1

CRIME AND DEVIANCE

Haralambos- Ch. 6

DEVIANCE
A simple definition of "Deviance is any act which goes against the dominant norms of society (or groups within society) and which
produces disapproval and possibly punishment. This may range from the trivial – bad table manners, burping or farting- to the extremely
serious - assault, murder.

Some sociologists distinguish between Deviance, which invokes moral disapproval e.g. adultery, homosexuality etc and Non-conformity
which doesn't arouse such censure e.g. weird clothes, haircuts, nose piercing etc.

CRIME is any act which breaks the criminal law. These are divided into INDICTABLE serious crimes - murder, rape, robbery and often
involve lengthy prison sentences and NON-INDICTABLE less serious - petty theft, parking offences etc

THE RELATIVITY OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE

What is considered deviant or even criminal varies between different societies and even groups within society.

PLUMMER distinguishes between SOCIETAL DEVIANCE which are categories of deviance which people in society generally believe to be
deviant and are defined as such general beliefs of society e.g. armed robbery and SITUATIONAL DEVIANCE which is a result of the people
creating rules in their everyday lives - at work, amongst friends etc. These norms are influenced by society’s general rules but some
groups may reject some norms of society.

For example the use of soft drugs amongst some social groups and Homosexuality among others: these are societally deviant but not in
every situation e.g. in drug dens and "gay bars" they are normalised. Homosexuals in such situations may have "rules" of their own.
What is considered deviant may vary according to :-

i. AGE ii. TIME iii. SOCIETY iv. CULTURE v. CIRCUMSTANCES

Because of the variety and relativity of deviance Interactionists, in some ways provide the best definition. They argue that whether an act
is deviant depends not on the act itself but on people’s reaction to it.

EXPLAINING CRIME AND DEVIANCE

A number of different subjects attempt to explain crime and deviance. Biological and Psychological explanations tend to explain crime in
terms of the individual and his/her characteristics. Deviants are seen as "different from us" - normal people.

Cesare Lombroso is seen as the father of Criminology. He argued that criminals could be identified from their physical characteristics :-
enormous jaws, "jug ears", prominent eyebrows, as well as love of idleness and orgies. Criminals and deviants were seen as
"evolutionary throwbacks".

Psychologists such as EYSENCK also emphasise hereditary factors. Criminality is seen in a similar way to intelligence i.e. just as there is a
spectrum of intelligence so some people are more criminally inclined than others, this is largely hereditary.

Psychologists accept that environment also plays an important role. Followers of Freud tend to see crime and deviance in terms of
"damaged individuals" often produced by faulty socialisation - neglect, abuse etc. Such types of explanation have much more in common
with some sociological views, especially those of functionalists.

West’s study of delinquency in a London Borough found that boys who were delinquent at the age of 14 were mostly drawn from those
who, at the age of 8 had the lowest living standards, home problems, uncooperative parents, were disliked by teachers and had poor
schoolwork.

Such an approach however ignores the question of LABELLING and how this affected such boys’ behaviour. In general such approaches
also ignore the questions of POWER i.e. who makes the rules, in whose interests?

Psychological theories have been very influential. Psychologists have an important place in Police work and prisons. ‘Damaged individual’
theories helped lead to the increase in Social Workers since the war and ‘hereditary’ theories are an important part of the "new rights"
thinking.

Sociologists are highly suspicious of many of these kinds of theories. They regard SOCIAL CONTEXT as crucial in explaining crime. We
don't see abnormal personalities or genes as the cause of crime. In a sense criminals are "normal people" like the rest of us.

Marxists, Functionalists and Interactionists provide competing explanations of crime but all are social explanations and, indeed, many
theories straddle different perspectives.

CLASSICAL THEORY – FUNCTIONALIST, MARXIST AND INTERACTIONIST.

FUNCTIONALISM

Functionalists see shared values and norms as the basis for social order. Society is based on VALUE CONSENSUS. Too much deviance is
therefore DYSFUNCTIONAL i.e. a threat to order and stability.

However a certain amount of crime and deviance is NORMAL and indeed “an integral part of all healthy societies” – DURKHEIM – indeed it
is FUNCTIONAL.

This sounds strange but think of what a society would be like if everyone followed all the rules, all the time. Such a society would
stagnate and lack the innovation and development needed for a healthy society. Deviance may be seen as functional in several ways:-

• The publicity that crime and deviance attract and the condemnation of the rest of society helps reinforce accepted values and
norms. Thus crime helps reinforce social solidarity and integrates people.

• Crime and deviance can be seen as a safety valve e.g. Prostitution is functional in that it provides sexual services without
threatening the family/marriage.
• Deviance is functional in that it provides work for those who deal with it – police, courts, prisons etc and the rest of society is
reassured by the presence of people like “the Bobby on the beat”
• Deviance can signal a needed change in society. Contraception was once considered morally wrong but has become an accepted and
necessary part of modern society, thanks to people like Marie Stopes who was imprisoned for publicising Birth Control.
Race Riots are a clear indication that there are problems in society that need to be attended to if order is to be maintained.
 2

DURKHEIM developed the key concept of ANOMIE. This is when people are unsure of what is right or wrong (NORMLESSNESS)-chaos-
disorder prevails.

He feared that Anomie was likely to increase in modern industrial societies. In the past people lived similar lives and were heavily
dependent on each other (MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY). Now COMMUNITY has broken down and although people are economically
interdependent (ORGANIC SOLIDARITY) they are far more individualistic and less bound by common values and norms.

ROBERT MERTON also developed the concept of Anomie - he was concerned with explaining crime amongst the lower classes. He felt
that high levels of crime and deviance were the result of a contradiction between the values of American society and the economic
inequalities of life.

Whilst “MONEY SUCCESS” is a central value in the US, and all other capitalist societies, only a certain number of people can achieve this.
This value is essential so that people will strive to get to the top and thus the most able will get the most important jobs. But what
happens to the rest?

Merton tried to answer this using his famous ANOMIC PARADIGM, which categorises the different ways people will react to this
situation.

• CONFORMITY – using legitimate means to pursue accepted goals e.g. the successful businessman.
• INNOVATION – pursue accepted goals but not by legitimate means e.g. a bank robber.
• RITUALISM – people who “forget” the goals but slavishly follow the accepted means – a bureaucrat.
• RETREATISM – reject social goals and drop out, “New Age” traveler, some drug addicts etc.
• REBELLION – reject goals and work for the overthrow of the system that has produced them – Revolutionary.

