Bachelor of Arts

SOCIOLOGY (BASO)

BSO-14

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION & DEVIANCE

BLOCK-2
THORIES OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR

UNIT 1: DURKHEIM’S THEORY

UNIT 2: MERTON’S THEORY
UNIT 3: DIFFERENT ASSOCIATIONAL THEORY
UNIT 4: DELIQUENT SUB-CULTURE THEORY

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

BSO-14 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION & DEVIANCE

Block-2 Thories of Deviant Behaviour

Writer:

Dr. Dhiraj Kumar

Assistant Professor,
Section of Sociology,
MMV, Banaras Hindu University,
Uttar Pradesh

Editior:

Mr. Pratap Kishore Mohanty

Academic consultant (Sociology)
Odisha State Open University,
Sambalpur.

Coordinator:

Mr. Pratap Kishore Mohanty

Academic Consultant,
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Material Production

Dr. Manas Ranjan Pujari

Registrar
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur
(cc) OSOU, 2022. Theories of Deviant Behaviour is made available under
a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
[Link]

Printed by :

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

BLOCK: 2 THEORIES OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR
The present Block gives an understanding about different theories on deviant behaviour.
Unit 1 discusses about Durkhem’s theory of Deviant Behaviour. Unit 2 deals with
Merton’s Theory of deviant behaviour. Unit 3 provides a detailed analysis of Different
Associational Theory. Unit 4 gives an understanding of Deliquent Sub-Culture Theory.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

UNIT-1 THORIES OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR

STRUCTURE

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Learning Objectives
1.3 Defining deviant behaviour
1.4 Definition of deviant
1.5 Societal and Situational Deviance
1.6 Durkheim on Deviance
1.7 Criticisms of Durkheim
1.8 Let Us Sum Up
1.9 Glossary
1.10 Check Your Progress – Answer Keys
1.11 References

1.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to:

 define the conceptual meaning of deviance;

 classify and distinguish the types of social deviance;
 Critically discuss the different theories of deviance.

1.3 INTRODUCTION

Why do humans obey the rules of society? It is due to the internalization of the norm,
moral obligation, and the ability to calculate the cost of breaking the laws. Having the
facts established by Hobbesian philosophy, man is a human-animal who desires to obey
the rule was questioned by Sociologists when dealing with the various causes and factors
that determine the desire to obey the rule. It can be due to the conscience or the awareness
that an individual learned during socialization.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

1.4 DEFINING DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

There are two viewpoints of deviance. Deviance can be conceptualized in several ways,
and these conceptualizations are discussed in this section. The first is a model developed
by Alex Thio, a leading contemporary scholar in the study of deviance. The second model
was developed by Ruth Shonle Cavan some decades ago and is a model designed to apply
to juvenile delinquency. Cavan's bell-shaped curve method of understanding delinquency
is adaptable to the study of deviance. Alex Thio (2013) has posited an idea that divides
the way sociologists study deviance into two distinct categories popularly known as
positivist and constructionist perspectives. Thio's conceptualization is both exciting and
instructive. It sheds significant light on the challenges involved in defining deviance and
issues involved in the ways that sociologists go about studying deviant behavior.

The positivist perspective owes its origins to early sociology and assumes a scientific
stance on understanding deviance. From this perspective, deviance can and must be
examined and understood using the research methods available to social scientists, such
as field and survey research. Positivists argue (when studying deviance) that it is the
responsibility of sociologists to discern the causes and consequences of deviant conduct.
The positivist perspective has three elements or parts. First is absolutism, the second is
objectivism and the third is determinism. Absolutism means deviance is real in the social
world; the behavior does exist and is worthy of study. Using an example, if marijuana
smoking is a topic to be studied, the person doing the research may not question whether
or not it's deviant: they go on and examines it. Objectivism is an old idea of science
involving the notion that behavior is observable or measurable. In other words, if it can
be perceived, it can be studied. Determinism refers that to understand deviance , it is
necessary to understand the determiniistic causess that must be unraveled, requiring the
development of theories that explain deviant behavior. Apart from this, there are also
some disciplinary viewpoints on deviance. As we know, the subject matter of sociology
is to examine the behavior, social acts, feelings, and ideas and how different kinds of acts
are organized and their consequences for an individual, social groups, and society. Social
acts are the critical blocks of the society which links an individual with other individual
and with other association and groups. Talking of social acts is essential because it covers

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

a wide range of human behaviours from quick greeting, rejection, adaptation, and others.
Discussion of the social acts is vital in terms of understanding deviance. It mainly covers
the ways certain social acts and conditions are termed deviant. It also dealt with how an
individual is identified and treated as a deviant by the society member and how the
deviant individual responds to the social group, community, and society for their
treatment and identification as deviant. Indeed, sociological explanations of deviance
observe it as a matter of social interaction and social acts. The sociological perspective is
mainly different from the other view on deviance like demonic and psychotic. Demonic
view primarily refers to deviance caused by the evil supernatural objects, while the
psychotic perspective discusses deviance as a matter of individual sickness. The
abnormal psychology mainly gives more attention to this approach, which argues that
deviance is caused due to traumatic psychological experiences and dysfunctional and
defective chromosomes. The main criticism of this viewpoint is that it ignored the
importance of social interaction, culture, and other deterministic factors other than the
individual psychological experiences. As time went by, they started to focus on the
impact of the various traumatic condition and phenomena, but their main focus still
directed toward the individual.

