As you have learned from the Week 4 learning resources (UMGC, n.d.), deviant behaviors are violations of social norms, and what is “deviant” is defined variously across time and place. Our resources for this week offer a variety of sociological theories for why deviance occurs in society. Your main post for this discussion should have two parts:
Part 1. Identify something that people do that would be considered a violation of social norms. Briefly discuss this action. Who regards this action as deviant and why?
Part 2. Explain why this type of deviance occurs and/or how society responds to this form of deviance, according to one of the theories in the chapter. As part of your explanation, make sure to also briefly explain the theory.
Responses to Classmates: When responding to classmates, try to examine the form of deviance that they have identified by analyzing it from a different theoretical perspective than they did.
Here is the reference you should cite in your main post:
University of Maryland Global Campus. (n.d.). Week 4. Socialization, Social groups, and deviance. Document posted in UMGC SOCY 100 online classroom, archived at
https://learn.umgc.edu
Make sure to include the complete reference information at the end of your post. If you refer to any additional sources, please be sure to include them in your reference list as well.
When referring to the different topics of the material in the learning resources within your posts, use the following citation format: (UMGC, n.d., name of topic).
For example: (UMGC, n.d., Socialization) or (UMGC, n.d., Deviance and Social Control).
If you use any additional sources in your posts, be sure to cite them in the post and include the full reference information at the end of the post. To learn more about how to cite in APA style, visit the UMGC Library at
https://libguides.umgc.edu/c.php?g=1003870.
…
Provide your initial post by 11:59 pm on Sunday, February 6. Your initial post should be at least 200 words, excluding the discussion prompt and the references. Please use in-text APA citations within your post as well as full APA references at the end of your post.
Requirements: In Depth
Section Summary and
Key Terms
Section Summary
The Sociological Self
Charles Cooley and George Mead both contributed significantly to the sociological
understanding of the development of self. Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan
developed their ideas further and researched how our sense of morality develops.
Gilligan added the dimension of gender differences to Kohlberg’s theory.
Socialization
Socialization is important because it helps uphold societies and cultures; it is also a
key part of individual development. Research demonstrates that who we are is
affected by both nature (our genetic and hormonal makeup) and nurture (the social
environment in which we are raised). Sociology is most concerned with the way that
society’s influence affects our behavior patterns, such as in the way behavior varies
across class and gender. Resocialization is a process that removes the socialization
we have developed over time and replaces it with newly learned rules and roles.
Groups
Groups largely define how we think of ourselves. There are two main types of
groups: primary and secondary. Primary groups are long-term and complex. People
use groups as standards of comparison to define themselves—both who they are and
who they are not. The size and dynamic of a group greatly affects how members act.
Primary groups rarely have formal leaders, although there can be informal
leadership.
Formal Organizations
Learning Resource
Large organizations fall into three main categories: normative (or voluntary),
coercive, and utilitarian. Bureaucracies are a common form of formal organization.
They are often meritocracies, meaning that hiring and promotion is based on proven
and documented skills, rather than on nepotism or random choice.
Deviance and Social Control
Deviance is a violation of norms. Whether or not something is deviant depends on
contextual definitions, the situation, and people’s response to the behavior. The use
of sanctions contributes to a system of social control. Deviance is often relative, and
perceptions of it can change quickly and unexpectedly.
The three major sociological paradigms offer different explanations for the causes of
deviance
and crime. Functionalists point out that deviance is a social necessity
because it reinforces norms by reminding people of the consequences of violating
them. Violating norms can also open society’s eyes to injustice in the system.
Conflict theorists argue that crime stems from a system of inequality that keeps
those with power at the top and those without power at the bottom. Symbolic
interactionists focus attention on the socially constructed nature of the labels
related to deviance. Crime and deviance are learned from the environment and
enforced or discouraged by those around us.
Key Terms
aggregate—a collection of people who exist in the same place at the same time, but
who don’t interact or share a sense of identity
anticipatory socialization—the way we prepare for future life roles
authoritarian leader—a leader who issues orders and assigns tasks
bureaucracies—formal organizations characterized by a hierarchy of authority, a
clear division of labor, explicit rules, and impersonality
category—people who share similar characteristics but who are not connected in
any way
clear division of labor—the fact that each individual in a bureaucracy has a
specialized task to perform
coercive organizations—organizations that people do not voluntarily join, such as
prison or a mental hospital
conflict theory—a theory that examines social and economic factors as the causes
of criminal deviance
conformity—the extent to which an individual complies with group or
societal norms
control theory—a theory that states social control is directly affected by the
strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection
from
society
degradation ceremony—the process by which new members of a total institution
lose aspects of their old identities and are given new ones
democratic leader—a leader who encourages group participation and consensus-
building before moving into action
deviance—a violation of contextual, cultural, or social norms
differential association theory—a theory that states individuals learn deviant
behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for
deviance
explicit rules—the types of rules in a bureaucracy; rules that are outlined, recorded,
and standardized
expressive function—a group function that serves an emotional
need
expressive—a leader who is concerned with process and with ensuring everyone’s
emotional well-being
formal organizations—large, impersonal organizations
formal sanctions—sanctions that are officially recognized and enforced
generalized other—the common behavioral expectations of general society
group—any collection of at least two people who interact with some frequency and
share some sense of aligned identity
hidden curriculum—the informal teaching done in schools that socializes children to
societal norms
hierarchy of authority—a clear chain of command found in a bureaucracy
impersonality—the removal of personal feelings from a professional situation
informal sanctions—sanctions that occur in face-to-face interactions
in-group—a group a person belongs to and feels is an integral part of his identity
instrumental function—being oriented toward a task or goal
instrumental leader—a leader who is goal oriented with a primary focus on
accomplishing tasks
