Chapter 2 and 3
&#x2766;F O U R T E E N T H E D I T I O N
SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANT

BEHAVIOR

MARSHALL B. CLINARD
Emeritus, University of Wisconsin

ROBERT F. …
https://www.sweetstudy.com/favicon.ico
❦F O U R T E E N T H E D I T I O N SOCIOLOGY OF DEVIANT

BEHAVIOR

MARSHALL B. CLINARD Emeritus, University of Wisconsin

ROBERT F. MEIER University of Nebraska at Omaha

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

Sociology of Deviant Behavior, Fourteenth Edition Marshall B. Clinard and Robert F. Meier

Acquiring Sponsoring Editor: Erin Mitchell

Assistant Editor: John Chell

Editorial Assistant: Pamela Simon

Associate Media Editor: Melanie Cregger

Marketing Manager: Andrew Keay

Marketing Coordinator: Jillian Myers

Marketing Communications Manager: Laura Localio

Content Project Management: Pre-PressPMG

Creative Director: Rob Hugel

Executive Art Director: Maria Epes

Senior Manufacturing Buyer: Rebecca Cross

Rights Acquisitions Account Manager, Text: Roberta Broyer

Rights Acquisitions Account Manager, Image: Leitha Etheridge-Sims

Production Service: Pre-PressPMG

Copy Editor: Mark Mayell

Cover Designer: Riezebos Holzbaur/ Tim Heraldo

Cover Image: Carl Pendle/Photonica/ Getty Images

Compositor: Pre-PressPMG

© 2011, 2008 Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance, contact us at: Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support 1-800-354-9706

For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions

Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to [email protected].

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010921116

Student Edition:

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-81167-1

ISBN-10: 0-495-81167-X

Wadsworth Cengage Learning 20 Davis Drive Belmont, CA 94002-3098 USA

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at: www.cengage.com/global.

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.

To learn more about Wadsworth, visit www.cengage.com/wadsworth

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred online store www.CengageBrain.com

Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10

To my children, from whom I have learned a great deal Marsha Stephen Lawrence

Marshall B. Clinard

To Peter—You were with us only the briefest time but you made a huge impact on our hearts. Thank you, little man, for teaching me a

new way to love. Robert F. Meier

❦B R I E F C O N T E N T S PREFACE xvi

P A R T O N E Introduction to Deviance 1 1 The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 3 2 Deviant Events and Social Control 26

P A R T T W O Explaining Deviance 45 3 Becoming Deviant 47 4 Major Theories of Deviance 74

P A R T T H R E E Deviance and Crime 109 5 Crimes of Interpersonal Violence 111 6 Nonviolent Crime 147 7 White-Collar and Corporate Crime 171

P A R T F O U R Types of Deviance 207 8 Drug Use and Addiction 209 9 Drunkenness and Alcoholism 259

10 Suicide 301 11 Heterosexual Deviance 339

P A R T F I V E Studies in Stigma 379 12 Gays, Lesbians, and Homophobia 381 13 Physical Disabilities 433 14 Mental Disorders 462

P A R T S I X Looking Ahead 503 15 Recent Forms of Deviance 505 REFERENCES 513 NAME INDEX 568 SUBJECT INDEX 577

– iv –

❦C O N T E N T S

PREFACE xvi

P A R T O N E Introduction to Deviance 1

1 The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 3 What Is Deviance? 6

Normative and Reactivist Definitions 6

Alternative Definitions 7

Deviance and Society 9 Norms 10

Differentiation and Deviance 12

Subcultures 14

The Relativity of Deviance 16

Creating Deviance 19

Determining Norms and the Content of Deviance 22

Two Final Observations 23

Summary 24 Key Terms 25

2 Deviant Events and Social Control 26 Deviant Events 27

Deviant Roles 27

Deviant Places 28

The Deviant Act Over Time 29

Deviant Acts and Victims 30

Social Control 31 Processes of Social Control 31

Informal Social Controls 32

Formal Social Controls 34

– v –

Law as an Example of Formal Control 37 What Kinds of Problems Can the Law Solve? 38

Legal Sanctions 40

The Irony of Social Control 41

Summary 43 Key Terms 44

P A R T T W O Explaining Deviance 45

3 Becoming Deviant 47 Socialization and Social Roles 48

Socialization as Role Taking 50

Deviant Role Taking 51

Seeing the Deviant’s Perspective 54 Understanding Deviant Worlds 55

Managing Deviance 57

Individualistic Theories of Deviance 60 Biological Explanations of Deviance 61

Psychiatric Model of Deviance 64

Psychoanalytic Explanations of Deviance 65

Evaluating the Psychiatric and Psychoanalytic Perspectives 66

Psychological Explanations of Deviance 67

Rational Choice Theories 70

Summary 72 Key Terms 73

4 Major Theories of Deviance 74 Anomie Theory 75

Adapting to Strain 76

Extensions of the Anomie Perspective 77

Evaluating Anomie Theory 78

Conflict Theories 81 Deviance and Marxism 81

Other Conflict Theorists 82

Social Threat 83

Left Realism 84

Evaluating the Conflict Model 85

Labeling Theory 88 Deviance as Reaction 89

Labels That Create Types of Deviants 89

vi Contents

The Power to Label 90

Evaluating Labeling Theory 91

Control Theory 95 Assumptions and Structure of Control Theory 96

Crime and Low Self-Control 97

Evaluating Control Theory 98

Learning or Socialization Theory 101 Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association 101

Differential Association–Reinforcement Theory 103

Evaluating Learning Theory 103

Summary 106 Key Terms 108

P A R T T H R E E Deviance and Crime 109

5 Crimes of Interpersonal Violence 111 Crime as Deviance 112

Types of Crimes 112

Types of Criminals 113

Assault and Murder 115 Frequency of Assault and Homicide 115

Group Variations in Homicide 117

Interaction Between Offender and Victim 120

Understanding and Explaining Violence 121

The Development of Dangerous Violent Offenders 124

Domestic Violence 125 Child Abuse 125

Intimate Partner Violence 130

Elder Abuse 133

Forcible Rape 134 Patterns of Forcible Rape 134

Date Rape 136

Male and Prison Rape 137

The Political Context of Rape 138

Rape Reporting 139

Legal Reforms for Rape Cases 140

Theories of Rape 142

Society’s Reaction to Crimes of Personal Violence 143 Reactions to Murder 143

Reactions to Assault 144

Reactions to Rape 145

Contents vii

Summary 145 Key Terms 146

6 Nonviolent Crime 147 Occasional Property Offenders 148

Auto Theft 149

Check Forgeries 149

Shoplifting and Employee Theft 150

Vandalism 151

Society’s Reaction to Occasional Offenders 152

Conventional Criminal Careers 152 Self-Conception of Conventional Offenders 154

Society’s Reaction to Conventional Offenders 155

Political Criminal Offenders 156 Crimes Against Governments 156

Crimes by Governments 158

Society’s Reaction to Political Offenders 159

Organized Crime and Criminals 160 Organized Criminals 162

Organized Criminal Activities 162

Society’s Reaction to Organized Crime 165

Professional Offenders 166 Skill 166

Status 168

Criminal Associations 168

Organization 168

Society’s Reaction to Professional Crime 169

Summary 169 Key Terms 170

7 White-Collar and Corporate Crime 171 The Example of Computer Crime 173

A Brief History 175

Defining White-Collar Crime 177 Initial Definitions 177

White-Collar Crime and Criminal Events 178

Corporate Criminal Behavior 182 The Turbulent 21st Century 183

Nature and Types of Corporate Violations 186

Professional White-Collar Crime and Deviance 192

viii Contents

Characteristics of White-Collar Offenders 194 Sophistication 194

Planning 194

Self-Concept 195

Criminal Careers of White-Collar Offenders 195

Explaining White-Collar Crime 196

Costs of White-Collar and Corporate Crime 198 Financial Harm 198

Physical Harm 199

Social Costs or Damage to the Moral Climate 200

Explaining Corporate Criminal Behavior 201

Controlling White-Collar and Corporate Crime 203 Public Education 203

Increasing Ethical Behavior in the Workplace 204

Legislative Reforms 204

The Use of Publicity 205

Summary 206 Key Terms 206

P A R T F O U R Types of Deviance 207

8 Drug Use and Addiction 209 Drug Taking as Deviance 211

Social Attitudes About Drugs 213

Public Policy and the War on Drugs 216

Legal Drug Use 217

Types of Illegal Drugs 220

Marijuana Use 224 Extent of Marijuana Use 224

Using Marijuana and Group Support 226

Marijuana and Heroin 227

Opiate Use and Addiction 227 The Meaning of Addiction 227

Patterns of Heroin Use 229

Number of Heroin Users 230

Who Uses Heroin? 231

Becoming an Opiate Addict 232 The Process of Addiction 234

Theories of Addiction 236

The Addict Subculture 237

Contents ix

Cocaine Use 239 The Cocaine Highway 239

Extent of Cocaine Use 241

Methods of Use 242

Consequences of Use 243

Society’s Response to Drug Use and Addiction 244 Applying Criminal Sanctions 245

Treatment 249

Addict Self-Help Programs 253

Prevention of Drug Use 255 Media Messages 256

Drug-Education Programs 256

Summary 257 Key Terms 258

9 Drunkenness and Alcoholism 259 Physiological and Behavioral Aspects of Alcohol 260

Physiological Dimensions 261

Other Health-Related Effects 261

Psychological Effects 262

Prevalence of Drinking in the United States 262

Types of Drinkers 263

Drinking as a Social and Group Activity 266 Variations in Drinking Behavior 267

Public Drinking Houses 269

Ethnic Differences in Excessive Drinking 270

Alcoholism and Problem Drinking 275 The Extent of Alcoholism and Problem Drinking 275

