Routledge Handbook of Deviant Behavior

Clifton D. Bryant

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415482745
• eBook ISBN: 9781134015573
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

The Handbook of Deviant Behavior presents a comprehensive, integrative, and accessible overview of the contemporary body of knowledge in the field of social deviance in the twenty-first century.

This book addresses the full range of scholarly concerns within this area – including theoretical, methodological, and substantive issues – in over seventy original entries, written by an international mix of recognized scholars. Each of these essays provides insight not only into the historical and sociological evolution of the topic addressed, but also highlights associated notable thinkers, research findings, and key published works for further reference. As a whole, this Handbook undertakes an in depth evaluation of the contemporary state of knowledge within the area of social deviance, and beyond this considers future directions and concerns that will engage scholars in the decades ahead.

The inclusion of comparative and cross-cultural examples and discussions, relevant case studies and other pedagogical features make this book an invaluable learning tool for undergraduate and post graduate students in disciplines such as criminology, mental health studies, criminal theory, and contemporary sociology.

Part I

Conceptualizing Deviance

Overview

The notion of deviance is not a monolithic construct. Rather it is a far more nebulous concept with fuzzy borders and shifting parameters. Different individuals perceive and conceptualize deviance quite differently. The variations may be a matter of individual and idiosyncratic inclination, but the variations of perceptions and conceptualizations of deviance may also be a function of time, place, and circumstances. Perceptions and conceptualizations of deviance vary from culture to culture, from generation to generation (old or young), from sub-culture to sub-group, from social class to social class, from ethnic group to ethnic group, and from century to century and decade to decade, to list but some of the factors that may produce differential perceptions and conceptualizations of deviance. The confrontation of social norm and norm violator occurs as much in the eye and mind of the individual as in the actual context of behavior and interaction. It is the public or the onlooker, generically speaking, who, in effect, socially “processes” deviance. Social norms may be effected by various mechanisms and contrivances, but it is the populace, generally speaking, who will have to perceive and interpret the violation of such norms, and what response is appropriate, if in fact any is called for.

Deviance and Social Control

In the initial chapter in this book, Gary Jensen indicates that there are two basic and instrumental concepts in the study of deviant behavior. This sub-field of sociology dates back to the 1950s when sociologists first introduced the concept of deviance. Initially, the concept referred to objectification of some type of social norm, such as a law or some type of acceptable behavior in a given situation. But by the 1960s, the concept had become contentious, with many scholars asserting that labeling processes and stigmatization were the main elements of the concept rather than the simple violation of a norm. Using the “violation of a norm” perspective, the concept of deviance was intended to be non-judgmental. Further, because reactions and normative standards governing reaction were considered to be culturally and temporally relative, it was felt that the forms, degree, and nature of reactions could be established through empirical research.

Jensen points out that the concept of deviance did, however, become judgmental, especially as used by the general public. The misinterpretation or stigmatization is likely the reason that the use of the concept in major journals declined.

In the study of deviance, the subject matter includes behavior that violates legal norms, forms of conduct that are stigmatized by the members of society, and the condemnation and stigma applied to some because of their appearance or past behavior. There has not been complete agreement among scholars on the properties of deviance. The perspective that deviance is norm-violating behavior has been especially relevant in criminology, a major field of sociology. In this area, inappropriate behaviors that violate legal codes are defined as misdemeanors or felonies. Researchers here assume that “there are real, measurable, variations in conduct that violate such codes.” There is less debate about the subject matter of criminological research than is the case of deviance research.

Some critics of the “actual behavior defined as deviance” have posited a “reactive” or “constructionist” perspective. Using this orientation, scholars may define deviance as “behavior that people so label,” or “how people and conduct come to be defined or labeled in certain ways.” Jensen indicates that the social constructionists take deviance as “subjectively problematic,” rather than “objectively given.” He cites one scholar as asserting that “reality depends on perspective and perspective is to a degree arbitrary.” He also mentions another scholar who sums up the reactive constructionist perspective by defining deviance as “a property conferred upon these forms by audiences which directly or indirectly witness them.”

Some deviance scholars have utilized another perspective in their research that focuses on a specific type of normative standard. Jensen recalls that for several decades, the traditional subject matter of both the sociology of deviance and criminology has been criticized for including social biases in the definition of the subject matter. He mentions that in the mid-1970s, two scholars proposed a “deviance as the violation of rights” perspective on the proper subject matter of criminology. Specifically, they proposed that “crime” should be defined by conduct and social arrangements that violate “the historically determined rights of individuals.” This strategy would open up a variety of new research opportunities.

Jensen then moves on to examine several pending issues in social control. Some scholars proposed “theories of social control.” One of these scholars defined social control as “reactions to deviance.” Later, one of these same scholars observed, “the quantity of social control defines the rate of deviant behavior.” It was concluded that “the study of social control included far more than the study of reaction to crime.”

Jensen concludes his chapter with a discussion of an “integrated approach.” He suggests that “there has been relatively little attention paid to the intersection of the study of social control with the study of deviance.” This new research direction seems indicated.

Constructing Deviance

In the second chapter, Joel Best walks the reader through the process of “constructing deviance.” He initially points out that while some contend that deviance is an objective quality of behavior (i.e. certain behavior simply is deviant behavior), such is not the case. Most sociologists support the contention that deviance is very much a subjective, socially constructed category of behavior whose definition varies across time and space.

The concept of deviance being constructed is simply a subset of the notion of the social construction of all sorts of reality. Best notes that the construction of deviance depends on language to make the world meaningful, and as he phrases it, “language is inherently social; all knowledge is shaped by the social arrangements within which it is produced.” He indicates that in his chapter he seeks to identify and describe some of the processes by which deviance is created.

While there are some types of social behavior that have been considered to have been deviant at some place or time, Best reports that a number of other behaviors “may display wild variations in whether they are considered deviant and, if so, just why they are deviant.”

The process of emerging deviant categories in a given society at a given moment in history has been analyzed from a number of theoretical perspectives. Best indicates that conflict theorists following a Marxist perspective have asserted that elites play a significant role in creating new categories of deviance. These theorists believe that social control is a mechanism for elites maintaining their position in, and control over, a society. Sociologists using the Durkheimian perspective contend that deviance is necessary for society because it “reinforces the social solidarity of its members.” Punishing those who break the rules “affirms the importance of the social ties that bind society together.”

Theorists of Weberian persuasion view “deviance and social control as products of cultural and structural changes that lead to status competition, shifts in authority structures, and the like.” In the 20th century, some forms of deviance became “medicalized.” Alcoholism, previously considered to be a moral or legal problem, instead became a “disease” to be medically treated. According to Best, by mid-century, alcoholism was most often medicalized as a manifestation of mental illness. He further indicated that, by century’s end, there was a new emphasis on an individual’s genetic make-up, and there was a search for genetic markers for alcoholism. Sometimes social movements or the media create new categories of deviance.

Once a new category of deviance has been constructed, the deviant label must be applied. Some deviant labels are never applied, and others may be applied selectively. Best observes that deviant categories are a “resource for social control agents.” Social control agents evaluate the behavior of individuals and make decisions about which ones will qualify for the application of the deviant label.

Deviant labels are not always permanent. Over time, they will be altered, reconstructed, replaced with new constructions, or removed. Critics may argue that social control is inadequate and demand that social control agents be more active. On the other hand, critics may assert that social control is too harsh or excessive. Some may call for the decriminalization of certain deviant activities. According to Best, over time there are often shifts or changes “in what is considered deviant, why it is considered deviant, the circumstances under which it is considered deviant, what sort of deviance it is thought to be, and what is thought to be the best way to respond.” Reconstruction of deviant categories, in some instances, may be in the form of vindication. Vindication occurs when a deviant category is abandoned, or when society redefines the behavior categorized as deviance as respectable or at least acceptable. Best concludes his chapter with a brief discussion of the importance of selectivity and observes that, “whatever is counted must first be defined, and understanding what is defined as deviant has proved to be a rich topic for scholars of deviance.”

Tolerable, Acceptable, and Positive Deviance

In his chapter, Robert Stebbins compares and analyses three encountered configurations of deviant behavior—tolerable, acceptable, and positive deviance. He addresses these topics as a nominal or separate scheme. They cannot be fitted into a continuum at this time.

He defines deviance as “behavior judged as violating one or more of the community’s moral norms.” Moral norms derive from the community’s collective judgment regarding right or wrong behavior and activities in everyday life. Stebbins indicates that moral norms stand apart from other types of norms, such as folkways, customs, regulations, and ordinances.

Some deviant acts are tolerated. Tolerance, according to Stebbins, is “an attitude or orientation that individuals hold toward certain activities or thoughts of others that differ substantially from their own.” It is a relatively passive reaction midway between scorn and embracement. Tolerated behavior is only mildly threatening. It is accorded legitimacy, although only grudgingly. Others have little interest in actually adopting or accepting tolerated behavior. With tolerable deviance, the welfare of the community is believed to be preserved.

Stebbins defines intolerable deviance as behavior “which greatly threatens the established order, causing the community to scorn it and therefore try to eliminate it.” He observes that members of the community “know they ought to refrain from engaging in them [tolerable deviance activities], yet they find it difficult to escape their magnetic pull.”

He articulates three varieties of tolerable deviance: criminal tolerable deviance; noncriminal tolerable deviance; and legitimate tolerable deviance. Criminal tolerable deviance is actually illegal, according to criminal law, but the community and law enforcement agencies view it as of minor importance. Noncriminal tolerable deviance lies outside the jurisdiction of the law, but it still violates community norms. An example would be adultery. Legitimate tolerable deviance is guaranteed by law. Everyone can legally engage in unconventional religious or political activities or beliefs about the supernatural that differ significantly from those of the majority in the community. Intolerable deviance is behavior in violation of criminal law and the violation of very serious noncriminal moral norms.

Stebbins reports that there are three broad reasons why people engage in tolerable deviance. They do so because it is interesting and pleasurable to do so as leisure. They do so because it is a livelihood or a serious amateur pursuit. Or they do so because it serves as a mode of adjustment—”a way of arriving at a behavioral balance between personal needs and goals, on the one hand, and the demands of other people and society, on the other.”

Stebbins cites another scholar as having posited the notion of acceptable deviance. This form of deviance is defined as “behavior which deviates from the norm, such that it is not entirely predictable, yet which conforms enough to the norm to be acceptable as signifying membership.” To illustrate this variety of deviance, one author provides observations on fashion and slang. This scholar observes that, “to be fashionable is to be acceptably deviant,” and “going beyond acceptability to forms of dress regarded as serious observations” would constitute “outrageous” fashion. In regard to slang, there must be ways of introducing new slang words to the group. If members of the group refuse to incorporate the new term into their vocabulary, then it stands as an “outrageous” word in the existing lexicon and is therefore deviant and unacceptable. If some members of the group begin to use the new slang word, its outrageousness declines, and the new slang word gradually becomes conceptualized as “fashionableness.”

Stebbins then devotes the remainder of his chapter to a detailed analysis of the contentious notion of “positive deviance.” He concludes with the observation that “each perspective contributes to our understanding of how individuals differ along one or more important dimensions—tolerance, acceptability, excellence—from the large majority of people in their group or the larger local community.”

The Deconstruction of Deviance

Mark Konty, in his chapter, critically examines the concepts of the construction of deviance and the deconstruction of deviance. Konty points out that the notion of the construction of social reality appeared in the 1960s and the concept of deconstruction was first used a bit later. Deconstruction initially focused on literary analysis, but later became a component of the “new” social theories, such as postmodernism. The author provides the simple definition of deconstruction as “the analytical process that examines the assumptions and experiences that shape meaning.” He further adds that, “rather than taking these for granted, deconstruction identifies how assumptions and experiences result in shared cultural meaning.” Deconstruction, in effect, explores the dynamics by which definitions of deviance came about. Often there are self-serving factors or considerations that influence the shaping of deviant definitions. Some might, for example, label women with active sex lives as “sluts,” because this might benefit male interest, or such behavior simply fails to live up to the female ideal. Konty suggests that reality is not an objective fact that can be discovered through the use of empirical methods, but instead must be subjectively and uniquely experienced by particular individuals who have unique circumstances and experience. To explain deconstruction bett...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Editorial Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table Of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Preface
• Obituary for Clifton Dow Bryant by C. Eddie Palmer
• Part I Conceptualizing deviance
• Part II Research methodology in studying deviance
• Part III Theories of deviance
• Part IV Becoming deviant as a process
• Part V Deviant lifestyles and subcultures
• Part VI Contentious Deviance
• Part VII Self-Destructive Behavior as Deviance
• Part VIII Deviance in Social Institutions
• Part IX Sexual Deviance
• Part X Crimes of the times
• Part XI Crime: Traditional Non-Violent Modes
• Part XII Crime: traditional violent modes
• Part XIII Handicap, Disability, and Impairment as Deviance
• Part XIV Exiting deviance
• Part XV New horizons in deviance
• Index