Urban Art Balloons
New member
Social Deviance
When a person is asked to think of social deviance he or she may think of images that are ignorant and appalling. The definition of deviant behavior varies from one person to another, but Albert Cohen has attempted to specify some of the assumptions and definitions. Cohen defines deviant behavior as “behavior which violates institutionalized expectations, that is, expectations which are shared and recognized as legitimate within a social system.” In short and easy ways of saying, social deviance is the violation of social norms. Norms include folkways, mores, and laws. Furthermore, deviant behavior will never exist without social control, efforts to help ensure conformity to norms. Social control includes two forms, internal and external. Internal social control is control over one’s behavior that is based on internalized standarRAB, such as not talking while class is in session. External social control is an attempt by other to control ones behavior. In both cases of social control it involves sanctions, social reactions to ones behavior. Sanctions can be both positive and negative and are generally reflecting attempts to control the behavior.
Social deviance has been studied for many years and many different points of view. Sociologists Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber all studied social deviance from a macrolevel perspective.
Emile Durkheim uses the basis he believes is the basis of the social structure, collective consciousness. Collective Consciousness is the beliefs, values, and norms that merabers of a society hold in common. Durkheim believed that deviance was present in every society, and that it was an integral part of the social structure. According to Durkheim deviance helps societies maintain themselves by reconfirming the collective consciousness and the common basis of society. When society condemns one who does not conform to the norms of society it reinforces the cohesiveness and the norms of the group.
To prove his thoughts that a society can never be free of deviance because deviance will always be redefined according to the society, Durkheim uses the example of a “society of saints.” This is suppose to create the image of a completely deviance free society. He suggests that in this society the definition of deviance would be changed to fit the society. For example, merabers of this society may be considered deviant if they were to only pray for eight hours instead of the normal ten hours. This shows seems to prove his theory that no society can be completely free of deviant behavior.
Durkheim also believed that deviance could help to create change. This would be done by both showing that it is possible to think differently than the norms, and by setting the foundation for later change in the collective consciousness. To show this Durkheim uses the example of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates used a method of teaching called the Socratic method. While in discussion with his students, Socrates would react to the answers of their questions by creating new questions. This was seen to be criminal by the Athenian leaders, and Socrates was executed. Durkheim suggests that Socrates “both introduced new ways of thinking into the society and laid the foundation for later changes in the norms governing thought and expression.” Therefore deviant behavior can perceptibly change social norms and the way deviance is defined.
Karl Marx suggested that social structure was based on the oppression of some people by others. Marx believed the critical element of society is social control, the way in which the powerful maintain their position of authority within a society. Defining deviance and influencing the sanctions for engaging in deviant behavior was one way that Marx believed that the powerful groups enforce control. Marx saw social control as “solidifying the advantages of the powerful.”
Using the same example that Durkheim used, we can use to support the Marxian perspective. If Socrates had been using his method of teaching on people who were powerful in both the economic and political areas, then Socrates may have been erabraced as brilliant, rather than being executed. The Marxian perspective is centralized around the idea of social change. “Marx suggested that the potential for resistance and revolution is present in all social situations, because the less powerful can always act against the status quo. Marx believed that smaller, less powerful groups could group together and instantaneously challenge the control of the more powerful groups. A case in point, “abolitionists not only introduced ideas that challenged the norms surrounding the system of slavery but joined together to directly challenge the status quo and eventually to end slavery together.”
While the previous two sociologists looked at the use of socail structure, Max Weber wanted to know why social control was even allowed to subsist. Weber excepted the theories of both Durkheim and Marx, but asked why this was allowed. He believed that social control only is effective when the authority is accepted as being proper. Both the ruler and the people being ruled must believe in the rulers’ right to authority over all.
To distinguish if the authority was proper Weber created three authorities: traditional, charismatic, and legal authority. Traditional authority is accepted because it is an integral part of the social structure and it is impossible to conceive of any other way of being. An example of this is best shown in the different religious groups like the Catholics. The Catholics accept the authority of the pope because it is a traditional authority. Charismatic authority is based on the personal qualities of a particular individual. A great example of this type of authority would be Adolf Hitler. He gained his authority because the people who followed him liked his personal qualities, even if they were for the worse. The last authority that Weber created was the legal authority. Legal authority is based on written rules that provide a systematic way of maintaining the authority of people who occupy a certain position or office. All governments use this type of authority through written laws such as the Constitution.
