Deviant Behavior | Encyclopedia.com

Behavior that violates norms. Deviant behavior is behavior that violates the normative rules, understandings, or expectations of social systems. This is the ... SkiptomaincontentSocialsciencesAppliedandsocialsciencesmagazinesDeviantBehaviorDeviantBehaviorgaleviewsupdatedDeviantBehaviorSocialdisorganizationBIBLIOGRAPHYBoth“deviantbehavior”and“socialdisorganization”havebeenvariouslydefined,buttherehavebeenfeweffortstodistinguishbetweenthetwoconcepts.Infact,ithasbeensuggestedthattheyarenotdifferent,thatalongwith“socialproblems*’andthesomewhatoutmoded“socialpathology,”theysignifyonlyapotpourriofconditionsthatareconsideredundesirablefromthestandpointoftheobserver’svalues,conditionsthatvaryatdifferenttimesandwithdifferentobservers.Accordingtothisview,thesetermshavenoscientificvalueandnolegitimatestatusassociologicalconcepts.Suchnihilismandcounselofdespairarenotjustified.True,thereisnoconsensusonthemeaningoftheseterms,andtheyare,indeed,burdenedwithvalueconnotations.However,theypointtoanumberofdistinctionsthatsociologymusttakeintoaccount.Conceptofdeviance.Turningfirsttotheconceptofdeviantbehavior,wemustdistinguishamongtheseveraldefinitionsoftheterm,whicharediscussedbelow.Behaviorthatviolatesnorms.Deviantbehaviorisbehaviorthatviolatesthenormativerules,understandings,orexpectationsofsocialsystems.Thisisthemostcommonusageofthetermandthesenseinwhichitwillbeusedhere.Crimeistheprototypeofdevianceinthissense,andtheoryandresearchindeviantbehaviorhavebeenconcernedoverwhelminglywithcrime.However,normativerulesareinherentinthenatureofallsocialsystems,whethertheybefriendshipgroups,engagedcouples,families,workteams,factories,ornationalsocieties.Legalnormsarethenbutonetypeofnormwhoseviolationconstitutesdeviantbehavior.Itisimportanttonotethatalthoughdeviance,inthissense,andconformityare“opposites,”theyrepresentthepoleswithinthesamedimensionofvariation;therefore,ageneraltheoryoftheonemustcomprehendtheother.Statisticalabnormality.Thereisfairconsensusthat“deviantbehavior”doesnotmeandeparturefromsomestatisticalnorm.Howevervariousthedefinitionsandusages,theyseemtohaveincommonthenotionofsomethingthatis,fromsomepointofview,less“good”or“desirable,”andnotmerelylessfrequent.Psychopathology.Forsociologicalpurposesdevianceisseldomdefinedexclusivelyintermsofpsychopathology,mentalillness,orpersonalitydis-organization,althoughitiscommonlyassumedthatthesephenomenaareatleastincludedwithinthescopeofdeviance.However,behaviorisdeviantinthefirst,ornormative,sensebecauseitdepartsfromthenormativerulesofsomesocialsystem,whereasbehaviorispathologicalbecauseitproceedsfromasick,damaged,ordefectivepersonality.Itisprobablethatmostdeviantbehaviorinthenormativesenseisproducedbypersonalitiesthatareclinicallynormalandthatmostbehaviorthatissymptomaticofpersonalitydefectormentalillnessdoesnotviolatenormativeexpectations.Inshort,thetwoareindependentlydefined,andtherelationshipbetweenthemisamatterforempiricalinvestigation.Itseemspreferabletokeepthemconceptuallydistinct,retainingfortheonetheterm“deviantbehavior”andfortheothertheestablishedterminologyofpsychopathology.Itshouldbemadeclearthatthedistinctionjustdrawnisnotthatbetweenthepsychologicalandthesociologicallevelsofinvestigation.Inviewinganyhumanbehaviorwecanask,ontheonehand,howitdependsuponthehistoryandstructureofthepersonalitythatauthorsit.Ontheotherhand,wecanaskhowitdependsonthehistoryandstructureofthesocialsysteminwhichitisanevent.Suchquestionscanbeaskedaboutbothmentalillnessanddeviantbehavior.However,inquiryonthepsychologicalandsociologicallevelscannotproceedaltogetherindependently,foreachmustmakesomeassumptionsabouttheother.Durkheim(1897),inhisclassictreatmentofsuicide,madecleartheanalyticalindependenceofthesociologicallevelbydemonstratingthatvariationsinratesofagivenclassofbehaviorwithinandbetweensystemsarearealitysuigeneristhatcannotbeexplainedsimplyintermsofthepsychologicalpropertiesofhumanbeingsbutratherdependonthepropertiesofthesocialsystemitself.However,heoverstatedhiscaseandlefttheimpression,whetheritwashisintentionornot,thatpsychologyhaslittletocontributetotheunderstandingofsuicide.Infact,Durkheim’sowntreatmentofthesociologyofsuicideisinterlardedwithassumptionsabouthumanmotivationandotherconsiderationsthatareordinarilyconsidered“psychological”[seeSuicide,articleonSocialaspects].Sociallydisvaluedbehaviorandstates.Deviantbehaviormayalsobedefinedassociallydisvaluedbehaviorandstatesingeneral.Thisdefinitionincludesmentalretardation,blindness,ugliness,otherphysicaldefectsandhandicaps,illnessofallsorts,beggary,membershipinrituallyuncleancastesandoccupations,mentalillness,criminality,anda“shamefulpast.”Whatallthesehaveincommonisthat,ifknown,theyassignonetoasociallydisparagedroleandconstituteablemishintheself.Thisblemish,orstigma,isanimportantconstituentofallsocialencountersinwhichitispresent.Itposesproblemstothestigmatizedactorandhisaltersandhasconsequencesforthedevelopmentofpersonalityandforsocialinteraction.Goffman(1963)hasdemonstratedthatitispossibletogeneralizeaboutthephenomenonofstigmaanditsconsequencesonalevelthatabstractsfromthediversityofitsconcretemanifestations.Clearly,stigmaisalegitimateandimportantobjectofinvestigationinitsownright.Furthermore,itisordinarilyanattributeofnormativelydeviantbehavior;itmayplayapartinitsgenesisandcontrol.Itmustthereforefigureinatheoryofdeviantbehavior.However,thefactthatbehaviorisstigmatizedordisvaluedisonething;thefactthatitviolatesnormativerulesisanother.Notalldisvaluedbehaviorviolatesnormativerules;norisitcertainthatallbehaviorthatviolatesnormativerulesisdisvalued.Explainingstigmaisnotthesameasexplainingwhypeopleviolatenormativerules.Inkeepingwiththemoretraditionalandbetterestablishedusage,itseemspreferabletolimitthereferenceof“deviantbehavior”totheviolationofnormativerules.Deviantbehavioranddeviantroles.Itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweenwhatapersonhasdoneandhowheispubliclydefinedandcategorizedbymembersofhissocialworld.Itismainlythelatter—thesocialroleattributedtohim—thatdetermineshowotherswillrespondtohim.Tostealisnotnecessarilytobedefinedas“athief”;tohavesexualrelationshipswithoneofthesamesexisnotnecessarilytobedefinedas“ahomosexual”(Reiss1961).Behaviorthatviolatessocialrulesmayormaynotbecomevisibleand,ifvisible,mayormaynotresultinattributionofadeviantrole.Furthermore,deviantrolesmaybeattributedevenintheabsenceofviolationsofnormativerules.Thisdistinctionmirrorsoneoftheperennialdilemmasofcriminology.Iscriminologyconcernedwithallviolationsofcriminallaworonlywiththoseviolationsthatresultinalegaladjudicationofcriminality?Theformerareinfinitelymorenumerousthanthelatter,anddataontheirfrequencyanddistributionaredifficulttocomeby.Theprocesseswherebysomefractionofallviolatorscometobeselectedforlegalstigmatizationas“criminals”bearonlyatenuousrelationshiptoactualhistoriesofcriminallawviolation.Furthermore,evenlegalattributionsofcriminalitydonotnecessarilyresultinattributionsofcriminalrolesintheworldofeverydaylife.So,forexample,“white-collarcriminals”andincometaxevaders,eveniflegallyconvicted,arenotLikelytobedefinedascriminalsintheworldoutsidethecourtsandtoexperiencetheconsequencesofsuchdefinitions(Sutherland1949).Thedistinctionbetweenviolatingnormativerulesandbeingsociallyassignedtoadeviantroleisimportant.Toexplainoneisnotnecessarilytoexplaintheother.Ontheotherhand,theyinteractinsuchwaysthateachmustbetakenintoaccountinexplainingtheother.Forexample,tobeadjudicatedasanoffenderoreventobelegallyprocessedshortofadjudicationmayhaveimportanteffectsonactualcareersincriminalbehavior(Tannenbaum1938).Itseemsbesttothinkofthefieldofdeviantbehaviorasconcernedwithdevianceinboththesesensesandwiththeirinteraction.Therelativityofdeviantbehavior.Itiscommonplacethatnormativerulesvaryenormouslyfromonesocialsystemtoanother.Itfollowsthatnobehaviorisdeviantinitselfbutonlyinsofarasitviolatesthenormsofsomesocialsystem.Thisimpliesthatthesociologyofdeviantbehaviorisnotconcernedwiththeencyclopedicstudyofprostitution,drugaddiction,etc.,butratherwiththequestion:“Howdoweaccountfortheoccurrenceoftheseandotherbehaviorsinsituationswheretheyareinterdictedordisvaluedbynormativerules?”Infact,practicaljudgmentsofdevianceintheworldofeverydaylifetakeintoaccountthecollectivitymembershipoftheactor.Ingeneral,apersoncomesunderthejurisdictionofasystemofnormativeruleswhenheisascribedorsuccessfullyclaimstheroleofmemberofacollectivity.Thisisequallytrueofsubcollectivities—associations,cliques,academicinstitutions—withinalargercollectivity.Indeed,tobesubjecttothenormativerulesofacollectivitycomesveryclosetodefiningthesocialmeaningof“membership”inacollectivity.Moregenerally,thesamemaybesaidofanyrole,notofcollectivityrolesalone.Theexpectationsattachingtoaroledifferentiateitfromotherrolesanddefinethetermsonwhichapersoncanbedeviant.Thatthisistrueforsuchrolesashusbandandwife,doctorandpatient,childandadultiselementary.Itisequallytrue,butnotsoobvious,forsuchtransientrolesasthoseofthesickandthebereaved.Tooccupyeitheroftheserolesistobeexemptedfromsomerulesotherwiseapplicable,tobesubjectedtootherrules,andtocreatespecialobligationsforothersintherolesetofthesickorbereavedperson.Whatittakestobe“sick”or“bereaved,”thatis,thecriteriaoftheroles,dependsonthecultureofthesystem.Inanycase,however,membershipinthoserolesmustbevalidatedintermsofthosecriteria.Tosuccessfullyclaimmembershipandthen,insomemanner,tobetrayoneselfas“notreallysick”or“notreallybereaved,”asthesearedefinedinone’sculture,istolosetheexemptionsthatgowiththatrole,aswellastoincurthespecialcontumelyoffalselyclaimingmembershipinaroleforwhichonelacksthetruecredentials.Inspeakingofdevianceonemustspecifythesystemofreference.Thesamebehaviormaybebothdeviantandnondeviant,relativetodifferentsystemsinwhichtheactorisimplicated.However,wearestillleftwiththequestion:“Foranygivensystem,whoistosaywhatisdeviant?Whosenotionsofrightandwrongdefinetherulesofthesystem?”Thishasbeenoneofthemosttroublesomeissuesindeviancetheory.Itisnotentirelysatisfactorytosaythattherulesofthesystemarethosewhichareinstitutionalized—thatis,agreedupon,internalized,andsanctioned(Johnson1960,p.20).Thisdefinitionprovidesnocriterionfora“cut-offpoint”definingthedegreeofinstitutionalizationnecessarytodeterminedeviance;infact,thecriteriaofinstitutionalizationarethemselvesmultiple,andtosomedegreetheyvaryindependently.Alternativeresponsestonormativerules.Thedifficultymayarisepartlyfromafailuretorecognizetheimportantlydifferentwaysinwhichpeoplemaybeorientedtonormativerules.Peoplesometimesseemtoviolateruleswithoutguiltandwithouteventhenecessityforsomemechanismforneutralizingguilt.Theinferenceistypicallydrawnthatsuchpeopledonotrecognizetherules,that—asfarastheyareconcerned—thesearenottherulesofthesystem,except,perhaps,inthesenseofaprobabilitythatotherswillreactinahostilewaytocertainbehavior.Thenthequestiondoesindeedarise:“Whoistosaywhatisdeviant?”Wehaveperhapsbeentooquicktoassumethatto“accept,”“recognize,”“internalize,”“approve,”and“feelboundby”normativerulesallmeanthesamething.Wesuggest,onthecontrary,thatonemayrecognizearuleandeveninsistuponitsproprietyandnecessity;onemayacceptthelegitimacyofeffortstoenforcetherule,evenagainstoneself;andonemayappraisethe“goodness”ofpeopleintermsofconformitytotherule—butseethejobofsecuringcompliancewiththeruleasessentiallysomebodyelse’sjob.Onetakesone’schancesandeither“wins”or“loses.”Itmaybe,forexample,that“delinquentcultures”donot,ingeneral,either“repudiate”(Cohen1955)therulesofthe“largersociety,”“denytheirlegitimacy”(Cloward&Ohlin1960),or“neutralize”(Sykes&Matza1957)them,butsomehowinstitutionalizethis“gamester”attitudetowardtherules.Furthermore,itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweenwhatmaybecalledtheattributionof“validity”toaruleandwhatmightbecalledits“goodness”or“propriety.”Onemayconsiderarulestupidorunreasonableandyetrecognizethatitistheruleandthereforethatitproperlymayorevenoughttobeenforceduntilitischanged.Thiswouldindicatethat,withinagivensocialsystem,therearecriteriaofwhatconstitutetherulesofthesystemthattranscendindividualdifferencesaboutwhattheruleoughttobeordifferenceswithrespecttodepthof“internalization”oftherule.ThisdistinctionsuggestsadistinctionmadebyMerton([1949]1957,pp.359–368)withrespecttotwokindsofdeviants:thosewhoviolaterulesforanyofanumberofreasonsbutdonotquestiontherulesthemselves;andthosewhoviolaterulesinordertoactivatecertainprocessesthat,inthatsystem,arenecessarytoeffect“repeal”ofaruleortoreplaceitwithanother.However,notallwhowouldchangearulenecessarilyfeeljustifiedindoingsobyviolatingit.Infact,itcouldbearguedthatthebasisofsocialorderisnotconsensusonwhatoughttobetherules,indeedthatdissensusinthisregardisthenormalstate,especiallyinmodernsociety.Rather,thebasisoforderisagreementonthecriteriaofwhattherulesareandonthemechanismsforchangingthem.Theintentionofthisdiscussionistosuggestthatifwetakeaccountofthesedifferentwaysoforientingtonormativerules,disagreementonwhattherulesareisnotsogreatasiscommonlyassumed.Thesociologyofnormativerules.Actsaredeviantbyvirtueofnormativerulesthatmakethemso.Therefore,theformsandratesofdeviancechangeastherulesthemselveschange.Inconsequenceofsuchchanges,actsmaymovefromnormativelyapprovedtoforbidden;fromonedeviantcategorytoanother;fromsomecategoryofdeviancetothecategoryof“sickness”orintheotherdirection.Andsomecategoriesofdeviance,suchas“heresy,”maybecomevirtuallyextinctaspartofthefunctioningconceptualequipmentofasociety.Thestudyofsuchchangeshasbeenseverelyneglected,withsomenoteworthyexceptionsinthesociologyoflaw(Hall1935).Itshouldbestressedthatchangesinnormativerulescannotbefruitfullyinvestigatedapartfromthestudyofbehaviororientedtowardthesenormativerules.Ontheonehand,normativerulesshapebehavior;ontheotherhand,behaviorisalwaystesting,probing,andchallengingnormativerules,andinresponsetosuchbehaviornormativerulesarecontinuallybeingredefined,shoredup,orabandoned(Mills1959;Cohen1965).Thestudyofthisinteractionprocessisanintegralpartofthesociologyofdeviance.Deviantbehaviorofcollectivities.Whatevermaybethemetaphysicalstatusofcollectivities,forsociologicalpurposestheyareactors.Theyaresocialobjectshavingnames,publicimages,reputations,andstatuses.Theyarepubliclyidentifiedasauthorsofacts,andtheyaresubjecttorules.Fromtheperspectiveofeverydaylife,collectivities,suchasgovernments,corporations,fraternities,armies,laborunions,andchurches,dothings,andsomeofthesethingsviolatelawsorothernormativerules.Littleisknownabouttheculturalunderstandingsonthebasisofwhichacts(deviantandotherwise)areimputedtocollectivitiesasdistinctfromtheirmembersseverally,becausethematterhasreceivedpracticallynosystematicstudyexceptinthefieldofcorporationlaw.Itistruethatthestatusofaneventastheactofacollectivityisadefinitionimposeduponthesituationbysomepublicanddependsuponasetofculturallygivencriteriaforattributingactstoauthors.However,thisisequallytrueoftheattributionofactstoindividuals,andmuchofthelawisconcernedpreciselywithspecifyingandmakingexplicitthecriteriaforsuchattribution.Allsocialactsaretheoutcomesofinteractionprocesses.Whethertheywillbeattributedtothisconcreteindividualorthat,ortoaconcreteindividualoracollectivity,alwaysdependsonsomeculturallygivenschemathroughwhichactionisviewed.Therefore,theneglectofdeviantbehaviorofcollectivitiescannotbejustifiedonsociologicalgrounds.However,onlyintheareaof“white-collarcrime”(Sutherland1949)hasthesubjectevenbeenapproached.Theoriesofdeviantbehavior.Wewillmakenoattemptheretoinventorythetheoriesbearingupononeoranothervarietyofdeviance,butwilllimitourselvestoidentifyingthemainfeaturesofthetwotraditionsthatmostcloselyapproachageneralizedtheoryofdeviance.Thediscussionwilldealwithcontrastingemphases.Itdoesnotintendtoofferaroundedpictureofeithertraditionortosuggestthattheyareincompatible.Theanomietradition.TheanomietraditionstemsfromtheworkofDurkheim(1897),especiallyhisanalysisofsuicide.Itsemphasisisstructuralandcomparative,thatis,itisconcernedwithexplaininghowvariationsindeviantbehaviorwithinandbetweensocietiesdependonsocialstructure.Itistypicallyconcernedwithaccountingforratesincontrasttoindividualdifferences.InDurkheim’sworkthesystempropertiesthatfiguredmostprominentlywerethedegreeofsocialintegration(variationsinthisrespectaccountingforsuicidealtruisteandsuicideegoiste)andsystemchangesthatcreatediscrepanciesbetweenmen’saspirationsandthemeansforrealizingthem.Thelatterresultsinderegulation,oranomie,thatis,abreakdowninthepowerofsocialnormstoregulateanddisciplinemen’sactions(variationsinthisrespectaccountingforsuicideanomique).Theelaborationoftheanomieconceptandthedevelopmentofitsimplicationsconstitutetheanomietradition.Merton([1949]1957,pp.131–194),inhisseminalpaper,“SocialStructureandAnomie,”madeformalandexplicit,andgeneralizedtothefieldofdeviantbehavior,themodelthatwasonlypartlyexplicitinDurkheim’sanalysisofsuicideanomique.Heemphasizedtheindependentvariabilityofboththeculturegoalsandtheaccessibilityofinstitutionalizedmeans(i.e.,meansthatarecompatiblewiththeregulativenorms).Thedisjunctionbetweengoalsandmeans,leadingtostrainandtoanomie,dependsonthevaluesofboththesevariables.Adaptationstosuchstraininvolveeitheracceptingorrejectingtheculturegoalsandeitheracceptingorrejectingtheinstitutionalizedmeans.Eachadaptationthereforeinvolvestwodichotomouschoices;thelogicallypossiblecombinationsofsuchchoicesyieldasetofadaptations,oneofwhichisconformity,andtheothers,varietiesofdeviance.Thistypologyspecifiesthevaluesofthedependentvariableofthesociologyofdeviance-conformity.However,Merton’sworkisonlyamodestbeginningtowardspecifyingtheconditionsthatdeterminechoiceamongthelogicalpossibilities.TheChicagotradition.Theothertradition,whichmayfittinglybecalledtheChicagotradition,beginswiththeworkofThomasandZnaniecki,especiallyinThePolishPeasant(1920).ThisremarkableworkisstrikinglysimilartoDurkheim’swritingsinmanyrespects,especiallyinitsconcernwiththebreakdownintheregulativepowerofsocialnorms.Asthetraditionhasdeveloped,however,ithastakenoncertaindistinctiveemphases.Ithastendedtofocusnotsomuchondevianceasanadaptationtostrainasondevianceasculturallypatternedbehaviorinitsownright.Ithasemphasizedthesocial-psychologicalproblemoftheprocessofsocializationintodeviantculturalpatterns.ThisapproachhasbeenmostsystematicallyformulatedbyCliffordShawandHenryD.McKay(1942),byEdwinH.Sutherlandinhistheoryofdifferentialassociation(1942–1947),andmostrecentlybyDonaldR.Cressey(1964).AnotherdevelopmentintheChicagotraditionstemsfromGeorgeHerbertMead’s(1934)conceptionoftheselfasaninternalizedobjectbuiltup,inaprocessofcommunicativeinteraction,outofthesocialcategories,orroles,availableintheculturemilieu.Accordingtothisconception,behavior,deviantorotherwise,issupportiveorexpressiveofasocialrole.Itisawayofvalidatingone’sclaimtosucharolebybehaviorthatisculturallysignificantofmembershipinsucharole.ThisapproachhasbeenmostdevelopedbyErvingGoffman(1956;1963)andHowardBecker(1963).Ingeneral,theChicagotraditionemphasizesthelearnednatureofdeviantbehavior,theroleofassociationwithothersandofculturalmodels,theroleofsymbolismattachingtodeviantbehavior,andthegradualdevelopmentof,andcommitmentto,deviantbehaviorinanextendedinteractionprocess(Short&Strodtbeck1965).Developmentofcomprehensivetheories.ThemostcomprehensivesingleformulationincurrenttheoryofdeviantbehavioristhatofTalcottParsons(1951,chapter7),whichcannotbeadequatelysubsumedundereithertradition.Itshareswiththeanomietraditionastressontaxonomy,theconcept“strain,”andthestructuralsourcesofdeviance.ItshareswiththeChicagotraditionadeepconcernwithinteractionprocessandaconceptionofdevianceandconformityascommitmentsthatdevelopinthecourseofsuchinteraction.Toauniquedegreeitintegratesdeviancetheorywithamoregeneraltheoryofsocialsystems.TworecentdevelopmentspointtowardafusionoftheChicagoandanomietraditions.Cohen(1955),startingwiththeconceptionofsociallystructuredstrain,hasemphasizedtheroleofinteractionprocessinthecreation,aswellasthetransmission,ofculturallysupporteddeviantsolutionsordeviantsubcultures.ClowardandOhlin(1960),addressingthemselvesalsotothedeterminantsofchoiceamongpossibleadaptationstostrain,haveemphasizedtheroleoftheavailability,atthepointsofstrain,ofillegitimateordeviantopportunities,withspecialemphasisontheopportunitytolearnandtoperformdeviantroles.However,thereconciliationorintegrationoftheconceptionofdeviantbehaviorasawayofdealingwithaproblemofendsandmeans,ontheonehand,andasawayofcommunicatingandvalidatingaclaimtoarole,ontheother,hasnotyetbeenachieved(Cohen1965).SocialdisorganizationWhenwesaythatagame,aplan,acommittee,afamily,anarmy,orasocietyhasbeen“disorganized,”wemeananumberofcloselyrelatedthings:thatithasbeeninterrupted;thatitsidentityiscrumblingaway;thatitsparts,althoughperhapsstillrecognizable,nolongerhangtogethertoconstituteonething;thatithasdisintegrated.Ineverycasethereisimpliedsomecriterionofsameness,wholeness,continuity,ororganization.Thiscriterionisthecorrespondenceofsomething“outthere”tosomepattern,model,orcognitivemapinthemindoftheobserver.Itdefinestheessentialattributesor“boundaryconditions”ofagiventypeofobject;theterm“disorganization”referstoabreakinthecorrespondenceofwhatis“outthere”tosuchapattern.Asocialobject,forexample,asocietyorafamily,isconstructedofaction.Thepatternthatdefinessuchanobjectisacourseofactionororderofevents.Thesamesceneofactionmaybeseenascontainingseveralpatterns:patternsthatintersectandpatternswithinpatterns.Whetheragivenobjectisdisorganizeddependsonthepatternintermsofwhichitisdefined.Itwillbeusefultodistinguishseveralspecialsensesoftheterm“disorganization”thatarecompatiblewiththismoregeneraldefinition.Fromtheperspectivesofeverydaylife.Thisdiscussionwillfocusonthemeaningsofsocialeventstothepeoplewhoparticipateinthem;in-deed,thisisthestartingpointofallsociologicalanalysis.Crapgames,corporations,politicalparties,andparadesenterthesociologist’slexiconbecausetheconceptualschemesofeverydaylifemakeitpossibleforpeopletoenvisagethemaspossibilities,torecognizetheirexistenceanddemise,toorienttheiractiontowardthem,totakepartinthem,andtowreckthem.Oneclassofsocialobjectsmaybecalled“activities”:cleaningarifle,preparingforbattle,accomplishingamission,carryingouttheNormandycampaign.Eachoftheseisasequenceofactionthat,fromthestandpointoftheactors,“hangstogether”andconstitutes“onething.”Each,inturn,ispartofalarger,moreextendedactivity.Thesamenessorcontinuityofanactivitymaydepend,fortheactor,onthecorrespondenceoftheflowofeventstosomesetofconventionalrules(Cohen1959).Themodelhereisthe“game”;itsconstitutiveorderisdefinedbytherulesofthegame.Theremaybeaninfinitenumberofwaysofcontinuingagamewithout“breachingitsboundaries”;however,thesetofpossibleevents(“moves”or“plays”)thatwill,atanyjunctureinthegame,continuethegame,aregivenintherules.Manyofthenongameactivitiesofeverydaylife(forexample,aparty,areligiousservice,ajudicialproceeding),oratleastsomeoftheiressentialcomponents,arelikewisedefinedbyconventionalrules.Thesamenessoftheactivitymayalsodepend,fortheactor,onthecontinuedorientationofactiontowardsomegoal.Althoughtheconcreteactionthatgoesintoitmayvaryfrommomenttomomentasthesituationchangesandalthoughtheactisliterallybuiltupoutofbitsofdiverseaction,itisseenandfelttobethesameactsolongasitisorientedtothesamegoal.Buildingahousewouldbeanexample.Ineithercase,whathasbeengoingon,whetheritisstillgoingon,andtheconditionsthatwouldconstituteaninterruptionordisorganizationoftheactivitydependonthepatternthatdefinesthatkindofactivityforitsparticipants.Anotherclassofsocialobjectsmaybecalled“collectivities.”Sucharefamilies,teams,corporations,nations,gangs.Acollectivityexistswhenbothacommonidentityandacapacityforactionareattributedtotheincumbentsofasetofroles.Inotherwords,thepragmatictestsofacollectivityarewhetherithasasociallydefinedmembershipandwhetheritissociallydefinedasanactor.Thecollectivityceasestobea“goingconcern”andisdestroyedor“disorganized”whenthecommonidentityisextinguishedanditisnolongertreatedasanactor.Wehavelittlesystematicknowledgeaboutthepatternstowhichstructuresofinteractionmustcorrespondinordertoconstitutecollectivitiesintheworldofeverydaysociallife.However,ifwearetotalkaboutthe“disorganizationofcollectivities,”wemustknowwhatconstitutesabreachoftheirboundaries;todothiswemustdeterminewhatorderofeventsdefinesacollectivityofagivensortformembersofthesocietyinquestion.Fromthesocialscientist’sperspective.Structuresofactionmayexistasobjectsforthesocialscientistthatarenotsocialobjectsfromtheperspectiveofthe“maninthestreet.”A“marketstructure,”a“substructureofgoalattainment,”a“homeostaticprocess,”andan“ecologicalequilibrium”—allareorderingsofeventsintermsofsomepatternthatispartoftheconceptualequipmentofthesocialscientist.Ifthesepatternsarepreciselydefined,theyalsoimplyasetofcriteriafordefining“disorganization”oftherespectiveobjects.Disorganizationasthespreadofdeviance.Thedefinitionofdisorganizationintermsofthespreadofdeviancehasalonghistoryinsociology.ThomasandZnanieckidefinedsocialdisorganizationasa“decreaseoftheinfluenceofexistingsocialrulesofbehavioruponindividualmembersofthegroup”andwentontosaythat“thisdecreasemaypresentinnumerabledegrees,rangingfromasinglebreakofsomeparticularrulebyoneindividualuptoageneraldecayofalltheinstitutionsofthegroup”(1920,vol.4,p.20).Theprincipalsubjectmatterofmosttextbooksentitled“socialdisorganization”isdeviantbehavior.Accordingtothisview,disorganizationmaybereducedandtheintegrityofthesystemrestoredeitherbystrengtheningsocialcontrolsorbyredefiningnormssothatbehaviordefinedasdeviantbecomesnormativelyacceptable(Thomas&Znaniecki1920,vol.4,p.4;Mills1959).Whateverthemeritsofthisconceptionofdisorganization,itcannotprovideageneraldefinitionofdisorganization.Certainlytherearemanystructures,visiblefromthespecializedperspectivesofthesocialscientist,thatcannotbedefinedintermsoftheconformityofactiontonormativerules.Fromthestandpointoftheperspectivesofeverydaylifeaswell,itseemsimportanttodistinguishbetweendevianceanddisorganization.“Therulesofthegame”defineanactivityorcollectivity,thatis,thepatterntowhicnactionmustcorrespondifitistoconstituteacertainsortofthing.Thenormativerules,departurefromwhichisdeviance,specifyhowpeopleoughttobehave;theyarecriteriaforjudgingthemoralstatusofanact.Forexample,thereare“dirty”waysofplayingagame,unethicalwaysofcarryingonabusiness,and“inhuman”waysoffightingawar.Still,theyareunequivocallyrecognizableasintegraltotherespectiveactivities,as“moves”intherespectivegames;andtherulesofthegametypicallydefinethe“nextmoves”thatwouldconstitutethecontinuityofthegame.Preciselybecausedevianceissointimatelyrelatedtodisorganizationbutisnotingeneralidenticalwithit,itisnecessarytodistinguishthemandtreattherelationshipbetweenthemasaproblemfortheoryandempiricalinvestigation.Oneoftheconditionsofthesurvivalofanysocialactivityorcollectivityisthatpeoplebemotivatedto“playthegame,”totakeuptheirpositionsinthestructureofinteractionandcontributethemovesthatmaintainthecontinuityofthestructureinquestion.Oneofthegeneralconditionsofdisorganization,then,isbreakdownofmotivation,andanythingthatunderminesmotivationcontributestodisorganization.Itiselementarythatconformitytonormativerules—tosomedegreethatcannotbestatedingeneralterms—isfundamentaltothemaintenanceofmotivation.Whenpeopleelecttoparticipateinanysocialstructure,theysubjectthemselvestoacertaindiscipline;theycommitresources;andtheyforgoalternatives.Inotherwords,theypayaprice.Whatevertheseveralreasonsforwhichtheyjoin,theirendsareattainableonlyifothers“playthegame,”andplayitaccordingtocertainrestrictionsdefinedbythenormativerules.Violationsofthenormativeunderstandingstendtoerodetrustandunderminemotivation.Acertainamountofdevianceisexpected.Althoughdisappointing,itisnotsurprising;itisallowedforinadvance,anddoesnotseriouslyimpairmotivation.However,atsomepointthespreadofdevianceandtheconsequenterosionoftrustwilldestroymotivationandprecipitatedisorganization.Ontheotherhand,deviancemaycontributetostabilityandpreservationofthecommonenterprise.Normativerulesareusuallyadaptedtotypical,recurringsituationsandtendtoproduceresultsthatenhancetheviabilityoftheenterprise.however,rulesarecategorical,andsituationsoftenariseinwhichconformitytothenormativeruleswillthwarttheattainmentofthecommonobjectiveandweakenordestroythestructure.Inshort,therearetimeswhensomeonemustviolatethenormativerulesiftheenterpriseistosucceedandthrive.Sometimesthereareimplicitrules(patternsof“institutionalizedevasion”)thatgiveflexibilitytothenormativerulessothatthedevianceisdevianceonlyinanequivocalsense(Williams1951).Butthisisnotalwaysso,andthereforetherelationshipbetweendevianceanddisorganizationisrenderedstillmoreproblematic.Finally,itisprobablytruethatsomekindsofdeviance,evenifnotmotivatedbycollectivityconcerns,createtheconditionsnecessaryforthestabilityofothersubstructuresofthesamesystemorofthesystemasawhole.KingsleyDavis(1937),forexample,hasmadethisargumentrelativetoprostitution.Disorganizationtheory.Therehasbeenrelativelylittleattentiontotheexplicitdevelopmentofdisorganizationtheory,ascomparedwithdeviancetheory.However,thebeginningsofsuchtheoryareimpliedinmoregeneraltheoriesandconceptionsofsocialsystems,suchasgeneralsystemstheory,interactionprocessanalysis,structural–functionaltheory,andtheinput–output,homeostatic,equilibrium,andcyberneticmodels.Theytendtosharethefollowingideas.Asocialsystemis,fromonepointofview,amechanismthatoperatesforitsownperpetuation.Itiswhatitisbecausetheparticipantsaremotivatedtobehaveincertainwayscharacteristicofthesystemandbecausethesituationofactionmakespossiblethesewaysandrestrictsthealternatives.Inordertopreserveitsstructure(orsomuchofthatstructureasisconstitutiveofitsidentity)thatmotivationandsituationmustsomehowbereconstituted,orothermotivationsandsituationsmustbecreatedthatwillgeneratebehaviorcorespondingtothesamepattern.However,thesystem,asaproductofitsownfunctioning,tendstothwartthecreationorre-creationoftheconditionsofitsownsurvival.Forexample,ittendstotransformtheenvironmenttowhichithasbecomeadapted;touseuportoloseitsownhumanandnonhumanresources;togeneratedistanceanddistrust,resentmentandalienationamongitsmembers;andtocreatenewsituationsforwhichitscultureprovidesnodefinitionsorinstructions.Variouslistshavebeendrawnupofconditionsthatmustbemetortasksthatmustbeperformedifthesystemisnottoflyapartinconsequenceofitsownfunctioning(forexample,seeAberleetal.1950;Bales1950;Parsons1951,pp.26–36).Mostsystemsdomanagetopreservetheiridentity.Therefore,thefunctioningofthesystemmustalsoproduceeffectsthatcorrectorcompensateforthecentrifugaltendenciesitproduces.Inparticular,thestructureofsuchsystemsmustincludemechanismsforpickingupinformationaboutthreateningchangesintheenvironmentorinthesystemitselfandforcommunicatingthatinformationtopositionsinthesystemthatarecapableoftakingcorrectiveaction.Suchaction,inturn,mayconsistofresponsestendingtoreduceoreliminatethechangeorfurthermodificationselsewhereinthesystem,enablingthesystemasawholetomaintainitsboundariesoridentityinthefaceofthechange.Systemsdonotalwayssucceed.Somearewhollyextinguished;otherssufferradicaldisorganizationofvarioussubstructuresbutclingtothoseminimalattributesthatdefinetheiridentity.Somehavestandbymechanismsthatcanbeactivatedintimetodothejobofsomeinjuredorganortogetabouttheworkofreconstructionbeforethedamageproveslethaltothesystem;andothersdonot.Thesedifferenceshavebeenmostsystematicallystudiedinconnectionwithdisasters(Baker&Chapman1962).Ingeneral,itisthetaskofatheoryofsocialdisorganizationtoaccountforvariationsintheabilityofsocialstructurestopreservetheiridentity.AlbertK.Cohen[DirectlyrelatedaretheentriesCrime;Norms;Socialproblems.OtherrelevantmaterialmaybefoundinDisasters;Drugs,articleondrugaddiction:socialaspects;Socialcontrol;andinthebiographyofSutherland.]BIBLIOGRAPHYAberle,Davidetal.1950TheFunctionalPrerequisitesofaSociety.Ethics60:100–111.Baker,GeorgeW.;andChapman,DwightW.(editors)1962ManandSocietyinDisaster.NewYork:BasicBooks.Bales,RobertF.1950InteractionProcessAnalysis:AMethodfortheStudyofSmallGroups.Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Becker,HowardS.1963Outsiders:StudiesintheSociologyofDeviance.NewYork:FreePress.Cunard,MarshallB.(editor)1964AnomieandDeviantBehavior.NewYork:FreePress.Cloward,RichardA.;andOhlin,LloydE.1960DelinquencyandOpportunity:ATheoryofDelinquentGangs.Glencoe,III.:FreePress.Cohen,AlbertK.(1955)1963DelinquentBoys:TheCultureoftheGang.NewYork:FreePress.Cohen,AlbertK.1959TheStudyofSocialDisorganizationandDeviantBehavior.Pages461–484inRobertK.Mertonetal.(editors),SociologyToday.NewYork:BasicBooks.Cohen,AlbertK.1965TheSociologyoftheDeviantAct:AnomieTheoryandBeyond.AmericanSociologicalReview30:5–14.Cressey,DonaldR.1964Delinquency,CrimeandDifferentialAssociation.TheHague:Nijhoff.Davis,Kingsley1937TheSociologyofProstitution.AmericanSociologicalReview2:744–755.Durkheim,Émile(1897)1951Suicide:AStudyinSociology.Glencoe,III.:FreePress.→FirstpublishedinFrench.Goffman,Erving(1956)1959ThePresentationofSelfinEverydayLife.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday.Goffman,Erving1963Stigma:NotesontheManagementofSpoiledIdentity.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Hall,Jerome(1935)1952Theft,LawandSociety.2ded.Indianapolis,Ind.:Bobbs-Merrill.Johnson,HarryM.1960Sociology:ASystematicIntroduction.NewYork:Harcourt.Matza,David1964DelinquencyandDrift.NewYork:Wiley.Mead,GeorgeH.1934Mind,SelfandSocietyFromtheStandpointofaSocialBehaviorist.EditedbyCharlesW.Morris.Univ.ofChicagoPress.Merton,RobertK.(1949)1957SocialTheoryandSocialStructure.Rev.&enl.ed.Glencoe,III.:FreePress.Mills,TheodoreM.1959EquilibriumandtheProcessesofDevianceandControl.AmericanSociologicalReview24:671–679.Parsons,Talcott1951TheSocialSystem.Glencoe,III.:FreePress.Reiss,AlbertJ.1961TheSocialIntegrationofPeersandQueers.SocialProblems9:102–120.Shaw,CliffordR.;andMcKay,HenryD.1942JuvenileDelinquencyandUrbanAreas:AStudyofRatesofDelinquentsinRelationtoDifferentialCharacteristicsofLocalCommunitiesinAmericanCities.Univ.ofChicagoPress.Short,JamesF.,Jr.;andStrodtbeck,Fred1965GroupProcessandGangDelinquency.Univ.ofChicagoPress.Sutherland,EdwinH.