In other words most criminals accept the dominant values/goals of society but cannot achieve them “honestly” and so resort to crime.

ECOLOGICAL AND SUBCULTURAL THEORY

Following Merton, the CHICAGO SCHOOL developed Durkheim’s ideas and applied them to the inner city. They developed ECOLOGICAL
THEORY, which looks at why this area of the city has the highest crime rates. They found that this area suffered from high rates of
poverty and high levels of immigration.
These newcomers, often from other countries like Ireland and Italy were often not well integrated, and this, along with their poverty
encouraged them to commit crimes to get by and succeed. Often the values and norms of their original country were very different.

Irish gangsters, and the Italian Mafia are examples of this, as are the high rates of crime amongst blacks.

Such theorists argue that as these migrants become better integrated so crime rates will fall. There is some evidence to support this,
however these theorists are criticised for underestimating the effects of labelling, prejudice and discrimination.

Whilst it is true that many migrant groups have become “integrated” blacks and Hispanics still have high crime rates – a result of the
inequalities and discrimination that they suffer.

As we can see “Ecological” theory has its limitations, but it is an important influence on subsequent SUBCULTURAL THEORY. Similarly
the work of Merton was criticised and developed by subcultural theorists.

SUBCULTURAL THEORY

Merton’s theory about w/c crime raises a number of questions :-

• Merton only explains “money crimes”, not things like vandalism and assault.
• It does not explain GROUP deviance, gang crime.

COHEN (1955) attempted to answer these questions through “SUBCULTURAL THEORY”. The focus was on YOUNG, MALE, W/C deviance
(All the figures show that this is the group with the highest degree of criminality).

Cohen studied juvenile gangs in the inner cities. He found that crime and deviance were a “way of life” for such groups and they were not
just concerned with getting money but with IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION – fun and excitement etc - and with receiving the respect of
their peers (STATUS). Their destructiveness and their fierce gang loyalties were a reflection of their rejection of a society that, in a sense,
had rejected them.

As these “lads” couldn’t achieve success and status in legitimate ways, through education, they turned the values and norms of school
and society on their heads – bad becomes good – you achieve status through violence, messing about, defying authority. They created
their own sense of social order, social control and value system.

Such youth form ‘DELINQUENT’ SUBCULTURES not so much to achieve “money success”, as Merton would suggest, but to overcome the
STATUS FRUSTRATION that they feel. Note the connection here with anti-academic subcultures.

CLOWARD AND OHLIN

Cloward and Ohlin accept Cohen’s views on “non-economic” and group deviance, but they argue that he over-estimates the effect of
educational failure, and underestimates the variety of so called delinquent subcultures.

They identify 3 types of delinquent subculture :-

• CRIMINAL SUBCULTURES. Where youths do commit crimes to achieve money success. These largely occur where there was a strong
and organised adult criminal culture so youths could learn “the tricks of the trade”.

• CONFLICT SUBCULTURES where success in life was not available through legitimate or criminal means. The frustration caused by
this often led to violent gang crime.

• RETREATIST SUBCULTURES comprised of youths who were “triple failures” – unable to succeed legitimately, or join criminal or
conflict gangs. They retreated into crimes like drug use and hustling.

Not all sub-cultural theory is based on the Functionalist/Consensus approach. They see sub-cultural deviance as being a product of class,
ethnic and other CONFLICTS.
 3

CONFLICT SUBCULTURAL THEORY

WALTER MILLER notes that many lower class youths become deviant by trying to conform to the values of lower class culture –
immediate gratification, machismo, excitement and fatalism. Such teenagers are often from “households where there is no father.

They demonstrate their masculinity in street corner gangs and break the law because it is based on the values and interests of the higher
social classes and does not benefit them. The high level of crime attributed to youths from single parent families in recent years adds
credence to Miller’s theory.

MARXISTS also use sub-cultural theory. They also see young, w/c deviance as a reaction to laws that are used to control them. The break
up of w/c communities, along with increased teenage affluence and consumerism means that some w/c youths are left behind- and they
want their share of the spoils.

They behave in a deviant manner to attain the products they see advertised all around them or because of the alienation that THEY FEEL.
It is a form of “Teenage rebellion” which is fuelled by the conflict between traditional w/c culture and those of the school and media etc.,
so deviance is a “kick against the system” a reaction to oppression and domination by “the authorities”

EVALUATION/CRITICISMS
• Functionalists/subculturists focus on w/c crime and ignore the crimes of the higher social classes
• See crime and deviance as a product of society and social background (deterministic).

NB DAVID MATZA argues that young people often CHOOSE to be deviant and that such behaviour is often casual and transient – they
grow out of it.
• Interactionists and Marxists argue that the theory ignores the fact that certain groups are labeled and criminalised. Young, w/c,
males are more likely to be policed, arrested and convicted than u/c youth.
• Ignores the question of power. Marxists argue that the u/c make laws in their own interests to control the w/c, so it is not
surprising that w/c kids break the law.

MARXIST THEORIES
For Marxists social order is based not on value consensus but on the ability of the ruling class to control the behaviour of the lower
classes.

The state is controlled by the ruling class and is used to make laws which benefit them. Most laws for example are based on the
protection of private property.

Capitalism encourages greed and selfishness and generates frustration and aggression.

• Greed explains financial crime.

• The dehumanising effects of capitalism, which puts profit before people and causes ALIENATION, explains crimes against people.
• The law and police crack down on w/c crime – theft, burglary, etc. but tend mostly to ignore Corporate and m/c crime– fraud,
embezzlement, pollution, health and safety breaches.(though occasionally an upper class person is prosecuted to make the system
seem fair (LEGITIMATION).
• Some laws do benefit everyone – laws on murder, health and safety at work etc and because these are mixed in with laws that
benefit those at the top – property and anti-trade Union laws etc., it makes the w/c think the law is fair. (LEGITIMATION/FALSE
CONSCIOUSSNESS).

CRITICISMS/EVALUATION

• Marxists, like functionalists are criticised for being DETERMINISTIC, for seeing crime as the product of social and economic choices
and underestimating the fact that people CHOOSE to commit crimes.
• Most laws benefit everyone.
• Marxists overestimate the power of the ruling class to control the law. Many groups – Trades Unions, Environmental groups etc
influence what laws are made (Pluralist criticism)
• Left realists argue that traditional Marxists see w/c criminals as “Robin Hood” figures ignoring the damage that they do to other,
mostly w/c, people.

INTERPRETIVE THEORIES

Unlike Marxism and Functionalism Interactionists do not focus so much on the causes of crime but on the day to day interactions between
people that define what is considered “deviant” or “criminal”. They see social order as being “fragile” in the sense that it is only created
by people’s everyday interactions and the meanings they attach to situations.

Symbolic Interactionism developed strongly in the 1960s a time of change and unrest. It focussed on different questions – Why are some
acts defined as deviant whilst others are not? It also argued that we are ALL deviant and criminal at times, so the real question is why
some groups are criminalised whilst others are not.

LABELLING
Labelling and its’ associated concepts are the main contribution Interactionists have made to an understanding of deviance and crime.

HOWARD BECKER argued that “deviance is created by society”. In other words the groups that make and enforce the rules decide what is
criminal or deviant and LABEL those who break the rules as deviant. It is not the act itself that is deviant but the reaction of others that
defines it as such – the MEANING attached.

e.g. injecting heroin is not deviant when done by a doctor to relieve pain, but it is, when done by a junkie to get kicks. The dominant
classes seek to control the use of all drugs except to the extent that they are able to gain from it, such as doctors selling drugs for
medical health. Others are denied the right to sell drugs to make money, thus forcing them to work in the capitalist system.

Interactionists focus on the “AGENCIES OF SOCIAL CONTROL” – the police, courts etc and their actions in defining, labelling and
punishing crime. The police:

• have limited resources and so enforce the law selectively- mostly against the w/c l/c
• focus on the crimes that are obvious, that frighten people and are relatively easy to clear up.
• focus on those groups which their experience and prejudices tell them are most likely to commit crimes – the w/c, young, males,
 4

ethnic minorities, Such groups are therefore LABELLED as being potentially criminal- more crime prone.
• target such groups. This often produces a “criminal” reaction by people who feel they are singled out ie. SECONDARY DEVIANCE.

This high level of surveillance has the effect of:

• provoking increased deviance/crime because of publicity etc DEVIANCE AMPLIFICATION.
• labelling and “picking on” those who live up to the label – SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY
Because the police focus on these groups they show higher rates of crime in the official figures, so the police’s “theories” are confirmed!

KEY STUDIES
CICOUREL, in his study of juvenile delinquency in California, found that the police saw the typical juvenile delinquent as coming from a
“bad home with bad attitudes”, in effect lower class or black, doing badly at school etc.

The result was that these were the neighbourhoods on which the police focused. Such teenagers were far more likely to be STOPPED.
SEARCHED, ARRESTED AND CHARGED. M/c kids were more likely to be “counselled, cautioned and released, if they were caught in the
first place.
The process of justice is thus a process of NEGOTIATION and m/c respectable people are far more successful at this.

STAN COHEN in his study of “Mods and Rockers” provides an excellent example of these processes. In the summer of ’64 a few minor
disturbances resulted in a media outcry, police crackdown and public MORAL PANIC about “Mods and Rockers” and young people
generally!

The police and media reaction not only exaggerated the problem but actually increased it as others joined in and secondary deviance
and deviance amplification resulted. The public identified these young people as a “threat to law and order”. Mods and Rockers
were portrayed as FOLK DEVILS a symbol of what was wrong with society. They along with many other groups were made SCAPEGOATS
for the problems of a rapidly changing society. The act of scapegoating brings the rest of society together against this terrible menace
and thus helps to restore value consensus and stability.

EVALUATION
Interactionism provides a very valuable alternative way of viewing crime and deviance. It lets us see deviance from the point of view of
the deviant and shows us how deviance is relative. It also reveals the role of the agencies of social control and the media in creating and
increasing deviance.

There are however, a number of CRITICISMS of the approach

• It fails to explain how people become deviant in the first place.

• Interactionists seem to sympathise with the deviant: GOULDNER accuses them of “celebrating deviance”
• They ignore the question of power, concentrating on the police etc not the ruling class who, according to Marxists, make the laws,
define what is deviant, and thus create the labels.
• Labelling theory assumes that labels are inaccurate. Maybe the police are right; these are the groups which commit the most crime.
There is plenty of evidence to support this.
• Concepts like “Moral panic” underestimate the very real fear that ordinary people have of crime.

RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY/NEO-MARXISM

By now you should be aware of the way in which theory and research develops. It is through a process of CRITIQUE i.e. examining
strengths and weaknesses of a theory and developing new ideas based on this.

RADICAL CRIMINOLOGY is a prime example of this. It combines elements of Marxism and Interactionism and relates the processes of
labelling and criminalisation to the problems of capitalism, thus combining a micro (Interpretive) and macro (Marxist) approach. TAYLOR
in “THE NEW CRIMINOLOGY” argues that criminalisation is the result of the actions of the state as it seeks to manage capitalism in crisis.

STUART HALL in his classic study of “MUGGING” provides a classic example of this approach. In “POLICING THE CRISIS” Hall shows how
mugging – “street theft” with the threat of violence - was developed into a “moral panic” by the actions of the police, courts and media.
Although there was no significant increase in the amount of mugging, the “Black Mugger” suddenly became headline news.

Hall argues that with increased unemployment in the 1970s along with other problems – welfare cuts, Trade Union strikes and protests
etc, capitalism was in a state of crisis. The focus on black muggers helped to divide the w/c on racial grounds and people were
willing to support a crackdown on this “terrible threat”.

The result was increased powers for the police to stop and search people and to divert peoples’ attention away from the real problems
and there causes. (What has happened now with the new threat of terrorism?). More Muslims have been stopped; one man shot dead
innocently; police overreacting- life becoming more uncomfortable for travelers.

EVALUATION/CRITICISMS

The real originality of this approach was to relate the labelling/criminalisation of groups to the “big picture” the problems of society. There
are criticisms
• As with Marxism, Neo-Marxism ignores the fact that many laws benefit everyone. It could also be argued that laws to prevent
mugging benefited many w/c and black people.
• DOWNS and ROCK argue that Hall fails to prove that moral panics are caused by crises in Capitalism

CRIME AND DEVIANCE - LOOKING AT THE FIGURES

Before we can decide whether some groups are more likely to commit crimes and to what extent crime is increasing we have to look at
empirical evidence.

