SOC 2070 Social Deviance Notes PDF

SOC 2070 - SOCIAL DEVIANCE- NOTES WEEK 1: Why was the breakdancer's actions deviant? - Values and norms - Violation as defence - Reactions, sanctions, and conformity? The topic switches to gun violence - Ask the same question about whether it is deviant. About t...

SOC 2070 - SOCIAL DEVIANCE- NOTES WEEK 1: Why was the breakdancer's actions deviant? - Values and norms - Violation as defence - Reactions, sanctions, and conformity? The topic switches to gun violence - Ask the same question about whether it is deviant. About the prof: - He is a realist, thinks the truth can always be known - Scientific humility is essential- beware of people who overextend - Very very critical, especially of dogma. - Inspired by different opinions - Likes to be challenged/questioned SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR: About theories in general: - Theories are never perfect, always growing/adapting - Theories arent meant to be excuses for human behaviour, in a moral sense - Theories are never static - be on alert for people who have made changes 2 theory camps: state in paper which one im using The objectivist camp: mertons theory of anomie, differential association, general strain theory Suggest that certain social phenomenon are deviant in of themselves - The charcaterostic of the event or person can determine its deviant - What are they seeing that deems it deviant? The presence of harm is a big part, and look for rare things to consider it deviant, widespread negative reaction from people, and norm violation. - Deviance is self evident - Alot of scholars believe this, just assume you know what deviant behaviour would be - Critiques of objectivism: - Critique of harm: Things can be deviant but not harmful elevator example, sometimes the rule doesnt hold up - Critique of rarity: certain rare behaviours are not deviant, and lots of common behaviours are deviant! - Critique of negative reaction: kind of arbitrary, not specific about how much society has negative reaction, how much consensus is needed?  - Critique of norm violation: different kinds of norms and values, how much consensus around the norms does it require? How many people have to believe in the norm for it to be deviant? makes the assumption we all value the same things The subjectivist camp: labelling theory, constructionist theory, marxist conflict theory - Deviance, social processes and perception - All what society does in response, make sense of how society response - label/ classification that matters Deviance is any phenomenon socially defined as deviant, aka, deviance is anything that society decides is deviant Questions subjectivists ask? - Why/ how are phenomena interpreted or labelled as deviant? - Who has the power to create, apply or change the label or classification? - Interest in moral entrepreneurs and power - Christian temperance movement- were moral entrepreneurs, trying to get people to stop drinking alcohol, - Same thing with people saying cannabis is bad - Effects of label or classification? A subjectivist approach to drinking and driving: - Used to be socially acceptable, but then around 1970s ish, there was a transition, our values shifted fundamentally, not about innate characteristics, but how its classified - Squeegee kids are another example, everyone thinks differently about them Critiques of subjectivist approach: - What about the causes the behaviour? - Subjectivists are just not interested in the cause, rather how it is classified - What about real pain and suffering? - Can be insensitive to really serious harm - The paralysis of relativism - Perception that everything is a matter of perspective and labelling, but if thats true, where does that end? Is everything perspective and opinion? Subjectivst and objectivist? - A hybrid? - Deviance is what violates social norms/values and those norms/values are observable (objectivist) - But they are also subjective and often a product of power relations (subjectivist) - Eg. contextual constructionism One option for middle ground between the objectivist and subjectivist: - Deviance does violate norms and values, but i recognize that those norms and values are a product by people of power and authority Deviance and social control: - Deviance yields social control, main ones are formal, informal Formal: - Exercised by recognized institutions - Formal sanctions (jail, ticket, demotion) Informal: - No institutional action; exercised by friends, colleagues, strangers etc - Informal sanctions (a glace, comments, etc) Retroactive: - Exercised on a known deviant (eg. jail), what happens after the deviant event Preventative: - Prevent deviance before it happens (eg. socialization practices) Spiritual “Theories”: Christianity and Satan: - Prof thinks spiritual theories are objectivist Christianity and Satan: - Holy inquisition (eg. France, 13th century), christian church was finding