Deviance: Crash Course Sociology #18

Summary

This script explores the concept of social deviance from a sociological perspective, challenging the notion that deviance is solely about criminality or abnormality. It delves into historical biological and psychological explanations, highlighting their limitations, and introduces the sociological view that deviance is a product of societal structure, cultural norms, and labeling. The video emphasizes the importance of understanding deviance as a social construct, shaped by power dynamics and societal responses.

Takeaways

• 🌐 Deviance is relative and varies according to cultural norms, with what is considered deviant changing over time and across cultures.
• 🍔 Being a vegan in America is considered deviant because it deviates from the mainstream cultural activity of eating meat, illustrating that deviance is not just about numbers but also about deviation from the norm.
• 👀 Deviance is not merely an insult but a sociological term for behavior that is non-normative or different from what is generally accepted as normal.
• 👎 Negative sanctions, like strange looks from strangers, are a form of social control that attempts to regulate thoughts and behaviors to limit or punish deviance.
• 👍 Positive sanctions are affirmative reactions to conformity, contrasting with negative sanctions and serving as a form of social encouragement for adhering to norms.
• 🚫 Formal sanctions are the codification of norms into law, with violations typically resulting in negative sanctions from the criminal justice system.
• 🤔 Biological and psychological explanations for deviance have been historically insufficient, as they focus on individual factors and fail to consider societal structures and norms.
• 🧬 Early biological theories, such as Lombroso's, suggested that criminals had distinct physical characteristics, which has since been debunked.
• 🏋️‍♂️ Psychological approaches emphasize the role of socialization and environment in shaping personality and deviance, with containment theory highlighting the importance of impulse control.
• 👥 Sociological perspectives consider deviance as a result of societal structure, focusing on cultural norms, labeling, and the influence of social power in defining what is considered deviant.
• 🔍 The sociological approach to deviance recognizes that labeling can become a self-fulfilling prophecy and that deviance can be attributed to group membership or societal responses rather than individual action.

Q & A

What is the commonality between a person holding up a convenience store and a pacifist at a protest according to the script?

The script suggests that both individuals are considered social deviants, as they do not conform to societal norms.

What does the term 'deviance' mean in the context of sociology?

In sociology, deviance refers to being non-normative or different from what is considered normal or mainstream, and it is not necessarily an insult.

Why is being vegan in America considered deviant according to the script?

Being vegan in America is considered deviant because it deviates from the traditional 'all-American' cultural activity of eating meat.

What are 'negative sanctions' in the context of social control?

Negative sanctions are negative social reactions to deviance, such as strange looks from strangers, which serve as a form of social control to regulate thoughts and behaviors.

What is the difference between informal and formal sanctions in terms of deviance?

Informal sanctions are social reactions to deviance, like negative or positive reactions from peers, while formal sanctions involve legal consequences for violating codified norms, such as penalties from the criminal justice system.

What is the concept of 'biological essentialism' in explaining deviance?

Biological essentialism is an outdated perspective that suggested certain physical characteristics, like a low forehead or prominent jaw, indicated a predisposition to criminal behavior.

How did William Sheldon's work relate to the idea of biological essentialism?

William Sheldon studied the relationship between body types and criminality, suggesting that more muscular and athletic men were more likely to be criminally deviant, which aligns with biological essentialism.

What is the psychological approach to understanding deviance?

The psychological approach views deviance as a result of improper or failed socialization, focusing on how personality and behavior are shaped by environmental factors.

What is containment theory in the context of deviance?

Containment theory posits that deviance is a matter of impulse control, suggesting that individuals with a strong conscience and ability to cope with frustration are less likely to engage in deviant behavior.

What are the three major sociological ideas for understanding deviance?

The three major sociological ideas are: 1) Deviance varies according to cultural norms, meaning what is deviant can change over time and place; 2) People are deviant because they are labeled as such by society; 3) Defining social norms involves social power, where the powerful can shape what is considered deviant.

Why are biological and psychological explanations insufficient in understanding deviance?

Biological and psychological explanations are insufficient because they focus on individual factors and abnormalities, neglecting social influences and the fact that most deviants are biologically and psychologically typical.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Exploring Social Deviance

This paragraph delves into the concept of social deviance, challenging the notion that it is merely a collection of harmful behaviors. It explains that deviance in sociology refers to any behavior that deviates from societal norms, which can include both negative actions like crime and positive ones like being vegan in a meat-eating culture. The paragraph discusses the role of social control, such as negative and positive sanctions, to regulate behavior and maintain societal norms. It also touches on the historical biological and psychological perspectives on deviance, critiquing their limitations and setting the stage for a sociological approach that will be explored in more depth in future content.