iron rule of oligarchy—the theory that an organization is ruled by a few elites rather
than through collaboration
labeling theory—sociological perspective on the ascribing of a deviant behavior to
another person by members of society
laissez-faire leader—a hands-off leader who allows members of the group to make
their own decisions
leadership function—the main focus or goal of a leader
leadership style—the approach a leader uses to achieve goals or elicit action from
group members
meritocracy—a bureaucracy where membership and advancement are based on
merit—proven and documented skills
moral development—the way people learn what is considered good and bad in
society
nature—the influence of our genetic makeup on self-development
negative sanctions—punishments for violating norms
normative (or voluntary) organizations—organizations that people join to pursue
shared interests or because they provide some intangible rewards
nurture—the role that our social environment plays in self-development
out-group—a group that an individual is not a member of, and may even compete
with
peer group—a group made up of people who are similar in age and social status and
who share interests
positive sanctions—rewards given for conforming to norms
power elite—a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society
who hold the power and resources
primary deviance—a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects
on the individual’s self- image or interactions with others
primary groups—small, informal groups of people who are closest to us
reference groups—groups to which individuals compare themselves
resocialization—the process by which old behaviors are removed and new behaviors
are learned in their place
sanctions—means of enforcing rules
secondary deviance—deviance that occurs when a person’s self-concept and
behavior begin to change after actions are labeled as deviant by members of society
secondary groups—larger and more impersonal groups that are task-focused and
time limited
self—a person’s distinct sense of identity as developed through social interaction
social control—the regulation and enforcement of norms
social disorganization theory—a theory that asserts crime occurs in communities
with weak social ties and the absence of social control
social order—an arrangement of practices and behaviors on which society’s
members base their daily lives
socialization—the process through which people come to understand societal norms
and expectations, to accept society’s beliefs, and to be aware of societal values
strain theory—a theory that addresses the relationship between having socially
acceptable goals and having socially acceptable means to reach those goals
total institution—an organization in which participants live a controlled lifestyle and
in which total resocialization occurs
utilitarian organizations—organizations that people join to fill a specific material
need
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Groups
What is a group? The term carries important clinical and scientific meanings in addition to
its generic usage. The concept of a group is central to much of how we think about
society and human interaction. So how can we pin down the meaning more precisely for
sociological purposes?
Defining a Group
The term group can refer to a wide variety of gatherings, from just two people to an
organization of hundreds. A group might be a club, a regular gathering of friends, or
people who work together or share a hobby. A group can be any collection of at least two
people who interact with some frequency and share a sense that their identity is
somehow aligned with the group. Of course, not every gathering of people is a group. A
rally is usually a one-time event, for instance, and belonging to a political party doesn’t
necessarily mean interaction with others. People who happen to be in the same place at
the same time but who do not interact or share a sense of identity—such as people
standing in line at Starbucks—are considered an aggregate, or a crowd.
Another example of a nongroup is people who share similar characteristics but are not
tied to one another in any way. These people are considered a category. For example,
people born between about 1980 and 2000 are referred to as Millennials. Why are
Millennials a category and not a group? Because while some Millennials may share a sense
of identity, they do not, as a whole, interact frequently with each other.
Interestingly, people within an aggregate or category can become a group. For example,
during disasters, people in a neighborhood (an aggregate) who did not know each other
might become friendly and depend on each other at the local shelter. After the disaster,
when people go back to simply living near each other, the feeling of cohesiveness may last
since they have all shared an experience. They might remain a group, practicing
emergency readiness, coordinating supplies for next time, or taking turns caring for
neighbors who need extra help.
Learning Resource
Types of Groups
Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) suggested that groups can broadly be
divided into two categories: primary groups and secondary groups (Cooley, 1963).
According to Cooley, primary groups play the most critical role in our lives. The primary
group is usually small and made up of individuals who generally engage face-to-face in
long-term, emotionally significant ways. This group serves emotional needs, and thus it
serves an expressive function for its members. The primary group is usually made up of
significant others—those individuals who have the largest impact on our socialization. The
most common example of a primary group is the family.
Secondary groups are often larger and impersonal. They may also be focused on tasks and
contain particular individuals for a limited time. These groups serve an instrumental
function rather than an expressive one, meaning that their role is more goal- or task-
oriented than emotional. A classroom or office is an example of a secondary group.
Neither primary nor secondary groups are bound by strict definitions or set limits. In fact,
people can move from one group to another. A group of coworkers, for example, can start
as a secondary group, but as the employees work together over the years, they may find
common interests and strong ties that transform them into a primary group.
Sociology in the Real World
Best Friends She’s Never Met
Writer Allison Levy worked alone. While she liked the freedom and flexibility
of working from home, she sometimes missed having a community of
coworkers, both for the practical purpose of brainstorming and socializing.
Levy did what many do: She found a group of other writers online. Over time,
a group of approximately 20 writers who all wrote for a similar audience broke
off from the larger forum and started a private one. Their group ended up
consisting of women in their 20s and 30s who all wrote fiction for children and
young adults.
At first, the writers’ forum was clearly a secondary group, brought together by
the members’ professions and work situations. It was a useful place to
research information about publishers, recent books and authors, and industry
trends. But as time passed, Levy found it served a different purpose. Since the
group shared other characteristics beyond their writing (such as age and
gender), their conversation naturally turned to matters such as child-rearing,
aging parents, health, and exercise. When people didn’t post for several days,
others expressed concern. It reached the point where most members would
tell the group if they were travelling or needed to be offline for a while.
