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
types
 Sheldon (1949):
 More active & muscular, more aggressive
 More recent:
 XYY syndrome creates “double male” or “super
male” predisposed to violence
 Durkheim first advanced the view
that society is a moral phenomenon
 Moral 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
groups
 Members 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
subcultures
 Conflict: 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, drugs
 Ethnic 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 trouble
 Showing toughness
 Maintaining autonomy
 Demonstrating street smarts
 Searching for excitement
 Fatalistic
 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 benefits
 Instead 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 way
 There 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 elements
 The 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 waystation 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 stimulus
 Third, 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 self
 Preservation 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 diffused
 Includes acceptance of cultural goals and
institutional means
 Continuity 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 common
 In society, but not of it
 Includes rejection of cultural goals and
institutional means
 Examples: vagrants, psychotics, outcasts,
drunks, drug addicts
 Individual 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