Sociologists relatedeviance to the destruction of rules and norms. In relation to the sociological perspective, deviance is relative. Therefore, definitions of what accounts to be deviant fluctuate between societies and groups in the society. According to the society, deviance can be equated to cheating, dishonesty, corruption, unfairness, immorality among other bad behaviors. It is worth noting that sociologists have instituted a field of study that enables them capture a common meaning. This paper will utilize two sociologists, Goffman and Becker’s studies as a way to illustrate deviance and its relationship to crime.

Howard Becker interprets deviance not asan act, but how people react to the act that labels it as deviant. In most cases, individuals need not do a certain thing for them to be tagged as deviant. He asserts that, this might be falsely accused or discredited as a result of birth defects, diseases, or race. Therefore, crime ought to be relative in instances where interpretation of the deviant character is necessitated (Pearce 1976, p.46). Because deviance is grounded on the violation and adherence of norms, norms ought to exist within human groups. As a result, it makes social life possible through predicting behavior. This translates to the development of means that aid in the control of social norms. The violators of these norms are then labeled as being deviant.

When Becker studied norm violation, he found out that it is usually divided into individual norm violations and norm-violation rates. The latter defines norm violations highlighted for social-political units such as countries and cities or states(Akers 1998, p.102). It is usually quantified as a numerical value of violations per one thousand people in a society. This translates to the definition of ‘the rate’, consequences attached to low or high norm-violation rates, and the reason behind the differing rates between countries, states or cities. Under individual norm violations, questions regarding the norm violators, characteristics of the violators, degree of violation and whether some people are repeat violators and others just one time violators are usually asked (Liska& Messner 1999, p. 73). This forces students to differentiate between deviance, criminology, social problems and mental illness. Conferring Goffman, crime is a behavior that violates a specific law of a given state or country. Social problems are conditions experienced by the public under which the government or private agencies evaluate as a negative force hence wish to change. Mental illness is defined by psychoanalysts as abnormalities of emotions that result into irrational decision making. It is important to state that norm violations are law violations as a result of psychological abnormality or social problems.

Sociologists have invested their time into the study of deviance in relation to the society since 1960s. According to Becker(1963), a deviant person is a person whom the label has effectively been applied on. Furthermore, he states that a deviant behavior is one that is labeled by people as deviant. The sociological definition of deviance revolves around questions that label the deviant and the person that is labeled as deviant. A person labeled as deviant is interpreted through the study of emerging and developing social norms that are useful in describing norm violators and violation. The labeling of deviant, on the other hand, studies how specific labels are utilized in cases and situations. A close relationship is said to exist between deviance and ethics according to Becker. The sociology of deviance and ethics can be equated to the relationship that exists between sociology and philosophy. This aids in the study where social norms are noted to emerge.

Different theories exist to explain the levels of deviance(Akers 1998, p.38). These are grouped into biological theories, psychological theories and social theories. Biological theories are noted to ignore the study of deviance in relation to the society. As a result, it focuses on norm violations, assuming that norm violations are caused by biological structures and processes. Biological Theories of deviance, according to Goffman, are said to be psychopharmacology theory, genetics theory and autonomic theory. These theories aid to highlight the latest developments in the field of biology hence aim to explain deviance (Lawson & Heaton 1999, p. 65). Consequentially, the specific biological condition causes specific physical conditions or that result into unwilling norm violations. Like biological theories, psychological theories are also noted to give a cold shoulder to sociological definition of deviance. This theory, the psychological theory, relies on individual psych processes and characters to explain norm violations. As a result, it places special prominence on past experiences to explain deviance.

It is worth highlighting that personality theories (subtypes of psychological theories) place great emphasis on general psychic characteristics, with assumptions that behavior is affected as a result of different social situations. Personality theories are in two distinct types. The first aims to explain norm violation as a result of characteristics that are termed to be normal but also cause conventional behavior. For instance, the manifestation of aggressive behavior is usually tagged with homicide. Additionally, a dependency personally is usually tagged with alcoholism (Flowers 2003, p. 91). Low developments in linking of deviance to crime exist developed since the beginning of the 20^th century by Goffman (1963) and Becker (1963). It is worth noting that personality theories are criticized for placing emphasis on rare and abnormal personalities so as to explain norm violations.

Social theories place emphasis on social processes and structures with the aim of explaining deviance as a form of norm violation. The theories that focus solely on the violation of norms are divided into those that place emphasis on structure and those that place emphasis on process. An example of a structural theory is Merton’s theory of anomie and Durkheim’s theory of suicide. Processual theories, like Becker’s(1963) theory of habitual marijuana use, utilize stage sequences to explain how the violation develops. This is because Becker’s theory examines the specific stages and consequences that follow a person until they become habitual users of marijuana.

Contrasting psychological and biological theories, social theories are noted to examine deviance in terms of norm violation coupled with its social definition at both the micro and macro levels. The structural perspective assumes that elevated levels of social consensus exist. Moreover, integration on value and goals is seen with social structure functions that aid in the implementation of society’s values and goals (Pearce 1976, p.145). This functions as a supporting ground for Merton, Durkheim and Eriksson to base their ideas coupled with theories about deviance. Conferring Goffman, urbanization causes the society to develop a weak collective conscience that results into a weaken control over the society. This translates into higher levels of deregulation hence suicide rates sky-rocket. Under Merton, discrepancy causes stress to individuals who react to the stress by causing deviance. Merton adapts several resolutions as a result of the deviance. These are ritualism, rebellion, conformity, innovation, and retreatism. It is worth stating that each of the resolutions is an adaptation to a high ends-means to discrepancy (Holdaway 1998, p. 21).

