9 Deviance and Social Control

What, exactly, is deviance? And what is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906), deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether folkways, mores, or codified law. It can be as minor as picking your nose in public or as major as committing murder. Although the word “deviance” has a negative connotation in everyday language, sociologists recognize that deviance is not necessarily bad. In fact, from a structural functionalist perspective, one of the positive contributions of deviance is that it maintains the boundaries of the community and can even foster positive social change.

For example, Kai Erikson argues that we can understand panics around witchcraft, such as the witch trials that happened in Salem Massachusetts in 1692, in terms of boundary maintenance. In this case, accusations of witchcraft arose in the wake of perceived threats to the puritanical mission that had defined the strict Protestant Christian community of Salem. These threats included the arrival of less religious migrants into the area and infighting within the community over land. The subsequent witchcraft trials served to symbolically reinforce the boundaries of their cultural universe and reestablish the moral community overall. As Erikson explained, “deviance makes people more alert to the interests they share in common and draws attention to those values which constitute the ‘collective conscience’ of the community. Unless the rhythm of group life is punctuated by occasional moments of deviant behavior, presumably, social organization would be impossible” (1966: 4).

Witchcraft accusations still take place across the world today and can lead to devastating consequences (Fererri, 2018). However, witchcraft and magic are also recognized as part of a legitimate modern religion, that of Wicca (Luhrmann, 1989).  The variety of ways societies react to witchcraft remind us that “what is deviant behaviour?” cannot be answered in a straightforward manner. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including location, audience, and the individual committing the act (Becker 1963). Listening to music on your phone on the way to class is considered acceptable behaviour. Listening to music during your 2 p.m. sociology lecture is considered rude. Listening to music when on the witness stand before a judge may cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.

Social Control

When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can receive a speeding ticket. A student who texts in class gets a warning from a professor. A flatulent adult is avoided. All societies practice social control, the regulation and enforcement of norms. Social control can be defined broadly as an organized action intended to change people’s behaviour (Innes, 2003). The underlying goal of social control is to maintain social order, an arrangement of practices and behaviours on which society’s members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee handbook, and social control as the incentives and disincentives used to encourage or oblige employees to follow those rules. When a worker violates a workplace guideline, the manager steps in to enforce the rules.

As we saw in our chapter on culture, one means of enforcing rules are through sanctions. Sanctions can be positive as well as negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms. A promotion at work is a positive sanction for working hard. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being arrested is a punishment for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social control.

Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. While shoplifting, a form of social deviance, is illegal, there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch one’s nose. That doesn’t mean picking your nose in public won’t be punished; instead, you will encounter informal sanctions. Informal sanctions often emerge in face-to-face social interactions, like a disapproving look or a roll of the eyes. Wearing a bathing suit an opera may draw disapproving looks or even verbal reprimands, whereas behaviour that is seen as positive — such as helping an old man carry grocery bags across the street — may receive positive informal reactions, such as a smile or pat on the back.

Formal sanctions, on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm violations. If a student is caught plagiarizing the work of others or cheating on an exam, for example, he or she might be expelled. Someone who speaks inappropriately to the boss could be fired. Someone who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. On the positive side, a soldier who saves a life may receive an official commendation, or a CEO might receive a bonus for increasing the profits of the corporation.

Social Control as Government and Discipline

When thinking about social control sociologically it is important to understand how people internalize the norms of their societies, so that formal agents of control (like the police and courts) are not always necessary to maintain social order. In this regard, Michel Foucault (1926-1984) notes that from a period of early modernity onward, European society became increasingly concerned with social control as a practice of government but expanded the concept well beyond the activities of parliament or legislature (Foucault, 2007). In Foucault’s sense of the term, government does not simply refer to the activities of the state, but to all the practices by which individuals or organizations seek to govern the behaviour of others or themselves. That is to say, for Foucault, governance is not just the job of politicians; it is a force that is more diffused throughout society.

Governance refers to the strategies by which one seeks to direct or guide the conduct of another or others. In the 15th and 16th centuries, a number of treatises were written on how to govern and educate children, how to govern the poor and beggars, how to govern a family or an estate, how to govern an army or a city, how to govern a state and run an economy, and how to govern one’s own conscience and conduct. These treatises described the burgeoning arts of government, which defined the different ways in which the conduct of individuals or groups might be directed. People were seen to be in need of governance in all aspects of their lives. However, it was not until the 19th century and the invention of modern institutions like the prison, public school, modern army, asylum, hospital, and factory, that the means for extending government and social control widely through the population were developed.