These three authorities Weber says contain what he calls ideal types, concepts or descriptions of phenomena that may not exist in a pure form in the real world but that define basic aspects of a given situation. These three authorities are distinct, but also may extend over in the real world. A case in point is laws may reinforce the traditional authority, such as a pope. Weber believed that if those who are being ruled accept authority, then social control will be effective. Social change comes when the righteousness of authority is challenged.
To these three classical theorists people are not deviant simply because they are bad people and do not have the will to convey to the norms, rather deviance is a part of the society and is needed within all societies. These three don’t tell of why one person is more likely to be deviant than another, but some more contemporary sociologists have attempted to do so in such theories as the Labeling theory, strain theory, and control theory to name just a few.
Contemporary sociologists use a more mesolevel perspective in studying deviance. These sociologists have explored deviance through looking at these four ways: our social interactions, our positions within society, the norms and values of subcultures, and our linkages to and bonRAB with other people.
Sociologists use Lawrence Sherman’s labeling theory to look at deviant behavior. “According to labeling theory definitions of deviant behavior develop from social interaction, and the key element in becoming deviant is how others respond to peoples behavior, rather than how they actually behave.” This theory explains that the way people behave is not the key to them becoming deviant, rather it is what the people in a society label the person as. If a person is labeled as deviant then he or she will be deviant. The deviance that comes from an identity change due to the labeling of them is called secondary labeling. Howard Becker suggests that the person who is labeled as a deviant be given a new status with an allied set of role expectations. No matter what other statuses the individual may obtain, the status of deviant often remains the master status.
The prominent nature of the deviant status, the designation to that status of a particular role defined in provisos of a public’s conventionalized idea, and the negative redefinition of other statuses and identifications through retrospective rendition work together to create secondary deviance. “With claims to legitimacy denied them, persons comes to indentify with the only status and role avaliable, that of the deviant.”
The labeling theory focuses on the interactions with people in a society, and believes that the reactions of others influence ones behavior. Robert Merton believed that ones position in society would affect his or her ability to follow the norms. Merton believed in two types of norms: culturally defined goals and institutionalized means. Culturally defined goals are the goals that are valued within a society. Institutionalized means are culturally approved ways of achieving these cultural goals. The strain theory suggests, deviant behavior results when individuals accept culturally defined goals but lack the institutionalized means of attaining them. So the importance of this is that Merton suggests that people choose deviant behavior to attain a certain goal because they do not the means to do so in a “normal” non-deviant way. Those with the means to attain goals, Merton says, are less likely to become deviant.
Differential association theory focuses on how people learn or acquire deviant roles from their associations or relationships with others engaged in deviant behavior. Subculture theory looks at the group or contexts in which these roles are learned. Both of these theories suggest that deviant behavior is very easy to learn from established deviants. So it is much like the normal socialization process. The same way one learns the norms he or she learns to be deviant.
In contrast to the differential association theory, which emphasizes the importance of affixing to persons sharing criminal value patterns, control theory “sees in the delinquent a person relatively free of the intimate attachments, the aspirations, and the moral beliefs that bind most people to a life within law.” In this case a person is seen as being “free to the ties of society” instead of being linked to a person or group that invokes deviant behavior. It is the lack of ties to the society that creates the person’s deviant side.
The test book by Jean Stockard titled Sociology, Discovering Society, says the control theory suggests that our connections within a society are the major influence on our desire to conform to society’s norms. Attachments to others are the basis of social control. The two types of social control, external and internal, help to show how relationships with others help preclude deviance.
If a person is to only associate themselves with groups of people whom do not promote deviance, then the less likely that person is to being deviant. This theory is a bit contrary to that of the previous two. The control theory believes that a person is less likely to be deviant if he or she associates him or her self with non-deviant people or groups. If one has strong internalized certain norms, they will be less likely to violate them. And in some cases when that person does violate the norms, the feeling of guilt is so strong that he or she will probably never violate the norm again. The sanctions that one gives to them are one of the most important influences on the decision when doing some form of action.
