Perspectives and Theories: What is Deviant Behavior?, Study notes of Sociology of Deviance

Download Perspectives and Theories: What is Deviant Behavior? and more Study notes Sociology of Deviance in PDF only on Docsity!

P a r t O n e

Perspectives and theories

What Is

1 Deviant Behavior?

The bizarre behavior and personal life of pop culture icon and actor Charlie Sheen, the self-described “warlock” and “rock star from Mars,” generated a legitimate multimedia frenzy for the first half of 2011. Sheen, known for past relationships with prostitutes and porn stars, as well as implications of long-term recreational drug abuse and domestic vio- lence, was depicted as extreme—even by Sheen’s standards. Though several media fig- ures dismissed Sheen’s behavior as the ravings of an out-of-control drug addict, Sheen insisted that he was in control. He was “winning.” Sheen went so far as to imply that he was more demigod than mortal, when he publicly ranted that he “had tiger blood,” and “Adonis DNA.” His proof was his success. He had made it to the top of his profession, and achieved great wealth and fame. As for everyone else, well, in Sheen-speak, they were “trolls.” Sheen received a mass outpouring of public support, selling out a high-profile

C h a P t e r

4 p A r T O N e / perspectives and Theories

avoiding the fate suffered by the powerless—being falsely, erroneously, or unjustly labeled deviant. The key reason is that the powerful, either by themselves or through influenc- ing public opinion or both, hold more power against being labeled by others as deviants. In fact, they hold more power for labeling others’ behavior as deviant. Understandably, sociologists who hold this view define deviance as any act considered by the powerful at a given time and place to be a violation of some social rule. That’s why the powerless are said to be more likely than the powerful to engage in deviance (ermann and Lundman, 2002; Simon, 2006). From this welter of conflicting definitions we can discern the influence of two opposing perspectives: positivism and social constructionism. The positivist perspective is associated with the sciences, such as physics, chemistry, or biology. The constructionist perspective is fundamental in the humanities, such as art, language, or philosophy. each perspective influences how scientists and scholars see, study, and make sense of their sub- ject. The two perspectives have long been transported into sociology, so that some sociolo- gists are more influenced by the positivist perspective while others are more influenced by the constructionist one. In the sociology of deviance the positivist generally defines deviance as positively real, while the constructionist more often defines deviance as a social construction—an idea imputed by society to some behavior. each perspective suggests other ideas about deviance, so that it has been referred to in various terms. Thus the positivist perspec- tive has also been called objectivist, absolutist, normative, determinist, and essentialist (Goode, 2005b; Wittig, 1990). The constructionist perspective has also been referred to by such terms as humanist, subjectivist, relativist, reactivist, definitionist, and postmodernist (Heckert and Heckert, 2002; Lyman, 1995). each perspective suggests how to define devi- ance, but reveals through the definition what subject to study, what method to use for the study, and what kind of theory to use to make sense of the subject.

the Positivist Perspective

The positivist perspective consists of three assumptions about what deviant behavior is. These assumptions are known to positivists as absolutism, objectivism, and determinism.

absolutism: Deviance as absolutely real The positivist perspective holds deviance to be absolutely or intrinsically real, in that it possesses some qualities that distinguish it from conventionality. Similarly, deviant persons are assumed to have certain characteristics that make them different from con- ventional others. Thus, sociologists who are influenced by such a perspective tend to view deviant behavior as an attribute that inheres in the individual. This view was first strongly held by the early criminologists who were the progeni- tors of today’s sociology of deviance. Around the turn of the last century, criminologists believed that criminals possessed certain biological traits that were absent in law-abiding people. The biological traits were believed to include defective genes, bumps on the head, a long lower jaw, a scanty beard, and a tough body build. Since all these traits are inherited,

C H A p T e r 1 / What Is Deviant Behavior? 5

criminals were believed to be born as such. Thus, if they were born criminals, they would always be criminals. As the saying goes, “If you’ve had it, you’ve had it.” So, no matter where they might go—they could go anywhere in the world—they would still be criminals. Criminologists then shifted their attention from biological to psychological traits. Criminals were thought to have certain mental characteristics that noncriminals did not. More specifically, criminals were thought to be feebleminded, psychotic, neurotic, psychopathic, or otherwise mentally disturbed. Like biological traits, these mental character- istics were believed to reside within individual criminals. And like biological traits, mental characteristics were believed to stay with the criminals, no matter what society or culture they might go to. Again, wherever they went, criminals would always remain as criminals. Today’s positivist sociologists, however, have largely abandoned the use of biologi- cal and psychological traits to differentiate criminals from noncriminals. They recognize the important role of social factors in determining a person’s status as a criminal. Such status does not remain the same across time and space; instead, it changes in different periods and with different societies. A polygamist may be a criminal in our society but a law-abiding citizen in Islamic countries. A person who sees things invisible to others may be a psychotic in our society but may become a spiritual leader among some South pacific peoples. Nevertheless, positivist sociologists still regard deviance as absolutely or intrinsi- cally real. Countering the relativist notion of deviance as basically a label imposed on an act, positivist Travis Hirschi (1973), for example, argues,

