Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For sociologists, the term deviance does not mean perversion or depravity. Deviance is behavior that violates
the standards of conduct or expectations of a group or society. In the United States, alcoholics, compulsive
gamblers, and the mentally ill would all be classified as deviants. Being late for class is categorized as a
deviant act; the same is true of wearing jeans to a formal wedding. On the basis of the sociological definition,
we are all deviant from time to time. Each of us violates common social norms in certain situations (Best
2004). Is being overweight an example of deviance? In the United States and many other cultures, unrealistic
standards of appearance and body image place a huge strain on people—especially women and girls—based
on how they look. Journalist Naomi Wolf (1992) has used the term beauty myth to refer to an exaggerated
ideal of beauty, beyond the reach of all but a few females, which has unfortunate consequences. In order to
shed their “deviant” image and conform to unrealistic societal norms, many women and girls become
consumed with adjusting their appearances. Yet what is deviant in one culture may be celebrated in another.
Deviance involves the violation of group norms, which may or may not be formalized into law. It is a
comprehensive concept that includes not only criminal behavior but also many actions that are not subject to
prosecution. The public official who takes a bribe has defied social norms, but so has the high school student
who refuses to sit in an assigned seat or cuts class. Of course, deviation from norms is not always negative,
let alone criminal. A member of an exclusive social club who speaks out against a traditional policy of not
admitting women, Blacks, and Jews is deviating from the club’s norms. So is a police officer who blows the
whistle on corruption or brutality within the department. From a sociological perspective, deviance is hardly
objective or set in stone. Rather, it is subject to social definition within a particular society and at a particular
time. For that reason, what is considered deviant can shift from one social era to another. In most instances,
those individuals and groups with the greatest status and power define what is acceptable and what is
deviant. For example, despite serious medical warnings against the dangers of tobacco, made since 1964,
cigarette smoking continued to be accepted for decades—in good part because of the power of tobacco
farmers and cigarette manufacturers. Only after a long campaign led by public health and anticancer activists
did cigarette smoking become more of a deviant activity. Today, many state and local laws limit where
people can smoke.
Functionalist perspective
According to functionalists, deviance is a common part of human existence, with positive as well as negative
consequences for social stability. Deviance helps to define the limits of proper behavior. Children who see
one parent scold the other for belching at the dinner table learn about approved conduct. The same is true of
the driver who receives a speeding ticket, the department store cashier who is fired for yelling at a customer,
and the college student who is penalized for handing in papers weeks overdue.
Durkheim’s Legacy Émile Durkheim ([1895] 1964) focused his sociological investigations mainly on
criminal acts, yet his conclusions have implications for all types of deviant behavior. In Durkheim’s view, the
punishments established within a culture (including both formal and informal mechanisms of social control)
help to define acceptable behavior and thus contribute to stability. If improper acts were not sanctioned,
people might stretch their standards of what constitutes appropriate conduct. Early explanations for behavior
that deviated from societal expectations blamed supernatural causes or genetic factors (such as “bad blood”
or evolutionary throwbacks to primitive ancestors). By the 1800s, substantial research efforts were being
made to identify biological factors that lead to deviance, and especially to criminal activity. Though such
research was discredited in the 20th century, contemporary studies, primarily by biochemists, have sought to
isolate genetic factors that suggest a likelihood of certain personality traits. Although criminality (much less
deviance) is hardly a personality characteristic, researchers have focused on traits that might lead to crime,
such as aggression. Of course, aggression can also lead to success in the corporate world, in professional
sports, or in other walks of life. The contemporary study of the possible biological roots of criminality is but
one aspect of the larger debate over sociobiology. In general, sociologists reject any emphasis on the genetic
roots of crime and deviance. The limitations of current knowledge, the possibility of reinforcing racist and
sexist assumptions, and the disturbing implications for the rehabilitation of criminals have led sociologists to
draw largely on other approaches to explain deviance (Sagarin and Sanchez 1988).
Sociologist Kai Erikson (1966) illustrated the boundary-maintenance function of deviance in his study of the
Puritans of 17th-century New England. By today’s standards, the Puritans placed tremendous emphasis on
conventional morals. Their persecution and execution of women as witches represented a continuing attempt
Conflict perspective
Conflict theorists point out that people with power protect their interests and define deviance to suit their
needs. Sociologist Richard Quinney (1974, 1979, 1980) was a leading exponent of the view that the criminal
justice system serves the interests of the powerful. Crime, according to Quinney (1970), is a definition of
conduct created by authorized agents of social control— such as legislators and law enforcement officers—in
a politically organized society. He and other conflict theorists argue that lawmaking is often an attempt by
the powerful to coerce others into their morality (see also Spitzer 1975). This theory helps to explain why our
society has laws against gambling, drug use, and prostitution, many of which are violated on a massive scale.
(We will examine these “victimless crimes” later in the chapter.) According to conflict theorists, criminal law
does not represent a consistent application of societal values, but instead reflects competing values and
interests. Thus, the U.S. criminal code outlaws marijuana because of its alleged harm to users, yet cigarettes
and alcohol—both of which can be harmful to users—are sold legally almost everywhere. In fact, conflict
theorists contend that the entire criminal justice system in the United States treats suspects differently based
on their racial, ethnic, or social-class background. In many cases, officials in the system use their own
discretion to make biased decisions about whether to press charges or drop them, whether to set bail and how
much, whether to offer parole or deny it. Researchers have found that this kind of differential justice —
differences in the way social control is exercised over different groups—puts African Americans and Latinos
at a disadvantage in the justice system, both as juveniles and as adults. On average, White offenders receive
shorter sentences than comparable Latino and African American offenders, even when prior arrest records
and the relative severity of the crime are taken into consideration (Brewer and Heitzeg 2008; Sandefur 2008;
Schlesinger 2011).
The perspective advanced by conflict and labeling theorists forms quite a contrast to the functionalist
approach to deviance. Functionalists see standards of deviant behavior as merely reflecting cultural norms;
conflict and labeling theorists point out that the most powerful groups in a society can shape laws and
standards and determine who is (or is not) prosecuted as a criminal. These groups would be unlikely to apply
the label “deviant” to the corporate executive whose decisions lead to large-scale environmental pollution. In
the opinion of conflict theorists, agents of social control and other powerful groups can impose their own
self-serving definitions of deviance on the general public.
Feminist perspective
Feminist criminologists such as Freda Adler and Meda Chesney- Lind have suggested that many of the
existing approaches to deviance and crime were developed with only men in mind. For example, in the
Victimless crimes
When we think of crime, we tend to think of acts that endanger people’s economic or personal well-being
against their will (or without their direct knowledge). In contrast, sociologists use the term victimless crime
to describe the willing exchange among adults of widely desired but illegal goods and services, such as
prostitution (Schur 1965, 1985). Some activists are working to decriminalize many of these illegal practices.
Supporters of decriminalization are troubled by the attempt to legislate a moral code for adults. In their view,
prostitution, drug abuse, gambling, and other victimless crimes are impossible to prevent. The already
overburdened criminal justice system should instead devote its resources to street crimes and other offenses
with obvious victims. Despite widespread use of the term victimless crime, however, many people object to
the notion that there is no victim other than the offender in such crimes. Excessive drinking, compulsive
gambling, and illegal drug use contribute to an enormous amount of personal and property damage. A person
with a drinking problem may become abusive to a spouse or children; a compulsive gambler or drug user
may steal to pursue his or her obsession. And feminist sociologists contend that prostitution, as well as the
more disturbing aspects of pornography, reinforce the misconception that women are “toys” who can be
treated as objects rather than people. According to critics of decriminalization, society must not give tacit
approval to conduct that has such harmful consequences (Melissa Farley and Malarek 2008). The
controversy over decriminalization reminds us of the important insights of labeling and conflict theorists
presented earlier. Underlying this debate are two questions: Who has the power to label gambling,
prostitution, and public drunkenness as “crimes”? And who has the power to label such behaviors as
“victimless”? The answer is generally the state legislatures, and in some cases, the police and the courts.
Organized crime
A 1976 government report devotes three pages to defining the term organized crime. For our purposes, we
will consider organized crime to be the work of a group that regulates relations among criminal enterprises
involved in illegal activities, including prostitution, gambling, and the smuggling and sale of illegal drugs.
Organized crime dominates the world of illegal business just as large corporations dominate the conventional
business world. It allocates territory, sets prices for goods and services, and acts as an arbitrator in internal
disputes. A secret, conspiratorial activity, it generally evades law enforcement. It takes over legitimate
businesses, gains influence over labor unions, corrupts public officials, intimidates 165 witnesses in criminal
trials, and even “taxes” merchants in exchange for “protection” (National Advisory Commission on Criminal
Justice 1976). Organized crime serves as a means of upward mobility for groups of people struggling to
escape poverty. Sociologist Daniel Bell (1953) used the term ethnic succession to describe the sequential
passage of leadership from Irish Americans in the early part of the 20th century to Jewish Americans in the
1920s and then to Italian Americans in the early 1930s. Ethnic succession has become more complex,
reflecting the diversity of the nation’s latest immigrants. Colombian, Mexican, Russian, Chinese, Pakistani,
and Nigerian immigrants are among those who have begun to play a significant role in organized crime
activities (Chin 1996; Kleinknecht 1996).
Hate crime
In contrast to other crimes, hate crimes are defined not only by the perpetrators’ actions, but by the purpose
of their conduct. The government considers an ordinary crime to be a hate crime when the offender is
motivated to choose a victim based on race, religion, ethnic group, national origin, or sexual orientation, and
when evidence shows that hatred prompted the offender to commit the crime. Hate crimes are sometimes
referred to as bias crimes (Department of Justice 2008). In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics
Act, which created a national mandate to identify crimes based on race, religion, ethnic group, and national
origin. (Before that time, only 12 states had monitored such crimes.) Since then the act has been broadened
to include disabilities, both physical and mental, and sexual orientation. In addition, some jurisdictions
impose harsher sanctions (jail time or fines) for hate crimes than for other crimes. For example, if the penalty
Transitional crimes
More and more, scholars and police officials are turning their attention to transnational crime , or crime
that occurs across multiple national borders. In the past, international crime was often limited to the
clandestine shipment of goods across the border between two countries. But increasingly, crime is no more
restricted by such borders than is legal commerce. Rather than concentrating on specific countries,
international crime now spans the globe. Historically, probably the most dreadful example of transnational
crime has been slavery. At first, governments did not regard slavery as a crime, but merely regulated it as
they would the trade in goods. In the 20th century, transnational crime grew to embrace trafficking in
endangered species, drugs, and stolen art and antiquities. Transnational crime is not exclusive of some of the
other types of crime we have discussed. For example, organized criminal networks are increasingly global.
Technology definitely facilitates their illegal activities, such as trafficking in child pornography. Beginning in
the 1990s, the United Nations began to categorize transnational crimes; Table 7-3 lists some of the more
common types. Bilateral cooperation in the pursuit of border criminals such as smugglers has been common
for many years. The first global effort to control international crime was the International Criminal Police
Organization (Interpol), a cooperative network of European police forces founded to stem the movement of
political revolutionaries across borders. While such efforts to fight transnational crime may seem lofty—an
activity with which any government should cooperate—they are complicated by sensitive legal and security
issues. Most nations that have signed protocols issued by the United Nations, including the United States,
have expressed concern over potential encroachments on their national judicial systems, as well as concern
over their national security. Thus, they have been reluctant to share certain types of intelligence data. The
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased both the interest in combating transnational crime and
sensitivity to the risks of sharing intelligence data (Deflem 2005; Felson and Kalaitzidis 2005).