CHAPTER  1 

Introduction
Introduction to
to Deviance
Deviance

Founded in 1972, the Fremont Fair is one of Seattle’s most beloved neighborhood street festivals,
featuring a weekend of eclectic activities that celebrate the quirky community of Fremont, the self-
proclaimed ‘center of the universe.’ Held annually in mid-June to coincide with the Summer Solstice,
the event draws more than 100,000 people to shop, eat, drink, mingle, groove, and enjoy all man-
ners of creative expression. Artistic highlights include craft and art booths, street performers, local
bands, wacky decorated art cars, the free-spirited Solstice Parade produced by the Fremont Arts
Council, and many other oddities that personify Fremont’s official motto “Delibertus Quirkus”—
Freedom to be Peculiar.
—Fremont Fair (2010)

The Fremont Arts Council (FAC) is a community-based celebration arts organization. We value volun-
teer-ism; community participation; artistic expression; and the sharing of arts skills. The Fremont
Solstice Parade is the defining event of the FAC. We celebrate the longest day of the year through
profound street theater, public spectacle, and a kaleidoscope of joyous human expressions. We welcome
the participation of everyone regardless of who they are, or what they think or believe. However, the
FAC reserves the right to control the content presented in the Fremont Solstice Parade.
The rules of the Fremont Solstice Parade, which make this event distinct from other types of
parades, are:

•• No written or printed words or logos

•• No animals (except guide dogs and service animals)
•• No motorized vehicles (except wheelchairs)
•• No real weapons or fire
—Fremont Arts Council (2010)

2
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 3

It is true that a parade with no logos, animals, or motorized vehicles is different from most parades
that we experience in the United States. But one more thing sets the Fremont Solstice Parade apart
from other parades—the public displays of nudity. Every year at the parade, there is a contingent of
nude, body-painted bicyclists (both men and women) who ride through the streets of Fremont as part
of the parade. Rain or shine (and let’s face it, in June in Seattle, there can be a lot of rain), a large group
of naked adults cycle down the street as the crowds cheer and wave. The Fremont City Council estimates
that more than 100,000 people visit the weekend fair, and pictures show that the streets are crowded
with parade watchers, from the very young to elderly.
Contrast this event to the following story of a flasher in San Diego County. Between the summer of
2009 and the summer of 2010, there were numerous reports of an adult man flashing hikers and run-
ners on Mission Trails near Lake Murphy in San Diego. An undercover operation was set in motion to
catch this flasher, and on July 19, 2010, an adult man was apprehended while flashing an undercover
officer who was posing as a jogger in the park. He was held on $50,000 bail while waiting for arraign-
ment (KFMB-News 8, 2010).
While both these events center around public displays of nudity, one is celebrated while the other is
vilified. Why?

▲ Photo 1.1 & 1.2   When is a public display of nudity considered deviant? When is it celebrated?

““Introduction
You might expect that a book about deviance would start with a definition of what deviance is. But, like all
things worth studying, a simple definition does not exist. For example, in the stories above, the public display
of nudity is not only welcomed but also celebrated by 6-year-olds and grandmothers alike in one instance,
4 PART I    INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

and in the other it can lead to arrest and jail time. Why? This chapter and this book explore how it can be that
the Fremont Summer Solstice Parade can be celebrated in the same summer that a flasher is arrested and
held on $50,000 bail until he is charged.