05:01

🌐 Societal Structure and Deviance

The second paragraph examines the sociological perspective on deviance, emphasizing that it is a product of societal structure rather than solely individual characteristics. It outlines three key sociological principles: the variability of deviance across cultures and time, the labeling of deviance by societal response, and the role of social power in defining norms. The paragraph also critiques biological and psychological explanations for deviance, arguing that they overlook broader societal influences and fail to account for why certain behaviors are considered deviant. It concludes by highlighting the importance of understanding the social foundations of deviance and hints at further exploration of sociological theories in subsequent content.

Keywords

💡Social Deviants

Social deviants are individuals whose behaviors or actions deviate from societal norms. In the video, various examples of social deviants are given, such as a person robbing a store, a pacifist at a protest, an American vegan, a white-collar criminal, and a runaway slave. The term is crucial to the video's theme as it sets the stage for discussing the concept of deviance and how society perceives and reacts to those who do not conform to its norms.

💡Deviance

Deviance in sociology refers to any behavior or characteristic that deviates from what is considered normal or acceptable by the majority of a society. The video clarifies that deviance is not just about criminal behavior but also includes actions that are simply outside the mainstream. For example, the script mentions that being vegan in America is deviant because it deviates from the norm of consuming meat.

💡Normative

Normative refers to the standards or behaviors that are considered normal or typical within a society. The video discusses how deviance is being non-normative, or different from what is considered usual. This concept is central to the video's theme as it helps to distinguish between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

💡Social Control

Social control in the context of the video refers to the mechanisms by which society regulates people's thoughts and behaviors to limit or punish deviance. It includes both positive and negative sanctions, such as strange looks from strangers (negative sanctions) or congratulatory remarks for conformity (positive sanctions). The concept is integral to the video's exploration of how society maintains order and enforces its norms.

💡Sanctions

Sanctions are the reactions of society to deviant behavior, which can be either positive or negative. Positive sanctions are affirmative reactions to conformity, while negative sanctions are reactions to deviance, such as strange looks or punishment. The video uses the concept of sanctions to illustrate how society enforces its norms and how it can shape individual behavior.

💡Folkways

Folkways are informal norms or customs within a society that, while not codified into law, are still expected to be followed. Violating a folkway typically results in negative sanctions, such as social disapproval. The video mentions folkways to explain how informal norms can also serve as a form of social control.

💡Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is the formal institution responsible for enforcing laws and punishing those who violate them. The video discusses how formal sanctioning of deviance occurs through this system, which includes the police, courts, and prison system. This concept is key to understanding the formal mechanisms of social control and the consequences of deviance.

💡Biologically Essentialist Explanations

Biologically essentialist explanations are early scientific attempts to attribute deviance to inherent biological traits. The video cites Cesare Lombroso's theory that criminals were subhuman and could be identified by physical characteristics, an idea that has since been debunked. This concept is presented to highlight the historical and flawed attempts to explain deviance.

💡Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that causes itself to become true due to the very expectations it sets. In the video, it is mentioned in the context of labeling and how society's expectations can lead individuals to act in ways that confirm those expectations, such as encouraging aggression in physically strong boys, which may lead to criminal behavior.

💡Containment Theory

Containment theory suggests that deviance is a matter of impulse control, with individuals having a personality that either contains or fails to contain deviant actions. The video references a study that supports this theory, showing that those with lower self-control and resilience in childhood are more likely to be deviant in adulthood.

💡Sociological Perspective

The sociological perspective views deviance and criminality as a result of societal structure and cultural norms. The video outlines three major sociological ideas: deviance varies according to cultural norms, people are deviant because they are labeled as such, and defining social norms involves social power. This perspective is central to the video's message, offering a broader understanding of deviance beyond individual factors.

Highlights

Social deviance is not an insult but a term for non-normative behavior in sociology.

Deviance includes both harmful activities like crime and non-mainstream choices like veganism in a meat-eating society.

Deviance is not solely about numbers; it's about deviation from societal norms, not just statistical rarity.

Social control, such as strange looks, is a form of negative sanctions aimed at limiting deviance.

Positive sanctions are affirmative reactions to conformity, contrasting with negative sanctions for deviance.

Folkways are informal norms, with violation resulting in negative but not legal sanctions.

Formal sanctions for deviance come from laws and the criminal justice system, often resulting in negative outcomes.

Biological explanations for deviance, such as Lombroso's theory of atavistic criminals, have been largely discredited.

Psychological approaches to deviance focus on environment and socialization, rather than inherent traits.

Containment theory suggests that deviance is linked to a lack of impulse control, supported by recent twin studies.

Sociological perspectives argue that deviance is a result of societal structure and cultural norms.

Cultural norms can change over time, making past norms deviant and vice versa, as exemplified by slavery.

Labeling theory posits that society's response defines actions as deviant, not the action itself.

Social power influences the definition of social norms, with the law sometimes serving the interests of the powerful.

Sociology offers a different perspective on deviance compared to biology and psychology, focusing on social foundations.

Upcoming episodes will delve deeper into sociological theories explaining crime and deviance.

Crash Course Sociology is produced with the help of a dedicated team and advanced technology.

Transcripts

A person holding up a convenience store and a pacifist at a protest might seem like polar opposites.

But they actually have something in common.

So do an American vegan preparing a meal at home, and a white-collar criminal committing tax fraud, and a runaway slave.

They're all social deviants.

We've spent a lot of time so far talking about how society fits together, and how it functions.

But we can’t cover that in any meaningful way without also talking about the people who don't fit.

We have to talk about who’s normal and who’s deviant...and how they get to be that way.

[Theme Music]

Now, you might think that calling pacifists and vegans and runaway slaves deviant is...rude, but in sociology, deviance isn't an insult.

Deviance simply means being non-normative. Different.

So while this does include some things that we might think of as bad or harmful, like, crime, it also includes things we might just think of as outside the mainstream.

So if eating a burger is a traditional "all-American" cultural activity, then being vegan in America is deviant.

But there's something important to notice here.

I didn't say being vegan in a society where most people eat meat is deviant, because deviance is not just a matter of numbers.

Deviance is anything that deviates from what people generally accept as normal.

For instance, red hair is statistically uncommon, but it’s not considered deviant.

Dying your hair bright purple – that is deviant and might earn you some strange looks from some people.

And strange looks from strangers are a form of social control,

attempts by society to regulate people's thoughts and behaviors in ways that limit, or punish, deviance.

Specifically, the strange looks are what are known as negative sanctions, negative social reactions to deviance.

The opposite, naturally, are positive sanctions – affirmative reactions, usually in response to conformity.

Once you start looking, you begin to see forms of social control, both positive and negative, everywhere:

a friend making fun of your taste in food or a teacher congratulating you on a good paper.

Or someone commenting loudly on your bright purple hair.

Sanctions all.

These are all examples of informal norms, or what sociologists call folkways.

You won’t be arrested for violating a folkway, but breaking them usually results in negative sanctions.

But not all norm violations are informally sanctioned.

Formal sanctioning of deviance occurs when norms are codified into law, and violation almost always results in negative sanctions from the criminal justice system – the police, the courts, and the prison system.

So given the power of formal sanctions, why does anyone do deviant things?

This is a big question.

Before we get to the sociological perspective, we need to mention some of the biological

and psychological views of deviance that have been influential in the past.

Spoiler alert: Historically, these explanations have been insufficient in helping us understand non-normative behavior.

For example, the earliest attempts at scientific explanations for deviance, and crime in particular, are biologically essentialist explanations.

They were based on the idea that something about a person's essential biology made them deviant.

In 1876, Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician, theorized that criminals were basically subhuman, throwbacks to a more primitive version of humanity.

He went so far as to suggest that deviants could be singled out based on physical characteristics,

like a low forehead, stocky build, and prominent jaw and cheekbones, all of which he saw as reminiscent of our primate cousins.

Another scientist, U.S. psychologist William Sheldon, also found a relationship between general body type and criminality.

In the 1940s and ‘50s, he studied body types and behavior and concluded that men who were more muscular and athletic were more likely to be criminally deviant.

We know today that the idea that physical features somehow correspond to criminality is just no...it’s wrong.

But later work by Eleanor and Sheldon Glueck appeared to confirm William Sheldon’s basic findings on male muscularity and criminal aggression.

However, they refused to ascribe their results to a biological explanation.

They countered that a simple correlation between body type and criminality could not be taken as causal evidence.

Instead, they argued this was an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy:

People expect physically strong boys to be bullies, and so they encourage aggressive behavior in such boys.

Large boys who have their bullying behavior positively sanctioned are encouraged to continue being aggressive,

and some eventually grow up and engage in aggressive criminal behaviors.

Psychological approaches, by contrast, place almost all the explanatory power in a person’s environment.

