Download Deviance-LectureNotes 1-Sociology and more Study notes Sociology of Deviance in PDF only on Docsity!
SOC 3290 Deviance
Lecture 1: What is Deviant Behavior?
Imagine that throughout your youth, adolescence and adult life, you are ridiculed for some personal attribute that you cannot help. It could be your height, weight, skin colour, hair, mannerisms, or any number of personal characteristics. When you are young, kids can be cruel, taunting you with epithets like fatso, fag, etc. When you are in your teens, this can lead to rejection by all-important peer groups and cliques, making it hard to fit in. Finally, when an adult, unwelcome physical attributes can impact upon one's economic and social success (e.g. being hired for jobs, etc.). Naomi Wolf's "beauty myth" is alive and well in our society.
The question to be asked here is whether such individuals are "deviant" because of such personal characteristics. Some would say yes, others no. Some would assert that it is really the tormentors who are the deviants due to their gross insensitivity or cruelty. In point of fact, there is much disagreement among the public as to what they consider to be deviant. In J.L. Simmons classic study, a random sample of the general public were asked who they thought were deviant. They came up with 252 different kinds of people - some of whom we might more readily recognize (e.g. prostitutes, drug users, alcoholics); some we might not (e.g. Liberals, Christians, suburbanites, Junior executives, etc.). These latter examples illustrate that, at the very least, there is much disagreement among the public as to the conception of deviant behavior.
There is a similar lack of consensus among sociologists. Indeed, we could say that the study of deviance is likely the most "deviant" of all subjects in sociology: sociologists disagree more over the definition of deviant behavior than they do on any other subject.
Conflicting Definitions:
Some sociologists simply assert that deviance is a violation of any social rule - or norm; others argue that more is needed - such as provoking disapproval, anger or indignation. Some would go further still, suggesting that one can be deviant without behaviorally violating any rule or doing something that upsets others (e.g. people with physical/mental disabilities may be seen as deviant because they are devalued by society). In addition, some sociologists argue that deviance doesn't necessarily have to be a negative thing (e.g. geniuses, reformers, creative artists); while others suggest that "positive deviance" is an oxymoron.
All such sociologists apparently assume that deviance is real in and of itself, endowed with a certain discernable quality or characteristic that distinguishes it from non-deviance. The reasoning here is that if deviance is not real in the first place, it can't be considered disturbing, disvalued, positive or negative. Yet, other sociologists disagree, arguing that deviance doesn't necessarily have to be real in order for behaviors and conditions to be labeled deviant. We all know that people can be falsely accused, diagnosed, stereotyped, and so on. On the other hand, committing a deviant act doesn't necessarily make the person a deviant if no one finds out or people don't react to it as such.
Some sociologists go beyond such considerations to define deviance by stressing the importance of power. They argue that relatively powerful people can often avoid the fate suffered by the powerless - who are more frequently labeled ("unjustly" or "falsely") as deviant. The key reason is that those with power, either alone or by influencing public opinion, hold more power to label others' behavior as deviant. Understandably, sociologists taking this view define deviance as any act considered by the powerful at a given time and place to be a violation of some social rule.
Out of these conflicting definitions emerges the influence of two opposing perspectives: positivism and social constructionism. The former tends to be associated with the hard sciences; the latter with the humanities. Each influences how sociologists see, study and make sense of their subject: some are more influenced by positivism; others by social constructionism.
Generally, the positivist perspective defines deviance as intrinsically real; the social constructionist perspective as an idea imputed by society to some behavior. Each perspective suggests other things as well. Hence, the positivist perspective has also been called objectivist, absolutist, determinist, structuralist, factist, and essentialist. Similarly, the constructionist perspective has also been termed humanist, subjectivist, relativist, voluntarist, individualist, definitionist, critical and postmodernist. Each perspective suggests how to define deviance, but also reveals through the definitions what subject to study, what methods to use, and what kind of theory to use to make sense of the subject.
The Positivist Perspective:
Essentially, the positivist perspective is made up of three basic assumptions about what deviance is: absolutism, objectivism, and determinism. We will deal with each in turn.
Absolutism: Deviance as Absolutely Real:
Absolutism is that characteristic of the positivist perspective that holds deviance to be absolutely or intrinsically real, in that it possesses some qualities that distinguish it from conventionality. Deviant persons themselves are assumed to have certain characteristics that make them different in quality and kind from conventional others. Sociologists who are influenced by such a perspective tend to view deviant behavior as an attribute that inheres in the individual.
This view was first strongly espoused by the early criminologists, many of whom believed that criminals possessed certain biological traits that were absent in others. These were considered to include defective genes, bumps on the head, a long lower jaw, etc. Since all of these traits are inherited, criminals were seen to be born as such. If they were born criminals, no matter where they went they would still be criminals.