The Costs of Alcoholism 276

Alcohol-Related Crime 278

Drunk Driving 279

Group and Subcultural Influences on Excessive Drinking 281

Gender Differences in Excessive Drinking 283

Companions and Excessive Drinking 284

Drinking Among the Homeless and on Skid Row 284

Occupation and Excessive Drinking 285

Religious Differences in Excessive Drinking 286

x Contents

Society’s Response to Alcohol Use and Alcoholism 287 Strategies of Social Control 287

Models of Alcoholism 289

Public Policy and Public Drunkenness and Alcoholism 292 Community-Based Treatment Programs 292

Alcoholics Anonymous 294

The Continuing Controversy: Can “Recovering” Alcoholics Ever Return to Drinking? 297

Summary 299 Key Terms 300

10 Suicide 301 Suicidal Behavior 302

Historical Background 303 Public Attitudes Toward Suicide 305

Attempted Suicide 306

Extent of Suicide 306 Variations in Suicide by Country 309

Social Differentials in Suicide Rates 310

Types of Suicide 317 Altruistic Suicide 318

Egoistic Suicide 319

Anomic Suicide 319

Honor or “Virgin Suicides” 320

Adolescent Suicide 320

Sociological Theories of Suicide 322 Social and Religious Integration 322

Status Integration 323

Status Frustration 323

Community Migration 324

Socialization for Suicide 324

The Suicide Process 327

Social Meanings of Suicide 329 The Purpose of Suicide 329

Suicide, Mental Disorders, and Hopelessness 331

Preventing Suicide 333 Suicide Prevention Centers 333

Effectiveness of Suicide Prevention Centers 334

Physician-Assisted Suicide 336

Summary 337 Key Terms 338

Contents xi

11 Heterosexual Deviance 339 Sexual Norms 340

Deviating from Sexual Norms 341

Social Change and Sexual Behavior 342

Selected Forms of Heterosexual Deviance 345

Extramarital Sex (Adultery) 346

Sex and the Computer 347

Sex Work and Prostitution 350 Nature and Extent 352

International Dimensions of Sex Work 354

Types of Prostitutes 356

Prostitution and Deviant Street Networks 358

Becoming a Prostitute 359

Prostitution as a Career 362

Self-Concept 363

Prostitution and AIDS 365

Prostitution and Social Control 366

Pornography 368 Social Regulation of Pornography 370

Pornography in Everyday Life 372

The Effects of Pornography 373

Summary 376 Key Terms 377

P A R T F I V E Studies in Stigma 379

12 Gays, Lesbians, and Homophobia 381 The Development of the Notion of Homosexuality 382

Why Do Some People Regard Homosexuality as Deviant? 383

Social Dimensions of Homophobia 384 Homophobic Attitudes 385

Homophobic Behavior 386

Law and Public Attitudes 388 Homosexuality and the Law 388

Changing Public Attitudes 389

The Attribution of Homosexuality 392

Prevalence and Variations of Male Homosexuality 393 Prevalence of Homosexuality 393

Variations of Homosexuality 395

xii Contents

Sex-Role Socialization and Becoming a Homosexual 397 Sexual Development 398

Becoming a Homosexual 402

Developing a Homosexual Identity 405

The Coming Out Process 407

Homosexual Subcultures 408

Lesbianism 411 The Nature of Lesbianism 412

The Prevalence of Lesbianism 412

Becoming a Lesbian 413

Lesbian Self-Concept 415

Lesbian Subcultures 416

Transvestitism 418

AIDS and the Homosexual Community 421 The Disease and Its Transmission 421

The Impact of AIDS 424

AIDS’s Impact on Sexual Behavior 424

Political Impact 426

Current Controversies over Homosexuality 427 Same-Sex Marriages 427

Homosexuality as a Protected Status 429

Summary 431 Key Terms 432

13 Physical Disabilities 433 Deviance and Physical Disabilities 434

Definitions and Distinctions 436

Disabilities and the Idea of Deviance 437 Disability as Deviant Status 438

Disability and the Sick Role 439

Societal Reaction and Ambivalence Toward Disability 441 Blindness 442

Intellectual Disability 443

Physical Handicaps 445

Obesity 446

Disability as a Socialization Process 448 Socialization and Disability 448

Self-Reactions of the Disabled 450

Disability as a “Career” 450 Professionals and Agencies 451

Contents xiii

Subcultures and Groups 452

The Role of Stigma in the Disability Career 453

Managing Disability 454 Passing 455

Normalizing 456

Coping 457

Dissociation 457

The Americans with Disabilities Act 458

Summary 460 Key Terms 461

14 Mental Disorders 462 The Stigma of Mental Disorders 463

Psychiatric View of Mental Disorders 464 The Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual 464

Organic Mental Disorders 465

Functional Mental Disorders 466

Problems of Definition 468 Statistical Definition of Mental Disorder 469

Clinical Definition of Mental Disorder 469

Residual Norms and Societal Reaction 471

Social Stratification and Mental Disorders 472 Social Class 472

Sex Differences 474

Age 474

Race and Ethnicity 475

Marital Status 475

Social Stress in Mental Disorders 475 Stress in Modern Life 476

Stress and Anxiety 478

Stress in Social Situations 478

Stress as a Precondition for Mental Disorders 480

Coping and Social Adaptation 481

Social Roles and Mental Disorders 481 Inability to Shift Roles 482

Performing the Mentally Disordered Role 483

Self-Reactions and Social Roles 485

Eating Disorders 486 Social Dimensions of Eating Disorders 487

Explaining Eating Disorders 491

xiv Contents

Social Control of Mental Disorders 494 Mental Hospitals 495

The Deinstitutionalization Movement 496

Reducing Stigma 499

Summary 500 Key Terms 501

P A R T S I X Looking Ahead 503

15 Recent Forms of Deviance 505 Rudeness 505

Cyber Deviance 506

Bullying 508

Child Obesity as Child Abuse 509

Pirates 510

Teachers Abusing Their Students 510

Extreme Deviance 511

Summary 512

REFERENCES 513 NAME INDEX 568 SUBJECT INDEX 577

Contents xv

❦P R E F A C E

S O C I O L O G Y O F D E V I A N T B E H A V I O R presents a theoretical and empirical overview of the nature and meaning of deviance, examining in detail a number of forms of behavior commonly regarded as deviant. Throughout the book, sociological concepts and processes underlie the presentation. We have attempted to identify and explain the leading theories and sociological orientations of deviant behavior: anomie, control, labeling, conflict, and learning. We have also attempted to be sensitive to other per- spectives where they apply, both in sociology (such as the rational choice perspective) and in other disciplines (such as biology). The theoretical frame of reference through- out the book is socialization, or learning, theory with a normative perspective. The reader will see that we find the meaning of deviant behavior in the context of the acquisition of all behavior. The central theme of the book is that understanding devi- ant behavior is no different from understanding any other behavior; deviant behavior is human behavior, understandable within a general context of socialization and role playing. This frame of reference furnishes theoretical continuity throughout the book, although we have taken care to include other viewpoints as well. Where possi- ble, we have also attempted to illustrate sociological ideas from the deviant’s own perspective through case histories or personal accounts.

It is not easy to define deviant behavior. Often any consensus that has appeared to exist has been the result of political, social, and economic powers of groups that have succeeded in imposing on others their views of what constitutes deviance. Here, we examine the merits of four definitions of deviance: statistical, absolutist, reactivist, and normative. We have adopted the normative definition as best fitting the complex society in which we live and the increasingly complex global community, which is characterized by a high degree of differentiation and, as a result, a high degree of deviance.

As with previous editions, this 14th edition is a complete revision that incorpo- rates the most recent theoretical developments in the field and the latest research findings. Reviewers of previous editions have suggested changes. In this edition, we have placed more emphasis on some forms of deviance and issues of social control that are of great contemporary concern—for example, drugs and violence, both personal and family. The chapter “White-Collar and Corporate Crime” has been wholly redone given the events in the last few years involving corporate scandals and accounting

– xvi –

frauds. In some chapters, such as those dealing with disabilities, homosexuality and lesbianism, and mental disorders, we have chosen to emphasize the consequences of stigmatization on behavior that is not voluntarily deviant. In other words, this edition concentrates not only on the nature of deviance but also on the reactions toward and consequences of deviant behavior and conditions.

We have augmented the material throughout with first-person accounts to illus- trate some of the sociological concepts and theories discussed. We have attempted to devote attention to “newer” forms of deviance, such as eating disorders. That material is now found in the chapter on mental disorders, although it was placed there with some ambivalence. There is more attention throughout on the impact of technology on both deviant behavior and its control. Every chapter has been updated; some have been enlarged.

The book is divided into six parts. Part one serves as an introduction to issues in deviance. Chapter 1 deals with the nature and definition of deviance. It introduces the sociological concepts necessary to understand the processes as well as the theories of deviance that follow. Chapter 2 concerns the nature of deviant events and social control. It explores the close link between processes of deviance and its control, and it provides a conceptual background to the discussions of social control in the sub- stantive chapters that follow.

Part two deals with explanations of deviant behavior. Chapter 3 introduces the student to the individual and group processes that shape deviant behavior and deviant careers. A number of select perspectives on individual deviance are also introduced. The next chapter deals with sociological perspectives and theories of deviance. It ex- amines and contrasts major sociological approaches to deviance: anomie, conflict, control, labeling, and learning perspectives. A short case study introduces the core idea of each theory.

We then shift to an in-depth examination of various forms of deviant behavior. Part three explores the theme of crime as deviance. Chapters 5 and 6 identify the processes involved in crimes of interpersonal violence and nonviolent crimes, respec- tively. Chapter 7 deals with white-collar and corporate criminality, as well as profes- sional deviance involving professionals such as physicians, priests, and people in the world of business. The importance of this type of deviance has played a role in the recession in this country, as well as around the world.

Part four covers other forms of deviance. Chapter 8 deals with drug use, while Chapter 9 is devoted to alcohol, the drug most widely used. Chapter 10 focuses on suicide, and Chapter 11 concentrates on forms of heterosexual deviance.

