Psychology and Sociology of Deviant Behavior - Book Report/Review Example

Introduction The UK government now effectively has two sets of figures: one compiled under the Tory system of accounting, which can be used to show that the New Labour government is doing better than the previous administration; the other, based on rule changes introduced in April 1998, which is used to give political impetus to New Labour's crime agenda. Take violent crime. It is increasing in both sets of figures: up by 13 percent since March 1997 using the Tory figures, and up by a massive 106 percent using New Labour's. Home secretary Jack Straw is fond of saying that, on violent crime, there is 'always more to do'. The new figures provide an argument that even more needs to be done. The largest percentage increases occur in the areas of harassment, racially aggravated crime and common assault. All these are key policy areas for the New Labour administration, and measures to deal with domestic violence, stalkers, hate crime and 'yob culture' loom large in the government's rhetoric. By creating new crimes to count, the government has increased the total number of counted violent offences from 348,032 to 716,519. When crime is the dominant political coin, rampant inflation - 142 percent in the category 'violence against the person' - provides the justification for more police resources, more laws, more intrusion into people's behaviour and more manipulation of people's fears. Traditional Marxist approach to crime & deviance/ supporting argument Chambliss, Snider & Box -current events to support 'corporate crimes' from social review In complex and rapidly changing societies, there are dislocations between ends and means that encourage individuals to commit acts that are not defined as deviant. Deviance is somewhat more of a social problem rather than a personal trouble; it is a property of the social structure, not of the individual. As a consequence, the solution to deviance lies not in reducing the mismatch between structured goals and unstructured means. In human groups that are growing and changing, class lines are not immutable. Individuals alter their class positions and the boundaries and strata may change. It is important to understand the relationship among social mobility, structural change and moral panic. A central element in our culture is the value placed on improving one's position - through increased income, a job entailing more authority, an access to prestige, ability to have knowledge about technology. Social mobility is a long standing problem for sociologists. People stand at different points on ladders of wealth, prestige and power. If we want to know where we stand, we have to know where others stand. Social phenomena are always relational, and class standing is a relative matter. Thus, even though people's situation improve or worsen, their standing may remain as it was. Risks were also discussed by Marx indicating several risk preferences such as risk-taker, risk-neutral, risk averse. He used several cases or scenarios that clearly describe these preferences. Later on, he made use of economic principles and ideas that could be of good use to the detection and resolution of crimes such as homicide and murder. Changes in cultural norms, technological achievements and economic and political affiliations have positive and negative implications and these changes need not cause moral panic for our society's standards have to keep up with the changing time in order for us to grow progressively. If functionalism can be accused of understanding the degree of conflict in the society, the same cannot be said of Marxism. For Marx, the starting point for social analysis was the inherent conflicts - economic in origin - which exist in social classes. For Marx, a social class is a group of people who share a common economic position. In all forms of pre-socialist society. Marx claimed there were essentially two classes: those who owned the means of production and those who did not. Much of Marx's analysis concentrated on capitalist society. Under capitalism the two classes for Marx are bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx claimed that the relationship between the two classes was inevitably exploitative. Wage labourers (the proletariat) generate more wealth for their employers than they are allowed to keep: in short, the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. For Marx, this relationship was fundamental to explaining the nature of the society. For him, the nature of the institutions and roles which make up a society can be explained with reference to these fundamental inequalities, inherently volatile nature. There are two main strands of critical criminological theory following from Marx, divided by differing conceptions of the role of the state in maintenance of capitalist inequalities. On the one hand instrumental Marxists, hold that the state is manipulated by the ruling classes to act in their interests, on the other, structuralist Marxists, believe that the state plays a more dominant, semi-autonomous role in subjugating those in the (relatively) powerless classes Whereas Marxists have conventionally believed in the replacement of capitalism with socialism in a process that will eventually lead to communism. Anarchists are of the view that any hierarchical system inevitably is flawed. Such theorists espouse an agenda of defiance of existing hierarchies, encouraging the establishment of systems of decentralised, negotiated community justice in which all members of the local community participate. Recent anarchist theorists like Ferrell attempt to locate crime as resistance both to its social construction through symbolic systems of normative censure and to its more structural constructions as threat to the state and to capitalist production. Counterargument with critical criminology, focus on working class crime and subcultures- 'Policing the crisis'(Stephen Moore), Brixton riots (consequences of policing style) Soc. review Albert Cohen (1995) was the first sociologist to develop a subcultural theory of working class crime. He supported the idea that subculture related directly to criminal activity and studied groups of working class boys who had underachieved in education. In particular, he looked at delinquent gangs living in inner city areas from low income families. Cohen along with other sociologists such as Merton agreed that the mainstream value of success created problems for young working class males as many of them did badly at school and failed to gain the skills needed to succeed in a capitalist society. Cohen used the concept "status frustration" in order to describe the way that young working class males become easily frustrated with their low status in society as a result of their lack of income or underachievement. Due to this they are often labeled and get little respect from their peers or elders, this can be related to crime as they feel as if there is no alternative but to steel the possessions they want in order to stop being labeled or classed as a "loser". Furthermore, the anti school subculture which they are often part of provides them with the ideology that education is not particularly important and therefore they do not necessarily need to succeed. Cohen argues that they look to subculture as a solution as they are able to identify with other people who face the same problems as them. In Cohen's words, members of such subcultures take the norms and values of mainstream society and turn them "upside down.", whereas anti social and criminal behaviour is looked down upon by wider society, it is highly valued by the delinquent subculture, providing a solution to status frustration. By succeeding in terms of the values of a delinquent subculture, members gain respect from their peers which they would not otherwise have. In relation to non utilitarian crime, subcultural theory claims that non monetary crimes such as joy riding and vandalism can gain respect and status within gangs and among certain peer groups which encourages them among delinquent juveniles. Counterargument classic functionalist approach -Durkheim/ Merton/ Wilson& Kelling -zero tolerance campaign outlined by New labour & New rights There are a dozen or more theories on crime and deviance. For the sake of order, David Brinkerhoff presents them in three groups according to our familiar theoretical framework: structural-functional theories, symbolic interaction theories and conflict theories. The basic premise of the structural-functional theory is that the parts of an organism. From this point of view, deviance is alien to society, an indication that the parts are not working right. This perspective was first applied to the explanation of deviance by Durkheim in his classic study of suicide. Durkheim was trying to explain why people in industrialized societies are more likely to commit suicide than people in other societies. He suggested in traditional societies the rules tend to be well known and widely supported. As a society grows larger, becomes more heterogeneous, and experiences rapid social change, the norms of society may be unclear or no longer applicable to current conditions. Durkheim called this situation anomie; he believed that it was a major cause of suicide in industrialized countries. The anomie idea was broadened to apply to all sorts of behavior in Robert Merton's strain theory Strain theory suggests that deviance results when culturally-approved goals cannot be reached by culturally-approved means. This is most likely in the case of our strong emphasis on economic successes and achievement. The goals of educational and economic achievement are widely shared. The means to live up to these goals, however, are not. In particular, Merton argued, people from the lower social classes have less opportunity to become successful. They find that the norms about achievements are not applicable to their situation. Of course, not everyone who finds society's norms applicable to their situations will turn to a life of crime. Merton identifies four ways in which people adapt to situations of anomie: innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. The mode of adaptation on whether an individual accepts or rejects appropriate ways of achieving them is dependent on the pattern of behavior of a particular group. People who accept both society's goals and society's norms about how to reach them are conformists. Most of us conform most of the time. When people cannot successfully reach society's goals using society's rules, however, deviance is likely a result. One form of deviance may take innovation; people accept society's goals but develop alternative means of reaching them. On the other hand, those people who are blocked from achieving socially desired goals respond by rejecting the goals themselves. Ritualists slavishly o through the motions prescribed by the society but their goal is security and not success. Their major hope is that they will not be noticed. Thus, they do work carefully and even compulsively. Although ritualists may appear to be overconformers, Merton says they are deviant because they have rejected our society's values on achievement and upward mobility. They have turned their back on normative goals but are clinging desperately to procedure. Retreatists, by contrast, adapt by rejecting both procedures and goals. they are society's dropouts: the vagabonds, drifters and street people. The final mode of adaptation - rebellion - involves the rejection of society's goals and means and the adoption of alternatives that challenge society's usual patterns. rebels are the people who start communes or revolutions to create alternative society. Unlike retreatists, they are committed to working toward a different society. The functionalist approaches to deviance explain why rule violation continues to exist in societies despite pressures to conform and obey. However, functionalists do not indicate how a given person comes to commit a deviant act. The theory of cultural transmission draws on the interactionist perspective to offer such an explanation. There is no natural, innate manner in which people interact with one another. Rather, humans learn how to behave in social situations - whether properly or improperly. These simple ideas are not disputed today, but this was not the case when sociologist Edwin Sutherland advanced the argument that an individual undergoes the same basic socialization process whether learning conforming or deviant acts. Sutherland's ideas have been the dominating force in criminology. he drew on the cultural transmission school, which emphasizes that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others. Such learning includes not only techniques of lawbreaking but also motives, drives, and rationalizations of criminals. The cultural transmission approach can also be used to explain the behavior of people who engage in habitual - and ultimately life-threatening - use of alcohol and drugs. Sutherland maintained that through interactions with a primary group and significant others, people acquire definitions of behavior that are deemed proper and improper. He used the term differential association to describe the process through which exposure of attitudes favorable to criminal acts leads to violation of rules. recent research suggests that this view of differential association can be applied to such noncriminal deviant acts as sitting down during the singing of the National Anthem. To what extent will a given person engage in an activity regarded as proper or improper For each individual, it will depend on the frequency, duration, and importance of two types of social interaction experiences - those which endorse deviant behavior and those which promote acceptance of social norms. Deviant behavior, including criminal activity, is selected by those who acquire more sentiments in favor of violation of norms. People are more likely to engage in norm-defying behavior if they are part of a group or subculture that stresses deviant values, such as a street gang. Supporting argument labeling theory, focus on who commits and social construction of the act The labeling theory concerns the processes by which the label deviant comes to be attached to specific people and specific behaviors. This theory takes to heart the maxim that deviance is relative. As the chief proponent of labeling theory puts it, deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. Deviance is relative. Defining deviance as behavior of which others disapprove has an interesting implication: some people believe that it is not the act that is important but the audience. Few acts are intrinsically deviant. The same act may be deviant in front of one audience but not another; deviant in one place but not another. Deviance refers to norm violations that exceed the tolerance level of the community and result in negative sanctions. The difference between eccentricity and deviance generally depends on the audience's reaction rather than on the nature of the act. Unlike Sutherland's work, labeling theory does not focus on why some individuals come to commit deviant acts. Instead, it attempts to explain why certain people are viewed as deviants, delinquents, and criminals, while others whose behavior is similar are not seen at such harsh terms. Reflecting the contribution of interactionist theorists, labeling theory emphasizes how a person comes to be labeled as deviant or to accept that label. Sociologist Howard Becker (1963:9; 1964), who popularized this approach, summed it up with the statement: "Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label." Labeling theory is also called the societal-reaction approach, reminding us that it is response to an act and not the behavior that determines deviance. Traditionally, research on deviance has focused on people who violate social norms. In contrast, labeling theory focuses on police, probation officers, psychiatrists, judges, teachers, and other regulators of social control. These agents, it is argued, play a significant role in creating the deviant identity by designating certain people as "deviant". An important aspect of labeling theory is the recognition that some individuals or groups have the power to define labels and apply them to others. This view recalls the conflict perspective's emphasis on the social significance of power. CONCLUSION In providing a blueprint for living, our culture supplies sets of norms and values that structure our behavior. They tell us what we ought to believe in and what we ought to do. Because we are brought up to accept them, for the most part we do what we ought to do and think as what we ought to think. However, none of us follows all the rules at all times. It is essential to look into some of the ways and reasons why individuals break out some social patterns - from relatively, unimportant eccentric behaviors to serious violations of other people's rights. A powerful support of social control is informal social control; self-reliant is exercised because of fear of what others will think. Thus, even if your own values did not prevent you from cheating a test, you might be deterred by the thought of how embarrassing it would be to get caught. If none of these considerations is deterrent, you might be scared into conformity by the thought of formal social controls, administrative sanctions such as fines, expulsion or imprisonment. People may break out of cultural patterns for a variety for reasons and in a variety of ways. Whether your nonconformity is regarded as deviant or merely eccentric depends on seriousness on the rule you violate. We speak of deviance when norm violations exceed the tolerance level of the community and result in negative sanctions. Deviance is a behavior of which others disapprove to the extent that they believe something ought to be done about it. The psychology and sociology of deviance has two concerns: why people break rules of their time and place and the processes through which the rules get established. People who accept both society's goals and society's norms about how to reach them are conformists. Most of us conform most of the time. When people cannot successfully reach society's goals using society's rules, however, deviance is likely a result. Deflem, Mathieu. Sociological Theory and Criminological Research: Views from Europe and the United States. Elsevier, 2006 Haralambos, Michael, and Martin Holborn. Sociology Themes and Perspectives . Collins Educational, 2004. Hopkins Burke, R. An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Cullompton: Willan pg.173, 2000 Moore, Stephen. Investigating Crime and Deviance. Harper Collin Publishers, 1996. Read More