Sub-Cultural approaches to deviance

Introduction

The structural account of the causes of deviance offered by Robert Merton left unanswered a number of questions:

• Why do some people commit crime but not others?
• How can we theorise collective as opposed to individual deviance?
• How can we explain non-materialistic deviance?

Urban ecology, as practised by Chicago sociologists, which originally stressed the lack of coherent values as a cause of deviance, came increasingly to stress not a lack of values, but an alternative set of values.

The questions left unanswered by Merton and the changing emphasis of the Chicago school provided the spur for the development of sub-cultural theory.

Developments in the Chicago school

Cultural transmission

According to cultural transmission theory, in the most socially disorganised and poorest zones of a city, certain forms of crime have become the cultural norm, transmitted from one generation to the next, as part of a normal socialisation pattern. Successful criminals provided role models for the young, demonstrating both the possibilities of success through crime and its normality.

The pressure to engage in criminal activity can be seen in Clifford Shaw's 'The Jackroller':

'One day my stepmother told William to take me to the railroad yard to break into boxcars. William always led the way and made the plans. He would open the cars and I would crawl in and hand out the merchandise. In the cars were foodstuffs, exactly the things my stepmother wanted? After we arrived home... my stepmother would meet us and pat me on the back and say that I was a good son... Stealing in the neighbourhood was a common practice among the children and approved by the parents.'

Differential association

In an effort to tighten up what were considered the vague theories of the Chicago school, Sutherland introduced his concept of differential association. This states that a person is likely to become a criminal if they receive an 'excess of definitions favourable to a violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violations of law'.

By this, Sutherland means that if people are surrounded by others who support law breaking, then they are likely to do so themselves.

Clearly, these approaches are working towards sub-cultural explanations of criminal/deviant activity. Chicago sociology directed attention towards the motivations which deviants have. It put forward the idea that there is nothing 'wrong' with deviants, but that they see the world in a different way. They are guided by a distinct set of values. Though this set of values still included the notion of the societal value placed on material success, it did offer some explanation as to why some people but not others become deviant and why some deviance is collective.

Subcultural theory

Status frustration

The first explicit use of the concept of sub-culture is found in the work of Albert Cohen, writing in the mid-1950s (Delinquent Boys, The Culture of The Gang). Cohen was puzzled by the fact that most delinquent acts were not motivated by economic ends, for example, vandalism. His answer was that most delinquents are motivated by status frustration whereby they feel they are looked down upon by the rest of society and denied any status. They, therefore, develop a distinct set of values or a subculture, which provides them with an alternative means of gaining status, and this possibly leads them into delinquency.

According to Cohen, those most likely to commit deviant acts are generally found in the lower streams of schools, living in deprived areas and having the worst chances in the job market. Cohen argues that for adolescents the primary reward and punishment agency is the school. Aware of being branded failures by the school, the lower streams develop their own subculture, based on a reversal of school values.The subculture becomes a collective response to status denial.

For lower stream boys the subculture has two uses:

• It creates an alternative set of values so they can compete for status among their peers.
• It provides a means of hitting back at society. Petty theft or vandalism, for example, may have a measure of malice or revenge within them.

Cohen is, therefore, arguing that delinquents are no different from other adolescents in seeking status. Cohen thus addresses the second and third of the problems left unresolved by Merton:

• Explaining collective deviance.
• Explaining why some deviance is not economic.

Illegitimate opportunity structure

Merton's third unanswered question - why some but not others are attracted to deviance - was tackled by Cloward and Ohlin. In an attempt to link Merton's concept of anomie, which argued that people turn to crime if they had few legal opportunities, these writers believed that Merton had ignored the existence of an illegitimate opportunity structure.

This opportunity structure had three levels:

1. Criminal subculture: Providing the opportunity for a career in crime. There needed to be a stable, cohesive working class community with contacts in both the mainstream and illegal communities, successful role models for the young, and a career structure for aspiring criminals.
2. Conflict subculture: Existing if the criminal subculture is absent. If no criminal career is available to young males they may turn their frustration at failure in both the legitimate and illegitimate opportunity structures into violence.
3. Retreatist subculture: Being the one that takes the double failures, those who don't make it in crime or violence. The failures retreat into drugs and petty theft.

The approach has been criticised for making the same assumptions as Merton, that everyone seeks the same goal of financial success. A further problem is that there is no evidence to support the idea of subculture as described by Cloward and Ohlin.

Delinquency as normal - social class differences

Both Cohen and Cloward and Ohlin suggest that crime results from a distinctive youth sub-culture, which provides alternative guidelines to the mainstream culture. Miller, in Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency, suggests a different approach. He argues that there are six focal concerns of working class culture, which can lead working class males into crime. He is suggesting that crime is simply an extension of normal working class values, not a distinctive set of alternative values.

Unlike previous theorists, there is no assumption made that all people within a society share a consensus as to what their life goals should be, that is there is a rejection of the functionalist view that society is founded on consensus.

Miller's six focal concerns are:

1. Fate - life can't be changed, make the best of it.
2. Autonomy - don't let them push you around.
3. Trouble - life involves violence - don't run away.
4. Excitement - look out for fun and enjoyment.
5. Smartness - look good, act sharp.
6. Toughness - manliness demonstrated via drinking, womanising, sporting prowess.

('FATEST')

A problem with this analysis is that it stresses that these are working class values, but clearly such values are distributed throughout society. They are, for example, just as likely to be found in a middle-class rugby team.

• Perhaps it is not the values that are important, but the characteristics of those holding them?
• A link to labelling theory?
• Why is it that it is primarily working class boys who get into trouble because of these values?

Marxist subcultural theory

The 'new criminology'

This approach attempts a synthesis of the structural approach of traditional Marxism with the insights of labelling theory. The approach originated in the work of Taylor, Walton and Youngin The New Criminology and from the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham University.

In this approach, much greater emphasis is placed on the perceptions of the deviants, on those who directly confront the deviant and on the specific context in which the deviant act occurs. The focus of concern is not that of traditional Marxism - how powerful groups create law, but more to do with law enforcement, patterns of law breaking and the motives of crime.

The approach stresses two factors:

• The contents of youth culture.
• Differences produced by class background.

Hegemony

Marxists picture capitalist society as characterised by class conflict - attempts at domination by the ruling class and resistance by the working class. One of the more important ways in which the ruling class attempts to control people is to use the cultural values of society for their own benefit. The imposition of ruling class ideas on the rest of society is known as hegemony.

Youth

The hegemony of the ruling class is greatly aided by the fact that most adults in the UK get locked into the system. They have mortgages, credit cards, family commitments. They may not like things the way they are, but will also be nervous about potentially damaging changes in it. The relative security of capitalism is better than the feared unknown. Youth, however, are not yet locked into the system and are relatively free of long-term commitment or responsibility. Youth are therefore the group with the most freedom to resist the structure of hegemony.

Resistance: Building blocks of youth culture

Each generation faces the prospect of gaining employment or adapting to unemployment, but in different circumstances. The 1950s had a very different economic climate to the 1980s. It is argued that youth develops a cultural style as a means of coping with their particular circumstances. However, it is not just about coping, but also about showing contempt for the dominant values of society - resistance to dominant values. This is a vision of working class youth as the standard bearers of class struggle.

Youth cannot, in fact, do much to change society, but they can convince themselves that things are better than they are by magically making things easier to bear. Brake suggests that the solutions that youth come up with do not alter much other than the subjective satisfaction it provides for the youths concerned. Youth culture does nothing to alter the economic and power differences in society.

A key element in this approach is style, the clothes, haircuts, music and language of the different youth cultures. It is argued that these styles are not meaningless, but are deeply layered in meaning. Much analysis in this perspective has been interested in decoding the meaning of particular styles.

An example of this approach employed in research is provided by Phil Cohen (1972). He studied the youth of East London in the early 1970s. He examined:

• The immediate context.
• The wider context.

He analysed the way that two different youth subcultures reacted to the changes occurring in their community. Cohen argued that the youth cultures developed to cope with the loss of community in East London, but also they reflected the divisions within society. He suggests that the mod reaction was to the new ideology of affluence, they wanted to show they had money and knew how to spend it. In contrast, skinheads looked back to the more traditional working class community.

Criticism

Women and minorities are ignored. The focus is exclusively white working class youth.

S. Cohen criticises the approach for giving the impression that sociologists have special insight into decoding style.

Delinquency as ordinary behaviour

Subcultural theory, by its very name, suggests the existence of distinct sets of values and that these values determine behaviour. However, research in the UK has found evidence of such subcultures hard to find. Indeed, the usual result is to illustrate how ordinary most delinquents are.

David Matza, Delinquency and Drift, rejects the idea of a distinct subculture and that this subculture determines behaviour. He claims that delinquents are similar to everyone else in their values and indeed display similar feelings of outrage about crime as the majority of the population.

Subterranean values

Matza argues that we all hold two levels of values. The values that guide us most of the time are respectable and conventional. But at times, underlying values of sexuality, greed and aggressiveness emerge. These values are generally held under control - all of us hold them back - but occasionally, all of us get taken over by them. For example, looting, if given the opportunity.

Matza argues that delinquents are simply more likely to behave according to subterranean values in 'inappropriate' situations.