The person may not have committed a ‘deviant’ act, but he did (in many cases) do some- thing. And it is just possible that what he did was a result of things that had happened to him in the past; it is also possible that the past in some inscrutable way remains with him and that if he were left alone he would do it again.

Moreover, countering the relativist notion of mental illness as a label imputed to some peo- ple’s behavior, Gwynn Nettler (1974) explicitly voices his absolutist stance: “Some people are more crazy than others; we can tell the difference; and calling lunacy a name does not cause it.” These positivist sociologists seem to say that just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so deviance by any other label is just as real. Because they consider deviance real, positivist sociologists tend to focus their study on deviant behavior and deviant persons, rather than on nondeviants who label others deviants, such as lawmakers and law enforcers, whom constructionist sociologists are more likely to study, as will be explained later.

Objectivism: Deviance as an Observable Object

To positivist sociologists deviant behavior is an observable object in that a deviant person is like an object, a real something that can be studied objectively. positivist sociologists, therefore, assume that they can be as objective in studying deviance as natural scientists can be in studying physical phenomena. The trick is to treat deviants as if they were objects, like those studied by natural scientists. Nonetheless, positivist sociologists cannot help being aware of the basic difference between their subject, human beings, and that of natural sci- entists, inanimate objects. As human beings themselves, positivist sociologists must have

C H A p T e r 1 / What Is Deviant Behavior? 7

or freedom of choice as long as no one forces her to do what she does. Yet some factor may determine or cause the woman’s choice of one alternative over another, that is, deter- mine the way she exercises her free will. One such causal factor may be a long history of abuse at the hands of her husband. Thus, according to today’s positivist sociologists, there is no inconsistency between freedom and causality. Although they allow for human freedom or choice, positivist sociologists do not use it to explain why people behave in a certain way. They will not, for example, explain why the woman kills by saying “because she chooses to kill.” This is no explanation at all, since the idea of choice can also be used to explain why another woman does not kill her husband—by saying “because she chooses not to.” According to positivists, killing and not killing, or more generally, deviant and conventional behaviors, being contrary phenomena, cannot be explained by the same factor, such as choice. Further, the idea of choice simply cannot explain the difference between deviance and conventionality; it cannot explain why one person chooses to kill while the other chooses not to. Therefore, although positivists do believe in human choice, they will not attribute deviance to human choice. Instead, they explain deviance by using such concepts as wife abuse, broken homes, unhappy homes, lower-class background, economic deprivation, social disorganization, rapid social change, differential association, differential reinforcement, and lack of social control. Any one of these causes of deviance can be used to illustrate what positivists consider to be a real explanation of deviance because, for example, wife abuse is more likely to cause a woman to kill her husband than not. positivist theories essentially point to factors such as these as the causes of deviance. In sum, the positivist perspective on deviant behavior consists of three assumptions. First, deviance is absolutely real in that it has certain qualities that distinguish it from con- ventionality. Second, deviance is an observable object in that a deviant person is like an object and thus can be studied objectively. Third, deviance is determined by forces beyond the individual’s control.

the Constructionist Perspective

Since the 1960s the constructionist perspective has emerged to challenge the positivist per- spective, which had earlier been predominant in the sociology of deviance. Let’s examine the assumptions of the constructionist perspective that run counter to those of the positivist perspective.

relativism: Deviance as a Label The constructionist perspective holds the relativist view that deviant behavior by itself does not have any intrinsic characteristics unless it is thought to have these characteristics. The so-called intrinsically deviant characteristics do not come from the behavior itself; they come instead from some people’s minds. To put it simply, an act appears deviant only because some people think it so. As Howard Becker (1963) says, “Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.” So, no deviant label, no deviant behavior. The existence of deviance depends on the label. Deviance, then, is a mental construct (an idea, thought, or