Is this a primary group? Most of these people have never met each other. They
live in Hawaii, Australia, Minnesota, and across the world. They may never
meet. But the connection is meaningful and long term Despite the distance
and lack of physical contact, the group clearly fills an expressive need.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
One of the ways that groups can be powerful is through inclusion, and its inverse,
exclusion. The feeling that we belong in an elite or select group is a powerful one, while
the feeling of not being allowed in, or of being in competition with a group, can be
motivating in a different way. William Graham Sumner (1840–1910) developed the
concepts of in-group and out-group to explain this phenomenon (Sumner, 1959). In short,
an individual’s in-group is the group that person feels a part of to that point that it is a
part of the person’s self. An out-group, conversely, is a group someone doesn’t belong to.
Often we feel disdain or competition toward an out-group. Sports teams, unions, and
sororities are examples of in-groups and out-groups. Primary groups consist of both in-
groups and out-groups, as do secondary groups.
While group affiliations can be neutral or positive, the concept of in-groups and out-
groups can also explain some negative human behavior, such as White supremacist
movements. By defining others as “not like us” and inferior, in-groups can end up
practicing ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism—manners of judging
others negatively based on their culture, race, sex, age, or sexuality, or other forms of
discriminatory othering.
Often, in-groups can form within a secondary group. For instance, there may be cliques
within a workplace, from senior executives who play golf together to engineers who write
code together to young people who socialize after hours. While these in-groups might
show favoritism and affinity for other in-group members, the overall organization may be
unable or unwilling to acknowledge it. It can pay to be wary of the politics of in-groups,
since members may exclude others to gain status within the group.
Reference Groups
A reference group is a group that people compare themselves to, one that provides a
standard of measurement. In US society, peer groups are common reference groups. Both
children and adults pay attention to what their peers wear, what music they like, what
they do with their free time, and more, and they compare themselves to what they see.
Most people have more than one reference group, so a middle school boy might look at
his classmates but also at his older brother’s friends, where he might see a different set of
norms. He might also observe the behaviors of his favorite athletes for another point of
reference.
Some other examples of reference groups can include one’s cultural center, workplace, or
family. Often, reference groups convey competing messages. For instance, on television
and in movies, young adults often have wonderful apartments, fancy cars, and lively social
lives despite spending little or no time working. This might be at odds with what a young
adult sees in a peer group. At all ages, we use reference groups to help guide our behavior
and establish our social norms.
Group Leadership
Often, groups require some kind of leadership. In small, primary groups, leadership tends
to be informal. After all, most families and groups of friends don’t take a vote on who will
rule the group. This is not to say that de facto leaders don’t emerge, but formal leadership
is rare. In secondary groups, leadership is usually more overt. These groups often outline
roles and responsibilities, with a chain of command to follow. Some secondary groups, like
the military, have highly structured and clearly understood chains of command, and
sometimes lives depend on those. Other secondary groups, like a workplace or a
classroom, also have formal leaders, but the styles and functions of leadership can vary
significantly.
Leadership function refers to the main goal of the leader, which may be instrumental or
expressive. An instrumental leader is one who is goal-oriented and largely concerned with
accomplishing set tasks. An army general or a Fortune 500 CEO would most likely be an
instrumental leader. In contrast, expressive leaders are more concerned with promoting
emotional well-being and ensuring that people feel supported. Social and religious leaders
—rabbis, priests, imams, directors of youth homes and social service programs, etc.—are
often expressive leaders. Most people, regardless of gender, tend to prefer leaders who
use a combination of expressive and instrumental leadership (Boatwright & Forrest, 2000).
Sociologists recognize three leadership styles. Democratic leaders encourage group
participation in all decision making. They work hard to build consensus before choosing a
course of action and moving forward. This type of leader is particularly common in groups
like school clubs or professional organizations, where members vote on priorities or
activities to pursue. Democratic leaders may be well liked, but there is a risk that
decisions will proceed slowly because it takes time to build consensus. Another risk is that
group members might pick sides and entrench themselves into opposing factions, rather
than reaching a solution.
In contrast, a laissez-faire (French for “leave it alone”) leader is hands-off, allowing group
members to self-manage and make their own decisions. An example of this kind of leader
might be an art teacher who opens the art cupboard, leaves materials on the shelves, and
tells students to help themselves and make some art. While this style can work well with
highly motivated and mature participants who have clear goals and guidelines, it risks
group dissolution and a lack of progress.
Finally, authoritarian leaders issue orders and assign tasks with little to no feedback from
group members. These leaders are often instrumental leaders with a strong focus on
meeting goals. Many entrepreneurs, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, fall into this
mold. Unsurprisingly, authoritarian leaders risk alienating workers. When decisions need
to be made quickly or informed by a high level of expertise, however, this style of
leadership may be required.
In different circumstances, each of these leadership styles can be effective and successful.
Consider what leadership style you prefer. Why? Do you like the same style in different
areas of your life, such as a classroom, a workplace, and a sports team?
References
Boatwright, K. J., & Forrest, L. (2000). Leadership preferences: The influence of gender
and needs for connection on workers’ ideal preferences for leadership behaviors.
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2): 18–34.
Cooley, C. H. (1963). Social organizations: A study of the larger mind. Shocken.
Sumner, W. (1959). Folkways. Dover.
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Formal Organizations
A common complaint is that society is dominated by large and impersonal secondary
organizations. From schools to businesses to government, these formal organizations are
highly bureaucratized. Indeed, all formal organizations are, or likely will become,
bureaucracies. Let’s look at the purpose of formal organizations and the structure of their
bureaucracies.