people to be deviant, and that satan causes this deviance - Formal control mechanisms - The witch hunts (17th century) - Women who werent complying with social norms, (too masculine, wealthy), the males in church got furious and thought they were witches, product of satan - Also formal control 1960s pentecostalism (USA) and “spiritual welfare” - Believe you have direct relationship to god, the members engaged in spiritual welfare against deviant behaviour, convinced americans women who use drugs, have sex etc was a product of satan, asked the church to do exorcisms on people who were caught 2005 gallup poll (USA) asked.. Do you think satan is a real thing? - 55 said yes, and 19% said probably Maybe satan fills in scientific gaps? - Epilepsy and satan - We crave/need explanation  - The more heinous the more evil? One day we won't rely on satan? - POSITIVIST THEORIES OF DEVIANCE: Positivism: rational assertions about the world can be scientifically verified. A rejection of religious explanations Emile Durkheim (1857-1917): - Positivist (Believed society was a science, could be tested and evaluated), objectivist (simply labels what is deviant for what it is, self-evident), functionalist (understand society as a machine or a system, comprised of a large number of parts, each part plays a specific role, eg. government, religion, education) - If there is a social system with all these parts, and the parts aren’t integrating and functioning well, it will impact another part of the system, when the system breaks down you get deviance - Deviance is “normal”, it is expected from a complicated social system - Disturb the collective sentiment/norms of any group, you’ll get a collective response - If you look closely at deviant behaviour, it contributes to the social system, - 4 functions of this: - Increases solidarity, we bond together when deviant stuff happens - Determines moral boundaries, the experience of encountering someone who deviant, and sharing this act with society, reminds you of what your morals are - Tests moral boundaries and instigates change, when deviant behaviour happens, the community thinks about change to stop the act - Reduce social tensions, deviant behaviour are people who are letting out built-up anger and frustration Solidarity examples. - How everyone used to watch criminals get hung, capital punishment - Death penalty in usa, citizens when bundy died, all got together and cheering - Virginia tech uni shooting, howdon, Ryan and agnich, measured solidarity before the shooting, and measured it after the shooting, they measured it 4 times, found Durkheim was right, society bonds tg after bad events Durkheim and causes of deviance: mechanical and organic solidarity: Traditional societies (indigenous) - Mechanical solidarity: order via shared norms and values, order is a function of similarity, most people are basically the same in traditional society - Low division of labour, the tasks required for living are done by everyone, people think alike, do alike in these societies, roles and responsibility shared - Strong collective conscience, keeps people in line - Deviance arises when someone exercises moderate self interest Modern industrial societies (our society) - Organic solidarity, our society holds together because of interdependence, we all rely on eachother, our skills are specialized - High division of labour, roles and responsibilities highly specialized - Rapid change undermines interdependence, brings about anomie, when you dont know who to depend on, turn to, feel disconnected from social world, this allows deviance to emerge, as no longer in touch with people who will remind you whats valuable, - When integration breaks down in system, or people itself in system, BAD results - Deviance and rapid social change - Norms and bonds deteriorate - Thus, social control declines - People feel “normless” - Widespread self interest - Social system is anomic Eg. great depression 1929, economic crisis, leaves people less integrated, didnt know who to depend on, engage in self interest Anomie and suicide: - Egoistic (excessive indivduation), lonely, disconnected - Lack social integration with groups and organizations (protestant/catholic/single/married - Altruistic (over identification) - Profound interest to groups and organization - Anomic (social deregulation), social system crumbling - Eg. suicide during great depression, rapid social changes causes society to go off rails - Fatalistic (over regulation) - Society controls you completely, unable to integrate (eg. prison) Determines moral boundaries. - Georgia school shooting, everyone agrees violation of moral values we share Deviance tests boundaries. - Civil rights movement 1963, the protest was deviant, but as a function of that, they tested the boundaries and set the stage for change. Reduce social tensions. - Queens hoco example! Kids just blow off steam Functions of