Theories That Explain the Causes of Formal Deviance
Introduction
Deviance is the violation of any social norm. One indulges in deviant behavior when he or she diverges from socially accepted standards. Social norms are constructed socially, and different societies have different social values. For instance, some communities accept gayism while other communities are against the gays’ sexual orientation. Social norms are either or codified law. Folkways are norms based on everyday cultural customs concerning practical matters like how to hold a fork, what type of clothes are appropriate for different situations, or how to greet someone politely whereas codified laws are norms that are specified in specific codes and enforced by government bodies (Little, 2014). From the categories of social norms, there are two categories of deviance; formal and informal.
Informal deviance is when one breaks folkways. There are no formal consequences of breaking folkways. For instance, a student commits informal deviance by dropping out of college. Although one cannot be prosecuted for dropping out of college, it is against a community value to drop out of a higher learning institution.
Formal deviance is when one breaks codified law. The consequences for breaking codified law are stated in a constitution. Most people who violate codified laws are either fined or jailed. Types of formal deviance include robbery, assault, and murder. Most people who commit formal deviance are viewed as criminals, and most often than not, they earn social disapproval.
Many ideas are constructed towards explaining what causes deviance. According to the positivist theory, criminals are born, not made. Criminologists who align with the positivist ideology believe that criminals possessed certain criminal traits that were absent in law-abiding people (Perspective and Theories). Therefore, Positivist ideologists blame genetic composition for deviant behavior. On the other hand, social constructionists believe that deviance is socially acquired. According to social constructionists, all human behavior is acquired through observation and social learning. Therefore, when a person interacts with deviant people, he or she learns deviant behaviors as well. To constructionists, positivists treat deviance as if it were an immoral, unpleasant, or repulsive phenomenon that should be controlled, corrected, or eliminated (Yar et al., 2004). While positivists feel that therapeutic measures are the most appropriate methods of removing deviance, social constructionists work towards rehabilitating behavior. Another view is that deviance occurs as a result of low self-control (Akers, 1991).Many social and criminal theories explain the occurrence of deviance. Two of those theories explain the existence of formal deviance is the social strain theory and the labeling theory.
Formal deviance
Formal deviance is breaking codified laws. Unlike informal deviance, formal deviance is punished by formally enacted laws. One way of punishing formal deviance is by fining the offender. For instance, people who drive past the speed limits are fined instantly. Another way of correcting formal deviance is sentencing offenders to jail terms. Prisons, also known as correctional facilities, are tasked with supervising individuals who have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced for a criminal offense (Little, 2014). Correctional facilities are meant to rehabilitate criminals such that by the time the offenders finish serving their jail terms, they will be fit to interact with society. As stated earlier, social strain theory and labeling theory explain what causes formal deviance in the community.
Social Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton developed the first primary social strain theory in 1938. The argument by Merton argues that all people in the United States are encouraged to strive for the social goal of financial success (Jang et al., 2015). However, as all people are being encouraged to achieve success, the ground is not leveled. Americans were socialized into believing in the American dream, where everyone aimed to achieve success and material wealth. The primary factor that Americans depended on delivering the ultimate American goal was hard work. However, due to unequal chances in society, some people adapted to criminal activities.
In a society that defines education as the key to success, students work hard to achieve high grades to become successful. In the same community, some low-class citizens cannot afford to take their children through school. Low-income parents may fail to provide their children with adequate skills or motivation necessary for attaining high grades. Also, low-income citizens live in poor neighborhoods with poorly equipped schools. At the same time, some high-income people have all luxuries at their disposal. The children attend high-end schools, and they afford any equipment that can aid in achieving high grades. Ironically, society expects children from the two social classes to achieve material success despite the difference in their backgrounds. When the person from the low-income class fails to achieve material success, it is highly likely that they turn to crime to achieve the success of the equal measure. Individuals may attempt to achieve financial success through illegitimate means such as theft, drug peddling, and prostitution (Jang et al., 2015). It is quite impossible to expect people to achieve the same amount of success without giving them equal chances.
The social strain explains why there are so many criminal gangs among low-class citizens. Since most are unable to achieve financial success due to unfavorable circumstances, they create their standards. In criminal gangs, one acquires status after accomplishing a feat of illegal activities without getting nabbed by law enforcers; while middle-class citizens value assets acquired through legitimate means, low-income gangs value theft and aggression.
Crime is not always related to social class. White-collar crimes are committed by individuals who are highly respected in society, and they hold respectable positions in organizations. Such crimes are committed by people with high expectations and low aspirations (Jang et al., 2015). For instance, when the director of a company commits insider trading, it goes to prove that such a person expects to make a high income with little effort. Therefore, social strain theory also explains why crime is prevalent among high-income individuals.
Some cases of expulsion in the university are as a result of exam cheating. As society expects, once one joins a higher institution of learning, they are supposed to achieve top grades by studying. However, some students barely have enough time to study due to various reasons. Some students take up jobs to provide their upkeep in school while some are too pre-occupied with their social life to study. When one fails in college exams, the rules mostly require one to re-sit the exam or fail the course. To cope with the strain of passing exams, some students decide to cheat. When the strain increases, people mostly turn to criminal activities to fulfill societal expectations.
