critical source of statistical information, disadvantages exist. “Non-response,” or a victim’s failure to participate in the survey or a particular question, is among them. Inability to contact important demographics, such as those who do not have access to phones or who frequently relocate, also skews the data. For those who participate, memory issues can be problematic for the data sets. Some victims’ recollection of the crimes can be inaccurate or simply forgotten over time. While neither of these publications can take into account all of the crimes committed in the country, some general trends may be noted. Crime rates were on the rise after 1960, but following an all-time high in the 1980s and 1990s, rates of violent and nonviolent crimes started to decline.  In 2012 they reached their lowest level since 1972 (Perreault 2013).

In 2012, approximately 2 million crimes occurred in Canada. Of those, 415,000 were classified as violent crimes, the majority being assault and robbery. The rate of violent crime reached its lowest level since 1987, led by decreases in sexual assault, common assault, and robbery. The homicide rate fell to its lowest level since 1966. An estimated 1.58 million nonviolent crimes also took place, the most common being theft under $5,000 and mischief. The major contribution to the declining crime rate has been decreases in nonviolent crime, especially decreases in mischief, break-ins, disturbing the peace, theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of stolen property.

As noted above however, only 31 percent of violent and nonviolent crimes were reported to the police. What accounts for the decreases in the crime rate? Opinion polls continue to show that a majority of Canadians believe that crime rates, especially violent crime rates, are rising (Edmiston 2012), even though the statistics show a steady decline since 1991. Where is the disconnect? There are three primary reasons for the decline in the crime rate. Firstly, it reflects the demographic changes to the Canadian population. Most crime is committed by people aged 15 to 24. This age cohort has declined in size since 1991. Secondly, male unemployment is highly correlated with the crime rate. Following the recession of 1990–1991, better economic conditions improved male unemployment. Thirdly, police methods have arguably improved since 1991, including having a more targeted approach to particular sites and types of crime. Whereas reporting on spectacular crime has not diminished, the underlying social and policing conditions have. It is very difficult to get a feel for statistical realities when you are sitting in front of a TV screen that shows a daily litany of violent and frightening crime.

Corrections

The   corrections system , more commonly known as the prison system, is tasked with supervising individuals who have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced for a criminal offence. At the end of 2011, approximately 38,000 adults were in prison in Canada, while another 125,000 were under community supervision or probation (Dauvergne 2012). By way of contrast, seven million Americans were behind bars in 2010 (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2011). Canada’s rate of adult incarceration in 2011 was 140 per 100,000 population. In the United States in 2008, the incarceration rate was approximately 1,000 per 100,000 population. More than 1 in 100 U.S. adults were in jail or prison, the highest benchmark in U.S.  history. While Americans account for 5 percent of the global population, they have 25 percent of the world’s inmates, the largest number of prisoners in the world (Liptak 2008). While Canada’s rate of incarceration is far lower than that of the United States, there are nevertheless some disturbing features of the Canadian corrections system.

As we noted in Chapter 1, from 2010 to 2011, aboriginal Canadians were 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than the non-aboriginal population. While aboriginal people accounted for about 4 percent of the Canadian population, in 2013, they made up 23.2 percent of the federal penitentiary population. Aboriginal women made up 33.6 percent of incarcerated women in Canada. This problem of overrepresentation of aboriginal people in the corrections system continues to grow appreciably despite a Supreme Court ruling in 1999 that the social history of aboriginal offenders should be considered in sentencing. Prison is supposed to be used only as a last resort. Between 2003 and 2013, the aboriginal population in prison grew by 44 percent (Correctional Investigator Canada 2013).

Although black Canadians are a smaller minority of the Canadian population than aboriginal people, they experience a similar problem of overrepresentation in the prison system. Blacks represent approximately 2.9 percent of the Canadian population, but accounted for 9.5 percent of the total prison population in 2013, up from 6.3 percent in 2003–2004 (Correctional Investigator Canada 2013). A survey revealed that blacks in Toronto are subject to racial profiling by the police, which might partially explain their higher incarceration rate (Wortley 2003). Racial profiling occurs when police single out a particular racial group for extra policing, including a disproportionate use of stop-and-search practices, undercover sting operations, police patrols in racial minority neighbourhoods, and extra attention at border crossings and airports. Survey respondents revealed that blacks in Toronto were much more likely to be stopped and searched by police than were whites and Asians. Moreover, in a reverse of the situation for whites, older and more affluent black males were more likely to be stopped and searched than younger, lower-income blacks. As one survey respondent put it: “If you are Black and drive a nice car, the police think you are a drug dealer or that you stole the car. They always pull you over to check you out” (Wortley 2003).

There are a number of alternatives to prison sentences used as criminal sanctions in Canada including fines, electronic monitoring, probation, and community service. These alternatives divert offenders from forms of penal social control, largely on the basis of principles drawn from labelling theory. They emphasize to varying degrees compensatory social control, which obliges an offender to pay a victim to compensate for a harm committed; therapeutic social control, which involves the use of therapy to return individuals to a normal state; and conciliatory social control, which reconciles the parties of a dispute to mutually restore harmony to a social relationship that has been damaged. Many non-custodial sentences involve community-based sentencing , in which offenders serve a conditional sentence in the community, usually by performing some sort of community service. The argument for these types of programs is that rehabilitation is more effective if the offender is in the community rather than prison. A version of community-based sentencing is restorative justice conferencing , which focuses on establishing a direct, face-to-face connection between the offender and the victim. The offender is obliged to make restitution to the victim, thus “restoring” a situation of justice. Part of the process of restorative justice is to bring the offender to a position in which he or she can fully acknowledge responsibility for the offence, express remorse, and make a meaningful apology to the victim (Department of Justice 2013).

In special cases where the parties agree, aboriginal sentencing circles involve victims, the aboriginal community, and aboriginal elders in a process of deliberation with aboriginal offenders to determine the best way to find healing for the harm done to victims and communities. The emphasis is on forms of traditional aboriginal justice , which centre on healing and building community rather than retribution. These might involve specialized counselling or treatment programs, community service under the supervision of elders, or the use of an aboriginal nation’s traditional penalties (Aboriginal Justice Directorate 2005). It is difficult to find data in Canada on the effectiveness of these types of programs. However, a large meta-analysis study that examined ten studies from Europe, North America, and Australia was able to determine that restorative justice conferencing was effective in reducing rates of recidivism —the likelihood for people to be arrested again after an initial arrest—and in reducing costs to the criminal justice system (Strang et al. 2013). The authors suggest that recidivism was reduced between 7 and 45 percent from traditional penal sentences by using restorative justice conferencing. Rehabilitation and recidivism are of course not the only goals of the corrections systems. Many people are skeptical about the capacity of offenders to be rehabilitated and see criminal sanctions more importantly as a means of deterrence to prevent crimes, retribution or revenge to address harms to victims and communities, or incapacitation to remove dangerous individuals from society.

