SOCIOLOGY: A CONTEMPORARY AND CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE
Scott A. Lukas
I. What Is Crime, Deviance and Social Control?
In 2004 the sentencing of German Armin Meiwes gained international attention, in part because of the length of the sentence and the nature of the crime committed by Meiwes. The so-called “German Cannibal” was given eight and one-half years for a crime that many people would consider disturbing. Some time ago Meiwes used the Internet to locate an individual who shared his interest in sadomasochism and cannibalism. Using a procedure that assured that his potential victim was not a minor, Meiwes found Bernd Juergen Brandes on the Internet. Brandes agreed to meet Meiwes whose desire was to torture and eat an individual who voluntarily agreed to be a part of the act. Though it is reported that Meiwes found the cannibalism in films like Silence of the Lambs too disturbing to watch, he met Brandes and brutally tortured and ate him. In his sentencing hearing Meiwes expressed no remorse and even remarked that he felt good knowing that someone was inside of him. Interestingly, a number of German citizens found Meiwes’ sentence to be too harsh.
What the example of Armin Meiwes helps sociologists illustrate is the issue of the relativity of crime and deviance. Even though we may feel strongly disturbed by the actions of others, this does not mean that others will not view the same actions in a much different light. Sociologists do not expect that people will have the same reaction to crime and deviance, even in an extreme case like this one. As well, even in a society where one would expect crime and deviance to not exist—as in Emile Durkheim’s famous example of crime within a society of saints (1969:573)—sociologists are aware that crime exists, albeit in a manner seeming inconsequential in the eyes of the next society or social group. Sociologists like Durkheim stress the importance of resisting laypersons’ understanding of crime and deviance; this is a difficult task given the fact that “common sense” and knee-jerk morality is often applied to social understandings of crime and deviance (cf. Pfohl 1994:4).
To help understand what crime and deviance are, we can reflect on the sociological concept of social control. Social control refers to formal and informal means in which society responds to deviance through the social order. Such responses are carried out by social control agents, like teachers and police officers, and can include actions ranging from constructive criticism, open disapproval or arrest. According to the functionalist theory of sociology, a society must maintain equilibrium, its social balance. In order for this to occur potential or actual rule breakers must be dealt with appropriately, and social control acts like a valve that can be turned on and off given any leaks in the social order. The responses of a society in its varied forms of social control are in reference to crime and deviance—the major subjects of this chapter. As Gordon Marshall helps define, crime focuses on an offense “which goes beyond the personal and into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws” (1994:96), while deviance includes violations of norms and constructions of stigma associated with such violations (ibid:120). In some cases crime and deviance are used interchangeably, but in fact such usage does not capture the specifics of each. An easy way to remember the difference is that generally crime relates to violations of the law codified by legal code, while deviance could include legal violations as well as social violations like someone talking in a library. At the same time there is arguably some overlap in people’s perceptions of crime and deviance in society, so sociologists also recognize the fact that each is invariably linked to the other. For the purposes of this chapter’s focus on theoretical perspectives on crime and deviance, some level of interchangeability will be maintained in the analysis of these phenomena.
• Web Resource: Armin Meiwes Case Information
http://www.4law.co.il/cann1c.htm
Deviants are only one part of the story of deviance and social control. Deviants never exist except in relation to those who attempt to control them. Deviants exist only in opposition to those whom they threaten and those who have enough power to control against such threats. The outcome of the battle of deviance and social control is this. Winners obtain the privilege of organizing social life as they see fit. Losers are trapped within the vision of others (Pfohl 1994:3).
Crime is…necessary; it is bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life, and by that very fact it is useful (Durkheim 1969:574).
Both of these quotes challenge everyday assumptions that many of us share in regards to our perceptions of crime and deviance. We have been taught that crime and deviance are:
• Easily identifiable—“I know it when I see it,” as has been said about pornography.
• Committed by some people who are inherently bad, misguided or evil.
• The results of people’s poor decisions or character flaws, not because of society itself.
• The types of behaviors and actions that are shown on television news, shows like COPS and in major motion pictures.
• Things that none of us would ever commit.
• Most damaging to us when they are related to street crime or drug use.
• Bad for our society.
In studying the sociology of crime and deviance, as in all other areas of the discipline, you should understand that seeing is not believing, and in taking up the study of sociology of crime and deviance, you should be prepared to challenge the everyday assumptions that are provided by members of the elite sectors of society, the news media, as well as the entertainment industry.
To introduce the critical study of crime and deviance, let us consider once again the work of the immanent sociologist Emile Durkheim. In addition to defining theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of society, Durkheim helped us to understand the often hidden aspects of our social worlds. To focus on one of the major issues addressed by Durkheim, we can return to the last item on the previous list, “Crime and deviance are bad for society.”
Since the earliest of ages we have been taught that crime is bad and that we must do everything in our power to resist it. We have also been taught that those who deal with crime—police officers, prosecutors, judges—are good and that we must listen to their words and follow their actions. But what if we were told, “Crime and deviance are good for out society?” How would that statement strike us?
Years ago Emile Durkheim addressed that question directly. He was interested in the ways in which crime often functioned in a positive respect in society, contrary to popular opinions of the opposite. In “The Normality of Crime,” a section from The Rules of the Sociological Method, Durkheim begins with the assertion that crime is present in all societies over time (1969:571) and that a society exempt from crime would be impossible (ibid:572). Given the rhetoric of the contemporary United States—ranging from the discourse of the war on drugs to McGruff the Crime Dog who proclaims to “take a bite out of crime”—it is interesting to think of the idea that crime can never be eliminated. Any politician who would make such a statement publicly would be voted out of office, but few politicians, save the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, are sociologists.
In addition to stating that crime is a given for any society, Durkheim suggested four ways in which crime is beneficial for society:
• Setting Moral Boundaries—by identifying criminals or deviants, another group can establish the moral boundaries of their own group.
• Promotes Social Unity—to affirm the rightness of one group’s ways, people recognize criminals and deviants as being different from themselves. A number of movies that focus on the mafia, street gangs and various forms of organized crime illustrate this function of crime. Time after time one gang identifies itself as distinct from another gang by the mere fact of expressing difference, even when similarities exist.
• Innovative Function in Promoting Social Change—as Stephen Pfohl has written, “innovative deviance encourages society to revise its rules in response to new…problems” (1994:225). One of the greatest social activists in the history of the United States, Martin Luther King, Jr., was not only labeled as deviant, he was persecuted as one. Were it not for his perseverance, the civil rights movement may have not emerged as it did.
• Tension-Reducing Function—oftentimes one group will be blamed for the ills of society, and unfortunately as is so often the case in hate groups, this form of scapegoating reduces tensions and anxieties within the group. In the aftermath of 9/11 a number of misinformed citizens of the United States blamed all Arabs and members of the Muslim faith for the tragedies of that day and, in so doing, diverted attention from focusing on the complicity of the United States in 9/11.
Regardless of the immanence of Durkheim as a sociologist, most politicians would not change their view of criminal justice to adopt in practice what Durkheim said in theory. What a transformed society it would be if they did!
• Exercise: Using the following Internet resources, consider the ideas related in Durkheim’s list of the positive functions of crime. Using the links consider how crime and deviance is related in the arena of public policy and peoples’ perceptions of the negativity of crime and deviance.
• Web Resource: U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/
• Web Resource: McGruff the Crime Dog
http://www.mcgruff.org/
Like the major sociological perspectives we have been studying, a variety of theories have been applied to the study of crime and deviance. Each theory varies in its approach to the subject—some focus on the individual as the cause of crime and deviance, others on society as the catalyst. The first set of theories we will analyze are considered foundational in the discipline. They include demonic perspective, classical perspective and biological and pathological perspective.
Charles Mackay, in his 1841 work Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, offers a very compelling account of the witchcraft hysteria that swept Europe, the United States and many parts of the world centuries ago:
An epidemic terror seized upon the nations; no man thought himself secure, either in his person or possessions, from the machinations of the devil and his agents. Every calamity that befell him he attributed to a witch. If a storm arose and blew down his barn, it was witchcraft (1995:463).