deviance and social media? - The first 3 functions still apply to social media presence Robert Merton (1910-2003): Merton (1938) writes “Social Structure and Anomie” Much like Durkehim - Revolutionizes how Americans think about deviance and crime - Adopts functionalist logic and focusses on the social structure - Macro level thinker - Focuses on anomie, degree of integration, objectivist The “American Dream”, the cultural complex, and the opportunity structure. - Every institution in society promotes cultural values - If you look at the American cultural views, every institution promotes the American dream (if you work hard enough in America, everyone can succeed) - Also looked at how many decent-paying jobs were available and where they were - Opportunity structure sending a mixed message - Knows this American dream is false because there is not enough opportunity built into the structure - The argument is that “cultural emphasis on success is disproportionate to available means” - The social system is anomic (poorly integrated), not individuals - This disconnect generates deviant behaviour Merton continued: 5 modes of Adaptation to the Anomic Social System 1. Conformity (not deviant)- conform to the goals and means 2. Innovation -(accept goals, reject means) eg. someone who wants money but its so hard to so they rob a bank 3. Retreatism- (rejects both means and goals) eg. a homeless person, reject all of it, retreat into own world 4. Ritualism - (scales back goals, accepts means), wont reject the goal or embrace it completely, middle ground kind of people, deviant in american culture 5. Rebellion- (rejects both, and seeks to replace), communists, wants to find another system Robert Merton: Other Applications: - What about a different cultural “goal”? - Recognizes society can have completely different cultural goals, the American dream is just an example Love - Ritualist- a lazy husband - Retreatist- giving up on love entirely - Innovation- early users of E-harmony, Tinder etc Fame - Retreatist and stage fright - Innovation and social media antics - Ritualism and giving up on “making it big” Critiques of Merton: - Dominant successful goal? People said there were very different goals - One mode vs. another- never understand why one mode could be more likely than another one, not clear enough - Mutual exclusivity- eg. murphy and Robinsons (2008) maximizer (deviant and conformist, someone who does both at same time), it's one adaptation, or another, or nothing, not 2 at the same time Edwin Sutherland (1883-1950): Differential Association: From macro to micro (ie. systems to individuals) - Deviance is learned - Need communication with others - Significance of meaningful others - Technique, motives, and attitudes - See laws as favourable or unfavourable - Big back in the day cause it made people realize people werent born criminal Differential Association varies in terms of: - Frequency- (how often) - Duration- (how long) - Priority (interactions early in life) - Intensity (overall importance of the group) An example of this is police corruption, and drug dealing Critiques of Differential Association: - Didnt theorize opportunity- any kind of crime/deviance requires an opportunity, you can learn all you want etc, but you need an opportunity to commit that crime - Rank order of frequency, duration, priority, and intensity- needed a rank to determine the most important of the components  - What about receptivity/susceptibility? He assumes that all of us are equally influential, we all absorb and respond the same. But we are NOT. everyone reacts differently to peer pressure - Gresham Sykes and David Matza: Techniques of Neutralization Did not like about differential association: - Deviant juveniles were inherently different from dominant world - They noticed that young delinquents (males) life patterns are always involved in conventional living on some level, but also delinquent living - They do both whats proper, and criminal - How do you live a life with one foot in crime and the other in social confomity? - How do they do both simultaneously? Looked at guilt and remorse, the kids would express this, raised a red flag cause obviously they were somewhat connected to conventional living/conformity Tried to explain how they drift between delinquency and conformity, what mechanisms? Mechanisms are techniques of neutralization Offenders neutralize the guilt, and are able to act delinquently, they neutralize the guilt by these mechanisms: Denial of responsibility- some other external factor made them do what they did. Eg. “i grew up in a bad neighborhood” Denial of injury- logic that the purposed victim didnt actually suffer from it. Eg. “walmart wont miss one stolen item” Denial of victim- taking rightful victim status away from the person, eg. that person really isnt a victim. Eg. “he had it coming to him, he sells drugs too” Appeal to higher loyalties- did