aboriginal sentencing circles  the involvement of aboriginal communities in the sentencing of aboriginal offenders

community-based sentencing offenders serve a conditional sentence in the community, usually by performing some sort of community service

compensatory social control  a means of social control that obliges an offender to pay a victim to compensate for a harm committed

conciliatory social control  a means of social control that reconciles the parties of a dispute and mutually restores harmony to a social relationship that has been damaged

consensus crimes  serious acts of deviance about which there is near-unanimous public agreement

conflict crimes  acts of deviance that may be illegal but about which there is considerable public disagreement concerning their seriousness

control theory theory that states social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection from society

corporate crime crime committed by white-collar workers in a business environment

corrections system the system tasked with supervising individuals who have been arrested for, convicted of, or sentenced for criminal offences

court a system that has the authority to make decisions based on law

crime a behaviour that violates official law and is punishable through formal sanctions

crimes of accommodation  crimes committed as ways in which individuals cope with conditions of oppression and inequality

criminal justice system an organization that exists to enforce a legal code

critical sociology  looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance

cultural deviance theory that suggests conformity to the prevailing cultural norms of lower-class society causes crime

deviance a violation of contextual, cultural, or social norms

differential association theory theory that states individuals learn deviant behaviour from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance

disciplinary social control   detailed continuous training, control, and observation of individuals to improve their capabilities

doubly deviant  women (or other categories of individual) who break both laws and gender (or other) norms

examination  the use of tests by authorities to assess, document, and know individuals

folkways  norms based on everyday cultural customs like etiquette

formal sanctions sanctions that are officially recognized and enforced

government  practices by which individuals or organizations seek to govern the behaviour of others or themselves

hate crimes attacks based on a person’s race, religion, or other characteristics

informal sanctions sanctions that occur in face-to-face interactions

labelling theory the ascribing of a deviant behaviour to another person by members of society

law   norms that are specified in explicit codes and enforced by government bodies

legal codes codes that maintain formal social control through laws

master status a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual

moral entrepreneur   an individual  or group who, in the service of its own interests,  publicizes and problematizes “wrongdoing” and has the power to create and enforce rules to penalize wrongdoing

moral panic  an expanding cycle of deviance, media-generated public fears, and police repression

mores   serious moral injunctions or taboos that are broadly recognized in a society

negative sanctions punishments for violating norms

nonviolent crimes crimes that involve the destruction or theft of property, but do not use force or the threat of force

normalization   the process by which norms are used to differentiate, rank, and correct individual behaviour

normalizing society   a society that uses continual observation, discipline, and correction of its subjects to exercise social control

panopticon  Jeremy Bentham’s “seeing machine” that became the model for the ideal prison

penal social control  a means of social control that prohibits certain social behaviours and responds to violations with punishment

police a civil force in charge of regulating laws and public order at a federal, state, or community level

positive sanctions rewards given for conforming to norms

power elite a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources

primary deviance a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others

psychopathy  a personality disorder characterized by anti-social behaviour, diminished empathy, and lack of inhibitions

racial profiling   the singling out of a particular racial group for extra policing

recidivism   the likelihood for people to be arrested again after an initial arrest

restorative justice conferencing   focuses on establishing a direct, face-to-face connection between the offender and the victim

sanctions the means of enforcing rules

secondary deviance  a change in a person’s self-concept and behaviour after his or her actions are labelled as deviant by members of society

secondary victimization   after an initial victimization, secondary victimization is incurred through criminal justice processes

self-report study collection of data acquired using voluntary response methods, such as questionnaires or telephone interviews

social control the regulation and enforcement of norms

social deviations   deviant acts that are not illegal but are widely regarded as harmful

social disorganization theory theory that asserts crime occurs in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control

social diversions  acts that violate social norms but are generally regarded as harmless

social order an arrangement of practices and behaviours on which society’s members base their daily lives

sociopathy  a personality disorder characterized by anti-social behaviour, diminished empathy, and lack of inhibitions

strain theory theory that addresses the relationship between having socially acceptable goals and having socially acceptable means to reach those goals

street crime crime committed by average people against other people or organizations, usually in public spaces

surveillance various means used to make the lives and activities of individuals visible to authorities

therapeutic social control a means of social control that uses therapy to return individuals to a normal state

traditional aboriginal justice  centres on healing and building community rather than retribution

twin myths of rape the notion that women lie about sexual assault out of malice toward men and women will say “no” to sexual relations when they really mean “yes”

victimless crime activities against the law that do not result in injury to any individual other than the person who engages in them

violent crimes  (also known as “crimes against a person”) based on the use of force or the threat of force

white-collar crime  crimes committed by high status or privileged members of society

Section Summary

7.1. Deviance and Control Deviance is a violation of norms. Whether or not something is deviant depends on contextual definitions, the situation, and people’s response to the behaviour. Society seeks to limit deviance through the use of sanctions that help maintain a system of social control. In modern normalizing societies, disciplinary social control is a primary governmental strategy of social control.

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance The three major sociological paradigms offer different explanations for the motivation behind deviance and crime. Functionalists point out that deviance is a social necessity since it reinforces norms by reminding people of the consequences of violating them. Violating norms can open society’s eyes to injustice in the system. Critical sociologists argue that crime stems from a system of inequality that keeps those with power at the top and those without power at the bottom. Feminist sociologists emphasize that gender inequalities play an important role in determining what types of acts are actually regarded as criminal. Symbolic interactionists focus attention on the socially constructed nature of the labels related to deviance. Crime and deviance are learned from the environment and enforced or discouraged by those around us.

7.3. Crime and the Law Crime is established by legal codes and upheld by the criminal justice system. The corrections system is the dominant system of criminal punishment but a number of community-based sentencing models offer alternatives that promise more effective outcomes in terms of recidivism. Although crime rates increased throughout most of the 20th century, they have been dropping since their peak in 1991.

Section Quiz

7.1. Deviance and Control 1. Which of the following best describes how deviance is defined?

• Deviance is defined by federal, provincial, and local laws.
• Deviance’s definition is determined by one’s religion.
• Deviance occurs whenever someone else is harmed by an action.
• Deviance is socially defined.

2. In 1946, Viola Desmond was arrested for refusing to sit in the blacks-only section of the cinema in Nova Scotia. This is an example of______________.

• A consensus crime
• A conflict crime
• A social deviation
• A social diversion

3. A student has a habit of texting during class. One day, the professor stops his lecture and asks her to respect the other students in the class by turning off her phone. In this situation, the professor used __________ to maintain social control.

• Informal positive sanctions
• Formal negative sanction
• Informal negative sanctions
• Formal positive sanctions

4. Societies practise social control to maintain ________.

• Formal sanctions
• Social order
• Cultural deviance
• Sanction labelling

5. School discipline obliges students to sit in rows and listen to lessons quietly in order for them to learn. This strategy of education demonstrates_______.

• Compensatory social control
• Positive sanctions

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance 6. A student wakes up late and realizes her sociology exam starts in five minutes. She jumps into her car and speeds down the road, where she is pulled over by a police officer. The student explains that she is running late, and the officer lets her off with a warning. The student’s actions are an example of _________.

• Primary deviance
• Positive deviance
• Secondary deviance
• Master deviance

7. According to critical sociology, which of the following people is most likely to commit a crime of accommodation?

• A student struggling to get better grades
• An addict who sees a stack of CDs in an unlocked car
• A professor who is tempted to publish someone else’s work as his own
• A mechanic who dislikes a customer

8. According to social disorganization theory, where is crime most likely to occur?

• A community where neighbours don’t know each other very well
• A neighbourhood with mostly elderly citizens
• A city with a large minority population
• A college campus with students who are very competitive

9. Symbolic interactionists argue that crime is linked primarily to ________.

• Master status
• Family values

10. According to the concept of the power elite, why would a celebrity such as Charlie Sheen commit a crime?

• Because his parents committed similar crimes
• Because his fame protects him from retribution
• Because his fame disconnects him from society
• Because he is challenging socially accepted norms

11. A convicted sexual offender is released on parole and arrested two weeks later for repeated sexual crimes. How would labelling theory explain this?

• The offender has been labelled deviant by society and has accepted this master status.
• The offender has returned to his old neighbourhood and so re-established his former habits.
• The offender has lost the social bonds he made in prison and feels disconnected from society.
• The offender is poor and coping with conditions of oppression and inequality.

12. ______ deviance is a violation of norms that ______result in a person being labelled a deviant.

• Secondary; does not
• Negative; does
• Primary; does not
• Primary; may or may not

7.3. Crime and the Law 13. Which of the following is an example of corporate crime?

• Embezzlement

14. Spousal abuse is an example of a ________.

• Street crime
• Corporate crime
• Violent crime
• Nonviolent crime

15. Which of the following situations best describes crime trends in Canada?

• Rates of violent and nonviolent crimes are decreasing.
• Rates of violent crimes are decreasing, but there are more nonviolent crimes now than ever before.
• Crime rates have skyrocketed since the 1970s due to lax court rulings.
• Rates of street crime have gone up, but corporate crime has gone down.

