Preventing Deviance by Amending Inequality

Deviance is any behavior that violates cultural and socially established norms. By investigating deviance in society, we can better understand the processes that function to maintain social order, and how inequality in society can contribute to deviant activity. Scholarship in this area has taken two divergent paths since the late twentieth century. On the one hand, there are those who argue that deviance should be studied regardless of criminality or wrongfulness. On the other hand are those who suggest that deviance is an indicator of criminal activity and attempts should be made by communities and law enforcement to control deviant behavior through various mechanisms of control and sanctions. This paper will look at ways to prevent deviance by ameliorating inequality and thus, deviance will be treated as objectively given in society; that is, deviant activities will be described in terms of their social dysfunctions and ability to upset social order. Specific attention is paid to processes by which we can reduce deviance by reducing inequality.

Keywords Bourgeoisie; Capitalism; Class Conflict; Deviance; Inequality; Marx, Karl; Proletariat; Symbolic Interactionism

Deviance & Social Control > Preventing Deviance by Amending Inequality

Overview

Deviance is any behavior that violates culturally established norms (Rubington & Weinberg, 1996). By investigating deviance in society, we may better understand the processes that maintain social order and how deviant groups organize their lives and function in society. Stratification, inequality, and the social construction of deviance contribute to the labeling of certain behaviors as deviant and criminal. In order to understand the causes of deviance and its relationship to inequality we consider a multitude of issues including how deviance is defined, whether or not it is harmful to society, and how to prevent it by amending social inequalities.

Defining Deviance

The study of deviance as a social phenomenon relies on widespread agreement among members of society that share similar values and norms that make it easy to identify individuals who breach social norms. Deviant activity evokes a negative reaction by the majority of society. Society applies punishments to deter deviant-minded individuals and other members of society from engaging in activities that challenge the social order (Rubington & Weinberg, 1996).

We can view deviance as criminal acts, violations of formally enacted laws. For example, we might consider those who engage in robbery, theft, rape, murder, and assault, as deviants. We may also view deviant behavior as violations of informal social norms, norms that society has not codified into law. Deviant behavior such as this might include various sexual behaviors, alcohol use, and public disorder. These activities are not necessarily criminal but still have the potential to negatively affect society and upset social order.

One example of this is evident in sexual identity. Historically (and to a certain extent today), homosexual behavior has been viewed as deviant. Of course, homosexual behaviors, by most standards, do not cause harm to individuals or society. However, given the marginalization of those who participate in gay activities, subcultures were formed that have developed into social movements that call attention to the inequitable treatment of gays and lesbians in society, initiating social change.

On the other hand, when deviance causes harm to individuals and society it is important to consider measures to reduce such deviant activity and prevent individuals from harm or harming others. This also suggests a greater understanding of the causes of the harmful deviant behavior. A common explanation for harmful acts of deviance is rooted in theories of class conflict, which asserts that inequality creates hostile conditions that facilitate deviance and crime.

Because of the varying views on deviance, scholarship has taken two divergent paths over the past decades. Some scholars argue that research on deviance should focus on individuals' personal environments without considering the criminality or wrongfulness of their actions (Rubington & Weinberg, 1996). Other scholars suggest that deviance is an indicator of criminal activity that society must control through various formal and informal social control mechanisms (Hagan, Silva, & Simpson, 1977).

Further Insights

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interaction theorists suggest that there is nothing inherently wrong with the majority of deviant acts, but rather society has constructed definitions and mechanisms for typifying behavior and actors as deviants in order to maintain the status quo (Becker, 1963). Thus, symbolic interaction theorists define behavior that is considered by society to be deviant as behavior that is labeled deviant (Becker, 1963).

This essay considers a theoretical explanation of deviance that takes into account variations in access to social and financial resources, reviews empirical examples of the relationship between inequality and deviance, and addresses the processes through which society can prevent deviance by ameliorating inequality.

Social Conflict Theory of the Causes of Deviance

Karl Marx developed the conflict perspective, a theory renowned for its explanation of class struggles. Marx never actually studied criminality, however, criminologists and sociologists have adapted his theories of capitalism, class struggle, and the nature of the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to develop theories of deviance. These theories of deviance highlight the consequences of social order and focus on social and structural mechanisms that contribute to inequality in society (Spitzer, 1975).

