Concept of Deviance and Sociologists Researches Essay

Introduction

Deviance, in the sociological context, refers to any act that defies cultural norms. These cultural norms encompass both the formally-enacted laws as well as informal social norms. Thus, there exist two basic types of deviant activities according to Lee and Gailey¹, “violation of formal rules or laws (formal deviance) and non-conformity to informal social norms (informal deviance)”. Examples of formal deviance include “murder; robbery etc. whereas picking one’s nose, belching loudly in public (relative to cultures) can serve as examples of informal deviance”².

The concept of deviance as a violation of social norms has drawn the increasing interest of sociologists. In their attempts to define deviance, the sociologists have formulated several theories which have approached the topic from different perspectives. Some of the basic sociological theories include Leeuwen³ satates, “Merton’s Social- Strain Typology, Structural-Functionalism Theory, Conflict Theory and Labeling Theory”. In my opinion, the Labeling Theory gives a deeper insight into the causes of deviance and/or crime.

The Labeling Theory

The Labeling Theory founded by Frank Tannenbaum and developed by the renowned sociologist Howard S. Becker conforms to the relativistic approach of the sociologists to the study of deviance. It takes into account not the normative consensus, but the diversity of social life.

According to the labeling theory, also known as the ‘Social Reaction Theory’, deviant activities occur when:

1. one is labeled a deviant (e.g. a loner, a punk)
2. one adopts that identity by indulging in actions that reinforce his deviance.

The primary assumption of this theory is that deviance emanates from power imbalances in society. But there are two additional ideas associated with this theory that goes a long way in explaining the causes of deviance.

Firstly, once a person is labeled as a deviant, there is a certain tendency to reinterpret all his past actions in the light of his new identity which further aggravates the situation. According to Leeuwen⁴, this process of “recasting one’s past actions in the light of a current identity (‘Introduction to Sociology’) is known as retrospective labeling”.

Secondly, this theory is also associated with the idea of stigma. Stigma expands the labeling theory by showing how certain individual characteristics that do not conform to the accepted social norms are applied labels which lead to disastrous consequences. The stigmatization of certain roles is employed to limit and control deviant behavior. In this context, reference may be made to the display of information regarding the identities of the sex offenders on websites. These sex offenders already suffer from social stigma. Revealing their identities marks them as deviant in public and invites them to deviant activities.

An important aspect of Becker’s Labeling theory is its humanistic orientation. Leeuwen⁵ states, “It attempts to provide a sympathetic view of the deviant persons by explaining that their behavior is a reaction to the dehumanizing impact of the audience response to them”. Although the theory has been subject to severe criticisms for ignoring the role of biological and genetic effects as well as personal responsibility, its importance and foundation have not waned⁶. In fact, its popularity, as well as applicability in the present times, can well be perceived from some of the few references cited below.

Reference to academic sources

There are a number of academic sources which support the above view that the labeling theory is quite effective in explaining the causes of deviance.

To cite a few, Kathryn Davenport⁷, in her article the ‘Historical Context of Labeling Theory’, opines that the labeling theory “…is currently held in high regard by criminologists due to its logical and common sense explanations for deviance.”

In 1992, Daniel Socall and Thomas Holtgraves utilized the labeling theory to test the impact of the negative labels on the mind of the mentally ill and found that the behavior of the mentally ill is not primarily responsible for the negative societal response. The study, thus, highlights the effectiveness of this theory “…in relation to stigmatizing labels of the mentally ill.”⁸

Popular cultural references

Popular cultural references also help to explain the importance of the labeling theory in explaining deviance.

This is also perceptible in the case of “heavy metal” music which has, for a long time, been labeled as Satanic and occult. This labeling has constantly instigated the rock stars to defy the norms by reinventing themselves. They are referred to as black metal bands although there is nothing black about them. This constant labeling has forced them into developing a deviant attitude. Eric K. Ward, John Lunsford and Justin Massa,⁹ in their article “Sounds of Violence” opined that over the years, black metal “…along with other types of racist music, seems to be becoming an effective vehicle for racist hatred.”

Moreover, an appropriate example to illustrate the impact of labeling on deviant behavior is the Columbine High School massacre perpetrated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold¹⁰. Their act established their deviant identities and consequently, all their previous actions were interpreted in the light of their deviant identities. Once they were labeled as different from others, they started emphasizing their deviance by bullying other younger students at the school.

Conclusion

It goes without saying that there may be some aspects that cannot be explained by this theory. But, the above references and numerous others point to the fact that this theory aims to explain the ‘why’ of the problem. The labeling theory has not merely confined itself to theorizing the causes of deviance. Its validity can be judged from the fact that even today; it is applied to a large variety of studies. There have been modifications to this theory but the basic principles have remained intact. This theory has been applied to the study of “crime victims (Kenney’s study in 2002), mentally ill patients (Li Li and Dennis Moore’s study in 2001), homosexuals (Barry Adams’s study)” and many more according to Leeuwen¹¹. All these studies have reinforced the value implications of the labeling theory in explaining deviance.

Bibliography

1. Davenport K. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF LABELING THEORY. naccarato.org. [Internet]. 2010.
2. Lee M, Gailey, J. Who Is to Blame for Deviance in Organizations? The Role of Scholarly Worldviews. Sociology Compass. 2007; 1(2): 536-551.
3. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
4. Ward K. Lunsford J and Massa J. Sounds of Violence. criminology.fsu.edu. [Internet]. 2010.

Footnotes

1. Lee M, Gailey, J. Who Is to Blame for Deviance in Organizations? The Role of Scholarly Worldviews. Sociology Compass. 2007; 1(2): 536-551.
2. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
3. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
4. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
5. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
6. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
7. Davenport K. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF LABELING THEORY. naccarato.org.[Internet]. 2010.
8. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
9. Ward K. Lunsford J and Massa J. Sounds of Violence. criminology.fsu.edu. [Internet]. 2010.
10. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.
11. Leeuwen, E. Dealing with deviants: The effectiveness of rejection, denial, and apologies on protecting the public image of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010; 40(2): 282-299.