Introduction to Sociology/Deviance

Picking one's nose is an example of informal deviance

Introduction

Deviance is any behavior that violates cultural norms. Deviance is often divided into two types of deviant activities. The first, crime is the violation of formally enacted laws and is referred to as formal deviance. Examples of formal deviance would include: robbery, theft, rape, murder, and assault, just to name a few. The second type of deviant behavior refers to violations of informal social norms, norms that have not been codified into law, and is referred to as informal deviance. Examples of informal deviance might include: picking one's nose, belching loudly (in some cultures), or standing too close to another unnecessarily (again, in some cultures).

As the last two examples in the preceding paragraph illustrate, deviance can vary quite dramatically from culture to culture. Cultural norms are relative; this makes deviant behavior relative as well. For instance, in general U.S. society it is uncommon for people to restrict their speech to certain hours of the day. In the Christ Desert Monastery, there are specific rules about when the residents can and cannot speak, including a specific ban on speaking between 7:30 pm and 4:00 am. The norms and rules of the Christ Desert Monastery are examples of how norms are relative to cultures.

Current research on deviance by sociologists takes many forms. For example, Dr. Karen Halnon of Pennsylvania State University studies how some people exercise informal deviance. Her research focuses on what she calls "deviance vacations," where people of certain socioeconomic status descend to lower strata. For instance, heterosexual white males may become drag queens on the weekend. It is a vacation because heterosexual white males can afford to descend temporarily and then return to the advantages of their true socioeconomic status. Other examples include white hip-hop acts like Eminem and Nu-Metal bands like Limp Bizkit that mimic lower or middle class people in order to use their socioeconomic credentials for profit, despite their true socioeconomic status.

Sociological interest in deviance includes both interests in measuring formal deviance (statistics of criminal behavior; see below) and a number of theories that try to explain both the role of deviance in society and its origins. This chapter will cover the theories of deviance used by sociologists and will also cover current crime statistics.

Theories of Deviance

Social-Strain Typology

Robert K. Merton, in his discussion of deviance, proposed a typology of deviant behavior. A typology is a classification scheme designed to facilitate understanding. In this case, Merton was proposing a typology of deviance based upon two criteria: (1) a person's motivations or her adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person's belief in how to attain her goals. These two criteria are shown in the diagram below. According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria:

• conformity involves the acceptance of the cultural goals and means of attaining those goals (e.g., a banker)
• innovation involves the acceptance of the goals of a culture but the rejection of the traditional and/or legitimate means of attaining those goals (e.g., a member of the mafia values wealth but employs alternative means of attaining her wealth)
• ritualism involves the rejection of cultural goals but the routinized acceptance of the means for achieving the goals (e.g., a disillusioned bureaucrat - like Milton in the movie Office Space, who goes to work everyday because it is what he does, but does not share the goal of the company of making lots of money)
• retreatism involves the rejection of both the cultural goals and the traditional means of achieving those goals (e.g., a homeless person who is homeless more by choice than by force or circumstance)
• rebellion is a special case wherein the individual rejects both the cultural goals and traditional means of achieving them but actively attempts to replace both elements of the society with different goals and means (e.g., a communist revolution)

Structural-Functionalism

The structural-functionalist approach to deviance argues that deviant behavior plays an important role in society for several reasons. First, deviance helps distinguish between what is acceptable behavior, and what is not. In a sense deviance is required in order for people to know what they can and cannot do. It draws lines and demarcates boundaries. This is an important function as it affirms the cultural values and norms of a society for the members of that society.

In addition to clarifying the moral boundaries of society, deviant behavior can also promote social unity, but it does so at the expense of the deviant individuals, who are obviously excluded from the sense of unity derived from differentiating the non-deviant from the deviants.

Finally, and quite out of character for the structural-functionalist approach, deviance is actually seen as one means for society to change over time. Deviant behavior can imbalance societal equilibrium. In the process of returning societal equilibrium, society is often forced to change. Thus, deviant behavior serves several important functions in society.

Social-Conflict

The social-conflict approach to deviance views deviance, as it does with most things, as a power struggle. The power struggle theoretically between the deviant and the non-deviant. But it is important to understand that - and this is part of the social-conflict approach - the determination of what is deviant and what is not deviant is part of the power struggle and power structure of society. For instance, laws in capitalist countries tend to reflect the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Laws that codify one's right to private property will tend to favor those with property and disfavor those without property (who might be inclined to take property). The social-conflict approach takes this idea to the next step by arguing that the powerful and wealthy are able to avoid being labeled deviant (see labeling theory below) by actually changing what is considered deviant so they are not included in that classification. In short, the social-conflict approach to understanding deviance argues that deviance is a reflection of the power imbalance and inequality in society.

Violent crimes are more likely to be reported to police than are property crimes.