8 p A r T O N e / perspectives and Theories

image) expressed in the form of a label. Deviance, in other words, is socially constructed, defined as such by society. Since, effectively, they consider deviance unreal, constructionists understandably stay away from studying it. They are more interested in the questions of whether and why a given act is defined by society as deviant. This leads to the study of people who label others as deviants—such as the police and other law-enforcing agents. If constructionists study so-called deviants, they do so by focusing on the nature of labeling and its consequences. In studying law-enforcing agents, constructionists have found a huge lack of consen- sus on whether a certain person should be treated as a criminal. The police often disagree among themselves as to whether a suspect should be arrested, and judges often disagree among themselves as to whether those arrested should be convicted or acquitted. In addi- tion, since laws vary from one state to another, the same type of behavior may be defined as criminal in one state but not so in another. Young adult males who father babies born to unwed teenage females, for example, can be prosecuted for statutory rape in California but not in most other states (Gleick, 1996). There is, then, a relativity principle in deviant behavior: Behavior gets defined as deviant relative to a given norm or standard of behav- ior, which is to say, to the way people react to it. If it is not related to the reaction of other people, a given behavior is in itself meaningless—it is impossible to say whether it is devi- ant or conforming. Constructionists strongly emphasize this relativistic view, according to which deviance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Subjectivism: Deviance as a Subjective experience To constructionists, the supposedly deviant behavior is a subjective, personal experience and the supposedly deviant person is a conscious, feeling, thinking, and reflective subject. Constructionists insist that there is a world of difference between humans (as active sub- jects) and nonhuman beings and things (as passive objects). Humans feel and reflect, and are thus distinguishable from animals, plants, things, and forces in nature, which cannot. Humans also have sacred worth and dignity, but things and forces do not. It is proper and useful for natural scientists to assume nature as an object and then study it, because this study can produce objective knowledge for controlling the natural world. It can also be useful for social scientists to assume and then study humans as objects because it may produce objective knowledge for controlling humans, but this violates the constructionist’s humanist values and sensibilities. As humanists, constructionists are opposed to the control of humans; instead, they advocate the protection and expansion of human worth, dignity, and freedom. One result of this humanist ideology is the observation that so-called objective knowledge about human behavior is inevitably superficial whenever it is used for controlling people. To control its black citizens, for example, the former white racist regime in South Africa needed only the superficial knowledge that they were identifiable and separable from whites. To achieve the humanist goal of protecting and expanding a certain people’s human worth, dignity, and freedom, a deeper understanding is needed. This understanding requires appreciating and empathizing with each individual or group, experiencing what they experience, and seeing their lives and the world around them from their perspective. We must look at their experience from the inside as a participant rather than from the outside as a spectator.

10 p A r T O N e / perspectives and Theories

Such analyses often reveal the arbitrariness of official action, the bias in the administration of law, and the unjustness of controlling deviants. All these convey the strong impression that control agents, being in positions of power, exercise their free will by actively, inten- tionally, and purposefully controlling the “deviants.” Constructionists also analyze people who have been labeled deviant. The “devi- ants” are not presented as if they were robots, passively and senselessly developing a poor self-image as conventional society expects of them. rather, they are described as actively seeking positive meanings in their deviant activities. In constructionist Jack Katz’s (1988) analysis, for example, murderers see themselves as morally superior to their victims. The killing is said to give the murderers the self-righteous feeling of defending their dignity and respectability because their victims have unjustly humiliated them by taunting or insulting them. Katz also portrays robbers as feeling themselves morally superior to their victims—regarding their victims as fools or “suckers” who deserve to be robbed. Such insight into the subjective, experiential world of deviance constitutes a noncausal, descrip- tive, or analytical theory. In brief, the constructionist perspective consists of three assumptions. First, deviant behavior is not real in and of itself; it is, basically, a label. Second, supposedly deviant behavior is a subjective experience and therefore should be studied with subjectivity and empathy. And, third, putatively deviant behavior is a voluntary, self-willed act rather than one caused by forces in the internal and external environments.

an Integrated View

To know what deviant behavior is, then, we need both positivist and constructionist per- spectives. (See Table 1.1 for a quick review of these two perspectives.) The combination of the two can give us a better picture than either one can by itself. The two perspectives may appear to be in sharp contradiction, but their differences are

taBLe 1.1 a Summary of two Perspectives

Positivist Perspective Constructionist Perspective

Absolutism: Deviance is absolutely, intrinsically real; hence, deviance or deviants can be the subject of study.

Relativism: Deviance is a label, defined as such at a given time and place; hence, labelers, labeling, and impact of labeling can be the subject of study. Objectivism: Deviance is an observable object; hence, objective research methods can be used.