Sociologist Amitai Etzioni posited that formal organizations fall into three categories
(Etzioni, 1975). Normative organizations, also called voluntary organizations, are based on
shared interests and joining them is voluntary. People find membership rewarding in an
intangible way; they receive non-material benefits. The Audubon Society and a ski club
are examples of normative organizations.
Coercive organizations are groups that people must be pressured to join. These may
include prison or a rehabilitation center. Symbolic interactionist Erving Goffman states
that most coercive organizations are total institutions, which we discussed in terms of
socialization (Goffman, 1961).
The third type is utilitarian organizations, which are joined because of the need for a
specific material reward. High school and workplaces fall into this category—one is joined
in pursuit of a diploma, the other in order to make money.
This table summarizes the three types of formal organizations:
Types of Formal Organizations
Normative Coercive Utilitarian
Benefit of
membership
Intangible benefit Corrective
benefit
Tangible benefit
Learning Resource
Normative Coercive Utilitarian
Type of
membership
Volunteer basis Required Contractual basis
Feeling of
connectedness
Shared affinity No affinity Some affinity
Source: Etzioni, 1975
The Structure of Bureaucracies
Bureaucracies are an ideal type of formal organization. By ideal, sociologists don’t mean
best, but rather that they have a collection of characteristics that most of them exhibit.
Max Weber characterized a bureaucracy as having a hierarchy of authority, a clear division
of labor, explicit rules, and impersonality (Weber, 1968). People often complain about
bureaucracies being slow, rule-bound, difficult to navigate, and unfriendly. Let’s look at
terms that define a bureaucracy to understand what they mean.
Hierarchy of authority refers to the chain of command that places one individual or office
in charge of another, who in turn must answer to superiors. For example, as an employee
at Walmart, your shift manager might assign you tasks. Your shift manager answers to the
store manager, who must answer to the regional manager, and so on, up to the CEO who
must answer to the board members, who in turn answer to the stockholders. Everyone in
this bureaucracy follows the chain of command.
Bureaucracies also have a clear division of labor: Each individual has a specialized task to
perform. For example, at a university, psychology professors teach psychology, but they
do not attempt to provide students with financial aid forms. The Office of Admissions
often takes on this task. In this case, it is a clear and commonsense division. But what
about in a restaurant where food is backed up in the kitchen and a host is standing nearby
texting? The host’s job is to seat customers, not to deliver food. Is this the best division of
labor?
Bureaucracies have explicit rules—rules that are outlined, written down, and standardized.
For example, at a university, the student guidelines are generally documented in a student
handbook. As technology changes and organizations encounter new types of concerns
like cyberbullying and identity theft, the explicit rules need to be expanded to cover these
emerging issues.
Finally, bureaucracies are also characterized by impersonality, which takes personal
feelings out of professional situations. This characteristic grew, to some extent, out of a
desire to avoid nepotism, backroom deals, and other types of favoritism, while
simultaneously protecting customers and others served by the organization.
Bureaucracies often strive to be meritocracies, meaning that hiring and promotion is
based on proven and documented skills, rather than on personal relationships or random
choice. In order to get into a prestigious college, for example, you may need to perform
well on the SAT and have an impressive transcript. In order to become a lawyer and
represent clients, you must graduate law school and pass the state bar exam. Of course,
there are many well-documented examples of success by those who did not proceed
through traditional meritocracies. Think about technology companies with founders who
dropped out of college, or performers who became famous after a YouTube video went
viral.
Organizations that aspire to become meritocracies encounter challenges. How well do you
think established meritocracies identify talent? Wealthy families hire tutors, interview
coaches, test-prep services, and consultants to help their kids get into the most
prestigious colleges. This can start as early as kindergarten in places like New York City,
where competition for the most highly regarded schools is especially fierce. Are these
colleges, many of which have scholarship funds that are intended to make the school
more democratic, really offering all applicants a fair shake?
Bureaucracies are intended to improve efficiency, ensure equal opportunities, and serve a
large population. These aspects of a bureaucracy’s rigid structures can be beneficial and,
at times, needed. But many of our bureaucracies grew large during the Industrial
Revolution. Young workers were trained—and organizations were built—for mass
production, focused on assembly line work in factories. In these situations, a clear chain of
command was critical.
Now, this kind of rigid training and adherence to protocol can actually decrease both
productivity and efficiency in many situations. Many jobs have a faster pace and require
more problem solving and flexibility than the factory work of the Industrial Revolution.
Too much adherence to explicit rules and a division of labor can leave an organization
behind. Unfortunately, once established, bureaucracies can take on a life of their own. It is
almost impossible to make quick changes in these bureaucracies; state governments
highlight this problem when they fail, year after year, to address unbalanced budgets.
It’s also important to consider that bureaucracies grew as institutions at a time when
wealthy White men held all the power in the societies where bureaucracies emerged.
While ostensibly based on meritocracy, bureaucracies can perpetuate the existing balance
of power by only recognizing the merit in traditional paths that are associated with male
and privileged socialization.
Michels (1949) suggested that all large organizations are characterized by the iron rule of
oligarchy, that an entire organization is ruled by a few elites.
To learn more about formal organizations and how they work, watch the
short video Formal organizations: Crash Course Sociology #17
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDuBh7VbGgU) .
References
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power,
involvement, and their correlates. Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other
inmates. Aldine.
Michels, R. (1949). Political parties. Free Press.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology.
Bedminster.
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
Resources
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Introduction: Socialization, Groups, and
Deviance
Can you use your hands to eat? Who should pay? Do you stand when someone else gets
up, and is that dependent on their gender? The dining manners and customs of different
cultures are learned by socialization. Acting differently from what is expected by a social
group might be regarded as deviance.
Source: Kurman Communications, Flickr
When sociologist Todd Schoepflin (2011) ran into his childhood friend Bill, he was
shocked to see him driving a hearse for everyday tasks, just like an ordinary car.
Schoepflin, a trained researcher, interviewed Bill about why he drove such an
Learning Resource
unconventional car. Bill had simply been on the lookout for a reliable car that could handle
winter; on a tight budget, he searched used car ads and stumbled upon one for the
hearse. It ran well and the price was right, so he bought it.
Bill admitted that others’ reactions to the car had been mixed. His parents were appalled,
and he received odd stares from his coworkers. Bill received mostly positive reactions
overall, though. Strangers gave him a thumbs-up on the highway and stopped him in
parking lots to chat about his car. Bill even thought about creating a social group of hearse
fans. Could it be that driving a hearse isn’t so deviant after all? Did driving a hearse affect
Bill’s self-concept?
This week, we will examine the sociological concept of self and the complex process of
socialization that takes place through interaction with many individuals, groups, and social
institutions. We will explore the various types of groups that people join, particularly
formal organizations. Understanding socialization and groups helps us better understand
how and why some people do not follow social norms and are labeled by others as
deviant.
References
Schoepflin, T. (2011, January 28). Deviant while driving? Everyday Sociology Blog.
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-
driving.html
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Deviance and
Social Control
After decades of classification as an illegal substance, marijuana became legal in some
form in nearly every state in the US. In 2013, the Pew Research Center found for the first
time that a majority of people in the United States (52 percent) favored legalizing
marijuana. Until that point, most people were in favor of retaining the drug’s status as
illegal. (The question about marijuana’s legal status was first asked in a 1969 Gallup poll,
and only 12 percent of US adults favored legalization at that time.) Marijuana had, for
years, been seen as a danger to
society
, especially to youth, and many people applied
stereotypes to users, often conflating marijuana use with negative stereotypes about race.
In essence, marijuana users were considered deviants.
Public opinion has changed over time. While the 2013 study showed support for
legalization just over the 50 percent mark, the number was up to 67 percent by 2019.
Two-thirds of people in the US favored permitting some types of legal usage, as well as
decriminalization and elimination of jail time for users of the drug (Daniller, 2019).
Government officials took note and states began changing their policies as public
assumptions changed.
The question “What is deviant behavior?” cannot be answered in a straightforward
manner. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including
location, audience, and who is performing the act (Becker, 1963). Listening to music, for
example, is considered acceptable behavior on the way to class, but during a formal
lecture, it would be considered rude. Listening to music when on the witness stand before
a judge might cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.
As norms vary across cultures and time, notions of deviance also change. Many public
schools in the United States used to ban girls from wearing pants to class, and while the
social acceptability of pants for women has become ubiquitous, the change in attitudes
towards men wearing skirts has moved more slowly. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the act
of wearing or not wearing a mask became a matter of deviance, and in some cases,
political affiliation and legality. What people agree is deviant differs in various societies
and subcultures, and it may change over time. What, exactly, then is deviance? And what
Learning Resource
is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham
Sumner, deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms,
whether folkways, mores, or codified law (Sumner, 1959). Deviant behavior can be as
minor as picking your nose in public or as major as committing murder.
Although the word deviance has a negative connotation in everyday language, sociologists
recognize that deviance is not necessarily bad (Schoepflin, 2011). In fact, from a structural
functionalist perspective, one of the positive contributions of deviance is that it fosters
social change. For example, during the US civil rights movement, Rosa Parks violated
social norms when she refused to move to the “Black section” of the bus, and the Little
Rock Nine broke customs of segregation to attend an Arkansas public school.
Perceptions and proclamations of deviance have often been a means to oppress people by
labeling their private behavior as criminal. Until the 1970s and 1980s, sexual acts
between adults of the same sex were prohibited by state laws, with restrictions extending
to simple displays like holding hands. Other laws prohibited clothing deemed
“inappropriate” for one’s biological sex. This resulted in dishonorably discharges (losing all
benefits) for veterans and servicemembers found to be gay, as well as police harassment
of LGBTQ people and regular raids on gay bars. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes were rarely
prosecuted and generally lightly punished when they were. While most states had
eliminated their anti-LGBTQ laws by the time the Supreme Court struck them down in
2003, 14 states still had some version of them on the books.
For another example of the relativity of deviance and its relationship to perceptions of
crime, consider gambling. Excessive or high-risk gambling is often seen as deviant
behavior, but more moderate gambling is generally accepted. Gambling has been limited in
most of the United States for a long time, making it a crime to participate in certain types
of gambling or to do so outside of specified locations. For example, a state may allow
betting on horse races but not on sports. Some of these laws are changing, but for
decades, a generally non-deviant behavior has been made criminal: When otherwise law-
abiding people decided to engage in moderate, low-stakes gambling, they were breaking
the law. Sociologists may study the essential question arising from this situation: Are
these gamblers being deviant by breaking the law, even when the actual behavior at hand
is not generally considered deviant?
Here is a short video, Deviance: Crash Course Sociology #18
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGq9zW9w3Fw) , that provides
an overview of how sociologists view deviance.
Social Control
When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can
receive a speeding ticket. A student who wears a bathrobe to class could get a warning
from a professor. People might avoid an adult belching loudly in public. All societies
practice social control, the regulation and enforcement of norms. The underlying goal of
social control is to maintain social order, an arrangement of practices and behaviors on
which society’s members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee
handbook and social control as a manager. When a worker violates a workplace guideline,
the manager steps in to enforce the rules; when an employee is doing an exceptionally
good job at following the rules, the manager may praise or promote the employee.
