What have theories of deviance added to our understanding of crime? Why are there so many theories of crime and deviance?

Sociologists believe that studying theories of deviance are of "tremendous importance to anyone concerned with gaining a valid understanding of deviance in our society" (JD Douglas, 1970). It is important to note that deviance is a general concept that can cover a range of factors, including sexual behaviour and mental illness, but will relate directly to crime in this essay, which will draw upon academic literature to look at some of the key sociological theories for crime and deviance, as well as examples where these theories could be and have been implemented, plus considering problems with the methodology used to to develop theories. I will show that numerous theories exist due to there being numerous interpretations of the term, and because of the diverse range of factors, from social group and class to personal characteristics, that influence criminal tendencies.

So what is deviance? All social groups make rules and attempt to enforce them, specifying some actions as right, others as wrong. Someone is seen as an 'outsider' if they break these rules. This 'outsider' can be classified as a deviant, not complying with the social and accepted norm. This individual is seen as "a special kind of person", one that cannot be trusted to live by the given rules. But the person may not agree that their deviant behaviour is due to lack of trust - instead they may not accept the rule (with a different opion from society on what is 'right' or 'wrong'), or may not see those setting the rules as having authoritative status - thus the outsider may feel that his judges are in fact the outsiders. It is important to note that the degree to which one is seen as a deviant influences their treatment - we may tolerate someone occasionally drunk, but think that a thief is "less like us" and thus punish them, whereas a paedophile or rapist is seen as a "true outsider", not wanted in the society.

Statistically, deviance is anything that varies too widely from the average. However, this has the problem of giving a "mixed bag" since people who have done nothing wrong such as redheads are seen as deviants. In its medical analogy, deviance is pathological and reveals the presence of a "disease", where the human organism is not fully "healthy" and thus not working efficiently (Becker, 1973). However, people cannot agree on what constitutes 'healthy' behaviour, with no single definition being able to satisfy even a single group. Others think that deviance is a product of mental disease - in the same way that one cannot help being diabetic, you cannot help being homosexual or addicted to drugs. However, surely the stated factors, particularly the latter one, must be influenced to some extent by society, since an individual is not born as a drug addict. Sociologists use the deviance model based on health - where any processes reducing the chance of survival of society are labelled as deviant, discriminating between functional factors that promote the stability of society in contrast to the dysfunctional disruptors. Another view is that deviance is the failure to obey rules, and if these are well enforced, it is easy to see if someone has violated them and is therefore deviant. However, since there are many groups in society, an individual could break the rules of one group by abiding by another's - does that make them deviant? Already, it can be understood why there are so many theories of deviance - there are so many different interpretations of the term depending on the academic field or viewpoint it is looked at from. Within sociology, ideas concerning deviance vary widely. However, as seen many have criticisms or imperfections - perhaps therefore for deviance to further one's understanding of crime, the interrelationships between various factors must be considered rather than analysing theories independently.

Merton (1938) stated that in sociological theory, there is the tendency to claim that the cause of malfunctioning within a social structure is due to man's "imperious biological drives" not being restrained by social boundaries. Deviant impulses that break through social control must be biologically derived, with non-conformity seen as being "rooted in human nature". However, this does not provide any basis for determining non-biological conditions that induce deviance from the social norm. In 1957, Merton developed the concept of the 'American Dream', where the society had culturally defined goals, achievable due to the well established institution. But this resulted in several key theories for deviance:
INNOVATION - The American Dream strongly encourages all to succeed, although the opportunity for success is unevenly distributed, partly due to variant levels of resources and technology. Therefore deviant behaviour such as partaking in illegitimate acts (drug dealing and car theft for money, for example) is adopted to pursue and obtain success.
RITUALISM - There are limited opportunities for advancement due to a strict social hierarchy, so individuals feel forced to 'go along' with the system. Those who cannot cope with the rigorous structure deviate, by failing to conform, and can instead find themselves "locked into" a deviant lifestyle that they then cannot break out of, as seen in the film 'Trainspotting'.
RETREATISM - The retreatist rejects the system's means and goals due to personal objections, not sharing the consensus of societal values; Merton (1957) classes "tramps, chronic drunkards and drug addicts" under this category.
REBELLION - The rebel proposes that the social structure is reshaped / modified, usually with a greater emphasis on provision being related to effort and merit.
As Laurie Taylor (1971) puts it, individuals are in a rigged fruit machine (society), with the more deprived having the option to cheat to increase their chance of success (innovation), play on for the sake of it (ritualism), give up (retreatism) or propose a new game (rebellion). These reasons can help with our understanding of crime, as one may recognise that whilst a group of criminals may all perform the same act (such as burglary), their motives could be various - the most obvious in our society would be 'innovation' in the form of financial success, though this could be linked with ritualism, since being in a downward spiral involving drugs means the need for easy money.