Part five explores the ways in which societal reaction in the form of stigma shapes the nature of conduct. Chapter 12 covers homosexuality, lesbianism, and homophobia from a sociological point of view, and Chapter 13 deals with physical disabilities. Each of these have been subject to social stigma although in different ways. Chapter 14 deals with a sociological examination of mental disorders and the stigma suffered by persons suffering from these disorders. These three chapters are examples of condi- tions often regarded sociologically as deviant, with profound social and personal im- plications for the self-concept of the individual.

Part six examines briefly some understudied forms of deviance. Chapter 15 is a new chapter that identifies some minor and emerging forms of deviance. This chapter brings us back to issues discussed in Chapters 1 and 2—the changing nature of norms and deviance over time.

Preface xvii

This edition emphasizes that deviance is an inescapable feature of modern, com- plex societies because such societies are characterized by a system of ranked social differentiation (stratification) that is generally associated with many types of social deviance. We also wish to affirm in this edition the obvious relationship between deviance and social order and the need for a sociological understanding of all aspects of society in order to comprehend the nature and complexity of social deviance.

Over the years, numerous sociologists and friends have contributed the basic data for this book through their theoretical writings and research on deviance. The refer- ences in the book acknowledge most, but not all, of them. At various times, other sociologists have critiqued various editions, including the present one, and they have thus contributed valuable ideas and suggestions. We are grateful to all of them.

By way of thanks, I (Meier) want to acknowledge specifically Jenny, Chrissy, and Mike—Thank you all so much for being absolutely great. I’m so proud of you all. There are no words I know to describe Katherine’s importance in my life. How did I luck out having a friend like you? And, Aarion, thank you so much as well for your very special friendship. Lauren Merrill has been a special and wonderful person in my life. I also give my thanks to Janice Rech who is not only an important friend, but also a source of inspiration. There are others who deserve mention, either as mentors—such as Gil Geis, Jim Short, and Marshall Clinard—or as significant sources of support— such as Jerry Deichert, Russ Smith, and Melanie Kiper. I also appreciate conversations with Tanya Hanson, Leon Brooks, Larissa Domingues, Erin McGuire, and Victoria Lee. Tusty Zohra did the Instructor’s Manual and the PowerPoint slides. Thank you all.

We wish specifically to thank the following reviewers who provided valuable sug- gestions for this edition of the book:

Michael Bachmann/University of Central Florida

Deborah J. Baiano Berman/Framingham State College

James Burnett/Michigan State University, Mankato

Joel L. Carr/Angelo State University

Jeff Basham/College of Sequoias

Luis Garcia-Fierro/College of St. Joseph

An instructor’s manual with test questions and PowerPoint slides for this text is avail- able and may be obtained through a local Wadsworth, Cengage Learning representative or by writing to the Sociology Editor, Erin Mitchell, at [email protected]. Sug- gestions are always welcome. Please feel free to contact either of the authors by mail or, if you prefer, by e-mail at [email protected].

M. B. C. R. F. M.

xviii Preface

❦P A R T O N E Introduction to Deviance

– 1 –

This page intentionally left blank

❦C H A P T E R O N E The Nature and Meaning

of Deviance

• What Is Deviance? • Deviance and Society • Summary

L A U G H I N G O U T L O U D might not be considered deviant for a group of partygoers at a comedy club, but it would be at a funeral. What is deviant for one person or group may not be for another and what is deviant in one situation may not be in another. While this may sound like the concept of deviance is confusing, there is actually a general meaning on which there is substantial agreement. In this chapter and the next two, we introduce the idea of deviance and identify important elements of its social context. Deviance does not take place in a social vacuum since the concept of deviance is uniquely sociological. It takes place more in some places than in others, more at some times than at others, and more in some situations than in others. This is the basic theoretical problem in the sociology of deviance: Can we account for these times, places, and groups?

Let’s begin with a short example. On July 31, 2002, the CBS news show 48 Hours did a story on the growing practice of buying and selling kidneys. The center of the activity is Lima, Peru, where a team of surgeons can perform the transplant operation within 48 hours of a patient contacting them. Donors come mainly from the impo- verished areas of Peru and are paid handsomely for their organs. The need for money motivates the donors. One donor said, “I paid my debts, I cured [sic] my children. The money was the solution for my troubles.” Fees to the patient range from $100,000 to $145,000, with an immediate down payment of $25,000.

Buying and selling organs in the United States, as well as just about everywhere, is illegal. The low number of organ transplant donors in the United States causes those who are in need of an organ transplant to wait, in some cases, years for a suitable donor. This lifesaving operation is often unavailable or delayed, and as a result, many more wealthy patients may investigate other sources, such as the market in Lima.

While thinking that the practice of organ selling did not occur in the United States, an FBI sting operation in 2009 found that organ trafficking did occur here. Levi Izhak Rosenbaum, a Brooklyn, New York, rabbi was arrested on July 23, 2009, for buying and selling kidneys (Halbfinger, 2009). He would pay $10,000 for the kidney of vulnerable people in Israel and sell them to desperate patients in the United States for as much as $160,000.

– 3 –

While some may believe that the donors are saving lives, critics, such as Nancy Scheper-Hughes, the head of Organs Watch, an international organization that moni- tors the sale of human organs, charge that “We don’t want to turn the poor people of the world into bags of spare parts that I or you, a person who has more resources or money, can simply prey upon. It’s morally unacceptable to do that.”

What do you think? Is selling human organs deviant? Before we can judge whether this is the case, we have to understand the meaning of the term.

Let’s consider another short example. Marsha Lindall is an attractive woman in her late thirties. She has a very successful professional career and recently moved to a new city because of a promotion. In the course of meeting new colleagues and friends, Marsha has increasingly had the sense that she is in some way an outsider. It has become clear to her in conversations that some of the new people she is meeting regard her “family” situation as unusual. Although Marsha was married and subse- quently divorced, she has not had children. Some of the people she has been meeting seem to think that this is deviant. And Marsha is beginning to feel excluded from social occasions where there are couples and children. She is beginning to think that she is in some sense deviant (see Park, 2006). Is she?

Deviance takes many forms, but agreement remains elusive about which specific behaviors and conditions constitute deviance. This ambiguity becomes especially evi- dent when some people praise the same behavior that others condemn. If the concept were not confusing enough already, many discussions of deviance evoke strong politi- cal and moral attitudes, prompting some groups to call on the law to support their views of certain acts (e.g., homosexuality, abortion). Even everyday behavior can have this moral tone. The centuries-long debate on whether mothers should breast- or formula-feed infants contains moral dimensions. A study of first-time mothers in England concluded that whether they intend to breast- or formula-feed, women face considerable challenges from those who disagree with them as the mothers seek to establish that they are not only good mothers but also good partners and good women (Murphy, 1999). Not even the time-honored institution of motherhood is immune from allegations of deviance.

To understand deviance, one must first understand this contradiction: No con- sensus reliably identifies behavior, people, or conditions that are deviant, although most people would say that they know deviance when they see it. Many lists would include mental disorder, suicide, crime, homosexuality, and alcoholism. Yet disagree- ment casts shadows over even this basic list of “generally accepted” forms of deviance. Some, for example, deny that homosexuality is deviant in any way. One person may see problem drinking as behavior that may represent no such problem to another. Many segments of the population dispute the harm of certain crimes, such as prosti- tution and the use of marijuana or cocaine (Meier and Geis, 2006). Attitudes toward deviance may resemble St. Augustine’s comment about time: One knows pretty much what it is—until one is asked to define it.

The sociological concept of deviance was unknown before the 1950s. Topics that would now likely be considered deviant were considered only in social problems courses or in courses titled social disorganization or social pathology. But the study of social problems was usually a study of existing states, such as war, poverty, and community instability.

The idea of deviance may have been first developed by Edwin Lemert (1951) in his break with the social disorganization and social pathology perspectives. Lemert, for

4 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

the most part, concentrated on behavior that departed from what was expected, but he did include the conditions of blindness and speech defects as examples of deviation.

The very first edition of this book also used the term deviance as the study not of conditions but of behavior, deviant behavior (Clinard, 1957). Still, this edition did include various conditions, such as war, with which to illustrate the notion of deviance.

The notion of deviant behavior was bolstered by the idea that deviance was ironic. Irony refers to something that happens that shouldn’t happen. Most people consider some thoughts, behavior, and even personal attributes to be deviant, even though different people may disapprove more than others about the degree of deviance and what kinds of reactions are appropriate.

Sociologists who are interested in deviance are interested in what makes the behav- ior deviant, the nature of the deviant act, how one comes to commit deviant acts, and the consequences of committing deviant acts. Because there are many different norms to be violated, there are many different kinds or examples of deviance (Figure 1.1).

In some instances, deviants may believe that their behavior constitutes an act of “justified deviance.” This is deviance that, from the standpoint of the individual acting, is justified even though others may not think it is justified. International terrorists, for example, believe that what they do, including the bombing of mass transportation sys- tems, such as trains, and other acts of mass murder, are justified by their political or religious views. In July 2006, eight bombs, timed to go off within minutes of one an- other, ripped through seven trains taking commuters home in Mumbai, India (Dienst, 2006). It appeared to be the work of a Kashmiri militant group, which, if that is true, would justify the attack by pointing to the conflict between Kashmir and India over disputed land. Nearly 200 were killed and over 700 were wounded in the attack. Who determines whether some behavior is deviant, the actor or the audience of the act?

Social Deviance

Suicide

Crime

Substance Abuse

Drug Addiction

Prostitution

FIGURE 1.1 Examples of Deviance

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 5

Disagreement about whether specific acts are deviant need not prevent full dis- cussion of the important dimensions of deviance: what it is, how to define it, which causes explain it, and what social groups can and should do to reduce it. This book examines a number of forms of deviance, including some mentioned in the earlier lists. Not everyone agrees that each form fits the definition of deviant, and the discussion will spark disagreement about the extent to which some acts represent deviance. We feel, however, that many readers will so regard them as deviant.