16.  What is a disadvantage of crime victimization surveys?

• They do not include demographic data, such as age or gender.
• They may be unable to reach important groups, such as those without phones.
• They do not address the relationship between the criminal and the victim.
• They only include information collected by police officers.

Short Answer

• If given the choice, would you purchase an unusual car such as a hearse for everyday use? How would your friends, family, or significant other react? Since deviance is culturally defined, most of the decisions we make are dependent on the reactions of others. Is there anything the people in your life encourage you to do that you don’t do? Why do you resist their encouragement?
• Think of a recent time when you used informal negative sanctions. To what act of deviance were you responding? How did your actions affect the deviant person or persons? How did your reaction help maintain social control?
• Pick a famous politician, business leader, or celebrity who has been arrested recently. What crime did he or she allegedly commit? Who was the victim? Explain his or her actions from the point of view of one of the major sociological paradigms. What factors best explain how this person might be punished if convicted of the crime?
• If we assume that the power elite’s status is always passed down from generation to generation, how would Edwin Sutherland explain these patterns of power through differential association theory? What crimes do these elite few get away with?
• Recall the crime statistics presented in this section. Do they surprise you? Are these statistics represented accurately in the media? Why is the public perception that crime rates are increasing and that punishment should be stricter when actual crime rates have been steadily decreasing?

Further Research

7.1. Deviance and Control Although we rarely think of it in this way, deviance can have a positive effect on society. Check out the Positive Deviance Initiative, a program initiated by Tufts University to promote social movements around the world that strive to improve people’s lives, at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Positive_Deviance .

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance The Vancouver safe injection site is a controversial strategy to address the public health concerns associated with intravenous drug use. Read about the perspectives that promote and critique the safe injection site model at the following websites. Can you determine how the positions expressed by the different sides of the issue fit within the different sociological perspectives on deviance?  What is the best way to deal with the problems of addiction?

• The Four Pillars Drug Strategy: http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/four-pillars-drug-strategy.aspx
• Health Officers Council of British Columbia, “A Public Health Approach to Drug Control in Canada:” http://www.cfdp.ca/bchoc.pdf
• Drug Prevention Network of Canada: http://dpnoc.ca/
• Centre for Addictions Research (CAR BC): http://www.carbc.ca/

7.3. Crime and the Law How is crime data collected in Canada? Read about the victimization survey used by Statistics Canada and take the survey yourself. Visit http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=4504

7. Introduction to Deviance, Crime, and Social Control Fallon, James. 2013. The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain . NY: Current.

Hacking, Ian 2006 “Making Up People” London Review of Books (28: 16/17) August pp. 23-26.

Hare, Robert D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us . New York: Guilford Press.

Rimke, Heidi. 2011. “The Pathological Approach to Crime.” Pp. 79-92 in Kirstin Kramar (ed.) Criminology: Critical Canadian Perspectives . Toronto: Pearson.

7.1. Deviance and Control Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance . New York: Free Press.

Black, Donald. 1976. The Behavior of Law . New York: Academic Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. NY: Vintage Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction . NY: Vintage Books.

Foucault, Michel. 2007. The Politics of Truth . Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e) Hacking, Ian 2006 “Making Up People” London Review of Books  (28: 16/17) August pp. 23-26.

Hagen, John. 1994. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Innes, Martin. 2003. Understanding Social Control: Deviance, Crime and Social Order . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

McDonough, Jimmy. 2002. Shakey: Neil Young’s Biography . New York: Random House.

Murphy, Emily. 1973[1922]. The Black Candle . Toronto: Coles Publishing.

Schoepflin, Todd. 2011. “Deviant While Driving?” Everyday Sociology Blog , January 28. Retrieved February 10, 2012 ( http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-driving.html ).

Sumner, William Graham. 1955 [1906]. Folkways . New York, NY: Dover.

7.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance Becker, Howard. 1953. “Becoming a Marijuana User.” American Journal of Sociology . 59 (Nov.): 235-242.

Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance . New York: Free Press.

Boyce, Jillian. 2013. “Adult criminal court statistics in Canada, 2011/2012” Jurisdat Statistics Canada Catologue no.  85-002-X. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11804-eng.pdf

Cicourel, Aaron. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice . NY: Wiley.

Durkheim, Emile. 1997 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society . New York, NY: Free Press.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Howlett, Dennis. 2013. “Canadians for Tax Fairness Newsletter.” June.  Retrieved January 13, 2014 from http://www.taxfairness.ca/sites/taxfairness.ca/files/pdf/g8_edition_newsletter_2.pdf

Johnson, Holly. 1996. Dangerous Domains: Violence against Women in Canada . Toronto: Nelson.

Kong, R., H. Johnson, S. Beattie, and A. Cardillo. 2003. “Sexual offences in Canada.” Juristat. Vol. 23, no. 6. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Kramar, Kirsten. 2011. Criminology: Critical Canadian Perspectives . Toronto: Pearson.

Laub, John H. 2006. “Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler Report: Searching for the Soul of Criminology Seventy Years Later.” Criminology 44:235–57.

McFarland, Janet  and Richard Blackwell. 2013. “Three former Nortel executives found not guilty of fraud.” Globe and Mail . Jan. 14. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/three-former-nortel-executives-found-not-guilty-of-fraud/article7319241/

McLaren, Angus and Arlene McLaren. 1997. The Bedroom and the State: The Changing Practices and Politics of Contraception and Abortion in Canada , 1880-1997. Toronto: Oxford.

McKenna, Barrie. 2014. “White-collar crime hits more than a third of Canadian organizations” Globe and Mail . Feb. 24.  Retrieved March 2, 2014, from  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/white-collar-crime-rises-in-canada/article17058885/

Pyke, Alan. 2013. “Are Regulators Throwing In The Towel On Financial Crisis Investigations?” ThinkProgress . Aug. 7. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/07/2427981/is-the-sec-throwing-in-the-towel-on-financial-crisis-investigations/

Quinney, Richard. 1977. Class, State and Crime: On the Theory and Practice of Criminal Justice . New York: Longman.

Rusnell, Charles. 2012 “Enbridge staff ignored warnings in Kalamazoo River spill.” CBC News . June 22. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/enbridge-staff-ignored-warnings-in-kalamazoo-river-spill-1.1129398

Samuelson, Leslie. 2000. “The Canadian Criminal Justice System: Inequalities of Class, Race and Gender.” Pp. 273-303 in B. Singh Bolaria (ed.) Social Issues and Contradictions in Canadian Society . Toronto: Nelson.

Sharpe, Andrew and Jill Hardt. 2006. Five Deaths a Day: Workplace Fatalities in Canada : 1993-2005. Centre for the Study of Living Standards. Ottawa. Retrieved, March 12, 2014, from http://www.csls.ca/reports/csls2006-04.pdf

Sinha, Maire (ed.). 2013. “Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends.” Statistics Canada Juristat Article no. 85-002-X. Retrieved, March 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf

Snider, Laureen. 1994. “The Regulatory Dance: Understanding Reform Processes in Corporate Crime.” In Readings in Critical Criminology , ed. R. Hinch (Scarborough, On: Prentice Hall).

