M1D1: Deviance Typology Upon successful completion of this activity, students will be able to: 1. Explain the concept of social deviance and provide examples of deviant behavior in social context 2. U

Module 1: Module Notes: An Introduction to Deviance

Upon successful completion of this activity, students will be able to:

• Explain the concept of social deviance and provide examples of deviant behavior in social context

• Use three major theoretical perspectives to understand deviant behavior and social reactions to and consequences of deviant behavior

Before reading these notes, please make sure to read the Introduction and Part 1 (pages 1-56) in your Alder & Alder text and view the YouTube video: “(Links to an external site.)The Three Minute Sociologist: Deviance (Links to an external site.)?” [Video file] [8 Min 10 Sec]

The major questions to think about as you work through this module are:

1. How do you define deviant behavior?

2. What is different and similar between my own common sense definition of this term and the academic concepts I am being introduced to?

Part I introduces you to the concept of deviance and deviant behavior through a social scientific lens. Many of you have heard the term “deviant” and have some concept that deviance is related in some way to being different or rule breaking. However, this section introduces these terms as analytical concepts and places them in the context of social theory and research. There is a variety of reasons that social scientists may have for being interested in studying deviant behavior; reasons can range from an academic interest in social behavior, norms, and outliers to scholars who endeavor to impact law-making by understanding social problems related to deviant behavior and seeking to solve these problems.
Part I of the textbook introduces students to three perspectives. The first of these perspectives is Howard Becker’s Labeling Theory, which is often referred to as Relativism. From this perspective, all deviance is regarded as “relative” and as “socially constructed.” For Becker, the label that is placed on an act that signifies it as “deviant” is what makes the act deviant. Any act can be considered deviant in one place or time but considered totally normal in another setting; the way the act is perceived depends upon the expectations around that particular act. Take, for example, a behavior that most of the time we would consider a purely “good” act—saving a life. Under some circumstances, this act would be understood as absolutely normal, right and proper, while in other circumstances, this same act could be considered evil and taboo. For instance, in the US in 2011, it is “good,” even “heroic,” to save the life of a person who is drowning in the public swimming pool; however, it would be considered “bad,” deviant and even illegal for an American soldier at war to cross enemy lines to save the life of an enemy combatant who was shot by another American soldier in a wartime conflict. The act itself is value neutral; it is the social context of a human act that determines whether it is deviant, normative or somewhere in between.

The second perspective provided by your text is the “Conflict” perspective of crime. This theory is focused especially on deviant acts that are labeled illegal. Quinney builds upon Becker’s theory of labeling by identifying the parties who have the power to deem an act deviant or normative. The conflict theory of crime draws on the dynamics of society and points out that groups with lower social statuses often find that acts they are involved in are deemed more deviant than similar acts by more powerful groups and that the social dynamics including those of race, class, gender and sexual orientation can impact the ways in which acts are labeled more or less deviant.

The third perspective in this section is the “Morality of Deviance.” Hendershott’s theory of deviance is a criticism of modern sociology and criminology. Her theory holds that social order comes from strong consensus about morality and agreement about right, wrong, good, and evil. This perspective suggests that deviance is not relative but is absolute; the position of this theory is that in the core of each human, there is a shared essence of what is right and what is wrong.