Subjectivism: Deviance is a subjective experience; hence, subjective research methods can be used. Determinism: Deviance is determined behavior, a product of causation; hence, causal, explanatory theory can be developed.

Voluntarism: Deviance is a voluntary act, an expression of free will; hence, noncausal, descriptive theory can be developed.

C H A p T e r 1 / What Is Deviant Behavior? 11

largely in emphasis. By giving consideration to one side, we do not necessarily deny the reality of the other. Both positivist and constructionist sociologists, in emphasizing their own views, assume in a way their opponents to be correct. each group merely thinks of the other’s argument as less important than its own. Thus, while they accept construction- ists’ view of deviance as a label, positivists simply take it for granted, considering it less important than their own assumption of deviance as real behavior. On the other hand, while constructionists accept positivists’ view of deviance as an act that has really occurred, they consider it more worthwhile to focus on society’s definition of the act as deviant. Now that we know the two opposing perspectives, we can bring them together. As Chinese people are fond of saying, “Things that oppose each other also complement each other” (Mao, 1967). Thus we may see deviant behavior as being both a real act and a label. One cannot exist without the other. If there is no real act, there is no deviant behavior ; if there is no label, there is no deviant behavior. In order for us to use the label “deviant,” the behavior must occur. Similarly, for us to understand that behavior, the label “deviant” must be used. Deviance, then, is both behavior and label. But in complementing each other, the two conflicting perspectives are not necessar- ily equally applicable to all types of deviant behavior. On the contrary, one perspective seems more relevant than the other in studying the types of deviance that more easily fit its assumptions and the temperaments of the sociologists embracing that perspective. Specifically, the positivist perspective is more relevant to the study of what society considers relatively serious types of deviant behavior, such as murder, rape, armed rob- bery, and the like. The study of these types of deviance responds well to the positivist per- spective for three reasons. First, these forms of deviant behavior, which characteristically enter into the official statistics analyzed by positivists, can be defined as really deviant. Such deviant acts are intrinsically more harmful than conforming behavior, are likely to elicit wide consensus from the public as to their deviant characteristics, and, therefore, are easily distinguishable from conforming behavior. Second, people who commit serious crimes, such as murder and robbery, generally come from the lower classes, quite unlike the positivists who study them. These are crimes that positivists themselves—as research- ers, scholars, or professors—generally would not commit or could not conceive them- selves capable of committing. It is easy, therefore, for positivists to stay aloof from these criminals, analyzing their behavior objectively, without empathizing with them or roman- ticizing their behavior. Third, since positivists can easily separate themselves from the people who commit serious deviant acts, it is natural for them to study these deviants as if they were passive objects “out there” rather than active subjects “in here” (like positivists themselves). It is thus natural for positivists to investigate these “passive” individuals with an eye to seeking out the causes of their deviance rather than understanding the operation of their free will. In the same way, the constructionist perspective is more pertinent to the less seri- ous kinds of deviance, particularly those that do not gravely harm other people. Thus this perspective finds itself at home in the world of adulterers, prostitutes, drug users, strip- pers, sex tourists, tax evaders, and the like. Again, three reasons explain the convenient fit between perspective and subject matter. First, there is a relative lack of consensus in society as to whether the less serious forms of deviant behavior are indeed deviant. Some members of society may label them deviant, while others may not. It is, therefore, logical