““Conceptions of Deviance
All deviance textbooks offer their “conceptions of deviance.” Rubington and Weinberg (2008) argue that
there are generally two conceptions of deviance as either “objectively given” or “subjectively problematic.”
Clinard and Meier (2010) also suggest two general conceptions of deviance, the reactionist or relativist
conception and the normative conception. Thio (2009) argues that we can view deviance from a positivist
perspective or a constructionist perspective.
While none of these authors are using the same language, they are defining similar conceptions of devi-
ance. The first conception—that of an “objectively given,” normative, or positivist conception of deviance—
assumes that there is a general set of norms of behavior, conduct, and conditions for which we can agree.
Norms are rules of behavior that guide people’s actions. Sumner (1906) broke norms down into three cat-
egories: folkways, mores, and laws. Folkways are everyday norms that do not generate much uproar if they
are violated. Think of them as behaviors that might be considered rude if engaged in—like standing too
close to someone while speaking or picking one’s nose. Mores are “moral” norms that may generate more
outrage if broken. In a capitalist society, homelessness and unemployment can elicit outrage if the person
is considered unworthy of sympathy. Similarly, drinking too much or alcoholism may be seen as a lapse in
moral judgment. Finally, the third type of norm is the law, which is considered the strongest norm because
it is backed by official sanctions (or a formal response). In this conception, then, deviance becomes a viola-
tion of a rule understood by the majority of the group. This rule may be minor, in which case the deviant is
seen as “weird but harmless,” or the rule may be major, in which case the deviant is seen as “criminal.” The
obvious problem with this conceptualization goes back to the earlier example of the reaction to public
nudity, where we see that violation of the most “serious” norm (laws) receives quite different reactions,
which leads to the second conception.
The second conception of deviance—the “subjectively problematic,” reactionist/relativist, social con-
structionist conception—assumes that the definition of deviance is constructed based on the interactions
of those in society. According to this conception of deviance, behaviors or conditions are not inherently
deviant; they become so when the definition of deviance is applied to them. The study of deviance is not
about why certain individuals violate norms but instead about how those norms are constructed. Social
constructionists believe that our understanding of the world is in constant negotiation between actors.
Those who have a relativist conception of deviance define deviance as those behaviors that illicit a definition
or label of deviance:

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. For this point of view,
deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits but rather a consequence of the applica-
tion by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has
successfully been applied; deviant behaviors is behavior that people so label. (Becker, 1973, p. 9)

This is a fruitful conceptualization, but it is also problematic. What about very serious violations of
norms that are never known or reacted to? Some strict reactionists/relativists would argue that these acts
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 5

(beliefs or attitudes) are not deviant. Most of us would agree that killing someone and making it look like
he or she simply skipped the country is deviant; however, there may be no reaction.
A third conception of deviance that has not been advanced in many textbooks (for an exception,
see DeKeserdy, Ellis, &Alvi, 2005) is a critical definition of deviance (Jensen, 2007). Those working from
a critical conception of deviance argue that the normative understanding of deviance is established by
those in power to maintain and enhance their power. It suggests that explorations of deviance have
focused on a white, male, middle- to upper-class understanding of society that implies that people of
color, women, and the working poor are by definition deviant. Instead of focusing on individual types
of deviance, this conception critiques the social system that exists that creates such norms in the first
place. This too is a useful approach, but frankly, there are many things that the vast majority of society
agree are immoral, unethical, and deviant and should be illegal and that the system actually serves to
protect our interests.
Given that each of these conceptualizations is useful but problematic, we do not adhere to a single
conception of deviance in this book because the theories of deviance do not adhere to a single concep-
tion. You will see that several of our theories assume a normative conception, while several assume a
social constructionist or critical conception. As you explore each of these theories, think about what
the conception of deviance and theoretical perspective mean for the questions we ask and answer
about deviance.

HOW DO YOU DEFINE DEVIANCE?

As Justice Stewart of the Supreme Court once famously wrote about trying to define obscene materials,
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within
that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it
when I see it” (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964). Those who do not study deviance for a living probably find
themselves in the same boat; it may be hard to write a definition, but how hard could it be to “know it
when we see it”?
Choose some place busy to sit and observe human behavior for one hour. Write down all the
behaviors that you observe during that hour. Do you consider any of these behaviors to be deviant?
Which conception of deviance are you using when you define each as deviant? Might there be some
instances (e.g., places or times) when that behavior you consider to be nondeviant right now might
become deviant? Finally, bring your list of behaviors to class. In pairs, share your list of behaviors and
your definitions of deviant behaviors with your partner. Do you agree on your categorization? Why or
why not?