The conflict perspective provides an explanation of deviance in which a privileged few determine what actions are deviant and non-deviant. For example, laws in capitalist countries often reflect the norms and values of the privileged or upper classes. Laws related to property ownership tend to favor those with property and disfavor those without property. The power elite use their resources to define deviance and convince society that it is wrong, thus maintaining class inequality. Consider 2007 headlines regarding the use of deadly force by a man in Texas to protect his neighbor’s property. By clearing the man of any charges in 2008, a Texas county court determined that it is acceptable to shoot and kill would-be burglars, thus protecting the rights of property owners at the expense of deviant actors.

The conflict approach asserts that the privileged upper classes are able to avoid a deviant label by changing the definition of deviance to favor their class. Given their high status in society and access to political power, these groups are able to influence the adoption of social values as expressed by legislative change, or campaign to call attention to undesirable behavior. One example is the changing of legislation regarding loitering and the process by which police respond to homeless people in public. This criminalizes activities that are viewed by a few as deviant, even though these actions are not necessarily harmful to individuals or society. The result is that the masses are much more likely to receive a deviant label and receive punishment due to the inequality among social classes.

Yet another example of how power imbalances relate to deviance is illustrated in crime reports and corresponding punishments. Privileged members of society who engage in deviant activates are more likely commit white-collar crime. These crimes more often go undetected, receive little police attention, and largely until the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, most offenders were unlikely to serve jail time for their actions—even when they resulted in death (as was the case in the Ford Pinto scandal), or in the cheating of thousands of people out of their savings (as in the Enron scandal). Thus, the inequality in society results in additional inequality. Persons of lower classes are more likely to be considered deviant, and when they are considered deviant, they are more likely to suffer greater sanctions.

Response to Crimes

Poor people are more likely to engage in certain types of crimes, such as street crime, robbery, and drug sales. However, the response by police, political officials, and the public is often far greater than would be expected, especially in cases in which the actions are not violent. Individuals who are caught selling drugs can often be subject to lengthy prison terms and other harsh forms of social sanctions.

The process that treats these groups differently has arguably less to do with the nature of their offenses and more to do with the inequality of their class status and social inequality (Turk, 1977). Scholarship that focuses on this disjuncture asserts that the determination of deviant activity and the response by police are functions of one's class status and not a function of their actual propensity toward crime (Reiman, 2007).

Varying Crime Rates Indicate Class Inequality

Those who ascribe to the notion that class conflict and inequality cause deviance often point to variations in crime rates as a function of class membership or economic inequality. Much research has attempted to uncover the variation in deviant activity among those from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Krohn, 1976; Tittle, Villemez, & Smith, 1978). The results of this scholarship are mixed. On the one hand, Tittle and his colleagues emphatically disagree with the notion that there is class variation in criminality. Their data suggest that there is no empirical link between inequality and the distribution of social resources and criminal activity. There are differences in arrest rates, convictions, or other indicators that would seemingly highlight the important role social status and inequality plays in assessing the breadth of deviance in society. It could be the fact that those who are less affluent or privileged are just less likely to be caught. It is evident that even the most well-to-do individuals engage in criminal activity; executives at Ford and Enron both committed crimes, despite having access to social and economic resources. However, their social status (at least in the case of Ford) allowed executives to dodge serious punishment.

In contrast, Krohn (1976) does in fact find a significant variation in criminal activity as a function of inequality. In a cross-national comparison of crime rates, Krohn investigated how variation in inequality within a country relates to homicide rates and property crimes. His findings approach the study of deviance and inequality from the perspective that deviance relates specifically to crime, and is characterized as law-violating behavior. Second, he considers the distribution of wealth and access to resources as a central component regarding the likelihood of criminal activity. In order to reduce violence and other criminal responses to economic deprivation, Krohn argues that society must reduce unemployment and other factors contributing to socioeconomic deprivation. Thus, Krohn's work highlights the need to amend inequality in society to reduce or prevent deviance.

Viewpoints: Amending Inequality

To prevent deviance by amending inequality we must first consider the notion that deviance is harmful to society and that deviance results from differential access to rewards. That is, we may view deviance and the determination of some behaviors as deviant as a function of one’s power and privilege in society to manipulate the definition of what should and should not be considered deviant. Other scholars who study deviance suggest that it can best be reduced by increasing mechanisms of social control that are often more prevalent in areas with lower rates of inequality. However, this approach does not specifically address how amending inequality can reduce deviance; it only illustrates that there is a relationship between inequality and deviance.

