Deviance and Social Control

Deviance and Social Control

Deviance

When sociologists examine the relationship between law and society, they employ the concept of deviance. Deviance suggests that a person turns away from designated beliefs and actions that dominate society. Deviance does not necessarily mean that certain actions are illegal, but all conduct that is classified as criminal is deviant. For example, a person who refuses to work though capable of such activity is deviating from the social norm that a person should work. This is not criminal. However, if the person uses this time to consume illegal drugs, an arrest for drug possession will signify a deviant, criminal act. Since the 1960s, American sociologists have shown increasing interest in legal institutions and their relation to society. There have been three competing theories that seek to explain deviance: societal reaction theories, conflict theory and the revival of classical theories (Sampson, 1992).

Until the 1960s, American sociologists focused on studying individual law violators. Robert Merton proposed that deviance was a product of a contradiction in the norms of society, which held out certain goals as desirable and sanctioned certain means for their attainment as legitimate. Contradiction arose when classes of individuals had goals for which they lacked legitimate means. For example, advertising reinforces U.S. consumer culture's emphasis on material success. However, only a small part of society has access to the legitimate financial means of attaining these goals. Therefore, Merton contended, a high rate of “innovation” occurs in the form of theft. Since low-income groups are more likely to get caught in this normative contradiction, higher rates of crime will appear in these groups. Because young minority males living in urban ghettos encounter few legitimate opportunities, rates of crime and delinquency (deviance) should be high for this group. This theory seemed to explain why the United States has higher rates of crime than Western Europe, despite its material prosperity. Merton's work also explained individual deviant behavior as a consequence of a social structure that encourages individuals to pursue an objective they are forbidden to reach (Sampson, 1993).

By the mid-1960s, a group of American sociologists began to argue that deviant behavior was of less interest than the societal reaction to deviant behavior. This reaction was not to be understood as simple, automatic, natural or inevitable but was rather a phenomenon requiring analysis in its own right. Sociologists such as Edwin Lemerts rejected the accepted notion that deviance leads to social control. Instead, social control leads to deviance.

These societal reaction theories varied in detail, but four major themes emerged in this analysis of deviance. First, social reaction theorists contend that deviance and abnormality are not objective properties of certain actions or behaviors. Most unusual or rule-breaking behaviors are not defined as deviant and therefore it makes little sense to try to distinguish between two types of persons, deviants and nondeviants. Second, the behavior in itself does not automatically elicit or achieve a deviant label. For example, many people drink alcohol to excess but only a few of these ...