The means of enforcing rules are called sanctions. Sanctions can be positive as well as
negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms, like a promotion
can reward hard work. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being
arrested is a negative sanction for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social
control.
Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. Shoplifting, a form
of social
deviance, is illegal, but there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch your nose.
That doesn’t mean picking your nose in public won’t be punished; instead, you will
encounter informal sanctions. Informal sanctions emerge primarily in face-to-face social
interactions. For example, wearing flip-flops to an opera or swearing loudly in church may
draw disapproving looks, verbal reprimands, or other consequences, whereas behavior
that is seen as positive—such as helping an elderly person carry grocery bags across the
street—may receive positive informal reactions, such as a smile or pat on the back.
Formal sanctions, on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm
violations. If a student violates a college’s code of conduct, for example, the student might
be expelled. Someone who speaks inappropriately to the boss could be fired. Someone
Resources
who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. On the positive side, a soldier who
saves a life may receive an official commendation.
Functionalists argue that deviance plays an important role in society and can be used to
challenge people’s views. Protesters, such as these members of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, often use deviant behavior to draw attention to a cause.
Source: David Shankbone, Flickr
Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance
Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology,
scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean
for society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological
paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.
Functionalism
Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how different
elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of
a functioning society. Strain theory and social disorganization theory represent two
functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.
Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance
Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One
way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views
(Durkheim, 1997). For instance, when Black students across the United States participated
in sit-ins during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of
segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently
held social norms, which also contributes to society (Durkheim, 1997). Seeing a high
school student given detention for skipping class reminds other students that they must
attend class to avoid getting detention.
Durkheim’s point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments
about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the collective conscience—the beliefs,
morals, and attitudes of a society. According to Durkheim, a crime is a crime because we
condemn it. He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the
collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. For
example, in large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the
interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally
less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more
severely.
Robert Merton: Strain Theory
Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning
society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory, which notes
that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person
conforms or deviates. From birth, people in the US are often encouraged to achieve the
“American Dream” of financial success. A person who attends business school, receives an
MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a
success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. That MBA-turned-
CEO may have grown up in an excellent school district and had the means to hire tutors.
Another person may grow up in a neighborhood with lower-quality schools and may not
be able to pay for extra help. Some people may have the socially acceptable goal of
financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to
Merton’s theory, an entrepreneur who can’t afford to launch a company may be tempted
to embezzle from an employer for start-up funds.
Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted
goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it:
1. Conformity. Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to
the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
2. Innovation. Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate
means by instead using deviant, sometimes criminal, means.
3. Ritualism. People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through
socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than
attaining a distant dream.
4. Retreatism. Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some people who
are homeless have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success.
5. Rebellion. A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with
their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through
socially unacceptable means.
Social Disorganization Theory
Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social
disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak
social ties and the absence of social control. For example, under this theory an individual
who grows up in a poor neighborhood—perhaps with high rates of drug use, violence, and
teenage delinquency—and had a lack of parental involvement is assumed to be more likely
to commit a crime than an individual from a wealthy neighborhood with a good school
system, raised by family members who are involved positively in the community.
Proponents of social disorganization theory believe that individuals who grow
up in impoverished areas are more likely to participate in deviant or criminal
behaviors.
Source: Apollo 1758, Wikimedia Commons
Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A
person isn’t born as someone who will commit crimes but becomes one over time, often
based on factors in the social environment. Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989)
found that poverty and family disruption in given places had a strong positive correlation
with social disorganization. They also determined that social disorganization was, in turn,
associated with high rates of crime and delinquency, or deviance. Studies Sampson
conducted with Lydia Bean (2006) revealed similar findings. High rates of poverty and
single-parent homes correlated with high rates of juvenile violence. Research into social
disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have
found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs
teaching basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity (Lally,
Mangione, & Honig, 1987).
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance.
Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as positive functions of
society. They see them as evidence of inequality in the system. They also challenge social
disorganization theory and control theory and argue that both ignore racial and
socioeconomic issues and oversimplify social trends (Akers, 1991). Conflict theorists also
look to explain correlations of gender and race with wealth and crime.
Karl Marx: An Unequal System
The foundations of conflict theory are in the work of German philosopher, economist, and
social scientist Karl Marx. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the
foundation for conflict theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with
wealth and power. Particularly significant is Marx’s division of people into two groups
based on wealth and power: the wealthy bourgeois, in control of the means of production,
and the proletariat, workers who depend on the bourgeois for employment and survival.
Marx believed that the bourgeois centralized their power and influence through
government, laws, and other authority agencies in order to maintain and expand their
positions of power in society. These ideas about power and wealth underpin conflict
theorists’ explorations of deviance and its intersections with inequality in society.
C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite
In his 1956 book, sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed
the power elite, a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who
hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military
leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their
decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in
favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who
decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who
have little power.
Mills’ theories explain why celebrities who commit crimes often suffer little or no legal
retribution. For example, USA Today maintains a database of NFL players accused and
convicted of crimes. 51 NFL players were convicted of committing domestic violence
between the years 2000 and 2019. They were sentenced to a collective 49 days in jail,
and most of those sentences were deferred or otherwise reduced. In most cases,
suspensions and fines levied by the NFL or individual teams were more severe than the
justice system’s (Schrotenboer, 2020; clickitticket.com, 2019).
