Sociology of Deviance: Authors and Theories

Deviance commonly refers to a set of behaviors and/or actions (verbal, physical, and relational) of a person or group of individuals that deviate from common norms and practices, including the most serious cases involving the violation of deeply rooted norms and values ​​within a community that, over a clearly defined period of time and space, have proven to be dominant and accepted. The sociology of deviance deals precisely with this type of social fact : deviant behaviors and actions typically incur sanctions, disapproval, marginalization, and condemnation. Depending on the nuances one wishes to apply to the term, deviance as a concept has different meanings, connotations, and connotations; it is often associated with culpable behavior.

It must be emphasized, however, that a delinquent is usually an individual with deviant behaviors and characteristics, but this does not mean that a deviant person is automatically a criminal. Given this specification, we must be careful about words and the meanings we attribute to them, especially in the context of deviance, where the risk is stigma and its negative consequences (Goffman, 1963).

The concept of deviance

By deviance we mean,

An action or behavior by an individual or group that the majority of members of the community within which it occurs judges to violate shared norms. More specifically, behavior can be defined as deviant when it violates certain expectations associated with a specific normative framework. This behavior is therefore identified as deviant by a specific community, through an assessment that considers the circumscribed situation in which it occurred and the social roles of the agents, while also taking into account its intensity and direction. The concept of deviance must be distinguished from the concept of illegality, since the social norms existing within a specific social context do not always also represent precepts of the legal system in force within that context. (Treccani Encyclopedia)

The phenomena that today fall under the concept of “deviance” already existed before studies on it began, with the difference that they were labeled with terms such as “sin,” “evil” and “immorality,” mainly because they were linked to (and opposed to) the religious sphere.

The Birth of the Deviant for the Sociology of Deviance

The birth of the category "deviant" dates back to the late 18th century, when three radical transformations occurred: the first involved the attribution of the term "deviant" to all criminal behavior, which consequently led to a strengthening of the centralized legal system of the modern state; the second saw the tightening of control measures on certain specialized closed institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, prisons, etc.; the third allowed for a more precise classification of everything that could be labeled as deviant.

After these three transformations, in fact, forms of deviance are officially interpreted according to a legal/juridical framework, a welfare framework, and a health/illness framework. Despite these revolutions, which have emphasized that these concepts of deviance belong to specific fields and therefore must be addressed by professionals and specialists in the field, the term "deviance" continued to be used for a long time, even for certain categories related to the moral sphere. When discussing deviance, Matza (1964; 1969) identifies three recurring contrasts that distinguish it from other phenomena:

• the correction, that is, the interest in deviant phenomena with the aim of eliminating them, and the understanding, the interest in recognizing them and understanding the mechanisms and characteristics that distinguish them;
• the distinction between “pathology”, declining deviance as an unacceptable and undesirable variant of normality, and “diversity” which considers deviance as a tolerable variant but, for various and multiple reasons, is considered negatively;
• the distinction between “simplicity” where deviance is an obvious fact since it deviates from normality, and "complexity" where deviance is a phenomenon that is difficult to outline and define due to its difficult relationship with normality, with which it often overlaps.

At the beginning of the 20th century, E. Durkheim (1897), one of the founders of classical sociology, was the first to question some issues related to deviance (its functionality, the relativity of rules, the nature of moral regulation), creating a new sociological branch specific to the subject: the sociology of deviance.

The authors of the sociology of deviance: the Chicago school

For the first generation of sociologists, specifically American and British, deviance was addressed as a fundamental and vital issue. Crime, delinquency, and "vice" were phenomena labeled as threats to the prevailing morality and social order. Deviance was presented as a flaw (an error) in the functioning of the primary systems of socialization: family, school, and morality.

Social scientists of the time wanted to make the institutions officially responsible for social control more efficient and "progressive"; in fact, their theories were based on the paradigm of pathology and simplicity. The Chicago School (Park, Burgess, McKenzie, etc.) of the 1920s and 1930s inherited some concepts from this ideology, but differed in their approach to deviance: more science and less morality. The Chicago School devoted itself to the study of youth gangs, organized crime, prostitution, vagrancy, and anything labeled "different" and deviating from normality.

This interest in deviance as a simple and pathological phenomenon demonstrated how delinquency and diversity were a natural (and paradoxical) part of "growing up in the city": they were perfectly integrated into the political and social apparatus. The city, in ecological terms, allows for the creation of "natural environments" favorable to the formation of deviant relationships, behaviors, and interactions. The flaws of the Chicago School are its focus on micromodels rather than the macrosocial structure and its reliance on a notion of social disorganization affected by logical circularity. Despite these imperfections, the Chicago School is recognized for having made an important contribution to the sociology of deviance: a methodology focused on the precise and faithful description of deviant universes (styles, cultures, careers) embedded in the context of urban life.

