Deviance Management

Insiders, Outsiders, Hiders, and Drifters

Christopher D. Bader, Joseph O. Baker

• Publisher: University of California Press
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780520304482
• eBook ISBN: 9780520973121
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Deviance Management examines how individuals and subcultures manage the stigma of being labeled socially deviant. Exploring high-tension religious groups, white power movements, paranormal subcultures, LGBTQ groups, drifters, recreational drug and alcohol users, and more, the authors identify how and when people combat, defy, hide from, or run from being stigmatized as “deviant.” While most texts emphasize the criminological features of deviance, the authors’ coverage here showcases the diversity of social and noncriminal deviance. Deviance Management allows for a more thorough understanding of strategies typically used by normalization movements to destigmatize behaviors and identities while contributing to the study of social movements and intra-movement conflict.

1

The Complementarity of Deviance and Conformity

The first and arguably most foundational idea in the sociological conception of deviance is its necessity for social order. More formally, we might say: Regardless of historical or cultural context, at least one group of people within a community—real or imagined—will be viewed as evil, dangerous, and/or unacceptably different.¹ Sometimes these outgroups are relatively large and organized. Other times there is only an idea or fear that such a group is lurking among us, even with little or no evidence of an actual threat. Whether witches or sexual predators, communists or biker gangs, cultists or punk rockers, deviant outgroups are perpetual features of social life. Since we always seem to have, nay, create, “deviants,” social theorists have gotten considerable mileage out of the counterintuitive question: What purpose do deviants serve for communities?

THE “FUNCTIONS” OF DEVIANCE

Early sociologists analogized social systems to physical bodies.² Just as the heart, lungs, brain, muscles, and bones work in concert and serve vital functions, so must each part of society serve some vital function for the larger organism. Those phenomena that do not (or no longer) serve an important function eventually wither away by being “selected against” and removed from the system. From this perspective, there must be some utility for the constant recurrence of deviance and its accompanying processes of punishment—including those with imaginary foci such as witch trials—otherwise they would not continue to occur.

Initially, it might be difficult to see a purpose in horrific events such as witch trials, but this is the approach sociologist Kai Erikson took when analyzing the witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts. He argued that in England, the Puritans’ collective identity centered on criticisms of the normative and dominant religion in that context, and thus their identity was secured through the fact that they were not typical Anglicans.³ The group’s boundaries were solidified by having the Church of England as an ever-present, negative example. After moving to the New World, the Puritans were forced to reconceptualize their collective identity. Who are we “Puritans” now that our previous enemy is no longer present? Like all interpretive communities, the Puritans needed to continually reestablish who they were, especially as previous cultural distinctions were blurred or called into question in New World communities.

To compound the cultural crisis, the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s royal charter, which established its system of governance, made the legitimacy of the community’s official order even more uncertain.⁴ Applying demonic paradigms of misfortune, the Puritans reasoned that the threat of supernatural evil was ever present and, worse, had even infiltrated the group. Community survival and cosmic struggle required violent expiation. The witch trials powerfully reestablished that the group’s identity was founded on combating evil.⁵ At the expense of already peripheral group members (relative to more powerful factions), the community reaped a collective return on violent persecution by shoring up its sense of collective identity, explaining its misfortune, and definitively delineating the cultural landscape, even if only temporarily.

Drawing on the legacy of structural-functional theories shorn of the overzealous biological metaphors, Erikson argued that the execution of twenty accused witches and the baseless accusations and prosecutions of hundreds of others bolstered the social order. Although problematic in some ways, a worthwhile takeaway from functionalism is that deviance can be defined as the product of the social processes surrounding the punishment and control of behavior, ideas, or conditions that violate cultural norms.⁶ In other words, the response to deviance is as important for analysis as the deviant acts themselves, if not more. Because punishment requires social power for enforcement, cultural boundaries are generally buttressed by ideologies of morality and policed by those authorized to use physical coercion by the extant power structure. But like all social processes, boundaries of deviance and punishment can change over time and thus require continual reproduction through enforcement and punishment.

In short, demonizing a deviant group clearly marks cultural boundaries. Symbolic boundaries are maintained by scripts of acceptable behavior and justified by the values espoused by the powerful within a community. In essence, the clearest way to define cultural boundaries is to point out and punish those who have violated expectations.⁷ Consequently, collective identity crises tend to produce scapegoats and the righteous infliction of pain and shame.

Having a common enemy to fear, despise, decry, defy, or ridicule is a powerful force for solidarity. Enemies work at all levels of collectivity, for “families as well as whole cultures, small groups as well as nations.”⁸ In contemporary American culture, politicians and pundits utilize the threat of terrorism, whether it be from ISIS or al-Qaeda (or Islam in general), to rally public support behind American foreign policy.⁹ In the previous century, communism fulfilled the role of arch villain. On a more local scale, politicians have little to lose and much to gain by raising the specter of sex predators or street gangs when trying to win an election. With its appeal to fear and emotion, the claim of being “tough on crime” is one of the safest positions any candidate can take.¹⁰

While pedophiles and terrorists serve as generalized enemies for many contemporary Americans, other perceived enemies are only demonized by particular social groups. Religious conservatives define themselves against “godless liberals.” Environmentalists define themselves against “SUV-driving planet killers.” Anti-immigration advocates define themselves against “illegal aliens.” Every us requires a them.

If demonizing enemies bonds members of a group to one another, a necessary corollary is that boundary maintenance is equally important in deviant subcultures. To the extent that cultural codes strengthen internal ties by demonizing deviants, those labeled as deviant can likewise strengthen their own resistance identities by collectively dismissing conventional culture.

THE FUNCTIONS OF DEVIANCE FOR DEVIANTS

Albert Cohen’s classic criminological study of gangs examined this process of collective resistance to societal norms. Cohen’s key initial observation was that much of the deviant behavior engaged in by youth gangs appeared to serve little useful purpose. This observation was somewhat at odds with the work of other scholars such as Robert Merton, who argued that deviant behavior was an attempt to achieve mainstream goals (such as wealth) through the use of “innovative” means, such as theft.¹¹ If youth crime served a purpose, Cohen argued, it was a less obvious one than the acquisition of wealth. In fact, much of the youth crime he observed was decidedly anti-utilitarian; its only purposes seeming to be to destroy, vandalize, or injure. To Cohen, it seemed as if youth gangs were purposefully rejecting the “American dream” by expressing outright contempt for conventional culture and reveling in the opportunity to act out against it. Unable to see a means by which to achieve middle-class standards, youth rejected the system that had rejected them, a phenomenon Cohen labeled “reaction formation:” “[W]e would expect the delinquent boy who, after all, has been socialized in a society dominated by middle-class morality and who can never quite escape the blandishments of middle-class society, to seek to maintain his safeguards against seduction. Reaction-formation, in his case, should take the form of an ‘irrational,’ ‘malicious,’ ‘unaccountable’ hostility to the enemy within the gates as well as without: the norms of respectable middle-class society.”¹²

By encouraging its members to act in potentially illegal ways, the gang exposes its members to risk, but not without potential benefits. Cohen argues that the shared experience of breaking rules bonds youth together. Further, gangs provide an alternative status system by which lower-class youth can hope to succeed.¹³ By strongly rejecting unreachable goals, gang members justify their choice to engage in deviant activities. In the language we outlined in the introduction, the lack of stakes in conformity combined with deep investment in a deviant subculture generates the strategies and actions of the Outsider.¹⁴

We can draw a general principle from Cohen’s work. Just as individuals aligned with conventional groups have powerful motivation to reject deviants, those labeled deviant have powerful motivation to reject conventional society.

Example: Rejection of the Mainstream in Amish Communities

Deviant religious groups are well known for their tendency to reject the dominant culture in which they exist. For example, the Amish quite explicitly separate themselves from mainstream society. Although exact rules and regulations vary by settlement, Amish groups reject the use of many modern technologies. Visitors to Amish areas can easily spot members in their horse-drawn buggies or tending fields without the aid of tractors or electricity. Photos should be avoided, however. Posing for a photograph is considered an act of insolent pride by most Amish. All glory is due to God and not to the individual, so actions and behaviors that draw attention to the self are to be avoided.

This philosophy extends to outward presentation of self. Amish men wear their hair long in an unfashionable, unparted bob. Married men must let their beards grow, but may not have a mustache. Belts also are taboo, requiring men to wear suspenders to hold up their black trousers, which are frequently worn without zippers or buttons on the fly. Men’s coats also are black and without collars. Topping off the distinctive Amish uniform is a wide-brimmed hat; its style closely regulated. Amish women face similar style restrictions. Jewelry is taboo, as are cosmetics and makeup of any kind. Women wear long dresses of a single color and keep their heads covered at all times.¹⁵

While the “English” (as Amish call the non-Amish) struggle to be fashionable and purchase the latest gadgets to keep up with the ever-changing flow of popular culture, the Amish proudly and permanently maintain an old-fashioned manner. Living by rules that are at odds with mainstream cultural norms may be too high a price to pay for the average person, and the relatively low conversion rate to the Amish indicates that the lifestyle is, purposefully, not for everyone.¹⁶ What is important to remember is that the Amish lifestyle serves what sociologists term manifest and latent functions.¹⁷ Manifest functions refer to the intended purposes or outcomes of a given action or behavior. For example, the manifest function of anti-gambling legislation is to curb gambling. Latent functions refer to the unintended outcomes or results of an action or behavior. Latent functions may be positive or negative in nature. Criminalizing gambling, unfortunately, has the latent function of creating an “illegal empire for the gambling syndicates.”¹⁸

Amish lifestyle restrictions have an obvious manifest function—to keep members focused on giving glory to God rather than on bolstering their personal pride. The Amish diverge from the norms of the rest of the world because their theology, activities, and rules of etiquette constantly remind them to do so. But Amish lifestyle restrictions also have powerful latent functions. Like any public good, religious groups are forced to deal with the problem of “free riders.” Given the choice, a “consumer” of religion would prefer to have all the benefits of belonging—such as the promise of otherworldly rewards as well as more earthly benefits like community; social support; holiday festivities; and access to birth, marriage, and death rites in a church—without having to tithe, spread a religious message, attend worship services frequently, or restrict one’s behavior or ideology in any way. Just as a person who jumps subway turnstiles still gets to enjoy the ride that everyone else has paid for, a member of a religious group who rarely attends services and gives little to his congregation still gets to enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.

One way a religious group can reduce the number of free riders is to make strict demands.¹⁹ Strict groups force members to choose: “participate fully or not at all.”²⁰ Requiring members to dress or act in certain ways or placing prohibitions upon behaviors serves the important latent function of making the cost of low-level participation outweigh its potential benefits. Why would anyone want to be Amish and undergo the comprehensive lifestyle restrictions membership requires if they are not truly dedicated to the group’s ideals? Current members who are less committed will tend to leave, and potential joiners who have not fully “bought in” will stay away. At the end of adolescence, a period called Rumspringa allows Amish youth a chance to defy the rules of the group and briefly live “English” lifestyles before deciding if they want to become full members of the group as adults, thus helping to ensure full buy-in from those who choose to stay in the group.²¹

As a consequence of this latent function, the Amish and similar groups are left with a committed core and a strong sense of in-group identity. It is easy for the English to spot an Amish person in a crowd. It is equally easy for two Amish to spot one another in that same crowd. The costs of rejecting the world are offset by the benefits of a strong collective identity—that incomparable, primal feeling of “us.”

THE NECESSITY OF INTERACTION

The social processes surrounding deviance thus serve vital functions for the conventiona...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Insiders, Outsiders, Hiders, and Drifters
• 1.  The Complementarity of Deviance and Conformity
• 2.  Deviance and Conformity: The Pressure of Dual Identities
• 3.  Fighting for Normal?
• 4.  Bigfoot: Undiscovered Primate or Interdimensional Spirit?
• 5.  Sexuality and Gender Identity: Assimilation vs. Liberation
• 6.  Insiders and the Normalization of Illegal Drugs
• Conclusion: Studying Deviance Management
• Appendix 1: On Applying the Theory of Deviance Management
• Appendix 2: Supplemental Data Analyses
• Notes
• References
• Index