There are various forms of OFFICIAL STATISTICS which measure the amount of crime in society. These include ;-

• CONVICTION FIGURES – but these only measure the fraction of people who are successfully convicted so are not a very good guide
to the amount or nature of crime committed.
• OFFICIAL POLICE STATISTICS which show the amount of crime and types of crime reported to and recorded by the police.
• THE BRITISH CRIME SURVEY. A victim study which asks people what crimes they have suffered.
 5

All these official figures have their limitations and Interactionists favour the use of SELF REPORT STUDIES where people are asked what
crimes they have committed.

Official Police Statistics.

This is the main source of our information about crime levels. The figures show a dramatic increase in crime over the past 30, and
particularly 15 years (The no of indictable crimes doubled in the 1980s) They also show that the young, males, w/c and ethnic minorities
are the most likely criminals. Because such statistics are quantitative and comprehensive they are generally regarded as presenting an
accurate picture of crime. (So positivist researchers have made great use of them in developing their theories.)

BUT HOW USEFUL AND ACCURATE ARE THESE FIGURES?

The "New Criminologists", interactionists and Marxists are highly critical of these so called objective figures. The first point to make is that
these figures only show the amount of crime reported to the police.

1. Most crime is not discovered or reported . Many crimes are undiscovered

eg i) Minor crime - theft, put down to losing money.
ii) Vandalism - accident or not found
iii) Murder - never found, or put down to accident, suicide
Some go unreported
Eg i) too petty not worth reporting.
ii) dealt with privately - in the family, at school, at work
iii) shame, embarrassment, fear – as in cases of rape. Women won’t come forward.

Probably less than 15% of crimes are actually reported to police - but the figure is higher for serious crimes.

2) Technical changes
i. computers etc increase detection/reporting
ii. more phones to report crimes
iii. increase in police numbers - more crimes detected.
iv. increased opportunities for property crimes - more cars, supermarkets etc

3) Police attitudes/behaviour
i. Police crackdown on a particular crime (often after "Moral Panic") inevitably finds more e.g. drug
squads in the 1960s, so figures go up.
ii. Police success ironically makes figures look worse eg sensitive handling of rape increased reportage.
iii.Heavy policing of suspect areas eg w/c, black communities find more crime (self-fulfilling prophecy)

Whereas white collar crime is ignored.

Thus police figures give both an inaccurate picture of the total amount of crime, the amount of different crimes committed,
and who commits the crimes.

Here we are coming to the central interactionist criticism.

Crime statistics are not just recorded they are CREATED. The attitudes and values of police (and judges, magistrates) influence their
actions. Whether to search someone, stop someone arrest, convict etc.

Ethnomethodologist Aaron Cicourel in his "Social Organisation of Juvenile Justice" demonstrates this point. He examines two towns which
have very different rates of juvenile crime but this wasn't because one town had more deviant youths. It was because of POLICE POLICY.

In Town One officers adopted a more casual approach, recorded fewer crimes and used fewer officers - the problem got
smaller.
In Town Two officers adopted a much harder approach, arrested more and the problems got worse

An alternative way of measuring crime is through self-report studies favoured by interactionists. These show far higher levels of crime. A
famous study in the U.S.A. "Our Law abiding lawbreakers" showed 90% of the sample had committed crimes they could be imprisoned
for. But most people are not caught, labelled or punished etc.

One should note however that many of these are petty and again of uncertain reliability- confessions can be false.

Victim studies are in many ways the most accurate statistics to use. The British Crime Survey, which is organised by the Home Office is a
fairly reliable official Statistic. It surveyed a sample of 11,000 members of the public about their experiences of crime in the previous
year. This gives a much more accurate picture of the amount and types of crimes - though not of who commits them (in most cases the
identity, race class etc of a person is unknown.)

It does show however that crime has increased less rapidly than police figures show, and that most of the increase is in property crimes
not crimes against the person. It also shows that the, young, ethnic minorities males etc are the most likely victims of assault etc.

But it also shows that property crimes are not at present decreasing as police statistics show. They are just less reported.

THE TYPICAL CRIMINAL? SOCIAL FACTORS AND CRIME

Official Statistics (based on arrests and convictions) indicate clear patterns in these areas. Blacks are more likely to commit crimes than
whites. Men commit more crimes than women, w/c more than m/c, young more than old. But how accurate are these figures?

Let us start by examining the issue of Gender. Feminist sociologists such as HEIDENSOHN argue that the issue of women and deviance
is a classic example of the MALESTREAM nature of sociology i.e. it focuses on the interests of male sociologists and concentrates on
studying men.

However in recent years there has been much more of a focus on female crime. There are a number of good reasons for concluding that
men commit far more crime than women.

• Socialisation - (school, family, media). STEVE BOX argues that women are subject to stronger controls and are persuaded into
passive roles. Women are expected to be less aggressive and more conformist. (All part of Patriarchal Ideology)

• Situational theory. Women are far less likely to get into crime situations because they are more restricted - have less opportunity to
 6

be out late, in the pubs on the streets etc. They are far more likely to be CHAPERONED. This in combination with Socialisation
means they are less likely to get into fights, get drunk, form gangs etc unlike young males. Truancy is also less common amongst
girls.

Similarly in adult life males are the main providers and may resort to criminal means to perform this role. Women are stuck in domestic
roles "it’s hard to rob a bank pushing a pram".

• Biological Differences - many socio-biologists would argue that men are naturally more violent because of the hormone
testosterone. Along with this can be placed the social factor that macho, and violent, behaviour are admired in men and deplored in
women.

These arguments are strongly backed by the figures. 80% of those convicted for serious offences are male. There are around 60men in
prison for every 2 women- US, UK. (Higher difference in Jamaica). There are however counter arguments, which revolve around the
concept of labelling.

Anne Campbell using a self -report system found that the official crime rate (7 male to 1 female) was drastically reduced (to 1 to 1.2-
UK). Whilst the accuracy of such studies is always dependant on the honesty of the respondents there are other explanations for this.
Women it has been shown are far less likely to be: stopped; searched; arrested; convicted etc.

If they are, they are more likely to be given informal warnings. Ironically this is due to, the paternalism of the law – the CHIVALRY factor.
However if they are arrested and convicted they get harsher sentences!

Why?
Its basically all about labelling again, police figures show most crime is committed by males (young, w/c and black) so these are more
heavily policed, stopped arrested.

Interestingly there is some evidence that female crimes are increasing. Women who are largely in non-manual work commit white collar
crime, for which they are less likely to be caught. However very few women are in "top jobs" where the real big fiddles can be done.

We should also note that women are the victims of much hidden crime e.g. domestic violence, rape etc. Feminist writers argue that such
crimes are crimes of POWER. Men rape and beat as one expression of their power over women.