Foucault (1979) describes these modern forms of government as disciplinary social control because they each rely on the detailed continuous training, control, and observation of individuals to improve their capabilities: to transform criminals into law abiding citizens, children into educated and productive adults, recruits into disciplined soldiers, and patients into healthy people. Foucault argues that the ideal of discipline as a means of social control is to render individuals docile. That does not mean that they become passive or sheep-like, but that disciplinary training simultaneously increases their abilities, skills, and usefulness while making them more compliant and manipulable.

The chief components of disciplinary social control in modern institutions like the prison and the school are surveillance, normalization, and examination (Foucault, 1979). Surveillance refers to the various means used to make the lives and activities of individuals visible to authorities. In 1791, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) published his book on the ideal prison, the panopticon or “seeing machine.” Prisoners’ cells would be arranged in a circle around a central observation tower where they could be both separated from each other and continually exposed to the view of prison guards. In this way, Bentham proposed, social control could become automatic because prisoners would be induced to monitor and control their own behaviour. Similarly, in a school classroom, students sit in rows of desks immediately visible to the teacher at the front of the room. In a store, shoppers can be observed through one-way glass or video monitors.

An old panopticon style prison, Isla de la Juventud, Cuba. (Friman, CC)

Social Control as Risk Management

Recent types of social control have adopted a model of risk management in a variety of areas of problematic behaviour (Beck, 1992). Risk management refers to interventions designed to reduce the likelihood of undesirable events occurring based on an assessment of probabilities of risk. Unlike the crime and punishment model, risk management strategies do not seize hold of individual deviants but attempt to restructure the environment or context of problematic behaviour in order to minimize the risks to the general population.

In the case of crime, new strategies of risk management are more concerned with identifying, classifying, and managing groups of offenders sorted by the degree of dangerousness they represent to the general public. In this way, imprisonment is used to incapacitate those who represent a significant risk, whereas probation and various levels of surveillance are used for those who represent a lower risk. Examples include sex offender tracking and monitoring, or the use of electronic monitoring ankle bracelets for low-risk offenders.

Theoretical Perspectives on Social Control

Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories attempting to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

Functionalism: Deviance is Normal

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Social disorganization theory, strain theory, and cultural deviance theory represent three functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, when African American students across the United States participated in “sit-in” protests during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society. For Durkheim then, crime is a normal part of society and not something that could ever be eliminated completely. He asks us to:

Imagine a community of saints in an exemplary and perfect monastery. In it crime as such will be unknown, but faults that appear venial to the ordinary person will arouse the same scandal as does normal crime in ordinary consciences. If therefore that community has the power to judge and punish, it will term such acts criminal and deal with them as such. (Durkheim, 1982, p. 100)

While crime is normal, it is not desirable; it is normal because it establishes the moral boundaries of a community. This might differ from society to society, but this relativism does not mean that morality is not important. According to Durkheim, people need these rules; they need to internalize the norms of the community in order to live a good life.

Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control. Early Chicago School sociologists used an ecological model to map the zones in Chicago where high levels of social problem were concentrated  (Park et al., 1967). During this period, Chicago was experiencing a long period of economic growth, urban expansion, and foreign immigration. They were particularly interested in the zones of transition between established working-class neighbourhoods and the manufacturing district. The city’s poorest residents tended to live in these transitional zones, where there was a mixture of races, immigrant ethnic groups, and non-English languages, and a high rate of influx as people moved in and out. They proposed that these zones were particularly prone to social disorder because of their transitory nature, not because of the types of people who lived there. Social disorganization theory, as it has come to be called, points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A person is not born a criminal but becomes one over time, often based on factors in his or her social environment.

Social Control Theory

Travis Hirschi saw the situation a bit differently. For him, the question was not “why do some people engage in crime?” but rather, “what stops everyone from engaging in crime to begin with?” For Hirschi, people are pleasure seeking machines, and they will seek to satisfy their desires using the quickest and easiest available means, including theft and robbery. What stops people is the strength of social bonds (1969). Similar to Durkheim’s concept of anomie, deviance is seen to result where feelings of disconnection from society predominate. Individuals who believe they are a part of society are less likely to commit crimes against it.