Tencer, Daniel. 2013 .  “Offshore Tax Haven Prosecution Pitifully Low As Sheltered Money Spikes: Reports” Huffington Post , May 10. Retrieved January 13, 2014 from  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/10/offshore-tax-havens-canada-evasion_n_3253504.html

Wheeler, Stanton. 1961. “Socialization in Correctional Communities.” American Sociological Review 26: 697-712. Zhang, Ting. 2008. “Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008” Department of Justice Canada . Retrieved January 13, 2014 from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf

7.3. Crime and the Law Aboriginal Justice Directorate. 2005. Aboriginal Justice Strategy Annual Activities Report 2002-2005. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/aj-ja/0205/rep-rap.pdf

Allen, Mary and Jillian Boyce. 2013. “Police-Reported Hate Crime in Canada, 2011.” Statistics Canada catalogue no. 85-002-X. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11822-eng.pdf

Boyd, Susan and Connie Carter. 2014. Killer Weed: Marijuana Grow Ops, Media, and Justice . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2011. “U.S. Correctional Population Declined for Second Consecutive Year.” Retrieved January 6, 2011, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/p10cpus10pr.cfm

Cohen, Stanley. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics . London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Correctional Investigator Canada. 2013. Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator: 2012-2013. The Correctional Investigator Canada . Ottawa. Retrieved, March 12, 2014, from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt20122013-eng.pdf

Dauvergne, Mia. 2012. Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2010/2011. Statistics Canada Juristat: Catalogue No. 85-002-X. October 11. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11715-eng.pdf

Department of Justice. 2013. Community-Based Sentencing: The Perspectives of Crime Victims. Department of Justice Canada. April 30. Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr04_vic1/p1.html

Edmiston, Jake. 2012. “Canada’s inexplicable anxiety over violent crime”. National Post . August 4. Retrieved, March 5, 2014, from http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/04/canadas-inexplicable-anxiety-over-violent-crime/

Galloway, Gloria. 2011. “Crime falls to 1973 levels as Tories push for sentencing reform” The Globe and Mail , July 21.  Retrieved January 7, 2014 from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crime-falls-to-1973-levels-as-tories-push-for-sentencing-reform/article600886

Liptak, Adam. 2008. “Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’.” New York Times , April 23. Retrieved February 10, 2012 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?ref=adamliptak ).

Miljan, Lydia. 2001. “Murder, Mayhem, and Television News.” Fraser Forum March: 17-18.

Perreault, Samuel. 2013. “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2012.” Statistics Canada Jurisdat: Catalogue   no. 85-002-X. July 25. Retrieved January 9, 2014 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11854-eng.pdf

Perreault, Samuel and Shannon Brennan. 2010. Criminal victimization in Canada, 2009.  Statistics Canada Juristat : Catalogue No. 85-002-X. Summer. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm#a18

Miloszewski, R.V. 1999. BCJ No. 2710. British Columbia Provincial Court. November 16.

Silver, Warren et al. 2004. Hate Crime in Canada. Juristat Canadian Centre for Justice Studies. Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE, Vol. 24, no. 4. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2004004-eng.pdf

Stockwell, Tim et al. 2006. “Cannabis Use in British Columbia” Centre for Addictions Research of BC: Bulletin 2 . September. Retrieved, January 9, 2014 from http://carbc.ca/portals/0/propertyagent/558/files/19/carbcbulletin2.pdf

Strang, Heather et al. 2013. Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) “Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction.” A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews . November 11. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/63/

Wortley, Scot. 2003. “Hidden Intersections: Research on Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice in Canada.”  Canadian Ethnic Studies .  35(3): 99-117.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1. D  |  2. B  |  3. A  |  4. B  |  5. C  |  6. A  |  7. B  |  8. A  |  9. D  |  10. B  |  11. A  |  12. C  |  13. A  |  14. C  |  15. A  |  16. B

Image Attributions

Figure 7.1. DEXTER by pimkie ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/pimkie_fotos/3484952865/ ) used under CC BY SA 2.0 license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ )

Figure 7.2. Lizzie Borden ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lizzie_borden.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain )

Figure 7.5.  Cover page of 1550 edition of Machiavelli’s Il Principe and La Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca by RJC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machiavelli_Principe_Cover_Page.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain )

Figure 7.6.  Inside one of the prison buildings at Presidio Modelo by Friman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presidio-modelo2.JPG ) used under CC BY SA 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en )

Figure 7.10.   Cover scan of a Famous Crimes by  Fox Features Syndicate ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Famous_Crimes_54893.JPG ) is in the public domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain )

Figure 7.13.   Kingston ON – Dominion Penitentiary by R Orville Lyttle  ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/26476116@N04/10603802374/in/photolist-ha2g1S-gx1uGg-gx1eXP-gwZJSU-gwZEP3-gx1w6G-gwZj4L-gx16Wh-gx1fb4-gwZo87-gx1M5u-gwZwRE-gx15BV-gx1FDt-gx1DHe-gwZR8Q-gx1rd5-gx1p2v-gx1Bxv-gwZSpt-gwZop9-gx13jN-gwZY6h-gx1gJT-gx18Bd-gx1P5w-gx1EmX-gwZV5C-gx242g-gwZjWY-gx1hot-gx1wBS-gx1z45-gx11kh-gx1gh2-gx1uoF-gwZn8b-gx1Unc-gx1okt-gx1NPG-gwZVrj-gx1Pwo-gx1BEM-gwZUUD-gwZZsA-gx1MBD-gx1i9r-gwZLCY-gwZZhg-gx1K8d-gx1EHt ) used under CC BY SA 2.0 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ )

Introduction to Sociology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by William Little and Ron McGivern is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Sociology of Deviance and Crime

The Study of Cultural Norms and What Happens When They Are Broken

• News & Issues
• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

Sociologists who study deviance and crime examine cultural norms, how they change over time, how they are enforced, and what happens to individuals and societies when norms are broken. Deviance and social norms vary among societies, communities, and times, and often sociologists are interested in why these differences exist and how these differences impact the individuals and groups in those areas.

Sociologists define deviance as behavior that is recognized as violating expected rules and norms . It is simply more than nonconformity, however; it is behavior that departs significantly from social expectations. In the sociological perspective on deviance, there is a subtlety that distinguishes it from our commonsense understanding of the same behavior. Sociologists stress social context, not just individual behavior. That is, deviance is looked at in terms of group processes, definitions, and judgments, and not just as unusual individual acts. Sociologists also recognize that not all behaviors are judged similarly by all groups. What is deviant to one group may not be considered deviant to another. Further, sociologists recognize that established rules and norms are socially created, not just morally decided or individually imposed. That is, deviance lies not just in the behavior itself, but in the social responses of groups to behavior by others.

Sociologists often use their understanding of deviance to help explain otherwise ordinary events, such as tattooing or body piercing, eating disorders, or drug and alcohol use. Many of the kinds of questions asked by sociologists who study deviance deal with the social context in which behaviors are committed. For example, are there  conditions under which suicide is acceptable ? Would one who commits suicide in the face of a terminal illness be judged differently from a despondent person who jumps from a window?

Four Theoretical Approaches

Within the sociology of deviance and crime, there are four key theoretical perspectives from which researchers study why people violate laws or norms, and how society reacts to such acts. We'll review them briefly here.

Structural strain theory was developed by American sociologist Robert K. Merton and suggests that deviant behavior is the result of strain an individual may experience when the community or society in which they live does not provide the necessary means to achieve culturally valued goals. Merton reasoned that when society fails people in this way, they engage in deviant or criminal acts in order to achieve those goals (like economic success, for example).

Some sociologists approach the study of deviance and crime from a structural functionalist standpoint . They would argue that deviance is a necessary part of the process by which social order is achieved and maintained. From this standpoint, deviant behavior serves to remind the majority of the socially agreed upon rules, norms, and taboos , which reinforces their value and thus social order.

Conflict theory is also used as a theoretical foundation for the sociological study of deviance and crime. This approach frames deviant behavior and crime as the result of social, political, economic, and material conflicts in society. It can be used to explain why some people resort to criminal trades simply in order to survive in an economically unequal society.

Finally, labeling theory   serves as an important frame for those who study deviance and crime. Sociologists who follow this school of thought would argue that there is a process of labeling by which deviance comes to be recognized as such. From this standpoint, the societal reaction to deviant behavior suggests that social groups actually create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. This theory further suggests that people engage in deviant acts because they have been labeled as deviant by society, because of their race, or class, or the intersection of the two, for example.

Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D.