Mackay’s description captures the frenzied state of affairs that surrounded allegations of possession and the use of witchcraft against others. The demonic perspective, as sociologist Stephen Pfohl names it, “is the oldest of all known perspectives on deviance” (1994:22). One of the clearest historical examples of the demonic perspective occurred during the Salem witch trails of the 1600s in New England. The premise of the political and religious leaders of the time was that due to temptation or possession, as related in Biblical allegories, individuals fell from the grace of God and in so doing, by being overcome by sin, were unfit to remain members of the community. During the time of Salem, many religious leaders believed that the world was but a battleground for the forces of the supernatural and in the case of some people transgressing against God—in what amounted to a spiritual deviance—the entire community was threatened by the deviance. In this sense the transgression of one individual impacted the community—a sort of cosmic consequence of sin as some saw it (cf. Pfohl 1994:24). It is interesting to note that though the attribution of deviance to demonic possession is less common today, the notion that one person’s deviance impacts the social fabric of the community is still quite a common understanding.
One of the most problematic aspects of the demonic perspective is its reliance on the value system of those in power—in this case, Christianity. In the instance of the discovery of possession, the accused was subjected to an inquisitorial system of “justice.” One famous test to determine the truth of a witchcraft allegation involved a dunking stool. The unfortunate victim was tied to a chair and continually lowered into water until she or he confessed their sins; often the result was the death of the accused. Another test involved a victim being bound and thrown into water—if the person floated she or he was a witch and was killed, but if the person sank to the bottom of the water, she or he was not a witch and was thus innocent. The negative consequence of innocence was that the individual also died from drowning. As we can see the inquisitorial system of the demonic perspective left no room for real justice. As some have commented, the true cause of the Salem witch trails may have been the emergence of women into the public sphere of their communities, and by labeling and eliminating the presumed deviants of the community, males were using witchcraft as a politically expedient solution to the changing social climate of Salem. This point regarding the emergence of witchcraft allegations during times of political and social upheaval is brilliantly expressed by sociologist Kai Erikson in his study of Salem, Wayward Puritans (1966).
Another major problem with the demonic perspective rests in the fact that demons cannot be scientifically verified to be real, and as a result, the very presumption of possession rests on personal belief that is unverifiable. A classic example of demonic possession is found in the horror film The Exorcist in which Linda Blair’s character is the subject of repeated exorcisms by priests. Surprisingly, the demonic perspective is at work today. In the days following 9/11 the religious leader Jerry Falwell made the statement:
What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen (Falwell 2001).
Falwell made similar statements in the 1980s (Pfohl 1994:43-5), and it is clear that such explanations of deviance share much in common with those of Salem in the 1600s. The attribution of catastrophic events like 9/11 to punishment directed against certain groups is in line with the notion of cosmic consequences found in the constructions of witchcraft in Salem. Yet another invocation of the demonic perspective in contemporary society is realized at a more individualistic level—this is the defense of possession made popular by David Berkowitz, the so-called Son of Sam. Such contemporary examples notwithstanding, the demonic perspective is largely seen as a historical perspective on crime and deviance that has little room in today’s society.
• Web Reading: Charles MacKay’s Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions (Volumes 1-3)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/author?name=Mackay%2C%20Charles
• Web Reading: Salem Witch Trials (University of Virginia) - Original Documents
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/
• Web Resource: Demonic Possession
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_exor.htm
• Web Resource: Robertson and Falwell and Terrorism
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
In contrast to the arbitrary system of justice profiled in the demonic perspective, the classical perspective stands as an attempt to make rational and fair the system of identifying and punishing crime in society (Lanier and Henry 1998:66). Instead of having authority rest in the hands of the church and in supernaturalism, the classical perspective was part of an intellectual and social movement that emphasized human rights and individual freedom. The work of classical thinkers like Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham ushered in a new age of criminology that was especially relevant in assigning punishment to crimes. One of the basic principles underlying the classical approach was that of the social contract. The notion of the social contact is rooted in the philosophical writings of Rousseau and, especially, Hobbes. In a pragmatic sense thinkers like Hobbes believed that the perseverance of the state was dependent on the ability of individuals to successfully integrate themselves in society. As Stephen Pfohl says, the principle represented a view of society as a “legalistic contract between freely consenting human individuals” (1994:69). Without a social contract binding people to the state and the state to the people, a lawless chaotic world, not unlike that of Salem, would be inevitable. As we shall see, the concept of the social contract influenced Beccaria and Bentham’s view of the administration of justice in society.
The emergence of the classical perspective in the eighteenth century can be read as a socio-political response to changing demographic, economic, religious and social conditions in the world, especially Europe (cf. Lanier and Henry 1998:64-66; Pfohl 1994:64-70). With the rise of new philosophical explanations of reality in the Enlightenment, a number of principles guided the ultimate end of the classical approach to crime and deviance. One was the notion of free will—the idea that individuals acted as rational, free beings who could make right or wrong decisions and thus were responsible for their actions. Free will was also viewed by the classical theorists as a form of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Another was the idea of universal rights—the spirit of liberty and freedom that said all people were equal and should be treated as such. With universal rights came the need for predictable and calculable methods of assessing crime and punishment and thus a logical and rational system of justice was also required, especially as it was to be codified in the legal system. The major goal of these principles in a combined sense was an approach to the administration of justice that offered an alternative to the arbitrary nature of the demonic perspective.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) are the two criminologists most closely associated with the development of the classical perspective. Bentham is often associated with his concept of the panopticon, a prison in which guards can see the prisoners, and not the reverse. Both thinkers established what was to become this most important perspective of criminology. In addition to its influence on the development of a more just legal system, we can say that the work of the classical thinkers influenced the founding fathers in the United States and ultimately established the criminal justice system that is indigenous to the United States today. In fact Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment (1963) was utilized by the founding fathers as a primary text (Lanier and Henry 1998:67). Here is a brief summary of some of the major principles associated with Bentham and Beccaria’s view of criminal justice:
· Individual Sovereignty—the idea that individual rights have priority over the interests of the state (cf. Lanier and Henry 1998:68).
· The Presumption of Innocence—especially as it protected the individual against the power of the state or corrupt officials.
· Trial by Jury—the classical theorists believed that the accused should be tried by a jury, not by the state.
· Economics of Punishment—instead of increasing laws or the severity of punishment, it was believed that punishment should be just harsh enough that individuals will economically determine it is against their best interests to commit crimes.
· Deterrence—the idea that punishing one individual will discourage others to commit crimes, what is called general deterrence, should instead be realized in individual or specific deterrence, “which encourages each individual to calculate the costs of committing the crime” (Lanier and Henry 1998:69).
· Just Deserts—meaning that “convicted offenders deserve punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the harm they caused…and not for any other reason,” (Lanier and Henry 1998:69) like teaching a moral lesson to society.
· Celerity—meaning “with speed,” the idea was that “punishment to appear as a cost to potential offenders…must…occur swiftly after apprehension” (Lanier and Henry 1998:69).
· Demonstrable Social Harm—crimes without victims or acts of self-defense should not be subject to criminal law. According to the classical theorists, legislative sanctions were reasonable only if the crimes negatively impacted the social order (cf. Pfohl 1994:75).
· Punishments—should be kept at the minimum to assure that they will be viewed by the offender as bringing about more pain than profit and should be scaled in such a way that the offender will commit the lesser of the crimes (Bentham 1970); otherwise, in the case of rape and murder having the same punishment, an offender might kill the rape victim (cf. Lanier and Henry 1998:70).
· The Death Penalty—Bentham, like Beccaria, opposed the death penalty, suggesting that it did more harm than good and did not represent the utility principle—the notion that “the greatest good should be sought for the greatest number” (ibid.). Ultimately, they felt that the death penalty would be viewed by citizens as overly harsh and repressive (Pfohl 1994:73).