While some elements of personality may be inherited, psychologists generally see personality as a matter of socialization.

So they see deviance as a matter of improper or failed socialization.

A classic example of this strain of psychological explanation is found in the 1967 work of Walter Reckless and Simon Dinitz.

They studied boys who lived in an urban neighborhood known for its high rate of delinquency.

Using the assessment of the boys’ teachers, they grouped the youths into "good boys" and

"bad boys," and then interviewed them to construct psychological profiles.

They found that the so-called "good boys" had a strong conscience, were good at coping with frustration, and identified with conventional cultural norms.

The "bad boys," on the other hand, were the opposite on all counts.

Following the boys over time, Reckless and Dinitz found that the "good boys" had fewer run-ins with the police.

And they attributed this to the boys’ ability to control deviant impulses.

This idea that deviance is essentially a matter of impulse control is called containment theory, or having a personality that contains deviant actions.

And containment theory has received support in recent research, including a 2011 study on 500 male fraternal twins that assessed their self-control, resilience, and ability to delay gratification.

Researchers found that the brother who scored lower on these measures in childhood was more likely to be criminally deviant in adulthood.

Now, while we've seen that there's clearly value in both biological and psychological approaches, they’re each also fundamentally limited.

For example, both kinds of explanations link criminal deviance to individual factors – either of body or of mind –

while leaving out other important factors, like peer influence or what opportunities for deviance different people might be exposed to.

Plus, biological and psychological explanations only understand deviance as a matter of abnormality.

Both approaches begin by looking for physical or mental irregularities,

whereas more recent research suggests that most people who do deviant things are both biologically and psychologically normal –

or, to use a better word, let’s say: typical.

Finally, neither biology nor psychology can answer the question of why the things that are deviant are considered deviant in the first place.

Even if you could 100% prove that a certain abnormality caused people to be violent, not all violence is considered a form of deviance.

Think boxing.

And here's where we can turn to a sociological approach, which sees deviance and criminality as the result of how society is structured.

And here, the approach is based on three major ideas.

First is the idea that deviance varies according to cultural norms.

In other words, nothing is inherently deviant: Cultural norms vary from culture to culture,

and over time and place, so what’s deviant now might have once been quite normal.

Slavery is an obvious example.

Not only was race-based slavery normal in 19th century America, rejecting it was considered deviant.

So deviant, in fact, that physician Samuel Cartwright wrote about a disorder he called drapetomania

to explain the supposed mental disorder that caused slaves to flee captivity.

The second major principle sociologists draw on is the idea that people are deviant because they’re labeled as deviant.

What I mean here is that it’s society's response that defines us, or our actions, as deviant.

The same action can be deviant or not, depending on the context:

Sleeping in a tent in a public place can be illegal, or it can be a fun weekend activity, depending on where you do it.

And, as the Gluecks argued, labeling people can become a self-fulfilling prophecy:

When society treats you as a deviant, it’s very easy to become one.

Deviance doesn't even necessarily require action.

Simply being a member of a group can classify you as a deviant in the eyes of society.

The rich may view the poor with disdain for imagined moral failures, or we can return again to racism and slavery, which imagined African Americans as deviant by nature.

And the last major sociological principle for understanding deviance is the idea that defining social norms involves social power.

The law is many things, but Karl Marx argued that one of its roles is as a means for the powerful elite to protect their own interests.

This is obvious in the case of something like fugitive slave laws, which applied a formal negative sanction to deviating from the norms of slavery.

But we can also see it in things like the difference between a campaign rally and a spontaneous protest.

Both are public political speech, and both may block traffic, but they draw resoundingly different reactions from police.

So these are three foundational ideas about the sociological perspective on deviance.

But I want to stress that they only begin to define a perspective.

Sociology clearly understands deviance in a different way than biology and psychology do,

but if you really want to dive into more detailed sociological explanations,

you'll need to wait until next week, when we look at the major theoretical explanations for crime and deviance.

Today we learned about social deviance.

We discussed biological and psychological approaches to explaining deviance,

what they can bring to the table, and their inherent limitations.

Then we finished by turning to the sociological perspective and talking about the social foundations of deviance.

Crash Course Sociology is filmed in the Dr. Cheryl C. Kinney Studio in Missoula, MT, and it’s made with the help of all of these nice people.

Our animation team is Thought Cafe and Crash Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud.

If you'd like to keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, you can support the series at Patreon,

a crowdfunding platform that allows you to support the content you love.

Thank you to all of our patrons for making Crash Course possible with their continued support.