• An Overview of Labeling Theory
• The Life and Work of Howard S. Becker
• Deviance and Strain Theory in Sociology
• The Sociological Definition of Anomie
• Major Sociological Theories
• How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior
• What Is Social Order in Sociology?
• Definition of Ritualism in Sociology
• What is a Norm? Why Does it Matter?
• Criminology Definition and History
• What Is Social Learning Theory?
• A Sociological Understanding of Moral Panic
• Using Ethnomethodology to Understand Social Order
• The Sociology of Education
• Units of Analysis as Related to Sociology
• Deviance Amplification and How the Media Perpetuates It

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

5.2: Social Control and the Relativity of Deviance

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 2033

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

• Define deviance, crime, and social control.
• Understand why Émile Durkheim said deviance is normal.
• Understand what is meant by the relativity of deviance.

Deviance is behavior that violates social norms and arouses negative social reactions. Some behavior is considered so harmful that governments enact written laws that ban the behavior. Crime is behavior that violates these laws and is obviously an important type of deviance that concerns many Americans.

The fact that both deviance and crime arouse negative social reactions reminds us that every society needs to ensure that its members generally obey social norms in their daily interaction. Social control refers to ways in which a society tries to prevent and sanction behavior that violates norms. Just as a society like the United States has informal and formal norms (see Chapter 2), so does it have informal and formal social control. Generally, informal social control is used to control behavior that violates informal norms, and formal social control is used to control behavior that violates formal norms. We typically decline to violate informal norms, if we even think of violating them in the first place, because we fear risking the negative reactions of other people. These reactions, and thus examples of informal social control, include, but are not limited to, anger, disappointment, ostracism, and ridicule. Formal social control in the United States typically involves the legal system (police, judges and prosecutors, corrections officials) and also, for businesses, the many local, state, and federal regulatory agencies that constitute the regulatory system.

Social control is never perfect, and so many norms and people exist that there are always some people who violate some norms. In fact, Émile Durkheim (1895/1962), a founder of sociology discussed in Chapter 1, stressed that a society without deviance is impossible for at least two reasons. First, the collective conscience (see Chapter 1) is never strong enough to prevent all rule breaking. Even in a “society of saints,” such as a monastery, he said, rules will be broken and negative social reactions aroused. Second, because deviance serves several important functions for society (which we discuss later in this chapter), any given society “invents” deviance by defining certain behaviors as deviant and the people who commit them as deviants. Because Durkheim thought deviance was inevitable for these reasons, he considered it a normal part of every healthy society.

Although deviance is normal in this regard, it remains true that some people are more likely than others to commit it. It is also true that some locations within a given society have higher rates of deviance than other locations; for example, U.S. cities have higher rates of violent crime than do rural areas. Still, Durkheim’s monastery example raises an important point about the relativity of deviance: whether a behavior is considered deviant depends on the circumstances in which the behavior occurs and not on the behavior itself. Although talking might be considered deviant in a monastery, it would certainly be considered very normal elsewhere. If an assailant, say a young male, murders someone, he faces arrest, prosecution, and, in many states, possible execution. Yet if a soldier kills someone in wartime, he may be considered a hero. Killing occurs in either situation, but the context and reasons for the killing determine whether the killer is punished or given a medal.

Deviance is also relative in two other ways. First, it is relative in place : a given behavior may be considered deviant in one society but acceptable in another society. Recall Chapter 2’s discussion of sexual behavior, where we saw that sexual acts condemned in some societies are often practiced in others. There we contrasted a small island off the coast of Ireland, where sex and nudity are considered disgusting, with another island in the South Pacific, where sexual activity is very common. We also saw that although many societies condemn homosexuality, in some societies homosexuality is actually fairly common.

Second, deviance is relative in time : a behavior in a given society may be considered deviant in one time period but acceptable many years later; conversely, a behavior may be considered acceptable in one time period but deviant many years later. In the late 1800s, many Americans used cocaine, marijuana, and opium, because they were common components of over-the-counter products for symptoms like depression, insomnia, menstrual cramps, migraines, and toothaches. Coca-Cola originally contained cocaine and, perhaps not surprisingly, became an instant hit when it went on sale in 1894 (Goode, 2008).

The relativity of deviance in all of these ways is captured in a famous statement by sociologist Howard S. Becker (1963, p. 9), who wrote several decades ago that deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules or sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.

This insight raises some provocative possibilities for society’s response to deviance and crime. First, harmful behavior committed by corporations and wealthy individuals may not be considered deviant, perhaps because “respectable” people engage in them. Second, prostitution and other arguably less harmful behaviors may be considered very deviant because they are deemed immoral or because of bias against the kinds of people (poor and nonwhite) thought to be engaging in them. These considerations yield several questions that need to be answered in the study of deviance. First, why are some individuals more likely than others to commit deviance? Second, why do rates of deviance differ within social categories such as gender, race, social class, and age? Third, why are some locations more likely than other locations to have higher rates of deviance? Fourth, why are some behaviors more likely than others to be considered deviant? Fifth, why are some individuals and those from certain social backgrounds more likely than other individuals to be considered deviant and punished for deviant behavior? Sixth and last, but certainly not least, what can be done to reduce rates of violent crime and other serious forms of deviance? The sociological study of deviance and crime aims to answer all of these questions.

• Deviance is behavior that violates social norms and arouses negative social reactions.
• Crime is behavior that is considered so serious that it violates formal laws prohibiting such behavior.
• Social control refers to ways in which a society tries to prevent and sanction behavior that violates norms.
• Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a normal part of every society.
• Whether a behavior is considered deviant depends on the circumstances under which it occurs. Considerations of certain behaviors as deviant also vary from one society to another and from one era to another within a given society.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York, NY: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1962). The rules of sociological method (Ed. S. Lukes). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1895)

Goode, E. (2008). Drugs in American society . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Today, of course, all three drugs are illegal.

For Your Review

• In what ways is deviance considered relative?
• Why did Durkheim consider deviance a normal part of society?

Deviance and Social Control

Introduction, definition of deviance, functions of deviance, social control, types of social control, reasons behind deviant behavior.

Deviance is a form of behavior that violates the social norms of a particular culture or social group. It is generally considered an inherent part of a functioning society influenced by several social and psychological factors and regulated by internal and external mechanisms of social control. There are many sociological theories explaining why deviance exists, what role it plays in society, how it can be regulated, and what the psychological and social predispositions of deviant behavior are.

Deviance is a behavior that departs from the social norm and generates a negative reaction in a particular group. It includes violations of informal social norms, such as etiquette, that are seen as mildly deviant, and violations of formally enacted rules, such as laws, that are severely punished. As social norms differ throughout society and between cultures, there is no inherently deviant behavior, and what is considered inappropriate in one culture or social group might be normal in another (Shingledecker, 2015). A society’s understanding of acceptable behavior changes over time, and so does the collective perception of deviance. What was once a taboo becomes a norm, and what was once acceptable may turn into deviance as cultural values change.

The theory of functionalism argues that every element of the social structure has a certain function and helps maintain the stability of society in general. According to French sociologist Emile Durkheim, the founder of functionalism, deviance is also a normal and necessary part of social organization that contributes to the social order (Anderson, 2017). In his studies, he identified several specific functions that deviance fulfills.

The first is that deviance helps a society to clarify its moral boundaries and affirms social values and norms. Each functioning society is based on a value consensus, a shared set of norms and values, and one of how this consensus is reinforced is through addressing deviant behavior (Anderson, 2017). The discovery and punishment of wrongdoings remind people about their shared notions of what is right and reinforce the consequences of violating them. Systems of deviance create norms and tell members of a particular society how to behave by establishing the patterns of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Second, deviance promotes and strengthens social unity within a group or society in general. Common reactions to deviant behavior strengthen social bonds. For example, people are brought together when faced with a crime or anti-social behavior affecting the community. On the downside, differences in norms and values between cultures, groups, and societies create boundaries between populations and facilitate an us-versus-them mentality within communities (Anderson, 2017). People who share common social norms and notions of deviance perceive themselves as a group and can act hostile towards people who have different values. Deviance allows group majorities to unite around their worldview, often at the expense of those marked as deviant. On the other hand, is marked as deviant can bolster solidarity within the marked community, facilitating the formation of deviant subcultures that take pride in their stigmatized identity.