Matza suggests that delinquents use a number of techniques of neutralisation to explain why their delinquent act is an exception. Yes. What I did was wrong but... something made me do it (denial of responsibility); they deserved it (denial of victim); there is no harm done (denial of injury); doesn't everybody (condemn the condemners); I had to do it (appeal to a higher loyalty).

Drift

Matza uses the concept of drift to explain why only some young people commit the crime.

Matza suggests that youth is a period of limbo. Youths feel they lack control over their lives and they want to gain some control over their destiny. Matza argues that during this period of drift, the constraining bonds of society are loosened, and so adolescents become more susceptible to suggestions of deviant acts by the peer group. Committing a delinquent act may then represent an attempt to demonstrate control over their lives, to exercise choice.

However, there is no suggestion of a deviant career, the youths are not committed to a life of crime, they can drift in, and perhaps out when they get a job. However, Matza provides no wider framework of structural and economic circumstances that might explain why it is working class males who seem driven to higher levels of delinquency than anyone else.

Willmott, Adolescent Boys in East London, could find little evidence to substantiate the existence of a delinquent subculture. He suggested rather that two elements explain the delinquency of working class boys:

1. Boredom and uninteresting jobs: In order to compensate, the boys would look for fun and excitement. This sometimes led to lawbreaking but this was not planned, nor motivated by economic reward.
2. Visibility: Small homes and lack of space meant a lot of 'hanging around'. This brought them to the attention of others. They were more likely to be caught because they were more likely to be observed.

Downes also conducted a study of East End adolescents. He found no evidence to support the existence of status frustration, or the illegitimate opportunity structure. He did find support for Matza's ideas. The lack of satisfaction these youths had in work led them to stress what Downes called 'leisure values', which bear a resemblance to Matza's subterranean values.

Deviance and middle-class youth

It would seem from the proceeding studies, that deviance and delinquency are working class male phenomena. Attempts were made to explain what it was about working class youth that made them deviant; stressing the rejection of, or replacement of middle-class cultural norms usually achieved this. However, studies have been carried out into middle-class deviance and it is hard to explain why middle-class youth should reject goals and lifestyles associated with their own class location.

While it is true that some middle-class deviance can be read off as 'cultural criticism' for example, criticism of institutions such as the family and marriage, the same cannot be said of some of the activities uncovered by Shanley (1966) in his investigation into middle-class deviance.

Shanley documented evidence of widespread deviance among sections of middle-class American youth. His informants' involvement in forgery, breaking and entering, property destruction and arson, equalled - and on some occasions exceeded - that of comparable groups of working class youth. Such findings clearly cannot be interpreted in terms of status frustration or a simple rejection of middle-class norms.

Likewise, H and B Myerhoff's (1964) studies of middle-class gangs in a suburb of LA revealed the regular theft of tyres, car radios, record players and televisions. There was also the social use of large quantities of alcohol and marijuana. The Meyerhoff concluded that it might be more useful to look for similarities between groups considered deviant and those seen as non-deviants, rather than to continually look for differences.

In a study carried out in Bath among middle-class youth, Aggleton, Rebels Without a Cause? (1987) found considerable support for the above findings. Studying a group of middle-class students at a college of F. E. he found widespread evidence of deviant behaviour. Poor attendance in class, work rarely completed on time, and students turning up for class drunk or clearly under the influence of other drugs, was a commonplace.

Generally, however, British studies have failed to identify a distinctive delinquent subculture.

Urban ecology and crime

The city as a crime producing area

A common theme in sociological writing about crime has been the corrupting effect of city life. It is currently the case that inner cities have reputations as major locations for, and causes of, criminal activity.

In Europe, during the 19th century, writers such as Durkheim and Tonnies had stressed the breakdown of the community under the pressures of urbanisation and industrialisation. People, it was argued, felt less bonded to others and were more likely to become selfish. This selfishness is linked not just to urban living, but to the rise of individualism.

In this approach, the explanation for deviance was first sought, not within the individual, but outside the person, in society as a whole. The causes of deviance can thus be found in society. Such an idea was put forward by George Simmel (1969), whose essay, 'The Metropolis and Mental Life' explored some of the psychological and social consequences of city living.

In the USA, urbanisation occurred later than in Europe and also took a different form to European urbanisation, in that cities developed as a result of massive waves of immigration from Europe. Chicago, for example, grew from a population of 10,000 in 1860 to one of 2,000,000 by 1910. It is therefore not surprising that sociologists at the University of Chicago between 1914-1940 carried out the original urban studies. The most famous of these researchers are Robert Park and Ernest Burgess.

The focus of the work altered over the years and two distinct stages can be identified:

• The biological analogy.
• Social disorganisation.

The biological analogy

Initially, sociologists such as Park were strongly influenced by ideas of natural selection, and the struggle for space - concepts that were biologically based and drawing on versions of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Park argued that cities were characterised by a biotic balance and that this was disturbed by new waves of immigrants, and conflicts occurred. The struggle for space was a part of this. Individuals compete for the best habitats and those that lose out remain in the area of minimum choice - slums (inner cities). Park extended this work to offer an explanation of the different types of behaviour found in urban areas, he suggested the existence of moral regions within a city.

Behaviour was not, however, just examined from outside. The influence of Symbolic interactionism led to studies examining social phenomena from the perspective of those involved. So, Chicago sociology was characterised by two quite distinct elements: the biological - that stressed the natural and innate, and the sociological - that stressed the generation of meaning through interaction.

Social disorganisation

Park's work gave rise to the writings of Shaw and McKay and was an extension of the work of Burgess who claimed that Chicago (and other large cities) was divided into distinctive zones.

• Zone 1: The central business district with very few occupants but the hub of banking and business during the day.
• Zone 2: The zone of transition. Once an area of considerable affluence, but now decayed and characterised by multi-occupation. The cheapest zone for housing and thus the first one settled by new immigrants.
• Zone 3: The respectable working class district.
• Zone 4: Suburbia. The pleasanter middle-class districts further out of the city.
• Zone 5: The outer fringe of the city where the wealthy live.

Shaw and McKay suggested that as each successive wave of immigrants arrived in the city, they were forced into the cheapest zone. As they settled and some were successful, they moved outward. Their places were taken by new arrivals.

Examining the official crime rates for the city, Shaw and McKay noted that there were quite distinct patterns. Zone 2 had far higher crime rates and this relative crime rate remained similar over a long period of time, even though the immigrant groups characterising Zone 2 had changed.

Shaw and McKay thought that the high population turnover produced a state of social disorganisation defined by Thomas and Znaniecki as 'the decrease of the influence of the existing social rules of behaviour upon individual members of the group.'

This appears to mean that informal methods of social control, that usually restrain people from deviant activity were weak or absent, and this released people to commit criminal acts. Informal restraining mechanisms include such things as public opinion, gossip, and neighbourhood organisations.

The result of social disorganisation was that such things as prostitution, alcoholism and crime flourished. Clearly, there are echoes of Durkheim's ideas here.

Other research at the University of Chicago during the inter-war period investigated juvenile crime, gambling, suicide and serious mental illness in inner-city areas, arguing that they could be explained by the social ecology of different neighbourhoods. An example of this type of investigation is that of Robert Faris and Warren Dunham (1939) into schizophrenia. They found that the highest rates for the disease in Chicago were found in hobohemia, another name for the zone of transition. They concluded that schizophrenia, like other forms of deviance, was the direct consequence of particular types of neighbourhood ecology.

Criticism

1. If disorganisation results from high population turnover, then this seems appropriate only in the early years of settlement, but less appropriate in explaining patterns of crime that follow initial settlement.

2. Labelling theory would criticise the use of official statistics. Higher rates of crime in the zone of transition might not be a result of different behaviour patterns, but of different enforcement and reaction patterns.

3. The focus on working class crime diverts attention from the type of crime more likely to be found in suburbs. This approach cannot, indeed, does not seem to comprehend or explain white-collar crime.

4. The absence of conventional institutions of informal social control is not the same as disorganisation. Thrasher's study of Cornersville in Boston suggests a 'complex and well-established organisation of its own'. That is, there was a subcultural form of social life, clearly differentiated from conventional society, but which produced stable social relationships.

Stephen Pfohl (1986) argued that Chicago school sociologists, being disproportionately white, male and middle class, were unable to look beyond the boundaries of their own cultural expectations, confusing differences in the social organisation with social disorganisation.

5. Crime is seen as both a consequence of social disorganisation and as evidence of it.

6. Not all residents of areas of social disorganisation are deviant. However, Reckless (1956)suggested some people are insulated against corruption by strong ego strength. However, this is a concept difficult to operationalise and measure.

The next shift in the Chicago school approach came in the later writing of Shaw and McKay and was then taken up by Sutherland. The meaning of social disorganisation changed. In the early writing, the stress was on disorganisation, resulting from a lack of coherent values, the later writing stressed a distinctive, but coherent, set of values providing alternative values to those of mainstream society. This new version became the starting point for sub-cultural theory.

Note: There are distinct echoes of the ecological approach in much more recent sociological accounts of the urban crime. Both the Right Realists and Left Realists pay particular attention to ways in which urban crime can be prevented, and statistically, there can be little doubt that particular urban areas in Britain do suffer from high rates of some types of crime, particularly those that seem to cause much public unease as offences against the person.