The influence of the Italians on the development of a rationalistic system of justice, the famous French Code of 1791, as well as further revisions in 1810 and 1819 (Pfohl 1994:75), allowed for more specificity in the administering of justice. The so-called “neoclassical revision” took into account individual differences in the committing of crimes, such as the age or mental state of the offender, as well as extenuating circumstances surrounding the crime. In our contemporary justice system such focus on discretion, particularly in the sentencing stage, has been limited. The establishment of mandatory minimum sentences has been critiqued by many for its negation of discretion. Another revision of classical theory has less applicability to the realm of the administration of justice; in fact, rational choice theory attempts to fill a major gap in classical theory—namely, why do people commit criminal and deviant acts? One thought offered by rational choice theory is that of choice structuring, which essentially suggests that people will engage in criminal acts if their net gain will outweigh their risks and potential losses. Especially today there is much debate about the success of the classical perspective in establishing a justice system that is truly fair. There is some agreement, however, that the principles established by the classical theorists at least move society in a positive direction.
• Web Resource: The Bentham Project
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/index.htm
• Web Resource: The Panopticon
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/panopticonhtm.htm
• Web Reading: Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham
http://www.la.utexas.edu/labyrinth/ipml/index.html
• Web Resource: Cesare Beccaria Biography
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/beccaria.htm
• Web Resource: Cesare Beccaria Resources
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/beccaria.htm
• Web Resource: Death Penalty Information Center
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
• Web Reading: On Crimes and Punishment, Beccaria
http://www.crimetheory.com/Archive/Beccaria/index.html
• Web Reading: Hobbes’ Leviathan
http://www.constitution.org/th/leviatha.txt
• Web Exercise: Crime Theory’s Proportionality Exercise
http://www.crimetheory.com/ClasPos/proportion.htm
Seeing prominence in the nineteenth century, biological and pathological approaches to crime and deviance broke with the demonic theory’s emphasis on sin as the cause of crime as well as the classical approach’s concept of crime as a result of rational choices of the individual. Now crime and deviance was to be viewed as the result of sickness—that of a diseased mind or body (cf. Pfohl 1994:104). In the Werner Herzog film The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser a man who was the subject of intense abuse and confinement for most of his life is discovered by the world. Eventually he dies and upon conducting an autopsy a physician identifies an abnormality in Hauser’s brain and thus claims to have solved the mystery of the man’s deviance. Though another logical explanation of his deviance could be his confinement and harsh treatment as a child, the doctor focuses on the presumed physical abnormality of Hauser’s brain as the cause of his peculiarities. Herzog’s film helps illustrate the approach of the biological and psychological perspective. The key to understanding this theory of crime and deviance is the idea of pathology—some abnormality, predisposition or trigger that causes a person to be criminal. Some criminologists have labeled this the “born to be bad” theory.
Prior to the publication of Cesare Lombroso’s The Criminal Man in 1876—a text that stands as the major impetus behind this approach to crime and deviance—a number of influential theorists had laid the groundwork for assuming that crime was biologically based. Giovanni Battista Della Porta (1535-1615), Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828), Johann Kasper Spurzheim (1776-1853), and Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) offered ideas ranging from the notion that crime and human facial characteristics were linked, that human behavior was related to the shape of the skull (known as phrenology), and that mental disorders were a result of abnormalities of the arteries of the brain. As the Italian school of criminologists adapted this earlier work, a critique of the work of the Italian classical theorists ensued. The major concern of the “holy three of criminology” (Schafer 1976:41)—including Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), and his students Enrico Ferrri (1856-1929) and Rafaele Garofalo (1835-1909)—was to move beyond the free will assumptions of the classicists to a position that emphasized the inherent givens of humans and how various characteristics led to criminal lives. As this new Italian school of criminology developed this approach to understanding crime and deviance, some major tenets were founded. First, the school adapted Darwinian theory in a deterministic sense, essentially believing that crime was a product of natural causes (Pfohl 1994:106). Second, the school believed in the methods of positivistic science as a clear necessity in discovering crime, especially as tools in determining the human biological specimens who were criminal and those who were not. The school emphasized the use of scientific and laboratory studies to create data sets of individuals who had or lacked criminal traits (cf. Lanier and Henry 1998:93). Third, the concept of “organismic infection” dominated the Italian school; as Stephen Pfohl has remarked, “deviance is likened to a diseased or sick part of [the] body” (1994:107). Finally, Lombroso and others used their scientific studies of the human body to produce specific types indicative of different forms of criminals.
Lombroso’s Typology of Criminals (Lanier and Henry 1998:94-5).
(1) The Born Criminal—an “atavist,” or a person who is a throwback to more primitive humans.
(2) The Criminal By Passion—a person who acts criminally because of the emotional pain of an injustice.
(3) The Insane Criminal—an imbecile who has an infected brain.
(4) The Occasional Criminal—includes:
(a) The Criminaloid—a weak person who is influenced by others to commit crime.
(b) The Epileptoid—a person with epilepsy.
(c) The Habitual Criminal—an individual whose occupation is crime.
(d) The Pseudo-Criminal—someone who commits crime by accident.
Clearly, Lombroso’s typology is problematic and eventually he conceded the role of environmental factors (“nurture”) in the origins of crime (Lanier and Henry 1998:95). Typological approaches to crime had many disturbing social consequences. One of the suggested remedies of crime associated with the Italian school was forced sterilization, lobotomies and death—what were called substitutions (ibid.); in fact, Enrico Ferri was at first invited to implement Mussolini’s fascist social policies but was eventually rejected because of his policies being too radical (ibid.). One of the most frightening aspects of the Italian school’s approaches was that the ultimate solution to crime in society was eugenics, social engineering and genocide.
Following the influences of the Italian school a number of researchers continued the biological tradition, including criminal anthropologist E. A. Hooten in the 1930s who believed that tall men were inclined to commit murder, and heavy men forgery and fraud (Pfohl 1994:108). William Sheldon attributed body type to specific forms of criminal behavior, while others used everything from psychological theories to hereditary and genetic pathologies to explain crime and deviance in society. The most contemporary of such theories draw on the work of Sigmund Freud to link certain forms of personality, personality disorders and environmental stimuli to the committing of criminal and deviant acts.
• Web Resource: Cesare Lombroso Links
http://elvers.stjoe.udayton.edu/history/people/Lombroso.html
• Web Resource: Kaspar Hauser
http://kbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/me/notes/kaspar-hauser.html
• Web Resource: Information on Phrenology
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n01/frenolog/frenologia.htm
• Web Reading: Project Gutenberg's The Positive School of Criminology, by Enrico Ferri
http://www.gutenberg.net/1/0/5/8/10580/10580-h/10580-h.htm
• Web Exercise: Playing Detective
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/syl.html
Our first three theories addressed crime and deviance in a variety of ways. Demonic perspective relies on supernaturalism to identify and suggest treatment of deviant individuals; classical perspective focuses on free will and suggested administrative remedies for society willing to control crime; and finally biological and pathological perspective suggests personal biological or psychological abnormality as the root of crime in society. The next set of theories take a different general approach, highlighted in part by the work of Howard Becker in his famous study of deviance Outsiders:
Deviance is not a quality that lies in behavior itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it (1963:14).
Becker’s quote emphasizes the fact that deviance is not inherent to any specific act or even inside a person, but that it is constructed in the social interactions of persons. It is the fact of social interaction that gives our next three theories purpose.
The excellent Frontline documentary The Children of Rockdale County helps introduce the basis of the learning perspective—quite simply, people are deviant because they learn to be. In the documentary a group of high school students from Conyers, Georgia are discovered to be participating in varying levels of adolescent deviance, including, most notably, group sex. The film is fascinating in a number of respects, but one of its greatest strengths is in emphasizing the fact that deviance occurs among the upper class; it turns out that the residents of the community are quite wealthy. By the end of the film it is clear that the proliferation of deviance among such a wide group of teenagers was in part the result of learning deviance from others.
French social theorist and Durkheim critic Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904) helped establish the focus on learning as a key factor in understanding crime and deviance in society. His specific attention was on the role of imitation in social life—namely, how were people influenced to mimic the behavior of others, even in cases of unpopular behaviors? Tarde identified three laws that seemed to summarize the rules of imitation in society. These included:
• The law of close contact—people are said to follow the behaviors of those whom they are closest to in terms of intimate contact.