Third, deviance promotes social change and can lead to positive social developments. A process of change begins when a society starts to react positively to deviant behavior. This was the case with the African American population in the middle of the 20 th century, and with the LGBT community in the second half of the 20 th century. People who were considered the worst types of social deviants have gradually started to be accepted in society.

The fourth function of deviance, proposed by sociologist Herbert Gans, is that deviance creates jobs aimed at dealing with deviant behavior. Police, penitentiary system, criminology, social psychology, and rehabilitation centers could not function if society did not acknowledge deviant behavior (Anderson, 2017). On the other hand, people stigmatized as deviants are mainly engaged in undesirable dirty work that most people in society would rather not perform.

Another theory of deviance is the social control theory developed by Travis Hirschi. It claims that the stronger an individual’s social bonds are, the less likely they are to commit a crime (Ferris & Stein, 2018). Social bonds increase one’s commitment to the community and its shared norms and values and act as mechanisms of social control. Social control is how norms, laws, rules, and structures of society regulate human behavior. Societies cannot exist without controlling their populations, and within each society, both internal and external forces evolve that structure an individual’s behavior.

Social control can be either informal, exercised through customs, norms, expectations, and stereotypes, and formal, carried out through laws and official regulations. Social control, both formal and informal, is effected through a system of rewards and punishments (Shingledecker, 2015). Informal control punishments can vary from group to group, from a disapproving look when someone breaks etiquette to more severe sanctions, for example, when an individual violates the rules of conduct in a criminal gang. Formal sanctions for social deviants are usually imposed by the government and include fines, incarceration, or even the death penalty. Methods of punishment vary between societies and groups and can also change over time.

Despite socialization and social control instruments aimed to prevent deviant behavior, people continue to behave defiantly. It is explained from different perspectives by several sociological theories. The functionalist and conflict theories both focus on aspects of a person’s background that encourage deviant behavior (Ferris & Stein, 2018). For example, studies show that people who have limited access to education and low income are more likely to turn to theft or drug dealing. The labeling theory suggests that a location is also a crucial factor, with people coming from troubled neighborhoods generally behaving more defiantly.

From the psychological point of view, people are inclined to deviance not only under the influence of community and background but also because they are emotionally attracted to this type of behavior. Deviant acts, such as shoplifting or drug use, make people experience certain emotions, such as thrill, excitement, and the satisfaction of not being caught (Ferris & Stein, 2018). A shoplifter tests their ability to be secretly deviant in public while appearing to be perfectly normal. For social deviants, their behavior is a way to experience the feelings that adhering to social norms does not provide.

Deviance is considered to be an integral part of every society and a normal variation of human behavior. As the majority within a society establishes social norms, develops common values, and uses social control mechanisms to ensure coherence, there are always people who do not fit into the established system. While too much deviance can cause serious social problems, an adequate amount of deviance within a group is considered normal and helps to affirm social values and norms, unite the community, and promote positive social changes.

Anderson, L. (2017). Deviance: Social constructions and blurred boundaries. University of California Press.

Shingledecker, N. (2015). Deviance and social control [Video]. Web.

Ferris, K., & Stein, J. (2018). Real world: An introduction to sociology (6 th ed.). W. W. Norton.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 22). Deviance and Social Control. https://studycorgi.com/deviance-and-social-control/

"Deviance and Social Control." StudyCorgi , 22 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/deviance-and-social-control/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Deviance and Social Control'. 22 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Deviance and Social Control." January 22, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/deviance-and-social-control/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Deviance and Social Control." January 22, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/deviance-and-social-control/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Deviance and Social Control." January 22, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/deviance-and-social-control/.

This paper, “Deviance and Social Control”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 9, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• African American Studies
• American Cultural Studies
• Asian American Studies
• Children's Literature
• Comics Studies
• Disability Studies
• Environmental Studies
• Gender and Sexuality Studies
• Health Humanities
• Latina/o Studies
• Media Studies
• Critical Race Theory
• What happened on January 6, 2021?
• Keywords for African American Studies
• Keywords for American Cultural Studies
• Keywords for Asian American Studies
• Keywords for Children's Literature
• Keywords for Comics Studies
• Keywords for Disability Studies
• Keywords for Environmental Studies
• Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies
• Keywords for Health Humanities
• Keywords for Latina/o Studies
• Keywords for Media Studies

In the United States, some of our favorite deviants have been homosexuals, women, prostitutes, people who have kinky sex, people who are poor, people who are disabled, and people with mental illnesses—especially when these people are nonwhite, don’t conform to expected gender roles, have “bad” manners, live in the “wrong” neighborhoods, and so on. Fields like sociology, anthropology, psychology, criminology, and legal and religious institutions played a central role in how these populations were pathologized as deviant. These disciplines’ beliefs that deviance and biology were fundamentally linked often extended the scientific racism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (which made false claims about the inherent and inescapable inferiority of nonwhites, nonmales, and non-Europeans) and shaped public opinion and policy to usually devastatingly violent effects. In the last half of the twentieth century, deviance became a more complex frame of analysis as scholars argued it is of course not biological and that our ideas of who and what is deviant are socially constructed, are historically situated, and change over time (Goffman 1963; Gagnon and Simon 1967, [1973] 2017; Goode [1978] 2016; Schur 1984; G. Rubin 2002; Worthen 2016; Love 2015; Dennis 2018). Scholars—especially feminists, queer theorists, and critical race theorists—reframed “deviance” not as an aberrance to a stable and unchanging norm but as evidence of how racism, misogyny, ableism, classism, xenophobia, and homophobia shape definitions and everyday understandings of norms and deviance alike (G. Rubin [1984] 2011; J. Butler [1990] 1999; R. Ferguson 2004; Prohaska and Jones 2017; Puar 2007).

People within and beyond the academy were, moreover, taking deviance up as a powerful position to be reclaimed and rallied around in order to specifically resist norms (de Lauretis 1991; Jagose 1996; Warner 1993; L. Edelman 1994; Berlant and Warner 1998; Muñoz 1999; Cohen 2004). Organizations across the demographic spectrum from Lavender Menace (lesbian feminist deviants from the women’s movement’s focus on heterosexuality) to Gay Shame (antiestablishment deviants within homonormative configurations of US capitalist imperialism) to (re)invigorations of Yellow Peril Supports Black Power (Asian and Asian American deviants within US racial formations) to dyke marches (gender deviants within corporate homonormative nationalism) staked claims to deviance as a platform and strategy for radical political action (R. Brown 1995; Taniwaki 2000; Sycamore 2004; Watkins 2012; Currans 2017). The work of these activists has been reflected in scholarship by and about Black women, femmes, and trans and gender nonconforming people that is especially pointed in illuminating how the label of deviance has been used to violently regulate ways of thinking, feeling, being, and moving. This scholarship showcases Black women, femmes, and trans and gender nonconforming people as skilled outlaws (Evans 1993) and saboteurs (Haley 2016) whose deviant practices press against normative conventions of racialized gender performance and desire, often while interrupting the smooth flow of capitalist extraction that depends on their bodies yet disavows their subjecthood: work slowdowns, redirecting conversation, stealing themselves away from plantations, cross-dressing, forming queer and lesbian bonds with one another, having sex (and filming it), causing disturbances on the chain gang, refusing to speak, and more (Hurston 1935; A. Y. Davis 1971; Hartman 1997; Miller-Young 2014; Cruz 2016; Snorton 2017; E. Johnson 2018).