1.5 DEFINITIONS OF DEVIANCE

The main aim of sociologists is to study the social reality by examining the institutalised
expectation of the normative standard of the society. Sociologists mainly observe human
behavior as a social fact and consciousness which is recognized and legitimized in the
social system. Cohen (1966) defines deviant behavior as a behavior that violates
institutionalized expectations, that is, expectations, which are shared and recognized as
legitimate within a social system [p. 1]. Clinard also describes deviant behavior as a
disapproved behavior directed against societal norms. Without giving emphasis on
norms, the study of deviance cannot be done. They are the prescribed set of procedures
that guide and regulate individual behavior. Indeed, it is also a fact that norms are not the
same everywhere. It varies from place to place and has relativistic features. A sociological
examination of deviance mainly discusses normlessness a condition of anomie. It refers

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

to cultural and social conditions in which there is either conflict in adopted means or
ambivalent orientation towards norms.

1.6 SOCIETAL AND SITUATIONAL DEVIANCE

Plummer (1979) discusses two aspects of defining deviance, using the concepts of
societal deviance and situational deviance.

Societal deviance refers to forms of deviance that most members of a society regard as
deviant because they share similar ideas about approved and unapproved behaviour –
murder, rape, child abuse and driving over the alcohol limit in the UK generally fall into
this category.

Situational deviance refers to the way in which an act being seen as deviant or not
depends on the context or location in which it takes place. These two conceptions of
deviance suggest that, while there may be some acts that many people agree are deviant
in one society, those acts defined as deviant will vary between groups within a society.
Whether or not an act is seen as deviant often depends on:

The historical period – definitions of deviance change over time in the same society as
standards of normal behaviour change. For example, cigarette smoking used to be very
popular, now it is illegal to smoke in restaurants or buses.

The place or context – nudity is often seen as deviant in public (though in itself it is
never criminal), but rarely in private; playing loud music is deviant on public transport,
but not at music festivals, and drinking to excess is deviant almost anywhere, but not
necessarily in pubs or clubs.

The social group – What may be regarded as unacceptable at a societal level may be
regarded as acceptable in small groups or even whole age cohorts – binge drinking and
sexual promiscuity are two such examples.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

 Check Your Progress 1.1
Note:
i. Write your answer in the space given below.
ii. Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.

1) What do you mean by deviance?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

2) Discuss the different viewpoints on deviance?

………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………

3) How does the sociological perspective of deviance differ from other

perspectives?
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

4) What is situational deviant?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

5) What is Societal deviance ?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

1.7 DURKHEIM ON DEVIANCE

Durkheim, an influential founder figure in sociology, wrote several notable books of

paramount importance. The rules of sociological methods (1894), suicide: a study in
society ( 1897) and division of the labour in society ( 1983) was one of them that mainly
discussed the concept of deviance. For Durkheim, the idea of deviance refers to several
different but interrelated aspects of his seminal work of social facts. His main concern
was to study society, and he believed that social facts governed the individual. Social
facts hold a moral authority over the individual in
society due to the collective consciousness found
in society, which is a kind of social facts with a
feature of constraint and exteriority. Discussing
social norms is necessary for Durkheim's analysis
of deviance. He discussed the interrelation
between social norms and deviance. The
constraint here is used to describe the social
consequences of the deviance that can be
translated as a sanction. It deals with what
deviance tells us about the social norms, while
exteriority refers to how the social norms are
internalized and incorporated by the individual.
Émile Durkheim wrote that deviance
can lead to positive social change. Deviance as a normal social phenomenon
Many Southerners had strong
negative feelings about Dr. Martin
appears to be closely bound up with the
Luther King Jr. during the civil rights conditions of all collective life. D0iscussion of
movement, but history now honors
him for his commitment and sacrifice. deviance can also be linked with the three
U.S. Library of Congress – public
domain. different conditions. The first is the division of
the labour. As society grew, the division of
labour also became complex. Division of labour is seen as a specialization of the work
among the people of the society. As a concept, it refers to how a group or society
organizes itself internally. Indeed, it is directly proportionate to the moral density or the
dynamic of the society.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

The evolution of society from simple to complex society shows the highly complex
division of labour where the moral authority that holds individual collectively begins to
disintegrate. The changing nature of society from mechanical solidarity to organic one
shows the rapid changes in the occupational and social position where moral authority
fails to regulate the needs and desires of the individual. As moral control falls, deviance
rates also increase in that proportion. The second condition refers to the change in the
deviance rates, which induces anomie. It is due to the failure of an individual in the line
of societal integration. The failure of moral authority shows the condition where the
individual or collective consciousness is no longer in tune with the societal moral density.
The third one is individualism. When a particular believes that he or she has to act
independently and has minimal regard for the social order and moral authority, the
deviance rate increases. The rise of deviance is directly proportionate to the cult of the
individual.

As noted earlier, Émile Durkheim said deviance is normal, but he did not stop there. In a
surprising and still controversial twist, he also argued that deviance serves several
important functions for society.

First, Durkheim said, deviance clarifies social norms and increases conformity. This
happens because the discovery and punishment of deviance reminds people of the norms
and reinforces the consequences of violating them. If your class were taking an exam and
a student was caught cheating, the rest of the class would be instantly reminded of the
rules about cheating and the punishment for it, and as a result they would be less likely
to cheat.

A second function of deviance is that it strengthens social bonds among the people
reacting to the deviant. An example comes from the classic story The Ox-Bow
Incident (Clark, 1940), in which three innocent men are accused of cattle rustling and are
eventually lynched. The mob that does the lynching is very united in its frenzy against
the men, and, at least at that moment, the bonds among the individuals in the mob are
extremely strong.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

A final function of deviance, said Durkheim, is that it can help lead to positive social
change. Although some of the greatest figures in history—Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc,
Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. to name just a few—were considered the
worst kind of deviants in their time, we now honor them for their commitment and
sacrifice.