Symbolic interactionists’ interpretation of deviance utilizes three theories, the control theory, the differential association theory and the labeling theory. Becker notes that functionalists believe that for a society to function effectively, deviance ought to exist. This is because it will contribute to social order through the clarification of moral boundaries, through the initiation of social change and through the promotion of social unity (Newbold 1992, p. 86). According to the strain theory; it is correct to state that people who fail to achieve aimed social status and goals through legal means end up experiencing differing forms of strain. This can direct to the advancement of dangerous criminal behavior with the aim of fulfilling the social goals and status.

Power is noted to play a vital role in the definition and punishment of deviance according to conflict theorists such as Goffman. The government that is in power clearly states definitions of deviance on its subjects and uses specific laws and laid down criminal justice systems to maintain privilege over groups that cause deviance. In the United States, reactions to deviance range from soft sanctionsto capital punishments. The United States adopted a ‘get tough’ policy since the 1980s that has helped the government to imprison millions of people because of the crimes they committed. Given that crime statistics exists produced in a specified political and social context, caution ought to be taken when interpreting the statistics (Akers 1998, p. 37). Power stands as the backbone through which behaviors can be defined as crime according to Goffman. Moreover, it clearly lays down the procedure through which criminal behaviors ought to be prosecuted. Forillustration, the media gives unlimited attention to street crime in the United States through white collar crimes dig deep into American taxpayers.

Goffman (1963) notes that growing tendency follows medicalization of deviance since the beginning of the twentieth century. This causes the society to view deviance as cases of mental illnesses (including crime). A perspective offered by Thomas Szasz claims that mental illness is neither an illness nor mental. Rather, they are consequences of people’s specific experiences in life hence cause such behaviors. Since deviance is inevitable, people ought to develop ways that they can use to protect themselves from these forms of deviance. As a result, this will reduce cases of deviance that result into individual harm or to others, tolerating un-harmful deviant behaviors, and the development of systems that could offer fair treatment for deviants. This can be controlled through the deterrence theory (Newman 1980, p. 91-95).

As a tool for social control, Becker states that the deterrence theory puts into assumption people that are often motivated to go against social norms. However, special laid social controls usually constrain such persons from violating the norms. This theory puts special emphasis on punishment to be a means that can result into social control, hence ignoring inner control (Holdaway 1998, p. 17). Consequentially, it places unlimited focus on law violation other than norm violation as a whole. This theory, according to Becker, assumes that the society is rational hence result into the occurrence of law violations. Therefore, it takes into assumption high cost of crime cause a parallel reduction in the levels of crime. In addition, because punishment is a consequence of crime, the higher the level one is punished, the lower the levels of crime.

General and specific deterrence processes exist when we relate to Goffman. General is a process under which the punishment of the law violators aids in highlighting the cost of crime to the unpunished. This translates the level and number of law violators. Specific, on the other hand, is a process by which punishment causes a decline in the number of law violators (Gregoriou 1978, p. 64). As a result, different states have different descriptions of punishments. The general and most described are in terms of celerity, severity, and certainty. Celerity refers to how swiftly a punishment is awarded, the interval of time that is pegged between committing a law violation and experiencing the punishment (Rankin & Wells 2011, p. 43). Severity translates to the degree or harshness that is pegged to a punishment. For instance, the amount of fine that one has to pay as a result of committing crime or the time that is attached to a sentence once the law violator is charged as guilty. Certainty of punishment refers to how certain that the pegged punishment is going to be awarded to the law violator.

The labeling theory exists as the traditional non-norm approach that is tagged onto deviance. It assumes that consensus and normative stability amount to a reference point onto which one can judge whether a behavior is deviant or non-deviant. In the 1960s, Goffman raised questions in regards to the assumptions of normative consensus pegged with its stability. This resulted into increased doubts in regards to the feasibility of theoretical perspectives built onto such assumptions (Lawson & Heaton 1999, p. 76). As an alternative, they put special emphasis on the budding, conflicting and varying character pegged onto social norms resulting into a reconceptualization of the main matter in relation to deviance. Becker, on the other hand, emphasizes when a person is labeled as deviant, the definition operates like a social status. In addition, the process by which labeling is noted to produce systematic deviance is analogous to that which underlines a conservative career.

From the above discussion, it is correct to state that Becker and Goffman contributed immensely to what is currently known as deviance. This is from the mid-eightieth century when they began to specifically contribute to the studies. They came up with different forms of theories so as to help explain deviance. This has resulted into proper understanding and appreciation of the term. Moreover, other sociological researchers partners with Becker and Goffman to facilitate and enhance this field. It is, therefore, appropriate if all are appreciated for their involvement into what is known as deviance and crime today.

References

Akers, L. R., 1998. Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance.   Boston : Northeastern University Press.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders; studies in the sociology of deviance. London, Free Press of Glencoe.

Flowers, R. B., 2003. Male crime and deviance: Exploring its causes, dynamics, and nature.Springfield:

Charles Thomas Publisher LTD.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma; notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,        N.J., Prentice-Hall.

Gregoriou, C., 1978. Constructing crime: discourse and cultural representations of crime and        deviance. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.

Holdaway, S., 1998. Crime and deviance. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers.

Lawson, T. & Heaton, T., 1999. Crime and deviance. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers.

Liska, A. E. & Messner, S. F., 1999. Perspectives on crime and deviance. Upper Saddle River,     N.J., Prentice Hall.

Newbold, G, 1992. Crime and deviance. Auckland; New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Newman, R. G., 1980. Crime and deviance: a comparative perspective. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Pearce, F., 1976. Crimes of the powerful: Marxism, crime, and deviance. London, Pluto     Press.

Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E., 2011. Social control and self-control theories of crime and    deviance. Surrey, UK, Ashgate Pub.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW