The Three Main Theories of Deviance and Their Strengths and Weaknesses
A functionalist analysis of deviance looks for the source of deviance
in the nature of society rather than in the biological or
psychological nature of the individual. Although functionalists agree
that social control mechanisms such as the police and the courts are
necessary to keep deviance in check, many argue that a certain amount
of deviance can contribute to the well-being of society.
Durkhiem (1895) believed that:
* Crime is an 'integral part of all healthy societies'. This is
because individuals are exposed to different influences and will
not be committed to the shared values and beliefs of society.
* Crime can be functional. All societies need to progress and all
social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for
change to occur, yesterday's deviance must become tomorrow's
normality. Nelson Mandela, once imprisoned as a 'terrorist',
eventually became president of South Africa.
* Societies need both crime and punishment. Without punishment the
crime rate would reach a point where it became dysfunctional.
Durkheim's views have been developed by A. Cohen (1966) who discussed
two possible functions of deviance:
1. Deviance can be a 'safety valve', providing a relatively harmless
expression of discontent. For example, prostitution enables men to
escape from family life without undermining family stability.
2. Deviant acts can warn society that an aspect is not working
properly, for example widespread truanting from school.
Merton (1938) explains how deviance can result from the culture and
...
... middle of paper ...
... (taking advantage of 'insider' knowledge to make huge profits on
the stock exchange). This is illegal, which suggests that
capitalists do not always get the laws they want.
5. 'Left Realists' believe that Marxists put too much emphasis on
corporate crime. Other crimes such as burglary cause greater harm
than Marxists imply. Their victims are usually working-class and
the consequences can be devastating for them.
6. Post-modern Criminology rejects Marxist criminology as being
neither believable nor defensible.
Despite these criticisms, Marxism has been an influence on a number of
critical perspectives on deviance. Some have drawn their inspiration
from Marxism and can be referred to as neo-Marxist approaches. Others
owe less to Marxism and are better defined as radical approaches.
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
1. Cesare Lombroso applied the methods of natural science (observation, measurement, experimentation, statistical analysis) to the study of criminal behavior. Lombroso rejected the classical theory of crime, associated with Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which explained criminal activity as freely chosen behavior based on the rational calculation of benefit and loss, pleasure and pain. Critically analyze both schools of thought and provide an opinion as to what theory you believe is more relevant.
Before the 1950’s theorists focused on what the difference was between deviants and criminals from “normal” citizens. In the 1950’s researchers were more involved exploring meaning and reasons behind deviant acts. This led to the most dominant question in the field of deviance, “what is the structural and culture factors that lead to deviant behavior?” This question is important when studying deviance because there is no clear answer, everyone sees deviance in different ways, and how deviance is created. Short and Meier states that in the 1960’s there was another shift in focus on the subject of deviance. The focus was what causes deviance, the study of reactions to deviance, and the study of rule breaking and rule making. In the 1960’s society was starting to speak out on what they believed should be a rule and what should not; this movement create chaos in the streets. However, it gave us a glimpse into what makes people become deviant, in the case it was the Vietnam War and the government. Short and Meier also write about the three levels that might help us understand were deviance comes from and how people interact to deviance. The first is the micro level, which emphasizes individual characteristics by biological, psychological, and social sciences. The second level is macrosociological that explains culture and
...tter how hard they work, they cannot achieve the desired levels of wealth which they have been taught to aspire to, deviant behaviour may result. Howard Becker's approach to the labelling of deviance, outlined in Outsiders views deviance as the creation of social groups and not the quality of some act or behaviour ( Howard Becker website). According to Becker, researching the act of the individual is irrelevant as deviance is simply rule breaking behaviour that is labelled deviant by those in a position of power. Richard Quinney concentrates more on the development of a capitalist economy in the creation of deviants. He views the introduction of capitalism as condition where struggle is a natural component. In the book " Class, State, and Crime", Quinney states that deviance is a product of the condition of the social structure (p107) (Richard Quinney website). He believes that that the state maintains the capitalist order through the creation of laws. The state exists to serve the interests of the capitalist working class. The criminal law is merely an instrument of that class to perpetuate the current social and economic order and is used to repress those who are less powerful.
norms are those that are highly important to either most members in a society or
Social deviancy is the violation of social norms. A deviant is someone who rejects folkways and mores. Any action that violates the values or rules of a social group is deviant behavior. In order to actually be characterized as a deviant, the individual must be detected committing a deviant act and be stigmatized by society. A stigma is a mark of social disgrace, setting the deviant apart from the group. Criminality is healthy for society. Deviance affirms our cultural values and norms. Responding to deviance clarifies moral boundaries and brings people together. There will always be people who break society’s rules and that’s important.