The authors of the sociology of deviance: the functionalists

Continuing into the 1940s, these were characterised by the establishment of the so-called "functionalism" movement. This movement claimed to be interested in the macro-models of social order and for this reason the deviant phenomenon was seen as a simple deviation from general normality, for example for the American sociologist Parsons (1951) deviance was a deviation from normative standards. Despite the declared lack of interest in deviant phenomena, the functionalists made important contributions to deviance. Among their numerous contributions we remember:

• The fact that deviance is not a purely negative phenomenon; on the contrary, it plays a fundamental and positive role in maintaining social order. This concept is based on Durkheim's theory, which argued that a society without deviance could not exist. For the French sociologist, crime was a social phenomenon in its own right and, as such, fulfilled very specific social functions. The "positive" functions of deviance are: strengthening collective consciousness, maintaining social stability, strengthening solidarity, and clarifying the boundaries of morality.
• The concept of “anomie” (which also has its roots in Durkheim's thought) derived from the “abnormal division of labor” that characterized (and characterizes) human society. The Durkheimian term “anomie” was linked to the dissociation of modern society, of individuality from the collective conscience, that is, the fact that individual desires were not satisfied and were not sufficiently regulated and controlled. Anomie was the state of lack of norms produced by the rapid exit from traditional society and exacerbated by social and economic crises. An example is suicide, which was discussed by Durkheim himself (1897). The development of the Durkheimian term “anomie” was proposed by RK Merton (1938) who applied it to modern democratic societies. For Merton, anomie was not linked to the concept of absence of norms, but the consequence of a structural difference between ends and means. It explained the irreconcilable tension generated by a society that provides models of success, dreams that must be achieved (e.g., the American Dream), but at the same time does not offer everyone the same means to achieve them. The consequences of this phenomenon are conformism (acceptance of legitimate and culturally prescribed means, such as individual commitment) and innovation that, however, uses illegitimate means (e.g., theft, fraud, and violence), and renunciation (suicide, mental illness, and drug addiction) that involves the rejection of both prescribed goals and conventional means.

The union of the two schools of thought

In the mid-1960s, first in the United States and then in Great Britain and Western Europe, a new conception of deviance emerged, resulting from the merging of concepts from previous theories. Theoretically, the main insights came from the Chicago School (the notion that deviance is a learned behavior and the use of ethnographic methods) and functionalism (the paradoxical relationship between deviance and control), as well as other theories such as symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, and conflict theory.

From this new theory, sociology developed a relativistic conception of deviance, rather than a given one ; an expression of diversity rather than pathology, and of complexity rather than simplicity. The fundamental thesis of the new sociology of deviance theorists was that the crucial variable in studying the phenomenon in question was not the actor (his genetic makeup, his personality, his social status, etc.) nor even his actions (his presumed dangerousness), but rather public opinion.

What do new theories on the sociology of deviance propose?

Conventional so-called "positivist" theories study human behavior, attempting to identify its causes by defining some deterministic model (biological, psychological, or social). New theories have not only challenged determinism by advocating a more flexible model of human action, but have also eschewed any type of causal explanation. Furthermore, they have integrated (sometimes replaced) the study of behavior with that of social reaction. Social reaction occurs at three levels, each of which poses three corresponding problems:

• the first is the “definition” which has as its problem to solve the genesis of the deviant category and its distinctive characteristics;
• the “classification” which raises the problem of how to pigeonhole the individual cases that belong to what is defined as deviant;
• the effects, that is, what social consequences are generated by actors defined as deviant.
  

Consequently, there are three possible answers to the problems presented: the first is structural and historical, the second organizational, and the third interactional and psychological . For example, a criminal act could be studied historically (explaining the historical-political context), organizationally (linked to the bureaucratic interests that led institutions to prohibit certain behaviors), politically (emphasizing the figures of power and their functions), or psychologically (characteristics inherent to the individual, never separated from the individual's personal and relational life).

To date, the current model on deviance is that of the theories of the 1960s which have allowed the development of stimulating and interesting similar currents, such as the critical theory of social control, constructionism, feminism and the thought of M. Foucault (Enciclopedia Italiana, 1995).

The prevention of deviance

Deviance can be prevented, but not avoided entirely. Prevention can be divided into three levels: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary prevention is aimed at the entire population; its goals are to reduce harmful conditions known as risk factors for deviance, and to prevent the onset of "illness," problems, and distress. Secondary prevention is primarily aimed at individuals defined as "at risk," and involves screening, diagnosis, and subsequent intervention. Tertiary prevention is implemented on individuals who already have underlying problems. It aims to prevent relapses and worsening of behavior and is based on the rehabilitation of problematic individuals into society and the search for ways to limit any potential personal and collective harm.

Childhood, but even more so adolescence, is a crucial (and critical) stage for personal development. Children, both as individuals and as members of a group, must be able to access a system that can understand their needs, satisfy their demands, accommodate their requests for help, and propose developmental plans that allow for healthy growth within their own physiological rhythms.