On the previous page is a table that shows that 429 percent of those with no strong ties to any set of associates are delinquent, and that ties to parents have an impact regardless of ties to other associates. These findings, which would have been predicted by control theory, suggest that the lack of close ties to any associates is productive of delinquency and that, even in the absence of close ties to delinquent associates, weak parental ties are also productive of delinquency.
Control theorists often disagree about sources of control, but they all seem to agree that the delinquent behavior is a result of weak ties with the normative order. Control theory places significant importance on the bond between a person and society. T. Hirschi conceptualized four elements of the bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment implies a moral link between people and encompasses such concepts as conscience, superego, and internalization of norms. Commitment is the rational element of the bond. Hirschi views commitment to conformity as an investment in conventional lines of action, such as education or occupation career. Involvement is the time and energy dimension of the bond. Given the limits of time and energy, involvement in conventional activities acts as a social constraint on delinquent behavior. Belief refers to one’s acceptance of the moral validity of social rules and norms. According to Hirschi, this psychological element of the bond is effective as long as a person accepts the validity of the rules. If one denies or depreciates the validity of the rules, one source of control is neutralized.
The previous few pages have discussed the various ideas of classical theorists, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. These three sociologists all believe that deviant behavior is an inescapable aspect of social life. They take a very broad view at looking at deviant behavior, where as, the contemporary middle-range theories take a closer look at more specific patterns of deviance. The contemporary theories included in this paper are the Labeling Theory, Strain Theory, Differential Association and Subculture of Deviance, and the Control theory. All four of these theories try to make sense of the social deviance that takes place in all forms of society. The labeling theory believes that people begin to believe that they are deviant when they are labeled as deviant. The deviance that results from being labeled is said to be secondary deviance. The strain theory says that people become deviant when they accept cultural goals, but do not have the means of attaining them. Differential association theory looks at how people learn deviant roles by having relations with associations that perform in deviant activities. Subculture theory focuses on more of at the groups in which these roles are learned. The control theory emphasizes that one’s connections to others within society are the major influence on one’s desire to conform to society’s norms.
After reading the boundless amount of information on social deviance one can see that social deviance can range from not wearing shoes into a restaurant, all the way to committing murder.
When a person is asked to think of social deviance he or she may think of images that are ignorant and appalling. The definition of deviant behavior varies from one person to another, but Albert Cohen has attempted to specify some of the assumptions and definitions. Cohen defines deviant behavior as “behavior which violates institutionalized expectations, that is, expectations which are shared and recognized as legitimate within a social system.” In short and easy ways of saying, social deviance is the violation of social norms. Norms include folkways, mores, and laws. Furthermore, deviant behavior will never exist without social control, efforts to help ensure conformity to norms. Social control includes two forms, internal and external. Internal social control is control over one’s behavior that is based on internalized standarRAB, such as not talking while class is in session. External social control is an attempt by other to control ones behavior. In both cases of social control it involves sanctions, social reactions to ones behavior. Sanctions can be both positive and negative and are generally reflecting attempts to control the behavior.
Social deviance has been studied for many years and many different points of view. Sociologists Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber all studied social deviance from a macrolevel perspective.
Emile Durkheim uses the basis he believes is the basis of the social structure, collective consciousness. Collective Consciousness is the beliefs, values, and norms that merabers of a society hold in common. Durkheim believed that deviance was present in every society, and that it was an integral part of the social structure. According to Durkheim deviance helps societies maintain themselves by reconfirming the collective consciousness and the common basis of society. When society condemns one who does not conform to the norms of society it reinforces the cohesiveness and the norms of the group.
To prove his thoughts that a society can never be free of deviance because deviance will always be redefined according to the society, Durkheim uses the example of a “society of saints.” This is suppose to create the image of a completely deviance free society. He suggests that in this society the definition of deviance would be changed to fit the society. For example, merabers of this society may be considered deviant if they were to only pray for eight hours instead of the normal ten hours. This shows seems to prove his theory that no society can be completely free of deviant behavior.
