• DURKHEIMIAN THEORIES

It seems that, somewhat in common with Sunday newspapers, sociology courses are more concerned with deviance than with social order. As deviance helps us to identify rules which might otherwise be taken for granted, this topic is a useful source of examples for any sociological issues. The value of a comparative approach to sociology, which is emphasised by some, is highlighted by the culturally specific nature of deviance.

The main themes of questions set on this topic are:

1. The relationships between power, social control and deviance.
2. Evaluation of sociological explanations of deviance. Questions may cite particular theories by name for you to consider, or may present you with a problem to explain, such as differential conviction.
3. Discussion of specific forms of deviance. These may include football hooliganism, drug abuse, white-collar crime, etc.

Related topics include:

• Suicide: This develops in detail the debate over positivism.

• Media and their role in deviance amplification.

• Methods questions. Deviance studies offer a rich source of examples to evaluate methods and to illustrate theoretical problems in doing research.

• Helath. The debate as to whether health can be objectively defined or whether it is a social construction is the same as that over the definition of deviance.

• Sub-cultural theories of deviance contribute to discussions of education and youth cultures.

• As expected, class, race and gender inequalities manifest themselves in the sociology of deviance.

The definition of deviance is problematic, and is itself a central issue in some questions, as we shall see later in this chapter.

The best way to organise answers on this topic is to use a simplified grouping of theories, approaches and studies. This provides the framework for comparative and critical answers. The three main headings used here are:

1. Durkheimian;
2. Interactionist;
3. Marxist.

There are differences within these broad groupings, but some common assumptions which apply to most studies can be identified.

The general perspective is consensus structuralism. The major theories are functionalism and sub-cultural theories. The dominant approach to research is positivist.

Deviance is defined as breaking consensual rules and deviants are defined as rule-breakers. The main question is ‘why do some people break the rules?’

A common method of enquiry is to compare the biographies of known deviants with those of normal people, and to see the differences as causes of deviance. Crime statistics are seen as a useful resource which can be used in comparative studies.

The police and courts are seen not as problematic, but as neutral. The role of the media is to reinforce consensual values. The main types of deviance studied are crime and other serious offences.

Interactionists challenge the definition of deviance, the positivist approach and related methods. Marxists deny the existence of genuinely consensual values.

The shared perspective is individualist rather than structuralist. Some writers acknowledge the influence of power in the creation of social order. The major theoretical influences are symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. The dominant approach is anti-positivist. It is this that unifies these various studies.

A deviant is seen not as a rule-breaker but as someone who has been processed as a deviant, ie successfully labelled deviant. The main question is ‘why are some people more likely to be so labelled?’

The methods associated with this approach try to describe the interaction or negotiation between ‘offenders’ and various forms of social institutions and agencies such as the police, the courts and the media. Crime statistics are seen not as a useful resource but as a subject to study. It is suggested that they describe police and judicial procedures, rather than the criminals. The role of the media in amplifying deviance and causing moral panics can be a question in its own right. Minor non-criminal deviance, or even non-offenders, are studies as well as criminal deviance. Studies include mental illness, stuttering and the innocent.

Positivists claim that interactionists avoid the most important issue, which is explaining crime. Marxists share the view of differential law enforcement and the problematic nature of crime, but criticise interactionists for not considering the influence of structural inequality on justice.

The shared perspective is conflict structuralism. The major theories are varieties of Marxism. The sociological approach may be positivist. Deviants are seen as real or alleged breakers of ruling-class law. The main questions are ‘who makes the rules and how does their enforcement serve ruling-class interests?’ The results of research, whatever the method, are interpreted in a Marxist light. Crime statistics are seen as a device to blame social problems on the working class and as evidence of unequal enforcement. The police, courts and the law itself are seen as part of the superstructure. The media reinforce ruling-class ideology. Studies often describe crimes of the powerful and the policing of the working class.

