Defining Deviance

An overview of how deviance is defined is provided, beginning with a general review of historical definitions and the most general definitions currently used by sociologists. The development and changes of the definition of deviance across time and societies are highlighted. Special attention is given to Durkheim's views of deviance and Becker's views of the process of becoming deviant. Various types of commonly studied deviant behaviors are very briefly reviewed. The ongoing debate about positive deviance and the political correctness in defining deviance are addressed.

Keywords Anomie; Nonconformity; Norms; Prescriptive Norms; Primary Deviance; Proscriptive Norms; Roles; Secondary Deviance; Subculture

Deviance and Social Control > Defining Deviance

Overview

Defining deviance is not only a sociological endeavor. Several fields of study such as social work, psychology, criminal justice, and religion aim to understand deviant behavior. There are many sociological perspectives that offer a definition of deviance. While there may be some controversies about defining deviance, there are some general patterns that emerge from the literature. First explored here is the general definition of deviance with some emphasis on historical approaches, followed by a review of various approaches to defining deviance and concluding with specific topics that sociologists typically consider deviant behavior.

Historical & Current Definitions of Deviance

There are many perspectives in sociology that define deviance. Deviance generally refers to the violation of culturally established norms, values, and beliefs. From this definition, it is evident that the actions or attitudes that constitute deviance vary from one culture to another. Most definitions of deviance include behaviors that violate the norms of society. Some sociologists' definitions of deviance also include attitudes that vary from the dominant values and beliefs of society and individual characteristics such as birth defects, and/or individuals with physical disabilities. The definition of deviance may also vary from one subculture to another. However, how one defines deviance reflects additional assumptions about how human behavior is evaluated and by whom. Deviance can result from violations of either prescriptive norms or proscriptive norms. Because deviance is often viewed negatively by laymen, it is important to note that deviant behavior may also include activities that have positive connotations.

Positive Deviance

Deviant behavior that is negatively viewed generally reflects the normative approach to deviance. That is, behaviors that are considered deviant fall outside of behaviors that are considered acceptable or desirable by the majority of the population. Positive deviance consists of behaviors or attitudes that reflect the norms or values of a given society but are taken to the extreme of the norms or values. For example, most people in the United States would likely agree that altruistic behavior is favorable and is viewed positively. But when someone demonstrates such altruistic behavior at a much greater rate than most people do, it then takes on the characteristics of being a deviant behavior that is viewed positively. The idea that some people may view the extreme altruistic behavior as odd, unusual, or extreme demonstrates that the behavior is now classified as deviant. Not all sociologists agree that there is such a concept as positive deviance (Goode, 1991; Sagarin, 1985). Some sociologists view the concept of positive deviance as a contradiction in terms, and that only negative behaviors and attitudes constitute deviance.

Early Explanations

Some of the earliest efforts of defining deviance involved superstition and supernatural causes. For example, people who acted outside the realm of normal behavior were sometimes accused of being witches. Others suggested that demonic possession of the body accounts for deviant behavior. While there were several social issues with the previously mentioned approaches to explaining deviance, one major problem with them was that the efforts made to correct the deviant behavior and, in essence curing the individual of these problems, often resulted in the death of the deviant person. One example of an early cure for deviance was bloodletting—literally draining some of the blood from the deviant person in order to rid the person's body of demonic possession. Clearly, many people accused of deviant behavior died in the process.

Other early approaches to defining deviance involved biological explanations of deviance. Lombroso (1896) suggested that he could identify individuals prone to criminality by the number and location of bumps on one's head. His attempt to explain deviant behavior was rooted in biological determinism; one was born a criminal. Sheldon (1954) suggested that different body types are associated with elevated risks of criminal and deviant behavior. The three main body types are endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph. These somatotypes developed by Sheldon (1954) were used to explain deviant behavior. Sheldon concluded that deviant behavior varied by body composition.

While many of the original approaches to explaining deviance have been debunked, modern approaches to explaining deviance may have some general connections to the original efforts to define deviance. For example, some twenty-first century theories of crime and deviance include both social elements and individual characteristics of the deviant person. These approaches are referred to as biosocial explanations or trait theories of deviant behavior. For example, research found support for a relationship between intelligence (IQ) and crime (Cornell & Wilson, 1992; Moffitt & Silva, 1988; Raine et al., 2005); physiological and biological explanations of crime and deviance (Booth & Osgood, 1993; Raine, 1993); and personality, impulsivity, and low self-control (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Tremblay et al, 1994). So while the historical approaches to deviance today seem highly unacceptable and unethical, the assumptions from which they developed are taken by some modern theorists. The modern day notion that an individual's mental or physical characteristics are somewhat related to biological determinism is related to the early approaches to explaining deviance.