These studies of deviance also enact a politics of deviance by centering the everyday practices of people who are among the most surveilled and disciplined, and they do this by assuming that people’s so-called deviance can tell us much about how they interact with and live otherwise to systems of power and control. In her landmark essay “Deviance as Resistance,” Cathy Cohen describes a politics of deviance grounded in Black people like unmarried mothers; LGBTQ youth; those who have been incarcerated, are on welfare, and/or have risky sex; people “whose everyday decisions challenge, or at least counter, the basic normative assumptions of a society intent on protecting structural and social inequalities under the guise of some normal and natural order to life” (2004, 32–33). Cohen is careful, however, to argue that deviant practices are valuable sites of radical possibility but that the links between deviance and resistance are not inherent or given; deviance does not always equal resistance. She explains, “Most acts labeled deviant or even defiant of power are not attempts to sway fundamentally the distribution of power in the country or even permanently change the allocation of power among individuals involved in an altercation” (40). Indeed, some forms of gender and sexual deviance are absorbed into normative popular culture, as happened with drag, a historically deviant practice by “deviant” Black and brown people that has been built into a lucrative global industry increasingly important to the mainstreaming of certain expressions of gay male identity and politics. The political neutering of deviance has also been staged in the academy as modes of inquiry (e.g., queer theory) that were once radically deviant from and antagonistic to academic disciplines have become de rigueur within them (J. Butler 1994; Jakobsen 1998).

It is tempting to ascribe political power to a person, gender expression, cultural practice, desire, race or ethnicity, academic discipline, belief, object, theory, or action because they deviate from a norm. But we cannot simply note that a deviant act has transpired or assume that people’s deviant acts are intentional, self-aware interrogations of systems of power. What we perceive as deviance is just as often the simple, though endlessly difficult, task of using our limited embodied, emotional, and material resources to make the best out of hard lives (Cohen 2004). Moreover, when we flatten the power and potential of deviance as a political strategy and critical analytic into tidy examples of resistance par excellence, we risk oversimplifying how the norms are themselves constructed and maintained (Wiegman and Wilson 2015; Amin 2017): complex descriptions of deviant acts must go hand in hand with complex descriptions of systemic power that frame and shape their possibilities. Blanket idealizations of deviance can, further, belie our unconscious beliefs in or attachments to the “fundamental” nonnormativity of racial, sexual, and gender minorities, especially women of color, people in the Global South, and queer people (E. Edwards 2015, 146–47). Not every body, life, or act can or should be recuperated into a heroic narrative of deviance; scholars of populations and subjects rendered pathological, different, or abnormal must interrogate whether the impulse to dramatize deviance as resistance is rooted in the materiality of the actions in question or rooted in deep-seated assumptions about the bodies, cultures, and locations of the populations and subjects in question.

An effective politics of deviance is not consumed with the novelty of deviance, or what Lila Abu-Lughod (1990) calls the “romance of resistance.” It shifts perspective to ask “not about the status of resistance itself but about what the forms of resistance indicate about the forms of power that they are up against” (47). Studying deviance thus requires a rigorous materialist analysis that tracks how norms transform over time and documents how people make conscious and intentional choices to engage and dismantle them. It is particularly urgent to understand how people sense and negotiate the dynamic forms of subjection that are fomented as political actors collude with corporations and militarized police forces to unevenly assert control over and extract resources from people and territories. Thinking more closely with people who self-consciously embody and theorize their own politics of deviance in these times can tell us much about how we commit to and move against diverse regimes of governance as they shape our sensoria and networks of connecting while also imagining new ways of being in the process.

Crime and Deviance Essay

Introduction, sociological perspective.

Deviance is an act perceived to be against one cultural belief and the act cannot be tolerated. Deviance acts are different from one community to another and also can vary depending on generational time.

For example, the homosexuality is allowed in American society, but in Africa the act is seen as satanic and can make the victims to be stoned to death. In some decades ago, divorce was seen to be against the rule of the church society, but with modernization, divorced has grown to be accepted as part of marriage life (Lukes 28).

Crime is an act that is against the norm of a society and the registered law of the entire country. If a person breaks a certain section of a country law, there is a correction sanction to that person. A person is usually taken to the court of law where the offence is listened to, by the judge and the person is either proven guilty or innocent.

A criminal can be put in jail for some time or for life, sentenced to death and even pay some money as a penalty (Lukes 28). A country law which is constitution is mostly formed by the parliament of that country.

Introduction . Sociologists have tried to understand crime and deviance in different ways. Most of the ancient sociologists have come up with different sociological perspectives that try to explain crime and deviance.

Emile Durkheim came up with rule of sociological methods that explained crime as part of society norms. Durkheim believed crime to be higher in modernized and industrialized society as compared to less modernized. In industrialized society, division of labor is the norm of life and each person is exposed to different work experiences (Moyer 54).

Division of labor exists in two ways, one is mechanical solidarity whereby the members of the society are similar and the organic solidarity in which society members creates a relationship among themselves through the division of labor. As in the division of labor, society people have different influences and situational experiences that distinguish one person from the other.

The personal differences make some people to be criminals and other to be good. No society lacks deviance or crime however perfect it could be. Every community has norms and traditions that put the members together and if the norms are broken, there is state of anomie and lawlessness.

Advantages of the perspective . Durkheim argued that besides division of labor helping to make production rise and improve the human capital it also possessed a moral character that created a sense of solidarity in humans. He explained with a married couple arguing that sexual desire would only exist after the material life has disappeared if the division of labor was to be reduced between the marriage partners.

Durkheim suggested that division of labor has more of social and moral order therefore married couple is bided by their common things they do. Durkheim saw that crime was beneficial to the society in some instances. Crime builds future morality by showing what law is to be followed.

For example a committed crime will lead to establishment of an order that will be followed by the people to avoid repetition of the same crime. Crime corrections or rewards were put not to punish a criminal and make the person stop the crime, but the punishment was to strengthen the entire law to help control crime. Durkheim saw that punishment and crime go together and cannot be separated (Marsh 98).

Drawbacks of the perspective . Crime is has negative impacts and dangerous to the people and the community at large if is at high levels. If crime is not controlled and increases more and more each day, the society can be unable to prevent the criminals. On the other hand, if the crime rate is too low, the society maybe abnormal.

According to Durkheim the breaking of the society way of living or the norms is what brings in the social change which is very important in community development. Otherwise the social change should be controlled or moderate to avoid social problem. In any case the deviance which motivate the social change should be regulated so that to prevent the loss of criminal identity which it is important in the future (Marsh 95).

Durkheim failed to explain how for example division of labor would be used to control crime in the society. Also not all crimes would be beneficial to the society because if a crime resulted to killing or a big damage then the society will drag behind on development.

Lukes, Steven. The rules of the sociological method . New York: Free press, 2007.

Marsh, Ian., Melville, Gaynor. Theories of crime . Canada: Routledge, 2006

Moyer, Imogene. Criminological theories: traditional and non traditional voices . London: sage publishers, 2001.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). Crime and Deviance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/crime-and-deviance/

"Crime and Deviance." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/crime-and-deviance/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Crime and Deviance'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Crime and Deviance." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/crime-and-deviance/.

1. IvyPanda . "Crime and Deviance." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/crime-and-deviance/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Crime and Deviance." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/crime-and-deviance/.

• Marxists and Functionalists' Views on Crime and Deviance
• Durkheim’s Methodology and Theory of Suicide
• Merton’s Argument of Deviance: The Case of Drug Abuse
• Stereotypes of American Citizens
• Social Care in Ireland
• Evaluating the debate between proponents of qualitative and quantitative inquiries
• The Effects of Social Networking Sites on an Individual's Life
• Parenting's Skills, Values and Styles

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Drug Addiction — Example Of Deviance In Society

Example of Deviance in Society

• Categories: Drug Addiction

About this sample

Words: 535 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 535 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1174 words

3 pages / 1198 words

4 pages / 1959 words

13 pages / 5869 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Drug Addiction

Drug addiction is a multifaceted issue that requires a nuanced and comprehensive approach. By understanding the underlying causes of addiction, acknowledging the impact on individuals, families, and communities, and implementing [...]