The breakdown of the family, increase in divorce and one -parent families are also, it is argued, likely to increase crime. As women
become more assertive (feminism) so they will take on male criminal roles. ALDER and SIMPSON argue liberation causes crime. One
must add that the evidence for this - female violence and gangs - is very limited as yet, in fact BOX argues that the fear about increased
female crime is largely a media “moral panic” designed to discredit feminism and greater female equality. Any increase in such crime is
more likely to be the result of economic marginalisation- the growth of unemployment and the underclass etc.

CLASS, ETHNICITY AND AGE

We can deal with these together because many of the arguments are identical. Why do the young, w/c and black figure so prominently in
the figures?

Many sociologists would argue that they commit more crimes. We have already considered these arguments when looking at THEORIES
OF CRIME. So a brief reminder:
• MERTON - ANOMIE – can’t succeed through legitimate means so resort to crime.
• COHEN - Delinquent subcultures amongst w/c, blacks, status frustration of young males.
• CHICAGO SCHOOL - deviant subcultures amongst poor w/c and ethnic minorities (inner cities)
• MARXISTS - Laws operate in interests of Ruling class, w/c exploited and alienated. Therefore it is NORMAL for young, w/c, ethnic
minorities to break the law - have no stake in the system.

Both Marxist and functionalists agree that certain groups are more likely to break the law, but for very different reasons. Functionalists
explain this as being the result of inadequate socialisation and as being against the values and interests of society as a whole; Marxists as
the result of exploited groups acting against rules imposed on them by the dominant class.

However Neo-Marxists and Interactionists question the accuracy of these explanations. E.g. The official figures show a crime ratio of 1
m/c crime to 5/6 w/c crime but CICOUREL, using similar self-report studies to CAMPBELL, finds a ratio of 1 to 1.5. So how do we explain
this difference? Again the answer lies in labelling and the way in which the agencies of social control selectively enforce the law.

• Which laws they enforce - robbery much more than fraud; laws against the w/c, more than the m/c
• Which groups and areas they "crack down on" -black, w/c, inner cities etc
• Whom do they define as suspicious - young, blacks, w/c, males (based on previous experiences and arrests), and thus whom they
stop, search and arrest.(Labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy)
• The reactions of those questioned - m/c polite, respectful, co-operative. W/c, young, blacks suspicious aggressive etc. Numerous
researchers (e.g. Steve Box) have demonstrated that in similar situations w/c youths are twice as likely to get arrested than m/c
youths, and blacks are twice as much as w/c youths.

WHITE COLLAR CRIME

It is not just a question of "lower social groups" and their crimes being picked on. The crimes of the middle and upper orders of society
are systematically under-reported and under-enforced.
All the studies indicate that so called "white collar crime" is far more prevalent than the official statistics show. We can divide white collar
crime into:
1) Corporate Crime 2) Individual Crime 3) Organised crime

CORPORATE CRIME
Flouting of the law by companies...... health and safety, tax, employment, environment legislation etc.
CARSON found that even when discovered only 1.5% of breaches of factory legislation were prosecuted.
SUTHERLAND points out in his study in the U.S.A. that such crimes are hard to detect and often justified as being part of business. He
concluded that there was a constant bias in law enforcement in favour of business and the professional classes. Eg.- pollution, unsafe
machinery, arms sales etc

INDIVIDUAL CRIME
Sutherland includes pilfering, fraud, tax evasion etc. Often such crimes are dealt with within the organisation, to save face. Similarly tax
frauds are dealt with lightly if prosecuted at all, despite the millions involved. The American Federal Trade Commission estimates business
 7

frauds account for 15 times as much money as thefts.

In Britain in 1988 tax fraud amounted to about £5,000 million, yet there were 20 prosecutions. Social Security fraud to £500 million and
there were as many as 14,000 prosecutions.

Marxists argue that this disparity can be explained by the rich and powerful being able to protect themselves eg Robert Maxwell, but also
these are the crimes of the upper classes so they don’t want them vigorously pursued. There will be the occasional prosecution to make
the system seem fair – LEGITIMATION.

Issues raised by Marxist understandings of Crime:

• The problem of deviance has its roots in the need for the rich and powerful to maintain their own ideology
• Deviance occurs at every level in society but working class groups are most often cited when crime statistics are quoted

Evaluation of Marxist ideas:

a. Offers some kind of balance – an alternative view from the perspectives that emphasise working class deviance

b. Demonstrates this by emphasising working class deviance is an unbalanced view – it occurs at every level

c. By concentrating on Capitalism it ignores other systems

d. Any idea that crime and deviance in working class society is a kind of Robin Hood ideology (based on a reaction to inequality) is
unconvincing as many victims of crime are also working class.

Jock Young:
Modern Marxist view, refers to himself as a left realist, opposed to the left ideologists who appear to romanticise working class crime. (It
is interesting to note that with age, Young has become less radical. Working class people are the victims of a great deal of working class
crime and Young now recognises that the social controls provided by the state can protect working class people from crime and criminals.

[It may also be that working class people are the victims of crime since the perpetrators lack the ability to discriminate their own from
others and also because many working class people have embraced the ideology of the dominant class thus helping to perpetuate the
oppression and their exclusion from society. The w/c victims are seen as targets because they too have accepted to ideology of the
capitalist system.]

ORGANISED CRIME
CHAMBLISS, in his famous study of Seattle, Washington, demonstrates that leading members of the political, business and law
enforcement fields made up the city's major crime syndicate and worked together for massive criminal gain..........in gambling,
prostitution, drug trafficking etc. Such people have the power to protect themselves, and each other, from prosecution.

It is sometimes argued that some white collar crimes are "victimless" e.g. tax evasion etc but in these and other forms of Corporate
crime e.g. bank fraud the tax payer and customer, have to pay. The media are certainly not as harsh on such crimes and may even make
the tax evader or cunning fraudster into some kind of hero! Marxists would argue that this is because they are the crimes of the rich - the
crimes of the media owners and controllers own class.

When we look at the "crimes" committed by the higher classes and big business they are often far more devastating than individual
crimes and are often carried out by official bodies! E.g. C.I.A. involvement in drug running the British, Conservative Government’s
involvement in condoning illegal arms sales to Iran and Iraq in the 1990s, the list is endless.

NOTE – you can also use the above material when examining MARXIST THEORY.