Durkheim: Deviance is Inevitable

Emile Durkheim (1938, 1970), one of the earliest and most famous sociologists, concluded that deviant behavior is the result of lower levels of social integration. One of his popular research projects on individuals' suicidal behavior led him to conclude that controlling people's behavior even on a topic as personal as suicide is also related to variations in levels of one's social integration. He suggested that not every member of society can be socialized to the norms, values, and beliefs of society or that every member of society can be socially integrated throughout the life course. Durkheim was a functionalist. He believed that deviance is inevitable and that all societies have members who commit deviant behaviors. Inherent to functional theory, Durkheim suggested that the reason deviance occurs in every society is because it serves a purpose for societies.

Durkheim suggested that deviant behavior serves societies in several ways. First, deviant behavior serves to create solidarity among the members of society. The solidarity develops from the group coming together in agreement that the deviant behavior is unacceptable and therefore the person demonstrating the deviant behavior must be dealt with accordingly. The idea is that deviant behavior results in verbal reinforcements among members of society about the violation of cultural norms. Also, when society responds to the deviant behavior either through actual punishment or other negative social responses, this action serves as a warning to other members of society that they should not participate in deviant behavior or they too will experience the punishment. This process, according to Durkheim, results in greater group conformity. Another function of deviant behavior is that it clarifies what behaviors and attitudes constitute deviant behaviors. In essence, when people commit deviant acts they serve to remind others of the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

Lastly, Durkheim suggested that deviant behavior may serve societies by initiating social change. Basically, when one pushes the boundaries of norms and values in a society, then the members of society are presented with alternative views that may eventually be considered favorably by a majority of the members of the society. Thus, when the behavior or attitude that once was considered deviant becomes acceptable by the majority, it then fails to be considered deviant and other members of society may practice the same behavior. These four functions of deviance indicate how deviant behaviors are beneficial for societies. On the other hand, Durkheim suggested that excessive deviant patterns in society may result from a lack of moral guidance and result in a state of anomie in society.

Labeling

Nonconformity is not always viewed as deviant behavior. For example, labeling theorists suggest that there is no act that is inherently deviant. For a behavior to be considered deviant several factors must be considered. Labeling theorists critique theories that focus on a normative approach to defining deviance. Rather, they suggest that behaviors that are considered deviant result from the people in society who have the power to assign a deviant label to people in the society with less power. The emphasis in labeling theory is on the process used to assign a deviant label of less powerful people in the society. The acts themselves are not inherently deviant. The process of assigning a deviant label involves an initial act or behavior by a person or group of people. The reaction of other members of society to the behavior determines if the behavior is considered deviant or not. If it is considered deviant by the other members of society, then members of society label the person or group deviant.

Once primary deviance occurs and the person who has been assigned the deviant label self-identifies with the label, then secondary deviance occurs. In essence, the application of the deviant label serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy and reinforces the actions deemed deviant by the dominant group. Labeling theorists suggest that mental illness, drug addiction, and other such behaviors are not inherently deviant. Yet, once labeled as such persons experience social stigma resulting in fewer social opportunities and more social sanctions. The social separation due to the label creates social outcasts (Becker, 1963).

Labeling theorists have highlighted that not all members of society are equally able to assign labels of deviance. It is only the people with power in society who have the ability to label others. Thus, the process of identifying some behaviors as deviant is inherently biased against members of society who hold less power in a given society. The bias serves to distract members of society from focusing on the harm committed by people with power and focuses attention on the lesser harm committed by people who have less power in society. The approach taken by labeling theorists to define deviance reflects a change in focus from the culture and social structure to an emphasis on the process of becoming labeled a deviant and the resultant secondary deviance that emerges therefrom.

Rule-Breaking

The progression sociology has experienced arriving at Becker's theory of deviance has created confusion and debate about what constitutes deviance. The confusion and debate revolve around three key issues:

• Who in society has the right to determine what behaviors or attitudes are deviant,
• Whether defining deviance is more a matter of moral entrepreneurs rather than being a clear boundary of behaviors and attitudes, and
• Whether or not positive deviance is really good.