Crime and Social Class
From 1986 until 2010, the punishment for possessing crack, considered a poor
person’s drug, was 100 times stricter than the punishment for cocaine, a drug
favored by the wealthy.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the
wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within US society.
The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of
$15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). In comparison, when
former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the US Securities and
Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme
fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC, 2009). This imbalance based on class power is also
found within US criminal law. In the 1980s, cocaine use was associated with the wealthy,
while the use of crack (a less expensive but powerful drug derived from cocaine) quickly
became an epidemic that swept the country’s poorest urban communities. The legal
implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly
different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of
crack was punishable by a 10-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for
cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the
sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff, 2011). This inequality
in punishment paralleled the unequal social classes of respective users. A conflict theorist
would note that those in society who hold power are also the ones who make the laws
concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit themselves, while the
powerless classes, lacking the resources to make such decisions, suffer the consequences.
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, states passed many laws increasing penalties for
crimes, especially for repeat offenders. A significant federal law, the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (known as the 1994 Crime Bill), increased penalties,
funded prisons, and incentivized law enforcement agencies to further pursue drug
offenders. One outcome of these policies was the mass incarceration of Black and
Hispanic people, which contributed to a cycle of poverty and reduced social mobility. The
crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010’s Fair Sentencing Act, signed into
law by Barack Obama, decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project, 2010).
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how
societies and/or social groups come to view behaviors as deviant or conventional.
Symbolic interactionism encompasses labeling theory, differential association theory,
and control theory.
Labeling Theory
Although all of us violate norms from time to time, most people do not consider
themselves deviant. Those who do, however, have often been labeled deviant by society
and have gradually come to believe it themselves. Labeling theory examines the ascribing
of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered
deviant is determined not by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them,
but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant
changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.
Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two
types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms
that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions
with others. Driving well above the speed limit is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding
ticket generally does not change the way others view you, nor would it alter most people’s
own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance maintain a feeling of
belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.
Sometimes primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary
deviance occurs when people’s self-concepts and behavior begin to change after their
actions are labeled as deviant by members of their society. A person may begin to take on
and fulfill the role of a deviant as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled
that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class
and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff
and develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out
even more and breaking more rules; the student has adopted the “troublemaker” label and
embraced this deviant identity. Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a
master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief
characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or
grandfathers. Others may see themselves as failures, convicts, or addicts, as a result of
secondary deviance.
Techniques of Neutralization
How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done
by Sykes and Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile
delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. Neutralization refers
to the process by which individuals avoid regarding themselves as deviant when they
violate social norms. Sykes and Matza (1957) identified five techniques that individuals
might use to neutralize the deviant aspects of their actions.
Let’s take a scenario and apply all five techniques to explain how they are used. Click each
of the tabs to see how these techniques might be used in the following scenario.
Scenario: Sam is working for a retail store as a cashier. His cash drawer has been coming
up short for a few days. When Sam’s boss confronts him, he is labeled as a thief for the
suspicion of stealing. How might Sam deal with this label?
Using Techniques of Neutralization
The Denial of Responsibility
This technique is used when people don’t take
responsibility for their actions or blame others. They
may say that it was their boss’s fault because they
don’t get paid enough to make rent or because they’re
getting a divorce. They are rejecting the label by
denying responsibility for their actions.
The Denial of Injury
Sometimes people will look at a situation in terms of
what effect it has on others. Someone using this
technique may say, “What’s the big deal? Nobody got
hurt. Your insurance will take care of it.” This
technique dismisses the importance of the action by
seeing it as harmless.
The Denial of the Victim
If there is no victim, there’s no crime in this
perspective. In this technique, the person sees the
action as justified or the victim as deserving it. In our
scenario Sam may look at his situation and think, “I’ve
worked here for years without a raise. I deserve that
money and if you won’t give it to me, I’ll get it my own
way.”
The Condemnation of the Condemners
With this technique, Sam might “turn it around” and
blame the boss. He may say something like, “You don’t
know my life; you have no reason to judge me.” This
takes the focus off of his actions and puts the onus on
the accuser to, essentially, prove he is living up to the
label. This also shifts the narrative away from the
deviant behavior.
Appeal to a Higher Authority
The final technique is to claim that the actions were
for a higher purpose. Sam may tell the boss that he
stole the money because his mom is sick and needs
medicine or for another compelling reason. People
using this technique justify their actions by presenting
the purpose for the behavior as a greater good than
the action is bad.
Have you ever used any of these techniques?
Social Policy and Debate
The Right to Vote
Should a previous felony conviction permanently strip a US
citizen of the right to vote?
Source: Joshin Yamada, Flickr
Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and
mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she
was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud
under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her
debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.
Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than 10 years later, she is still feeling the
sting of her sentencing. Why? Because under the Fourteenth Amendment, states
are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in
“rebellion or other crime” (Krajick, 2004). Although there are no federally mandated
laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony
disenfranchisement.
Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process?
Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to
society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal
deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn’t the only instance in which ex-
felons are denied rights; many state laws also ban released criminals from holding
public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting
property (Lott & Jones, 2008).
Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a
basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds.
Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was
used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately
target poor members of racial minorities, denying them a chance to participate in a
system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to
their disadvantage (Holding, 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that
denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If
ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from
society?
Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association
In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant
behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other
aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub, 2006). His
conclusions established differential association theory, which suggested that individuals
learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of, and
opportunities for, deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice
and more a result of differential socialization processes. For example, a teenager whose
friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable for
teenagers.