The possibility of genuinely consensual norms and values is avoided. As with interactionist approaches, there is the tendency to excuse or even glorify offenders and to ignore victims. Interactionists see Marxist studies as overdeterministic: the effect of structural influences is exaggerated.

The New Criminology, like most of the old, neglected women and crime.

(Abbott and Wallace 1990)

Much of the sociological interest in women and crime has focused on women as victims rather than offenders – particularly of crimes related to their position in a patriarchal society: that is, as victims of domestic violence and sexual crimes. One of the reasons that women and crime has been a neglected area in sociology in that women appear to be remarkably non-criminal.

(Abbott and Wallace)

Women are very underrepresented in crime statistics, and criminal behaviour is seen as unfeminine. Prostitution and shoplifting are possible exceptions to this rule. Abbott and Wallace have examined:

1. The amount of crime committed by women.
2. The kinds of crime committed by women.
3. Recent changes in the amount and types of crime committed by women.

Studies of convicted women show:

1. The motive for theft is want or need.
2. Women commit all types of offences.
3. Women fear the criminal label.
4. Women are seen as double deviants. They offend against notions of feminity as well as the law.

Durkheim saw some device as potentially functional. It tests the usefulness of current norms and reinforces the collective consciousness. The causes of deviance include too much or too little integration. Suicide provides the model for studying deviance.

Erikson followed Durkheim and argued that the authorities created crime waves to clarify and reinforce norms. He cites witchhunts as examples.

Merton developed Durkheim’s concept of anomie to explain deviance in the USA. The socially disadvantaged lacked the opportunities to achieve consensual norms by legitimate means; therefore some rejected either the means or the ends themselves. This produced four kinds of deviance.

These present an ‘internal critique’ of Merton. They question his assumption of consensual values and his view that deviance is an individual response.

1. Cohen see deviant sub-cultures opposing middle-class values.

Miller sees them as part of mainstream working-class culture. Their ‘focal concerns’ of smartness, toughness and excitement are common to English football hooligans.

Cloward and Ohlin combine sub-cultural theories with Merton to suggest that responses can be either individual or collective, depending on the perception by the deviant of the causes of his or her disadvantage.

DJ. West is an English criminologist who responded to S. Cohen’s interactionist criticism of positivism by refining his research methods to study delinquents before they had been caught. West is a good critic to use when discussing labelling. Young and Lea revived sub-cultural explanations in their New Left Realism.

Becker asks why some people, and acts, are labelled deviant. He sees the consequences of the acts as important in this labelling process, rather than the acts themselves. In other words, social reaction to the acts and the characteristics of offenders and victims are important factors. He also asks ‘who makes the rules?’

Cicourel provides, perhaps, the best interactionist critique of crime statistics. He also introduces the ethnomethodologist’s concept of commonsense assumptions to explain the behaviour of law enforcers

Lemert emphasises the importance of social reaction in transforming primary deviance to secondary deviance.

J. Young gives an interactionist account of the role of the police in the amplification of deviance. He provides a useful account of crime waves, which can be used to criticise crime statistics. In his more recent work, which has been described as ‘left realist’, he measures crime in a more positivist way through victim studies.

S. Hall provides a link between interactionist and Marxist theory by explaining the interaction between the police, media and black youth in terms of the crisis of capitalism.

Marx himself saw the state, the law, agencies of social control and definitions of morality all as part of the superstructure of capitalist society. Criminals form part of the reserve army of labour and the threat of crime legitimises oppression.

Althusser sees deviance being defined and contained by both ‘Repressive’ and ‘Ideological State Apparatuses’.

Chambliss illustrates how specific laws and enforcement procedures can serve ruling-class interests. He cites tax law in colonial East Africa and medieval vagrancy laws as examples. In his study of Seattle, he argues that those in power were part of organised crime.

Pearce confirms this view, discussing corporate crime and other crimes of the powerful.