Deviance: Robert Merton

It has Durkheim who used the concept of anomie to refer to a situation of normlessness, where there is a lack of cultural guides to behaviour that can regulate the actions of individuals, or alternately, a situation in which a person's unlimited aspirations exceed the opportunities available to them. It was one of the principle reasons he used to explain suicide. In this context, Durkheim believed that a 'healthy' society was one in which what people had more or less fitted in with what they thought they deserved.

Robert Merton argues that both human goals and constraints on behaviour are socially based (we learn them) and that desires are socially derived, via socialisation, into cultural goals such as occupational status or financial success. These aspirations derive from the cultural values of a particular society.

The constraints on the attainment of these socially based goals are influenced by two factors: cultural norms and institutionalised means. Hence, norms instruct people in the actions people may legitimately use in the pursuit of goals, and institutionalised means refers to the actual distribution of opportunities for achieving the cultural goals by legitimate means.

Goals and norms refer to cultural factors while institutionalised means 'brings in aspects of the social structure'. Merton argues that strain occurs as a result of the frustrations and injustices emerging from the interrelationship between cultural goals, cultural norms and the institutionalised opportunities available within the social structure.

Not everyone can become rich and successful, the American/British dream is not achievable by all, the opportunities for success are limited, and from this strain, disjunction occurs.

Thinking about this, it is fairly clear that cultures that promise a great deal to their members run a high risk of problems if these promises cannot be met. Add to this the individualistic nature of British and American culture and it becomes clear that failure can be understood as a painful personal experience.

The disjunction leads to a weakening of the commitment to culturally defined goals or norms - or both - and this is what Merton suggests creates anomie. So when individuals (or groups) discover, for example, that no matter how hard they work or try, they cannot achieve the levels of satisfaction or material wealth to which they have been taught to aspire, a deviant behaviour may be the result.

'It is only when a system of cultural values extols, virtually above all else, certain common success goals for the population at large, while the social structure rigorously restricts or completely closes access to approved routes of reaching these goals for a considerable part of the same population, that deviant behaviour ensues on a large scale.' (Merton, 1957)

Merton then sets out a typology of modes of adaptation in terms of conformity, or non-conformity, to cultural goals and institutionalised means:

1. Innovation - accepting cultural goals but employing illegitimate means, for example, property theft, cheats.

2. Ritualism - adherence to means whilst ignoring the goals, for example, bureaucratic adherence to routine - going through the motions.

3. Retreatism - withdrawal, opting out of socially defined desirable behaviour, for example, alcoholics, addicts.

4. Rebellion - not only a rejection of goals and means but a positive attempt to replace them with alternative values, for example, political revolutionaries, religious prophets.

Merton's analysis suggests that deviant behaviour is functional. First, for the individuals involved, since it enables them to adapt to the circumstances in which they find themselves. And second, for society as a whole - since modes of individual adaptation help to maintain the boundaries between acceptable and non-acceptable forms of behaviour.

Criticisms

1. Non-conformity, such as ritualism, is not really the same as deviance (indeed with ritualism you do the actions, but have the wrong thoughts - it's nearer blasphemy). It does not convey the same stigmatising quality as in the label 'deviant'.
2. The assumption of cultural consensus is implicit in the idea of cultural goals and ignores the possibility of sub-cultures and a pluralistic culture, where cultural goals might differ considerably.
3. It does not really provide a causal theory as to why some groups might adapt via rebellion and others by retreatism. Obviously, some form of socialised commitment and differential associations becomes crucial for influencing perceptions of the alternatives to conformity. It does not explain movement into deviant careers.
4. It does not take into account that just as legitimate means to success are limited, that so too are the illegitimate opportunities. Not everyone has equal access to criminal sub-cultures. An analysis of the opportunities for deviant activity is required.

However, Merton never claimed that his typology was a total theory of deviance and many of the criticisms of his work were picked up on and improvements attempted by subcultural theorists.

Deviance: Durkheim's contribution

Durkheim rejected the definition of crime, which would constitute the commonsense of any society, that crimes are acts that are harmful to society. He pointed to the enormous variations between societies in the acts, which have been regarded as criminal in order to rebutt the claim that conceptions of crime are rooted in the social evil represented by particular actions. The only attribute applicable to crimes in general is that they are socially proscribed and punished. He said:

'The only common characteristic of all crimes is that they consist... in acts universally disapproved of by members of each society... crime shocks sentiments, which, for a given social system, are found in all healthy consciences.'

So Durkheim is the forerunner, not only of positivist-functionalist theories of deviance, but also of labelling theory because it is clear that he regards societal reaction and labelling, not the intrinsic character of an act, but as the defining characteristic of what is seen as a criminal or deviant act.

We must not say that an action shocks the common conscience because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience.