Hirschi identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society (1969):

1. Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic partners.
2. Commitment refers to the investments we make in conforming to conventional behaviour. A well-respected local businesswoman who volunteers at her synagogue and is a member of the neighbourhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a woman who does not have a career or ties to the community. There is a cost/benefit calculation in the decision to commit a crime in which the costs of being caught are much higher for some than others.
3. Similarly, levels of involvement, or participation in socially legitimate activities, lessen a person’s likelihood of deviance. Children who are members of gymnastics club have fewer family crises.
4. The final bond, belief, is an agreement on common values in society. If a person views social values as beliefs, he or she will conform to them. An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park because a clean environment is a social value to that person.

An individual who grows up in a poor neighbourhood with high rates of drug use, violence, teenage delinquency, and deprived parenting is more likely to become a criminal than an individual from a wealthy neighbourhood with a good school system and families who are involved positively in the community. The mutual dependencies and complex relationships that form the basis of a healthy “ecosystem” or social control do not get established.

Social control theory has been one of the most tested theories in criminology, though overall the results have been mixed. The evidence suggests that weak social bonds are related to an increase in offending, but the strength of this relationship varies from low to moderate, suggesting that other variables need to be taken into account (Lilly et al., 2019). Other studies question what happens when children are attached to parents who are involved in illegal behaviour themselves. Jensen & Brownfield (1983), for example, found that close attachment to parents who are drug users does not prevent children from engaging in drug use themselves. There is also the question of whether commitment and involvement are always positive (O’Grady, 2014). Was it not a commitment to win and heavy involvement in the sport that led Lance Armstrong to use performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France?

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

One of the main questions that preoccupied early studies of crime in North America was, “Why do young, working class men engage in crime?” For the Chicago School, the answer was largely an ecological one. For Hirschi, it was a factor of the strength of social bonds. Writing in 1938, Robert Merton offered another explanation, one based more on the social structural approach pioneered by Durkheim.

It was the concept of anomie that interested Merton the most. Anomie for Merton is the condition whereby society exerts pressure on the individual to achieve culturally defined goals but does not provide the institutional means to achieve them or devalues the institutional rules in favour of the achieving the goals (Merton, 1938). His macro-level theory has come to be known as strain theory because the strain people feel to achieve the culturally defined goals (i.e., wealth and prestige) leads them to engage in innovative (i.e., criminal) activities to achieve their goals.

Within the context of American capitalism, the primary cultural goal is money, yet the institutional means to achieve that goal is not available to everyone. Despite the American dream that everyone can become rich, the United States has relatively low levels of social mobility. For Merton, this explains the “higher association between poverty and crime” (Merton, 1938, p. 681). It is not that poverty leads to crime, but that American culture sets up the goal of wealth as the objective to achieve regardless of the means. This goal permeates all aspects of life, from business and education to organized crime and sports competitions.

Take once again the example the doping scandal that hit the world of competitive biking in 2012. After winning the Tour de France seven years in a row, Lance Armstrong was found to have been taking performance enhancing drugs. Not only did he admit to taking drugs, but he also said that this was simply part of how things were done in the cycling world, and that they were as common as water bottles and tire pumps. The scandal illustrates how cultural goals (winning) exist in tension with the institutional rules. When a competitor begins to experience the rules as an impediment to achieving their goal widespread anomie can set in, which leads them to circumvent the regulations in their attempt to win (Merton, 1938, p. 676).

Merton defined five ways that people adapt to this gap between having a socially accepted goal but no socially accepted way to pursue it.

1. Conformity: The majority of people in society choose to conform and not to deviate. They pursue their society’s valued goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
2. Innovation: Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
3. Ritualism: People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These “social ritualists” focus on conformity to the accepted means of goal attainment while abandoning the distant, unobtainable dream of success.
4. Retreatism: Others retreat from the role strain and reject both society’s goals and accepted means. Some beggars and street people have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success. They drop out.
5. Rebellion: A handful of people rebel, replacing a society’s goals and means with their own. Rebels seek to create a greatly modified social structure in which provision would be made for closer correspondence between merit, effort, and reward.

