Basic concepts on crime and deviance

Deviance and Social Control
Unit M1: Basic Concepts
“A” Level Sociology
A Resource-Based
Learning Approach
Deviance and Social Control
Unit M1: Basic Concepts
Introduction

Deviance and Social Control Basic Concepts
 Chris Livesey: www.sociology.org.uk Page 2
In this section of the course we will be exploring the nature of conformity to - and
deviation from - social rules in both our own and other societies. In order to do this,
we will initially need to understand a number of basic concepts that we can develop.
In more detail at a later point. Before we start to do this, however, it might be useful
to briefly map-out the various general areas covered by the syllabus.
1. The Social Distribution of Crime and Deviance:
In this respect, we will be looking at a major aspect of deviant behaviour in our
society (crime) and the way such behaviour is associated with various social
categories such as:
Class
Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Region
2. Theories of Crime and Deviance:
In simple terms, we need to look at the various explanations of crime and deviance
that have been produced by sociologists over the past 100 or so years.
3. Power, Deviance and Social Control:
The concept of power is a very significant one in relation to the way social rules are
created and applied and, for this reason, we need to examine this concept as a
means of understanding the nature of social conformity and deviance.
4. Social Reactions to Crime and Deviance:
A significant aspect of (deviant) behaviour is the reaction of others to that behaviour
and, in this respect, we will be particularly concerned with an examination of the role
of the mass media in the process of DeviancyAmplification.
5. The Role of the Police, Courts and Penal System:
The concern here will be to outline the role of "official" agencies of social control in
our society.
6. Youth Subcultures and Styles:
Over the past 20 - 30 years a number of "deviant sub-cultures" (Mods, Hippies,
Punks and so forth) have surfaced in both our own and other cultures and the
concern here will be to both examine the nature and purpose of such subcultural
groupings and their relationship to deviant behaviour in general.
7. Sociological Explanations of Suicide:
Suicide is an interesting example of a form of deviant behaviour that has been
studied in a great deal of depth by various sociologists over the years. In this part of
the course we will look not only at some sociological explanations of this behaviour
but also at the way in which we can use this area of social behaviour to highlight
methodological differences of approach to the study of human behaviour.
Theories of Deviance:ANote or two...

In terms of the course as a whole, this section on Deviance and Social Control is
useful in relation to the idea of examining sociological perspectives (or High-Level
Theories if you prefer) in more detail.
In this respect, it should be possible to look at various theoretical explanations of
deviance in terms of the way various writers (working in related, but theoretically-
distinctive, perspectives) have approached the study of deviant behaviour from the
stand-point of a relatively clear conception about the general nature of the social
world (and, by extension, the nature of such ideas as social order, social control,
power and so forth).
In this sense, the study of deviance not only allows us to look in detail at a particular
aspect of human behaviour; it also allows us to:
1. Firm-up a number of basic concepts introduced at the start of the course (social
control, social norm, rules, values and so forth).
2. Elaborate a number of fairly distinctive sociological perspectives (which are
sometimes referred-to as "ideological frameworks" or "paradigms").
3. Locate the study of one particular aspect of social life (crime and deviance)
within a general consideration of the way in which various sociologists have
theorised the nature of the social world generally.
For this reason, the discussion of "theories of deviance" has been quite rigidly
structured in terms of "sociological perspectives", whereby I have attempted to show
that different sociologists working within different theoretical perspectives have
formulated quite different explanations of deviance. This should, I trust, become a
little clearer when we discuss theories of deviance.
Having noted this, the next thing we need to do is to start to look at some basic
concepts in relation to this area of the course...
The Concept of Deviance
"Deviance" is a wide-ranging term used by sociologists to refer to behaviour that
varies, in some way, from a social norm. In this respect, it is evident that the concept
of deviance refers to some form of "rule-breaking" behaviour.
In relation to deviance, therefore, the concept relates to all forms of rule-breaking
(whether this involves such things as murder, theft or arson - the breaking of formal
social rules - or such things as wearing inappropriate clothing for a given social
situation, failing to produce homework at school or being cheeky to a parent, teacher
and so forth - more-or-less the breaking of relatively informal social rules).
As should be apparent, criminal behaviour is a form of deviance (one that is defined
as the breaking of legal rules) and, whilst we will be concentrating upon this area of
deviance, it needs to be remembered that it is only one aspect - albeit a very
significant one - in relation to the concept of deviant behaviour in any society.
As a general rule, therefore, we can say that there is a distinction between crime and
deviance in terms of:

