Deviance Today

Addrain Conyers, Thomas C. Calhoun

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000080681
• Edizione: 2
• Argomento: Ciencias sociales
• Categoria: Investigación y metodología de las ciencias sociales

The second edition of Deviance Today is a contemporary collection of original chapters in the field of deviant behavior. This new edition has 16 new chapters. All of the chapters reflect the current trend in the sociology of deviance. This reader covers major theories in the sociology of deviant behavior, from classic ones such as anomie/strain theory and labeling theory to modern ones such as life course perspective. In addition, this anthology encompasses a wide spectrum of deviant behaviors.

This is a user-friendly reader, put together with students in mind. The chapters are not only authoritative, but also interesting. The chapters were written by respected experts in their field of study. Most important, unique to this reader, these chapters have been carefully written for clarity, conciseness, and forcefulness. Students will therefore find them easy and enjoyable to read while learning about deviance.

Part I

Positivist Theories

Imagine an 11-year-old girl attempting to smuggle items into a maximum-security prison filled with male ex-offenders. Do you think it would be successful? Well, this almost happened when an 11 year old, with her 25-year-old sister, tried to smuggle 74 cell phones and a .38-caliber revolver to her brother incarcerated for illegal gun possession. The 11 year old actually made it past the first security check point but was more thoroughly inspected at the second point due to the odd shapes noticed underneath her clothing. The pistol was taped to her back. The sisters were taken into custody for questioning after their unsuccessful attempt. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for children to be used to smuggle items into a prison.¹

As a society, our major concern is what lays ahead for this young girl. Many might predict a life of crime, which follows her older brother and sister. Positivist theorists believe one’s behavior is heavily influenced by their social environment and/or biological and psychological traits. This little girl, at a young age, has already been involved in criminal activities. Her social environment has put her in a position to more likely follow the path of a criminal. However, positivist theorists also argue if one can be conditioned to practice criminal behavior, then there is also possibility for reform and rehabilitation. Timothy Brezina and Miranda Baumann discuss the everyday pressures life can bring, which can result in strain and anomie. They discuss many positivist theorists including, but not limited to Durkheim, Merton, Cohen, and Agnew. These theorists speak on how one’s social situation can lead to a life of crime. Part I continues with Robert Agnew’s chapter, “Control Theories of Deviance.” Control theories examine how inner and external controls vary from person to person. This abundance or lack of control can prevent or lead someone to become involved in deviant behavior. Part I is concluded with Molly Buchanan’s “The Developmental Life-Course Perspective and Juvenile Deviance.” The developmental, life-course perspective examines human lifespan and encompasses theoretical explanations for how human behavior, normal and deviant, unfolds over time.

Note

1 Tyler, Elizabeth. 2011. “The Littlest Smuggler: Girl Tries to Bring 74 Phones into Colombian Prison.” Time, February 9. Retrieved May 12, 2011. (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/09/the-littlest-smuggler-girl-tries-to-bring-74-phones-into-colombian-prison/).

1 Strain and Anomie Theories

Timothy Brezina and Miranda Baumann

Mary spent hours each day studying for her criminology exam, but no matter how hard she tried, she just couldn’t get the answers right. A lot was riding on this exam—she had already failed her first exam and needed an A to keep her scholarship. When exam day came, she still didn’t feel prepared. One of the smartest kids in class always sat right next to her. Mary knew that she shouldn’t cheat, but she just couldn’t afford to get a bad grade. So, during the exam, Mary copied answers from her classmate’s paper.

Everywhere Hank looked, the message seemed clear: success equals nice things and lots of money. Mark wanted it all, but he didn’t know how to get it. He came from a poor neighborhood and, although his mother worked very hard, it seemed she earned only enough to scrape by. She encouraged Mark to get a good education, but he never did well in school. Not sure what else to do, Mark started selling drugs for quick cash. Before long, he had the car, the clothes, and other nice things he had always longed for.