• The law of imitation of superiors by inferiors—people are likely to imitate the behaviors and actions of those from prestigious standing in life.
• The law of insertion—people follow the rule of new fashions outmoding old customs, such as in the gun replacing the knife as a weapon of choice by the criminal (Pfohl 1994:299).
Tarde’s laws were later critiqued for being too simplistic, but all in all they helped sociologists understand the general ways in which people molded their actions in response to others. It was sociologist Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950) who institutionalized the focus on learning begun by Tarde. We call his form of learning theory differential association.
Differential association helped relativize the study of deviance and crime in sociology. Sutherland suggested that “any person can be trained to adopt and follow” patterns of crime and deviance (1934:51), not that just some biologically flawed or demonically possessed people are deviant. As Sutherland saw it, “a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law” (Lanier and Henry 1998:138). According to differential association, if a teenager hangs out with the “wrong crowd” to a greater degree than with the “good crowd” that individual is more likely to commit acts of crime and deviance. The issue of the degree of differential association is taken up by Sutherland in a series of factors including:
• Priority of Learning—how early behaviors are learned in life.
• Frequency—how often the individual interacts with members of the “wrong crowd.”
• Duration—the length of time in which exposure to specific behaviors occurs.
• Intensity—the status or prestige of those displaying the behavior (Pfohl 1994:302-3).
You may have noted that “bad crowd” and “good crowd” are in quotes; in fact one of the critiques of Sutherland’s theory is that it assumes that we can know the difference between the good and the bad, when in fact such normative matters are often in flux. As well, the theory does not address why some criminals act individually without other criminal associations or why random forms of violence occur (Lanier and Henry 1998:140), such as in the case of so many “going postal” shootings occurring in the past ten years in the United States. Years after Sutherland’s work Gresham Sykes and David Matza sought to update Sutherland’s research based on studies of prison culture and forms of rule breaking. Sykes and Matza produced a famous set of forms of neutralization that serve to morally exempt individuals from their deviant actions. Such neutralizations can occur even prior to the committing of a deviant act:
• Denial of Responsibility—the claim that the act was not the person’s fault.
• Denial of Injury—no one was hurt in the committing of the act.
• Denial of Victim—the claim that the person had it coming to them.
• Condemnation of the Condemners—the notion that everyone is a criminal.
• Appeal to Higher Loyalties—as in the case of doing something for the gang, one does it for the group.
Learning theory reminds us of the powerful impacts of our associations with others in society.
• Web Resource: Lost Children of Rockdale County Resources
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/georgia/
• Web Resource: Edwin Sutherland Biography
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/sutherland.html
Unlike learning theory where the emphasis is on being exposed to and personally adopting deviant behavior, control theory focuses on the issue of why people conform in society (Hirschi 1969). In the film Trainspotting a series of bad decisions, rooted in the backgrounds of the characters, leads to a number of tragedies, including the death of a neglected baby. Like this film, social control theory assumes that some individuals are socialized appropriately in society, while others are not: “what distinguishes us is how effectively we are socialized not to break the law” (Lanier and Henry 1998:158). A number of popular media accounts of crime and deviance commonly center on the story of an individual who, criminal or deviant in her or his adult life, suffered from insufficient socialization in childhood. This form of social control theory is known as broken bond theory and it offers that the insufficient socialization experienced by the child is in the form of broken or weakened bonds to convention (cf. Lanier and Henry 1998:159). Another strain of social control theory is called failed-to-bond theory and it suggests that a total lack of attachment to others and to conformity leads to deviance in the individual.
The various approaches to social control theory have in common a matrix of various forms of control, often internal and external. F. Ivan Nye spoke of direct control, resulting from possible punishment, indirect control, as in the example of young people not wanting to hurt their parents if they happened to commit criminal or deviant acts, and internal control, which is associated with guilt and one’s conscience (Lanier and Henry 1998:160). Walter Reckless (1973), writing in the 1950s, defined containment theory—a pragmatic approach to deviance that suggested that various pushes and pulls towards and away from deviant behavior impacted an individual’s likelihood to commit crime and deviance. Outer controls include the influence of social control agents, while inner controls are a result of guilt and positive self-concept. In the interplay of these two forms of control, an individual is thus likely or not to deviate, as a result of the interaction of such forces. The interaction of the controls is summarized by one author:
Social controls are actual or potential rewards and punishments that accrue from conformity to or deviation from norms. Controls may be internal, invoked by self, or external, enforced by others (Kornhauser 1984:24).
Recall that social control theory, like the other social interaction theories, offers that any of us can be deviant; and it is interesting to consider the specific ways in which failed and broken bonding or insufficient control in one’s life can lead to crime and deviance. Travis Hirschi expressed four important ways in which bonding occurs in life:
• Attachment to teachers, peers, parents and the goal to not hurt them.
• Commitment to forms of conventional behavior.
• Involvement in conventional activities, especially school-related ones.
• Belief in the validity of convention and in following the rules (Lanier and Henry 1998:180).
To no surprise Hirschi’s work and the corpus of social control theory has been widely applied to the study of juvenile delinquency and problems in family life. Empirically, as Lanier and Henry illustrate, control theory “has been one of the most tested of all theories” (1998:163). In terms of criminal justice policy, activities and programs that stress meaningful bonds between youth and positive role models are justified as approaches that will increase conformity and acceptance of convention in society. After school efforts in high crime urban neighborhoods and programs like Big Brothers and Big Sisters are examples of some of the most popular contemporary policy applications of social control.
• Web Resource: Big Brothers and Sisters Homepage
http://www.bbbsa.org/site/pp.asp?c=iuJ3JgO2F&b=14576
Many years ago I had the misfortune of watching an episode of the old Geraldo Rivera show. The particular focus of that day’s show was club kids—eccentric teenagers who have a passion for clubbing and extravagant fashion and behavior. My reaction to the show was of the excessive deviance being exhibited…not of the club kids, but of the conservative, older audience members who delighted in calling the kids names and attacking their character. The Geraldo show helps exemplify the major focus of labeling theory—namely, that some people have the power to label others “deviants” and those labeled are as a consequence made less powerful.
The example of the reaction of the audience to the club kids is a clear statement of how societal reaction is a major force in the formation and maintenance of deviance in society. In fact labeling theory is sometimes known as “societal reaction theory.” In Stigma Erving Goffman wrote of the idea that society is caught up in the categorization of people and specifically through the use of stigma, “an attribute that is deeply discrediting,” (Goffman 1963:3) individuals are demarcated from one another in the world. Interestingly, Goffman stresses that the place of stigma in everyday life is through the “language of relationships” not mere attributes connected to people (ibid.). Labeling theory places explicit attention on the idea that deviance is constructed in the relationships between and interactions among people in society. This theoretical approach to crime and deviance has roots in the work of Max Weber, especially as the issue of the subjective meanings of crime and deviance is concerned, as well as the work of George Herbert Mead whose symbolic interactionist approach allows for a clear understanding of how meanings—in this case of crime and deviance—are not static; they are constructed and produced in dialogical exchanges between individuals in society. In addition to understanding the development of deviant labels in society, proponents of labeling theory are interested in how specific labels are applied to certain persons, and not others, in specific cultural contexts and how labels have lasting consequence for society and for individuals’ self-concept (cf. Pfohl 1994:347).