Those who assume that deviance and crime are a reaction to class inequality would suggest that the best way to reduce deviance is through a series of social and economic approaches that focus on the reduction of poverty and unemployment and an increase in access to affordable housing and education. By increasing access to these resources on a universal basis, we would reduce inequality and class conflict, resulting in less deviance.

A central fact pertaining to the relationship between deviance and inequality is the notion that inequality produces the normative structures, conditions, and environments that foster the opportunity for a select group in society to determine what is and is not deviant in the first place. By reducing inequality, fewer behaviors would be deviant. This resolution, however, would require a radical change in the organization of society and social structures — one that moves toward the interactionist perspective on deviant activities and is less concerned about how deviance relates to criminal behavior.

In sum, deviance is unrelated to crime but rather is a characterization of behavior by elites to indicate what activities are acceptable and what are not. On the other hand, there are those who view deviance as a pattern of behavior associated with criminal involvement. These two divergent perspectives view the nature of the relationship between inequality and deviance in vastly different ways. As such, scholars in these two competing camps view the attempt to prevent deviance by ameliorating inequality differently. The first would argue that ameliorating inequality would only change the definition of what is currently viewed as deviant. The other would suggest that ameliorating inequality would reduce crime and deviance only as far as it would reduce the need for individuals to use criminal activity as a way to obtain desirable social goods.

These two different views highlight the need for additional scholarship in the area of deviance and inequality. We have yet to develop a perspective on deviance that clearly identifies its relationship to criminal activity and social inequality, thus making it difficult to propose policy and social solutions to decrease deviant behavior through reducing inequality.

Terms & Concepts

Bourgeoisie: Owners of the means of production in a capitalistic society.

Class Conflict: Conflict within society that arises among individuals or groups with different class positions who compete for scarce resources.

Deviance: The breach of social norms.

Inequality: The inequitable distribution of resources.

Karl Marx: (1818–1883). Philosopher and social theorist who advocated for the implementation of communist ideologies in order to rectify class struggles, which he argued are the cause of social and political inequality.

Proletariat: The working class.

Symbolic Interactionism: The theoretical position that deviance is not inherently wrong or hurtful but rather an expression of values and ideologies that is in contrast to mainstream views of social order.

Bibliography

Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.

Hagan, J. Silva, E., & Simpson, J. (1977). Conflict and consensus in the designation of deviance. Social Forces, 56, , 320–340. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5285239&site=ehost-live.

Kelly, D. (1996). Deviant behavior: A text reader in the sociology of deviance. 5th Ed. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Krohn, M. (1976). Inequality, unemployment, and crime: A cross-national analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 17 , 303–313.

Lauderdale, P. (2011). An analysis of deviance, law, and diversity: A nascent theoretical framework. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 1563. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659091&site=ehost-live

Reiman, J. (2007). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (8th Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Rubington, E. & Weinberg, M. (1999). Deviance: The interactionist perspective. 7th Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tittle, C., Villemez, W. & Smith, D. (1978). The myth of social class and criminality: An empirical assessment of the empirical evidence. American Sociological Review, 43 , 643–656. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14741299&site=ehost-live

Turk, A. (1977). Class, conflict, and criminalization. Sociological Focus, 10 , 209–236. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11646064&site=ehost-live.

Spencer, D. (2011). Cultural criminology: An invitation... to what?. Critical Criminology, 19 , 197–212. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=63899047&site=ehost-live

Williams, D. (2011). Why revolution ain't easy: Violating norms, re-socializing society. Contemporary Justice Review, 14 , 167–187. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60429836&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Box, S. & Ford, J. (1971). The facts don't fit: On the relationship between social class and criminal behavior. Sociological Review, 19 31–52. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11200739&site=ehost-live

Dixon, J., & Singleton, R. (Eds.) (2013). Reading social research: Studies in inequality and deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Georgoulas, S. (Ed.) (2012). The politics of criminology: Critical studies on deviance and social control. Vienna, Austria: Lit. London: Global (distributor).

Humes, E. (1996). No matter how loud I shout: A year in the life of juvenile court. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Mann, C. (1993). Unequal justice: A question of color. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.