Introductory Sociology 1
Lecture 12 Social Deviance and Cultural Rules
1. Deviance and Normality Yesterday we looked at how deviance can be seen
as produced by the ‘normal’ social structure. One key aspect of this was the
idea that deviance legitimates or confirms the normality of conventional
behaviour. Today I want to consider the argument that deviance is also
conventional. That is, (some forms of) deviance may not just be rule breaking
but adherence to different rules.
2. Social Construction of Normality and Deviance Consider the common
phenomenon of workplace deviance, ‘fiddling’, ‘dipping’ etc, re Mars’s
chapter in the course reader. Workplace deviance is normal both in the sense
that it is a common, almost taken-for-granted occurrence and that it is
acceptable, even expected. It is also important to note that workplace deviance
is rule governed. Those who participate recognise that there is a distinction
between permitted ‘perks’ and improper ‘theft’ e.g. short-changing customers
is acceptable, taking money from their coats is not, taking goods from the
organisation is permitted, taking the property of identifiable persons is not.
Note also that the ‘rules of the game’ tend to reproduce conventional notions
of hierarchy. That is ‘rights of plunder’ tend to be distributed according to
official rankings of seniority, status etc. In these situations, deviance becomes
a basis of social solidarity and mutual obligation, re the principle of
reciprocity. This can lead to situations in which those who represent the
interests of the official system, e.g. managers, will tolerate deviance in order to
build up good will with their subordinates, indulgency patterns. Consequently,
although it may seem contradictory, deviance can become a type of
conformity.
3. Culture and Subculture The realisation that deviance can be normal
introduces the important sociological concept of the subculture. The culture is
the dominant set of norms, values, beliefs, routines etc that constitute ‘designs
for living’ within a social setting. Conventionally we think of national
societies e.g. Britain, France, and Australia as having their own distinctive
culture but each national society is composed of a number of relatively distinct
groups each with their own rules etc; these are subcultures. The culture is the
dominant way of life, i.e. it is supported by powerful institutions e.g. courts,
media, the subculture is a more or less subordinate variation on this dominant
pattern. That is, culture and subculture are stand in a different relationship to
power and legitimacy. For this reason subcultures tend to be associated with
socially disadvantaged groups and, commonly where this is the case, the rules
of the dominant culture are inverted e.g. Willis’s ‘lads’. However, this
relationship is situated, that is, within the setting of the subculture, its rules are
normal; conventional culture is deviant and, possibly, threatening.
4. Social Negotiations and Deviance It is also important to recognise that both
people and things, e.g. images, can move between subculture and culture. For
instance, deviant fashions e.g. punk have been adapted by high street chains
for sale to the mass market, gay pride marches in some cities have become
part of the tourist industry. This indicates the fluidity of the boundary between
docsity.com