Clearly, different people would compose different lists of deviant people and acts, sometimes drastically different lists; yet no one should dismiss deviance as an idiosyn- cratic judgment, because many observers agree that a wide range of acts and people fit within that category. Also, these evaluations represent group opinions, not just indi- vidual ones. Some social acts and actors do, in fact, share a quality called deviance. Observers share some degree of understanding about the deviant nature of some acts and conditions. A formal definition identifies the common characteristics among these individual judgments.

WHAT IS DEVIANCE? Some sociologists conceive of deviance as a collection of conditions, persons, or acts that society disvalues (Sagarin, 1975: 9), finds offensive (Higgins and Butler, 1982: 3), or condemns (Weitzer, 2002: 2). These definitions avoid the critical question of how or why people classify acts or individuals as offensive to them and, hence, on what basis they disvalue those examples. Such a conception also fails to recognize the possibility that deviance might include highly valued differences, that society can encounter “positive” as well as “negative” deviance (Heckert and Heckert, 2002), as in the cases of the genius (see Dodge, 1985, and Sagarin, 1985) and the exceptional child (Zeitlin, Ghassemi, and Mansour, 1990).

But examples give insufficiently precise definitions of deviance. Only an explicit definition can fully identify a range of examples that might be considered deviant, in either a positive or a negative sense (Jensen, 2001).

Normative and Reactivist Definitions A reactivist or relativist definition of deviance holds that there are no universal or unchanging entities that define deviance for all times and in all places. Rather, “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction creates deviance” (Becker, 1973: 9). Deviance is in the eye of the beholder, not in any particular action on the part of the person who may be labeled as a deviant (see also Higgins and Mackinem, 2008).

A normative definition describes deviance as a violation of a norm. A norm is a standard about “what human beings should or should not think, say, or do under given circumstances” (Blake and Davis, 1964: 456; see also Birenbaum and Sagarin, 1976, and Gibbs, 1981). Violations of norms often draw reactions or sanctions from their social audiences. These sanctions constitute the pressures that most people feel to conform to social norms.

Two common conceptions characterize norms as evaluations of conduct and as expectations or predictions of conduct (Meier, 1981). The conception based on eval- uation recognizes that some conduct (behavior or beliefs) ought or ought not to occur, either in specific situations (e.g., no smoking in public elevators) or at any time or place (e.g., no armed robbery, ever). The conception of norms as expectations

6 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

or predictions highlights regularities of behavior based on habit or traditional customs. People expect a child to act a certain way in church, another way on the playground.

Norms are not necessarily clear-cut rules. Norms are social properties; they are shared group evaluations or guidelines. Rules come from some authority, which for- mulates them individually and imposes them on others (such as the laws of a monarch or despot). Rules and norms do share many characteristics, however, including the property of directing behavior; both are necessary components of social order (Bryant, 1990: 5–13). For example, in November 2002, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sanctioned the University of Michigan’s basketball program because a booster paid a total of $616,000 to several players during the 1990s. The resulting punishment banned the team from postseason play in 2003 and forfeited victories from six seasons, including the 1992 and 1993 Final Fours (Omaha World- Herald, November 9, 2002, p. C1). The basketball players violated a rule, but is the rule a norm? Many would say that it is not right for college players to accept money for playing; that violates the nature of amateurism.

One virtue of the normative conception comes from its answer to a question that stumps the reactivist conception: On what basis do people react to behavior? In other words, if deviance results only through the reactions of others, how do people know to react to or label a given instance of behavior? Norms supply the only obvious answer to this question. For this reason, the reactivist and normative conceptions may com- plement one another; norms provide the basis for reacting to deviance, but social reactions express norms and identify deviance.

People are considered deviant because of their behavior or conditions. People risk being labeled deviant by others when they express unaccepted religious beliefs (such as worshiping devils), violate norms pertaining to dress or appearance, or engage in proscribed sexual acts. Certain conditions also frequently lead people to label others as deviant, including physical handicaps and violations of appearance norms (e.g., obesity). People whose identities as deviant result from their beliefs or behavior fall into the category of achieved deviant status, while certain conditions may confer ascribed deviant status (Adler and Adler, 2009: 13).

In this book, we adopt a normative definition of deviance. Deviance constitutes departures from norms that draw social disapproval such that the variations elicit, or are likely to elicit if detected, negative sanctions. This definition incorporates both social disapproval of actions and social reactions to the disapproved actions (see also Best and Luckenbill, 1994: 2–4). Perhaps the key element in this conception is the idea of a norm. Norms do not simply operate in society. They are created, maintained, and promoted, sometimes in competition against one another. Society creates norms in much the same sense that the idea of deviance itself results from social construction and negotiation (Pfuhl and Henry, 1993).

Alternative Definitions One of the most common definitions, often heard in everyday conversation, identifies deviance as a variation or departure from an average. This statistical definition emphasizes behavior that differs from average experience; it cites rare or infrequent phenomena. This definition assumes that what most people do determines the correct way to act.

It faces immediate difficulties, however, if it classes any minority as inherently deviant. A statistical definition applies the label deviants to those who have never

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 7

stolen anything or violated the law, never used marijuana, never tasted alcoholic bev- erages, and never had premarital sexual relations (Rushing, 1975: 3–4). Statistical regularities of behavior do not reveal the meaning of deviance. Rather, the definition must connote some difference or departure from a standard of behavior—what “should” or “should not” be rather than “what is.”

Another alternative definition of deviance relies on values. Values represent long- term, desired states—such as health, justice, and social equality. A society’s values represent a general orientation for behavior without prescribing specific behavior. Values are important parts of an absolutist definition of deviance.

Some observers regard social rules as “absolute, clear and obvious to all members of society in all situations” (Scott and Douglas, 1972: 4; see also Hawkins and Tiedeman, 1975: 20–41). This absolutist conception of deviance assumes that everyone agrees on obvious, basic rules of a society, leading to general agreement that deviance results from the violation of previously defined standards for acceptable behavior. This position takes the definition for granted, as though everyone always agrees that certain violations of rules represent abnormal acts and others do not. It presumes that everyone knows how to act according to universally held values; violations of these values constitute deviance.

History and current practices in some societies today show situations character- ized by almost universal acceptance of some set of guiding values, perhaps those of the Catholic church or the Koran. Among other societies, the teachings of the Buddha, the Bible, or other religious leaders or sacred documents have laid out invariable prescriptions for behavior. Western societies have often found general, universal stan- dards in middle-class moral values or in the personal biases of some writers whose rural, traditional, and religious backgrounds have led them to view many forms of behavior related to urban life and industrial society as morally destructive (Ranulf, 1964). Still another version of the absolutist definition asserts that conceptions of what is deviant stem ultimately from preferences and interests of elite segments of society (Schwendinger and Schwendinger, 1977).

The absolutist conception of deviance, however, ignores many facets of social life:

The absolutist asserts that, regardless of time and social context, certain culture-free stan- dards, such as how fully persons develop their innate potential or how closely they approach the fulfillment of the highest human values, enable one to detect deviance. Thus suicide or alcoholism destroys or inhibits the possibility of the actor’s developing his full human potential and is therefore always deviant.… The absolutist believes that he knows what behavior is, what people should be, and what constitutes full and appropriate development. (Lofland, 1969: 23–24)

A final alternative definition is called the reactivist conception. The reactivist con- ception defines deviance as behavior or conditions labeled as deviant by others. As one reactivist puts it: “The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Becker, 1973: 9). The reactivist definition thus identifies acts as deviant only according to social reactions to those acts, determined through labels applied by society or agents of social control. Once behav- ior receives the label deviant, an easy extension applies the label to the actor as well. The reactivist conception of deviance has gained strong influence, and reasons for its popularity are easily identifiable. The reactivist conception attempts to concentrate on the truly social identity of deviance—the interaction between the deviant and society

8 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

(really, its representatives in the form of social control agents, such as the police)—and the consequences of that social relationship. Reactivists reject the notion that deviance results from some innate quality of an act; rather, they claim that this judgment depends exclusively on the reactions of the act’s social audience.

Critics of the reactivist definition acknowledge the importance of the interactions between deviants and social control agents, but they assert that those interactions do not define the term. To grasp the illogical foundation of this view, imagine a man committing burglary and escaping detection; because he evades detection, he experi- ences no reaction by society and thus escapes classification as a deviant. Furthermore, even those acts that do elicit social reactions do so for some reason. That is, something about the acts must prompt others to react against them in the first place. That quality (such as the innate wrongfulness of the acts or their violation of agreed-upon standard of behaviors) is what really determines deviance.

Now, remember the case of selling kidneys at the beginning of the chapter? According to which of the above definitions is this practice deviant? Statistically, more adults are now refraining from having children than in some earlier times, and divorce is now regrettably common. No absolute standards proclaim that adults should have children. But Marsha is feeling uncomfortable around others, and if she is excluded from social occasions because of her single, childless condition, a reactivist definition would be appropriate. But why would others label her deviant? One answer is that the norms of their groups suggest that couples and parents are statuses that are valued. Marsha may be feeling deviant because her friends who have partners and children think that is the way things should be.

Norms and, hence, deviance relate both to small groups and to certain structural features of society. The larger meaning of deviance emerges in the context of social differentiation and stratification. It also grows out of the properties and nature of norms, social groups who subscribe to those norms, and the influence of those norms on behavior. The chapter now turns to an examination of these concepts—differentiation, norm, sanction, and social control.

DEVIANCE AND SOCIETY At the simplest level, deviance refers to something different from something else. Deviants are people not like us. They behave differently, or so many people think. But deviance extends beyond simple, everyday observations of differences among

In Brief: Shorthand Definitions of Deviance ❦

Statistical definition: Common conditions deter- mine what is normal or nondeviant; anything in the statistical minority represents deviance.