As time went on, criminologists shifted their attention from biological to psychological
To demonstrate the objective reality of these concepts, positivist sociologists have used official reports and statistics, clinical reports, surveys of self-reported behavior, and victimization surveys. They recognize that the deviants selected by these methods don't accurately represent the entire population of deviants. Those reported in official crime statistics, for example, are a special group of deviants - because most crimes are not discovered, reported, nor founded, and therefore not included in the official statistics. Nevertheless, positivists believe that the quality of information obtained by these methods can be improved and refined. In the meantime, they consider that this partial information is still useful for revealing at least some aspect of the totality of deviant behavior, and can be used to seek out the causes of deviance.
Determinism: Deviance as Determined Behavior:
Positivists assume that deviance is determined or caused by forces beyond the individual's control. Natural scientists hold the same position regarding physical phenomena. When positivist sociologists follow natural scientists, they adopt this deterministic view and apply it to human behavior.
This view is reflective of early sociologists who were overly enthusiastic about the prospect of turning their discipline into a science. They argued that, like plants, rocks, chemicals, etc., we don't have any free will, so determinism can be applied without contradiction. If a rapist is thought to will or determine a sexual assault, then it makes no sense to say that this act was caused by forces beyond his control (such as libido, mental condition or family background). Therefore, in defending their scientific principle of determinism, early sociologists denied the existence of free will.
However, today's positivist sociologists assume that humans do possess free will. Still, somehow, they assert that this doesn't undermine the scientific principle of determinism. No matter how much a person exercises free will by making choices and decisions, the choices and decisions don't just happen but are determined by certain causes. If someone chooses to shoplift expensive items (like Winona Ryder is accused of) she certainly has free will or freedom of choice in that nobody forces her to do (or restrains her from doing) what she does. Yet, some factor may determine her choice of one of these alternatives over the other (e.g. prescription drug use inhibiting one's judgement or adherence to norms; thrill-seeking; a bohemian upbringing inculcating little respect for property rights, etc.). Thus, according to today's positivist sociologists, there is no real inconsistency between freedom and causality.
While they allow for human freedom or choice, positivist sociologists don't use it to explain why people behave in a certain way. They won't say that someone shoplifts because she chooses to do so. For them, this is no explanation at all since the idea of choice can also be used to explain why someone else doesn't decide to lift things from stores. Essentially, positivists argue that the same factor cannot be used to explain contrary phenomena. Indeed, the idea of choice simply cannot explain the difference between deviance and conventionality, why some people choose to deviate and why others do not. Thus, while contemporary positivists do believe in human choice, they will not attribute deviance to this factor. Instead, they fall back on their old
ways of explaining deviance by using concepts like unhappy homes, differential association, differential reinforcement and lack of social control. Any one of these causes can be used to illustrate what positivists consider to be a real explanation of deviance, because, for example, lack of social control in one's privileged social group, an unhappy home life and association with those dismissive of property rights would make one more likely to shoplift than not. Positivist theories essentially point to factors like these as the causes of deviance.
In the end, the positivist perspective on deviant behavior consists of three assumptions: (1) Deviance is absolutely real in that it has certain qualities that distinguish it from conventionality; (2) deviance is an observable object in that a deviant person is like an object and can thus be studied objectively; and (3) deviance is determined by forces beyond the individual's control.
The Constructionist Perspective:
The constructionist perspective on deviance emerged in the 1960's to challenge the earlier ascendency of positivism. Its assumptions run counter to those of the positivist perspective as follows:
Relativism: Deviance as a Label:
Constructionists hold to a relativist view that deviant behavior by itself doesn't have any intrinsic characteristics unless it is thought to have these characteristics. So-called intrinsically deviant characteristics don't come from the behavior itself, but from people's minds. Bluntly, an act appears deviant only because some people think it so. As Howard Becker puts it: "Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label." There can be no deviant behavior without a deviant label: its existence depends on the label. On this view, deviance is a mental construct expressed in the form of a label. Deviance is socially constructed - defined as such by society.
Since they effectively consider deviance unreal, constructionists shy away from studying it per se. They are more interested in questions of whether and why a given act is defined by society as deviant. This leads to the study of people who label others as deviants - such as the police, courts, medical profession, etc. If constructionists study so-called deviants, they do so by focusing on the nature of labeling and its consequences.
For example, in studying law enforcement, constructionists have noted a huge lack of consensus on whether a certain person should be treated as a criminal (e.g. the Saints and the Roughnecks). There is disagreement over arrest, laying of charges, the charges to be laid, guilt or innocence, etc. Moreover, since laws vary by jurisdiction, the same type of behavior may be illegal in one state, but not in another (e.g. pot use in Holland vs. Canada; underage drinking ages vary by province/state). There is then a relativity principle in deviant behavior: behavior gets defined as deviant relative to a given norm or standard of behavior, by the way people react to it. If it isn't related to the reaction of other people, a given behavior is in itself meaningless. Constructionists strongly emphasize this relativistic view, according to which deviance is in the
As a result, constructionists often present an image of deviants as basically the same as conventional people (e.g. the lives of the deaf, being able to communicate and live a normal life, should be respected instead of pitied). This view implies that so-called deviant behavior, because it is like so-called conventional behavior, should not be controlled, cured, or eradicated by society.