Cloward and Ohin are seen as significant in furthering Merton's work on subcultural theories, being seen as making important advances in Mertonian theory, yet there are several aspects where their theories differ. They see deviance more as a collective endeavour than the adaptation of an individual, and also suggest that deviants may blame the system rather than themselves for their actions. Interestingly this all seems to contradict Downes' (1995) view that deviants are segregated and "rarely engage in collective efforts" to interpret their behaviour, doing rather than thinking about their actions. Albert Kohen (1965) produces an important alternative theory, criticising Merton's overemphasis on the individual's adaptations, and his failure to bring this strand together with reference group theory, when an individual's goal attainment is likely to be relative to the attainment of others. So here numerous theories can be seen because academics do not seem to agree with even the fundamental basics of deviance, again because the term has various interpretations, and because sociologists appear to have different viewpoints over what is going on in a criminal's mind - whilst there are some problems with the collection of data, did Merton have enough evidence about crime to make his assertions? It appears that his argument was more qualitative and not backed up by sufficient statistical (or otherwise) evidence. Sociologists of deviance do recognise the problems of using official information, thus using it cautiously and also relying on various other methodology such as participant observation (even this can be problematic, as seen in Barry's statement to Foster later on). In today's society, many crimes go unreported sue to fear or the belief that the police will not be interested. Insurance figures over-represent the middle-class (who may exaggerate claims), under-representing the working class, many of whom lack any insurance (and typically are more susceptible to crime). Caryl Chessman is an example of a former criminal who published a book, explaining his deviant behaviour. However, Douglas warns that Chessman did so for money rather than to aid the reader's understanding of crime. So when looking at theories of crime and deviance, one must recognise that evidence may not be completely honest.

There has been much argument about the "criminal gene" - that the deviant is significantly different to a more conformist individual. Social pathology theories suggest that criminals have distinctive traits - biogenic (genetic oddness), psychogenic (unfavourable family circumstances) and sociogenic (the individual is socialised by parents or their neighbourhood, for example). Lombroso saw it as a mental deficiency, studying 3000 soliders and concluding that those with vitamin deficiency upon the pathology of the brain were the most troublesome, with obscene tattoos for example, helping to develop his theory of avatism. In the 19th Century Lombroso asserted that noses were flat for thieves and beak-like in murderers. The theory has now been dismissed by many key academics (eg Manning, 1975) - the images of 'murderers' below show that surely such an argument can no longer be seen as valid due to so many anomalies, yet his theory that deviance is the "resultant impact of environment on low grade human beings" still exists. So one reason for there being numerous theories is that whilst there have been great changes through the decades and centuries reflecting changing social attitudes, previous theories which may now have been dismissed still remain in literature and are still referred to.

Another reason for numerous theories of crime and deviance is because such acts are socially defined and judged differently around the world, both on a macro and micro scale - whilst theories of deviance have implications for politics and policy making, the relationship between the theory and its implementation in the real world is widely variable, since the influence of ideas related to deviance changes "from state to state, administration to administration, government department to government department..." as Manning (1975) puts it. What a society sees as normal alters what they see to be deviant behaviour. Cressey, DR (1951) also emphasised how it must be noted that different groups judge different things as deviant - if scientists ignore the variable character in the judgement process, they limit the development and understanding of theories (however, in practice such a factor would be an important aspect of studies). The variation in response to deviance also changes over time, with 'deviant' acts such as homosexuality having a much more lenient response in general than previously.

Types of deviant behaviour can be shown in this table:

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here a 'secret deviant' is one breaking the rules, but their acts go unnoticed and therefore they see their action as non-problematic. However, an extreme case of the problem of a deviant act being made aware can be demonstrated in a case study cited in Becker from the Trobriand Islands in 1926 - incest between a couple continued since nobody knew about it, but the boy committed suicide immediately following a public accusation.