Many youths from poor backgrounds are exposed to the high value placed on material success in capitalist society but face insurmountable odds to achieving it, so turning to illegal means to achieve success is a rational, if deviant, solution.

Merton’s model is specific to North America, but as capitalism has spread around the globe, the goal of acquiring wealth has also spread, leading to a globalization of anomie and correspondingly certain forms of criminal behaviour. “The-end-justifies-the-means” has become the guiding norm, which is really a case of normlessness or anomie. For Messner and Rosenfeld (1997), this represents a state of institutional anomie, a condition that correlates with higher homicide rates cross-nationally.

Conflict Theories

Conflict theorists look to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as necessary functions of society, but as evidence of inequality in the system. As a result of inequality, many crimes can be understood as crimes of accommodation, or ways in which individuals cope with conditions of oppression (Quinney, 1977). Predatory crimes like break and enter, robbery, and drug dealing are often simply economic survival strategies. Personal crimes like murder, assault, and sexual assault are products of the stresses and strains of living under stressful conditions of scarcity and deprivation. Defensive crimes like economic sabotage, illegal strikes, civil disobedience, and eco-terrorism are direct challenges to social injustice. The analysis of conflict theory is not meant to excuse or rationalize crime, but to locate its underlying sources at the appropriate level so they can be addressed effectively.

Critical sociologists do not see the normative order and the criminal justice system as simply neutral or “functional” regarding the collective interests of society. Institutions of normalization and the criminal justice system are to be seen in context as mechanisms that actively maintain the power structure of the political-economic order. The rich, the powerful, and the privileged have unequal influence on who and what gets labelled deviant or criminal, particularly in instances when their privilege is being challenged. As capitalist society is based on the institution of private property, for example, it is not surprising that theft is a major category of crime. By the same token, when street people, addicts, or hippies drop out of society, they are labelled deviant and are subject to police harassment because they have refused to participate in productive labour.

On the other hand, the ruthless and sometimes sociopathic behaviour of many business people and politicians, otherwise regarded as deviant according to the normative codes of society, is often rewarded or regarded with respect. In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite, a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favour of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. Mills’s theories explain why celebrities such as Chris Brown or Salman Khan, or politicians such as Donald Trump, can commit crimes with little or no legal retribution.

While functionalist theories often emphasize crime and deviance associated with the underprivileged, there is in fact no clear evidence that crimes are committed disproportionately by the poor or lower classes. There is an established association between the underprivileged and street crimes like armed robbery or assault, but these do not constitute the majority of crimes in society, nor the most serious crimes in terms of their overall social, personal, and environmental effects. On the other hand, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an underpunished and costly problem within society. White-collar or corporate crime refers to crimes committed by corporate employees or owners in the pursuit of profit or other organization goals. They are more difficult to detect because the transactions take place in private and are more difficult to prosecute because the criminals can secure expert legal advice on how to bend the rules.

Corporate crime is arguably a more serious type of crime than street crime, and yet white-collar criminals are treated relatively leniently. Fines, when they are imposed, are typically absorbed as a cost of doing business and passed on to consumers, and many crimes, from investment fraud to insider trading and price fixing, are simply not prosecuted. From a conflict theorist point of view, this is because white-collar crime is committed by elites who are able to use their power and financial resources to evade punishment.

Feminist Contributions

Women who are regarded as criminally deviant are often seen as being doubly deviant. They have broken the law, but they have also broken gender norms about appropriate female behaviour, whereas men’s criminal behaviour is seen as consistent with their aggressive, self-assertive character. This double standard also explains the tendency to medicalize women’s deviance, to see it as the product of physiological or psychiatric pathology. For example, in the late 19th century, kleptomania was a diagnosis used in legal defences that linked an extreme desire for department store commodities with various forms of female physiological or psychiatric illness. The fact that “good” middle- and upper-class women, who were at that time coincidentally beginning to experience the benefits of independence from men, would turn to stealing in department stores to obtain the new feminine consumer items on display there, could not be explained without resorting to diagnosing the activity as an illness of the “weaker sex” (Kramar, 2011).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how societies and/or social groups come to view behaviours as deviant or conventional. The key component of this approach is to emphasize the social processes through which deviant activities and identities are socially defined and then “lived” as deviant. Social groups and authorities create deviance by first making the rules and then applying them to people who are thereby labelled as outsiders (Becker, 1963). Deviance is not an intrinsic quality of individuals but is created through the social interactions of individuals and various authorities. Deviance is something that, in essence, is learned.

