Part II

Lombroso (1867/1920): Criminals like primitive beings resembling

their ape-like ancestors; women inferior to men; deviant behavior innate

Goring (1913) & Hooton (1939): Physical inferiorities (shorter) indicated

criminal typesSheldon (1949):

More active & muscular, more aggressiveMore recent:

XYY syndrome creates “double male” or “super male” predisposed to violence

Durkheim first advanced the view that society is a moral phenomenonMoral beliefs largely determine how

people behave, their wants, and their identities

Morality (norms, values, laws) are acquired in childhood

Societies with high social integration (bonding and community involvement with others) generally have high conformity with little deviance

Anomie occurs when people become distanced from each other, they lose a sense of belonging, and norms and values become ill defined

Durkheim was concerned that social disintegration and anomie were more prevalent in modern society which was causing more deviance

Yet Durkheim also subscribed to the view that deviance was functional for society

Violations of norms gives rise to a social response of public outrage rooted in the collective conscience of moral belief

This public response to deviance serves to remind people what is acceptable and what is not

Summation: the structural perspective locates the root

cause of deviance and crime outside of the individual in the invisible social structures of society

Structuralists locate the causes of crime in two main factors:Differential opportunity structure Prejudice and discrimination toward certain

groupsMembers of groups with less structural

access to legitimate opportunities will have less effective means to succeed by conforming to morally approved ways

Merton extended Durkheim’s ideas into strain theory

Culture dictates success goals for all but institutional access limited to certain classes: American dream shared by all but only legitimately attainable by some

Some of those excluded retaliate by choosing deviant alternatives

The source of deviance lies in the social structure not the deviant individuals

Anomie for Merton results from this contradiction in social structure

Critical reformulation of Merton: he was correct that some groups have less opportunity for achieving success legitimately

But he was wrong to assume that members of excluded groups could always choose deviance

They suggest that not all disadvantaged persons have the same opportunity for participating in illegitimate activities

Three types of deviant opportunities are present:Criminal: arise from access to deviant

subculturesConflict: attract persons with propensity

for violence Retreatist: persons (drug users) who seek

to withdraw from society

Such opportunities are affected by several factors:Neighborhoods rife with crime, gangs, drugsEthnic or racial people dominate certain

illegal businesses or organizations making it easier for members of those groups to join

A glass ceiling for women exists with men in leadership posts

Conflict over definitions of deviance can occur between various groups based on economics, race/ethnicity, gender, religion, cultural identity, etc.

Structural but not functionalist view of deviance and crime

Society is seen as pluralistic, heterogeneous, and conflictual

Incompatible interests of diverse groups leads to conflict arising from these structural arrangements within society, including crime and deviance

Patriarchal structure of society responsible for the discrimination and oppression of women

Patriarchy pervades culture, social structures and social institutions

This includes laws, the family, the economy and political system, religion, the media and education.

Women are systematically disadvantaged as a result and subject to verbal, physical and sexual abuse

Feminists maintain theories of society and deviance are also male-centered

Belief that deviance was a collective act carried out by groups of people

Building on conflict theory’s view that multiple groups exist in society, subcultural theorists pointed to factions within and across such groups

Each group has its distinct norms and values; it is its own subculture

Overlap between American culture and subcultures suggests some parallels but not exact fit: Differences may lead to conflict

Disparities and different cultural codes between subcultural groups likely to arise in three situations: (see next slide)

When people from one group “migrate” or cross into another’s territory

In a “takeover” situation when one group invades another’s turf

In “border’ areas where contact between members of two groups find themselves in occasional but regular contact

Cohen in Delinquent Boys builds on subcultural conflict idea

Focus on working-class teen males who develop subculture with a value system different from dominant American culture

Lower class boys try but cannot succeed fulfilling middle-class expectations since they are ill equipped at meeting such different standards

In response they develop a blockage, or strain, leading to “status frustration”

From this results an oppositionally reactive subculture based on non-utilitarian, malicious and negative behavior

Lower-class subculture at odds with values of middle-class so that the young who conform to their own culture are likely to adopt behavior that will be seen as deviant

Focal concerns of lower-class culture:Getting into troubleShowing toughnessMaintaining autonomyDemonstrating street smartsSearching for excitementFatalistic

Left unaccounted for in the previous theories are the actual situational dynamics and interactional processes between macro structures and micro individuals

Sutherland and Cressey posit the view that deviant behavior is socially learned

Most significant in this process of learning are the values, beliefs and norms of a person’s closest intimates: Family, friends, and others known well and

respected

As this circle of contacts shifts to a set of deviant values and norms, one is more likely to begin adopting and displaying deviant attitudes and acts as well

Movement into deviant subcultures occurs through a process of drift

Old circle of associates is gradually left as one becomes enmeshed into new group

As this process occurs, a person “drifts” between deviance and conformity

This may go on indefinitely for some time without one making a commitment to either

Drift between deviance and conformity may no longer be an option once one is publicly identified and branded as a deviant

Labeling theory examines how people are defined as deviant, why some acts are ignored, and the circumstances surrounding the act of labeling and the consequences of so being labeled

The key here is the interaction between society and the individual, and the consequences for the individual and society of that and subsequent forms of interaction

Focus on micro level, less on interaction, more on relationships between persons and society

Reverse the question to be asked: Does NOT ask why people commit deviance:Deviance may not only be fun, but even

offers shortcuts and tangible benefitsInstead control theory asks:

Why do people conform? What holds people back from committing

deviance?

Hirschi’s Answer: Social control resides in the extent to

which people develop a stake in conformity, a bond to society

Such persons will be less likely to risk loss of job, status, reputation, friends and family, and thus avoid deviance and conform willingly

The more society is able to foster greater social bonds and a greater stake in conformity, the less deviance there will be

How does feminist theory view deviance in comparison to conflict theory?

Compare the structural-functional theory of deviance to that of the interactionist perspective.

Part II Chapter 6

Part 2: Ch. 6

Crime is constant, though its form/content and extent varies

Crime is increasing in modern societies (300% in France in Durkheim’s time)

Crime therefore must be seen as a normal part of collective life and societies

Part 2: Ch. 6

A society exempt from crime is impossible because of the very nature of crime.

Crime is an act that offends strong collective sentiments (moral values)

Since society is at root a moral order predicated on specific collective values, as long as those societies exist, certain acts will always potentially be offensive

Part 2: Ch. 6

In order for a “serious” crime such as murder to be eliminated, collective sentiments against it throughout society would have to become extremely strong

Yet even as a “serious” crime like murder was eliminated, those same increased collective sentiments would then become more intolerant of “less” serious crimes such as assaults or robberies, and the cycle would continue

Part 2: Ch. 6

Durkheim notes even a society of saints would have “crime” although nothing we recognize: Crime would consist of minor, very trivial

offenses Collective values cannot be shared to the same

degree among all members of the group: There cannot be a society where every individual

is identical in every possible wayThere will always be some group members less

attached to certain values than are others;Some persons more willing to commit deviance

Part 2: Ch. 6

Societies must be able to adapt to change and so be capable of change

This means the collective sentiments must not be so rigid that their alteration would be impossible or social change could not occur

Yet for crime to be totally eliminated, collective values have to be so absolutely rigid and universally adhered to as to make any social innovation impossible

Part 2: Ch. 6

Hence the function of crime: some acts offensive to collective sentiments today may become harbingers of a new, progressive moral order

Durkheim cites the example of Socrates. Contemporary examples include acts of

civil disobedience – crimes at the time reflected in the civil rights movement and individuals such as Martin Luther King

Part 2: Ch. 6

According to Durkheim, why is crime impossible to avoid in societies?

In what ways is crime thought to be functional within society?

Part 2: Ch. 6

Part II Chapter 7

Part 2: Ch. 7

Two major elementsThe first defines goals, purposes &

interests held as legitimate objectives for all or selected members of society

Things “worth striving for” – basic component of design for group living (Linton)

The second defines, controls & regulates acceptable means of attaining goals

Part 2: Ch. 7

No society lacks governing codes of conduct but they do differ in degrees to which folkways, mores, and institutional controls are effectively integrated with goals in hierarchy of cultural values

Technically most effective procedure takes precedence over institutionally prescribed conduct, which leads to an unstable society & hence what Durkheim termed anomie

Part 2: Ch. 7

In sports: when winning becomes the ultimate goal

Injuring the “star” player; using illegitimate means to win

In general: the accumulation of wealth as a goal in itself

Part 2: Ch. 7

The goal of monetary success is entrenched in American society

The family, school & workplace join to provide intensive disciplining required to retain intact a goal that remains elusively beyond reach

Thus, indoctrination of the idea of “American Dream” & pursuit of lofty goals

Cultural manifesto - “not failure, but low aim, is crime”

Part 2: Ch. 7

Thus, acceptance of three cultural axioms:

First, all should strive for same lofty goals since these are open to all

Second, present seeming failure is but a way-station to ultimate success

Third, genuine failure consists only in the lessening or withdrawal of ambition

Part 2: Ch. 7

Psychologically, these axioms represent:A symbolic secondary reinforcement of

incentive Curbing threatened extinction of response

through an associated stimulusThird, increasing the motive strength to

evoke continued responses despite the continued absence of reward

American culture heavily emphasizes wealth as a basic symbol of success, without a corresponding emphasis upon legitimate avenues to attain this goal

Part 2: Ch. 7

Sociologically, these axioms represent:Deflection of criticism of social structure

onto one’s selfPreservation of structure of social power

by having individuals in lower social strata identify themselves with those at top

Providing pressures for conformity with cultural dictates of unslackened ambition by threat of less than full membership

Part 2: Ch. 7

Part 2: Ch. 7

Most common and widely diffusedIncludes acceptance of cultural goals and

institutional meansContinuity and stability of society

depends on this

Part 2: Ch. 7

Brought about by cultural emphasis on success-goal idea

Occurs when individual has assimilated cultural emphasis upon goal without equally internalizing institutional norms governing ways and means for its attainment

Part 2: Ch. 7

Involves abandoning or scaling down of lofty cultural goals of great success & rapid social mobility to where one’s aspirations can be satisfied

Rejects cultural obligation to attempt “to get ahead in the world,” but continues to abide almost compulsively by institutional norms

Examples: “I’m not sticking my neck out” “I’m playing it safe” “Don’t aim high and you won’t be disappointed”

Part 2: Ch. 7

Least commonIn society, but not of itIncludes rejection of cultural goals and

institutional meansExamples: vagrants, psychotics,

outcasts, drunks, drug addictsIndividual escapes from society that they

find frustrating

Part 2: Ch. 7

Individual seeks to bring a new or greatly modified social order

Presupposes alienation from reigning goals and standards

Part 2: Ch. 7

According to Merton, what is a blocked opportunity structure?

What other ways do groups adapt to their balance of means and ends?

Part 2: Ch. 7