A clear example of how deviance reflects power imbalances is in the reporting of crimes. Wealthier individuals are more likely to commit property crimes, particularly crimes that are often referred to as white-collar crimes. Examples of white-collar crimes include:

• antitrust violations
• computer/internet fraud
• credit card fraud
• phone/telemarketing fraud
• bankruptcy fraud
• healthcare fraud
• insurance fraud
• mail fraud
• government fraud
• tax evasion
• financial fraud
• insider trading
• bribery and public corruption
• counterfeiting
• money laundering
• embezzlement
• economic espionage
• trade secret theft

White-collar crimes are almost exclusively property-related. Property-related crimes are in contrast to violent crimes, which tend to be committed by individuals of lower socio-economic classes. The power balance comes into play when the percentage of each of these types of crimes is examined. Violent crimes are more likely to be reported as shown in the chart above. In addition to the higher likelihood of violent crimes being reported, a much larger percentage of people are in prison for committing violent crimes than for property crimes.

Labeling Theory

Labeling Theory refers to the idea that individuals become deviant when two things occur:

1. a deviant label is applied to them (e.g., loner, punk)
2. they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label

This approach to deviance recognizes its cultural relativity and is aware that deviance can result from power imbalances. But it takes the idea of deviance further by illustrating how a deviant identity develops through the application and adoption of labels. Labeling theory argues that people become deviant as a result of people forcing that identity upon them and then adopting the identity.

Labels are understood to be the names associated with identities or role-sets in society. Examples of more innocuous labels might include father or lover. Deviant labels refer to identities that are known for falling outside of cultural norms, like loner or punk.

There are two additional ideas related to the labeling theory approach to understanding deviance. First, once a deviant identity is adopted, it is often the case that the past behaviors of the now deviant individual are re-interpreted in light of the new identity. The process of re-casting one's past actions in light of a current identity is referred to as retrospective labeling. A very clear example of retrospective labeling can be seen in how the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, were re-cast after the incident took place. Much of their behavior leading up to the school shootings has been re-interpreted in light of the deviant identity with which they were labeled as a result of the shootings.

Another important element of labeling theory involves the idea of stigma. Stigma, according to Goffman^[1] refers to the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance because of some mark of infamy or disgrace or a label that is often difficult to hide or disguise. Stigma extend the idea of labeling theory by illustrating how individual characteristics can be the basis for attaching labels that can be life-altering. A good example of a stigma that is now increasingly difficult to hide is the publishing of convicted sex offender identities and information on websites (see here for an example). The stigma is the past behavior - the sex offense - but this identity is relatively easily hidden as it impossible to pick a sex offender out of a crowd. By pushing the sex offender identity into public purview, sex offenders, regardless of current behavior, are stigmatized; they are stuck with a deviant identity that overwhelms any other identity they may have. In sum, labeling theory argues that the application of labels (role-sets) to individuals is an important element leading to deviant behavior.

Crime Statistics

Chart 1

Crime statistics are usually aggregations of data collected by governments for the reporting of incidents of criminal activity. They are useful for a number of reasons, beyond simply giving an awareness of the extent of criminal activity. Presented below are statistics on criminal activity and the criminal justice system for both the U.S. and selected nations around the world (for comparisons). The statistics included in this section were chosen to provide a sampling of how crime statistics can be useful beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal behavior.

It is important to understand that crime statistics do not provide a perfect view of crime. Government statistics on crime only show data for crimes that have been reported to authorities. These crimes represent only a fraction of those crimes that have been acted upon by law enforcement, which in turn represents only a fraction of those crimes where people have made complaints to the police, which in turn represents only a fraction of the total crimes committed.

Incarceration Rates and Populations

One of the more interesting features of the U.S. is the extensive number of people who are currently in the correctional system. Chart 1 breaks down the correctional system population by the status of individuals in the correctional system, including:

Chart 2

• prison
• probation
• jail
• parole

While the population of the United States is the third largest in the world (behind China and India), the percentage of the population that is in prison is the highest in the world, as illustrated by Charts 2 and 3.

Chart 2 is informative for illustrating just how many people are in prison in the U.S. But it could also be seen as misleading because it does not take into consideration population size, as does Chart 3.

Chart 3

This chart, in combination with the previous one, illustrates that not only does the U.S. have a lot of people in prison in sheer numbers but in terms of percentage of the population (in the chart it is shown as rates per 100,000 people), the U.S. also has a very high percentage of its population in prison.

Comparing incarceration rates by countries goes beyond just reporting incidents of criminal activity (incidents of crime are not much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere) by highlighting differences in the correctional systems of countries. Countries differ in the restrictiveness of their laws and prison sentences. Differences of these types are seen when comparing incarceration rates and populations.

Two additional characteristics of the U.S. correctional system are worth highlighting. First, the U.S. has a relatively high recidivism rate (recidivism refers to the frequency of repeat offenses). Sixty-seven percent of prison inmates will be convicted on another charge within three years of having been released. This statistic is revealing of the nature of the prison system in the U.S.: it is more interested in keeping people who commit crimes away from the rest of the population than it is in attempting to reform individuals (re-socialization) to make them productive members of society.