Deviance as Learned Behaviour

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950) sought to understand how deviant behaviour developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub, 2006). His conclusions established differential association theory, stating that individuals learn deviant behaviour from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. A young teenager whose friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable, and an adult whose social circle uses cocaine is more likely to see this drug as not-a-problem (that is, until it becomes a problem).

A classic study of deviance as learned behaviour is Howard Becker’s (b. 1928) study of marijuana users in the jazz club scene of Chicago in the 1950s (1963). Becker paid his way through graduate studies by performing as a jazz pianist in strip clubs and took the opportunity to study his fellow musicians. He conducted 50 interviews and noted that becoming a marijuana user involved a social process of initiation into a deviant role that could not be accounted for by either the physiological properties of marijuana or the psychological needs (for escape, fantasy, etc.) of the individual. Rather the “career” of the marijuana user involved a sequence of changes in attitude and experience learned through social interactions with experienced users before marijuana could be regularly smoked for pleasure.

Regular marijuana use was a social achievement that required the individual to pass through three distinct stages. Failure to do so meant that the individual would not assume the deviant role as a regular user of marijuana. Firstly, individuals had to learn to smoke marijuana in a way that would produce real effects. Many first-time users do not feel the effects. If they are not shown how to inhale the smoke or how much to smoke, they might not feel the drug had any effect on them. Their “career” might end there if they are not encouraged by others to persist. Secondly, they had to learn to recognize the effects of “being high” and connect them with drug use.

Although people might display different symptoms of intoxication — feeling hungry, elated, rubbery, etc. — they might not recognize them as qualities associated with the marijuana or even recognize them as different at all. Through listening to experienced users talk about their experiences, novices are able to locate the same type of sensations in their own experience and notice something qualitatively different going on. Thirdly, they had to learn how to enjoy the sensations: They had to learn how to define the situation of getting high as pleasurable. Smoking marijuana is not necessarily pleasurable and often involves uncomfortable experiences like loss of control, impaired judgement, distorted perception, and paranoia. Unless the experiences can be redefined as pleasurable, the individual will not become a regular user. Often experienced users are able to coach novices through difficulties and encourage them by telling them they will learn to like it. It is through differential association with a specific set of individuals that a person learns and assumes a deviant role. The role needs to be learned and its value recognized before it can become routine or normal for the individual.

Labelling Theory

Although all of us violate norms from time to time, few people would consider themselves deviant. Often, those who do, however, have gradually come to believe they are deviant because they been labelled “deviant” by society. Labelling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behaviour to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviours themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviours. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures. As Becker put it, “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the offender. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour people so label” (1963).

It is important to note that labelling theory does not address the initial motives or reasons for the rule-breaking behaviour, which might be unknowable, but the importance of its social consequences. It does not attempt to answer the questions of why people break the rules or why they are deviant so much as why particular acts or particular individuals are labelled deviant while others are not. How do certain acts get labelled deviant and what are the consequences?

Sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951) expanded on the concepts of labelling theory, identifying two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance (Lemert, 1951). Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behaviour begin to change after his or her actions are labelled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labelled that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff, and soon enough, develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out even more and breaking more rules, adopting the troublemaker label, and embracing this deviant identity.

Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or grandfathers. Others see themselves as beggars, convicts, or addicts. The criminal justice system is ironically one of the primary agencies of socialization into the criminal “career path.” The labels “juvenile delinquent” or “criminal” are not automatically applied to individuals who break the law. A teenager who is picked up by the police for a minor offence might be labelled as a “good kid” who made a mistake and who then is released after a stern talking to, or he or she might be labelled a juvenile delinquent and processed as a young offender. In the first case, the incident may not make any impression on the teenager’s personality or on the way others react to him or her. In the second case, being labelled a juvenile delinquent sets up a set of responses to the teenager by police and authorities that lead to criminal charges, more severe penalties, and a process of socialization into the criminal identity.