Durkheim suggested that deviance had the following functions:

 Boundary maintenance
 Social change

Durkheim argued that in a functioning society there is a value consensus (a shared set
of norms and values) into which, thanks to various social institutions, the vast majority
in a society have been socialised. One of the ways in which this consensus is reinforced
is through the policing of the margins: the formal and informal sanctions used to either
reward those who conform or punish those who deviate. Indeed, our shared disapproval
of deviant behaviour strengthens our social solidarity. Durkheim argues that even in a
"society of saints" there would still be deviance. In other words, as deviance describes
any behaviour that goes against the norms, values and expectations of a society, all
societies have deviance, even though the sorts of behaviour considered deviant might
vary from society to society.

Deviance also facilitates social change. If people never deviated from a society's norms
and values then society would never change; and change can be a very good thing
(although functionalists would promote incremental, organic change rather than radical
change). An organic process of social change is started by society responding positively
to deviant behaviour. Slowly, the deviant behaviour becomes normal and, among other
changes, this can lead to alterations in the law, e.g. changing attitudes to homosexuality
in the 20 th century.

A further function of deviance was suggested by Kingsley Davies (1967): deviance acted
as a safety valve for society. He gives the example of prostitution, suggesting that it has

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

 the positive function of releasing men's sexual tension. (Clearly this is a very
controversial argument!)

Durkheim argued that too much or too little deviance was bad for society, suggesting
there was either too much or too little social order and control. For example, he argued
that there was less deviance in pre-industrial society because of the mechanical
solidarity of the society (the nature of the economy and the society meant that social
bonds were very tight). The increased isolation and privatised nature of modern
industrialised societies increased the likelihood of deviance. Durkheim also argued that
when societies underwent rapid change (as during industrialisation, for example) there
would be increased deviance because of something he called anomie: normlessness or an
absence of social control and cohesion.

Evaluating Durkheim

 Realists (of both left and right) criticise the idea that crime is both normal and functional.
They point out that crime is a very real problem for victims and for society and that the
sociology of crime and deviance should inform policy-makers in terms of how to prevent
crime
 Marxists argue that Durkheim fails to consider where the consensus comes from and in
whose interests it exists. They point out that the laws are made by the state, usually
working in the interests of the ruling class. Instead of there being a value consensus in
the interests of society, there is ideology or hegemony in the interests of capitalism.
 Other functionalists note that while Durkheim goes some way to explain why some
societies might have more crime and deviance than others, he does not consider why
some individuals or groups in a society commit crime and others do not. While the
existence of some crime in society is normal, most people most of the time do not to
commit crime. These points, Durkheim addresses.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Although functionalism is very much associated with American sociology from
roughly the 1930s to the 1960s, its origins lay in the work of the French sociologist Emi
le Durkheim, writing at the end of the 19th century.

Durkheim argued that deviance and crime can only be explained by looking at the
way societies are socially organized, i.e. their social structures. In other words, crime in
the UK is not caused by evil, or by poor parenting, or any other individual
or family shortcoming – rather it is caused by the way British society is sociallystructur
ed or organized. In this sense, therefore, functionalism is a structuralist theory of crime.

Structuralist theories are positivist. This means that they see human behavior, e.g.
criminal behaviour as being shaped by social forces or social facts beyond the
control of the individual. In other words, some people are more likely to be criminals
because the social forces bearing down on them propel them (possibly against their
will) into a life of crime. Crime in preindustrial society

Durkheim observed that crime levels were very low in preindustrial societies. He
argued that this was the result of the social organization or social structure of these
societies.

People in preindustrial Britain generally lived in small rural village communities

characterised by ‘mechanical solidarity’ – this means that people’s sense of
belonging to society (social integration) was very strong. They strongly identified
with each other. The community was regarded as more important than individuality.
There are basically four reasons why this was the case:

(1) Life in preindustrial Britain was very hard. Life expectancy was low and
people needed to pull together to survive. The division of labour – the net
sum of all the occupational roles or jobs – in rural village communities was
quite simple. People occupied a fairly narrow range of jobs – farmers, blacksmiths, bak
ers, etc – which operated to mutually support one another.

(2) The division of labour in preindustrial society did not depend on educational
achievement. Rather status in terms of what jobs people did and the power

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

they wielded was ascribed in preindustrial Britain. This means it was based
on fixed family roles, e.g. if the head of the extended family worked on the
land, children and other relatives would be socially expected to support him. Women w
ere ascribed roles which lacked the status and power taken-
forgranted by men. People were encouraged to accept ascription as the norm
and consequently, it was rarely questioned or challenged.

(3) Dissent, protest and deviance were rare in this type of society because the
social institutions of the extended family, community and religion were
extremely powerful agents of socialisation and social control. Durkheim
suggests that a strong value consensus was the outcome of such socialisation.
This was extremely influential in shaping people’s behaviour and
consequently, most people behaved similarly, e.g. most people believed in God and wen
t to church and children obeyed their parents without question. Community controls en
sured conformity.

(4) Moreover punishments for failing to conform to the demands of the

community were often extremely severe (e.g. public executions, transportation to Austr
alia for life etc) and few people dared to deviate from the norm and commit a crime.

In summary, then, Durkheim argued that crime was low in preindustrial society
because people were successfully socialised into the rules of those societies by their
families and religious leaders. Moreover, they had such a great sense of belonging to a
society that conformity to the greater good was valued more than individualism
which was viewed as dangerous and deviant. Finally, conformity was strengthened
by fear of social controls such as the extremely harsh punishments which came into
play when members of society did not toe the line.

Crime in modern industrial society,

However, Durkheim noted that modern industrial societies were characterised by

much higher crime rates than traditional societies. Deviant behaviour (i.e. 2
behaviour that was not criminal but regarded as immoral or socially unacceptable to
most people) was also more likely to be tolerated.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Durkheim argued that crime and deviance (the opposite of conformity) were also the
results of the social organisation or social structure of these modern industrial
urban societies. He suggested that modern industrial urban societies were
characterised by ‘organic solidarity and it was this social fact that shaped people’s
criminal and deviant behaviour.