Assuming that all those who break a rule are part of the same homogenous category since they all committed the same deviant act ignores the central fact that deviance, according to Becker (1973), is created by society - "Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction consistitutes deviance" - and therefore it does NOT measure the act an individual has done, rather how the act is viewed in relation to rules and sanctions. A deviant is somene to whom the tag has successfully been applied to, with deviant behaviour being that which people label as such (Tannenbaum, 1951). However, a problem here is that some people may be labelled as deviant even if they have not broken any rules, with the category lacking homogeneity and failing to include all cases that should be in it, therefore common factors of a deviant's characteristics and life experience cannot easily be found. So numerous theories of deviance exist since these fundamental factors cannot be easily claimed - instead there may be some element of speculation or 'guesswork' involved that varies from author to author.

Whether an individual is in fact deviant or not, all experience being labelled as outsiders - this can create stigmatism where all members of a community feel that they are being collectively labelled due to the actions of a small number of pure deviants - as was the case for the Blue Hall estate in Stockton on Tees, where the community felt discriminated against regarding employment, education, credit and insurance despite a £26m regeneration process (Hiller, 2000). This theory corresponds with a key conclusion from Shaw and McKay's 1942 study of crime in Chicago - that the collective class character of the locality has the ability to amplify or reduce the criminal traits of the individual. This theory can be important in understanding criminal tendencies - if an individual is labelled as a criminal whether they are are one or not, the 'Pure deviant' will have little reason to change and the 'Falsely accused' may feel that they will be labelled regardless of their actions, potentially leading to criminal behaviour.

Integrating deviance with another sociological theory provides interesting reading - for example Becker seeing deviance as collective action, since people act together, actively comparing themselves with that their peers have done, are doinr or may do when carrying out actions. One tries to fit their own line of action into that of others, as does everyone else - this process of 'adjusting' and 'fitting' can be seen as a form of collective action. When seeing deviance as a collective action, we see people taking into account what others do, and how it will affect their position and rank, for example Short & Strodtbeck (1965) seeing delinquents as being troublesome in order to maintain their status in their gangs. However, compare this with Weiner: "Skill at shoplifting does not necessarily confer status on a child from his peers" - whilst this may show that attitudes vary depending on the social group, I believe that Weiner may be somewhat out of touch since the deviant act could certainly be carried out for status and popularity. This helps with one's understanding of crime - that when the deviant is associated with a group, whether this be a youth group or adult gang, a key reason for criminal tendencies can be for reputation and status.

Many theories exist because there is "much speculation, theorising and scientific study" (Becker, 1973), with no single answer available. Extensive scientific study has led to the acceptance that there is something distinct about the acts that break social rules since the person committing it has a particular characteristic making it "necessary or inevitable" that they do it. This is an interesting statement, since it may seem to contradict alternative theories of deviance, that society is responsible for creating deviance rather than individuals. However, perhaps one could consider that both theories are correct to some extent, and that deviance is caused by both the social environment and characteristics of those in question, though the focus on either factor may greatly alter depending on the specific individual.

When considering the theories for crime, one may restrict ideas to the personal characteristics of the individual and their surrounding societal environment - this alone has the potential to produce a vast range of theories. Lombroso (1911) on the other hand very interestingly extended reasons for crime to virtually every aspect of the physical environment as well as society, relating crime to climate, geology and orography for example. On first glance this may seem perhaps pedantic and obscure, though statistical evidence is used to back up any assertions. For example when looking at temperature, excessive heat has an effect upon the human mind, as do polar regions where one experiences "senses dulled and speech embarrassed" - hence Chukchi (-40°C) experiencing virtually no violence or crime, and there being relatively little in Russia and Scandinavia compared to the rest of Europe. When looking at the terrain of France, the relative occurrence of rape is 32% in mountainous areas compared to 70% on level plain, since the latter has a greater population density with a more built up environment meaning greater opportunity for the criminal act to occur in. So this explains why there are so many theories of crime - whilst there are so many factors that make up human society that can influence deviant behaviour, taking the physical environment into consideration as well means being able to think of a vast range of reasons all with the potential to contribute to deviant criminal behaviour (as well as deviance in other fields).