A clear emphasis in labeling theory is the idea that labels are attached to those with limited power by those with power. In the processes of everyday social interactions, some individuals are targeted for scrutiny by others—often for very minor infractions or eccentricities. Deviance is created by the powerful “overreacting to minor rule breaking. This results in negative socialization that undermines a person’s self-worth and fosters a commitment to deviance” (Lanier and Henry 1998:158). The process of overreacting to minor infractions is sometimes called deviance amplification (Wilkins 1967). Like the processes of identifying deviants in biological and demonic approaches, the powerful set “boundaries between those who are acceptable and those who are condemned, between insiders and outsiders, between conventional people and deviants” (Pfohl 1994:347). One of the greatest sociological explanations of boundary-setting at the institutional level is found in Erving Goffman’s Asylums (1961). He suggests that the appearance of individuals in mental institutions as being crazy is for the fact of the institution defining them as such. A similar point is expressed in the Ken Kesey adaptation One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
One of the greatest strengths of labeling theory is that it emphasizes the social and interactive aspects of the construction of deviance in society. Whether someone is identified as deviant or whether a person acts in a way that another deems as deviant are both dependent on what Howard Becker called a “sequential model of deviance” (Pfohl 1994:352). One of the most fascinating studies of deviance in this respect is found in his major work Outsiders, specifically in the study “Becoming a Marihuana User” (1963:41-58). Through Becker’s experiences as a jazz musician, he conducts sociological interviews with over 50 musicians. The result of his research was a notion of a sequential unfolding of deviance (marijuana use) that certainly critiques the idea of marijuana use and mania in films like Reefer Madness. The process of becoming a marijuana user—in learning the technique, perceiving the drug’s effects and learning to enjoy the effects—is tied to various reactions of individuals in the user’s lifeworld. As Stephen Pfohl suggests, “rule breakers must constantly be on their guard” (1994:353) and in the case of the marijuana user concealment of the physical acting of smoking, as well as the general lifestyle associated with pot, is a major force in the sequential unfolding of deviance.
Deviance itself—like race, gender and sexuality—can become a master status according to Becker (1963:33), and the only way that such a status could be lessened or eliminated is through social change. An example is the debate over gay and lesbian marriage initiated by a Massachusetts court ruling and thousands of gay and lesbian marriage licenses being granted in San Francisco and other cities in 2004. If gay and lesbian marriage is eventually accepted, the master status of deviance that is commonly a part of non-traditional forms of sexuality could disappear. Another interesting example of the negativity of labeling certain forms of crime and deviance applies to the issue of the victimless crime. Some forms of abortion, gambling, prostitution, drug use and sexual behaviors are sometimes the subject of criminal punishment or deviance labeling. One of the most cogent discussions of the consequences of societal reaction theory in the context of victimless crimes in addressed by Stephen Pfohl. He suggests that laws targeting victimless crimes are often unenforceable, based on moral superiority, create other forms of deviance and lead to discrimination in society (1994:366-8). Clearly, as contemporary debates over victimless crimes will continue, sociologists will have a very fertile ground of analysis.
• Exercise: Prepare information for a debate on the topic of victimless crimes. With other students in your class take a position either for the maintenance of criminal statutes against crimes within this category or for the elimination of such statutes.
• Web Resource: Erving Goffman Bibliography
http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/bib-goffman.htm
• Web Reading: Celebrating Erving Goffman
http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~eliotf/Celebrating_Erving_Goffman.html
• Web Resource: Information on Labeling Theory and Howard Becker
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/becker.htm
• Web Resource: Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters
http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/easyrider/data/KeseyPrs.htm
• Web Resource: Marijuana Use
http://www.marijuana.com/
• Web Resource: NORML Homepage
http://www.norml.org/
• Web Resource: Victimless Crimes Directory
http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/consensual/
• Web Reading: Social Response Theories: Labeling Theory, Marxist Scholarship, and Social Response in the Criminological Tradition
http://www.crimetheory.com/Archive/Response/index.html
The previous set of theories addressed the causation of crime and deviance at the level of social interaction. Such theories reflect a micro-scale view of the subject. Another set of theories, what we will call society-focused theories, addresses the cause of deviance as something inherent in the nature of society itself—be it social change, socially-approved values or economic structures.
Since 9/11 many citizens of the United States have reflected on how rapid social change, such as that caused by the terrorist attacks and the U.S. government’s military responses, has impacted their personal lives. Few, however, could conceptualize that the attacks were in part initiated by the forms of social change brought on by globalization. The basis of social disorganization perspective is that rapid social change results in a breakdown in normative social control of society and a resultant increase in crime and deviance. Like the other society-focused theories this approach is unique in its focus on society as the cause of deviance, not the individual.
During the 1920s the famous Chicago School of Sociology pioneered theoretical and ethnographic approaches to the study of social ecology, immigration, economic and technological change and urban sociology. It was during this historical epoch in which Chicago, as well as many other urban areas of the United States, witnessed unprecedented social change. Much of it was brought on by the aftermath of World War I in which centralization and technologicalization of the U.S. economy impacted social life in the city (cf. Pfohl 1994:178). A byproduct of the economic changes was a massive shift in the demographic makeup of cities like Chicago; immigrants entered the workforce, as did women and African American workers from the south, and as many as 14 million residents moved from rural areas into America’s cities (ibid.). At the same time fear and anxiety came to define civic life in the United States; especially the working-class and minority populations of the nation were threatened by a growing movement known as nativism—the idea of returning the country to the old days of white, small-town rule (ibid:180). This movement led to increased racial tension and hatred of the immigrants new to the economy. In short, the rapid and unprecedented social changes in urban areas created an upheaval in the normative social order.
Far from only identifying the impact of social change on crime and deviance, the influential Chicago School approached the empirical study of the effects of social change in the urban setting. As such their work identified Chicago’s urbanism in a manner akin to the study of organisms in an ecological system. Robert Park, the chair of the Chicago School, expressed the non-random nature in which urbanism evolved. Park’s ecological view led Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay to develop the famous concentric zone hypothesis. The idea of the hypothesis is that pressures from the city center caused concentric outward expansion of the city, and much like the “patterns of invasion and dominance common in plant life” (Lanier and Henry 1998:188) order was found in stable, settled areas of the city, not in the transitional, unstable regions. Accordingly, in these transitional areas in which social competition was greatest, it was argued that the greatest crime and deviance would occur. Social disorganization was first identified in the urban study of Polish immigrants in Chicago in W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki’s work The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1920), but the work of Shaw and McKay established a clear empirical basis for the study of social disorganization in the urban setting—their work led to a mapping of 56,000 court records relating to juvenile delinquency in the city (Lanier and Henry 1998:189). Their maps indicated that rates of delinquency were highest in regions closest to the center of the city and in zones of transition (Pfohl 1994:191). Subsequent studies, such as those of Chicago sociologists H. Warren Dunham and Robert E.L. Farris, further suggested that other factors, such as rates of hospitalization for mental disorders, also followed the pattern of spatiality common to the delinquency maps (ibid:192-3).
Despite the strengths of the social disorganization perspective, a number of criticisms have suggested flaws in the approach. For one, the ecological fallacy—in which one makes assumptions about individuals based on aggregate or group data—offers that the Chicago School may have overgeneralized the experiences of residents of Chicago in attempting to make causal links between urban change and deviance (Lanier and Henry 1998:190-1). As well, the reliance on official court reports, as opposed to alternative reports of crime like those of victimization data, is equally problematic. Nonetheless, the influence of the Chicago School and social disorganization on contemporary society-focused understandings of crime and deviance cannot be overstated. One of the classic examples of social disorganization on film is found in the remarkable movie Over the Edge. The film portrays the true story of rapid social change that occurred in Foster City, California during the 1970s. Rates of delinquency increased as the community was faced with idle teenagers as a result of local business development and poor planning.
• Web Resource: Concentric Zone Model
http://www.crimetheory.com/Soc1/Chic1.htm
One of the most famous words in the study of sociology is anomie. Simply put, anomie is “an absence, breakdown, confusion, or conflict in the norms of a society” (Marshall 1994:15). Derived from the Greek adjective anomos, meaning “without law,” the term has come to define an entire theoretical approach to the study of crime and deviance in society. Anomie theory is commonly connected to the influential work of Durkheim who, during the late nineteenth-century, conceived of deviance as arising in social situations in which no one knew the rules of society, while strain theory is tied to the work of mid-twentieth century sociologist Robert Merton who suggested that deviance arose in situations in which there exist discrepancies between socially constructed goals and the presence of means of achieving such goals. Given the imbrication of values geared at success and the achievement of the American dream in the U.S. media and entertainment industry, many sociologists have argued that anomie/strain theory is one of the most relevant contemporary theories of crime and deviance.
