Crime and Deviance – Sociology

Introduction

• Deviance in everyday terms means straying from an accepted path; sociologically, it refers to actions that do not follow the norms and expectations of a social group

• Deviance can be treated in three main ways:

  • positively sanctioned (rewarded),

  • negatively sanctioned (punished),

  • or simply tolerated without reward or punishment

• Some acts may appear deviant because they go beyond normal expectations but still align with core values of society:

  • soldiers risking lives beyond duty and physicists creating new theories break norms yet uphold values like courage and progress

  • such deviance is often rewarded (e.g., medals, prizes), so they are not fully deviant in a moral sense

• True deviance occurs when actions violate both norms and values, such as murder, which goes against the value of human life and leads to strong disapproval and punishment

• A third type includes behaviors that deviate from norms but are socially accepted or tolerated:

  • e.g., eccentric habits like excessive pet keeping or unusual collections

  • these are seen as harmless, neither rewarded nor punished, and people are labeled as “odd” but acceptable

The Sociological Study of Deviance

• The sociology of deviance mainly focuses in practice on behaviours that attract negative sanctions, i.e., actions strongly disapproved and punished by society

• Marshall B. Clinard suggested deviance should be limited to behaviour so disapproved that society cannot tolerate it, and though debated, this reflects most sociological studies

• Under this view, crime and delinquency are key forms of deviance:

  • crime (offending) = actions breaking the law and leading to official punishment

  • delinquency = criminal acts committed by young people

• The concept of anti-social behaviour includes non-criminal but disturbing actions (often by youth), such as graffiti or causing public nuisance, without necessarily involving violence or theft

• Sociologists who study crime and deviance are known as criminologists

• Not all deviant acts are criminal: behaviours like alcoholism or attempted suicide may be disapproved but not illegal

• Conversely, some criminal acts are not seen as deviant due to outdated or unenforced laws, showing a gap between law and social attitudes (e.g., unusual old laws in Britain that people no longer take seriously)

The Definition of Deviance

• Deviance is relative, meaning there is no absolute definition; it can only be understood in relation to specific standards, which are not fixed and change across time and place

• What is considered deviant in one period or society may be seen as normal in another, showing that deviance is culturally determined and dynamic

• Example of change over time: behaviours like women smoking, wearing makeup, or drinking in public were once deviant in Western societies but are now accepted; similarly, laws and norms around homosexuality in Britain changed over time, reflecting shifting social values

• Differences across societies highlight relativity of deviance:

  • among the Teton Sioux, practices like body mutilation during the Sun Dance were normal and religiously valued, whereas such acts in Western society might be labeled as madness or deviance

• Conversely, behaviours normal in Western culture (e.g., private property ownership, wealth accumulation, pursuit of power and prestige) would be seen as deviant in Sioux society

• Sioux norms emphasized collective ownership, sharing of resources, and generosity rather than accumulation:

  • no concept of individual land ownership

  • wealth was distributed, not hoarded

  • leaders gained prestige by giving away goods like horses and weapons rather than accumulating them

Deviance – A Functionalist Perspective

The Functions of Deviance

• A functionalist view explains deviance by looking at society as a whole, seeing its causes in social structure rather than individual behavior

• Although deviance breaks norms and values, functionalists argue it is necessary and functional for society; however, social control mechanisms (police, courts) are still essential to regulate it and maintain order

• Émile Durkheim argued that crime is inevitable, normal, and universal, present in all societies because individuals differ in experiences and cannot all share the same level of commitment to collective sentiments (shared moral values)

• Even in a hypothetical “society of saints,” deviance would still exist, as very high standards would make even minor faults appear deviant

• Crime is functional and only becomes harmful when its level is too high or too low; a certain level is necessary for a healthy society

• Deviance is a source of social change:

  • new ideas often begin as deviant and later become accepted norms

  • too strong collective sentiments suppress originality, preventing progress

• Durkheim emphasized that society must allow space for both the “criminal” and the “genius,” as both contribute to development and change

• Examples of individuals once seen as deviant but later respected include:

  • Jesus Christ, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, and Nelson Mandela

  • Mandela, once labeled a terrorist during apartheid, later became a respected president and Nobel Prize winner, showing how deviance can anticipate future morality

• Punishment does not eliminate crime but reinforces collective sentiments, maintaining social order by reminding people of shared values

• A healthy society requires both crime and punishment, as both are inevitable and functional; however, very high crime rates indicate a breakdown of social cohesion

• This idea of imbalance and strain in society was later developed further by Robert K. Merton