Crime, argues Durkheim, is a universal feature of all societies. This is because crime serves a vital social function. Through the punishment of offenders, the moral boundaries of a community are clearly marked out, and attachment to them is reinforced. The purpose of punishment is not deterrence, rehabilitation nor retribution. Punishment strengthens social solidarity through the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the conforming population who witness the suffering of the offender.

Durkheim also argues that the elimination of crime is impossible, this is because there are, and always will be, differences between people. People will identify differences between themselves and others, no matter how small, and these differences will constitute a form of deviance. Humans then don't just identify differences, they also evaluate them: good/bad, normal/abnormal, natural/unnatural. He says:

'Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes properly so called, will there be unknown; but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offence does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such.'

Another argument put forward by Durkheim, is that crime can have a positively beneficial role in social evolution. Individuals, who anticipate necessary adjustments of social morality to changing conditions, may be stigmatised as criminals at first. Crime is the precondition and the proof of a society's capacity for flexibility in the face of essential change. He says:

'How many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality - a step toward what will be! According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal, and his condemnation was no more than just. However, his crime - namely the independence of his thought - rendered a service not only to humanity, but to his country.'

The conclusion of Durkheim's argument, is that contrary to the conventional view that crime is a social pathology that must be eradicated, it is a normal and inescapable phenomenon which can play a useful part in facilitating social progress. He says:

'Contrary to current ideas, the criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element... on the contrary, he plays a definite role in social life. Crime, for its part, must no longer be conceived as an evil that cannot be too much suppressed. There is no occasion for self-congratulation when the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level, for we may be certain that this apparent progress is associated with some social disorder.'

It does not follow from this, however, that crime is not something that should be disliked. There is nothing contradictory about disliking something that is inevitable, or even functional. For example, physical pain as an indicator of illness.

Durkheim argues that some crime is inevitable, but that in some societies, the crime rate may become pathological and as such, this indicates a society that is sick, which means that it is suffering from social disorganisation. Durkheim does not, however, provide any indication of what a 'normal' crime rate might be, or how it could be calculated.

There was a paradigm shift in criminology in the 1960s which can loosely be called labelling theory. Durkheim's work was influential because of his insight that crime depends on societal reaction, and his arguments about the normality of deviance. However, the dominant theoretical tendency in recent labelling theory has been a symbolic interactionist one, stressing the face-to-face encounters of potential deviants and control agents. This is sharply at odds with Durkheim's view that particular societies exert special pressure for higher rates of deviation.

Durkheim also ignores conflicts about morality within a society, which is the stock in trade of the labelling theorist. Equally important, Durkheim, while accepting the relative nature of crime, also seems to think that some acts seem constant, in terms of being defined as criminal, in all societies. That is, he recognises a minimum content of 'natural law'. Finally, Durkheim, while regarding a certain rate of crime as a normal inescapable feature of society, also was aware that particular societies might be in a pathological condition, which generates excessive deviance. This leads into the area of anomie and the work of Robert Merton.

A summary of Durkheim

'Durkheim's central achievement was to spell out the elements of social explanation at a time when political and ethical philosophy, the science of political economy and the positive schools were united under the banner of individualism... Durkheim urged a confrontation between sociologists, concerned with social facts, and those who would engage in individual reductionism.' (Taylor, Walton and Young)

1. Sociology, instead of concentrating on the individual, looks at society as a whole. Society is not seen as simply a collection of individuals, it has an existence of its own, it exists outside any one individual. It predates the individual and is a powerful force in moulding behaviour.

2. Crime/deviance is seen as a normal and regular social fact, therefore there must be some reason for its persistence.

'Let us make no mistake... crime... is a factor in public health, an integral part of all societies.' (Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method)

3. Crime can be functional in bringing about social change - when social norms are incompatible with the conditions of life. Yesterday's criminal is tomorrow's philosopher.

4. A high crime rate is an indication of a social system that has failed to adapt to change. Deviance acts as a warning device, indicating that an aspect of society is malfunctioning. Deviance may also act as a safety valve - a relatively harmless expression of discontent.

5. The function of punishment is to maintain collective sentiments, and reinforce collective beliefs, not to remove crime.

A healthy society requires both crime and punishment. Both are inevitable; both are functional.

Durkheim's typology of deviants

1. The biological deviant - due to genetic or psychological malfunctioning.

2. The functional rebel - functional because they indicate strains in the social system.

3. The skewed deviant - improperly socialised in a sick society. Two related sources:

• Anomie - lack of regulation and weakness of the collective conscience.
• Egoism - cult of the individual.

Both circumstances allow the appetites of the individual free reign. Individuals strive to achieve desires in a way that is incompatible with social order.