Like the previous society-focused theory, anomie/strain identifies something endemic to society itself as the cause of crime and deviance, but unlike social disorganization theory anomie/strain perspective suggests that there is something plaguing the entirety of society, not just certain spatial zones in urban areas. In various ways, anomie/strain perspective relativizes crime and deviance. Based on the theory, it is possible to make the controversial statement, the activities of members of street games are no different than the activities of members of major corporations in the United States; the only difference is that the former group is labeled as deviant and criminal, while the later group is presented as a positive model for citizens.
To understand the first instance of anomie/strain theory, we turn to Emile Durkheim’s influential work Suicide (1966), which was originally published in 1897. In Chapter 2 a number of the specifics of this monumental work were addressed, including the idea that suicide was a social act, not an individual one as is commonly perceived. Specific forms of suicide—egoistic, altruistic and anomic (or fatalistic)—were identified as being connected to certain foundations or changes in the moral order of society. In terms of anomie/strain perspective, anomic suicide is particularly interesting. Durkheim expressed that during national economic crises and depressions, suicide was more common. In such times of epochal shift in the economic order of society, the social norms of the old society do not fit the new economic and social order. Ironically, even in the case of economic prosperity suicide can also occur at rates rivaling those during times of depression. In such a situation:
“Appetites, not being controlled by a public opinion, become disoriented, no longer recognizing the limits proper to them.” Sudden prosperity destroys the authority of traditional norms. Passionate desires escalate without constraint. The sky appears to be the limit. But it is not. Social and economic resources are always finite in character. It is the illusion of anomie which prevents people from realizing this (Pfohl 1994:260).
Pfohl’s passage is a masterful summary of one of the major points of anomie/strain theory, namely that unrealistic expectations lead to unfulfilled aspirations and eventual deviance in society. As a social intergrationist Durkheim believed that the traditional structural restraints on individuals—captured brilliantly in his distinction of organic and mechanical solidarity—had lessened to such an extent that individuals found themselves living in times of normlessness or anomie.
Robert Merton’s important work extended Durkheim’s emphasis on social integration and the breakdown of norms to include a specific focus on the American crisis found “between promises of achievable prosperity and real-life opportunities to realize these promises” (Pfohl 1994:261). In his article “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) he establishes a specific typology of goals and means as they relate to strain. Unfulfilled aspirations were a specific focus of Merton’s article, especially as they related to major values placed on success and the American dream in the United States.
How People Match Goals to Means
Feel Strain that Leads Mode of Adaptation Cultural Goals Institutionalized
to Anomie? Means
No Conformists Accept Accept
Yes Innovators Accept Reject
Yes Ritualists Reject Accept
Yes Retreatists Reject Reject
Yes Rebels Reject/Accept Reject/Accept
In analyzing Merton’s chart, it is clear that the first path, that of conformity, is that of the individual who gets ahead in life as a result of traditional education and careerism. The remaining four modes of adaptation are deviant paths. In the case of the first, innovators, a drug dealer would illustrate the adaptation—she or he accepts the cultural goals of society (success) but rejects the institutionalized means of achieving them. Ritualists give up on cultural goals but maintain the status quo by accepting the institutionalized means of society—an example could be a teacher who becomes burned out but still does her or his job. Retreatists reject everything, in a sense, and their actions reflect forms of behavior that are often disdained by members of society. Merton includes artists, tramps, drunkards and drug addicts in this category (Pfohl 1994:265), The final category, rebels (or revolutionaries) reflect political deviance. Such individuals may use violent means, such as terrorism, or forms of civil disobedience to try and change both the cultural goals and institutionalized means of society.
In the contemporary period greater attention shifted to the micro instances of anomie/strain theory. Robert Merton identified “strain” as a pressure placed on individuals’ shoulders where very often people resort to crime and deviance to meet the needs of society. Steven Messer and Richard Rosenfeld wrote Crime and the American Dream (1994) to develop strain theory to include a greater attention on how the social desire to get ahead and be competitive leads to criminal behavior in society.
• Web Resource: Robert Merton’s Strain Theory
http://home.comcast.net/~ddemelo/crime/mert_strain.html
• Web Resource: McCarthyism
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
It is not enough to demand that deviants change. It is also necessary to radically transform the ritual organization of power in society as a whole (Pfohl 1994:403).
The above quote emphasizes a view of deviance that collides with the conventional notions about deviance in the United States. Once I saw a poster at an outdoor Santa Barbara shopping mall that was targeted at eliminating teenage pregnancy in the nation. The words on the poster were striking to me, for the suggestion was that deviance, in this case teenage pregnancy, was a matter of individuals and free will. The poster had a picture of a pregnant teenager with the slogan “Pregnancy—It’s My Issue” emblazoned on it. As I viewed the poster I was doubly depressed by the pathetic attempt to educate through such a message and the fact that many people would not view the work as controversial. In the repressive political state of the United States, citizens have been taught to believe messages of the power elite that benefit the maintenance of the power dimensions of society. In fact sociologists would look at such a poster and rewrite it to read, “Pregnancy—It’s Our Issue.” As well, the poster would have a picture of both the woman and the man who produced the child. Such a rewriting would recognize that the free will argument of crime and deviance is inaccurate and that the only way to address immanent social problems like teen pregnancy is to involve everyone in the discussion.
The idea of refocusing the discussion of crime and deviance or of radically altering the structure of society are hallmarks of the radical approach to crime and deviance. The radical approach is a collection of various perspectives on how crime and deviance are tied to the power structures of the nations in which they are produced and maintained. Like anomie/strain perspective this approach argues that society is primarily to blame for the ills associated with crime and deviance. Ultimately, the approach has origins in the work of Karl Marx and the specific topic of conflict theory in sociology. Radical approach suggests that “the root of crime [is found] in the conflict that stems from the inequalities produced by capitalist society” (Lanier and Henry 1998:236). The end of such a critical view of the world is to transform the society that is responsible for producing crime.
Section II of this chapter made the argument that crime can fulfill positive functions for society. In fact one can extend Durkheim’s position on crime and deviance to understand why the American media, criminal justice system and government desires, in certain respects, that crime not go away and that the citizenry be distracted by street crimes and deviance related to drug use than focus on corporate and governmental deviance. This last subject will be addressed in Section VI in this chapter. In addition to developing Marxian critiques of criminal justice policy, one of the goals of radical theory is to transform the system of inequalities in society. If your argument is that a class-based society produces crime then it stands to reason that one policy response is to move towards eliminating social class in society. Radical approach is aptly named, for if the morning news announced that the United States government was abandoning the capitalist, market-driven system, more than a few people would be shocked by the announcement. Here are a few of the specific approaches associated with radical theory:
• Feminist Theory—The fact that men tend to commit more criminal and deviant acts than women has led some theorists to focus on the idea that the patriarchal construction of society places women in positions of vulnerability. Many feminist theorists have also suggested that criminal justice policy is biased in favor of men, especially as rape and pornography are concerned.
• Anarchist Criminology—This approach addresses the role that power plays in impacting the constructions of crime in society, especially the issue of “legitimate authority” in criminal justice (Lanier and Henry 1998:286). Anarchist criminologists take as their inspiration the critical focus on Marxism as defined by anarchist thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudon, Mikhail Bakunin and P’etr Kropotkin. Many anarchist criminologists believe that systems of authority, especially hierarchical ones, should be opposed and replaced in society.
• Abolitionist Criminology—According to abolitionist criminologists, “punishment is never justified” (Lanier and Henry 1998:287), and many of them call for a complete abandonment of traditional systems of criminal justice. Many of the criminologists associated with this school believe that restorative systems of justice should address reducing pain, not inflicting it (ibid.).
• Constitutive Criminology—To focus on the structural and cultural contexts in which crime is produced is the essence of this radical approach. According to two of its proponents, Stuart Henry and Dragan Milovanovic, crime itself is “the power to deny others their ability to make a difference” (1996:116). Constitutive criminologists address the way that power plays a major role in defining crime and affecting criminal justice policy.