These vignettes (or stories) may sound familiar. College students often feel pressure to succeed academically. Moreover, countless movies and popular songs emphasize the importance of material success. These vignettes also help to illustrate strain and anomie theories of crime and deviance. Strain and anomie theories are concerned with the internal and external pressures that drive individuals to crime and deviance. To explain offending behavior, contemporary strain theorists typically focus on the stressors (e.g., inability to achieve desired goals) that lead some people to engage in crime, delinquency, or drug use. Following a similar tradition, contemporary anomie theorists describe how certain cultural values and goals, such as the American cultural emphasis on material success, can weaken society’s ability to restrain undesirable behavior, leading to high rates of crime and deviance.

These distinctions can be confusing for students new to strain and anomie theories. In this chapter, we introduce the reader to the concepts of strain and anomie by tracing the historic development of these concepts to their common origin. We then show how the strain and anomie traditions in criminology developed over time. We conclude by discussing the current status of strain and anomie theories in contemporary criminology.

Before proceeding, it is important to note that strain and anomie theories are rich and evolving theories within criminology. Over time, criminologists have developed many different versions of strain and anomie theories—more than we could hope to cover in this short chapter. In the following sections, we describe the dominant versions, focusing on the key concepts and ideas that are common to strain and anomie theories in general. We hope this brief introduction will enhance your appreciation of the strain/anomie tradition and will spur your interest in learning more (for further reading, we recommend the book and article titles highlighted in the following discussion).

To understand the development of strain and anomie theories, it is necessary to explore the pioneering work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim’s treatment of “anomie” inspired the development of the strain/anomie tradition in criminology and provides the starting point for our discussion.

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim came to prominence during a time of social upheaval in late nineteenth-century France. Not only had France endured a bloody revolution less than a century before; the nation was rapidly industrializing. It was against this backdrop of social change that Durkheim developed the concept of anomie.

According to Durkheim, stable institutions are the backbone of social order. Society’s moral institutions, such as family and religion, play a central role as these institutions provide guidance and direct the energies of individuals into collective pursuits that provide meaning and fulfillment. These institutions also help to keep the selfish and potentially destructive tendencies of individuals in check. The norms and expectations surrounding family life, for example, direct the energies of the individual toward the care of one’s kin. Likewise, religion directs individual energies toward collective worship and community solidarity.

In Durkheim’s view, the wants, needs, and desires of individuals are essentially limitless and thus insatiable. Left to their own devices, individuals can always imagine the possibility of having “more” for themselves—a condition that lends itself to a “longing for infinity,” perpetual dissatisfaction, and the potential for various destructive behaviors (Durkheim 1951 [1897]). For this reason, moral institutions are essential—they make society possible by providing moral direction, by regulating the wants of individuals, and by curbing the expression of selfish or egoistic desires. In essence, society’s moral institutions keep a lid on the egoistic desires that would otherwise erupt among individuals.

When these institutions become weak or ineffective, society is at risk of degenerating into a state of normlessness or anomie. When institutionalized norms or expectations lose their force and no longer have the power to guide behavior, individuals are free to pursue their egoistic desires, their potentially destructive tendencies are no longer restrained, and rates of various deviant behaviors—including crime and suicide—tend to rise. For Durkheim, a key challenge faced by modern societies is that of maintaining strong regulating institutions and avoiding widespread anomie.

Classical Strain Theory

In a now classic article titled “Social Structure and Anomie,” a young sociologist by the name of Robert K. Merton (1938) expanded upon Durkheim’s anomie framework and applied it directly to the problems of crime and deviance. This single piece was among the most influential contributions to criminology and provided the foundation for all future versions of strain and anomie theories.

Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie”

Merton agreed that people are prone to insatiable desires, but rather than locating such desires in human nature, he viewed them as a product of culture and socialization. In the United States, for example, the cultural ethos of the “American Dream” encourages all individuals to strive for personal success, with a special focus on the accumulation of personal monetary wealth. At the same time, the means by which people accumulate wealth are not so emphasized. This cultural exaggeration of the success goal, combined with relatively little concern for the means of goal attainment, contributes to an “ends over means” mentality and the common occurrence of fraud, corruption, and crime. The American Dream, then, encourages individuals to focus on egoistic pursuits and desires—the very types of pursuits and desires that Durkheim viewed as a threat to the social order.