(1942–1947)1956DifferentialAssociation.Part1,pages5–43inEdwinH.Sutherland,TheSutherlandPapers.EditedbyAlbertK.Cohenetal.IndianaUniversityPublications,SocialScienceSeries,No.15.Bloomington:IndianaUniv.Press.Sutherland,EdwinH.(1949)1961WhiteCollarCrime.NewYork:Holt.Sykes,GreshamM.;andMatza,David1957TechniquesofNeutralization:ATheoryofDelinquency.AmericanSociologicalReview22:664–670.Tannenbaum,Frank(1938)1963CrimeandtheCommunity.NewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press.Thomas,WilliamI.;andZnaniecki,Florian(1920)1958ThePolishPeasantinEuropeandAmerica.Volume2.NewYork:Dover.Williams,RobinM.,Jr.(1951)1960InstitutionalVariationandtheEvasionofNormativePatterns.Pages372–396inRobinM.Williams,Jr.,AmericanSociety.2ded.,rev.NewYork:Knopf.InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences×CitethisarticlePickastylebelow,andcopythetextforyourbibliography.MLAChicagoAPA"DeviantBehavior ."InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences..Encyclopedia.com.26Sep.2022."DeviantBehavior ."InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences..Encyclopedia.com.(September26,2022).https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/deviant-behavior"DeviantBehavior ."InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences..RetrievedSeptember26,2022fromEncyclopedia.com:https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/deviant-behaviorLearnmoreaboutcitationstylesCitationstylesEncyclopedia.comgivesyoutheabilitytocitereferenceentriesandarticlesaccordingtocommonstylesfromtheModernLanguageAssociation(MLA),TheChicagoManualofStyle,andtheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation(APA).Withinthe“Citethisarticle”tool,pickastyletoseehowallavailableinformationlookswhenformattedaccordingtothatstyle.Then,copyandpastethetextintoyourbibliographyorworkscitedlist.Becauseeachstylehasitsownformattingnuancesthatevolveovertimeandnotallinformationisavailableforeveryreferenceentryorarticle,Encyclopedia.comcannotguaranteeeachcitationitgenerates.Therefore,it’sbesttouseEncyclopedia.comcitationsasastartingpointbeforecheckingthestyleagainstyourschoolorpublication’srequirementsandthemost-recentinformationavailableatthesesites:ModernLanguageAssociationhttp://www.mla.org/styleTheChicagoManualofStylehttp://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.htmlAmericanPsychologicalAssociationhttp://apastyle.apa.org/Notes:Mostonlinereferenceentriesandarticlesdonothavepagenumbers.Therefore,thatinformationisunavailableformostEncyclopedia.comcontent.However,thedateofretrievalisoftenimportant.Refertoeachstyle’sconventionregardingthebestwaytoformatpagenumbersandretrievaldates.InadditiontotheMLA,Chicago,andAPAstyles,yourschool,university,publication,orinstitutionmayhaveitsownrequirementsforcitations.Therefore,besuretorefertothoseguidelineswheneditingyourbibliographyorworkscitedlist.MoreFromencyclopedia.comNorms,Norms ITHECONCEPTOFNORMSRobinM.Williams,Jr. Anormisarule,standard,orpatternforaction(fromtheLatinnorma,acarpenter’ssquareorr…SocialPsychology,Socialpsychologyisthestudyofindividualbehaviorandpsychologicalstructuresandprocessesasbothoutcomesofandinfluencesoninterpersonal…Deviance,Theterm"deviance"usuallyreferstosomebehaviorthatisinconsistentwithstandardsofacceptableconductprevailinginagivensocialgroup,alt…Interaction,Itisalmostpuretautologytosaythathuman“social”phenomenaarecasesoftheinteractionbetweentwoormorehumanbeingsconceivedas“persons,…TalcottParsons,AmericansociologistTalcottParsons,theyoungestoffivechildren,wasborninColoradoSpringsin1902.HisfatherwasaCongregationalminister,…Society,Agroupofperennialproblemsinsocialphilosophyarisesfromtheconcept"society"itselfandfromitsrelationtothe"individual."Whatistheon…AboutthisarticleDeviantBehaviorUpdatedAboutencyclopedia.comcontentPrintArticleYouMightAlsoLikeSymbolicInteractionTheorySociology,ParsonianThomas,W.I.CrowdsandRiotsCultureandPersonalityJuvenileDelinquency,TheoriesofDiffusioninPopulationTheoryDevianceTheoriesNEARBYTERMSDeviancytoMentalIllness:Nineteenth-CenturyDevelopmentsintheCareoftheMentallyIlldeviancyDeviance,Crime,andSocialControlDevianceTheoriesdeviancedisavowaldeviancecareerdevianceamplificationDevī-Bhāgavata-PurāṇaDevi,SiddheshvariDevi,Maitreyi(1914–1990)Devi,Mahasveta(1926–)Devi,Indra(1899-)Devi,Ashapurna(1909–1995)Devey,GeorgeDevetzi,Hrysopiyi(1975–)Devers,Gail(1966—)Devers,Gail(1966–)Devereux,RobertDevereux,Georges(1908-1985)Devereux,George(1908-1985)Devereux,Frances(d.1674)Deverell,Diana1948-Devereaux,Robert1947-Dever,WilliamG.1933-Dever,Seamus1976–DeviantBehaviordeviantsubcultureDeviatedSeptumdeviationistdeviatoricstressDevicSyndromeDevic'sdiseasedevicecoordinatesdevicedriverDevicesandDesiresDevices,Acceleratingdevices,leavesomeonetotheirownDevido,BrianA.1971-Devienne,FrançoisDevil&LeroyBassetDevilandKate,TheDevilDiamondDevilDog:TheHoundofHellDevilDogsoftheAirDevilDoll1936DevilDoll1964DevilGirlfromMarsDevilHorseDevilinaBlueDressdevilinmusicDevilintheFlesh