The new criminology of the 1970s combined interactionist and Marxist views. English interactionist writers, such as J Young, I Taylor and Walton, felt that labelling theories failed to relate policing and other forms of social reaction to wider issues of power and inequality. As stated above, Young further refined his ideas, seeing these views as failing to give sufficient consideration to victims who, like offenders, usually come from the working class.

1. Crime is a real problem for society in general, and working-class inner-city communities in particular. Young’s earlier work was interactionist and tended to see ‘offenders’ as victims of the police and courts and crime as a moral panic, not a real problem. Other writers, such as Gilroy, have defended crime as political protest or ‘Robin Hood’ behaviour.
2. Emphasis on the victim. Victim studies offer a more accurate picture of crime than official statistics give of the extent of crime (much is unreported) and what is seen as serious crime. The disadvantaged are most likely to be victims. Young notes the greater risks of victimisation for women.
3. The police are losing the fight against crime, particularly in the inner city. Better policing with community support is the best way to reduce crime, although the causes of crime are structural.

1. Marginalisation

The unemployed, particularly if they are working class and/or black and/or living in the inner city, are excluded from society by not working. Work, trades unions and political parties give the working class some power; these opportunities are not always open to those often referred to as an underclass (in the Weberian rather than the New Right version). Riots and fights over territory are ways of asserting power.

2. Relative deprivation

This is also a Weberian concept. It describes the feeling of being denied access to rewards). The young are encouraged to desire and expect material success by the media, etc. If this success is not forthcoming, they perceive injustice. This idea was used as a partial explanation of 1960s’ urban riots in the USA.

3. Criminal sub-cultures

1. Hughes questioned whether it was New, Left of Realistic. He saw it going back to old ideas like anomie, sub-culture, relative deprivation, etc. Marxists see it as underemphasing capitalism as the source of the problem and blaming the working class for crime.
2. Gilroy and others see it as racist or at least providing ammunition for racists to use. It seems to encourage the view of black criminality.
3. NLR overemphasises street crime as the main form of serious crime. White-collar and corporate crime is acknowledged, but not seen as so threatening.
4. There is an overemphasis on victims as a source of data and insufficient attention paid to offenders. Interactionists, like Young in his younger days, used offenders to describe their own motives and meanings.
5. Alternative responses to marginality and relative deprivation such as politics or religion are mentioned but not explored.
6. Overemphasis on class and insufficient attention paid to gender, ethnicity, community.
7. Riots and collective disorder are distinguished from individual crimes. Causes of rots are not just criminal gain but response to relations with the police and housign and unemployment.
8. On the positive side it may be more useful than:

• Right-wing views that see punishment and repression as the solution to crime, which is caused by individual wickedness rather than inequality.
• Left-wing views that celebrate crime as resistance to oppression.
• Interactionist views that deny there is crime problem and see offenders as victims of the police and courts and fear of crime as moral panics. These theories do not explain crime; NLR does.

Women comprise only 12% of known offenders for all crimes, and even less for the most serious crimes: robbery, wounding and murder. The reason is that women are generallt more conformist because they are more constrained.

They are controlled by:

1. Their general position in society

Women are not seen as aggressive and they learn not to be violent. The ideology of feminity defines appropriate behaviour for women. Being unfeminine is in itself deviant, although it does not constitute a crime. Unconventional family life exposes offenders to double condemnation. (Cook 1987 on social security fraud argues that single mothers are punished for their lives as well as their crimes).

2. Their position in the family

Carlen (1987), whilst she is sympathetic to Heidensohn’s feminist perspective, argues that the social control theory fails to explain why some women do commit crimes.

She argues that women calculate the costs and benefits of deviant behaviour. They make a class deal to work and a gender deal to act in a feminine way. Women make these deals because they accept the ideology of a patriarchal and capitalist socieyt. This ideology is transmitted through the family, school and the media.

A few women are perhaps marginalised because of their exclusion from ‘normal’ family life. They may feel they have nothing to lose and prefer law-breaking to poverty and isolation. Women who break the law but keep the gender deal and remain ‘proper’ daughters or wives tend not to be criminalised even if they are caught.