In a society characterised by organic solidarity, Durkheim argued that both value

consensus and social integration have grown weaker. People were less likely to
agree and identify with one another. Consequently, community and conformity
were less likely to be norms in industrial society. Durkheim suggested that
modern industrial societies were consequently characterised by moral confusion or ‘an
omie’ – some members of society were more likely to challenge and reject shared
values and norms of behaviour and this ‘normlessness’ often resulted in crime and
deviance.

Durkheim identified a number of reasons for the change from societies based on
mechanical solidarity to societies based on organic solidarity.

1. Industrialisation led to the division of labour becoming more specialised and

extremely complex. The success of modern societies and economies is
dependent upon hundreds of thousands of skills working together to
provide services such as the production of food, clean water, sewage and
sanitation, electricity and gas, health, education, etc. All members of society
are dependent for both their survival and lifestyle on this mainly invisible
army of workers that make up the specialised division of labour of modern
societies. Durkheim argued that this dependence is the main source of social
integration and solidarity today in such societies because other social
institutions have been weakened by industrialisation and its consequences.
2. In modern societies status is no longer based on ascription. Status today is
based on achievement, i.e. on what you do in terms of achievement in
education and the job you have rather than who you are. In modern societies, pe
ople are encouraged to individually compete with one another (rather
than cooperate with one another) for qualifications and job opportunities. As we

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

 shall see later, people who fail in this competition may be more likely
to experience anomie or moral confusion.
3. Traditional agencies of socialisation and social control such as the extended
family and religion are no longer as influential as they were in the past.
This is probably the result of the urbanisation brought about by the industrial
revolution. This led to the decline of smallscale rural communities as millions
of people gradually migrated from the countryside into the towns and cities.

People broke away from their extended kin to go to the towns in search of
jobs in the new factories and mills. The sheer number of people living in these
urban areas made it difficult for
religions to exert control over the population of the UK. For example, church att
endance rapidly fell from 40% in 1851 to less than 10% in 1900. Consequently,
people living in urbanindustrial societies no longer felt that it
was necessary to seek the approval of their extended kin or religious leaders
for their behaviour.
4. Durkheim notes that value consensus continues to exist in modern societies
albeit in a weaker form because industrialisation resulted in people having
greater access to a greater variety of knowledge and ideas, e.g. (through the
mass media and science). Such ideas tended to undermine dominant ideas
about normality and deviance. For example, access to scientific ideas about
evolution may have undermined religious conformity.
5. Durkheim also noted that modern industrial societies are very impersonal
because people are less likely to know their neighbours or care about them. Peo
ple are much more individualistic – selfish and egoistic and often put
their own interests before the community or society. Consequently, people in
modern industrial societies are likely to live in loosely knit neighbourhoods in
which community ties, duties and obligations are weak.
6. As society grew more modern, so traditional ideas were challenged and more
liberal laws were introduced. Consequently, the social controls and
punishments which had ensured conformity in the past became weaker. For

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

 example, capital punishment was abolished in the UK in the 1960s. Today, there
is greater tolerance of ‘different’ behaviour and individualism is welcomed. Ho
wever, this growing tolerance has also contributed to the decline of consensus a
nd integration and the steady growth of anomie
because competing definitions of normality and deviance inevitably lead to
disagreement and conflict.

In summary, then, Durkheim concluded that the speed and extent of the social and econ
omic change associated with industrialisation led to the appearance of
‘anomie’ – a sense of normlessness or moral confusion – in modern societies. This
means that people are less committed to society’s rules and laws compared with pre-
industrial society. People living in modern societies characterised by organic solidarity
may depend on
one another with regard to services. However, they are less integrated and community-
minded compared with those who live in societies characterised by
mechanical solidarity because of the decline in the influence of the family and
religion. Consequently, they are more likely to engage in actions which challenge
conformity and the value consensus – they are more likely to commit crimes and/or
engage in deviant behaviour. Durkheim, therefore, saw crime as resulting from the
consequences of social changes in the organisation of society.

The functions of crime and deviance:

In addition to his work on social change, Durkheim observed that crime and
deviance were present in all societies. He speculated that even in a society of saints,
deviance would exist in some shape or form, e.g. what would seem to us to be
extremely minor wrongdoings such as killing an insect would probably be defined
as a serious type of deviance by such a society.

Durkheim believed that if social phenomena like crime continue to exist in all types
of society, then there must be a social reason for it it must have a positive social
function, or else it would cease to exist. He, therefore, concluded that a certain

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

amount of crime and deviance was actually functional, i.e. it must be beneficial or
healthy for society in some way.

Durkheim and other functionalists influenced by him,

therefore, argued that crime and deviance have the following beneficial functions in mo
dern industrial societies:

Deviance can provoke social change by highlighting problems in the way

society is organised or the inadequacies of some current laws. For example, a
social group may break the law in order to draw society’s attention to some
injustice so that the law and therefore social definitions of deviance can be changed.

Some crimes may bring about social integration by bringing society

together in collective moral shock and outrage. This may particularly
happen when a crime is committed against a vulnerable group such as
children. The crime produces a sense of community solidarity against
criminality and reinforces value consensus. Such a reaction may result in laws
being made stronger.

Criminal trials and the punishment of offenders function to reassure

members of society that the consensus and social order are of benefit to all – members
of society agree that certain types of behaviour threaten the social
order and need to be controlled and punished.

The public punishment of criminals also reinforces social conformity by

reminding members of society about what counts as acceptable and
unacceptable behaviour. In other words, it functions to socially control
society by reinforcing the rules.

Kingsley Davis suggests that some types of crime may act as a safety valve
for society in that some minor crimes may be worth tolerating because they
prevent more serious crimes from taking place. Davis argued that prostitution had
a beneficial function in this respect, whilst Polsky has applied Davis’s
arguments to the use of pornography in modern western societies.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

However, Durkheim did concede that too much crime and deviance could be a problem
because it meant that too many people were not committed to value
consensus and therefore social order was in danger of breaking down. Think about
how the 2011 London riots might fit into this analysis. He also argued that too little cri
me could also be a problem because it indicated that
social control mechanisms were too strong and that whoever was in charge of society was
too dictatorial. Such controls were unhealthy because societies
require criticism, dissent and deviance in order to healthily evolve.

Check Your Progress 2.1

Note:
i. Write your answer in the space given below.
ii. Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.

6) Discuss anomie?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………….

7) How Durkheim's deviance can be discussed in line of division of labour?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

1.8 CRITICISMS OF DURKHEIM

Although Durkheim developed an approach to understanding crime and deviance tha

was extremely influential, his theory does suffer from some weaknesses:

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

  Durkheim never properly explains why some individuals and social groups
are more prone to committing crimes than others.
 Durkheim’s concept of anomie and why it specifically leads to crime rather
than some other outcome is vague. For example, it is not clear how anomie
could be measured.
 Although Durkheim may have a point in arguing that some types of crimes
re functional in some way, there are some types of crimes (e.g. child abuse, rape
etc) that are always going to be dysfunctional (i.e. wrong, negative, damaging et
c).
 Tim Newburn criticizes Durkheim because he neglects the role of the
powerful in shaping the consensus about what is criminal and what is
normal practice. For example, many of the ‘sharp’ practices of bankers that
many people clearly see as immoral are not actually illegal because the
wealthy can put pressure on lawmakers to ensure that their norms are not
outlawed.
 Marxists argue that Durkheim underestimates the level of conflict in modern
societies. From a Marxist perspective, crime can be seen as a product of class
conflict and inequality, rather than the product of some people not being
fully committed to value consensus or community.

1.9 LET US SUM UP

Deviance, according to Émile Durkheim, is an essential component of a successful

society because it provides three functions: 1) it clarifies norms and increases conformity,
2) it enhances social ties among those tend to react to the deviant, and 3) it can contribute
to positive social change and challenges to people's beliefs.

1.10 GLOSSARY

Deviant- Deviance is defined as any type of rule-breaking behaviour that does not
conform to a society's standards and expectations.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Confirmity- People modify their ideas, attitudes, actions, or perceptions to more closely
reflect those held by groups to which they belong or aspire to belong, or by groups whose
acceptance they want.

Social Change- Changes in human interactions and relationships that transform cultural
and social institutions are referred to as social change.

Mechanical Solodarity- The social integration of members of a society who share

common values and beliefs is referred to as mechanical solidarity.

1.11CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

 Does Durkheim think we can get rid of crime?

 What did Emile Durkheim argue is the role of deviance in society?
 Why according to Durkheim crime is beneficial to society?
 How can deviance contribute to society?
 What is Durkheim's theory?
 What are the functions of crime Durkheim?
 How Emile Durkheim explains the concept of social pathology?
 Which issues are studied by social pathology?

1.12 REFERENCES

 Prabhakar , Vani Social Disorganization & Deviance, Wisdom Press

(ISBN) (CBCS), 2012 Ahuja, Ram Social Problems in India, Rawat,
2014
 Sharma, [Link] & Penology, Surjit Publication, New Delhi,2008
 Ahuja, Ram Criminology, Rawat, 2001
 Shankar Rao , [Link] Social Problems, [Link]& Co. Pvt. Ltd.(Revised
edt.), 2015 Sharma, [Link] Justice Administration, Rawat, 1998

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

UNIT-2 MERTON’S THEORY

STRUCTURE

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Learning Objectives

2.3 Merton on deviance

2.4 Let us Sum Up

2.5 Glossary

2.6 Check Your Progress

2.7 References

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Merton main concern lies in discovering how some social structures exert a definite
pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconformist rather than
conformist conduct. His theory is also known as strain theory.

2.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should able to-

 Understand the meaning of deviant according to merton’s perspective

 To know the Merton’s theory of deviant behavior

3.3 MERTON ON DEVIANCE

Indeed Merton was proposing a typology of deviance based on Merton's typology based
upon two criteria: (1) a person's motivations or adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person's
belief in how to attain the goals. Merton mainly argues that two elements, cultural goals,
and institutional goals operate jointly in social structure. His theory of social strain shows

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

how social value produces deviance. This theory states that social structures within
society may force citizens to commit deviance. His classical discussion of social deviance
refers to the social source of deviance . It is a complete analytical theory that deals with
social organization and crime. Merton (1938, pp. 185-248) proposed that pressures to
engage in criminal and deviant behavior are generated by the lack of articulation among
the components of social organization. Merton divides the cultural structure into two
parts. One is society's central value and goal orientation, and other is institutionalized
means for achieving their ends. The social structure distributed the legitimate means for
attaining high value goals. Discussion of deviance through Mertonian lens shows that
strain-induced deviance is due to the defective assimilation of elements of cultural
structure and social structure. One of the noted scholars Stinchcombe (1975), examined
the core issues of theortical formulation of Merton's concept of deviance and identified it
as a choice-making among socially structured alternatives. Merton has proposed five
possible alternative modes of adjustment or adaptation within the cultural system. His
discussion and analysis of deviance fall under the distinctive patterns of the relationship
between cultural ends and means. Following table deals with the Merton systematic
examination of deviance. In the following table (+) refers to acceptance, whereas (-)
refers to elimination, and ( +/-)) refers to the rejection and insertion of new goals and
standards

Culture Goals Institutionalized Means

I. Conformity + +
II. Innovation + -
III. Ritualism - +
IV. Retreatism - -
V. Rebellion +/- +/-

Despite their strain, most poor people continue to accept the goal of economic success
and continue to believe they should work to make money. In other words, they continue

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

to be good, law-abiding citizens. They conform to society’s norms and values, and, not
surprisingly, Merton calls their adaptation conformity.