Durkheim also believed that deviance could help to create change. This would be done by both showing that it is possible to think differently than the norms, and by setting the foundation for later change in the collective consciousness. To show this Durkheim uses the example of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates used a method of teaching called the Socratic method. While in discussion with his students, Socrates would react to the answers of their questions by creating new questions. This was seen to be criminal by the Athenian leaders, and Socrates was executed. Durkheim suggests that Socrates “both introduced new ways of thinking into the society and laid the foundation for later changes in the norms governing thought and expression.” Therefore deviant behavior can perceptibly change social norms and the way deviance is defined.
Karl Marx suggested that social structure was based on the oppression of some people by others. Marx believed the critical element of society is social control, the way in which the powerful maintain their position of authority within a society. Defining deviance and influencing the sanctions for engaging in deviant behavior was one way that Marx believed that the powerful groups enforce control. Marx saw social control as “solidifying the advantages of the powerful.”
Using the same example that Durkheim used, we can use to support the Marxian perspective. If Socrates had been using his method of teaching on people who were powerful in both the economic and political areas, then Socrates may have been erabraced as brilliant, rather than being executed. The Marxian perspective is centralized around the idea of social change. “Marx suggested that the potential for resistance and revolution is present in all social situations, because the less powerful can always act against the status quo. Marx believed that smaller, less powerful groups could group together and instantaneously challenge the control of the more powerful groups. A case in point, “abolitionists not only introduced ideas that challenged the norms surrounding the system of slavery but joined together to directly challenge the status quo and eventually to end slavery together.”
While the previous two sociologists looked at the use of socail structure, Max Weber wanted to know why social control was even allowed to subsist. Weber excepted the theories of both Durkheim and Marx, but asked why this was allowed. He believed that social control only is effective when the authority is accepted as being proper. Both the ruler and the people being ruled must believe in the rulers’ right to authority over all.
To distinguish if the authority was proper Weber created three authorities: traditional, charismatic, and legal authority. Traditional authority is accepted because it is an integral part of the social structure and it is impossible to conceive of any other way of being. An example of this is best shown in the different religious groups like the Catholics. The Catholics accept the authority of the pope because it is a traditional authority. Charismatic authority is based on the personal qualities of a particular individual. A great example of this type of authority would be Adolf Hitler. He gained his authority because the people who followed him liked his personal qualities, even if they were for the worse. The last authority that Weber created was the legal authority. Legal authority is based on written rules that provide a systematic way of maintaining the authority of people who occupy a certain position or office. All governments use this type of authority through written laws such as the Constitution.
These three authorities Weber says contain what he calls ideal types, concepts or descriptions of phenomena that may not exist in a pure form in the real world but that define basic aspects of a given situation. These three authorities are distinct, but also may extend over in the real world. A case in point is laws may reinforce the traditional authority, such as a pope. Weber believed that if those who are being ruled accept authority, then social control will be effective. Social change comes when the righteousness of authority is challenged.
To these three classical theorists people are not deviant simply because they are bad people and do not have the will to convey to the norms, rather deviance is a part of the society and is needed within all societies. These three don’t tell of why one person is more likely to be deviant than another, but some more contemporary sociologists have attempted to do so in such theories as the Labeling theory, strain theory, and control theory to name just a few.
Contemporary sociologists use a more mesolevel perspective in studying deviance. These sociologists have explored deviance through looking at these four ways: our social interactions, our positions within society, the norms and values of subcultures, and our linkages to and bonRAB with other people.
Sociologists use Lawrence Sherman’s labeling theory to look at deviant behavior. “According to labeling theory definitions of deviant behavior develop from social interaction, and the key element in becoming deviant is how others respond to peoples behavior, rather than how they actually behave.” This theory explains that the way people behave is not the key to them becoming deviant, rather it is what the people in a society label the person as. If a person is labeled as deviant then he or she will be deviant. The deviance that comes from an identity change due to the labeling of them is called secondary labeling. Howard Becker suggests that the person who is labeled as a deviant be given a new status with an allied set of role expectations. No matter what other statuses the individual may obtain, the status of deviant often remains the master status.
The prominent nature of the deviant status, the designation to that status of a particular role defined in provisos of a public’s conventionalized idea, and the negative redefinition of other statuses and identifications through retrospective rendition work together to create secondary deviance. “With claims to legitimacy denied them, persons comes to indentify with the only status and role avaliable, that of the deviant.”
The labeling theory focuses on the interactions with people in a society, and believes that the reactions of others influence ones behavior. Robert Merton believed that ones position in society would affect his or her ability to follow the norms. Merton believed in two types of norms: culturally defined goals and institutionalized means. Culturally defined goals are the goals that are valued within a society. Institutionalized means are culturally approved ways of achieving these cultural goals. The strain theory suggests, deviant behavior results when individuals accept culturally defined goals but lack the institutionalized means of attaining them. So the importance of this is that Merton suggests that people choose deviant behavior to attain a certain goal because they do not the means to do so in a “normal” non-deviant way. Those with the means to attain goals, Merton says, are less likely to become deviant.
Differential association theory focuses on how people learn or acquire deviant roles from their associations or relationships with others engaged in deviant behavior. Subculture theory looks at the group or contexts in which these roles are learned. Both of these theories suggest that deviant behavior is very easy to learn from established deviants. So it is much like the normal socialization process. The same way one learns the norms he or she learns to be deviant.
In contrast to the differential association theory, which emphasizes the importance of affixing to persons sharing criminal value patterns, control theory “sees in the delinquent a person relatively free of the intimate attachments, the aspirations, and the moral beliefs that bind most people to a life within law.” In this case a person is seen as being “free to the ties of society” instead of being linked to a person or group that invokes deviant behavior. It is the lack of ties to the society that creates the person’s deviant side.
The test book by Jean Stockard titled Sociology, Discovering Society, says the control theory suggests that our connections within a society are the major influence on our desire to conform to society’s norms. Attachments to others are the basis of social control. The two types of social control, external and internal, help to show how relationships with others help preclude deviance.
If a person is to only associate themselves with groups of people whom do not promote deviance, then the less likely that person is to being deviant. This theory is a bit contrary to that of the previous two. The control theory believes that a person is less likely to be deviant if he or she associates him or her self with non-deviant people or groups. If one has strong internalized certain norms, they will be less likely to violate them. And in some cases when that person does violate the norms, the feeling of guilt is so strong that he or she will probably never violate the norm again. The sanctions that one gives to them are one of the most important influences on the decision when doing some form of action.
On the previous page is a table that shows that 429 percent of those with no strong ties to any set of associates are delinquent, and that ties to parents have an impact regardless of ties to other associates. These findings, which would have been predicted by control theory, suggest that the lack of close ties to any associates is productive of delinquency and that, even in the absence of close ties to delinquent associates, weak parental ties are also productive of delinquency.
Control theorists often disagree about sources of control, but they all seem to agree that the delinquent behavior is a result of weak ties with the normative order. Control theory places significant importance on the bond between a person and society. T. Hirschi conceptualized four elements of the bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Attachment implies a moral link between people and encompasses such concepts as conscience, superego, and internalization of norms. Commitment is the rational element of the bond. Hirschi views commitment to conformity as an investment in conventional lines of action, such as education or occupation career. Involvement is the time and energy dimension of the bond. Given the limits of time and energy, involvement in conventional activities acts as a social constraint on delinquent behavior. Belief refers to one’s acceptance of the moral validity of social rules and norms. According to Hirschi, this psychological element of the bond is effective as long as a person accepts the validity of the rules. If one denies or depreciates the validity of the rules, one source of control is neutralized.
The previous few pages have discussed the various ideas of classical theorists, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. These three sociologists all believe that deviant behavior is an inescapable aspect of social life. They take a very broad view at looking at deviant behavior, where as, the contemporary middle-range theories take a closer look at more specific patterns of deviance. The contemporary theories included in this paper are the Labeling Theory, Strain Theory, Differential Association and Subculture of Deviance, and the Control theory. All four of these theories try to make sense of the social deviance that takes place in all forms of society. The labeling theory believes that people begin to believe that they are deviant when they are labeled as deviant. The deviance that results from being labeled is said to be secondary deviance. The strain theory says that people become deviant when they accept cultural goals, but do not have the means of attaining them. Differential association theory looks at how people learn deviant roles by having relations with associations that perform in deviant activities. Subculture theory focuses on more of at the groups in which these roles are learned. The control theory emphasizes that one’s connections to others within society are the major influence on one’s desire to conform to society’s norms.
After reading the boundless amount of information on social deviance one can see that social deviance can range from not wearing shoes into a restaurant, all the way to committing murder.