Sociologists largely dismiss these individualist views of deviant behaviour. Although there are different theories regarding the causes of deviant behaviour they all tend to relate it to factors in wider society.
Emile Durkheim was one of the firsts to relate deviant behaviour to wider social forces. Durkheim carried out a study on suicide, thought to be one of the most individual forms of behaviour, and showed how it could be related to wider social influences. He studied suicide rates in different countries and concluded that there were many social factors influencing suicide rates, but the most important was the degree of integration within a society. Durkheim related this to religion, and claimed that in societies where the religion had an integrative function, people would be less likely to commit suicide. In societies, where religion was more individualistic and integration was weak, the population had less sense of direction or purpose in their lives. Durkheim used the concept of anomie, to describe how people, who fee their lives are pointless, may resort to suicide.
Durkheims’ study was widely criticised, particularly, for basing his enquiry on suicide rates to reach his conclusions, since the methods used to collect these will vary between different societies. Also suicide will have different meanings in different societies. In Japan it may be viewed as a positive, unselfish act and more likely to be recorded than in catholic countries, where suicide is viewed as a mortal sin. In spite of these criticisms, Durkheim was one of the first to record how social factors could influence deviant behaviour.
The influence of social factors on deviant behaviour was again emphasised by Robert Merton in the 1930’s in America. Like Durkheim he too believed that deviance arose from the structure and culture of a society rather than pathological personalities, or other biological/ physical characteristics.
Merton was mainly concerned with criminal behaviour in American society and the way in which it can be viewed as a response to pressures from society. He suggests that societies emphasise certain goals, but the opportunity to achieve them is not freely available to each individual. In America, and capitalist society in general, goals such as material possessions are heavily emphasised
Merton identifies the different ways which individuals may use to respond to these values or goals. Some people accept the goals and try to achieve them through legitimate means. Others seek the goals but try to achieve them through illegal means such as theft and other forms of crime, this is defined as innovation.. In this case the goals are more important than the way in which they are achieved. Drug pushers for example, achieve the material goals but have no conscience about the means they use to achieve them.
Some respond in a ritualistic way, they are aware that the goals are impossible to achieve, but continue to strive for them just the same through legal methods such as low paid temporary jobs offering little in terms of security.
Others retreat from both the goals and the means of achieving them, resorting to an alternative way of life. New age travellers are an example of retreatists, although they could also be described as rebellious in that they have not only rejected the goals of society, and the means of achieving them, but have also replaced them with their own alternative way of life which is different from the goals of their wider society. This group of people are regarded as more deviant than criminal, though there have been many attempts to describe their behaviour as illegal, particularly if they are involved in political activities. Green peace campaigners, who reject both the goals of society, the means of achieving them and actively pursue their downfall, are regarded as criminal rather than deviant.
According to the Marxist theory of deviance, any behaviour, which challenges the capitalist system, is thought to be criminal, since the laws are made in the interest of capitalists. They would see Mertons explanation as over emphasising blue-collar crime among the lower class and ignoring crimes among the powerful. Unlike functionalists who see the law as an expression of agreed values, Marxists see it as an instrument of the ruling class, to support it’s own interests and control the working class.
Laureen Snider provides evidence to support the Marxist view, through her research into the way in which the law in America concentrates on street crime and ignores corporate crime. She points out that in the USA, street crime involves losses of around 4 billion dollars, while the cost incurred from corporate crime is twenty times greater, yet the chances of prosecution, and penalties are smaller for corporate crime than street crime. She claims that the states in capitalist societies are reluctant to pass or enforce laws to regulate capitalist activities, since they spend a great deal of money trying to attract business and investment in the first place. Any restrictions imposed may act as disincentive, with companies taking their business elsewhere.
There are numerous other examples from around the world, which demonstrate international ruling class control. A striking example is the Export Processing Zones (EPZ’s ) mainly located in Third World countries. Large multinational corporations will set up factories or agricultural production in a country where labour is cheap, offering the incentive of employment to a heavily indebted country. Governments usually have to offer a package to allow them comparative advantage over other equally indebted countries and these may take the form of heavy investment from the host country, a ten year tax hold, no consideration for environmental pollution etc. However if workers ask for wage increases or the community complains about environmental destruction, the multinational can easily pull out altogether and move to a country which is willing to accept such terms. Often there is no benefit from having large multinationals present in such cases as they often don’t boost the economy and the skills they provide the workforce with are minimal.
According to the Marxist perspective, although statistics suggests that crime rates are much higher among lower income groups, the real criminals are those who perpetuate poverty, injustice and inequality. If someone breaks the law, eg. by non-payment of poll tax, the injustice would be seen as lying in the law, rather than the individual who deviated from it.