Social strain can also take the form of negative stimuli (Jang et al., 2015). Some factors that contribute to negative stimuli include family breakage or career hindrance. For instance, when one gets fired at work, such negative stimuli can lead to depression. To cope with the strain, some people turn to deviant behaviors such as drug abusing and drunken driving.
The social strain theory argues that the cause of formal deviance is societal pressure. Society expects people to achieve a certain measure of success despite their unequal backgrounds. Also, negative stimuli and the strain to adapt to situations can force a person to commit crime.
Labeling Theory
Being labeled or defined by others as a criminal offender may trigger processes that tend to reinforce or stabilize involvement in crime and deviance, net of the behavioral pattern and the social and psychological conditions that existed before labeling (Bernburg, 2009). The Labeling theory argues that although other factors may cause deviant behaviors, once an individual has been labeled as a deviant, he or she starts facing negative stereotypes.
As stated previously, social norms are set by society. Therefore, when one breaks or goes against the standards, they are labeled as rebels. Deviant labels are stigmatizing markers. Criminal tags are associated with illegal activities as well as negative images. Such assumptions lead to stigmatization as people labeled as criminals are separated from the rest of the community. According to Bernburg (2009), society portrays deviants as innately immoral, devious, and fundamentally different from other people.
Due to separation and stigmatization from society, a deviant label may become a permanent identity and personality of a labeled individual. When a person breaks the codified law, they are formally processed as criminals, and they face judgment in a court of law. However, when such a person serves their sentence, they still get labeled as ex-convicts. When such status stick, it becomes quite impossible for a labeled person to refrain from deviance.
At times, people become deviant because of interacting with unfriendly situations. The famous Stanford Prison Experiment is a classic study of how adverse circumstances can influence good people into developing socially unacceptable behaviors. According to McLeod (2018), Zimbardo and his colleagues were interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards or had more to do with the prison environment. In the prison experiment, student volunteers we put in a mock prison situation where some students became guards and other prisoners. The investigation that was meant to run for a fortnight was terminated on the sixth day because the correctional officers had turned into sadistic people while the prisoners slipped into depression. As per the experiment, when the guards got their labels, they adapted to the expectations of their duties. They became cruel and brutal. Similarly, when people get labeled as deviants, they change and eventually, they commit crimes which are consistent with their titles. In line with Bartels (2015), people involuntarily conform to social roles and labels, especially if they are strongly stereotyped. Therefore, labeling can contribute to deviant behaviors
Disadvantaged groups are more likely to be labeled compared to other groups. Low-class communities that are mostly inhabited by low-income citizens and minorities experience excessive police intervention. Any suspicious activity is such low-class communities get labeled as criminal activity, and it is subjected to criminal investigations. Moreover, stereotypes of minorities and disadvantaged groups often entail images of criminality and dangerousness, and hence members of such groups may be more readily policed, sanctioned, and stigmatized, even net of actual criminal offending (McLeod, 2018). Therefore, encounters between people from low-class neighborhoods and the police are most likely to lead to arrest even if the nature of the offense does not warrant an arrest. When people get used to such labeling and social stigma, most accustom to the exclusion and begin deviant behaviors. “If society already thinks of me a deviant, why not deviate from social norms?” a question that stems from labeling and stigmatization. Evident from the Stanford Prison Experiment, people involuntarily conform to social roles and labels that are strongly stereotyped.
Conclusion
Deviance is any behavior that goes against social norms. Informal deviance is when one breaks informal social, also known as folkways. Formal deviance, on the other hand, is going against codified law. Positivists believe that criminals are born and not made. Social constructionists, on the other hand, believe that deviant behaviors are learned. Two theories that explain the cause of formal deviance are the social strain theory and the labeling theory. The social strain theory argues that the cause of formal deviance is social strain. When society expects people of different social classes to achieve similar success, the less privileged ones are likely to turn into criminal activities to ease their journey to success. Also, the presence of harmful stimuli can lead someone into committing crimes while coping with the strain. The labeling theory argues that being labeled as a deviant can influence one into committing deviant activities. The Stanford Prison Experiment is an illustration of the labeling theory, where people got influenced by the titles accorded to them. The social strain theory and the labeling theory align to the social constructionist view that deviant behavior is socially acquired, either through circumstances of social learning and contact.
References
Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7(2), 201-211.
Bartels, J. M. (2015). The Stanford prison experiment in introductory psychology textbooks: A content analysis. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(1), 36-50.
Bernburg J.G (2009). Labeling theory. In: Marvin D. Krohn, Alan Lizotte & Gina Penly Hall (eds), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (187-207). Springer Science + Business Media.
Jang, S. J., & Agnew, R. (2015). Strain Theories and Crime. Elsevier, 5.
Little, W. (2014). Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition. Victoria, B.C.: BCcampus.
McLeod, S. (2018). The Stanford Prison Experiment. Retrieved June 22, 2019, from SimplyPSychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
What is Deviant Behaviour? In Perspectives and Theories (pp. 1-15).
Yar, M., & Penna, S. (2004). Between positivism and post-modernity? Critical reflections on Jock Young’s The Exclusive Society. British journal of criminology, 44(4), 533-549.