In conclusion we can probably say it is true that certain groups are more likely to commit crimes but the official figures greatly
exaggerate the extent to which the typical criminal is w/c, black, male and young. This is caused by the actions of the police and other
Agencies of social control through their selective implementation of the law and labelling of certain groups.

OTHER FORMS OF DEVIANCE – SUICIDE

Because we have tended to focus on crime it should not be forgotten that there are many forms of deviance – madness and ill health can
be considered deviance as also SUICIDE.

Suicide raises a number of important sociological issues. DURKHEIMS “Suicide” is a classic sociological work using the COMPARATIVE
METHOD and a POSITIVIST approach to the subject. His critics provide an equally classic example of INTERPRETIVE criticisms of the
positivist, “scientific approach.

Before Durkheim suicide was explained in psychological and biological terms. Durkheim was attempting to show that even this, highly
individual act, was influenced by SOCIAL PROCESSES, was a SOCIAL FACT. This reflects the positivist view that social reality exists
outside the consciousness of the individual i.e. it has an objective existence of its own.

Durkheim used official statistics (Coroners Reports) to compare different rates of suicide in different countries and amongst different
social groups. If there were significant differences this would mean that suicide must be influenced by social factors. He found that the
degree of INTEGRATION that people had was the “independent Variable” i.e. the causal factor in explaining different rates of suicide.

He identified 4 types of suicide :-

• ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE where people are over integrated and sacrifice themselves for the sake of the group – e.g. Japanese Kamikaze
pilots.
• FATALISTIC SUICIDE where people are over regulated and people feel oppressed e.g. slaves, Religious Sects.
• ANOMIC SUICIDE where the individual is not sufficiently regulated by society or the group, where rules and norms have become
unclear
• EGOISTIC SUICIDE where the bonds that tie people together are loosened and people are not so concerned with their duties and
obligations to others. As societies become more individualistic and divorce etc becomes more common, this is likely to increase.
 8

The former two are more likely in pre-industrial societies, the latter two in modern industrial society.

In his research Durkheim found that :-

• Suicide rates were higher in Protestant than Catholic countries. He argued that Catholicism provided much stronger bonds.
• He also found higher suicide rates amongst the unmarried, childless, divorced etc. Suicide rates were higher in urban rather than
rural communities.
• Suicide rates were higher at times of economic booms and slumps, a point strongly supported by HENRY and SHORT in their study
of the “Wall Street crash”. Lower in times of war or crisis.

These findings clearly support Durkheims theory.

Other research also backs up Durkheims analysis.

* SAINSBURY found, in a study of 5 London Boroughs, that the areas with the highest rates of suicide were always those with the largest
populations of the single, divorced, living alone etc
* Studies of those who attempt suicide (Para-suicides) show that they felt loneliness and rootlessness were key factors in their decisions
to kill themselves.
* The large increase in young male suicides in britain has coincided with youth uneployment and confusion over male roles.

Nevertheless Durkheim’s analysis has come under strong attack from Interpretive sociologists.

1. DEFINING SUICIDE – It is Coroners who define deaths as suicide and they adopt different criteria. Douglas shows how some
Coroners require a note whilst other just circumstantial evidence. Atkinson gave the same suicide case notes to Danish and British
Coroners. The Danish coroners were much more likely to give suicide verdicts.
2. This questions Durkheims use of official figures which lack VALIDITY. Maybe the lower suicide rates in Catholic countries are because
CORONERS ARE RELUCTANT TO GIVE SUICIDE VERDICTS because of Catholicisms attitude towards suicide.
3. Durkheims categories of suicide are seen as too simplistic by DOUGLAS and ATKINSON argues that every suicide is a unique,
individual, act.
4. Atkinson shows how sociologists and Coroners reinforce each others views on the factors causing suicide. Sociologists study
coroners reports and write books about the causes of suicide given by coroners. Coroners read these books and have their
“theories” confirmed!
5. Interpretive/Phenomenological approaches argue that to obtain a valid picture of suicide you have to discover the MEANINGS that
suicides attach to their own actions. BAECHLER thus categorises suicide as escapist, aggressive, etc.

This approach can also be criticised. TAYLOR argues that categorising suicides in this way depends on the interpretation of the sociologist.
Why is this more valid than the interpretation of the Coroner?

Taylor makes the interesting point that both Durkheim and his critics have missed one crucial point. Most people who attempt suicide
(parasuicides) do not die. When questioned they see a suicide attempt as a gamble “if they die they die, if not they carry on” its fate.
However we can criticise this point, it can be argued that those who fail suicide are not typical of those who succeed.

Taylor develops Durkheims ideas by developing his own categories of suicide, which attempt to combine wider social factors with
Atkinsons “meanings”. The results owe much to Durkhheim. Taylors category of “ordeal suicides” is very like Durkheims anomie, and his
“purposive suicide relates to fatalism. He also agrees that individuals who are not well integrated are more likely to commit suicide.

There can be no doubt that there are weaknesses in Durkheims methodology and research, but there is a huge amount of evidence in his
support. As Taylor says suicide is doubtless influenced by both social and individual factors – we need Durkheim and Atkinson, and the
two approaches are not necessarily exclusive.

Garrett
Mapping the Field of Deviance

A community’s decision to bring deviant sanctions against one of its members is not a simple act of censure. It is an intricate rite of
transition, at once moving the individual out of his ordinary place in society and transferring him to a special deviant position. The
ceremonies which mark this change of status, generally, have a number of related phases.

The 1621 witch trial of Edmonton resident Elizabeth Sawyer is, in many respects, an unremarkable case. In fact, as I will explain in
greater detail below, her trial might serve as a paradigm for the study of witch trials in early modern England.

This basic proposition, that a seventeenth-century play might serve as an early manifestation of sociological discourse, follows from a
strong tradition of interdisciplinary scholarship within the field of witchcraft studies.

The primary objective of the following argument is to demonstrate how the analytical vocabulary and modes of inquiry derived from
deviance theory can enrich our understanding of deviant behavior and crime as they are represented in early modern texts, taking The
Witch of Edmonton as a case study.

Thus, although sociology as a systematic field of study, as a social science allied to academic institutions and social policy, did not exist
until the twentieth century, there are numerous examples of an emerging discourse about deviance and criminology in early modern
culture.

This “shadow criminology” is older than the work of the universities and it is probably more prolific. It is composed of accounts of
notorious people, sinister happenings, and awful institutions. In the sixteenth century, particularly, there emerged a kind of “low-life
reporting” which purported to offer detailed information about the underworld.

There was a fond description of thieves, thief-takers, prostitutes, and pickpockets, their social organization and careers, their techniques,
and their relations with victims. That reporting [. . .] contains much that is repetitive, conjectural and fanciful. It also contains a great
deal of valuable material and sensible observation. Properly read, it may be recognized as an anticipation of the theorizing that now
passes for the sociology of deviance.

We can begin with an apparently simple task, defining deviance. Our first impulse might be to examine the deviant: what laws, religious
commandments, moral precepts or social taboos has such an individual violated? What conduct, behavioral patterns, or personality
features serve to distinguish such a figure as having a deviant identity?
One of the preliminary moves within deviance theory, however, is actually to shift that analytical spotlight away from the deviant figure
and to focus instead on the surrounding social context. Just as feminist and queer (homosexual) theories have urged us to recognize the
ways in which apparently straightforward identity labels are socially constructed, deviance theory likewise has directed much of its
attention to the institutions, beliefs and social practices responsible for defining deviance.
 9

The term “deviance” refers to conduct which the people of a group consider so dangerous, embarrassing or irritating that they bring
special sanctions to bear against the persons who exhibit it.

Deviance is not a property inherent in any particular kind of behavior; it is a property conferred upon that behavior by the people who
come into direct or indirect contact with it.

The only way an observer can tell whether or not a given style of behavior is deviant, then, is to learn something about the standards of
the audience which responds to it.

This analytical perspective on witchcraft, known as labeling theory of symbolic interactionism is the sociological approach that has been
applied most frequently to early modern witchcraft.

Since a labeling approach looks closely at “interpersonal bases of deviant behavior” (Scott 10), the micro-level details of how community
members interact with a witch, for example, are just as important as the deviant acts she has supposedly committed.
Another key insight of this approach is that since deviance arises primarily from socially constructed rules for “labeling” deviants and not
solely from an individual’s conduct, social elites who commit deviant acts are generally less vulnerable to prosecution or social censure.

Thus, although deviance is ubiquitous in human societies, only certain manifestations of deviance are targeted for concern and regulation
within a given community.

Sociologist Erich Goode points out that “The ‘interactionist’ perspective towards deviance does not automatically restrict our attention to
the deviance of the powerless but rather raises the question of why certain kinds of acts tend to be condemned while others are not”

It is also important to recognize that deviance and crime are not fully overlapping domains of conduct; some deviance is not technically
criminal and some criminal conduct is not treated as deviant.

In analyzing any one form of deviance, then, it is vital to be attentive to the full range of transgressive behaviors in a given social
context, to maintain a comparative perspective on the entire field of deviance.

We could turn momentarily to The Witch of Edmonton here and point out that these concepts prompt us to recognize how the play
underscores the artificiality of distinctions between those who are deviant and those who are normal, in part by demonstrating how
transgressive conduct marks most of the community members represented in the play.

Virtually all of the characters are guilty of some form of illicit or outright criminal behavior: in addition to the capital crimes of witchcraft,
murder and bigamy, the play represents adultery, sexual coercion, assault, bestiality, slander, arson, deceit, theft, and cross-dressing.
The field of deviance in this play is thus quite a crowded one. One of the central interpretive questions about this play, then, is how those
transgressive acts are set against one another, how the citizens of Edmonton understand and respond differentially to deviant
phenomena.

In referring to the field of deviance described by the dramatic action of this play, then, I am imagining a kind of circular force field
reflecting the community’s engagement with and responses to deviant conduct. At the center of such a field, the community installs those
individuals who have committed what we could call egregious deviance: behavior which virtually all community members would condemn
and which violates multiple contexts (e.g., legal, religious and moral) for evaluating acceptable behavior.

These egregiously harmful acts tend to unite the community through heightened expressions of opprobrium and disgust, a moral
consensus which is usually validated by judicial process through capital punishment. Rippling outward from that epicenter of depravity we
can imagine an array of lesser transgressions, acts which draw less consistent moral and legal responses, and which are likely to be
committed more frequently and by more individuals.

At the outer peripheries of the field of deviance are the most common and thus most minor forms of illicit behavior, which are broadly
tolerated since they implicate more of the community.- core-central section- periphery.

For the purposes of analyzing social responses to deviant conduct, it is especially important to remember that the location of specific acts
within the field of deviance is never fixed.

How a community responds to deviant conduct always depends on immediate circumstances––especially the deviant’s social standing, as
noted above––and the nature of those responses will also change over time.
Moreover, as in other structures of signification, deviant acts and persons within this field acquire meaning through a system of
differences in relation to other transgressive behaviors and individuals. A memorable and frequently cited passage from Émile Durkheim’s
The Rules of Sociological Method illustrates the importance of context with this hypothetical scenario:

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which
appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this
society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.

While it is certainly revealing to maintain focus on a single type of deviance, such as witchcraft, a differential analysis of deviance in its
various forms will always yield a more nuanced understanding of those phenomena.

In this sociological context, The Witch of Edmonton is an especially inviting text to examine since it provides numerous cues for
recognizing the thematic echoes between the two central plots, emphasizing the pervasiveness of demonic influence among the
inhabitants of Edmonton and drawing our attention to the differential treatment of the range of deviant behaviors dramatized in the play.

The labeling perspective for analyzing deviant identity dovetails in some respects with some familiar concepts about identity in gender
and sexuality studies. For example, sociologists have observed that deviant identity is usually treated as essentialist, in the sense that a
deviant label suggests an entire personality shaped by that form of deviance, and the stigma of being labeled as such is usually lasting.
(Assumes the mantle of a master status).

Deviance theory also draws our attention to the fact that deviant labeling often takes place over a period of time, which means that a
range of acts, behaviors and identity factors often converge before an individual is officially branded as deviant.

The process of becoming a witch comprised degrees of recognition of a series of public performances: curses, incantations, blessings,
manipulations. There were many levels of labeling which might or might not finally result in prosecution.

A comprehensive appreciation of social “stigma” is useful here, and sociologist Erving Goffman has observed that stigma and deviance
often incorporate many aspects of marginalized identity, including racial identity (blackness) and individuals who suffer from
developmental, mental or physical disabilities.
And one manifestation of deviance is likely to provoke or reinforce suspicions about additional deviant features.
 10

So, for example, Elizabeth Sawyer’s physical deformities––her partial blindness, her body severely stooped from age––help to confirm the
community’s belief in her capacity for malice and crime.

Labeling theory is also useful for examining one of the more puzzling features of some English witch trials, which is that some women
apparently embraced the deviant identity of witch. While many recorded confessions of guilt were likely coerced, scripted or recorded
incorrectly, we cannot assume that every confession represents an instance of judicial misconduct.

In Elizabeth Sawyer’s case there is at least the possibility that she truly intended to cause harm to her neighbors’ children and livestock
and believed she had accomplished such vengeance through demonic means. Certainly the playwrights are quite interested in
representing that possibility in their depiction of Sawyer.

While concepts from labeling theory have been incorporated into witchcraft scholarship most frequently, another prominent interpretive
approach taken up by scholars derives from what is known as the “functionalist” school within deviance theory.

This theory proceeds from or implies an organic metaphor for social order, imagining it as a self-contained system that functions with the
sort of order and efficiency one might find in natural systems. In this context, then, crime and deviance, particularly forms which tend to
persist historically in spite of efforts to eradicate them, are conceived of as “natural” features of social order. The functionalist approach
within sociology has come under fire, specifically because of its implications for social change and policy applications.
After all, if we begin with the assumption that crime and deviance are persistent or even “natural” dimensions of social order, then this
might lead to the conclusion that societies can’t or even shouldn’t attempt to change the social factors underlying crime, violence,
poverty, and other conditions of social disorder and inequity.

Although functionalism has become something of a whipping boy in sociological studies, some of its insights have been adapted fruitfully
for analyzing social responses to deviance and crime in previous historical eras.

For example, Kai Erikson opens Wayward Puritans by examining Emile Durkheim’s pioneering work in the analysis of crime, specifically
Durkheim’s transvaluation of crime by regarding it not as a defect in the social structure but perhaps as something necessary or even
salutary for social order:

In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim had suggested that crime (and by extension other forms of deviation) may actually perform
a needed service to society by drawing people together in a common posture of anger and indignation.

The deviant individual violates rules of conduct which the rest of the community holds in high respect; and when these people come
together to express their outrage over the offense and to bear witness against the offender, they develop a tighter bond of solidarity than
existed earlier.
One of the objectives of Erikson’s book is to examine the value of such theories in the context of a series of “crime waves” in the
Massachusetts Bay colony (although it is vital to point out that Erikson distinguishes his approach from functionalism).

He elaborates Durkheim’s theory in part by introducing a naturalizing conception of community as “boundary maintaining,” a system that
“controls the fluctuation of its constituent parts so that the whole retains a limited range of activity, a given pattern of constancy and
stability, within the larger environment”.

The question then arises as to how those boundaries demarcating the specific identity of a community come to be understood and
reaffirmed. Erikson’s observation is that the practice of policing deviants accomplishes that goal with particular efficiency:

Members of a community inform one another about the placement of their boundaries by participating in the confrontations which occur
when persons who venture out to the edges of the group are met by policing agents whose special business is to guard the cultural
integrity of the community.

Whether these confrontations take the form of criminal trials, excommunication hearings, courts-martial, or even psychiatric case
conferences, they act as boundary-maintaining devices in the sense that they demonstrate to whatever audience is concerned where the
line is drawn between behavior that belongs to the special universe of the group and behavior that does not.

Witchcraft is a particularly appealing category of deviance because it condenses a broad range of non-conforming behaviors: “it
represented not merely particular misdemeanors or individual crimes but total evil, total hostility to the community, the church, the state,
and God.

While the surveillance and pursuit of deviants is a regular feature of societies, there are conditions under which such pursuits are likely to
escalate.
Robert Scott points out in his essay, “A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Deviance as a Property of Social Order,” that during periods of
social crisis or ideological transformation––such as the English Reformation––

1. when a community’s identity becomes ambiguous or uncertain, deviant figures are more likely to be singled out and subjected to
processes of exclusion, symbolically marginalized as heretics or outcasts. (NB- Increases in criminal activity in England and the resulting
outrage of the community against immigrants)

2. deviance tends to be more threatening within smaller, more homogenous communities––like the villages where most English witch
trials originated––than within larger, more heterogeneous, urban locales.

One point of tension here between the labeling and functionalist perspectives is that the former is more likely to view things from the
perspective of the deviant, while the functionalist model prompts us to analyze how the persistence of deviance serves the broader needs
of the community.

Erikson’s observation that community members participate in “confrontations which occur when persons who venture out to the edges of
the group are met by policing agents,” and that such confrontations “demonstrate to whatever audience is concerned where the line is
drawn between” normal and deviant behavior would serve as a fair description of what happens in this seventeenth-century play.

Given that the theater itself was regarded by authorities in early modern England as a social space likely to incite deviance and crime,
one final topic is necessary to this discussion, namely, how surveillance and social control are treated in deviance theory.

The term ‘social control’ indicates more than merely a radical view of ‘law and order’; it includes all the norms, ideologies, and sanctions
by which certain types of social behavior are encouraged and others discouraged”

Some sociologists have emphasized that agencies of social control, despite their manifest commitment to curbing deviance, may in fact
exacerbate those very behaviors.

Erikson, comments, “It is by now a thoroughly familiar argument that many of the institutions designed to discourage deviant behavior
actually operate in such a way as to perpetuate it.”
 11

All social systems also feature unofficial mechanisms of social control, which may have no discernible connection to religious doctrine or
legal codes, but which may nonetheless be just as powerful in enforcing normative standards of behavior.

For example, within small communities like the village of Edmonton, the fear of social shame or loss of reputation holds considerable
sway over individual conduct. Episodes of vigilante justice would also fall under the category of such unofficial mechanisms; however,
since those episodes usually violate strict legal codes, they are paradoxically a deviant response to deviance.

To understand the appeal of folk counter-magic rituals, they should be set in the context of broader religious transformation. As Thomas
explains, the post-Reformation period in England was one marked by considerable anxiety about individual susceptibility to demonic
influence, since the notion of “a personal and immanent Devil” was emphasized by theologians.

Deprived of the semi-magical paraphernalia and rituals for warding off the devil’s presence which were sanctioned within Roman Catholic
practice, many ordinary citizens’ sense of vulnerability to the demonic was particularly heightened: “Protestantism forced its adherents
into the intolerable position of asserting the reality of witchcraft, yet denying the existence of an effective and legitimate form of
protection or cure.

The Church of England discarded the apparatus of mechanical religious formulae, but it was not prepared to claim that faith alone would
protect the godly from witchcraft” It was these specific shifts in religious doctrine, Thomas speculates, that contributed to the scape-
goating and vigilante impulses of small communities.