The concepts 'Social Control' and 'Deviance' have more than one definition to me, my understandings of these terms are that they try to group, control and define different kinds of anti-social behaviour. In this essay I will be reflecting on how certain topics have deviant labels attached to them as a result of social control. I will be explaining my initial understanding and views of these topics, going on to explain how they may have been changed, challenged or reinforced after attending lectures and using the sources available to me to expand my knowledge. Also, I will be using evidence from texts I have read to support these views and considering how these contribute to the inner-relationship between 'deviance' and social control. The key topics I will be demonstrating this with are Teenage Mothers, Eugenics, Deviant Bodies and The Cultural Degeneration of Travellers. These topics highlight key areas in which deviant labels are attached to groups of people by social control and how society has tried to control people's views in order to separate class and be in command of what should be seen as acceptable behaviour.
Individuals' personalities and overall quality of living are significantly influenced by several interrelated sources ranging from one's upbringing and quality of relationships to their own feelings of self-esteem and worth. Though this may seem relatively easy and un-complex, countless people today are engaged in persistent antisocial, criminal behavior, and seem unable to find an alternative, legal, means of living. While many have tried to explain such behavior through various theories, the causes of criminal activity remain to be satisfactorily clarified. Essentially, antisocial criminal activity has two aspects to it. Antisocial behavior is that in which one shuns society and others, while criminal activity is the act of performing a deed that violates an established law of the community. Obviously, such actions have serious consequences, which can range from community service and a fine to prison time. Even though there are several reasons that one may become an antisocial criminal, two theories of personality that provide reasonable explanations of this phenomenon, each in their own way, are the psychoanalytic and phenomenological theories.
Within any given society, individuals are expected to behave and or conduct themselves in a given acceptable manner. However, there are instances when particular individuals act contrary to the set standards and violate the cultural norms. Such acts may include acts of crime, theft, defiance, breaking of rules, and truancy just to mention a few. Deviance could thus be viewed as the intentional or accidental violation of the particular behavioral aspects and ways that people are expected to act within a society (Hardy).
Deviance is the violation of cultural norms. Deviance falls into two forms: formal and informal. Formal deviance is the violation of laws in a society, resulting in crime. Informal deviance is the violation of a social norm. This is an action not acceptable by society, but cannot be punishable by law. In order to understand deviance, one must examine why individuals are deviant and what function deviance serves in society. However, there is not a definite answer for either, rather multiple theories.
Theory is an important part of discovering and understanding why people commit crime. It is difficult to understand how a prejudice or bias towards someone can be linked to criminal behavior. The general theory of crime coined by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson can be applied to hate crime. The general theory of crime explains that people are born pre-disposed to crime and that they have natural tendencies to commit crime (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). The only difference between those who are criminals and non-criminals would be their self-control (Tibbetts, 2015, p 161). Self-control is a key component to the general theory of crime. Not everyone acts on his or her thoughts of someone criminally, or even at all. The difference between people who do not choose to commit crime, would be their difference in self-control. People who commit crime have low self-control, and people who are law-abiding citizens have high self-control.
As we all have observed, throughout history each culture or society has unique norms that are acceptable to that group of people. Therefore, to establish and come to the acceptance of these basic norms, each society must develop its’ own strategies and techniques to encourage the fundamentals of behavior, which is clear in our modern society. Most do assume that everyone in a society will follow and respect such norms. However, some tend to deviate from the adequate norms and demonstrate deviant behavior. Nevertheless, we are inclined to ask ourselves, why do people decide to violate such important standards of living?
The Theory of moral development was founded by the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. He argued that starting from infancy extending throughout adulthood, we develop a moral compass that guides us through our life. Each moral judgment can be categorized into three levels, pre-conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality, with each level encompassing two stages. As we grow older and gain new experiences, we begin to view the world differently and the moral reasoning for our choices evolves.
There are 5 basic techniques of managing deviance. There is secrecy, manipulating the physical setting, rationalizations, change to non-d`eviance, and joining deviant subcultures. The act of secrecy is easily defined as the word itself. The deviant keeps secrets from those around them. The thought behind it being that if nobody ever knows about their deviant behavior there is no one who can place negative sanctions upon the deviant. Next, manipulating the physical setting, the deviant chooses to avoid negative sanctions by appearing to be legitimate in their reasons for taking part in the act or situation. For example a prostitute may work under the guise of being an escort or masseuse. Another technique of managing deviance is rationalizations. An example of a rationalization would be a shoplifter who justifies their actions by saying that the store has insurance and can afford to suffer the loss. A fourth technique of managing deviance would be to make a change to non-deviance. For example, criminals will refer to the technique as “going straight.” The fifth and final technique of managing deviance is to join a deviant subculture. Joining the subculture makes the deviant feel like they are less deviant because they are surrounded by their deviance.
What is street crime? According to McDonald and Balkin (1983) define street crime as “personal contact criminal victimization (p.419)”. As we read this article it argues from different viewpoint that street justice can be explained from different theoretical perspectives. There are three theoretical perspectives that examines the role of justice as a means of informal social control and as a reactionary process to dynamics of social strain and subcultural demands. This theoretical analysis is then applied to concepts of justice, including retributive, distributive, restorative, and procedural. The derived street justice paradigm incorporates these various forms of justice as they are linked with cultural imperatives associated with street culture and