““The Sociological Imagination

Those of us who are sociologists can probably remember the first time we were introduced to the concept
of the sociological imagination. Mills argues that the only way to truly understand the experiences of the
individual is to first understand the societal, institutional, and historical conditions that individual is living
6 PART I    INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

under. In other words, Mills believes that no man, woman, or child is an island. Below is an excerpt from
C. Wright Mills’s (1959/2000) profound book, The Sociological Imagination (Oxford University Press):

Men do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of historical change and institu-
tional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and
downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the
patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary men do not usually know
what this connection means for the kinds of men they are becoming and for the kinds of
history-making in which they might take part. They do not possess the quality of mind essen-
tial to grasp the interplay of man and society, of biography and history, of self and world. They
cannot cope with their personal troubles in such ways as to control the structural transforma-
tions that usually lie behind them.
The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical
scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of indi-
viduals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experi-
ence, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. With that welter, the framework
of modern society is sought, and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men
and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused
upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with
public issues.
The first fruit of this imagination—and the first lesson of the social science that embodies
it—is the idea that the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only
by locating himself within his period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming
aware of those of all individuals in his circumstances. In many ways it is a terrible lesson; in many
ways a magnificent one.
In these terms, consider unemployment. When, in a city of 100,000, only one man is unem-
ployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character of the man,
his skills, and his immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 mil-
lion men are unemployed, that is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within the
range of opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunities has col-
lapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to
consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situa-
tion and character of a scatter of individuals.
What we experience in various and specific milieux, I have noted, is often caused by structural
changes. Accordingly, to understand the changes of many personal milieux we are required to look
beyond them. And the number and variety of such structural changes increase as the institutions
within connected with one another. To be aware of the idea of social structure and to use it with
sensibility is to be capable of tracing such linkages among a great variety of milieu. To be able to
do this is to possess the sociological imagination. (pp. 3–11)

One of our favorite examples of the sociological imagination in action is the “salad bar” example. In the
United States, one of the persistent philosophies is that of individualism and personal responsibility. Under
this philosophy, individuals are assumed to be solely responsible for their successes and failures. This phi-
losophy relies heavily on the notion that individuals are rational actors who weigh the cost and benefit of
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 7

their actions, can see the consequences of their

behavior, and have perfect information. The salad
bar example helps individuals who rely heavily on
this conception of the individual to see the impor-
tance of social structure to individual behavior.
No one doubts that when you order a salad bar
at a restaurant, you are responsible for building your
own salad. Every person makes his or her own
salad, and no two salads look exactly alike. Some
make salads with lots of lettuce and vegetables, very
little cheese, and fat-free dressing. Others create a
salad that is piled high with cheese, croutons, and
lots and lots of dressing. Those who are unhappy
with their choices while making their salad only
▲ Photo 1.3   The salad bar can represent the restriction on
have themselves to blame, right? Not necessarily. choices that individuals have. We can only make our salad with
A salad is only as good as the salad bar it is cre- the ingredients offered to us on the salad bar.
ated from. In other words, individuals making a
salad can only make a salad from the ingredients
supplied from the salad bar. If the restaurant is out of croutons that day or decided to put watermelon out
instead of cantaloupe, the individual must build his or her salad within these constraints. Some individuals
with a great sense of personal power may request additional items from the back of the restaurant, but most
individuals will choose to build a salad based on the items available to them on the salad bar. In other words,
the individual choice is constrained by the larger social forces of delivery schedules, food inventory, and
worker decision making. The sociological imagination is especially important to understand because it is the
building block for our understanding of sociological theory.

DEVIANCE IN POPULAR CULTURE

Many types of deviance are portrayed and investigated in popular culture. Films and television shows,
for example, illustrate a wide range of deviant behavior and social control. There are often several
interpretations of what acts are deviant in each film—how do you know when an act or person is devi-
ant? One way to develop your sociological imagination is to watch films and television shows from a
critical perspective and to think about how different theories would explain the deviant behavior and
the reactions portrayed. To get you started, we’ve listed a number of films and television shows that you
might watch and explore for examples of cultural norms, different types of deviant behavior, and coping
with stigma.

Films
Trekkies—a documentary following the stories of individuals who are superfans of Star Trek. Known
as Trekkies, these individuals have incorporated Star Trek into their everyday lives. Some wear the
(Continued)
8 PART I    INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

(Continued)
uniforms or speak and teach the various languages from the show, one has considered surgery to
alter the shape of his ears, and some have legally changed their names and incorporated Star Trek
into their businesses and workplaces. The movie documents their fandom and experiences navigating
these consuming obsessions while in mainstream society.

American Beauty—the story of a suburban family that, from the outside, appears to be “perfect.”
However, the characters are leading far from perfect lives filled with depression, lies, drug dealing,
homophobia, and self-loathing.