Absolutist definition: Deviance results from a value judgment based on absolute standards. Cer- tain actions and conditions qualify as deviant be- cause they have always defined deviance (through tradition or custom).

Reactivist definition: Deviance is whatever a social audience reacts against (or labels) as deviant. Something that elicits no reaction escapes identifi- cation as deviant.

Normative definition: The label deviant de- pends on a group’s notion of actions and conditions that should and should not occur. This situational conception can change in different situations.

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 9

people and their behavior. Some differences in styles of dress, for example, do not amount to deviance. Persons who wear a common style of clothing may still favor different colors without becoming deviant.

Beyond the idea of differences, deviance implies something evaluated negatively or disvalued. Someone’s clothing may look different without qualifying as deviant. It may earn that label only if its difference seems in bad taste, such as when colors clash violently or when the clothing is not suitable to the occasion; wearing a bathing suit to a funeral amounts to deviance. Some people would never wear red and orange or black and blue in the same outfit. They would consider these combinations deviant in the context of fashion.

Only some people see problems in colors that clash. Young people who dress in punk-rock or hip-hop fashions may value highly clashing colors and unusual styles in clothing and hair. Others may extend or violate some groups’ appearance norms by “going too far,” as some older people might regard the current fad of body piercing and tattooing among some young people.

Exceptions like these suggest that deviance is a relative notion. It depends upon some audience’s definition of something as deviant. These three ideas—differentness, judgment, and relative standards—each have important implications for a sociological understanding of deviance. These ideas support understanding of the meaning of individual deviant conduct, as well as the connection of that conduct to the larger social community.

Norms Because the definition of deviance refers to norms, a fuller explanation must identify the importance of norms to everyday life. Social norms—expectations of conduct in particular situations—regulate human social relations and behavior. Norms vary ac- cording to how widely people accept them, how society enforces them, how society transmits them, and how much conformity people require. Some social norms may require considerable force to ensure compliance; others may require little or none. Some norms remain fairly stable in the standards they set; others define more transi- tory expectations (Gibbs, 1965).

Individuals in a group rarely recognize the often arbitrary origins of the social norms in their group since they have encountered these priorities in the ongoing process of living. Group members learn and transmit norms from generation to gen- eration. In this way, individuals incorporate into their own lives the language, ideas, and beliefs of the groups to which they belong. Human beings thus see the world not through their eyes alone (for then each would see the same thing); rather, they regard the world through the lenses of their cultural and other group experiences.

Even moral judgments generally do not reflect the positions of an individual alone but reflect those of the group or groups to which the individual belongs. Probably no one has stated the significance of group influence through norms more cogently, even poetically, than Faris did many years ago:

For we live in a world of “cultural relativity” and the whole furniture of earth and choir of heaven are to be described and discussed as they are conceived by men. Caviar is not a delicacy to the general [population]. Cows are not food to the Hindu. Mohammed is not the prophet of God to me. To an atheist, God is not God at all. (1937: 150–151)

10 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

Norms make crucial contributions to the process of maintaining order. Some regard them as cultural ideals, while others describe them as expressions of what society expects in certain situations. For example, one may examine sexual behavior as the result of cultural ideals or of specific expectations for certain situations, such as a married couple on their honeymoon. One can infer ideal cultural norms from observations of what people say, sanction, or react against. Proscriptive norms tell people what they should not do; prescriptive norms tell them what they ought to do. Norms not only set social or group standards for conduct but also define categories through which people interpret experiences. Norms establish the basis for interpreting both actions (“He should not have laughed during the funeral”) and events (“Funerals are certainly sad”).

The social norms and behaviors vary substantially among social classes in the United States, revealing many differences in groups’ attitudes and values. The norms of plumbers differ from those of doctors and professors; construction workers display attitudes markedly different from those of college students. Child-rearing patterns differ from one social class to another. Child-rearing patterns also vary with the inten- sity of the parents’ religious beliefs more than with differences in specific religious affiliations (Alwin, 1986). Lower-class parents, for example, tend to discipline children by physical punishment more often than middle-class parents, although the difference is not as large as some expect (Erlanger, 1974). Members of the lower classes commit the most crimes of violence, such as murder, aggravated assault, and forcible rape; a lower-class “subculture of violence,” to be discussed in Chapter 7, may offer a partial explanation. Some norms affect acceptance of others, and these interrelations, in turn, influence the socialization process.

Norms play integral roles in the organization principles of all societies, from small tribal groups to modern industrial societies. In complex modern societies, group norms may differ radically or only slightly; some norms differ only in emphasis between groups. As a result, someone who belongs to a number of groups, each with its own norms or levels of emphasis, may experience personal conflict.

People often feel pressured to act in different ways according to the roles they are performing at the time. A social role is a collection of norms that together convey expectations about appropriate conduct for persons in a particular position. Thus, different sets of norms govern the behaviors of husbands and bachelors, the role of a shopper differs from that of a sales clerk, and so on. The norms and social roles that a person acquires from the family group do not always agree with the norms and social roles of the play group, age or peer group, work group, or political group. Individuals may value membership in certain groups more highly than membership in others, and they may, as a result, tend to conform more closely to the norms of the most important groups. Although the family group supplies important guidance, it is only one of several groups that influence a person’s behavior, whether deviant or nondevi- ant. Many other important sources promote norms in modern societies: social classes, occupation groups, neighborhoods, schools, churches, and friends.

Among relatively homogeneous peoples, such as primitive or folk societies, most members perceive common sets of norms and values in similar ways, although differ- ences do emerge (Edgerton, 1976). Members of such societies thus share many com- mon objectives and meanings in contrast to more modern, complex societies, where social group affiliations reflect race, occupation, ethnic background, religion, political party, residence, and many other attributes. Social class and age or peer group mem- berships determine particularly important aspects of this differentiation.

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 11

Most people are aware of the norms in their everyday lives once their attention is directed toward them. Norms define acts, actors, and conditions as either acceptable or unacceptable examples of deviance. Norms can and do change through the actions of individuals and groups promoting their norms over others, but the continuing influence of norms underlies the meaning and explanation of deviance.

Differentiation and Deviance People differ from one another in a number of ways, including age, sex, race, educa- tional attainment, and occupational status. Differentiation is the sociological term that refers to such variations. At the most general level, deviance also refers to differentness. The concept of deviance would have no meaning in an undifferentiated society. Since, however, no group of people could ever share all of the same characteristics, deviance can occur in every society to the extent that some differences will be more highly valued than others. Some sociologists believe that societies can tolerate only limited deviance and that deviance remains relatively constant over time within a society. Emile Durkheim (1895/1982) long ago described deviance as “normal” and asserted that no society could rid itself of deviance. Durkheim argued that by defining what is deviant, societies also define what is not, thereby helping to create shared standards. Some sociologists do not doubt that deviance maintains a constant level, but they assert that the amount of deviance in a society adjusts both upward (Erikson, 1965) and downward according to social conditions. Expansion of standards for deviance in times of scarcity may help to foster social cohesion (Erikson, 1965), while some con- ditions lose the stigma of deviance when this need subsides (Moynihan, 1993). As a result, while the overall levels are the same, the acts and conditions defined as deviant can change over time. Durkheim observes that deviance could be found even in a society of saints, where small differences among them would be morally magnified. Some saints, in other words, would still be literally holier than others.

The conditions that promote social differentiation in society also promote devi- ance (Meier, 1989). Conditions that increase differentiation also likely boost the degree and range of social stratification by increasing the number of criteria for com- paring people. Those comparisons often result in invidious distinctions, or ranks, that identify some characteristics as more highly valued than others. Expansion of the criteria for stratifying individuals also stretches the range of conditions that society disvalues or ranks below others (see also Cohen, 1974).

As people differ from one another in more ways, the likelihood of stratification or at least the degree of stratification increases. Modern, industrial societies differentiate people in extremely complex ways. In addition to characteristics such as age, sex, and race, members of modern societies display greater diversity in behavior, dress, atti- tudes, and interaction patterns than those of more traditional, homogeneous societies. Within modern societies, differences between urban and rural areas enhance differen- tiation as well. Sometimes, some people say deviance when they mean diversity, or behavior that results from social differentiation. A diverse society introduces a number of dimensions for defining deviance judgments: age, sex, ethnicity, heritage, religion, and the like. But the increasingly multicultural nature of a society like that in the United States need not threaten people (Parrillo, 1996).

Beyond this trend toward diversity, however, an increase in stratification clearly seems to raise the chances that some of these rankings will reflect disvalued character- istics. Not only will some individuals fall to lower ranks as a result, but they may also

12 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

feel disvalued. To the extent that society values education, it disvalues undereducation; to the extent that it values an occupation with high prestige (like Supreme Court justice), it disvalues one with little or no prestige (like ditchdigger). Judgments about “better” or “worse” begin the process of making judgments about deviance.

These kinds of links join deviance to stratification within a society. Status rankings from top to bottom span roughly the same range as negative classifications that make up a structure of deviance. A society with a relatively high level of differentiation generally exhibits a large number of status ranks; a society with relatively little differentiation usually features a small number of status ranks. Similarly, a highly stratified society should define a larger number of negative status ranks as compared to a less stratified society. In other words, expanding stratification increases the number of criteria on which to make judgments of deviance. A relatively simpler society should define both a simple structure of social stratification and a simple or narrow structure of deviant status categories.

Age, sex, status, occupation, race, and education differentiate individuals, among many other criteria. A comprehensive definition of deviance would clearly indicate which kinds of differentiation amount to deviance and which just determine differences without any moral connotations. Some sociologists, however, have recommended an alternate strategy: leaving deviance undefined and proceeding with research on “mat- ters dealing with deviance.” Lemert, for example, has suggested that “the study of deviance can best proceed by identifying bodies of data through primitive, ontological recognition rather than by formal definition” (Lemert (1982: 238).

Judgments of deviance do not refer to static or constant standards, though. Devi- ance takes constantly changing forms and elicits varying degrees of disapproval. To understand which conduct or conditions stimulate disapproval, one must first under- stand social power. Power can be defined as the ability to make choices by virtue of control over political, economic, or social resources. People who have money, educa- tion, and social influence generally wield more power than those who lack those resources. Powerful people, by virtue of their influence, often define standards for deviance, and they often find more deviance among others with less power than they have themselves. Public opinion often treats white-collar and company crime as less serious than ordinary street crime, even though offenses by these powerful crim- inals may cause more serious injuries and worse financial losses than street crime.

Lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who commit crimes often escape the criminal label altogether. Reasons for this disparity include the classification of these crimes outside the rubric of criminal law and the habit of most people to conceive of powerful persons not as evil or depraved violators, roles often reserved for lower-class people. White-collar crimes generally draw sanctions defined by administrative law, such as license suspension, or by civil action, such as mandatory restitution. Therefore, many people regard crimes committed with a pen, such as embezzlement, as less serious than those committed with a gun, such as robbery.

The importance of social power can also be expressed in terms of social differenti- ation. Deviance requires relative judgments not because no trait or act is everywhere and for all time deviant, but because the processes of social differentiation and change alter social opinions. This fact raises the key question of why some acts and actors receive sanctions as deviant while others do not. Sociologists frequently answer this question by referring to power. Powerful groups expand the range of stratified social phenomena through a process of definition and influence (Chambliss, 1976). A generic term for this process, norm promotion, indicates an ability to successfully

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 13

promote particular norms to the exclusion of other, competing norms. Regardless of the process for defining specific acts as deviant, however, social judgments of disvalue- ment represent a core component of the concept of deviance. This fact presumably explains why some sociologists use the phrase moral differentiation to refer to devi- ance (Lemert, 1982). Deviance judgments are moral judgments.

Subcultures Norms emerge from groups, and different groups are likely to have different norms. People encounter varying expectations for behavior depending on the group to which they belong. Acts labeled deviant in one group may be perfectly acceptable behaviors in another. Sociologists often refer to such differences as subcultural differences.

Sometimes members of a social group share a set of values and meanings not shared by the society of which they are a part. This separation creates a subculture. A subculture is a culture within a culture—a collection of norms, values, and beliefs with content distinguishable from those of the dominant culture. This definition im- plies that members of the subculture participate in and share the larger culture of which the subculture is a part. At the same time, it implies that the subculture observes some norms and meanings peculiar to its members. A subculture need not act in opposition to the larger culture; if it does, the term counterculture supplies a more appropriate meaning (Yinger, 1982).

An example of a counterculture is the world of outlaw motorcycle gangs, whose members refer to themselves as 1 percenters (Barker, 2007). When the American Motorcyclist Association condemned the activities of outlaw bikers, it claimed that these cyclists were only 1 percent of the organized motorcycling population. The Hells Angels and other such groups, such as the Bandidos, Pagans, and Outlaws, adopted the term as a symbol of distinction (Thompson, 1966: 13, 18). These bikers live hedonistic lives and often reinforce their image of themselves as social outcasts by engaging in outrageous behavior for the benefit of onlookers. The subculture values mobility, mechanical ability, skill at fighting, adeptness at riding very large Harley- Davidson motorcycles, and ability to manipulate or “con” others (Watson, 1982). Crime is often a part of these cyclists’ lives, at least for their street life spans, claimed to last only about 5 years (Quinn, 1987). After that time, the effects of run-ins with the law, brawls, or crashes take their toll and the members move out of the gangs, usually into working-class occupations.

Biker women may lead even more bleak lives. Most often drawn from back- grounds of economic and social deprivation, biker gangs exploit women physically and economically (Hopper and Moore, 1990). Women often participate in various initiation rituals and contribute to the finances of the gang through drug sales or prostitution. For some of the biker women, the gang—as debilitating as it might appear to outsiders—provides a comforting measure of structure and predictability in an otherwise capricious life.

There is substantial competition among the larger biker gangs for criminal mo- nopoly over a particular area (Quinn, 2001: 391). The competition takes a violent form, such as that in Scandinavia where the Bandidos have been seriously challenging the Hells Angels’ monopoly. The hostilities often involve military ordnance and auto- matic weapons.

A variety of subcultures and countercultures characterize modern industrial socie- ties. Some of these subcultures gain the status of deviants. Cohen suggests that

14 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

subcultures arise in highly differentiated, complex societies when a number of persons encounter similar problems living within the prevailing culture. In his view, subcultures represent collective solutions to shared problems posed by the dominant culture (Cohen, 1955: 14). For example, the delinquent subculture represents a response by lower-class boys to the frustration of trying to meet middle-class expectations of them in school. The delinquent subculture provides an alternative status system in which the boys feel better equipped to compete than in the school environment. Lewis (1961) adopts a similar view in his description of a subculture of poverty.

Criminologists have described the same process to explain the origins of subcul- tures within institutions for deviants, such as prisons (Johnson, 2002). In prison, subcultures represent social alternatives to the prison world. Composed of opposing norms and values, these subcultures may be affiliated with prison gangs that provide support and protection for its inmate members. Prison subcultures differ not only from the larger prison culture but also from one another. Racial and ethnic conflict among

Issue: Straight Edge Subculture ❦

Youth have been considered a “subculture” for some time (e.g., Bloch and Neiderhoffer, 1958). Adoles- cents were seen as being in “revolt” with the status quo and perhaps adults in general. But within this general youth subculture, other, discernable, subcul- tures are available. One such subculture is called straight edge. Straight edgers have been character- ized by their strong opposition to illegal drugs, alcohol, and casual sexual activity.

Since the early 1980s, straight edgers have histor- ically been linked with punk music. The punk-rock culture appeared to have expressed the values of indi- vidualism, disinterest in work or school, and spur-of- the-moment hedonism. Begun in Washington, D.C., a number of teenagers were attracted to the values found in the lyrics of Ian MacKaye, lead singer and songwriter for the punk band Minor Threat. MacKaye’s songs, such as the one that gave name to the movement (Straight Edge), suggested other values and expressed disdain for alcohol and drug use and promiscuous sexuality that he felt were rampant in the punk subculture at the time. Further, MacKaye suggested that to abstain from drugs and sex led to an advantage, or a “straight edge” over those who indulged in such activities.

Vegetarianism and veganism later emerged as, and continue to be, important values for straight edgers. Mostly male straight edgers wear distinc- tive clothing associated with punk-rock music and shaved heads. Today, several websites have united straight edgers from all over the world (Wood, 2006).

The subculture has adopted a symbol that appears to be an X. Many straight edgers have the X tattooed on the back of one or both hands to show others that they are straight edgers. The symbol ap- parently came about as bars began to mark the back of the hands of minors with an X to aid servers and bartenders that the person was underage. Eventually, the X was incorporated into clothing and other, everyday things, such as mugs and keychains.

Media coverage of the straight edge movement appears to have been limited to criminal acts com- mitted by a small minority of straight edgers who were linked with aggravated assaults and homicide against drinkers and drug users. But a study of straight edgers found no support for the idea that they were, in general, violent. Most opposed violence. As one straight edger put it:

People know that I don’t like smoking, and peo- ple know that I don’t like drinking. But at the same time, if some’s like “Oh, I’m having a party,” I’m still going to go there. I know that people are going to drink there…. I accept it as long as people understand my reasons for not doing it. (Wood, 2006: 82)

The straight edge subculture is not monolithic or homogenous. Rather, it is, like most youth subcul- tures, in a constant state of flux and transition. Some members are more socialized to the subculture than others. As a result, some youth feel a stronger identity with straight edge than others (Wood, 2006).

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 15

inmates now commonly erupts in many maximum security prisons because the contents of these subcultures conflict with one another.

Large city slum areas are more than overcrowded, congested collections of run- down physical facilities. Sociologically, a slum represents a subculture with its own set of norms and values, which favor poor sanitation and health practices, weak interest in formal education, and characteristic attitudes of apathy and isolation from conventional institutions. Inner-city areas also breed subcultural norms conducive to violence, theft, delinquency, vandalism, selling and using illegal drugs, and the presence of street addicts. A “slum way of life” emerges from a combination of cultural attitudes toward economic conditions and responses to wider social and economic opportunities. This subculture frequently characterizes high-rise housing projects in major cities (Wilson, 1987).

Subcultures show clear connections to many forms of deviance. The chapters that follow will describe subcultural influences and contexts that affect drug use, homosex- uality, skid-row drinking, delinquency and crime, and even suicide. Even chronic psychiatric patients discharged from institutions develop their own subcultures. Dein- stitutionalization has resulted in large numbers of chronically mentally disordered people living on the streets in large cities. Subcultures help to solve the problems these people face in meeting the demands of modern urban society by providing social support for members, enhancing self-esteem by suggesting rationales for their condi- tions, and offering practical suggestions for independent survival. Former mental hos- pital patients may engage in a broad range of deviant activities, including selling their legally obtained medications, shoplifting, and even prostitution. The subculture’s norms set limits on these activities, however, at the same time that it justifies deviance. As one patient phrased it:

We’re not doing anything that’s really wrong. We don’t murder or rob or things like that. We only take a few groceries once in a while from the A&P store. And we only do that when it’s absolutely necessary. Other people who have lots of money do it all the time, and they take things much bigger than we do. We do it for medical reasons—our health, but they just do it for greed. (Herman, 1987: 252)

A few generalizations help to summarize the importance of group norms in mod- ern, complex societies. (1) Groups within a society may exhibit differences in the norms of accepted behavior almost as pronounced as the differences between cultures. (2) Any logical explanation of the actions common in certain deviant subgroups must trace the development of the behavior through a process similar to that through which any member of any cultural group learns to act; for example, the process by which Eskimos learn through their culture to act, think, and interpret the world like Eskimos may provide a model for a similar process in a deviant subgroup. (3) A discussion of the norms of any given family probably focuses on those of the social class, occupa- tional group, or some specific subcultural group to which the family belongs.

The Relativity of Deviance A definition of deviance that refers to norms does not identify any particular type of conduct as deviant. This definition also allows for constant changes in standards for and forms of deviance along with the degree of disapproval that each one elicits. In this sense, deviance cites not a unique type of behavior but, rather, common behaviors that happen to offend some group. Because norms imply relative judgments (limited to groups, places, and times), deviance is also a relative phenomenon.

16 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

Issue: The Example of Nudism ❦

Nudity, like all voluntary behavior, is governed by norms. These norms vary relative to groups, times, and social situations, so nudity sometimes qualifies as deviant, and sometimes it does not. Many people regard nudity outside one’s bathroom or bedroom as deviant, but nudists deny such a conception.

Whispering Pines, a nudist resort in North Carolina, establishes a number of conditions that might seem conducive to sexuality. Like other nud- ist camps, it is located in a relatively private setting, and members visit voluntarily, presumably bringing with them rather liberal attitudes about public nakedness. Perhaps above all, unclothed people seem to encounter plenty of opportunity to engage in sex. This assumption reflects many people’s strong association of nudity with sex. Celebrity advice-giver Joyce Brothers (1974: C1) has cau- tioned parents that children exposed to nudity will develop terrible guilt and frustrations that will lead to an obvious end—incest.

No evidence supports this assertion, and in fact, nudists construct rigid distinctions between nudism and sexuality (Story, 1993). Like most nudist resorts, Whispering Pines establishes a number of norms that restrict sexual behavior. For example, a club atmosphere legitimates attendance at the resort. Members pay fees of $250 per year plus $32.50 for annual dues to the American Association for Nude Recreation. Members then pay per-day site rental charges. Whispering Pines allows the assem- bled members to include no more than 10 percent single men and 10 percent single women at one time, thus restricting the proportion of sexually un- attached persons in the group. Children, recognized as incompletely socialized to sexuality, must be su- pervised at all times in the camp. Someone who behaves rudely, perhaps using binoculars or cam- eras, may have his or her name and picture placed on a list maintained by the American Association for Nude Recreation, thus barring visits to nudist resorts around the country. First-timers, called cot- tontails, must learn these norms.

In addition to these restrictions, sex in public is explicitly forbidden. Perhaps because of all these norms, the owners of Whispering Pines indicate that open sexuality just doesn’t happen. Visitors to Whispering Pines observe expectations of nonsex- ual conduct. As one owner put it, “There are no

bathing beauties. People are just people. Women are always worrying about fat knees, legs, that sort of thing. You come out here a while, you wouldn’t worry about stuff like that. They accept themselves as what they are” (Hill, 1990).

Patrons of nudist camps carefully dissociate nu- dity from sexuality. They consider nudity as a natu- ral condition, not a “dirty” or deviant one. Such a conception would require considerably more effort to maintain if nudist resorts condoned or encour- aged more profuse sexuality.

But visitors to Whispering Pines face charges of deviance not only from critics of public nudity. In fact, another class of nudists finds deviance in the restrictions imposed there and at similar facilities. These naturists promote acceptance of nudity in public places such as beaches, not just in nudist camps. They view nudity as a natural condition in virtually all social situations, disdaining visitors to nudist resorts for their willingness to display their nudity only in these limited situations. Jeannette, a naturist nudist, says:

We went to a camp where we were the first nat- urists to visit. The first thing we did was to intro- duce ourselves by telling everyone our first and last names. They jumped all over us because we gave out our last names. They told us that we should never tell anyone our last name at a nud- ist camp because we would be giving someone the opportunity to do terrible things with the information that could hurt our reputations. It is pretty obvious to us that they didn’t believe that nudity is all right. (Cox, 1989: 123)

Members of the general public may regard patrons of nudist resorts as deviants who violate a commonly held norm that restricts nudity to “private” places or relationships. Naturists also criticize those at nudist resorts for deviance, because they defy the norms of true nudists, who do not fear associating sex with nudity. One naturist reports that people he met at a nudist camp didn’t even talk about sex: “I find them to be nauseatingly sterile” (Cox, 1989: 123).

Who is deviant? The nudists in the resort, who dissociate nudity from sex; the naturists who feel comfortable with that association; or non-nudists? Any answer requires a relative judgment.

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 17

This fact results in an almost endless variety of acts and characteristics qualifying as deviant depending on conditions and circumstances. Debates over prostitution, gam- bling, nudism, cheating, medical quackery, and marijuana use arise from conflicts between norms about such acts. Just as some people consider some acts as deviant, various kinds of people also become so classified. Social types perceived by some as deviants include reckless drivers, pacifists, racists, “hippie” radicals, “square” conser- vatives, the very rich, the very poor, old people, drinkers, nondrinkers, and motorcycle gang members. Some liberals, for example, criticize conservatives, considering them deviant, and some conservatives return that criticism.

The identity of deviance as a violation of a norm does not indicate who creates and enforces the norm. Questions about what deviance is and who fits in that category require answers that specify which groups define certain behaviors as deviant. Such questions ask whose norms deviants violate. In this sense, observers view deviance from the perspective of the social audience of the act. Take, for example, the designation of promiscuity. Suppose that a particular unmarried woman maintains an active and varied sex life. While some people may condemn her as “promiscuous,” others may view her and her behavior as “liberated.” Note that these highly divergent designations do not stem from differences in the sexual behavior itself. On the contrary, the behavior has been the same; it is only the evaluation of it that has varied (Schur, 1984: 5). Those who regard the woman’s behavior as promiscuous might not permit her to reenter conventional social sexual roles, even after a long period of conforming behavior.

Sociologists often maintain that no act includes anything inherently deviant; deviance requires a judgment that refers to some norm. In effect, the norms create deviance by creating social differentiation and attaching a moral quality to the act that designates it as something one ought to do or to avoid. This position does not imply complete absence of widespread agreement on the wrongfulness of certain acts, such as deliberately killing a person, physically assaulting an old person, or engaging in sexual intercourse with a child, but it does suggest that moral judgments differ because norms differ.

Consider norms governing appropriate styles of clothing. Clearly, beach wear is different today in the United States compared to what was considered appropriate 100 years ago. Clothing norms are even more marked when considering cultural differ- ences. In 2009, a woman was convicted of violating Sudan’s decency laws (Gettleman and Arafat, 2009). The woman was arrested and taken to court because she wore pants in public. At trial, she was found guilty and could have been confined, fined, and could have received 40 lashes from a plastic whip that could have left permanent scars. Instead, her punishment was a fine equivalent to $200. She was spared the lashing. The woman was quoted as saying: “I am Muslim. I understand Muslim law. But I ask: What passage in the Koran says women can’t wear pants?” (Gettleman and Arafat, 2009: A10).

Deviance is a relative concept. While norms state relative positions, some receive more attention in society than others, and these differences often depend on the power of certain groups to enforce their norms over members and other people. Criteria for deviance may depend on the relative power of groups to enforce and extend their norms on others (Table 1.1). Social power, then, strongly affects an understanding of why deviance is relative. For example, strong negative attitudes toward suicide, prostitution, homosexuality, and drunkenness, among other acts, have stemmed mainly from the actions of certain conservative church groups (see Greenberg, 1988) and from conser- vative middle-class norms generally. Opposition to marijuana use, nudity, and

18 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

distribution of pornographic materials originates with other “moral entrepreneurs,” who attempt to impose their norms on others (Becker, 1973: 147–163). Some criminolo- gists maintain that actions identified as crimes and the severity of penalties are specified by segments of society with the power to shape criminal policy (Quinney, 1981). Thus, a burglar who nets $200 from her crime may serve a long prison term, while a corporate executive whose actions defraud consumers of millions may suffer only probation, a small fine, or an order to perform some public service for the community.

Creating Deviance Deviance is often a socially created condition. Society defines an act as deviant through a political process that exerts power within some symbolic and moral context (Ben- Yahuda, 1990). When groups perceive threats to their interests from certain acts or conditions, they may attempt to promote those interests by persuading others of the legitimacy of their priorities.

In this way, successful social promotion creates and maintains attention for some social issues. Such processes create criteria for a number of forms of deviance, includ- ing homosexuality, drunk driving, and use of certain drugs. Trebach (1987), for example, relates public attitudes about cocaine to social events, including the deaths of two well-known athletes in 1986, specific television specials about crack and other drugs, and calls by political leaders for a “war on drugs” that would include drug testing and harsher legal penalties. Orcutt and Turner (1993) report on a resulting media “feeding frenzy” in 1986 characterized by attempts to document a serious cocaine problem. Media outlets used graphic depictions to portray modest yearly changes as huge jumps in drug abuse. In fact, the problem was as created as real.

Missing Children Groups create categories of deviance when they persuade others to acknowledge the legitimacy of their norms. A group determined to promote its norms begins by publi- cizing a problem with which other groups can relate. The problem of missing children illustrates how one group can enlarge its concerns to interest other groups as well. A number of concerns have historically focused on children in the United States, includ- ing delinquency, poor school performance, and neglect. In recent times, the list has

TABLE 1.1 The Relativity of Deviance

Activity Probably Not Deviant For Probably Deviant For

Drinking beer Fraternity members celebrating a football victory

Baptist deacons celebrating a successful church fund-raising campaign

Asking someone of the opposite sex out on a date

Unmarried people Married people

Setting one’s own bedtime Parents Young children

Sexual intercourse Married couples Catholic priests

Selling drugs Pharmacists Illicit drug dealers

Acting “weird” People who just won the state lottery Older people who have no reason to act differently

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 19

lengthened to include child prostitution, child pornography, negative effects of rock music, Halloween sadism, incest, molestation, involvement with religious cults, and drugs.

The most recent concern highlights missing children, most of whom people incorrectly label as victims of kidnappers (Best, 1990). Fueled by this fear among parents, individual parents of missing children have generated a social movement based on their own experiences, supported by national groups formed to help locate missing children, such as Child Find. Activists have promoted this problem by raising the issue with legislators and with the public through television programs and movie adaptations of actual cases. Public-service announcements on television and images of missing children’s pictures on grocery bags and milk cartons confirm the success of this movement.

Issue: The Real Risk of Child Kidnapping ❦

Parents who fear that kidnappers will abduct their children have a number of options these days. By fingerprinting and videotaping children, they can prepare tools to aid the police in identifying these young victims in case of tragedy. Nervous parents can also rely on DNA identification kits, wrist alarms, beepers, and child-safety books and tapes to help them protect their kids. Some parents have had identification devices implanted into their chil- dren’s teeth, while others have bought pagers for their children to allow constant communication with them. In fact, child-protection needs have cre- ated a growth industry in the United States in the 1990s. A national club, Safe-T-Child, offers classes and tips for parents who are concerned about stran- gers abducting their children.

Do real risks warrant such measures? Agent Kenneth Lanning with the FBI’s Missing and Exploited Children Task Force explains that all par- ents worry about their children, but parents have a hard time determining the actual risk of kidnapping of their children. The news media, especially tele- vision reports, unintentionally inflate the perception that today’s children live under high risk of kidnap- ping. In the 1950s, by contrast, news coverage cen- tered on primarily local issues, and these reports did not dominate television programming. Many local news programs lasted for 15 minutes. “In most cities today,” Agent Lanning said, “news comes on at 4 P.M. and goes off at 7:30 P.M. Proportionately speaking, the same amount [of abductions] may be going on, but when it happens today it is highly unlikely we’re not going to hear about it” (Boccella,

1996). Major television networks air weekly news programs most evenings, for example, 60 Minutes, Primetime, Dateline, and 48 Hours.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children started keeping statistics in 1982. Since that year, it has reported an increase in the number of missing children from 82,000 to 800,000, but the vast majority of those cases cited were runaways or children taken by family members and released soon after (Leinwand, 2002). The center also reports that between 3,500 and 4,500 children experience abduction by a nonfamily member, who releases them within 30 minutes. Each year, strangers hold around 200 children for extended periods or never return them, and about 100 of those are eventually killed. These figures are also consistent with a study estimating the numbers of children who are ab- ducted by family members. An estimated 203,900 children were victims of a family abduction in 1999 (Hammer, Finkelhor, and Sedlak, 2002). In the great majority of cases, the child was returned, and in only less than 100 cases was the child not returned or located.

Jan Wagner, an Austin, Texas, businesswoman and mother of two, started Safe-T-Child after becom- ing separated from her son for about 30 minutes at an amusement park. In addition to offering classes for parents, the group has also pressed for legislation requiring schools to offer child-safety classes.

Source: Boccella, Kathy. 1996. “Parents Pushing Panic Button.” Des Moines Register, November 3: pp. 1–2; and Leinwand, Donna. 2002. “Kidnapping Problems ‘Impossible’ to Quantify.” USA Today, August 15: p. 3A.

20 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

To promote this issue, activists have cited horrific examples, expanded the defini- tion of the problem, and issued unrealistically large estimates of its scope. While the movement’s messages imply that strangers have kidnapped the missing children it claims to represent, the actual number of such crimes is small, about 100 or so a year. Unfortunately, even a small number is too large, and this sentiment reinforces public attention to missing children. In 2002, a rash of kidnappings occurred, starting with Danielle van Dam in February and continuing through the summer. In all, 10 youngsters were taken in high-profile cases, and in some instances, they were killed (Leinwand, 2002). Examples like this one mask the fact that relatives (usually estranged spouses) bear responsibility for most so-called kidnappings, and only rela- tively few children are taken annually even under these circumstances. Most missing children are more properly called runaways.

Satanic Cults Some believe satanic cults worship malevolent beings throughout the United States. Books, articles, and talk show episodes on satanism tend to confirm this belief by highlighting claims that unknown groups increasingly engage in animal slaughter, nocturnal rituals, and even human sacrifices.

Are satanic practices really spreading? One cannot say for certain, although some groups certainly display concern for the occult, witchcraft, and satanism. However, Victor reports that one claim of ritualistic killing of animals in New Hampshire was “later determined to be only road kills cleaned up by state road workers and deposited in the woods (Victor, 1990: 288).” Hicks (1990) observes that a comprehensive inves- tigation of cult-mutilation claims concluded that the “mutilations” resulted from natural actions of scavengers and predators. A police officer who investigates crimes linked to satanism says:

I most [often] investigate “occult” crimes that turn out to be false reports. For example, one woman reported a satanic burglary. As it turned out, the symbolism was poorly done and I got her to admit she made it up. We also had a middle-age woman do this to get front page coverage. Her motive was to get support for a teen center in town. I think the greatest danger now is over interpreting “occult” crime. Kids have no idea of the religious significance behind their symbolism. They could not tell you when Walpurgisnacht is, but will happily wear a pentagram because [rock singer] Ozzy [Osborne] does. (Crouch and Damphousse, 1991: 202–203)

Rumor supplies the principal means for propagating such threats to create moral panic. Many people doubt rumors they hear about satanic cults, but some people do believe these stories. Others may justify spreading such rumors with a “better-safe- than-sorry” claim. Rumors spread more easily when authority figures, such as teachers, parents, and ministers, repeat them. Repetition of satanic rumors may encourage peo- ple to believe them, because “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In this way, even implausible rumors can gain acceptance (Victor, 1993).

Without denying the existence of satanic groups, widespread problems with satanism can originate in socially created phenomena (see also Forsyth and Oliver, 1990). Overemphasis on the activities of a few groups can suggest that larger numbers of these deviants pose a significant threat. Such a view might promote the goals of people and groups who use the idea of the devil to scare others into agreeing with their views.

CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance 21

Determining Norms and the Content of Deviance Sociologists face a difficult problem determining how strongly various groups within a society oppose certain norms (Sagarin, 1975: 222). They can gauge support for and opposition to some norms more easily than others. Criminal law embodies a set of legal norms that all can see; ambiguous norms regulate sexual behavior, on the other hand, often changing between groups and situations over time.

Normative changes may display predictable patterns. Some observers have argued that some forms of behavior follow a cycle, or sequence of stages, moving from disap- proval to greater tolerance (see Winnick, 1990). A behavior that elicits widespread social disapproval may gain legitimacy after some group campaigns for a change in public attitudes. The group may promote its goal by claiming that current sanctions victimize many people. Publication of a major research study (such as a public opinion poll) may also amplify calls for change. Over time, others may come to share the newer norm, in the process changing the social criteria for deviance. This life cycle of devi- ance may explain changes in public views of cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and use of heroin and cocaine, for example.

Changing norms seriously complicate attempts to evaluate standards for deviance. Acceptability of cigarette smoking, for example, has risen and fallen a number of times in the United States since the 1800s (Troyer and Markle, 1983). In the 1870s, many groups and individuals strongly condemned the practice, in part because it was most common among urban immigrants of low social status who were also characterized as heavy drinkers. At that time, smoking by women was considered particularly deviant because of an association with prostitution. In spite of these norms, cigarette smoking increased in the United States, and attitudes began to change following World War I. By the end of World War II, people generally considered smoking acceptable, socially desirable behavior.

Attitudes began to change again in the 1960s as medical evidence linked tobacco smoking with a number of serious physical illnesses. In the 1970s, laws banned ciga- rette advertising on television and radio. By the 1990s, smoking bans restricted the practice in public places, because many nonsmokers object to smoke and because medical evidence shows heath hazards from inhaling secondhand smoke. Indeed, citi- zen groups have campaigned for even stronger measures, and several cities enacted ordinances during the 1980s prohibiting smoking in places such as elevators, public meeting rooms, and certain areas in restaurants.

Cigarette smoking has again become deviant through changes in norms regulat- ing the behavior. Antismoking attitudes define a norm that advocates have successfully promoted in recent years. Virtually all states now restrict smoking in public buildings, and many states have imposed specific statutes regulating smoking in other public areas. Most of this legislation has flowed from the idea that smoking, regardless of its effects on smokers, adversely affects others (Goodin, 1989). Clearly, the norms on smoking have changed (Mansnerus, 1988).

As of 2008, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that about 21 percent of all Americans were current smokers—more than one out of five (American Cancer Soci- ety, 2010). Nearly half of all current smokers will die from doing so. Indeed, smoking kills more people annually (about 440,000) than alcohol, car accidents, AIDS, suicide, homicide, and illegal drug use combined. At this rate, tobacco is expected to be the

22 CHAPTER 1 • The Nature and Meaning of Deviance

cause of death of 1 billion people in this century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century (Mackay, Eriksen, and Shafey, 2006).

Normative change results sometimes from very complex reasons (as in attitudes toward cigarette smoking) and sometimes from more identifiable reasons (as in the prohibition of alcohol early in the 20th century). Links between cigarette smoking and health hazards and an increasing social emphasis on self-control and physical fitness have helped to change many people’s evaluations of the behavior. An even more important link connects smoking with the notion of an individual’s right to avoid it. On the other hand, Prohibition originated in a 1920 campaign by some groups to create legislation outlawing production, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Alcohol offended their sense of morality, and they convinced others to share that evaluation (Gusfield, 1963). Still, relatively clear norms do not force everyone to class cigarette smoking or consumption of alcohol (or even marijuana) as deviance. In fact, serious disputes question how deviant each of these activities is, and positions vary depending on who makes the judgment.

Two Final Observations It is necessary to make two final observations.

Social Deviance and Social Problems Deviance related to social behavior may differ from deviance related to social pro- blems, even though the two kinds of deviance overlap. Not all social problems repre- sent instances of deviance. For example, many people regard unemployment, population control, and lack of adequate medical care for poor people as social pro- blems; these examples hardly fit the pattern of deviant behavior. The same could be said about other conditions, such as aging and homelessness (see Manis, 1976 and Spector and Kitsuse, 1