• Peacemaking Criminology—So much of the criminal justice policy of the United States is rooted in inflicting violence on offenders. The peacemaking approach argues for introducing the idea of making peace on crime as opposed to making war, as exemplified in campaigns like the “War on Drugs” (Lanier and Henry 1998:288). Another suggested revision in our criminal justice policy is the elimination of violence in the punishment phase of criminal justice, such as the death penalty and boot camps.
• Web Resource: Constitutive Criminology Information Page
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/henmilov.htm
• Web Resource: Anarchist Library
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/
• Web Resource: Feminist Criminology
http://www.tulane.edu/~femtheory/journals/paper8.html
• Web Resource: Gender and Criminology
http://newmedia.colorado.edu/~socwomen/resources/femcrim.html
• Web Resource: Peacemaking and Crime
http://www.westga.edu/~jfuller/peace.html
As we close this discussion of the major theories of crime and deviance in sociology, keep in mind that theories do not exist in vacuum. In fact society influences the outlook that sociologists use to understand these and other issues. One approach that combines elements of various theories of crime and deviance is called integrative theory.
Summary of Theories of Crime and Deviance
Demonic Possession n/a Inquisitorial Untestable 1600-1700
Classical Free Will Beccaria, Administrative Why deviant? 1700s
Bentham Reform
Biological Sickness Lombroso Medical Cure Poor science 1870
Infection
Learning Learning Sutherland Unlearning Subjective 1940
Identification
Social Bonds Hirschi Socialization Causality 1970
Control Poor control
Labeling Soc. Reaction Becker Decriminalization Elite deviance? 1960
Social Dis. Rapid change Chicago school Ecology Cultural biases 1920s
and norms
Anomie Unfilled Durkheim Structural Exaggerated 1930-1960
Aspirations Merton
Radical Power various Reform Romantic 1980
Integrative Varied ----Combines elements of all theories---- 1980
The excellent postmodern crime film by Sean Penn, The Pledge, stars Jack Nicholson as a retired police officer whose obsession to find a child killer leads to madness. The films’ existential take on crime and society offers an interesting reality-check in terms of the unfortunate fact that many crimes go unsolved. One of the key terms that is used to understand the phenomenon described here is the funnel. Think of the analogy in that at the top of the funnel you have all crimes and forms of deviance that have been committed in society; of course we have stated how both crime and deviance are culturally constructed, but suspend this for a minute to understand the analogy. At the next level down you have all the crimes and forms of deviance that have been identified by police and law enforcement. At the next level down you have crimes that have been cleared, essentially solved in that a suspect has been apprehended. Next, the level reflects those offenders who are sentenced for a crime and finally a level of those serving time for crimes is present. The funnel illustrates that the identification and processing of crime in society is a selective affair, and keep in mind that elite deviants and white collar criminals never even enter the funnel—their crimes are commonly undetected by our biased criminal justice system.
With the funnel in mind we can focus on another feature of our criminal justice system, and this is the spectacle of crime and deviance in the United States. From O.J. Simpson to former President Clinton to Winona Ryder to Gary Condit to Martha Stewart to Michael Jackson, our media is obsessed with salacious details of celebrities or politicians who get in trouble with the law. In the case of one former celebrity deviant, Paul Rubens (Pee Wee Herman), a great deal of attention was focused on his acts of masturbating in adult film houses, but one question that was never raised in media coverage of Ruben’s deviance was what was the harm of Ruben’s actions? Did his masturbation harm anyone? Was society damaged as a result of his actions? Very often sociologists have commented on the fact that crimes addressed in the media have one value—creating spectacle and increasing viewing of shows. The spectacle of crime and deviance in the United States has another effect—it allows some crimes and forms of deviance, particularly of the rich and powerful in society, to escape detection by law enforcement and the public. The conflict approach to this matter would state that as long as citizens are distracted from the real harms of corporations, politicians and corrupt social control agents, the powerful will maintain their control of society.
A third feature of our criminal justice system, then, is an ignorance of the presence of elite deviance in the United States. Elite deviance, often known as white-collar crime, is a form of deviance that is committed by the powerful of society, often without punishment. The theory of elite deviance is tied to C. Wright Mills influential text The Power Elite (1956). In his work Mills identified the systemic ways in which the powerful in society—including heads of corporations, members of government, the military and the mass media—maintain their control of society. In the realm of crime and deviance thinkers like Jeffrey Reiman (2004), David Simon (2002), James William Coleman (2002), M. David Ermann and Richard J. Lundman (2002) and James Derber (2004) have addressed the social conditions that are favorable to the committing of elite deviance and its evasion by perpetrators. In terms of the total financial and health impacts of elite deviance and white-collar crime, most citizens of the United States are unaware that the crimes purported by the media to be harmful to us as individuals and society are in fact not the real dangers that we are facing.
Another issue that characterizes the policy of criminal justice in the United States is a focus on retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. Here the attention is on the punishment phase of criminal justice. A very common theme in major motion pictures is of the offender who “got what was coming to them.” The theme is brought to new levels in Dirty Harry and Death Wish films where the police officer or vigilante is justified in his executing evil criminals. Retribution is a philosophy of punishment that combines the idea of “an eye for an eye” and “lock em’ up and throw away the key” mentalities. The approach has some foundation in the spectacle of the scaffold common in Europe many centuries ago (Foucault 1979) where the belief was that harsh, public executions of offenders would heal society as well as deter potential future offenders. The second concept is interesting since during many cases of public executions of pickpockets in England there was a high rate of pickpocketing during the executions. The philosophy of punishment opposite of retribution is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation addresses the stigma of being a former offender and tries to make right for victims, former offenders and society. The subject of the reintegration of the offender in society is portrayed in the film First Time Felon in which a former offender finds it very difficult to find employment upon release, mainly because of the stigma associated with his status as an ex-con. Rehabilitation uses the punishment phase to deal with problems of the offender so that he or she will be able to serve his or her time and then become productive members of society upon release from prison. Rehabilitation may also include alternative sentencing, such as Delancey Street where emphasis is on inmates acquiring job and social skills during incarceration.
In summation, we can say that sociologists argue for a critical view of crime and deviance—something entirely absent in our popular conceptions of these significant topics.
• Web Resource: Crime and the Media Course and Links
http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/gradc&m.html
• Web Resource: Victims and the Media Project (Michigan State University)
http://victims.jrn.msu.edu/
• Web Resource: Delancey Street Article
http://www.horizonmag.com/5/delancey.htm
• Web Resource: Elite Deviance, Paul’s Justice Page
http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/
• Web Resource: Legal Information Institute’s White Collar Crime Page
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/white_collar.html
• Web Resource: Simon Jones Memorial (Corporate Crime)
http://www.simonjones.org.uk/
• Web Resource: Corporate Crime Links
http://www.simonjones.org.uk/links.htm
• Web Resource: Shell’s Nuclear Crimes
http://www.nuclearcrimes.50g.com/
• Web Resource: Glossary of Criminology
http://www.crimetheory.com/glossary.htm
• Web Resource: Crime Theory.com
http://www.crimetheory.com/
• Web Resource: American Society of Criminology
http://www.asc41.com/
• Web Resource: 360 Degrees—Excellent Interactive Site
http://www.360degrees.org/
• Web Resource: Dumb Laws
http://www.dumblaws.com/
• Web Resource: Find Law
http://www.findlaw.com/
• Web Resource: Google Gang Directory
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Crime_and_Justice/Gangs/
• Web Resource: Court TV’s Crime Library
http://crimelibrary.com/index.html
• Web Resource: Police Guide
http://www.policeguide.com/
• Web Resource: Police Misconduct (Google)
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Crime_and_Justice/Police_Misconduct/
• Web Resource: Corrections Connection
http://www.corrections.com/index.aspx
• Web Resource: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
• Web Resource: Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
• Web Resource: Federal Crime Statistics (White House)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html
• Web Resource: Relocation Crime Lab
http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/crime.html
• Web Resource: ACLU's Criminal Justice Section
http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJusticeMain.cfm
• Web Resource: Florida State University's Criminal Justice Links
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/cjlinks/
• Web Resource: Dr. O'Connor's Criminal Justice Megalinks
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/
• Web Resource: Internet Crime Archives
http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/archives.html
• Web Resource: Top 100 Criminal Justice Sites
http://talkjustice.com/top100.asp
• Web Resource: Criminal Justice Links at Michigan State University (Large Collection)
http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/crimjust.htm
• Web Resource: Almanac of Criminal Justice Policy Issues
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/index.shtml
• Web Resource: Criminology Links
http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/library/links/
Discussion Boards and Search Engines
• Web Resource: Talk Justice (Discussion Boards)
http://talkjustice.com/
• Web Resource: Crime and Criminals Listserv
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Crime-and-Criminals/
• Web Resource: Crime Spider (Online Search Engine for Criminal Justice)
http://crimespider.com/
Relativity of Crime and Deviance—the idea that understandings of crime and deviance are not absolute; in fact the understandings of crime and deviance, and reactions to these phenomena, are embedded in the social dynamics of a given society.