While sharing with the Marxist view that the causes of crime can be located in the wider social inequalities in society, New Left Realists reject the idea that urban and street crime in poorer areas is simply the result of discrimination and prejudice by the agencies of social control such as police, judges, the law and the ruling classes who make the laws. They see urban crime as very real, and for Marxists to ignore it by focussing only on corporate crime does little to help the many working class people who are victims of it.
Left Realists argue that the problems of crime in urban areas must be recognised and addressed through improving opportunities in society, such as education, reducing income inequalities, reducing unemployment and creating of real jobs. Many of these policies can be identified in the current social policies of New Labour, such as the minimum wage, the new deal and general policies to include those who are currently viewed as being socially excluded
Marxists however would argue that such measures would not be possible within a capitalist system. Since this is the main source of the problem of crime, then crime can only be resolved by getting rid of the capitalist system.
Some Feminist theories would offer a rather different solution to the problem of crime. They point out that the most significant variable contributing to crime rates is gender. The ratio of criminal convictions between male and female varies according to the type of crime committed, (7/1 for crime against the person, 17/1 for robbery and 99/1 for sexual offences.) In all instances though crime among males is far greater than in females. Since the problem lies with the male sector of the population then one solution might be to get rid of them!
Most feminists however would not go this far. However they do see the legal system as fundamentally sexist and advocate the eradication of gender bias in both the construction of laws and their enforcement. Certainly they have a point considering that until recently there was only one female judge in the whole of Scotland!
Otto Pollak disputes the claim that men are more likely to offend than women. He claimed that criminal statistics seriously underestimate the extent of female criminality and that many female crimes are likely to go unreported. Pollak suggests that because of their domestic role in society women are more able to cover up criminal behaviour such as poisoning their relatives and abusing their children. Pollaks view has not been supported and is criticised as based on a stereotypical view of women. However he does highlight the problem of the way in which statistics are used as a basis for analysing the problems of crime and deviance.
Interactionists also strongly criticise the use of statistics as a means of explaining deviant behaviour since they only take into account the people who are caught and apprehended. Many people commit crimes but only those who are caught appear in the statistics.
Howard S. Becker claims there is no such thing as deviant behaviour. Behaviour only becomes deviant when society defines it or labels it as such. In his labelling theory, Becker illustrates how the same form of behaviour can be regarded as deviant in one context and not in another. `For example If a male at a cricket match streaked across the pitch, he would be viewed as ‘a bit of a lad’, whereas if he stood and exposed himself to the crowd he would be considered to be ‘a pervert’.
‘Deviance is not a quality that lies in the behaviour itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it.’ Haralambos Themes and Perspectives. P.406
Becker examines the possible effects on an individual being publicly labelled as deviant. It is a master status and if individuals are labelled as criminal, mentally ill, homosexual etc, such labels override their status as a parent, worker, neighbour and friend. Others see and respond to them in terms of the label and assume they have negative characteristics normally associated with such labels. This will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the deviant label becomes the controlling one.
Edwin M. Lemert, like Becker, emphasises the importance of societal reaction in the explanation of deviance. He distinguishes between primary and secondary deviation. Primary deviation consists of deviant acts before they are publicly labelled. Lemert suggests they are relatively unimportant as the occasional deviant act has little effect on individuals self concepts and status in the community, and does little to prevent them from continuing a ‘normal’ and conventional life. Secondary deviation on the other hand occurs when an individual is caught and labelled as a deviant, by wider society and the agencies of social control.
One study, which illustrates the labelling theory of deviance, was carried out by application by Jock Young in his study of ‘hippy’ marijuana users in Notting Hill in London. (date). He examined the way in which the police reacted to the ‘hippies’ based on their perceptions of them as dirty, scruffy, good for nothing layabouts. The marijuana users in turn reacted against this label which differentiated them from other ‘normal’ members of society different, and in self-defence they retreated into small groups to protect themselves and avoid arrest.
In this context deviant norms and values develop and a deviant sub-culture develops. Self-concepts are reinforced which made it increasingly difficult for the hippies to re-enter conventional society.
Criticisms of this theory include doesn’t explain why individuals resort to deviance in the first place.e.g. why did the marijuana smokers start when they already knew it was illegal? Primary deviance can and does have an effect on the deviant, even if no one else knows they have done something illegal the person themselves does. It is also criticised as being deterministic in that once labelling occurs the individual is seen as having no choice in the self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally they fail to explain why some people should be labelled rather than others and why some acts are against the law.
All these views of deviant/criminal behaviour offer different views on the causes of crime and deviance, and subsequently they offer different views on the way it can be resolved. All share in common the belief that the causes of deviance lie in society rather than in the individuals physical or biological characteristics and are related to the social values and beliefs of society.