Goode (2002) highlights the debate about the very existence of deviance and how the death of deviance in sociology may or may not make sense. Within sociology there has been a philosophical move from studying deviance to focusing more on studying rule-breaking. The same topics tend to fall under study whether they are referred to as deviance or rule-breaking. Thus, the very concept of deviance and defining deviance has taken on a politically correct characteristic. Although the issue of moral entrepreneurs is less obvious when we assume the rule-breaking perspective of studying behaviors and attitudes, it is still present nevertheless. The rules are established by members of society. Feminists and other conflict theorists and labeling theorists suggest that the rules are set by the powerful and are thus still applied with bias.

Applications

Types of Deviant Behaviors

There is a wealth of research on specific types of deviant behavior. Perhaps the most commonly examined deviant behavior is crime. Laws are formal norms that, when broken, also have accompanying social sanctions such as community service, probation, and imprisonment. Laws generally reflect the most important norms of a society. When an individual violates laws and the violation is discovered by persons of authority, the criminal justice system determines the sanctions to be applied. Violations of more important formal norms are accompanied by more severe sanctions such as life in prison or the death penalty. Laws are designed to act as a form of social control of deviant behavior. While it may seem easy to determine when a person has broken the law, it is not. Laws are written formalized norms and as such they are interpretable. When people break laws it is referred to as criminality. Criminality is one form of deviance and it is widely accepted as such by sociologists, especially criminologists.

Deviance of the Body

A very different form of deviant behavior revolves around how people in a society treat their own bodies. Societies have guidelines for various issues dealing with the body. For example, selecting what clothes to wear is guided by a set of norms. If a person is going to the prom the rules of society suggest that the person dress in formal attire. If someone opted to wear no clothes or just a swimming suit to prom it would be considered deviant. Other norms exist about the body than what clothes to wear. For example, young people commonly acquire tattoos. The norms regarding tattoos have been cyclical, with tattoos being acceptable in one time period and not acceptable in another time period. Even though a certain number and type of tattoos have generally been acceptable and not considered deviant in the early twenty-first century, some people have practiced tattooing at extreme levels. For example, a minority of individuals seek to have tattoos cover 100% of their bodies. The extreme application of tattoos is considered deviant.

Similar norms exist for other forms of body art such as piercing. Some body piercing is not considered deviant among younger people, but a high number of body piercings is considered deviant. Still other norms exist regarding the human body that pertain to defining deviance, such as those that address the normal body weight of individuals. People who fall outside of this weight range are considered deviant. If someone is extremely obese or extremely thin, then members of society would consider the person to be deviant. In particular, if one pursues these types of weights due to eating disorders, the likelihood is very high that societal members will consider this individual to be deviant. Eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are often researched under the umbrella of deviance.

Mental health is another element of the individual body that may be addressed by sociologists. Not all sociologists agree about the definition of mental illness or even that it exists at all, although sociologists often consider mental illness to constitute deviance. Even what one does sexually may be considered deviant. People who are nonsexual or who experience sexual dysfunction may be considered deviant. There are many sexual behaviors that may constitute sexual deviance: group sex, sex with a very high number of partners, bestiality, pedophilia, ephebophilia (sexual attraction to post-pubescent male children), and many others. There are many types of deviance that are not discussed here.

Implications

Deviant behavior is typically defined as behavior or attitudes that are not demonstrated or held by the majority of the population. While this is a general definition of deviance, it is clear that the definition is not accepted by all sociologists. Rather, there are many different approaches to defining deviance. Contemporary sociologists are sensitive to the issues of power and subordination in society and are less willing to accept the general definition of deviance without considering rule makers, power, and subordination. As a result, how they define deviance may fall within a realm of political correctness. Nevertheless, the items generally reviewed under the study of deviance also tend to be covered under the study of rule-breaking, albeit from different sets of assumptions. There are many implications inherent in the definition of deviance. The implications vary by the type of definition adopted. When one adopts the normative definition of deviance, generally the person committing the deviant act is held responsible for their actions. However, if one adopts a focus on the process of defining one's behaviors as deviant, the implication is that no sanctions need be applied to correct the behavior because there is nothing inherently wrong with the behavior in the first place. The definitions of deviance adopted by sociologists vary between these two main schools of thought: the normative approach and the relativist who may focus on the process of becoming labeled deviant. In conclusion, defining deviance is not uniformly approached by sociologists, and the behaviors that are defined as deviant in one culture or time may not be so in other cultures or eras.

Terms & Concepts

Anomie: A state of normlessness. Anomie results from excessive deviance in a given society. Emile Durkheim was concerned that a lack of moral guidance in society would result in a state of normlessness and society would no longer exist as we know it.