Thus, the links between society and deviance are:

Society:	Individual:
Normal division of labour deviants.	Conformists/Biological.
Pathological division of Labour.	Functional rebel/Skewed deviant/biological rebel.

Most standard treatments of Durkheim deal only with the skewed deviant (for example, Merton and the Subculture theorists). Clearly, this sort of deviant is seen as the result of an abnormal or pathological society and is capable of remedy through social reform.

Introduction

Introduction

In everyday language, 'to deviate' means 'to stray from an accepted path'. Most sociological definitions simply elaborate on this idea. Thus, deviance consists of those acts, which do not follow the norms and expectations of a particular group. Deviance may be positively sanctioned (rewarded), negatively sanctioned (punished), or simply accepted or tolerated.

A soldier on a battlefield, who risks his life beyond the call of duty, may be termed deviant, as may a scientist who breaks the rules of the discipline and develops a new theory. Their deviance may be positively sanctioned; the soldier might get a medal; the physicist the Nobel prize. In another sense, neither is deviant, since both conform to the values of their society, the soldier to the value of courage, the scientist to the value of academic progress.

By comparison, a murderer not only deviates from society's norms and expectations but also from its values - in this case, the value placed on human life. This deviance results in widespread disapproval and (if the murderer is caught) punishment. The third form of deviance consists of acts, which depart from the norms of a particular society, but are generally tolerated, for example, eccentrics and beggars. Also, in this group of deviants come those who depart from norms because they don't know they exist or have forgotten them, for example, children, or people with learning disabilities. Generally, this form of deviance is tolerated and seen as relatively harmless.

In practice, the study of deviance is usually limited to deviance that results in negative sanctions. In fact, the American sociologist, M. Clinard, has suggested that the term deviance should only be applied to behaviour that is disapproved of, and punished by a community.

It is vitally important to recognise that deviance is relative, the context in which behaviour occurs is crucial to how it will be evaluated. This means that there is not an absolute way of defining a deviant act. Deviance can only be defined in relation to a particular standard of behaviour, and no standards are fixed forever as absolutes. As such, deviance varies from time-to-time, place-to-place and person-to-person.

In one society, an act that is considered deviant today may be defined as normal in the future. Possible examples are polygamy, one-parent families, or the age of consent. An act defined as deviant in one society may be seen as perfectly normal in another. Deviance is culturally determined, and cultures differ both from each other and within the same culture over time. In the same way, definitions of crime change over time. Homosexuality was formerly a criminal offence in Britain, but since 1965, this is no longer the case. Homosexual practices have not changed but public reaction to them has.

Deviance then refers to those activities that do not conform to the norms and expectations of a particular group or society.

Understanding deviance

Non-sociological understanding of deviance tends to acknowledge the presence of something within the individual that compels, or, at least, orientates, them to commit certain acts. For example, up until the 1700s, the basic approach to deviance was to view it as a result of biological actions that affected particular individuals. Thus, people became deviant if they had an imbalance in bodily humours (blood, mucus, yellow bile, black bile).

Other theories, such as that of Lavater involved measuring heads. In the early 20th century, Lombroso argued that criminals had particular physical features.

The combination of biological features with psychological predispositions came in the mid 20th century; Kretschmer (1951), and Sheldon (1949). In more recent times, there has been an association between chromosomes and deviant behaviour (Price), Eysenck (1970) and the development of the idea of a genetic constitution, and Raboch and Sipova (1974) arguing the importance of hormones.

The very idea of the born criminal/deviant is a very strong part of our popular culture, and it has the enormous side benefit of directing blame at the deviant individual while excluding social factors.

It was not really until the 1950s that sociological explanations started to compete with biological or psychological explanations. Even then, these sociological approaches were similar to the existing theories, in that they were positivist - based on the modernist idea that it is possible and desirable to attain rational, and verifiable knowledge. The difference was, that for sociologists, the causes of deviant behaviour are found outside the individual. Such explanations then, as with much sociology, are a rejection of individualistic explanations of behaviour. This is the approach of social positivists.

As already noted, the challenge to non-sociological approaches to deviance began in about the middle of the 20th century. These were theories of the delinquent subculture. However, these theories were developments of earlier work, notably the work of Durkheim and Merton.

Introduction to Deviance

Introduction to Deviance - Sociology

Introduction

Deviance: Durkheim's contribution

Deviance: Robert Merton

Urban ecology and crime

Sub-Cultural approaches to deviance

Introduction to research methods

'Be a good craftsman; avoid any rigid set of procedures. Above all seek to develop and use the sociological imagination. Avoid fetishism of method and technique...Let every man be his own methodologist.'