it because of your belief or dedication to something much bigger than this, eg. religion etc. Eg. “i killed for god and this country” Condemning the condemners- prior to the act, say like “youre just as bad as i am”, remove others power, condemn them “Defense of necessity” (Minor 1981), not having any choice, had to break into grocery store cause family is starving “Metaphor of the ledger” (Klockars 1974), give me a break, im acc a good guy, building up good side of portfolio trying to offset the negative Beauty pageant mothers example: - Got hate for the paganet kids doing too much, people said its deviant - Condemning the condemners, denial of injury, denial of responsibility. Kids love the pagaents. Its the weird pedophiles who made this weird, daughter asked for it when she saw it on tv Critiques of this theory: - What about hardcore offenders and guilt? Some people are so diabolical they don't have any guilt. - Need to pay attention to when things happen, put them in order. Hard to tell if the juveniles are saying these things before the act of deviance or after? If its before, can call it neutralization, but if it happens after then its called rationalization. Travis Hirschi’s Control/ Bond Theory: “We are all animals and thus all naturally capable of committing criminal acts” hirschi, causes for delinquency - Means that dont need anything special to commit crime, its easy, so why DONT people commit crime - His answer is integration, people who ar eintegrated in social system are most likely to stay away from deviance - SO WHY DONT WE ENGAGE IN DEVIANCE? 4 reasons: Attachment: - Affection and sensitivity to others, are you close to people you love and believe in? These bonds matter to you, dont wanna sacrifice it so you stay away from criminal activity, level of attachment exercises a degree of control over your animal instinct Commitment: - Rational investment in society, “stake in conformity”, the more you are investedin society, the less likely you are to commitm eg. people who have jobs, people who go to university, commitment to the social project. If you deviate, you jeopardize all your commitments. Involvement: - “Idle hands are the devils workshop”, if people have alot of time on their hands, they are prone to engage in deviance. On the other hand if youre constantly busy and involved, you wont have time for crime. Critique: doesnt actually take alot of time to commit a crime anyways. Belief: - Extent to which people believe in conformist values, do they embrace regular conformist values, if they dont have these views, more likely to deviate, There is a Durkheimian logic to this… - Ask people lost of questions, and determine what variables predict deviant behaviour  - Hirschi finds this criteria to appear frequently - control/bonds reflect integration - Surveyed 4000 youth, - Attachment to parents= less delinquency - Low commitment = higher delinquency - high /low involvement= little predictive value - belief = outcomes as expected Critques of Hirschis theory: - Disposition to serious crime- Is shoplifiting just as strong as a disposition to murder? Not equally disposed to killing as we are to stealing - Temporal sequence- we also know that criminal behaviour weakens the bonds, the order is not clear, hirschi didnt elaborate this order - Rational choice- he thinks that people think about rational choice and really think about their actions before they do it, he applies a rational calculation that doesnt hold up to scrutiny alot of the time DEVIANCE IS OBJECTIVE with all these scholars.. - Also positivists, good theory can explain deviant behaviour through science - Integration is huge (not as obvious with sutherland), low integration predicts deviance Subjectivist (Interpretivsit) Approaches - Deviance is in the eye of the beholder, - Only deviance because we label it as such - Nothing is inherently deviant Labelling Theory: Origins: Symbolic Interactionism: - Born into a pre existing social system (with norms and values) - Interact and learn via symbolic communication (gestures, symbols, language) - That process leads to our “development of self”, we learn fairly quickly to understand how other people see you, we learn to see ourself as an object Symbolic interactionism: - “Self” stems from what we imagine other people think of us - “Significant” and “generalized” others - significant= people who are close to us, family, friends, crucial to development of self  - generalized= other people out there who also have visions of me, the public at large in general Labelling theory What if signifcant and Conflict Theory: deviance in the eye of the (powerful) beholder - Norms, values, and consensus Institutions, norms, values and the powerful - Powerful protect their interests via law - Resistance is criminalized (labelled) and controlled Marxist conflict theory: - Economic elite (bourgeoisie) vs. poor marginalized (proletariat) - Poor