Defining Deviance

Those who study social deviance seek answers to why deviance occurs in society, how it occurs, and its social effects. The obvious question when it comes to studying deviance is What is deviance? Sociologists have created a vast literature defining what is meant precisely by the term deviance and what behaviors fall under its umbrella. Deviant behavior is a difficult concept to define; thus, no universally agreed-on definition exists. To cope with this difficulty, some researchers, such as Albert Cohen, define the subject through descriptions such as knavery, skullduggery, cheating, unfairness, crime, sneakiness, malingering, cutting corners, immorality, dishonesty, betrayal, graft, corruption, wickedness, and sin.

Most agree that deviant behavior is not an absolute designation. Indeed, some behaviors that were once considered deviant are no longer so, and some behaviors that once were accepted are now considered deviant. Thus, deviance cannot be defined simply as the violation of shared values. Whether an act is considered deviant depends on what rules are considered relevant in the time and place it occurred and on the meanings and intentions attributed to the act and the actors. This implies that meaning is not inherent in the act; it must be socially constructed through interaction among people. Deviance is a construction of social actors. There is no clear permanent line between conformity and deviant behavior. The boundary between these two opposites is dynamic. The boundary shifts with political power, region of the country, social class, and public perception. In fact, Émile Durkheim suggested that even in a society of monks, there will be some deviance. This idea of the relativeness of deviance is indicative of a plastic boundary between good and evil and that deviance will always exist.

Howard Becker identified two traditions within sociology for defining deviance. The first focuses on whether a particular actor objectively breaks the rules. In this rather straightforward/legalistic view, if an activity violates the rules, it is deviant. Otherwise it is not. The second approach, which is more common among current scholars of deviance, emphasizes how others perceive and react to an activity regardless of whether there is an explicit rule against it or not. From this view, deviant behavior is not defined in relation to rules or laws, but rather it is a deviant activity simply because it is labeled so by others.

[Page 180]Remember, we are defining deviant behavior not deviants. Even serial killers are conformists most of the time. The definition of deviance is open-ended in the sense that what it focuses on or defines can be modified and revised as we learn more. Jack Douglas and Frances Waksler describe deviance as any thought, feeling, or action that members of a social group judge to be a violation of their values or rules. A useful definition of deviant behavior should consider both objective rule breaking and the perceptions of or reactions to rule breaking.

Craig Little defined deviance using three types of behavior. The first type of deviance involves objective rule breaking with consensus. This approach assumes that the norm in question is very clear and agreed on by most members of a society. This view works well with serious problems such as rape, assault, armed robbery, and murder. There is a consensus in American society that these acts will not be tolerated, and laws are very clear and specific. Everyone agrees that these laws should be strictly enforced. The second type involves objective rule breaking without consensus. Often when an objective rule is broken, the rule breaking is perceived not to be deviant. This occurs because there is no consensus in society regarding the behavior. There are many examples of this: laws regulating the use of marijuana, blue laws restricting business on Sundays, and laws regulating drinking of those between the ages of 18 and 21. There are many people in society who do not perceive violation of certain laws to be deviant. The third type of deviant behavior includes those where no objective rule has been broken, but the activity is perceived as deviant by many people. In some cases, people do not break any law, but their actions, or nonactions, are perceived to be deviant. For example, there may not be a law regarding the state of your lawn, but if people perceive your lawn to be unkempt, you are perceived to be deviant. People who live in communes are perceived to be deviant, yet they break no law in doing so. Hippies faced the same societal rejection.

...