Although we are often influence by other members of society behaviour the laws are created and decided by the “elites” the government and these rules and laws are what the general public has to follow. “Crime” has therefore been described as “any mode of behavior which breaks a law”. Giddens pg121. Thus suggesting crime equals a form of deviant behavour and it is the rich and powerful who decided what is considered as deviant and what deviant behavior can be considered normal.
Early sociologist such as Lombroso explanations on deviance were scientifically “based on the premise that criminals can somehow be scientifically differentiated from non criminals” Sociology in Focus pg 466. In addition many other sociologist such as Broca a French anthropologist (pg124 Giddens) have supported Lombroso view that deviance and crime are caused by psychological and biological factors and is the individuals thought.
Not all Sociologists however are convinced that deviance only occurs due to psychological factors or medical factors. As definitions of crime can vary from one society to another, thus it depends on the societies institutions.
Supporting this view point that it is not just the individual thought for being deviant and society must play a key role is the “Labeling theory”. Which originates from the interactionalist prospective, and suggest that we are deviant and that deviance is social constructed and created by social definitions. The labeling theory is supported by Howard Becker 1963 who feels “the central fact about deviance is that it is created by society”. Labeling theory questions why actions can be labeled as deviant and who does this, is it social power? In addition it focuses on how society creates and has these shared meanings.
The labeling theory indicates that social groups create deviance by making rules which all are meant to follow. Therefore suggesting that a deviant person is the one whom has been labeled by its fellow members of society. If it is against “the collective Rules” then society perceives it to be deviant.
Becker illustrates this by indicating that the context of a situation plays a key as to whether an act is accepted or perceived as deviant. “The act of injecting heroin into a vein is not inheritaly deviant, if a nurse gives a patient drugs under a doctor’s order.” (pg 476 Sociology in focus) Thus labeling theories key issues is that the context of an event/ situation has to be taken into consideration. Further more labeling theory would argue that labeling individuals as deviant can be damaging as “agency of control” such as police may be biased when enforcing sanctions. Thus target groups for example stopping and searching black, young, unemployed, men this being due to their stereotypical perception that they may hold.
Lernert 1972 in agreement with Becker also felt that society could be to blame for generating “further deviance” he explained this as primary and secondary deviance (476 Sociology in Focus). Primary deviance is deviant acts such as burping and farting which have not been publicly labeled these acts do not affect an individual’s social status. Secondary deviance concerns acts which have been publicly labeled as deviant and can affect ones status in society. By society labeling more acts as deviant they could be in danger as creating further deviance as ever act could become deviant.
Thus labeling people as deviant publicly marks them out so that the individual who was ones a friend, family member is now perceived as a criminal and has a stigma attached to them. They have been given a negative status and are not allowed to interact with society and may feel rejected thus seeks comfort in committing more deviant acts as they have accepted the label that has been given to them. This is referred to as “self fulfilling prophecy” where the individual carries out deviant acts as it gives them some form of “social status” and they feel it is what is expected of them.
The labeling theory can be criticized as it does not consider who makes the rules and does not take into account how they become applied. Further more it does not take into consideration were the stereotypes originate form (Soc in focus pg 480) In addition there is no evidence suggesting that labeling an individual does have an effect on their behavior and cause them to be deviant or whether it is the interaction with other so called “criminals” which cause further deviant behavior.
The labeling theory indicates that it is the authorities who are to blame for deviance as they set the rules and labels. Thus we can all be deviant depending on who sets the rules, and depending on why certain acts become labeled as deviant by members of society.
Supporting the Labeling theory that it is not primarily the individuals thought that they are deviant is the Neo-Marxist view point who feel that it is the rich and powerful who are more able to define the notions of right and wrong. The Neo-Marxist view is that crime is a product of a capitalist society which is concerned with, self-interest and self-advancement and materialism. A Neo- Marxist view point suggests that “there is one law for the rich and another for the poor” (pg 480 Soc in focus.) They suggest that the law is selectively enforced for example white-collar crime such as braking Trade laws is hardly ever investigated nor prosecuted. Whereas a working class crime such as a house robbery is more likely to carry a prison sentence. This approach suggests that depending on what class then crime/deviance can be accepted as the norm.