"All crime is, by definition, deviant behaviour, but not all forms of deviance are
criminal".
Generally, the study of "crime" tends to be seen as the preserve of the criminologist,
whereas sociologists tend to focus their attention and interest upon the wider social
implications of all forms of rule-breaking (and, of course, rule creating) behaviour in
any given society. However, as we shall see, this does include the analysis of crime
and criminal behaviour considered as forms of deviance.
In passing, it might be useful to note that we will necessarily have to look at various
other concepts surrounding the issue of deviance (such as those of ideology, power,
social control and so forth) if we are to understand the concept sociologically. A
discussion of such concepts will form part of the general theme of this series of
notes, but for the moment it is probably sufficient just to draw your attention to the
need to understand the concept of deviance in terms of the ways in which different
societies develop different conceptual frameworks regarding deviance ("ideology")
and the way in which different social groups may be able to create and impose
conceptions of deviant behaviour upon others ("power" and "social control").
Types of Deviance
In starting to look more closely at the concept of deviance, it tends to be assumed
that "deviant behaviour" is somehow always behaviour that is generally frowned upon
by people in a society (the very name seems to imply that such behaviour is, at best,
"not very nice" and, at worst, downright criminal). That this is not necessarily the case
can be shown by looking briefly at the way in which we can categorise various basic
forms of rule-breaking behaviour in terms of three basic ideas:
1. Admired behaviour:
An example of deviance that might be considered as "good" or "admirable" behaviour
(whilst also breaking social norms) might be something like heroism - the saving of
the life of another person whilst putting your own life in great danger, for example.
2. Odd behaviour:
Many forms of behaviour - whilst not being criminal - are frequently considered to be
somehow "odd" or "different" to normal behaviour. These forms of deviance range
from such things as outlandish modes of dress, through mildly eccentric forms of
behaviour (the person who shares their house with 50 cats, for example), to outright
madness.
3. Bad behaviour:
Deviant behaviour in this category tends to be restricted to law-breaking or criminal
behaviour - behaviour that in some way is seen as being something more than simply
outlandish or eccentric. Depending upon the time and place, forms of behaviour in
this category might include crimes of violence, crimes against property and so forth.
As I've noted, the above represent very broad categories of deviant behaviour, and it's
not uncommon for behaviour to cut-across these various categories (behaviour that is
considered both "odd" and "bad", for example).
Identify different examplesof deviant behaviour for each of the above categories:
Identify examplesof behaviour that may cut-across the categories noted above.

When you've done these exercises, two major methodological points should, I hope,
become apparent:
1. Firstly, that categorisations of this sort are not particularly useful, sociologically, for
the understanding of deviant and conforming behaviour. The problem, in this respect,
is that once we have defined our relatively rigid categories it becomes a process of
trying to squeeze tremendous varieties of human behaviour into our predefined little
boxes - and human behaviour (as I hope you are by know aware) has an infuriating
tendency not to always fit neatly into our nicely defined categories...
2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly for our present purpose, it's likely you will
have found yourself thinking that, for any given example of deviance, you will have
considered it from two different points of view. That is, behaviour that you have
defined as deviant may not be considered deviant from someone else's point of view.
This should be readily apparent in relation to the first two categories, since definitions
of deviance here tend to rely upon relatively informal (or perhaps "subjective")
conceptions of behaviour.
In the third category you will probably have found it easier to define examples of
deviance because there exists a generally-agreed yardstick against which to
measure deviant and non-deviant behaviour (namely, a set of formal, legal, rules
governing the definition of criminal deviance and non-deviance). This is not, of
course, to say that formalised definitions are somehow "more objective" than more
informal definitions.
Rather, it is simply easier to define behaviour as deviant if you have some form of
commonly-agreed standard against which to compare forms of behaviour...
For example, when the Soviet Union still existed, it's Communist rulers actively
discouraged the dissemination of religious literature (the Christian Bible, for
example). At various times, Christian Fundamentalist groups (especially in
America) attempted to smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union, at great personal risk
(since, if they were caught, they would have faced imprisonment). In relation to
Soviet society, such activity was clearly defined as deviant behaviour. From the
point of view of Western Christian society, however, such behaviour may be
viewed as an admirable form of deviance (since it is probable that we would view
the lack of religious freedom as itself being a deviant act).
What this example (and, no-doubt many others) serves to suggest is the
methodological point that, effectively, "Deviance is in the eye of the beholder".
In other words, that which is deviant to me may not be considered deviant by you.
This idea, simple as it may seem, is an important insight in to the way we are able to
theorise the nature of the concept of deviance and, by extension, how we are able to
study the “causes” of deviant behaviour…
Deviance:Absolute or Relative?
As I’ve suggested above, the question of whether or not deviance (and by extension,
crime) is an absolute or a relative concept is significant in this context.
If, for example, we can define deviance in an absolute way it would mean that in all
societies and at all times certain forms of behaviour will be considered deviant. If
valid, this idea is significant in two ways:

Firstly, it would mean that all societies would, for some reason or other, develop rules
that proscribed certain forms of behaviour (or “acts”, to use the jargon). If this were
the case, by understanding the reasons for such proscriptions we would be able to
understand the essential nature of deviance and social control.
Secondly, it would mean that the study of deviance should concentrate on why
people break certain rules. That is, it would necessarily focus on the deviant (or
criminal) and, by so doing, would focus on a variety of factors, both psychological
(deviants as “damaged personalities, for example) or social (family and educational
background, class, gender and age, etc.).
In methodological terms, therefore, we would be able to accept the proscription
of certain forms of behaviour as “given” (that is, there would be no question that
such behaviour was wrong) and focus our efforts on explaining the qualities
possessed or not possessed by different people as “causes” of deviance.
However, if we can define deviance in a relative way it would mean that different
societies at different times develop different ways of seeing the same form of
behaviour. Thus, in effect, someone could commit an act in one society that would
be seen as deviant while they could commit the same act in a different society and
be seen as non-deviant.
This idea is also significant in two main ways:
Firstly, because different societies define the same behaviour in different ways it
would mean that, as sociologists, the focus of our studies should be on an
understanding of the way rules are created in any society (by whom and for what
reasons).
Secondly, it would mean that it is pointless to look for the “causes” of deviance in the
social and psychological qualities of the people “breaking the rules”, since if the rules
themselves are relative (that is, changeable from one moment to the next) there can
be no constant “causes” of deviance to be found “within the individual”.
Note:
Having said this, of course, once we understand the nature of the rule-creation process in any
society it would be useful to look at the social / psychological qualities of people who do – and
do not – break these rules (which we could similarly consider, as sociologists, in terms of
family and educational background, peer group influence and so forth).
In methodological terms, therefore, we would not be able to accept the
proscription of certain forms of behaviour as “given” (that is, there would always
be questions surrounding the idea that such behaviour was wrong) and we would
need, therefore, to focus our efforts on explaining how and why societies create
rules that, logically, lead to the proscription of certain forms of behaviour.
Cross-Cultural and Historical Comparisons
A simple way of illustrating the idea that deviance is actually a relative rather than an
absolute concept is to consider how the same form of behaviour can be considered
deviant or non-deviant in different societies (cross-cultural comparison) and in the
same society at different times (historical comparison).
Draw a table headed by these two ideas and consider (either individually or with a
group of class friends) how the following forms of behaviour are conside red deviant /
non-deviant in different societies and deviant / non-deviant in the same (or different)
societies at different times:

Homosexuality
Suicide
Drinking alcohol
Being married to more than one person at the same time.
Women wearing trousers.
Killing someone
The above should get you started and you should be able to supply further examples
from your own discussions…
Note: This type of relatively simple cross-cultural and historical comparison is a very
useful technique for students at A-level. In many situations the application of these
ideas to various forms of behaviour will generate a great deal of critical insight into
social processes right across the syllabus (think about things like family life,
education, work, politics, religion and so forth).
One thing this exercise should have told you is that, in basic terms, deviance is a
relative concept. In Becker’s words:
“Societies create deviants by making the rules that lead to their infraction”.
(or, in other words, if societies didn’t create rules there would no such thing as
deviance – not an astounding revelation but one which is, nevertheless, valid).
The Social Construction of Deviance
One reason for arguing that deviance is a relative concept is to sensitise you to the
idea that concepts of deviant / non-deviant behaviour are social constructions. That
is, each society or culture creates rules of behaviour by which its members are
governed and, of necessity, controlled.
When we understand this idea it leads us to consider a number of further ideas about
the nature of deviant – and conforming – behaviour.
Firstly, it leads us to consider the way ideas about what constitutes deviant behaviour
are socially constructed (that is, the concept of ideology becomes significant in
terms of our understanding and explaining deviance).
Thus, ideology is an important aspect of the sociology of deviance, since it seems
evident that one of the crucial variables involved in defining behaviour as deviant /
non-deviant is the basic values people in any society (or social group) hold.
However, while this is clearly important, ideology alone is not a sufficient form of
explanation since it is clear that people can, in effect, think what they like about their
own and other people’s behaviour (you are free, for example, to believe that it’s not
deviant to wear your underpants on your head and wander around singing “I’m a little
pixie”). What matters is your ability (or inability) to impose your ideas about normality
on others.
Secondly, therefore, we must build the concept of power into any explanation of
deviant / non-deviant behaviour. In this respect, we could argue that certain acts are
considered deviant not because they are “inherently wrong” (as I’ve suggested, no
form of human behaviour, however extreme or disgusting we might believe it to be, is
“always and everywhere” wrong) but because powerful groups in any society say
they are deviant and have the ability to impose their definition of normality on others.

Thirdly, if this is the case, it becomes clear that deviance is not so much a question of
what you do but more a question of whether or not others object to what you do (and
what they are able to do to you in order to try to stop you doing it).
An easy test of this idea is to think of the worst swearword you know.
Say it aloud in the classroom, in the presence of your fellow students and teacher.
Say it aloud in front of your family.
Say it aloud in front of your friends.
Say it aloud when you’re alone.
Assess the reactions you got from these different people…
Howard Becker expressed the above idea neatly when he argued:
“Deviance is not a quality of what people do [the act]. Rather, it is a quality of how
people react to what you do”.
You might like to express the above quotation in your own words
(what does it mean?).
Societal and Situational Deviance
The above represents an opportunity to briefly consider what Plummer has argued is
the difference between societal (that is, society-wide) and situational (that is,
localised) deviance, since this distinction helps to reinforce the idea that behaviour
considered deviant in one situation may be considered non-deviant in another.
By “societal deviance” Plummer means the various categories of behaviour that are
either illegal or which are “commonly sensed” by people to be deviant (such as
swearing at your teacher).
“Situational deviance”, on the other hand, refers to the way different sub-cultural (or
situational) groups develop norms of behaviour that may be at odds with those of
“society as a whole”. In such situations, behaviour that might be considered societally
deviant (theft, homosexuality and so forth) may be perfectly acceptable.
To illustrate this distinction more clearly, consider the following example:
In our society, killing someone is considered deviant. To not go around killing people
is, therefore, non-deviant.
However, for a soldier, fighting in a war, the reverse is true. To not kill the enemy is
considered deviant.
Thus, in the latter situation the basic values and norms of “society” are inverted by
the demands of the “situation”.
Culpable and Non-Culpable Deviance
A further distinction we can between different types of deviant behaviour is one that
recognises the idea that there is a qualitative difference between people who commit
deviant acts consciously (and with a full understanding of the fact they are behaving