Moreover, the culturally prescribed goal of monetary success is universal in nature—all Americans are encouraged to get ahead. Americans are expected to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” and continually strive to achieve economic success regardless of their position within society. Yet, as Merton recognized, pervasive inequalities in American society create serious barriers to success for some groups and individuals; that is, existing opportunities for achieving success are unequally distributed within society. When large segments of the population have internalized the American Dream ethos but lack the legal or legitimate means to attain monetary wealth, this is said to create strain in the social structure. In essence, a gap or disjunction occurs between the culturally prescribed success goal and the legitimate means of goal attainment.

Particularly among disadvantaged groups, strain is said to contribute to anomie, thereby increasing the likelihood of deviant behavior. When people accept the goal of monetary success but lack the legal ability to attain this goal, they may lose faith in the value of hard work or playing by the rules. In other words, the norms surrounding the culturally approved means of goal attainment may lose their force and fail to regulate behavior, resulting in a state of normlessness or anomie. Innovation is one possible response to this condition: people may give up on the legitimate means of goal attainment and pursue monetary success through innovative but illegal means, such as drug dealing, theft, or prostitution.

Of course, not all individuals react to strain or anomie with crime. While the experience of strain increases the likelihood of crime and deviance (“innovation”), Merton recognized that other adaptations were possible. In fact, conformity is a much more common adaptation and occurs when strained individuals remain committed to culturally prescribed success goals as well as the legitimate means of attaining these goals. Many people, for example, may realize that they do not currently have the means to attain monetary success, but they conform to society’s rules nonetheless and, perhaps, maintain the dream of getting rich in the future (by playing the lottery, for instance). Retreatism, the least common adaptation, occurs when individuals reject both the goals and the means as unachievable or ineffectual and cease to function within the social context. Substance abuse and suicide are considered retreatist responses to strain. Ritualism occurs when individuals consider the goals unattainable but still conform—they may lower their aspirations and come to accept their low status. Rebellion refers to the substitution of new goals and means following the rejection of those endorsed by society, as illustrated by those who push for radical social or political change, such as the equal distribution of wealth.

You may have noticed that Merton’s account contrasts sharply with pathological explanations of deviance that trace the causes of offending behavior to some defect in the individual’s biological or psychological makeup. In fact, Merton developed his sociological account of deviance partly in reaction to the pathological explanations that were popular in his day, arguing that crime and deviance more often represent “the normal reaction, by normal persons, to abnormal conditions” (Merton 1938:672, note 2). In doing so, Merton was not commenting on the ethical desirability of deviant behavior; rather, he was arguing that crime and deviance represent predictable responses to strain, even in otherwise normal and healthy populations. Abnormality, according to this view, is not a prerequisite for offending behavior to occur.

Several interesting implications follow from Merton’s theoretical framework. First, if Merton is correct, then the roots of the crime problem can be traced, in part, to the contradictory configuration of cultural and structural arrangements that characterize American society; namely, a cultural exaggeration of monetary success goals in a society plagued by high levels of inequality. This fact may help to explain why crime is such a challenging social problem to address, and why attempts to reduce crime by changing the attitudes and behaviors of individual offenders have met with limited success.

Second, while pathological explanations of deviance tend to highlight the unusual or abnormal motivations of offenders, Merton’s account suggests that conformists and offenders often share common motivations. In Merton’s framework, both conformists and offenders are motivated by and committed to the conventional success goal of monetary wealth. McCarthy and Hagan’s (2001) study of successful drug dealers provides a useful illustration. They find that the most successful drug dealers are intelligent, are willing to take risks, are willing to network with others to expand their markets, and possess a strong desire for monetary success—the same characteristics that are usually attributed to legitimate business entrepreneurs. From the perspective of Merton’s strain theory, the key difference between these groups lies in the means they have selected to achieve the same goal. The entrepreneur achieves monetary success through institutional means, while the drug dealer succeeds through criminal activity.

Despite the enormous influence of Merton’s strain theory, Merton left a number of questions unanswered. For example, how would strain theory explain acts of crime and deviance that are not oriented toward culturally prescribed success goals? After all, many acts of juvenile delinquency—acts such as vandalism, joyriding, and fistfights—seem relatively pointless. They do not a...