Nonconformity: Takes place when an individual either chooses to behave or unknowingly behaves in different ways than the majority of the members of the group or society. Nonconformity is generally viewed as deviant behavior. However, some sociologists do not believe nonconformity alone constitutes deviant behavior. Labeling theorists suggest that nonconformity is not considered deviant until other members of society are aware of the behavior and apply a deviant label to the person demonstrating nonconformity.

Norms: Expected standards of behaviors for members of a society. Norms are culturally determined and thus vary from culture to culture. Norms may be prescriptive or proscriptive. That is, norms may tell you what behaviors you are expected to demonstrate and what behaviors you are not allowed to demonstrate. Norms reflect the values and beliefs of the members of society.

Prescriptive Norms: Guide behaviors of members of a society by indicating what behaviors are acceptable. Behavior violating prescriptive norms is considered deviant behavior.

Primary Deviance: Occurs when a person randomly or inconsistently violates the norms of society while not holding an internal view of themselves as deviant. Primary deviance can result from social, psychological, or biological origins. Primary deviance, if discovered by members of society and sanctions result, may eventually develop into secondary deviance.

Proscriptive Norms: Guide behaviors of members of a society by indicating what behaviors are unacceptable. Behavior violating proscriptive norms is considered deviant behavior.

Roles: The expected behaviors attached to a particular status. Roles are determined culturally and therefore vary from culture to culture. For example, the roles of wife and husband may vary from one culture to another.

Secondary Deviance: Results from the application of a deviant label to a person whose behavior is discovered by members of a society. The members of society respond negatively or apply some social sanction. Labeling theorists suggest that it is the application of the label that leads to a person internalizing the deviant label and developing a self-concept as a deviant person. The development of the deviant self-concept leads the person to believe they are expected to act in deviant ways. The deviant behavior that follows the development of the deviant self-concept is secondary deviance. The development of secondary deviance may involve repeated negative responses to primary deviance by members of society.

Subculture: A subculture is set apart from the larger group by its members having different values and beliefs and by the smaller group having different norms than the dominant, usually larger society. Subcultures are considered deviant.

Bibliography

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Macmillan.

Booth, A. & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology 31 , 93–117. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9302090005&site=ehost-live.

Cornell, D. G. & Wilson, L. A. (1992). The PIQ>VIQ discrepancy in violent and nonviolent delinquents. Journal of Clinical Psychology 48 : 256–261. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9207200664&site=ehost-live

Cross, J. C., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Place, identity, and deviance: A community-based approach to understanding the relationship between deviance and place. Deviant Behavior, 32, 503–537. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61353142&site=ehost-live

Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1970). Suicide: A study in sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Feinberg, S. L. (2011). Defining deviance: A comparative review of textbooks in the sociology of deviance. Teaching Sociology, 39, 382–387. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=69672131&site=ehost-live

Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

Goode, E. (1991). Positive deviance: A viable concept? Deviant Behavior 12 289–309.

Goode, E. (2002). Does the deal of the sociology of deviance claim make sense? American Sociologist 33 : 107–119. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9373974&site=ehost-live

Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lauderdale, P. (2011). An analysis of deviance, law, and diversity: A nascent theoretical framework. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 1563. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85659091&site=ehost-live

Lombroso, C. (1896). The criminal man, 2nd Edition. Turin: Bocca.

Sagarin, E. (1985). Positive deviance: An oxymoron. Deviant Behavior 6 : 169–181.

Moffitt, T. & Silva, P. (1988). IQ and delinquency: A direct test of the differential detection hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 97: 330–333.

Raine, A. (1993 ). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. San Diego: Academic Press.

Raine, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Lynam, D. (2005, February). Neurocognitiive impairments of boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114 : 38–49.

Sheldon, W. H. (1954). Atlas of men. New York: Harper.

Tremblay, R. E., Phil, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archive of General Psychiatry 51: 732–739.

Suggested Reading

Denegri-Knott, J., & Taylor, J. (2005). The labeling game: A conceptual exploration of deviance on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23 , 93–107.

Goode, E. (2003). The macguffin that refuses to die: An investigation into the condition of the sociology of deviance. Deviant Behavior, 24 , 507. Retrieved September 25, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10895065&site=ehost-live.

Rembis, M. (2011). Defining deviance: Sex, science, and delinquent girls, 1890–1960. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Victor, J. (1998). Moral panics and the social construction of deviant behavior: A theory and application to the… Sociological Perspectives, 41 , 541–565.