deviantly) and those whose deviant behaviour may, for example, be accidental or no
fault of their own.
Culpable deviance refers to acts for which the individual perpetrator can be held
personally accountable. They are, in short, acts of deviance committed by people in
the knowledge that such acts are deviant. Examples here might include crimes such
as murder, theft or violence, as well as a wide variety of non-criminal deviance.
Non-culpable deviance, on the other hand, refers to acts for which the individual
perpetrator is not held personally accountable. Examples of this type of non-culpable
deviant behaviour might include deviant acts committed by:
1. People classified as “mentally ill”. In our society we recognise that the “mentally-ill”
(however this is defined) cannot be held culpable for deviant actions since they are
not considered to understand the values and norms of “normal” society.
This, in effect, means that the mentally-ill are not punished, as such, for their
deviance, although they may be required to undergo treatment for their “illness”.
2. Children. In our society. for example, the age of criminal responsibility varies for
different forms of crime. It is, however, a general rule that children under the age of
10 cannot be held responsible for any criminal acts they commit.
In terms of deviant behaviour, on the other hand, there are acts for which even
very young children can be held responsible (for example, hitting another child).
3. Another category of non-culpable deviance might be people who fall into various
categories of “behaviour” that are considered deviant because they do not conform to
the norm in society. In this respect, the disabled are frequently treated as “deviant”
even though, through no fault of their own, they are unable to participate fully in the
social life and activities enjoyed by the able-bodied. Similarly, those which long-term
illnesses or who have been “disfigured” in some way are often also included within
this type of non-culpable categorisation.
As an activity, brainstorm further examplesof non-culpable deviance.
For each example, clearly explain why the deviant should not be held personally
culpable for their deviance.
Operationalizing The Concept of Deviance
Although the above raises all kinds of other questions (such as who has the power to
create and enforce concepts of deviance, how such ideological concepts arise and
so forth), the main point to note in this introduction is the idea that deviance, as a
concept, is a peculiarly difficult one with which to get to grips - it is a concept, in
effect, that is very easy to define but a lot more difficult to operationalize (that is, to
measure in any meaningful way).
One reason for wanting to operationalise the concept of deviance is that we need to
think clearly about how people actually arrive at the criteria used to classify various
forms of deviance:
As an initial exercise you might like to consider the following:
Why (and under what circumstances) is murder generally seen to be a very serious
form of deviance while speeding in a car is generally seen as less serious?

Why is bunking-off lessons at school seen to be more deviant than arriving late for
a class?
What we have to do next, therefore, is explore the basis of such beliefs. For example,
why do we, in contemporary Britain, define murder as a serious form of deviance
while the "murder of a commoner" was seen as a less serious form of deviance in the
past (in our society at least)?
In order to explore the way in which we assess forms of deviance in our society, it
would be useful to use some kind of "evaluative framework" as an aid to
understanding. as luck would have it, Hagan ("The Disreputable Pleasures", 1984)
has developed just such a framework...
Hagan suggests that there are three main ways to measure the seriousness of
deviant behaviour (when we consider conceptions of deviance in terms of "society as
a whole", rather than from the viewpoint of any particular social group).
1. The degree of agreement about the wrongfulness of the act:
In this respect, there might exist a range of possible levels of agreement which go
from almost total disagreement to high levels of agreement.
2. The societal evaluation of the harm inflicted by the act:
In this respect, what is significant is a general social assessment of both personal
and, most importantly, wider social, harm caused by the act of deviance.
3. The degree of severityof the social response to the act:
In all cases of possible deviance, the "social reaction" to behaviour is going to be
significant and, as you might expect, the range of responses goes from fairly
minor, highly-localised, responses (telling someone to go away, sending them to
Coventry and so forth), through such "personal" responses as physical violence to
more society-wide responses such as imprisonment and even Capital
Punishment.
It's important to note that, in the general evaluation of levels of seriousness,
the three categories noted by Hagan are interconnected.
That is, in order to arrive at an overall assessment of the level of seriousness of a
form of deviance we have to consider a combination of all three categories.
As an exercise, you might like to try using Hagan's framework to try and assess both
the level of seriousness afforded to the following "acts of deviance" in our society and,
by extension, the likely overall social response to such behaviour in terms of the
likelihood of them becoming seen as a criminal form of deviance.
1. Bunking-off lessons at school.
2. Homosexuality.
3. Armed robbery using a replica gun.
4. Armed robbery using a real gun.
5. Heroin abuse
6. Drunk driving
According to Hagan's framework, therefore, the most serious acts of deviance in
any society are those that:

1. Involve broad levels of agreement about the wrongfulness of the act.
2. Involve high levels of social (as opposed to personal) harm.
3. Involve a verystrong social reaction to the act across society as a whole.
Drawing on the above, Hagan makes a distinction between both "crime" and
"deviance" and the varieties of likely social response to each in the following way:
1. Crime:
a. Consensus (for example, murder, theft, etc.).
Crimes about whose seriousness there is general agreement. For Hagan, crimes
in this category are seen as being most serious precisely because there is some
form of general agreement about their seriousness.
b. Conflict (for example, public demonstrations, drug offences, illegal abortion etc.).
Crimes over which "public opinion" is divided. For Hagan, crimes in this category
are seen to be treated less seriously, precisely because arguments and conflicts
surround them. For example, "drug abuse" may be defined as a "medical problem"
and therefore one where the drug user is in need of help rather than punishment
(these kinds of crimes are sometimes referred-to as "crimes without victims", since
no person other than the drug abuser is directly "injured" by the behaviour - other
forms of such crime might be things like tax evasion, illegal parking, etc.).
2. Deviance (non-criminal deviance):
a. Social deviations (for example, insanity, betrayal of trust, juvenile pranks etc.).
These types of behaviour will be viewed as deviant (because they will, in some way,
break social norms) but they are not viewed as criminal because, for example, they
are:
Highly localised (a betrayal of trust may only involve a couple of people).
Something the individual has no control over and therefore no responsibility for
(insanity).
Not particularly serious in relation to the social harm they do.
b. Social diversions (for example, styles of dress, mannerisms etc.).
Behaviour in this category tends to be used more as an indication of likely forms of
potential deviance (although, in many cases they may be mildly deviant forms of
behaviour) than anything else.

For example, dressing as a "hippy" may indicate to people that here is someone
who is likely to be involved in some form of drug abuse (which, if you're interested,
represents a form of stereotyping).
In general, we can note that behaviour that falls into the criminal category is
behaviour that is regulated by some form of formal social process of attempted
regulation (police, legal system and so forth), whilst behaviour that falls into the
deviance category is likely to be regulated by informal control agencies (parents,
peer groups and so forth).
Evaluation
Evaluating Hagan's framework is not particularly difficult, since there are a number of
areas of concern about which it is possible to raise serious questions. For example,
1. The framework is based upon notions of "public concern", yet it is not at all clear
how this concern is either measured or defined.
2. The concept of consensus is a fairly dubious one, since it is evident that there are
powerful groups in any society (for example, people who own and control the mass
media) who may be able to manipulate, in some way, an apparent consensus about
various issues. Again, how we measure "degrees of consensus" is not clear and the
problem of how any consensus might be manufactured by powerful groups is not
really addressed.
3. In many social situations, the concept of power is a crucial one. For example,
within the classroom there may be a general consensus that "doing homework" is a
deviant act and that anyone who produces homework is a deviant. The teacher,
however, may have other ideas and, since the teacher has a higher level of power
than his / her students, he / she may take steps to exercise their power over
students...
4. Finally, it is evident that not all potentially serious forms of deviance may be
defined as crimes (again, an oblique reference to the significance of the power to
define behaviour as deviant). In particular, the very powerful in our society may be
able to:
a. Prevent deviance becoming criminalised (for example, "polluting the
environment", whilst a potentially serious form of deviance in relation to the effects
it may have on people's lives, remains a relatively minor form of criminal behaviour
- punishable by a fine, rather than imprisonment).
b. Hide their crimes, such that the "general public" has no idea that a "crime" has
actually taken-place.
In this series of notes we have looked at some basic definitions of crime and
deviance, in addition to ways in which we might begin to understand the
process whereby behaviour becomes seen as both deviant and / or criminal.
The next stage in the process of "understanding deviance" is to look at various
sociological theories of deviance (how and why people commit deviant acts).
Before we do this - and as a means of helping to understand the extent of
criminal forms of deviance - it would be helpful to look at the social distribution
of crime in Britain...

Basic concepts on crime and deviance

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Basic concepts on crime and deviance (20)

More from capesociology (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Basic concepts on crime and deviance