Drug addiction is a complex and chronic disease characterized by compulsive drug seeking, continued use despite harmful consequences, and long-lasting changes in the brain. As a college student, I never thought I would find [...]

Go Ask Alice by Beatrice Sparks is a controversial book that has faced challenges and bans in various schools and libraries across the United States. The book, written in the form of a diary, chronicles the life of a teenage [...]

Substance abuse continues to be a pressing global issue, with far-reaching consequences for individuals, families, communities, economies, and public health systems. This essay delves into the multifaceted impact of substance [...]

The problem of drug consumption is widespread among teenagers and teenagers, the main consumers of drugs. Drug addiction not only leads to important physiological changes, but also changes the behavior of individuals, especially [...]

Doan, H. (2007). Police dogs will sniff out drugs at city schools. The Roanoke Times.Mayo Clinic. (2019). Drug addiction (substance use disorder).National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2022). Principles of drug addiction treatment: [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Deviance - Free Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Deviance refers to behaviors or actions that violate societal norms or expectations. Essays on deviance could explore sociological, psychological, or cultural factors contributing to deviant behavior, the role of social control in managing or responding to deviance, or the implications of labeling theory in understanding deviance. They might also delve into case studies of specific forms of deviance, like criminal behavior or social protest, discussing their causes, consequences, and societal reactions. A vast selection of complimentary essay illustrations pertaining to Deviance you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Creation of Serial Killers – Nature Versus Nurture

There is a difference between a serial killer and a murderer. What exactly defines a serial killer? According to The National Museum of Crime and Punishment, “A serial killer is conventionally defined as a person who murders three or more people in a period of over a month, with ‘cooling down’ time between murders. For a serial killer, the murders must be separate events, which are most often driven by a psychological thrill or pleasure.” Psychologists have tried to figure […]

Crime and Deviant Behavior: Birds of a Feather Flock Together

Determining causes of crime and deviant behavior is a key goal for law enforcement officers in order for them to effectively implement public policy and better protect civilians. One contemporary theory that seeks to understand the causes of crime and deviance, and conceptualized by Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess, is the social learning theory of crime. According to this theory, crime is a result of learned social behavior. It incorporates Edwin H. Sutherland’s theory of differential association. Sutherland proposed nine […]

The American Dream Possible

One of the most influential theories of all time is Merton’s Strain Theory, which was engender in 1938. Robert K. Merton developed the structural strain theory as an extension of the functionalist perspective on deviant. Robert Merton argued that society might be set up in a way that inspirits an inordinate amount of deviance. Merton believed that when societal norms, or convivially accepted goals place pressure on the individual to conform they coerce the individual to either work within the […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Dancing Shadows: Dynamics of Human Deviance in Societal Fabric

Embarking on a journey through the intricate web of societal dynamics, deviance emerges as an elusive specter, intricately weaving its threads through the diverse fabric of human interactions. Far from a stagnant concept, deviance is a dynamic force, a dance on the edges of accepted norms that challenges the very essence of customary behavior. This multifaceted phenomenon transcends the constraints of time, culture, and geography, mirroring the ever-shifting sands of human morality and the enigmatic structure of social order. At […]

Dynamics of Deviance: Beyond Conventional Norms and Labels

Deviance, that enigmatic force woven into the intricate fabric of human societies, beckons us to explore its complexities beyond conventional lenses. Far from a monolithic concept, deviance defies simplistic categorizations, demanding a nuanced examination of its multifaceted nature and the myriad ways it intersects with cultural norms, individual agency, and societal reactions. To unravel the enigma of deviance, one must first navigate the intricate terrain of symbolic interactionism, a sociological perspective that posits deviance as a byproduct of dynamic social […]

Deviance into Mental Health and Antisocial Dynamics

The enigmatic interplay between deviance and mental health unveils a complex realm of human behavior, particularly evident in the intricate dynamics of antisocial tendencies. Such behaviors, veering from societal norms with blatant disregard for others' rights, are rooted in a mosaic of psychological undercurrents that defy simplistic explanations. One avenue of exploration delves into the labyrinth of personality theories. Within this realm lies the intricate tapestry of traits such as impulsivity, empathy deficits, and thrill-seeking proclivities, all interwoven into the […]

Cyber Space: where Deviance Meets the Digital Frontier

In the vast expanse of the digital realm, a curious phenomenon unfolds—a fusion of deviance and technology, shaping what we now recognize as cyber deviance. This intriguing intersection transcends conventional boundaries, giving rise to a landscape where the complexities of human behavior intertwine with the boundless possibilities of digital innovation. Within this digital ecosystem, cyberbullying emerges as a poignant example of deviance manifested through technology. Through the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet, individuals unleash a torrent of malicious […]

Decoding Deviance: Psychopathy Vs. Sociopathy

In the colloquial lexicon, terms like psychopath and sociopath are often tossed around interchangeably, shrouded in a mysterious aura of criminality and intrigue. Yet, beneath the surface, these labels conceal nuanced distinctions that paint a complex picture of aberrant behavior. So, what sets a psychopath apart from a sociopath? Let's unravel the intricacies of these terms and navigate the subtle divergences that define these intriguing psychological profiles. Firstly, it's crucial to acknowledge that both psychopathy and sociopathy fall under the […]

Unveiling Strain Theory: Understanding the Roots of Social Deviance

In the realm of understanding why people sometimes go off the beaten path, there's this fascinating concept called strain theory. Think of it as a way to peek into the connection between the stress society puts on us and the choices we make, especially the not-so-great ones. Coined by Robert K. Merton, this theory suggests that when what society wants us to achieve doesn't match up with the ways available to get there, some folks might take unconventional routes, like […]

Additional Example Essays

• Positive Effects of Social Media
• Homeschooling vs Public School
• What is Growth Mindset
• Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation in the Workplace
• Revenge is the Overarching Theme of the Play Hamlet
• Appropriate Age for Social Media
• Revisiting the Controversy: Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?
• Is Survival Selfish: Balancing Self-Preservation and Altruism
• Leadership and the Army Profession
• Letter From Birmingham Jail Rhetorical Analysis
• Why College Should Not Be Free
• Shakespeare's Hamlet Character Analysis

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique

Article Review

• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

What Is Deviance? Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 321

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Deviance can be defined as any form of violation of norms in a society. It can be distinguished from a crime since it is based on individual perception and has influence on family, societal and religious systems. Some of the cultures in the United States that are considered deviant by other cultures include legalization and taxation of prostitution, not believing in God, legalization of gay marriages, political affiliations, indecent dressing as well as legalization of marijuana. Social norms comprise customary rules governing behavior in a society. The norms guide the behavior of such society, and any violation is perceived as deviance.

Durkheim regards deviance as an integral aspect in any society. He considers it as normal to any healthy society. The positive impacts of deviance are; it affirms cultural norms and values, promotes social unity, clarifies moral boundaries, and encourages social changes. Anomie is a social state where a society lacks cohesion and order in relation to its values and norms. Merton’s theory of deviance focuses on the strains that a society undergoes to attain some approved social goals, but find avenues closed. The five modes of adapting include; innovation (finding new means), conformation (they are not deviant), ritualizing (abandoning social goals, but still obey social norms), retreating (lagging behind), and rebellion (work to overthrow society).

Differential association theory observes that adherence to norms of low-class society causes crimes. For example, in the 1900s, research by Clifford Shaw showed that crimes in Chicago decrease as one moved from the center to the suburbs with wealthy people. Social disorganization theory states that a crime occurs in societies with no social control and weak social ties. For examples, children born in places with violence and drug abuse are likely to be criminals. Labeling theory examines the reactions of others towards the behavior regarded as deviant. For example, a student who frequently gets into fights and cuts classes is regarded as a “troublemaker” in the school.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Analysis of Content of Four Articles, Article Review Example

Socrates and Euthyphro, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371