“Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.” Discuss.
Deviance
can be defined as acts which do not follow the norms and expectations of a
particular social group. Several theories attempt to explain all instances of
deviance, one of which to be interactionist perspectives. It is interested in
the consequence of interaction between deviant and conventional society,
particularly with representative of society. It examines why and how individuals
or groups are defined as deviant and the effect of such a definition on their
future actions.
An
influential statement on deviance is from Becker (1963), who suggests that social
groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes
deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as
outsiders. He further points out that according to this point of view,
deviance is not the quality of the act a person commits but a consequence of the
application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant
is one to whom that label has successfully been applied and deviant behaviour is
the behaviour that people so label.
From
the above Becker’s statement, we can see that the crucial dimension is the
societal reaction to an act, not any quality of the act itself. A person may be
treated as deviant through he or she has broken a rule, even if it is not true,
simply because other people claim that the rule has been broken. An example
illustrating the point is the case with black men in America. Very often some
black men in America have been prosecuted, and sometime lynched, for allegedly
raping white women. Another example is from Becker. He illustrates his views
with the example of a brawl involving young people. In a low-income
neighbourhood, it may be defined by the police as evidence of delinquency, while
in a wealthy neighbourhood it may be defined as evidence of youthful high
spirits. The acts are the same but the meanings that given to them by the
audience differ. The brawl in the low-income area may involve a gang fighting to
defend its territory. Haralambos (1991) further explains that the gangs of
people are only doing what they consider ‘necessary and right’, whereas
teachers, social workers and the police see it differently. If the agents of the
social control define the youngsters as delinquents and they are convicted for
breaking the law, those youngsters then become deviant. They have been labeled
as such by those who have the power to make the labels stick. Therefore,
deviance is not defined by any reference to norms, but by reference to the
reactions (sanctions) of the social audience to the acts. In that case, deviance
does not bring forth social control effects, but the reverse: social control
efforts create deviance by defining then and making them know to others.
Becker’s
statement also suggests that the process of deviance is in two steps. The first
step is to create deviance by making the rules based on norms of the majority
and the infraction constitutes deviance, which this step is called the primary
deviance. The second step is to apply those rules to particular people and label
then as deviants, which is called the secondary deviance. Lemert (1951) points
outs out that primary deviance is relatively not important, but the secondary
deviance should be focused. The important factor in ‘producing’ deviance is
societal reaction, the public identification of the deviant and the consequences
of this identification for the individual concerned. According to labeling
theorists, once a label has been attached by an arrest, confinement in a mental
hospital, or other action by an official agency, a spiraling action is initiated
that sets off a sequence of events leading to further deviance because of the
stigmatizing effect of the label. In that case, the labeling of a person as a
deviant may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Persons labeled as deviants
continue acts of deviance and can develop deviant careers by becoming secondary
deviants. The person tends to be cut off from participation in conventional
groups and thus moves into an organized deviant group. Because of this labeling
process, some deviants rebel against their labels by attempting o reaffirm their
self worth and lost social status. They may join social movements to combat
negative images and to deny that they are deviants.
But
the question is: who are the people able to force others to accept their rules?
The labeling perspective has also correctly focused on significant role played
by social control and social power considerations of the criminal law, by means
of the agents such as the police and courts. Similar processes have been
documented in other areas of deviance. For example, the purposeful actions of
other agents of social control have been influential in determining which groups
of people are to be considered as mentally ill and the appropriate manner in
which they are to be dealt with, either in an institution or the community.
Becker (1963) suggests that this also depends on who has political and economic
power. He points to the ‘moral entrepreneurs’ who launch crusades. If the
crusades are successful, a new set of rules, that means a new set of deviant, is
created. Clinard (1989) explains that because of its emphasis on the importance
of rules, social control efforts and the effects of stigma on deviants, the
labeling perspective is interested in the nature of deviant labels – who
creates the rules that define deviance and how certain individuals and groups
are singled out for labeling. We conceive deviance in terms of ‘stigma
contests’ where different groups have competing rules and definitions of what
is deviant and the determination of what is deviant is always a kind of relative
power of those groups. Therefore, the groups more likely to be labeled as
deviant are those from the most powerless groups, such as drug addicts,
alcoholics and mental parents. The disproportionate representation of powerless
groups in official statistics on deviance reflects class bias in the actions of
social control, thus reflecting that the more powerful groups are able to make
deviant the behaviour of less powerful groups.
However,
there are quite a number of criticisms against the Becker’s statement. The
first criticism to be discussed is concerned with the definition of deviance.
Haralambos (1991) points out that to some sociologists, deviance can be defined
in terms of the actions of those who disobey the social rules, but not in terms
of the reactions of the social audience. In many circumstances, there will be
little or even no freedom of choice in determining whether an act is regarded as
deviant or not. Although some interactionists accept the criticism, they insist
that the reaction of social audience is still important. For example,
homosexuality is generally regarded by most society’s members as deviant, thus
a secret homosexuality would also be a deviant. The second criticism is that
Becker’s statement, or in general the interactionism, fails to explain why
individuals commit deviant acts in the first place. Most people would commit
deviant acts from time to time, but different individuals tend to commit in
different types of deviant. Some might commit stealing while some might break
the safety legislation. Therefore, it is important to explain why individuals
should choose to turn to one form of deviance rather than another. It is also
clear that many deviants realize that they are breaking norms of society, no
matter they are caught and labeled or not. However, interactionists argue that
in practice they have devoted considerable attention to explaining primary
deviance. Some versions of labeling theory start their account of deviance at
the point when labeling first occurs, but many interactionists deal with the
earlier stages of becoming deviant.
The
third major criticism of interactionist perspective is that it is too
deterministic. Haralambos (1991) says that labeling theory assumes that once a
person has been labeled their deviance will inevitably become worse. The labeled
person has no option but to be involved in the deviant activities. The
interactionist is criticized to tend to portray the deviant as someone who is
passive and controlled. If individuals can choose to take part in deviant, they
can also decide to ignore a label and to give up deviance. However, the
interactionists disagree with the criticism, because the whole perspective place
stress greatly on the choices open to individuals as they interpret what happen
around them and decide how to respond. The last major criticism to be raised is
that the interactionist perspective fails to explain why some people should be
labeled rather than others, and why some activities are against the law and
others are not. For example, it is criticized that why law against robbery
should be enforced strictly, while factory legislation is not; why the police
should regard a brawl in a low-income neighbourhood as delinquency, and in a
wealthy neighbourhood as youthful high spirit. The critics of labeling theory
argue that they cannot answer those questions satisfactorily. For this
criticism, interactionists disagree and believe that the labeling perspective
open up the whole question of who had the power to make society’s rules, and
apply them to particular individuals.
In
conclusion, although there are criticisms on the limitation of the
interactionism and the Becker’s statement, it still contribute much to the
explanation of deviant behaviour from the point of view of the ability of
powerful groups applying the label deviant to the powerless groups. It suggests
that the definition of deviance is not single but subtle process, and focuses on
the issue of power consideration in the determination of what is deviant.
Therefore, Becker’s statement has had its influence in the field of deviance.
(1600
words)
Reference
Becker,
H.S., Outsider: Studies in the sociology of deviance,
Clinard,
M.B., Sociology of Deviant Behaviour,
Haralambos,
M. et al., Sociology: Themes and Perspectives,
Lemert,
E., Social Patholgy