Robert K. Merton – Social Structure and Anomie

• Robert K. Merton argued that deviance arises from the social structure and culture of society rather than individual failure

• He accepted the functionalist idea of value consensus, meaning all members of society share common goals and values

• However, individuals occupy different positions in the social structure (e.g., class differences), so they have unequal opportunities to achieve these shared values

• This mismatch between shared goals and unequal means creates pressure (strain) on individuals

• As a result, people may turn to deviant behaviour when legitimate ways of achieving success are blocked

• Thus, deviance is not random but is produced by inequalities within society itself

Cultural goals and institutionalised means:

• Robert K. Merton explained deviance using the example of American society, where people share common cultural goals, especially success, often measured by wealth and material possessions

• The idea of the American Dream promotes equal opportunity for all to achieve success through accepted means like education, hard work, talent, ambition, and determination

• In a stable society, there is a balance between cultural goals (success) and institutionalised means (legitimate ways to achieve it), leading to general satisfaction

• However, in the USA there is an overemphasis on success and comparatively less importance on legitimate means, creating an imbalanced society

• This imbalance leads some individuals to reject the “rules of the game” and pursue success by any means, including illegitimate ones

• When norms lose control over behaviour, a state of anomie (normlessness) arises, where “anything goes” and deviance increases

• In Merton’s theory, anomie is caused by strong pressure to achieve success without equal access to legitimate means, resulting in a breakdown of norms

• Example: Al Capone achieved wealth through organised crime, illustrating deviance as an alternative route to success

• Individuals respond differently to anomie depending on their position in the social structure, meaning social inequality shapes how people adapt to strain

Responses to cultural goals:

• Robert K. Merton explains five modes of adaptation to success goals and institutional means in society, showing how anomie leads to deviance

• Conformity is the most common response where individuals accept both cultural goals (success, wealth) and legitimate means (education, jobs), striving through socially approved paths

• Innovation involves accepting success goals but rejecting normative means, leading to deviant methods like crime; more common among lower social strata due to limited opportunities, low qualifications, and blocked mobility, creating pressure to seek alternative (often illegal) routes; however, deviance arises not just from class but from shared societal emphasis on success combined with unequal access

• Ritualism occurs when individuals abandon success goals but continue to follow institutional means rigidly; typical of the lower middle class, who are highly socialised into norms but lack real success opportunities, resulting in rule-following, routine-driven lives without ambition, making them deviant for rejecting widely accepted goals

• Retreatism is the least common response where individuals reject both goals and means, often seen in socially withdrawn groups (e.g., addicts, outcasts); they internalize goals but fail to achieve them, leading to complete withdrawal from society and double deviance

• Rebellion rejects existing goals and means and replaces them with new ones, aiming to transform society; typically led by members of a rising class rather than the most deprived, who organize collective resistance or revolutionary change

• overall, Merton argues that strong emphasis on financial success and status in society, combined with unequal access to legitimate means, produces anomie, creating structural pressure for deviance that varies by social class position

Evaluation of Merton:

• Robert K. Merton is criticised for ignoring power relationships, with Laurie Taylor arguing he fails to examine who makes laws and who benefits, suggesting society may be structured to favour the powerful

• criticism that Merton assumes value consensus (shared success goals) and explains deviance mainly through structural strain, but cannot explain why many individuals facing anomie do not turn to crime

• theory is said to overestimate working-class crime and underestimate middle-class/white-collar crime, overlooking deviance among more privileged groups

• Taylor, Walton and Young argue Merton cannot explain political or ideological crime (e.g., freedom fighters), where law-breaking is driven by commitment rather than strain

• defenders like Robert Reiner note Merton did recognise that not everyone shares the American Dream, but its influence is strong enough in lower strata to explain patterns of deviance

• Reiner also highlights that Merton acknowledged white-collar crime and bias in official statistics (over-recording street crime), explaining elite deviance by the absence of limits on success (continuous desire for more wealth)

• however, Reiner still supports the idea that working-class crime is higher due to greater pressure from blocked legitimate opportunities, and argues Merton’s theory can be adapted to include cases like political rebellion

• subculture theorists critique Merton but largely aim to refine and extend his theory rather than reject it completely

• Hannon and DeFronzo provide empirical support, showing areas with higher welfare provision had lower crime, as better opportunities reduce anomie and deviance

• despite criticisms, Merton’s theory remains influential, with Joachim J. Savelsberg using strain theory to explain sharp crime increases in post-communist societies (e.g., Poland after 1989 transition)

• While Merton’s theory is a strong structural explanation of crime, it is not comprehensive, and later sociologists have modified and expanded it to better explain crime and delinquency.