Voluntarism: Deviance as a Voluntary Act:
The constructionist perspective asserts that supposedly deviant behavior is a voluntary act, an expression of human volition, will or choice. They take this stand against what they feel are the dehumanizing implications of the positivist view: humans as robots, senseless and purposeless machines reacting to stimuli.
To support this voluntarist assumption, constructionists tend to analyze how social control agencies define some people as deviant and carry out the sanctions against them. Such analyses accent the arbitrariness of official action, stereotyped decision-making in bureaucratic contexts, bias in the administration of law, and the general preemptive nature of society's control over deviants. This suggest that powerful control agents exercise their free will actively, intentionally, and purposely to control the "deviants."
Constructionists also analyze those who have been labelled deviant. These people are not portrayed as robots passively developing the image society expects, but as actively seeking meanings in their deviant activities (e.g. Katz's work on murderers self-rightously seeing themselves as morally superior to their victims, who insulted their dignity by taunting or insulting them; Scully and Marolla's work on convicted rapists drawing on societal stereotypes to reinforce positive self-identity). Such insight into the subjective, experiential world of deviance constitutes a noncausal, descriptive or analytical theory.
In the end, the constructionist perspective consists of three assumptions: (1) deviant behavior isn't real in and of itself, but a label; (2) supposedly deviant behavior is a subjective experience and should be studied with subjectivity and empathy; and (3) Supposedly deviant behavior is a voluntary, self-willed act rather than one caused by forces in the internal and external environments.
An Integrated View:
To know what deviant behavior is, we need both positivist and constructionist perspectives. A combination of the two can give us a better picture than either one can by itself. These may appear to be in sharp contradiction, but their differences are largely in emphasis. By giving consideration to one side, we don't necessarily deny the reality of the other. Both positivist and constructionist sociologists, in emphasizing their own views, assume in a way their opponents to be correct. Each group merely thinks of the other's argument as less important than its own. Hence, while they accept constructionists' view of deviance as a label, positivists simply take it for granted, considering it less important than their own assumption of deviance as real
behavior. Conversely, while constructionists accept positivists' view of deviance as an act that has really occurred, they consider it more worthwhile to focus on society's definition of the act as deviant.
Now that we've outlined these two perspectives, we can bring them together in a complementary fashion. Thus we can see deviant behavior as both a real act and a label. One cannot exist without the other. If there is no real act, there is no deviant behavior; if there is no label, the same result obtains. In order for us to use the term deviant, the behavior must occur and the label "deviant" must be used in some fashion.
Yet in complementing each other the two perspectives are not necessarily equally applicable to all types of deviant behavior. Rather, one seems more relevant than the other in studying the types of deviance that more easily fit its assumptions and the temperaments of the sociologists embracing that perspective.
The positivist perspective seems more relevant to the study of what society deems relatively serious types of deviant behavior, such as murder, rape, armed robbery and the like. This is for three reasons: (1) these forms of deviance more characteristically enter the official statistics, are intrinsically more harmful, elicit wide consensus from the public, and therefore are easily distinguishable from conforming behavior; (2) people who commit serious crimes generally come from the lower classes, unlike the researchers who study them, so it is easy for positivists to stay aloof from these criminals - analyzing their behavior objectively without empathizing or romanticizing about their behavior; (3) since positivists can easily separate themselves from such individuals, it is natural for them to study these deviants as if they were passive objects "out there." It is thus natural for positivists to investigate these "passive" individuals with an eye to seeking out the causes of their deviance rather than understanding the operation of their free will.
Similarly, the constructionist perspective is better utilized when analyzing the less serious kinds of deviance, particularly those that do not gravely harm other people. This perspective finds itself at home in the world of drug addicts, jazz musicians, cab drivers, prostitutes, drifters, street people, etc. Again, three reasons explain the convenient fit between perspective and subject matter: (1) a relative lack of consensus in society as to whether the less serious forms of deviant behavior are indeed deviant. Since some may label them deviant and some may not, it is logical for constructionists to emphasize that deviant behavior is basically a matter of labeling; (2) these so-called deviants are considered by society as less dangerous than the criminals typically studied by positivists. They also engage in the so-called deviant activities that constructionists themselves could enjoy, participate in, or at least feel themselves as capable of engaging in - quite unlike the more dangerous acts above. Thus, constructionists can more easily emphasize with these supposed deviants and consider their subjective experiences useful for understanding deviance; (3) since they can more readily empathize with these "harmless" deviants, it is natural for constructionists to consider them active subjects like themselves rather than passive objects. This may be why they emphasize the voluntary, self-willed nature of supposed deviants' experience.