Crumb—a movie about the cartoonist Robert Crumb, who was a pioneer of the underground comix.
This movie offers a dark portrait of an artist besieged with personal and family demons.

Usual Suspects—a story of five men who are brought in for questioning for a crime they did
not commit. While being held on suspicion of that crime, they agree to work together on
another crime. They soon realize they are being set up by someone they had wronged in the
past.

Television
Reality television and The Learning Channel (TLC), in particular, feature a number of programs offering
an inside view of people perceived as deviant or different in some way and showing how they deal with
stigma from various sources:

Sister Wives—inside the world of a polygamist marriage: This reality show introduces viewers to a
man, his four wives, and 16 children. His motto: “Love should be multiplied, not divided.”

Seinfeld—a situation comedy that is simply masterful at focusing on small behaviors or characteristics
that break norms and are perceived as deviant. Episodes on the close-talker, the low-talker, the high-
talker, for example, all illustrate unwritten norms on interpersonal communication.

In each of the chapters that follow, we will offer suggestions of one or more films or television shows
for you to watch from the theoretical perspective outlined in the chapter. We think you’ll soon agree:
Deviance is all around us.

““The Importance of Theory

The three of us (the authors of this book) have spent many hours discussing the importance of theory
as we wrote this book. Why did we choose to write a textbook about deviance with theory as the central
theme? Many of you may also be asking this question and worrying that a book about theory may suck
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 9

the life right out of a discussion about devi- Figure 1.1   The Scientific Method Allows Us to Systematically
ance. Really, who wants to be thinking about Examine Social Phenomena Such as Deviance
theory when we could be talking about “nuts,
sluts, and preverts” (Liazos, 1972)? But, this
is precisely why we must make theory cen-
tral to any discussion of deviance—because Hy
po
theory helps us systematically think about eory the
Th s
deviance. If it weren’t for theory, classes

es
about deviance would be akin to watching
Jersey Shore (MTV) or the Real Housewives
of New Jersey (Bravo) (why is New Jersey so
popular for these shows?)—it may be enter-
taining, but we have no clearer understand-

nclusions)
Scientific
ing of the “real” people of New Jersey when Method

Data C
we are done watching.
Theory is what turns anecdotes about
(Co

ol
human behavior into a systematic under-

lect
s
standing of societal behavior. It does this by ing

ion
nd
playing an intricate part in research and the Fi
scientific method.
The scientific method is a systematic
procedure that helps safeguard against R e s u lt s
researcher bias and the power of anecdotes
by following several simple steps. First, a
researcher starts with a research question.
If the researcher is engaging in deductive research, this question comes from a theoretical perspective.
This theory and research question help the researcher create hypotheses (testable statements) about a
phenomenon being studied. Once the researcher has created hypotheses, she collects her data to test
these hypotheses. We discuss data and data collection methods for deviance research in detail in Chap-
ter 3. She then analyzes these data, interprets her findings, and concludes whether or not her hypothe-
ses have been supported. These findings then inform whether the theory she used helps with our
understanding of the world or should be revised to take into consideration information that does not
support its current model. If a researcher is engaging in inductive research, she also starts with a
research question, but in the beginning, her theory may be what we call “grounded theory.” Using
qualitative methods such as participant observation or in-depth interviews, the researcher would col-
lect data and analyze these data looking for common themes throughout. These findings would be used
to create a theory “from the ground up.” In other words, while deductive researchers would start with a
theory that guides every step of their research, an inductive researcher might start with a broad theo-
retical perspective, a research question, and from the systematic collection of data and rigorous analy-
ses would hone that broad theoretical perspective into a more specific theory. This theory would then
be tested again as the researcher continued on with her work, or others, finding this new theory to be
useful and interesting, might opt to use it to inform both their deductive and inductive work.
10 PART I    INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

STUDIES IN DEVIANCE

The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts

By Alexander Liazos, in Social Problems, 20(1), 103–120
Liazos argues that the study of deviance used to be the study of “nuts, sluts, and preverts,” a sensa-
tionalistic ritual in finger pointing and moralizing. The focus was on individuals and their “aberrant”
behavior. This meant that the most harmful behaviors in society, the ones that affected us most thor-
oughly, were ignored and, in ignoring them, normalized. Liazos referred to these forms of deviance as
covert institutional violence.
According to Liazos, the poverty of the study of deviance was threefold: First, even when trying to
point out how normal the “deviance” or “deviant” is, by pointing out the person or behavior, we are
acknowledging the difference—if that difference really were invisible, how and why would we be study-
ing it? This meant by even studying deviance, a moral choice had already been made—some differences
were studied; some were not. Second, by extension, deviance research rarely studied elite deviance and
structural deviance, instead focusing on “dramatic” forms of deviance such as prostitution, juvenile
delinquency, and homosexuality. Liazos argues that it is important to, instead, study covert institutional
violence, which leads to such things as poverty and exploitation. Instead of studying tax cheats, we
should study unjust tax laws; instead of studying prostitution, we should study racism and sexism as
deviance. Finally, Liazos argues that even those who profess to study the relationship between power
and deviance do not really acknowledge the importance of power. These researchers still give those in
positions of power a pass to engage in harmful behavior by not defining much elite deviance as
deviance at all.
The implication of this is that those who study deviance have allowed the definition of deviance to
be settled for them. And this definition benefits not only individuals in power but also a system that
has routinely engaged in harmful acts. While Liazos wrote this important critique of the sociology of
deviance in 1972, much of his analysis holds up to this day. In this book, we examine theories expressly
capable of addressing this critique.
As you explore each of the theories offered to you in this book, remember Liazos’s critique. Which
theories are more likely to focus on “nuts, sluts, and preverts”? Which are more likely to focus on elite
deviance and new conceptions of deviance?

If we go back to our example of reality shows about people from New Jersey, we may see the difference
between an anecdote and a more theoretically grounded understanding of human behavior. After watching
both Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives of New Jersey, we may conclude that people from New Jersey are
loud, self-absorbed, and overly tan (all three of which might be considered deviant behaviors or characteris-
tics). However, we have not systematically studied the people of New Jersey to arrive at our conclusion. Using
inductive reasoning, based on our initial observation, we may start with a research question that states that
because the people of New Jersey are loud, self-absorbed, and overly tan, we are interested in knowing about
the emotional connections they have with friends and family (we may suspect that self-absorbed people are
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 11

more likely to have relationships with conflict). However, as we continue along the scientific method, we
systematically gather data from more than just the reality stars of these two shows. We interview teachers
and police officers, retired lawyers and college students. What we soon learn as we analyze these interviews
is that the general public in New Jersey is really not all that tan, loud, or self-absorbed, and they speak openly
and warmly about strong connections to family and friends. This research leads us to reexamine our initial
theory about the characteristics of people from New Jersey and offer a new theory based on systematic
analysis. This new theory then informs subsequent research on the people of New Jersey. If we did not have
theory and the scientific method, our understanding of deviance would be based on wild observations and
anecdotes, which may be significantly misleading and unrepresentative of the social reality.
In addition to being systematic and testable (through the scientific method), theory offers solutions to
the problems we study. One of the hardest knocks against the study of deviance and crime has been the
historically carnival sideshow nature (Liazos, 1972) of much of the study of deviance. By focusing on indi-
viduals and a certain caste of deviants (those without power), with less than systematic methods, deviance
researchers were just pointing at “nuts, sluts, and preverts” and not advancing their broader understanding
of the interplay of power, social structure, and behavior. Theory can focus our attention on this interplay and
offer solutions beyond the individual and the deficit model. Bendle (1999) also argued that the study of
deviance was in a state of crisis because researchers were no longer studying relevant problems or offering
useful solutions. One of Bendle’s solutions is to push for new theories of deviant behavior.
Theoretical solutions to the issue of deviance are especially important because many of our current
responses to deviant behavior are erroneously based on an individualistic notion of human nature that does
not take into account humans as social beings or the importance of social structure, social institutions,
power, and broad societal changes for deviance and deviants.

NOW YOU . . . USE YOUR SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION

Liazos (1972), in his article “The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts,” argues
that the sociology of deviance focuses too much attention on individual idiosyncrasies and not enough
attention on structural dynamics and the deviance of the powerful. The following graph is taken from
a Web page from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy)
explaining the U.S. energy consumption for 2009. Following this chart is a section taken from the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (also a federal agency) explaining the effects of fossil fuels on climate
change. Using your sociological imagination, how might you discuss the figures and text as an example
of deviance? How might the relationship between the U.S. government, lobbyists, and oil companies
affect the conversation around climate change? Pretend you are an oil executive: Which might be more
deviant in your view, the breakdown of U.S. energy consumption or the research on climate change?
Why? Now pretend that you are an oceanographer studying changes in the Gulf of Mexico or a zoologist
studying polar bear migration: What might you define as deviant? Why? Would both groups define the
same information as deviant? Do you consider either the breakdown of the U.S. consumption of energy
or the discussion of climate change to be deviant? Why or why not?
(Continued)
12 PART I    INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL

(Continued)

Figure 1.2   U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, 2009

Total = 94.578 Quadrillion Btu Total = 7.744 Quadrillion Btu

Solar 1%
Geothermal 5%
Biomass waste 6%
Petroleum Wind 9%
37% Biofuels 20%
Renewable
Natural Gas Energy Wood 24%
25% 8%

Coal Nuclear Hydropower 35%

21% Electric Power
9%

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, Table 1.3, Primary Energy Consumption by Energy
Source, 1949–2009 (August 2010).
Note: Sum of components may not equal 100% due to independent rounding.

For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation
have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping “greenhouse gases” to increase significantly in
our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass pan-
els of a greenhouse.
Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet’s surface
warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase
in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and
NASA data, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2°F to 1.4°F in the
last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with
the warmest year being 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of
human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow
and ice cover, and sea level.
If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature
at the Earth’s surface could increase from 3.2°F to 7.2°F above 1990 levels by the end of this
century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmo-
sphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet’s cli-
mate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the
exact effects will be. (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011)
 Chapter 1    Introduction to Deviance 13

““Conclusion: Organization of the Book

This book is organized into four sections: (1) an introduction to deviance—types of deviance and research-
ing deviance, (2) traditional theories of deviance, (3) social constructionist theories of deviance, and (4) responses
to deviance. We start your introduction to deviance by examining the diversity of deviance, how our defini-
tions of deviance change over time, and how we research deviance. The next two sections focus on theories of
deviance, starting with the traditional, positivist theories of deviance and moving to social constructionist and
critical theories of deviance. We also try to present the theories in a fairly chronological manner. While all these
theories are still in use in the study of deviance, some have been around longer than others. Positivist theories
have been around longer than social constructionist theories, and within positivist theories, anomie has been
around longer than social disorganization. We think this offers you a general road map of how thinking and theo-
ries have developed about deviance. In each of these chapters, we present the classical versions of each theory and
then the contemporary version, and along the way, we explore several types of deviance that may be explained
by each given theory. Finally, we offer a section that examines our individual and societal responses to deviance.
This book has been written with a heavy emphasis on theory. We think you will agree as you read the
book that theory is an important organizational tool for understanding (1) why deviance occurs, (2) why
some behavior may or may not be defined as deviant, and (3) why some individuals are more likely to be
defined as deviant. It is important to note that you probably won’t have the same level of enthusiasm for
every theory offered here. Some of you will really “get” anomie theory, while others might be drawn to label-
ing or feminist theory. Heck, we feel the same way. But what is important to remember is that ALL of these
theories have been supported by research, and all help answer certain questions about deviance.
Along the way, we present examples of specific acts that may be considered deviant in both the research
and pop culture. You will be introduced at the beginning of each chapter to a vignette that discusses a social
phenomenon or behavior. In addition, each chapter includes three to four original articles that offer an example
of how sociologists are examining deviance. As you learn more about theory, you can decide for yourself how
and why these acts and actors may be defined as deviant. One of our goals for you is to help you start to think
sociologically and theoretically about our social world and the acts we do and do not call deviance.

EXERCISES AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. After reading the article on the Nacerima (Reading 1), deviant? Why do others treat him or her this way? Is
choose your own population to observe and write there a character that you would describe as devi-
about. What are the deviant behaviors and beliefs of ant? Is he or she treated this way by others in the
this population? show? What conception of deviance are you using to
determine the deviant behavior on the show?
2. Choose any half-hour sitcom. While watching the
show, examine its treatment of “deviant” behavior. Is 3. Why is theory important to our understanding of
there a character whom others treat as different or deviance?

KEY TERMS

Folkways Norms Social construction

Laws Relativist deviance Sociological imagination
Mores Scientific method Theory
Normative deviance