deviate because of alienation and deprivation - Laws oppress and control the lower class - Wealthy are rarely criminalized Canadian incarceration trends: - Younger men - Generally poor - Undereducated - Disproportionality racialised G20 summit- toronto 2010: - Anti-capitalist resistance - Concern for workers rights, human rights and the environment - Protestors arrested (criminalized) - Police and laws protected the powerful Occupy Wall Street (2011): - Resistance to corporate domination - Concerns re: inequality, corruption, greed, and exploitation of workers - Protestors arrested (ie. criminalized) - Crimes of powerful left unprosecuted Marxist conflict theory: - Legitimacy via ideology - Eg. powerful earned their wealth and poor don't work hard enough - Eg. system offers “equal opportunity” - Ideology as common sense - Thus, the capitalist system (and definitions of deviance) are rarely contested Critiquing Marxist conflict theory: - Some laws protect collective interests - Eg. charter of rights and freedoms - Eg. criminal code - 1970s discovery of crime victims via surveys - Origins of crime arent entirely economic - Racism and discrimination - Psychological causes - An unlikely revolution and immediate solutions to crime Why are they subjectivists? - Interest in the powerful in defining what is deviant Deviant subcultures: - A system of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour, and lifestyles of a social group that is somewhat distinct from, yet nevertheless connected to, dominant culture Eg. biker gangs, furries, punks Univeristy of Chicago (early 20th centruy): - anthropologys influence - Immersion, documentation, and “natural settings” - Durkheim’s influence - “Subculture as normal” Robert Park: - City as social ecology - “Natural economies” with norms/values Thrashers (1927) The Gang: - How gangs clustered with ethnicity and territory - Street smarts, toughness, and loyalty - Gangs as “normal” social phenomena Response to urban struggle Albert cohen’s (1955) “General Theory of subcultures”: - Why and how do they form? - Response to a perceived social problem - Seeking other people with similar experiences Features of a subculture according to cohen: - Shared norms/values - Status differences - Regulated membership - Ambivalence Criminal street gangs: - Who are they? - Why do they form? - Push and pull factors Shared norms and values - Loyalty and trust - Disciplined violence - Business skills - Masculinity and femininity - Living for the moment Criminal street gangs: - Status differences - Hierarchy tied to experience, toughness, wealth - Reputation - Regulated membership- do it as carefully as they can - Passive ( (gang will go through who they know in friend groups, and recruit who they think would be a good fit) and active recruitment (literally force you to be in it) - Trust and signalling - Ambivalence - Obvious hostility to people who aren’t part of the group (outsiders), in group and out group dynamic - Feeds into loyalty Homeless people: - The “mole” people- homeless people who live under the surface of major cities - Were clear norms and values - Mutual understanding of reciprocity, help, and get stuff in return, expected to share important info, and most important, protect the tunnels at all costs  - Status - A hierarchy underneath, who have lived their longest have seniority , “jesus” at top - Regulated membership - Those who aren’t homeless aren’t welcome - Ambivalence - General hostility to people who live on top Graffiti gangs: - Another example of all of these factors, it all applies Think about: police are the ultimate deviant subculture - They have shared norms/values about importance of loyalty, solidarity - Status- officers are ranked - Regulated membership - Ambivalence - These subcultures develop with relatively consistent sociological characteristics Jargon: - Specialised language - Not meant to be secretive - Very normal in some professions Argot: - Method of speaking, specialised language - In deviant subcultures - What makes it different, is that it is only to be understood by that group, element of secrecy Functions of argot: - establishes/organises subcultural relations - status/position (on the inside) - Differentiates those inside vs outside - Eg. hacking subculture- refer to as “elite” whos in charge, people in middle as newbies and script kiddies, and lowest is a scene whore - Eg. biker gangs- person at the top is president, middle rank is sergeant at arms, and lowest is the striker - Eg. prison subculture, “goof” or “dirty” means paedophile, - Marijuana study when it was illegal, there was secrecy with argot, and expressiveness to convey feelings that are tough to express, efficient and effective communication, integration present as well, argot does all of these things Disengaging from deviant subcultures: - Membership in most sub cultures doesnt usually last forever  - Exit impacts