Faced with strain, some poor people continue to value economic success but come up
with new means of achieving it. They rob people or banks, commit fraud, or use other
illegal means of acquiring money or property. Merton calls this adaptation innovation.

Other poor people continue to work at a job without much hope of greatly improving
their lot in life. They go to work day after day as a habit. Merton calls this third
adaptation ritualism. This adaptation does not involve deviant behavior but is a logical
response to the strain poor people [Link] conclusion, Merton's strain theory argues
that deviance resulted when conventional goals were not achieved through proper and
institutional means. This theory emphasizes the role of culture in the generation of
deviance. In Merton’s fourth adaptation, retreatism, some poor people withdraw from
society by becoming hobos or vagrants or by becoming addicted to alcohol, heroin, or
other drugs. Their response to the strain they feel is to reject both the goal of economic
success and the means of working.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Merton’s fifth and final adaptation is rebellion. Here poor people not only reject the goal
of success and the means of working but work actively to bring about a new society with
a new value system. These people are the radicals and revolutionaries of their time.
Because Merton developed his strain theory in the aftermath of the Great Depression, in
which the labor and socialist movements had been quite active, it is not surprising that he
thought of rebellion as a logical adaptation of the poor to their lack of economic success.

Although Merton’s theory has been popular over the years, it has some limitations.
Perhaps most important, it overlooks deviance such as fraud by the middle and upper
classes and also fails to explain murder, rape, and other crimes that usually are not done
for economic reasons. It also does not explain why some poor people choose one
adaptation over another.

Check Your Progress 2.1

Note:
i. Write your answer in the space given below.
ii. Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.

1) Discuss why Merton concept of deviance can be translated as a choice making

among the socially structured alternatives?
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
2) What is Ritualism?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

2.4 LET US SUM UP

According to Merton's anomie theory, most people aim to achieve culturally accepted
goals. When access to these goals is denied to entire groups of people or individuals, a
state of anomie develops. As a result, deviant behaviour manifests itself as rebellion,
retreat, ritualism, innovation, and/or conformity.

2.5 GLOSSARY

Anomie- Anomie is a social condition characterised by the loss or destruction of any

moral principles, norms, or guidance for individuals to follow.

Social Structure- The patterned social arrangements in society that emerge from and are
determined by individual actions are referred to as social structure.

2.6 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

 What is Merton's theory of deviant behavior?

 What was Robert Merton's famous theory?
 What are the 5 types according to Merton?
 What are examples of deviant behavior?
 What is the main problem of these three postulates according to Merton?

2.7 REFERENCES

 Prabhakar , Vani Social Disorganization & Deviance, Wisdom Press

(ISBN) (CBCS), 2012 Ahuja, Ram Social Problems in India, Rawat,
2014
 Sharma, [Link] & Penology, Surjit Publication, New Delhi,2008
 Ahuja, Ram Criminology, Rawat, 2001
 Shankar Rao , [Link] Social Problems, [Link]& Co. Pvt. Ltd.(Revised
edt.), 2015 Sharma, [Link] Justice Administration, Rawat, 1998

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

UNIT-3 DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATIONAL THEORY

STRUCTURE

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Learning Objectives
3.3 Different Associational Theory
3.4 Understanding the Approach
3.5 Criticism
3.6 Let Us Sum Up
3.7 Check Your Progress
3.8 References

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Sutherland proposes this theory in the year of [Link] explains that people learn to
become offenders from their environment. Through interactions with others, individuals
learn the values, attitudes, methods and motives for criminal behavior. This theory
proposes that criminality or deviance is learned behavior and it can be done through
interaction in the process of communication. Here learning includes the technique of
committing crime, including the specific traits , desires, motives, rationalization and
attitudes. Sunderland termed it as differential associational theory because the content of
what is learned in association with criminal behavior patterns is different from the content
of learned behavior which is associated with the anti-criminal anti behavior pattern.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

3.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVE

After going through this unit, you should be able to-

 Understand the differential association theory

 To study the Sutherland views on differential association theory

3.3 DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

Sutherland confirms that people commit crime because of their learning or interaction, a
kind of contact, with the criminal behaviour pattern and at the same time isolation In
brief, his theory has 9 postulates.

1) Criminal behaviour is not inherited but it is learned.

2) It is learned mainly through communication and gesture
3) The leraning mainly happened in close intimate group. Impersonal
communication newspaper, tv, and other communicative means also contribute it.
4) The leraning includes techniques and motive, drive attitude and rationalization.
5) The special direction of the motives and drives is learned from different cultural
situation including favourable and unfavourable sanctions.
6) A person commit deviance because of the availability of left-over definitions that
favours violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
7) It is varied in time, frequency, duration, priority and intensity
8) The process of learning is not related to the process of imitation. People learn
criminal and anticriminal pattern through interaction. For example a person who
learn criminal behaviour would not be described as imitation.
9) Criminal behaviour is an expression discussed about the same needs and values
while non criminal behaviour also discuused the same. Discussing lawful
behaviour is necessary to understand the deviance.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

3.4 UNDERSTANDING THE APPROACH

Differential association is a social psychological theory that attempts to explain how

someone becomes a criminal. The hypothesis states that when the definitions that
encourage breaking the law outnumber those that do not, an individual will participate in
criminal activity. Specific definitions in support of breaking the law could be used. "This
store is insured," for example. It's a victimless crime if I steal these stuff." "This is public
land, so I have the freedom to do whatever I want on it," for example, is a more general
definition. These definitions are used to justify and promote criminal behaviour.
Meanwhile, definitions that are hostile to breaking the law fight back. "Stealing is
immoral" or "Violating the law is always wrong" are examples of such definitions.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

Individuals are also likely to place varying degrees of importance on the definitions
offered to them in their environment. The frequency with which a certain definition is
encountered, the age at which a definition was first presented, and how highly one values
the relationship with the individual delivering the definition all influence these variances.
While definitions offered by friends and family members are most likely to influence the
individual, learning can also take place in school or through the media. Criminals are
frequently romanticised in the media, for example. If a person enjoys stories about mafia
kingpins, such as those found in the TV programme The Sopranos and the films The God-
father, their exposure to this media may have an impact on their learning since it contains
messages that encourage breaking the law. Those messages may influence a person's
decision to engage in criminal action if they are focused on. In addition, even if an
individual has the inclination to commit a crime, they must have the skills necessary to
do so. These skills could be complex and more challenging to learn, like those involved
in computer hacking, or more easily accessible, like stealing goods from stores.