Thus this approach has been criticized as using crime as a weapon within the class war. Many laws such as speeding have to be implemented for safety and well-being reasons and cannot “Be seen as an expression of a capitalist class” (pg 483 Soc in Focus)
The empathies of the Marxist view point is that crime occurs because of coercion and conflict and class struggle. Where as in contrast to this a Functionlist prospective places the emphasis on that members of society should be in agreement over basic social values as this will create social stability and integration. However Marxism and Functionalist are in agreement that structures and institutions of a society determine how individual’s behaviour, as society creates the rules and determines what is deviant.
Funtionlist perceives crime and deviance as normal and good for members of society as it makes them aware of social values, moral order and boundaries it serves a function. Durkheim 1964 view point was that deviance is “an interfral part of all healthy societies” (pg 468 Soc in focus) Witnessing individuals being punished will according to Durkheim deter as from deviant acts and integrate as into society.
Supporting Durkeims view point that deviance is normally and healthy for society is Davis 1961 who identifies deviance as a “warning function” within a society supporting his view is Clinard 1974 who suggested that when children truant from school it could be a “warning function” indicating that something is wrong within the school and that there is a need for change (pg 648 Soc in Focus)
Functionalist theory suggest the importance and normalness of deviance and crime it doesn’t however find explanations for the crimes or deviance “It is one thing to assert that crime can be made to serve some social end or other once it has occurred, e.g. to heighten solidarity by uniting against the offender. It is another step altogether to explain crime as promoted in advance by society to bring about an end” (Downs and Rock pg 106.)
Many sociologist draw upon Durkeims view on anomie when interpreting crime and deviance. Durkheim argued that anomie exist when there were no clear rules for individuals to follow thus making them feel isolated and cause them distress from this Durkheim suggested that anomie could be a key factor in suicide and why individuals break societies norms and become deviant.
Robert Merton in 1930 considered Durkheims concept on anomie and used it as a bases in explaining why working class deviance occurs and the importance of society’s role in creating deviance and not the individuals. Merton explained deviance as a conflict/strain that some individuals experience due to not being able to achieve social goals, material success, and having few opportunity. Therefore crime and deviance is the only alternative and appears to be a “normal” way of life for the indrvidual.
Many question arise from Mertons view point such as how can crimes such as vandalism be justified which does not give any monetary success. In addition a criticism from the labeling theory which argues: Yes surly crimes do occur but in what context such as a child murder be related to money or ever justified.
When the hidden boundaries are over stepped for example child murder and society can not justify or except the act as a social norm then members of society may seek comfort by referring to the individual who carry out the act as mental ill, or having a physical illness and possible a form of “badness in society”. For example epilepsy has been in all three categories in history it has been perceived as a mental illness, a form of social deviance (badness) and as it is know today a physical illness. Ideas of what is social Normal can be worked out from these three categories.
All the theories appear to empathies the importance that conformity plays in whether deviance occurs or not. It could be argued that a society should give leeway and accept that deviance is normal and likely to occur, due to as all being individuals with different thoughts and feelings and roles to play within society. For society to advanced according to Durkeims perspective then we need to take individuals needs into consideration and perhaps be more understanding. This can be seen in Holland who accept deviance as normally and have a lower crime rate, whereas in South Africa who implement strict rules and punishments on levels of freedom they “sow higher levels of violence” (Giddens pg 153). Thus suggesting that societies who accept deviance as normal need not suffer breakdown and moral confusion as long as equality is still a key factor. In addition as long as society’s members are allowed to fulfill their wishes and are not restricted and the needs of the wider community are not forgotten then deviance need not be seen as a threat and be considered as Normal.
Bibliography
Croall Understanding White Collar….
D.Dowens and P Rock Understanding deviance
E.Goffman Stigma
Giddens Sociology
Paul Taylor, Richardson, Yeo, Marsh, Pilkinton Sociology in Focus