Chart 4

Another interesting characteristic of the U.S. is the amount of money that is spent on the correctional system. Policing the nations streets is the most expensive component of the correctional system, followed by housing prison inmates. The judicial process is the least expensive, but the combined expenses of all three elements total over $100 billion annually.

Chart 5

Gender

Chart 6

Another way crime statistics can go beyond simply reporting incidents of criminal activity is in highlighting differences between different groups. One difference in criminal activity is seen in the number of violent crimes committed by gender (Chart 6). While the difference has narrowed in recent years, men are still more likely to commit violent crime than are women.

Another telling crime statistic that is traditionally seen as highlighting power imbalances is the number of rapes in society. While the focus of this chapter is not on exploring the motivations behind rape, the number of rapes in the U.S. and internationally can be seen to reflect power imbalances (social-conflict approach) between men and women. Chart 7 shows rape rates in the U.S. The number has declined in recent years. Chart 8 compares rape rates from select countries around the world.

Chart 7

Chart 8

Race

(This section is under construction)

Homicide

Charts 9 through 11 explore homicide rates. Chart 9 tracks homicide rates in the U.S. for the past 100 years. There has been an increase over time, though it is not clear whether that increase represents an actual increase in homicides or an increase in confounding factors, such as: stricter law enforcement, an increased willingness to report crimes, or changes in the definition of homicide itself.

Chart 9

Chart 10 highlights differences in homicide rates between countries. The U.S. does not have the highest homicide rates in the world, but the rates in the U.S. are still relatively high.

Chart 10

Chart 11 highlights differences in homicide rates by the age of the victim. Note the similarity in homicide rates between the 14-17 age group and individuals over 25.

Chart 11

Social Control

Social control refers to the various means used by a society to bring its members back into line with cultural norms. There are two general types of social control:

• formal social control refers to components of society that are designed for the resocialization of individuals who break formal rules; examples would include prisons and mental health institutions
• informal social control refers to elements of society that are designed to reinforce informal cultural norms; examples might include parental reminders to children not to, well, pick their nose

Some researchers have outlined some of the motivations underlying the formal social control system. These motivations include:

• retribution - some argue that people should pay for the crime they committed
• deterrence - some argue that punishments, e.g., prison time, will prevent people from committing future crimes
• rehabilitation - some argue that formal social controls should work to rehabilitate criminals, eventually turning them into productive members of society
• societal protection - finally, some argue that the motivation for formal social controls is nothing more than removing the deviant members of society from the non-deviant members

Current Research

Video Games and Deviance

Another area of current research that is of great interest to many people is the alleged effects of violent video games on behavior. Karen Sternheimer explains that a lot of the concern around video games is illustrative of the social construction of deviance. According to Sternheimer, "Politicians and other moral crusaders frequently create "folk devils," individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral. Folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear, offering a clear course of action to remedy what many believe to be a growing problem. Video games, those who play them, and those who create them have become contemporary folk devils because they seem to pose a threat to children." (p. 13) The assumption is that playing violent video games will lead children to act out violently. However, there is a growing body of literature that is either inconclusive on this issue or that contradicts this assumption: it does not appear as though playing violent video games results in violent behavior.

The reason why the assumption that playing violent video games is not accurate is because it decontextualizes violence. Those who claim violent video games lead to violence fail to realize that violence is context dependent and most players of video games are fully aware of this. Individuals who play video games recognize that violence in the context of the game is okay and that it is not okay to be violent outside of that context. Additionally, many of the studies that have claimed to have found a connection between playing video games and violent behavior have failed to control for other influences on violent individuals, influences that are more likely to translate into violent behavior: neighborhood violence and instability, family violence, and even mental illness. Seldom is a connection made between adult shooting sprees in the workplace (which are far more common than school shooting sprees) and video games. Instead, people look toward contextual influences like those described above (i.e., job loss, family problems, etc.). In other words, violent video games are the folk devils for violent behavior in children, but not for adults.

Finally, the video game explanation is also illustrative of social-conflict and racial discrimination. Seldom is the explanation of a black violent offender's behavior playing violent video games. The assumption is that black culture encourages violence; as a result, violent behavior by young black men is not "shocking," so it does not require a folk devil to explain it. This is, of course, discriminatory. In contrast, it is generally white, middle-class violent offenders whose behavior is explained by alleging a video game connection. The fact that these violent offenders are white and middle class threatens the "innocence and safety of suburban America," which means it requires a folk devil culprit, absolving white, middle-class America of the blame.

Notes

Two additional theories that might be discussed in future versions of this text include:

• differential association
• deviant subcultures theory

References

1. ^  Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.

History

• This page is adapted 9 April 2005 from the Wikipedia article, deviant behavior.

External links

• Dr. Karen Halnon

← Demography · Race and Ethnicity →

← Demography · Introduction to Sociology · Race and Ethnicity →