3.5 CRITICISM

Differential association theory was a game-changer in the field of criminology. However,

the theory has been criticized for failing to take individual differences into account.
Personality traits may interact with one’s environment to create outcomes that differential
association theory cannot explain. For example, people can change their environment to
ensure it better suits their perspectives. They may also be surrounded by influences that
don’t espouse the value of criminal activity and choose to rebel by becoming a criminal
anyway. People are independent, individually motivated beings. As a result, they may not
learn to become criminals in the ways differential association predicts.

3.6 LET US SUM UP

Edwin Sutherland developed the differential association theory, which proposes that
individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behaviour
through interaction with others. The differential association theory is the most widely
discussed of the deviance learning theories.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

3.7 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

 Why does crime occur in differential association theory?

 How the differential association theory explains deviant behavior?
 What are the criticisms of differential association theory?
 What is differential association theory?

3.8 REFERENCES

 Prabhakar , Vani Social Disorganization & Deviance, Wisdom Press

(ISBN) (CBCS), 2012 Ahuja, Ram Social Problems in India, Rawat,
2014
 Sharma, [Link] & Penology, Surjit Publication, New Delhi,2008
 Ahuja, Ram Criminology, Rawat, 2001
 Shankar Rao , [Link] Social Problems, [Link]& Co. Pvt. Ltd.(Revised
edt.), 2015 Sharma, [Link] Justice Administration, Rawat, 1998

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

UNIT-4 DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE THEORY

STRUCTURE

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Learning Objectives
4.3 Deliquent Sub-Culture Theory
4.4 Non- Utilitarian ?
4.5 Cultural Settings
4.6 Self Derogation
4.7 Let Us Sum Up
4.8 Glossary
4.9 Check Your Progress
4.10 References

4.1 INTRODUCTION

For more than a half-century, American sociologists and other social observers have been
fascinated by the phenomenon of group delinquency. During that time, the group nature
of delinquency has become a central starting point for many theories of delinquency, and
delinquency causation has been seen by some sociologists as primarily a process in which
an individual becomes associated with a group that devotes some or all of its time to
planning, committing, or celebrating delinquencies and has elaborated a set of lifeways -
a subculture-that encourages and justifies delinquent behavior.

4.2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should able to-

 Understand the theory deliquent sub-culture

 Study the various perspectives of Deliquent Sub-Culture Theory

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

4.3 DELIQUENT SUB-CULTURE THEORY

In addition to the procedures by which an individual adopts the beliefs and norms of a
pre-existing group and thereby becomes delinquent—a process that is often puzzling in
and of itself—there is the more fundamental, and in many ways more complex, matter of
how such groups form in the first place. What social factors contribute to or induce the
rise of delinquency-carrying groups? What are the many ne'eds and incentives that such
groups satisfy in individuals? What are the many ne'eds and incentives that such groups
satisfy in individuals? What kinds of planned social control techniques could be used to
prevent such organisations from forming or to redirect the behaviour and moral systems
of those that already exist? All of these and other questions have been asked for at least
two generations. It is impossible to summarise and examine in depth the many responses
to these questions that have been offered by social scientists within the confines of this
brief [Link] I can do is pick out a handful of the most important points of view and
focus on them.

The Gang by Frederick M. Thrasher is still the greatest work on gangs, gang delinquency,
and-though he didn't use the term-delinquent subcultures, and his formulations are the
ones I've termed classical view. Thrasher's analysis can be summarised as acting on the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

levels listed below. The interstitial area is characterised by a variety of indices of conflict,
disorganisation, weak family and neighbourhood regulations, and so on, as a result of the
ecological processes that govern the city's structure. Because of the relatively
uncontrolled nature of these groups—or at least many of them—and the abundance of
appealing and exciting opportunities for fun and adventure, these groups engage in a
variety of legal and illegal activities that are determined, defined, and directed by the play
group itself rather than by adult supervision.

4.4 NON- UTILITARIAN ?

At this point, it is appropriate to address a topic that has been increasingly significant in
discussions of more recent theories of group misbehaviour. This is Albert K. Cohen's
well-known description of the delinquent subculture as nonutilitarian, by which he
appears to indicate that acts, particularly theft, are not geared toward calculated economic
purposes. Thrasher emphasises the fun and adventure element of many unlawful acts,
particularly in the pregang stages of a group's growth, but he also describes numerous
situations when thievery is rational and instrumental, even at a young age. In the light of
Thrasher's description of the nature of the group or gang, the theft activities and
distribution of the loot make sense. Much of the thievery is done in order to keep the
group free from adult authority.

4.5 CULTURAL SETTINGS

Cohen defines social class as a series of more or less vertically stacked cultural
environments that differ in the chance of boys being taught the aspirations, ambitions,
and psychological skills needed to respond to the demands of larger institutions. Cohen
goes on to say that people in this predominantly lower-middle-class cultural setting are
more likely to have limited aspirations, a live-for-today attitude toward consumption, a
moral view that emphasises reciprocity among kin and other primary groups, and, as a
result, are less concerned with abstract rules that apply across or outside of such
particularistic circumstances. Furthermore, the working-class child is less likely to be
surrounded by educational toys and to be taught a family routine of order, neatness, and

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

punctuality. Physical hostility is more common and encouraged in the working class
environment, which is particularly important.