Sutherland developed a series of propositions to explain how deviance is learned. In
Proposition 5, for example, he discussed how people begin to accept and participate in a
behavior after learning whether it is viewed as favorable by those around them. In
Proposition 6, Sutherland expressed the ways that exposure to more views and behaviors
favoring the deviant behavior than those opposing it can eventually lead a person to
partake in deviance, applying almost a quantitative element to the learning of certain
behaviors (Sutherland, 1960). In our example, a teenager may find sexual activity more
acceptable once a certain number of their friends become sexually active, not after only
one does so.
Sutherland’s theory may explain why crime can be multigenerational. A longitudinal study
beginning in the 1960s found that the best predictor of antisocial and criminal behavior in
children was whether their parents had been convicted of a crime
(Todd & Jury, 2011).
Children who were younger than 10 years old when their parents were convicted of a
crime were more likely than other children to engage in spousal abuse and criminal
behavior by their early thirties. Even when taking socioeconomic factors like dangerous
neighborhoods, poor school systems, and overcrowded housing into consideration,
researchers found that parents were the main influence on the behavior of their offspring
(Todd & Jury, 2011).
Travis Hirschi: Control Theory
Another approach that examines large social factors is control theory, which states that
social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results
from a feeling of disconnection from society. Individuals who believe they are a part of
society are less likely to stray from its norms, including committing crimes.
Travis Hirschi identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society (Hirschi,
1969):
Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to
people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in
order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic
partners.
Commitment refers to the investments we make in the community. A well-respected
local businessperson who volunteers at the synagogue and is a member of the
neighborhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a
person who doesn’t have any ties to the community.
Similarly, levels of involvement, or participation in socially accepted activities, lessen
a person’s likelihood of deviance. A child who plays Little League baseball and takes
art classes may have fewer opportunities to commit crimes.
The final bond, belief, is an agreement on common values in society. If people view
social values as being in line with their personal beliefs, they will conform to them.
An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park because a clean
environment is a social value to them.
This table provides a helpful overview of the major sociological theories of deviance:
Theory or concept Associated theorists Deviance arises from
Functionalism
Strain theory Robert Merton Inability to reach
socially accepted
goals by
accepted methods
Social disorganization
theory
University of Chicago
researchers
Weak social ties and a
lack
of social
control; society’s inability
to enforce norms with
some groups
Conflict theory
Unequal system Karl Marx Inequalities in wealth and
power
that arise from the
economic system
Power elite C. Wright Mills Ability of those in power
to define
deviance in ways that
maintain the
status quo
Theory or concept Associated theorists Deviance arises from
Symbolic interactionism
Labeling theory Edwin Lemert The reactions of others,
particularly
those in power who can
determine
labels
Differential
association
theory
Edwin Sutherland Learning and modeling
deviant
behavior seen in other
people close
to the individual
Control theory Travis Hirschi Feelings of disconnection
from
society
There are many sociological theories of deviance. If you would like to
learn more about them, read this section on sociological explanations of
deviance (http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1099295&site=eds-
live&scope=site&profile=edsebook&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_186) from
Connecting Sociology to Our Lives: An Introduction to Sociology.
This peer-reviewed journal article, Sex, Drugs, and Deception: Deviance
in the Hair Salon Industry (http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sih&AN=111589658&login.asp&site=ehost-
live&scope=site) , looks at deviance in the workplace.
Although the word tends to have a negative connotation, deviance can
have a positive effect on society. Check out the Positive Deviance
Initiative (http://openstax.org/l/Positive_Deviance) , a program
initiated by Tufts University to promote social movements around the
world that strive to improve people’s lives.
References
Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 7(2): 201–211.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Clickitticket.com. (2019). A complete list (with statistics) of the NFL players arrested for
domestic abuse in the 21st century. https://www.clickitticket.com/nfl-domestic-
violence/
Durkheim, É. (1997). The division of labor in society. Free Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/index.html
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Resources
http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1099295&site=eds-live&scope=site&profile=edsebook&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_186
http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=111589658&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
http://openstax.org/l/Positive_Deviance
Holding, R. (2006, November 21). Why can’t felons vote? Time.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
Krajick, K. (2004, August 18). Why can’t ex-felons vote? The Washington Post, p. A19.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html
Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1987). The Syracuse University Family
Development Research Program: Long-range impact of an early intervention with
low-income children and their families.
Laub, J. H. (2006). Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler Report: Searching for the
soul of criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44:235–57.
Lott, J. R., Jr. & Jones, S. D. (2008, October 20). How felons who vote can tip an election.
Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441030,00.html
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
New York Times Editorial Staff. (2011, June 29). Reducing unjust cocaine sentences. New
York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/opinion/30thu3.html
Sampson, R. J., & Bean, L. (2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory
of community-level racial inequality. In R. D. Peterson, L. J. Krivo, & J. Hagan
(Eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity, and crime in
America. NYU Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crimes: Testing social-
disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94:774–802.
Schoepflin, T. (2011, January 28). Deviant while driving? Everyday Sociology Blog.
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-
driving.html
Schrotenboer, B. (2020). NFL player arrests database: Records since 2000. USA Today.
The Sentencing Project. (2010). Federal crack cocaine sentencing. The Sentencing Project:
Research and advocacy reform.
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_CrackBriefingSheet
Sumner, W. (1959). Folkways. Dover.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressy, D. R. (2006). A theory of differential association. In F. T. Cullen
& R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to present : Essential readings (p.
122–125). Roxbury Company.
Todd, R. & Jury, L. (2011, October 23). Children follow convicted parents into crime. The
Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/children-follow-convicted-
parents-into-crime-1321272.html
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-3e
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