In detention in particular, individuals learn how to assume the identity of serious offenders as they interact with hardened, long-term inmates within the prison culture (Wheeler, 1961). The act of imprisonment itself modifies behaviour, to make individuals more criminal. Aaron Cicourel’s research in the 1960s showed how police used their discretionary powers to label rule-breaking teenagers who came from homes where the parents were divorced as juvenile delinquents and to arrest them more frequently than teenagers from “intact homes” (1968). Judges were also found to be more likely to impose harsher penalties on teenagers from divorced families.

Unsurprisingly, Cicourel noted that subsequent research conducted on the social characteristics of teenagers who were charged and processed as juvenile delinquents found that children from divorced families were more likely to be charged and processed. Divorced families were seen as a cause of youth crime. This set up a vicious circle in which the research confirmed the prejudices of police and judges who continued to label, arrest, and convict the children of divorced families disproportionately. The labelling process acted as a self-fulfilling prophecy in which police found what they expected to see.

Conclusion

The sociological study of crime, deviance, and social control is especially important with respect to public policy debates. The political controversies that surround the question of how best to respond to crime are difficult to resolve at the level of political rhetoric. Often, in the news and public discourse, the issue is framed in moral terms; therefore, for example, the policy alternatives get narrowed to the option of either being “tough” on crime or “soft” on crime. Tough and soft are moral categories that reflect a moral characterization of the issue. A question framed by these types of moral categories cannot be resolved by using evidence-based procedures.

Posing the debate in these terms narrows the range of options available and undermines the ability to raise questions about which responses to crime actually work. In fact policy debates over crime seem especially susceptible to the various forms of specious. The story of the isolated individual whose specific crime becomes the basis for the belief that the criminal justice system as a whole has failed illustrates several qualities of unscientific thinking: knowledge based on casual observation, knowledge based on overgeneralization, and knowledge based on selective evidence. Moral categories of judgement pose the problem in terms that are unfalsifiable and non-scientific.

The sociological approach is essentially different. It focuses on the effectiveness of different social control strategies for addressing different types of criminal behaviour and the different types of risk to public safety. Thus, from a sociological point of view, it is crucial to think systematically about who commits crimes and why. Also, it is crucial to look at the big picture to see why certain acts are considered normal and others deviant, or why certain acts are criminal and others are not. In a society characterized by large inequalities of power and wealth, as well as large inequalities in arrest and incarceration, an important social justice question needs to be examined regarding who gets to define whom as criminal.

This chapter has illustrated the sociological imagination at work by examining the “individual troubles” of criminal behaviour and victimization within the social structures that sustain them. In this regard, sociology is able to advocate policy options that are neither hard nor soft, but evidence-based and systematic.

Study Questions

1. What did Durkheim mean when he say crime is normal?
2. How might anomie create a climate for deviance?
3. What distinguishes corporate crime and how might it be deterred?
4. If you could create one new law for society, what would it be? What are the social reasons for why this law doesn’t already exist?
5. How do the different sociological paradigms help us think about crime differently?

References

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.

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

Cicourel, A. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New York, NY: Wiley.

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method (W.D. Halls, Trans.). The Free Press.

Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward Puritans: A study in social deviance. John Wiley & Sons.

Federici, S. (2018). Witches, witch-hunting, and women. PM Press.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). The politics of truth. Semiotext(e).

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

Jensen, G. & Brownfield, D. (1983). Parents and drugs. Criminology, 21, 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00279.x

Kramar, K. (2011). Criminology: Critical Canadian perspectives. Pearson.

Laub, J. H. (2006). Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler report: Searching for the soul of criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44, 235–57.

Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. McGraw-Hill.

Lilly, R., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2019). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Sage.

Luhrmann, T. M. (1989). Persuasions of the witch’s craft: Ritual magic in England. Harvard University Press.

Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-68.

Messner, S., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of Institutional-Anomie Theory. Social Forces, 75, 1393-1416. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580676

Mills, C.W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

O’Grady, W. (2017). Crime in Canadian context, fourth edition. Oxford University Press.

Park, R., Burgess, E., & McKenzie, R. (1967). The city. University of Chicago Press.

Sumner, W. G. (1955). Folkways. New York, NY: Dover.

Quinney, R. (1977). Class, state and crime: On the theory and practice of criminal justice. Longman.

Wheeler, S. (1961). Socialization in correctional communities. American Sociological Review, 26, 697-712.