In 1970, Douglas stated that deviance was a field of study within sociology that has not "changed more rapidly or more creatively", with much research at that time being carried out by new younger sociologists. This could be a reason for the existence of so many theories - a younger generation could provide a new angle or perspective to the study, and perhaps being more "in touch" with reality; some of the literature appeared to be somewhat dated, with extramarital sex and homosexuality being seen as despicable acts - as social attitudes and values change, theories must be brought up to date, either by modification / improvement of current ideas or introducing new ones. This does mean, however, that a lot of out-dated theories will remain in the 'sea of literature' helping to explain why so many exist.

Janet Foster's "Villains" (1990) shows how offenders view their deviant acts, looking at an inner city South East London area over 18 months (1983-5) with participation observation and extended interviews from two generations - middle aged adults frequenting the Grafton Arms pub, and 'street-wise' teenagers. The teenage youth culture was seen as completely separate from the previous generation (eg Hoggart 1957, Cashmore 1984), again suggesting that numerous theories regarding crime and deviance exist due to changing social attitudes and values over time. Crime is sometimes seen as an "occasional, male and teenage detour", either leading to a persistent criminal life at adulthood or abruptly ending, especially if say family reponsibilities take over. Foster highlights three things that will be the deciding factors to whether this deviant behaviour persists into adulthood - the location where crime can potentially take place, experiences at adolescence, and the influence of peers, parents and/or the local community. Poverty, unemployment, bad housing and a high population density are all "perennial ingredients in the inner city jigsaw" that blur the distinction between 'right' and 'wrong', between legitimate, semi-legitimate and illegitimate. In the area studied by Foster, attitudes towards crime can be considered as alarming, especially when a CID officer says: "Almost everyone in this area has a criminal record or associates with criminals. Petty crime and receiving is a way of life. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you don't hurt anybody. Crime is almost inbred in generations here". This helps us to understand how geographic location and the attitudes of families severely influence the deviance of crime.

Deviance is seen as banned or controlled/restricted behaviour, likely to attract disapproval or punishment, with those who deviate making their lives more problematic. Even if their deviance is undetected, for example a criminal repeatedly getting away with burglary, their deviant activity "multipl[ies] the perils of ordinary existence" (Downes, 1995). Matza interestingly states that deviation itself can become devious, with there often being the movement towards concealement in this way. The work of sociologists of deviance is made more complicated since the subjects may be 'hidden' in this way - deviants may not be (initially) co-operative in studies, with rule-breaking denied when suspected and "shielded behind locked doors". Therefore, sociologists must view the world sceptically to discover examples of deviance to analyse, such as Dittons finding that fiddles were inherrent throughout the bread industry. So this secrecy makes research and thus theories about deviance more complex - deviants are often not fully aware of the nature of their own activity when breaking the rules is seen as the 'norm'. In some cases different sociologists could provide contrasting theories of deviance for the same information depending on their interpretation. For example, 'Barry' told Foster of his experience of being in court for armed robbery at 16: "Great. It was the funniest time I'd ever had..." From this, some sociologists could conclude that that court leniency could be a key reason for deviant behaviour amongst the youth. But the more sceptical could see his boasts as simply 'ex-post facto bravado' - once again showing the difficulty of interpreting deviants, and how this may mean there is not one clear-cut theory for their deviance.

Even for a single group of society, say juveniles, there is no single reason for criminal deviance - whilst many such as Foster attribute the need to fill time as a key reason, Mayer (1980) claims that their need for easy money is the primary cause of juvenile offending. Others blame youth magistrates being more sympathetic than parents as failing to deter crime (such as Derek, Jim and Barry [in Foster's study], saying their behaviour should have stopped but the soft justice system acted as no deterrent), and "unjust and unfair" policing. In a current YouGov crime questionnaire for teenagers, participants were asked what they thought the main reasons for deviant behaviour were, and if they'd committed a crime why they did it. The popular answers for both ranged widely, for the former this included factors ranging from those mentioned in this paragraph to violence in the media and music. Reasons for committing the deviant act ranged from the individual not believing that the act should be illegal, to being bullied/provoked, to being under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Additionally, such reasons are not necessarily exclusive, making us understand that the underlying motives for crime may be more complex than one perceives due to the potential interrelationships between several factors.