group and individual dynamics - Alot of it depends on the level of ‘deviantness” - Implications for yourself and group are diff depending on what you’re in - Criminal drug gang harder to leave, while furry subculture a bit easier - Challenge to groups identity - Your departure challenges the integrity of the group - Secrecy and information control (eg. criminal gangs, terrorist group, cult), know too much info - Preventing the exit- pressure, intimidation and violence - Challenge to individual identity - Membership anf sense of self - Leaving ideological groups may be more difficult (eg. religious cults) - Disengagement as a generic social process - A sociological and psychological process - Ebaugh’s focus on leaving important social roles- sometimes leaving a role means leaving a subculture - First doubts (events, organizational changes, burnout, or relationship changes) (people drop hints after first doubts) to seeking and weighing alternatives (weakening adherence to group norms, anticipatory socialization) to turning points (significant events, “the last straw”) to establishing ex identity (a new identity that includes aspects of the past - This model isn't linear, Types of disengagement (from high consensus deviance): - Can be covert, overt, and declarative Covert: - Dont draw attention - Dont tell others, avoid being talked out of it - Slip out and avoid confrontation - Usually novice (struggling with vague discontent) Overt: - Leave quietly, but not secretly - Follows deliberation with others (group leaders are aware) - Leave because of problems with specific rules, expectations etc - Usually more experienced, like to get things in the “open” Declarative: - Leave while making a “ståtement” - People tend to be veterans, have the confidence to do this, want to confront but not negotiate Why does this matter? - Exploiting knowledge of the process - Validate first doubts - Assist with anticipatory socialization  - Validate identity differences Deviant subcultures ONLINE: - Communications technology and social networks - Why do they form online? - How do they compare to offline subcultures? - Cohen’s insights Collapsing time and space: - Time and space can mitigate interaction- our ability to interact socially always meant we had to overcome the burden of time and space - Technology has made time and space less relevant - Horse and buggy, car, telephone, cell phone - The internet and exponential growth in social networks - Time and space are almost irrelevant - Groups with shared norms and values - Tech infrastructure and ease of use, 91% of people in canada have internet access The impact on interaction and group formation has been breathtaking Why do they form? - Shared problem - Find people with similar deviant interests - Marginalization offline - Validation and support - “Self” validated online, legitimacy and belonging - Efficacy - A way to bring about change Examples: - The cyber worlds of self-injurers- adler and adler - 16-50 year olds who cut, burn, brand, etc - 80 interviews, 100,000 emails and 1000s of posts - Expression of inner pain and control over body (shared problem) - Cyber communities brought understanding, companionship, friendship, shared identity (legitimacy and belonging) - Loners become cyber colleagues (support) - School shootings- raitanen and oksanen - Analysis of sites and interviews with users - Young, troubled backgrounds, questioning society (seeking belonging) - Fascination with shooters and the event, especially Columbine massacre (similar interest/values) - (sub)subcultures: “researchers”, fan girls, columbiners, and copy-cats  - Involuntary celibate (incel) culture- o mally et. al - What is the incel subculture? Women control the one thing that matters in human life (sex), they can deny any guy they want, feminism is part of this, to give women maximum power, the male has to be the breadwinner etc - Chads and stacys- chad means all the guys who are getting lucky, staycs are the attractive women who deny men sex - norms/values- women as evil, masculinity, male oppression, violence and revenge Comparing online to offline subcultures: - Anonymity and the “liberated” self - Trying on “new” identities - Ephemeral membership- come and go as you please - Interaction less mitigated by space and time Does Cohen’s model still work? - There is still an emerge in response to a problem - Shared norms and values still works - Ambivalence still works - Status differences, are not so clear. Not as much of a hierarchy online - Regulated membership also not clear. People can log in and out any time, so group cant really control membership online Grounds for concern - Extremists, online subculture, and offline violence - Ideology online encourages violence offline - Online subcultures as “echo chambers” - Self-selected, homogenous membership - Insulated from normalizing impact of conventional society - Difficult to police