Social Control—refers to formal and informal means in which society responds to deviance in the social order.
Crime—focuses on an offense “which goes beyond the personal and into the public sphere, breaking prohibitory rules or laws” (Marshall 1994:96).
Deviance—includes violations of norms and constructions of stigma associated with such violations (ibid:120).
Social Contract—the idea that the individual sacrifices some of her or his individual freedom in exchange for protection by the state.
Panopticon—a prison system in which guards could see prisoners but prisoners could not see the guards. In contemporary society the term is associated with the “all-seeing eye” of surveillance technologies.
Specific Deterrence—the idea that an individual will be less likely to commit a crime if she or he realizes that the costs are too high.
Rational Choice Theory—a revision of classical theory that suggests that criminals calculate the potential costs and benefits of committing a crime.
Differential Association—the theory of deviance that says one is more likely to take on the behaviors of the deviant if she or he associates with other deviants.
Broken Bond Theory—the theory of deviance that suggests that the circumstances that led to broken or weakened bonds to convention leads to deviance later in an individual’s life.
Deviance Amplification—the process of overreacting to minor infractions that leads to labeling and deviance in society.
Victimless Crime—a form of consensual social behavior, that may not produce any personal or social harm, that is nonetheless punished by criminal law (cf. Pfohl 1994:366).
Concentric Zone Hypothesis—the theory associated with the Chicago School of Sociology that suggests that pressures of concentric expansion of the city and the formation of transitional zones leads to greater crime and deviance in transitional zones and the center of the city.
Ecological fallacy—one makes false assumptions about individuals based on aggregate or group data.
Anomie—“an absence, breakdown, confusion, or conflict in the norms of a society” (Marshall 1994:15).
Political Deviance—a belief in a political system or mode of organization that is considered deviant by mainstream society, as in the example of communism during the McCarthy era in the United States.
Free Will Argument of Crime and Deviance—the popular notion that crime and deviance is a product of individual free will and not of problems in communities or society itself.
Integrative Theory—as approach that combines elements of various theories of crime and deviance.
The Funnel—the analogy for the U.S. criminal justice system in terms of its selectivity and incompleteness as one moves from the total crimes committed in society to punishment of offenders.
The Spectacle of Crime and Deviance—the U.S. media’s presentation of crime and deviance as a form of entertainment to be consumed by the masses.
Elite Deviance—a form of deviance that is committed by the powerful of society, often without punishment; also known as white-collar crime.
Retribution V. Rehabilitation—the different philosophies of punishment with the first being an “eye for an eye” approach while the later attempts to reform offenders and re-integrate them in society.
• Review Section I of the chapter and reflect on the case of Armin Meiwes as it relates to crime, deviance and social control. Based on your knowledge of the case, what does the sentence say about norms and social control in Germany, as compared to the United States? Do you believe that a similar sentence would have been handed down by a U.S. judge? Why or why not? As you analyze this case do you find it difficult to suspend moral or personal categories of understanding crime and deviance?
• Section II develops Durkheim’s notion of the normality of crime. Write a short essay in which you consider three examples that support his notion that crime can produce benefits to society. Overall, what does his thesis suggest for our society in terms of the development of criminal justice policy?
• Consider the biological and pathological perspective (Section III) and specifically focus on the contemporary issue of ADD—Attention Deficit Disorder. ADD represents one current use of the pathological perspective as it is argued that children often lack concentration skills, are hyperactive and thus need drugs like Ritalin to control their eccentricities. Search the Internet for information on the disorder and first consider how closely the diagnosis of ADD resembles the early typological work of the Italian school. Next, discuss any critiques that have been applied to the diagnosis of ADD especially as they suggest political motivations behind the identification and treatment of the syndrome.
• Have a second look at the discussion of learning perspective in Section IV of the chapter. Consider the argument that individuals become deviant because of their association with other deviants. Write a short response in which you either support or refute this theory. To use examples to make your case, reflect on your own life experiences and knowledge of crime and deviance. In arguing for the theory state instances in which you or others you know took a deviant path in life because of personal associations with others. If you plan to argue against the theory use examples to make the counterpoint.
• Consider the anomie and strain perspective as related in Section V. Write a written response in which you discuss three examples of values portrayed in popular movies, television shows or video games that support the premise that the aspiration to achieve the “American dream,” at any cost, can lead to forms of crime and deviance in society.
• Review Section V’s considerations of social change and the radical approach to crime and deviance. Write an essay in which you formulate arguments for the abolition of the criminal justice system in the United States.
• Section VI addresses the contemporary realities of crime and deviance in the United States. Review the section and write a critical essay in which you address the realities of the U.S. criminal justice system. Why is it that certain crimes, such as street crimes and drug offenses, are considered the most dangerous offenses in the United States? Review the included weblinks to gather information on forms of governmental and corporate crime and deviance. What threats are posed by these less scrutinized forms of crime? What policy alterations would be necessary to focus more attention on the harms of such forms of crime and deviance?
Beccaria, Cesare
1963, On Crimes and Punishment, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Becker, Howard
1963, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York: Free Press.
Bentham, Jeremy
1970, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, London: Athlone Press.
Coleman, James William
2002, The Criminal Elite: Understanding White-Collar Crime, Fifth edition, New York: Worth.
Derber, Charles
2004, The Wilding of America: Money, Mayhem, and the New American Dream, New York: Worth.
Durkheim, Emile
1966 [1897], Suicide, New York: Macmillan.
1969, The Normality of Crime, in Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings, Lewis Coser and Bernard Rosenberg, eds., Pp. 571-578, London: Macmillan Company.
Erikson, Kai
1966, Wayward Puritans, New York: Wiley.
Ermann, M. David and Richard J. Lundman
2002, Corporate and Governmental Deviance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Falwell, Jerry
2001, “Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson Say Immorality and Anti-Christian Groups Should Share in the Blame for the Terrorist Attacks on America-Truth!,” Accessed at http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
Foucault, Michel
1979, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage.
Goffman, Erving
1961, Asylums, New York: Doubleday.
1963, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Henry, Stuart and Dragan Milovanovic
1996, Constitutive Criminology: Beyond Postmodernism, London: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis
1969, Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kornhauser, Ruth
1984, Social Sources of Delinquency, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lanier, Mark M. and Stuart Henry
1998, Essential Criminology, Boulder: Westview.
Mackay, Charles
1995, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth.
Marshall, Gordon
1994, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merton, Robert K.
1938, Social Structure and Anomie, American Sociological Review, Vol. 3, October:672-682.
Messer, Steven and Richard Rosenfeld
1994, Crime and the American Dream, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mills, C. Wright
1956, The Power Elite, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pfohl, Stephen
1994, Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History, Second edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reckless, Walter
1973, The Crime Problem, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reiman, Jeffrey
2004, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, Seventh edition, Boston: Pearson.
Schafer, Stephen
1976, Introduction to Criminology, Reston, VA: Reston.
Simon, David R.
2002, Elite Deviance, Seventh edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sutherland, Edwin
1934, Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Thomas, William and Florian Znaniecki
1920, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, Boston: Gorham.
Wilkins, Leslie
1967, Social Deviance, London: Tavistock.