Future oriented

Among the objectives to be achieved is a future orientation , which, combined with the planning dimension, are constitutive factors of identity that allow minors to take their first steps in experiencing the effectiveness and feasibility of new and different ways of thinking and acting. In Italy, various initiatives have been introduced in social and school settings with the aim of curbing deviant behavior. These initiatives are presented as intervention research conducted to prevent antisocial behavior among pre-adolescents and adolescents. To this end, various models have been developed.

The first model is the medical one by G. Caplan (1964) which places the prevention activity on the basis of the developmental stage of criminal behaviour and presents three types of prevention:

• primary prevention, which has the function of removing and reducing the criminogenic factors present in the physical and social environment, through educational, social policy and urban planning interventions;
• secondary prevention aimed at the early identification of potential criminals, especially among young people, for whom interventions are developed that can reduce the risk of antisocial behavior;
• tertiary prevention which develops after a crime and is therefore aimed at avoiding recidivism.

Social prevention and situational prevention

Social prevention coincides with primary prevention interventions and draws on disciplines such as sociology (Segre, 1996), community psychology (Contessa, 1994) (Francescato, 1995), and place ecoanalysis (Peled, 1990). The targets of these interventions are children, preadolescents, adolescents, and young adults labeled "at risk" of committing delinquent acts.

Situational prevention is primarily aimed at physically preventing crime, proving to be a form of mechanical prevention. This type of intervention is typically aimed at promoting the general well-being of individuals and their families, rather than preventing criminal behavior. Individual prevention interventions also exist, and among these is the interesting psychoeducational model by (Larson, 1995; Francescato, 1995), in which interventions are not aimed at preventing deviant or delinquent behavior, but rather directly at young people with actions designed to promote well-being, increasing their training skills and coping abilities.

Peer group experiences

Other strategies for preventing adolescent deviance include peer group experiences (Blechman et al., 1994; Palmonari, 1992). The perspective of group communication is crucial and should be provided by an external interlocutor, who must avoid imposing behavioral guidelines that are perceived as threatening by the individuals. This figure must foster an open dialogue that allows young people to identify possible alternative strategies available to them.

Skinner (Skinner, 1938), an American scholar who modified the classical behaviorist framework (Pavlov, Sechenov, Bechterev), focuses on the concept of "reinforcement" associated with human behavior. For the American scholar, to understand human actions, we must observe the effects they produce, their consequences, because it is the consequences that determine the actions. Purpose and intention, in this theory, play no role. To understand human action, we must consider three essential components:

1. the discriminating stimulus (the context in which the response occurs);
2. the reinforcing stimulus (the consequences);
3. operant behavior (the subject's response).

Sociology of Deviance: Beyond Skinner's "Reinforcements"

Reinforcements can be positive, thus increasing the likelihood that a certain behavior will be reproduced over time, or negative, resulting in the reduction or elimination of certain behaviors. The use of the latter type of reinforcement is discouraged because it can be associated with negative emotional states such as anxiety and fear. The aim of this research is to design and implement strategies aimed at containing and reducing the phenomenon, through the collaboration and support of teachers, parents, and peers.

Among the remedies and tools for preventing youth deviance, hardship, and marginalization are the promotion of active citizenship; genuine participation in a group (sports, religious, or artistic) under the guidance of a competent, authoritative, and recognized figure; and awareness-raising projects in school settings.

Flavia Verona

References

• Benadusi, L., Censi, A., & Fabretti, V. (2004). Education and Socialization. Outlines of the Sociology of Education. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
• Blechman, E., Prinz, R., & Dumas, J. (1994). Prosocial Coping by Youth Exposed to Violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, 4, 205-27.
• Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. NY: Basic Books.
• Contessa, G. (1994). Prevention: Theory and Models of Psychosociology and Community Psychology. Turin: Città di Studi.
• Durkheim, E. (1897). The Suicide. A Study of Sociology.
• Durkheim, E. (1922). Sociology and Education. (S. Acquaviva, Trans.) Rome: Newton Compton.
• Francescato, D. (1995). Is the psychoeducational model sufficient? A reflection on various primary prevention strategies in Italy and the United States. Report on Dale G. Larson's intervention. Clinical Psychology.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
• Larson, D. (1995). The psychoeducational model and mental health. Clinical Psychology (3), 36-50.
• Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York.
• Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. Englewood Cliffs.
• Merton, R. (1949). Social Theory and Structure.
• Palmonari, A. (1992). Adolescent Psychology. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Parsons, T. (1951). The social system.
• Peled. (1990). The Ecoanalysis of Places. The Architects Journal, 192(7), 49-55.
• Segre, S. (1996). Youth Deviance. Social Causes and Prevention Policies. Milan: Angeli.
• Skinner, B. (1938). The Behavior of Oragnisms. Aplleton-Century.
• See. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sociologia-della-devianza_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/