Theories on Deviant Behavior - Research Paper Example

Theories on Deviant Behavior Introduction Psychological And Biological Theories Of Deviant Behavior, even though useful, hold the individual responsible for deviance. Early sociological theories of deviant behavior, and later theories, hold societal structure and/or culture responsible for deviance. This essay applies some of these theories to analyze petty crimes (i.e., assault, shoplifting, robbery, etc.), sexual crimes (i.e., rape or molestation), organized crime, mass murder, and terrorism. In addition, this essay tries to answer whether deviance is motivated by different sociological or psychological factors, or can all crime be explained by similar theories of deviance. Petty Crimes Anomie-Strain Petty crimes can be explained by two theories of deviant behavior, namely anomie-strain theory and conflict theory. One theory of deviant behavior that tries to demonstrate why people commit or take part in criminal acts is referred to as ‘strain theory’ (Wilkins 2003). As stated by Cote (2002), this theory argues that petty crimes, like robbery and assault, are the outcome of lower-class resentment and disgruntlement, and that the heightened strain of being incapable of attaining desired socioeconomic status produces an intensified level of strain, bringing about criminal behavior. Robert Merton introduced the theory of anomie. He adjusted the initial description of anomie to accurately encompass our society’s present socioeconomic conditions. He formulated four ‘abnormal’ forms of adaptation to classify individuals (Franzese 2009). These four categories precisely explain petty crimes. The first form is ‘innovation’, and is displayed by individuals who resort to unlawful means when their lawful means of economic growth are hampered. Some perfect examples of this form of deviant are robbers or shoplifters. The “ritualist” is the second form of deviant, who complies with an established paradigm while disregarding cultural directives about achievement (Clinard & Meier 2010). The “retreatist’ is the third form of deviant, who despises everything and everyone in society. These people are usually petty offenders, like vagabonds or drug addicts (Clinard & Meier 2010). As stated by Regoli and Hewitt (2009), the “rebellious’ form is the fourth deviant, who despises society but wants to transform it. Another cause of petty crimes is referred to as ‘relative deprivation’, which can have an effect on all environments or localities, for it depends on the small disparities between individuals, rather than considerable “poverty” to thrive. Relative poverty examines the tendency for an individual to be envious of the success of his/her fellowman, and become discontented with his/her present condition (Traub & Little 1999). Apparently, according to Wilkins (2003), the higher the relative disparity, the more severe the discontentment; however, even slight changes can cause criminal behavior, aggression, and anomic (outsider) behavior. Conflict Theory When scholars looked at the poor metropolitan areas, pounded by the hardships brought about by the Great Depression, they witnessed the collapse of social and individual controls, and the growth of petty crimes. Conflict theorists see the criminal justice system and the law as channels for regulating the society’s impoverished people (Andersen & Taylor 2005). Legal foundations aid the prosperous and influential enforce their norms of good and appropriate conduct on the whole society. The law safeguards the physical wellbeing and property of the rich from assault by the poor, and helps regulate the activities and conduct of people who could otherwise endanger the prevailing states of affair. The powerful select few push the lower-middle class into this control process, encouraging it to think it has a concern in sustaining the status quo (Andersen & Taylor 2005). The have-nots may or may not perpetrate more petty offenses than the haves, but they definitely are imprisoned more frequently. It is not astonishing to conflict theorists that charges of police violence are greatest in minority areas, particularly those under relative poverty. Police misconduct, which is usual in minority areas, would never be accepted or endured in rich White neighborhoods. As a result, an entrenched or subconscious antagonism is produced among lower-class members toward a societal structure they could neither share nor influence (Downes & Rock 2007). Such antagonism leads to petty crimes, especially property offenses against the rich. As stated by Franzese (2009), conflict theorists propose that instead of restraining these petty crimes, the justice system could strengthen the presence of this conduct. They argue that the capitalist system is not successful in regulating deviants because an increasing number of petty offenders benefit the state. Such petty offenders can be hired as marginal laborers eager to sell their labor for minimum wage in employments disliked by everybody else. Sexual Crimes Social Learning Theory A major theory that tries to clarify why individuals take part in sex crimes is widely referred to as the social learning theory. This theory suggests that individuals gain knowledge of criminal activities and behavior, and obtain encouragements to perpetrate criminal acts, from people and things in their immediate environment (Shepard 2004). Yet, the theory indicates that individuals decide to take part in illegal acts and are capable of assessing the risks and gains of their actions. Even though this theory appears straightforward and commonsensical, the mechanism by which an individual learns and starts to experience unlawful acts, and the risks and gains of involvement, is not. For instance, an individual does not “out of the blue” decide to sexually harass a child (Downes & Rock 2007). Usually, over a certain period of time, some individuals become conscious of their desire for children. They could look for other people with the same feelings and join online forums, or other channels, that concentrate on child sexual molestation. It is during this complex social interaction that they discover that they are not alone in this world (Downes & Rock 2007). As stated by Wilkins (2003), based on their experience, knowledge, and personal will of the deed itself, they start to assess the risks and gains of sexually harassing a child. Simply put, not like lab rats, the possible child molester is not getting an immediate punishment, like an electric shock, whenever s/he has a pathological desire or unreasonable thought. It is the view or belief of the person that influences his/her actions and chances for heightened involvement or interest (Wright 1984). Per se, an individual who takes part in a sex offense does it due to his/her immediate desire to acquire something, such as sexual gratification, control, etc. Labeling Theory Labeling theory claims that several behaviors and, thus, the persons who take part in these acts are labeled disapprovingly by the justice system and the general public. Labeling leads to a person being negatively stereotyped by mainstream society which then leads to an unfavorable societal reaction, which ultimately often triggers the person’s regression to the act under consideration (Regoli & Hewitt 2009). Labeling theory, as regard to sexual crime, would examine the implications of a person being labeled in public as a rapist or child molester. According to Clinard and Meier (2010), as argued by social theorists, when a crime has been publicly exposed and is labeled by other people as criminal or delinquent, the person may go on with the act because s/he has internalized the qualities that others expect. According to Andersen and Taylor (2005), labeling theory diverts the focus from the issue of why a person perpetrates a sexual crime to the response of the society to sexual criminals. This is not to say that these criminals must not be castigated but that public announcement rules may do greater damage than good in positively transforming a sexual criminal. Per se, labeling theory poses a number of very controversial and vital issues about sexual crimes. Organized Crime, Mass Murder, and Terrorism Dominant theoretical frameworks on deviant behavior and crime seem to be insufficient in clarifying organized crime, mass murder, terrorism, and other similar criminal activities, in spite of the fact that scholars have employed core sociological notions like stratification, power, and conflict to understand the trend. These crimes are usually viewed as political deviance, one commonly endowed with a profusion of state-authorized authority and the other endowed with relatively modestly (Cote 2002). Conflict theorists present ideas like pluralist conflict to visualize the emergence of terrorism as a reaction to the believed ideological subjugation of a majority group by a minority one. Terrorism, organized crime, or mass murder is performed as a strategy of political bravado against the viewed governing elite as component of a bigger fight over leading mechanisms of social control and organization (Shepard 2004). Likewise, other conflict theorists claim that terrorism and mass murders, apparently ideologically laden concepts raising definitional difficulties for social scientists, are a type of political aggression perpetrated by a faction aiming for control over principles, actions, and issues (Shepard 2004). As stated by Traub and Little (1999), this conflict theory of major crimes views acts of violence between fighting factions as an active component toward gaining ideological and structural triumphs. Other conflict theorists argue that political atrocities between factions may be categorized as ‘hate crimes’ (Wilkins 2003). The assassination of political rulers, terror campaigns against civilians, and genocide acts are demonstrations of group-rooted fanaticism. In an analysis of the issue, Krueger and Maleckova (2003 as cited in Franzese 2009) employ this model to explain that terrorism emerges not just as a shared reaction to political marginalization and poverty but a reaction as well to shared sentiments of exclusion among the marginalized. Deviance: A Phenomenon that cannot be explained by a Single Theory Deviance is associated with the social circumstances individuals discover themselves in and the social roles or statuses they use. Deviance is associated with several of the most basic attributes of social life: neighborhood, social position, sex, and age (Andersen & Taylor 2005). Thus, there is no single theory of deviant behavior, and there are numerous forms of theories of deviant behavior. In addition, from article to article, book to book, and from scholar to scholar, the grouping of theories of deviant behavior is significantly varied. Several circumstances are more favorable than others to producing deviance. Social scientists have emphasized that even the most unusual behavior can be explained if the setting where in it takes place is known (Downes & Rock 2007). Normally, sociological theories of deviant behavior claim that features of an individual’s social interactions and relations and the social settings they inhabit help in clarifying the development of criminal behaviors. Such focus on social life and relationships, and how they foster ‘abnormal’ conduct, contradicts the emphasis on individuals’ internal features adopted by the field of psychology. By explaining the roots of deviant behaviors, sociological theories elaborate how features of the social environment affect the actions of groups and individuals. Moreover, sociological theories explain how variations in these influencing factors may produce variations in levels of deviance. On the other hand, psychological theories of deviant behavior usually overlook cultural, economic, and social aspects claimed by sociologists to be contributing factors to the development of deviance. Psychological theories view deviant behavior as the outcome of mental or physical impairments instead of behaviors regarded deviant by social standards. Ultimately, psychological theories propose genetic remedies to the problem of deviance that are objectionable and offensive to several sectors of the society. Behavior that is abnormal in a particular situation may be common or “normal” in another, or particular activities may be labeled deviant merely when perpetrated by specific individuals. Throughout history, humans have put forth reasons for why several societies’ members become “deviant” – from biological accounts of hormonal imbalances and suggestions of inherent psychological or personality flaws to social circumstances within the larger society or in individual family units. Works Cited Andersen, M., & H.F. Taylor. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2005. Print. Clinard, M.B., & R. Meier. Sociology of Deviant Behavior. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Cote, S. Criminological Theories: Bridging the Past to the Future. London: SAGE, 2002. Print. Downes, D., & P.E. Rock. Understanding Deviance: A Guide to the Sociology of Crime and Rule-Breaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Franzese, R. The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publishers, 2009. Print. Regoli, R., J. Hewitt, & M. DeLisi. Delinquency in Society. UK: Jones & Bartlett, 2009. Print. Shepard, J. Sociology. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2004. Print. Traub, S., & C. Little. Theories of Deviance. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. Print. Wilkins, L. Social Deviance: Social Policy, Action and Research. London: Routledge, 2003. Print. Wright, C. Constructions of Deviance in Sociological Theory: The Problem of Commensurability. New York: University Press of America, 1984. Print. Read More