(C.W. Mills)

Subject matter and choice of method

Clearly method has, to some extent, to be tailored to the requirements and constraints of the research. For example, a sociologist examining important changes over time is forced to use whatever historical material that could be of use. Indeed, it should be emphasized that there is no such thing as a bad method, but there is certainly the inappropriate use of particular methods. Methods should not be forced into uses for which they were not designed or intended.

The more general a statement the sociologists wish to make the more he/she will be forced into using a large sample, or statistics gathered from a large group. Data is then more likely to be collected and presented in a more structured way. If however the attempt to understand the meaning attached to situations by the participants is the chief concern there will be more informal methods used and the sample will be smaller.

Additionally:

• Should you collect data yourself, or use existing data?
• Should you try to experience the phenomenon under investigation directly, or use oral or written accounts from actors concerned?
• To what extent should you structure the situation under investigation, both by your own contribution to it or in the possible responses of your subjects?

Examples

1. Research that relies on other peoples' evidence. The Documentary method (census).

2. Research, which seeks answers to particular questions from fairly large groups of people with fairly short, often very short, periods of contact. The survey method (for example, The symmetrical family).

3. Research which involves the sociologists working very closely among those s/he studies, often for quite long periods of time. This is the observation method. Sometimes the researcher participates in the lives of those observed. This then becomes Participant observation (for example, the Glasgow Gang).

4. Research which involves carefully chosen groups of people who are placed in different situations to see what happens. The experimental method (for example, the Hawthorne Experiment).

Whatever the approach, the following qualifications apply:

1. Good sociology is based on good (reliable/valid) evidence.
2. We need to be able to distinguish between good and bad evidence (evaluation).
3. Differences of opinion (argument) should be based on evidence.
4. Evidence has to be collected, this requires empirical research and can involve a variety of methods.

Key concepts in research

The following concepts, if correctly identified and used, are virtually guaranteed to get you several marks in any question concerning methods:

Reliability: Could anybody, using the same method, come up with the same results? Some methods are seen as unreliable (less objective, more subjective).

Validity: Does the material give a true picture? Beliefs and actions (saying and doing) are not always consistent. For example, in surveys, peoples' answers are answers to specific questions, but what if the questions are misunderstood, or ask relatively unimportant questions? Similarly, in a lab experiment how can we be sure that the behaviour identified is typical?

Representativeness: Is the situation typical? If so, generalisations are possible.

Methods of data collection

	Directly collected:	Oral:	Verbal:
Pre-collected:	Official statistics	Radio	Official
		T.V.	Diaries
			Letters
			Newspapers
Collected by researcher:	Participant observation	Talks	Diaries kept for researcher
	Systematic observation	Open-ended interviews	Open-ended questionnaires
	Experiments	Pre-coded structured interviews questionnaires

Scientific sociologists will tend to favour more structured situations for data collection and prefer written and oral responses that are more controllable. They will favour the bottom right of the diagram. Sociologists using an action framework will tend to stress more informal methods of data collection, the top left of the diagram - concerned with data collected by the researcher.

We can also relate the type of method likely to be involved in research by asking two questions:

How many people are being investigated?

How much personal involvement from the researcher is required?

These two points work against each other, for example, the more people involved in research the less likely it is that a researcher can know each person well.

1. Numbers involved
2. Many
3. Social surveys
4. Structured interviews
5. Unstructured interviews
6. Observation
7. Participant observation
8. Few
9. Low High
10. Personal involvement of researcher

Source: Worsley (1977:89)

What is research for?

Some research aims only to describe, some want to explain. Be wary, however, this is a very blurred distinction since explanation requires description, and description is, in itself, explanation. Try for yourself to make a distinction between describing a door and explaining a door!

Some research is called action research. This is usually undertaken to monitor some reform, or policy change, once it has been introduced. This is done to see if the hoped for results have in fact been achieved. For example, The Plowden Report 1967 recommended positive discrimination in primary schools. Educational Priority Areas were set up which received extra funding, and they were monitored.

Choice of topic

There are innumerable reasons for doing research, some less noble than others. Here are some of the main reasons:

1. The interests and values of the researcher - for example, Townsend (Poverty, 1957-79).
2. Current debates - for example, Goldthorpe (embourgeoisement 1969) Gavron (feminist research 1966).
3. Attracting funding. Generally, it is easier to get funding for explanatory (policy research) than for pure academic research, and easier for statistical than for qualitative research.
4. Access. Some groups can resist intrusion into their affairs, hence, we know more about the poor than we do about the rich.
5. To get academic acclamation and a rise in status.

Finally, a caution! Written research has generally had, certainly until fairly recently, all the messy bits taken out. Research is rarely as straightforward and unproblematic as the final report makes it seem.

Practical issues

Quite apart from theoretical considerations, there are practical issues that can affect the method of research chosen. Among the more important of these are time; labour; money; topic; access.