C H A p T e r 1 / What Is Deviant Behavior? 13

a Word about Deviance and Crime

Students tend to think that deviance is basically the same as crime. Thus, the sociology of deviance is sometimes confused with criminology. But the two fields do differ. Although the sociology of deviance includes crime, it deals much more with deviance that is not crime. Criminology, on the other hand, covers only crime, although it has been profoundly influenced by the sociology of deviance. How, then, does deviance differ from crime? First, crime always involves violat- ing a law, but deviance does not. Deviance may involve breaking the law, so that some deviances such as murder, robbery, and rape are also crimes. So, in that sense, the soci- ology of deviance overlaps with criminology. But these two fields are mostly different, because most deviances are not crimes—they merely depart from some societal norm, rule, or standard, such as nude dancing, binge drinking, joining a cult, and being emotionally disturbed. Such subjects clearly distinguish the sociology of deviance from criminology. Second, crime is a violation of a formal norm, which the law is, but deviance is more a violation of an informal norm that derives from a popular belief. Thus, crime as a viola- tion of a formal norm is subject to imprisonment, fines, and other punishments by formal control agents such as the police, judges, prison guards, and other law-enforcement agents. On the other hand, deviance as a violation of an informal norm is subject to criticism, ridicule, condemnation, rejection, and other negative reactions by informal control agents such as relatives, friends, neighbors, peer groups, and even strangers. Third, the number and variety of deviances are infinitely greater than those of crimes. Crimes can only be behavioral in nature, because there are only laws against some unac- ceptable behaviors, not some strange beliefs and attitudes. But deviances include more than behaviors and even more than beliefs and attitudes. Many deviances involve hav- ing certain physical or psychological conditions, characteristics, or traits, such as obesity, mental illness, and being grossly unattractive, for which the individual can in no way be prosecuted. Fourth, as has been suggested, not all deviances are crimes, but are all crimes devi- ances? Most crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, are deviant because they violate informal norms in addition to breaking the law as a formal norm. But a few crimes are not deviant because they are relatively acceptable throughout society. They are, in other words, normative behavior, such as gambling and cohabitation. Such practices hardly raise an eyebrow because they are very common. They are nonetheless criminal because in some places the old laws against them are still on the books. Other popular practices such as drinking among young people under age 21, smoking inside public buildings, and driv- ing without buckling up have become criminal in many states because of the passing of new laws to prohibit them. The subject of crime was the preoccupation of the positivists in the sociology of deviance before the 1960s. The emergence of the constructionist perspective in the 1960s transformed the sociology of deviance into a lively field. The sociology of deviance con- tinues to be vibrant today. Its positivist approach to deviance has revitalized criminology (see, for example, Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1994; Messner and rosenfeld, 2001; Tittle, 1995), while its constructionist approach has renewed the sociology of deviance. On the

14 p A r T O N e / perspectives and Theories

one hand, for example, an increasing number of studies delve into the subjective world of deviance, revealing how deviants see themselves and others. On the other hand, the con- structionist approach has caused the sociology of deviance to focus less on crime and more on deviance, bringing in many new subjects on deviance for study, such as binge drinking, prescription drug abuse, transgenderism, exotic dancing, physical disabilities, obesity, tat- tooing, and cyberdeviance, as presented in this text.

F u r t h e r r e a D I n g

Adler, patricia A. 2006. “The deviance society.” Deviant Behavior, 27, 129–148. Arguing that the sociol- ogy of deviance continues to be a vibrant subfield of sociology. Bendle, Mervyn F. 1999. “The death of the sociology of deviance?” Journal of Sociology, 35, 42–59. A critical analysis of the problems besetting the so- ciology of deviance and the emergence of a new paradigm for the field. Best, Joel. 2004. Deviance: Career of a Concept. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. An attempt to argue that deviance is no longer a thriving field of study in sociology. Conrad, peter, and Joseph W. Schneider. 1992. Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness. philadelphia: Temple University press. An

analysis of the changing definitions of deviance, from religious to criminal to medical definitions. Cullen, Francis T. 1987. Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory: The Emergence of a Structuring Tradition. Totowa, NJ: rowman & Allanheld. Arguing the importance of the “structuring perspective” for understanding deviance, which shows how certain social and social-psychological conditions can determine the transformation of a general deviant tendency into a specific form of deviant behavior. Curra, John O. 2010. The Relativity of Deviance, 2nd ed_._ Newbury park, Calif.: pine Forge. Dodge, David L. 1985. “The over-negativized conceptual- ization of deviance: A programmatic exploration.” Deviant Behavior, 6, 17–37. Argues that sociologists would do well to start studying positive deviance.

Summary

1. how do sociologists define deviant behavior? In sociology there are many differ- ent definitions of deviant behavior. They can be divided into two major types, one influenced by the positivist perspective and the other by the constructionist perspective. The positivist per- spective holds the absolutist view that deviant behavior is absolutely real, the objectivist view that deviance is an observable object, and the determinist view that deviance is determined behavior, a product of causation. The construc- tionist perspective consists of the relativist view that the so-called deviance is largely a label applied to an act at a given time and place, the subjectivist view that deviance is itself a subjec- tive experience, and the voluntarist view that deviance is a voluntary, self-willed act. 2. Can we integrate those two perspectives? Yes. We can integrate them into a larger perspec- tive that sees deviant behavior as an act located at some point on a continuum from maximal to mini- mal public consensus regarding the deviant nature of the act. With this integrated view, we can divide deviant behavior into two major types. One, high- er-consensus deviance, is generally serious enough to earn a great degree of public consensus that it is really deviant. This type has often been the subject of research by positivist sociologists. The other, lower-consensus deviance, is generally less serious and thus receives a lesser degree of public consen- sus on its deviant reality. This type has more often attracted the interest of constructionist sociologists. The sociology of deviance has been a lively field since the 1960s and continues to be today.