4.6 SELF DEROGATION

However, this deprivation stems not only from negative feedback from others, but also
from self-denigration. For a variety of reasons, the working-class youngster shares in this
self-evaluation to some extent. 6 The first is the previously mentioned democratic status
universe, in which the prevailing culture demands that everyone compete against
everyone else. Second, working-class boys' parents are likely to project their unmet hopes
onto their children, regardless of how well-adjusted they appear to be to their low status
position. They may not provide much effective socialisation to help the child, but they
are likely to desire their children to have a better life than they do. The third factor is the
influence of the media, which spreads the middle-class lifestyle. There's also the effect
of upward mobility as apparent evidence that at least some folks can make it. On the one
hand, this subculture must contend with middle-class-dominated institutions, and on the
other, sentiments of low self-esteem.

It must also cope with the feelings of guilt that will certainly come as a result of assault,
theft, and other similar acts. It must cope with the fact that, in the eyes of the greater
society, and certainly in the eyes of the law-abiding parts of the local area, the collective
solution to the common problem of adjustment is illegal.

As discussed in an earlier part of this unit, strain theorists discussed and examined
deviance acts due to the deprivation and frustration of the institutionalized means to reach
the cultural goal. In contrast, cultural deviance theorists presupposed that individuals
commit deviance due to learning the deviant values and acts of the group they belong to.
Here, subculture refers to a subdivision, a kind of boundary that has its own norms, rules,
values, and pattern system. It emerges when a person or the people in similar
circumstances realize themselves as isolated from the mainstream and make a group a
kind of gang for their mutual support. The main feature of the subculture gang is that they
exist within a larger society, and even they also share some of the cultural values and
goals of the mainstream culture. It can be formed among prisoners, slum dwellers,

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

occupational groups, minorities, lower social class, inter-city community and rural people
and others while it is also a fact that the life patterns and styles of the gang members are
substantially different from the members belonging to the dominant culture. This theory
stated that the gang members, a form of subculture, are the opposite of mainstream
society. These people are usually identified with music, dress, ethnic code, language and
specific traits. Assuming that subculture refers to the particular communities is a kind of
labeling. This kind of labeling is based on the same class situation, language, ethnicity,
and working conditions. Subculture here not only refers to the same material but also
represents the symbolic and ideological form of style that denotes resistance, a kind of
manifestation of the political and cultural reaction against the dominant mainstream
culture. This term can be applied to many domain of the society. For example, consumer,
religious, drug and medicinal, and immigrant subcultures alike. Cohen mentions that
delinquency is not something about individualistic kind of things but it a band or a gangs
of the boys who resist the mainstream pattern through their actions and by doing thing
collectively. Common sentiments, common loyalities and common understandings are
the prerequsitic features of the delinquent subcultural group.

According to Gelder (2005: p 1) "Subcultures are groups of people that are in some way
represented as non-normative and/or marginal through their particular interests and
practices, through what they are, what they do, and where they do it. They may represent
themselves in this way; since subcultures are usually aware of their differences,
bemoaning them, relishing them, exploiting them, etc. But they will also be represented
like this by others, who in response can bring an entire apparatus of social classification
and regulation to bear upon them"

The above quote shows that there is a distinctiveness between two group. The subcultural
group is a part of the larger mainstream society, which shares the same deprived attitude
towards the mainstream society and norms and decided to express negative outlook. As
argued, it shared the same elements of the mainstream culture, and at the same time, it is
also different from the mainstream cultural patterns and behaviours. There is a need to
reconceptualise the idea and application of the subculture theory because it has a broader

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

description. Hodkinson ( 2002) argues that a subculture must have "relative
distinctiveness," which can provide identity, commitment, and relative autonomy.

Check Your Progress 4.1

Note:
i. Write your answer in the space given below.
ii. Compare your answer with the one given at the end of this unit.

1) What are the limitations of the delinquent subcultural theory?

……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………..
2) Discuss the features of the delinquent subcultural theory?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………….

4.7 LET US SUM UP

In conclusion, we can say that socially unequal structured conditions induce subculture
development. Their behaviour was perceived by society as a whole as deviant,while they
regarded their self acts as a normal. His theory stated that criminals donot acts criminally
at all because they are the members of the subcultures, a kind of subjects of different

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur

means and patterns reflecting in their behaviour aspects shows that they are deviated from
the institutional means and cultural goal.

Cohen’s subcultural theory draws attention to the fact that criminals, in their view, do not
act criminally at all. As members of subcultures, they are subject to different behavioural
requirements based on values and norms that deviate from those of mainstream society

4.8 GLOSSARY

Juvenile delinquency- Juvenile Delinquency occurs when a child breaks the law.
Delinquency is antisocial and criminal behaviour perpetrated by someone under the age
of 18; that is, by someone who is not an adult.

Cultutre- A culture is a way of life of a group of people, the behaviors, beliefs, values, and
symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them,

4.9 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

 What does delinquent subcultures mean?

 Who created delinquent subculture theory?
 What is the main concept of containment theory?
 What are the main components of Cohen's theory of delinquent subcultures?

4.10 REFERENCES

 Prabhakar , Vani Social Disorganization & Deviance, Wisdom Press

(ISBN) (CBCS), 2012 Ahuja, Ram Social Problems in India, Rawat,
2014
 Sharma, [Link] & Penology, Surjit Publication, New Delhi,2008
 Ahuja, Ram Criminology, Rawat, 2001
 Shankar Rao , [Link] Social Problems, [Link]& Co. Pvt. Ltd.(Revised
edt.), 2015 Sharma, [Link] Justice Administration, Rawat, 1998

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur