This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves. This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Becker, H. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Glencoe, II: Free Press. Google Scholar. Ben-Yehuda, Berger, P. The social construction of reality. Blumer, H. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Brenner, H. Mental illness and the economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Health costs and benefits of economic policy. International Journal of Health Services , 7 , 4. Brinton, C. The anatomy of revolution rev. New York: Vintage Books. Cloward, R.
Illegitimate means, anomie and deviant behavior. American Sociological Review , 24 April , — Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York: Free Press. Hidden protest: The channeling of female innovation and resistance. Signs, 4 Summer , — CrossRef Google Scholar. Cobb, R. The police and the people: French popular protest movements — London: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Cohn, N. The pursuit of the millennium. New York: Oxford University Press. Cole, S. The growth of scientific knowledge: Theories of deviance as a case study. Coser Ed. Merton pp. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cullen, F. Rethinking crime and deviancy theory : The emergence of a structuring tradition. Dohrenwend, B.
Sex differences and psychiatric disorders. American Journal of Sociology , 81 May. Durkheim, E. The rules of the sociological method 8th ed. Suicide: A study in sociology. Ehrenreich, B. For her own good. Friedland, R. Political conflict, urban structure, and the fiscal crisis. Internationai Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 1,3. Galtung, J. A structural theory of aggression. Journal of Peace Research , 2, 2. Gamson, W.
A strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Gove, W. Adult sex roles and mental illness. American Journal of Sociology , 78 January , — Gurr, T. Psychological factors in civil violence. World Politics , 20 January. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hawkins, R. The creation of deviance: Interpersonal and organizational determinants.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Why do we consider them less harmful than other types of crimes, even though they may impact many more victims?
Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was forced to resign after his company enrolled customers in unnecessary auto insurance programs, while also fraudulently creating bank accounts without client consent. Both of these actions are prohibited by a range of laws and regulations. Over a million victims were charged improper fees or overcharged for insurance; some suffered reductions in their credit scores, and an estimated 25, people had their cars improperly repossessed.
Even though these actions were found to be criminal, no one from Wells Fargo faced jail time, as is common in financial crimes. Deviance does not always align with punishment, and perceptions of its impact vary greatly.
What, exactly, is deviance? And what 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 Put simply, deviance is the violation of a norm.
In fact, from a structural functionalist perspective, one of the positive contributions of deviance is that it fosters social change. For example, during the U. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including location, audience, and the individual committing the act. Listening to music on your phone on the way to class is considered acceptable behavior. Listening to music during your 2 p. Listening to music on your phone when on the witness stand before a judge may cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.
In this example we can see that the individual actor remains constant while the location and audience changes, becoming in each instance increasingly at odds with established norms. As norms vary across culture and time, it makes sense that notions of deviance change also. Fifty years ago, public schools in the United States had strict dress codes that, among other stipulations, often banned women from wearing pants to class.
In a time of war, acts usually considered morally reprehensible, such as taking the life of another, may actually be rewarded. When sociologist Todd Schoepflin ran into his childhood friend Bill, he was shocked to see him driving a hearse instead of an ordinary car. A professionally trained researcher, Schoepflin wondered what effect driving a hearse had on his friend and what effect it might have on others on the road.
Would using such a vehicle for everyday errands be considered deviant by most people? Figure 2. Schoepflin interviewed Bill, curious first to know why he drove such an unconventional car. Bill had simply been on the lookout for a reliable winter car; on a tight budget, he searched used car ads and stumbled upon one for the hearse. The car ran well, and the price was right, so he bought it. His parents were appalled, and he received odd stares from his coworkers. Strangers gave him a thumbs-up on the highway and stopped him in parking lots to chat about his car.
His girlfriend loved it, his friends wanted to take it tailgating, and people offered to buy it. Schoepflin theorized that, although viewed as outside conventional norms, driving a hearse is such a mild form of deviance that it actually becomes a mark of distinction. Conformists find the choice of vehicle intriguing or appealing, while nonconformists see a fellow oddball to whom they can relate.
Deviance is a more encompassing term than crime, meaning that it includes a range of activities, some of which are crimes and some of which are not. Sociologists may study both with equal interest, but, as a whole, society views crime as far more significant. Crime preoccupies several levels of government, and it drives concerns among families and communities. Deviance may be considered relative: Behaviors may be considered deviant based mostly on the circumstances in which they occurred; those circumstances may drive the perception of deviance more than the behavior itself.
Relatively minor acts of deviance can have long-term impacts on the person and the people around them. The other common explanation is that failing to follow a norm may elicit negative social sanctions, and so we conform to norms in an effort to avoid these negative responses. Neither of these can explain our finding that people conform to arbitrary norms. Such norms offer no useful information about the value of different options or potential social sanctions.
Instead, our results support an alternative theory, termed self-categorisation theory. The basic idea is that people conform to the norms of certain social groups whenever they have a personal desire to feel like they belong to that group.
Thus, our results suggest that self-categorisation may play a role in norm adherence. But are we ever really presented with arbitrary norms that offer no rational reason for us to conform to them? If you see a packed restaurant next to an empty one, the packed restaurant must be better, right? Well, if everyone before you followed the same thought process, it is perfectly possible that an initial arbitrary decision by some early restaurant-goers cascaded into one restaurant being popular and the other remaining empty.
For example, registered organ donors remain a minority in Australia, despite most Australians supporting organ donation. This is frequently attributed to our use of an opt-in registration system. Our results suggest that people will still tend to follow such norms. They have been successfully used to encourage healthy eating , increase attendance at doctor appointments , reduce tax evasion , increase towel reuse at hotels , decrease long-term energy use , and increase organ donor registrations.
0コメント