Theories for deviant behaviour vary depending on the social class of the individual - this can be demonstrated by looking at two case studies of individuals from contrasting socioeconomic backgrounds - notice the contrast between attitudes of the interviewees of Foster's study and the middle-class cheerleader whom Weiner befriended in this case study:
Shoplifting is one of the most common forms of deviance, committed by both adults and adolescents, by the lower, middle and upper classes. Whilst the act is "illegal and disreputable" (Weiner), many try to justify their behaviour, as he learnt when shopping with 18 year old Karen, who stole numerous items ranging from mascara to a skirt, saying it was "easier" to do so even though paying would have not been a problem. Weiner claimed that she was part of a crowd who never use the word 'steal', only taking what they apparantly 'need', using excuses such as that the large stores are efficient and profitable, easily able to cater for small losses. Weiner says that the middle-class get satisfaction from deviant behaviour from beating the system, and get the same feeling of elation that "we" get when getting something for nothing. Karen knew that the risk was low and believed that stealing was more 'fun'. If a kid was caught shoplifting in this "downtown" location, if middle-class they would be typically be let go off (perhaps with just the parents called) whereas the lower classes are more likely to be held, claims Weiner. There are two reasons for this theory: That the kids are seen to come from "good" homes where informing the parents is likely to make the deviant behaviour a one-off since they will be discliplined, and also that they would not wish to lose business from the wealthy parents. This interesting theory helps us to understand why responses and attitudes towards different members of society occurs even if they have committed the same deviant act. Such a belief is seen in the UK as well (arguably with reasonable evidence) - a smart-clothed student may be cautioned but a skinhead 'thug' imprisoned for the same deviant act.

Bruce Jackson's (1996) essay on the American drugs culture demonstrates well why there are so many theories of deviance by giving various reasons depending on the social group in question. The deviant act of taking illegal drugs is seen within numerous social groups in America, though the given reasons vary - Jackson generalises that high school kids do it for "a kick in any form", college students experiment "as part of a romantic program of self-locating" and kids simply do so "because it's cool", in contrast to the thousands of well-educated, middle-class adults who take drugs to in fact avoid being deviant and instead bright, alert and functional, as Jackson interestingly theorises. This once again emphasises that theories regarding deviance are widespread since there is great variation depending on the social group in question, and Jackson's explicit (if somewhat generalised) reasons for deviant behaviour certainly aids our understanding of why individuals take part in criminal activities.

Conclusion
Manning (1975) stated that the study of deviance is "an extended train of partially examined and partially exhausted ideas", with sociological theories often being independent from research into and explanation of deviant behaviour. I agree with this, since it is a key reason for there being no clear-cut finalised theory of deviance, and instead numerous ideas, *most* of which are criticised for not considering other aspects. Literature relating to deviance and crime certainly aids one's understanding of criminal activity - whilst academic theories may be widespread and sometimes contradict each other, numerous understandable reasons are given for why people commit crime. It is interesting just how widespread the factors are that influence this, extending outside the circle of social science, as Lombroso showed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becker, HS (1973) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, Free Press
Chattoe, E (2002) Theories of Crime and Deviance - Lecture Notes
Douglas, JD (1970) Observations of Deviance. New York, Random House
(Weiner NL & Jackson B, cited in Douglas)
Downes, D & Rock, P (1995) Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking. Oxford, Claredon Press.
Foster, J (1990) Villains: Crime and Community in the Inner City. London, Routledge
Hiller, SH (2000) The Geography of Crime - Handout
Lombroso (1911) Crime - It's Causes & Remedies. Little, Brown & Company, New Jersey
Morris, T (1976) Deviance & Control; The Secular Heresy. London, Hutchinson & co
Taylor, Walton & Young (1973) The New Criminology: For A Social Theory of Deviance. London, Routledge

What have theories of deviance added to our understanding of crime? Why are there so many theories of crime and deviance?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Assess The Usefulness Of Labelling Theories In Understanding Crime and devi...

Assess the usefulness of subcultural theories in understanding crime & devi...

Sociological Theories on Crime and Deviance

Assess Interactionist theories of crime and deviance.