Analysis of The Theories of Deviance in Sociology

Introduction 

Sociology sets out to explain individual and collective human behaviour through analysis of society and its structures. This includes social rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals but as members of associations, groups, and institutions. Sociology studies human beings as social entities; thus, the field ranges from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social processes and macro settings. Within the discipline, analysis can be conducted through different schools of thought, two major ones of which include functionalism and symbolic interactionism. When it comes to theories, perspectives may overlap or completely view a particular situation differently. One of the most popular topics of study in sociology is deviance. Sociologists from different schools have long argued about the causes of crime, why it exists, and how society treats deviant individuals. One dominant theory regarding crime is the functionalists’ ‘strain theory,’ which attempts to explain why crime happens with: “the strains within our society, and the pressures placed upon us to succeed, ultimately force a person to become deviant” (Myers et al., 2008). Other theories of deviance discuss what makes an individual deviant, such as ‘labelling theory,’ which suggests: “deviants are those people who have been successfully labelled as such by others”. Both theories have their weaknesses and strengths, as well as differences and similarities. The significance of such theories reveals itself within the social justice system and the treatment of people in our society, dealing with issues such as stereotyping, racism, sexism, and more. Thus, it is crucial to study these theories carefully and discuss their implications. In this paper, I will expand upon and analyze each of the mentioned theories, draw upon their weaknesses and strengths, compare and contrast their properties, and examine their legal implications. Finally, I will make an argument on why the labelling theory is the more relevant and policy-wise important of the two. 

Analysis

It is a widely accepted sociological belief that deviance is a relative concept, and social rules vary across cultures, time, and places (Caron & Brym, 2014).A crime is referred to as an unlawful act that is punishable with fines or jail terms and other sanctions. Sociologists study deviance with regards to why it exists, whether it has to exist, what causes it to happen, who are the deviants, and more on micro, macro, and global levels and throughout history. While doing so, social scientists find that the phenomenon is a complex multi-level concept that must be approached with an intersectional view. Functionalists offer one of the major perspectives on crime. 

Strain theory, first introduced by Robert Metron, suggests that in a well-functioning society, deviance will be minimal because people share common cultural goals and values and agree on the means of reaching said aspirations. However, societies may not provide enough opportunities, or the population may lack agreement on society’s values. Deviance will then be more common in such a society, according to Metron. The reason why he argued is that individuals will be desperate to use illegal means to reach societal expectations. Strain theory has been used to explain crime in lower classes of society. Predominantly in a society where the class gap is wide and expensive lifestyles are cherished and advertised as goals, strain theory could explain the existence and possibly high rates of crime among lower-class individuals. It can also be argued that strain theory can explain crimes among upper-class individuals. Macro and global level crimes such as money laundering or drug trafficking are instances of this case. Additionally, capitalists who embezzle large amounts of money from their own or shared businesses also can be viewed in this light: social pressure on all levels can push individuals to commit illegal acts to achieve them and to fit in with their peers. One other important aspect of strain theory that contributes to its strengths is the emphasis on the effects of cultural agreeableness in society. This is not to say that diversity is the weakness of society, but rather, it brings up the issues surrounding collective discriminatory practices and racism in societies, especially those that are a predominantly white majority. Strain theory has, however, been criticized for several reasons and weaknesses. Many sociologists argue that if this theory were correct, we would expect deviance to be at its highest when aspirations are expectations are low. However, studies that have tested this relationship have found that deviance is at its greatest with both aspirations and expectations are low. The second point of criticisms in literature involves the relationship between crime and class. While strain theory can explain some crime in lower and upper classes, it fails to explain crime among the middle class or socialist societies where class tension is lower. Finally, strain theory has been criticized for failing to explain why deviants go for long periods without committing crimes (Agnew, 1985). Additionally, strain theory is at risk of generalization and neglecting several contributors to the making of a deviant in society, for example, family and immediate relationships. The next theory in discussion, however, makes up for this shortcoming to a certain extent. According to symbolic interactionists, deviance and unlawfulness are learned in the same manner as conformity and lawfulness, through interactions with others.

Labelling theory suggests that deviants are “labelled” as such, and others’ reaction to their new labelled identity reinforces the concept, making them commit more offences. The process of labelling is directly related to the power and status of the ‘labellers’ and the ‘labelled’ individual (Caron & Brym, 2014). The concept of secondary deviance - the process whereby someone who has been labelled deviant accepts the new identity and escalates or continues their deviant behaviour- is essential to this theory. One of the most important contributions made by these theorists is explaining the recurring offenders and some ex-convicts’ escalation in crimes after prison. The stigma around a former prisoner and the change in their acquaintances’ behavior can lead to their loss of hope regarding ever becoming an in-group again, thus accepting their place as an ‘outlaw’. Once the acceptance occurs, the deviant person conforms to the new in-group peers and their values slowly become anti-societal. 

Labelling theory has had an essential impact on the justice system for related reasons. This theory has led to an increased change of policies and the use of diversion for minor offences rather than a formal criminal label (Caron & Brym, 2014). However, this theory is now vital and it must be discussed in public discourse, because of the age of social media and people’s online presence which can put every individual under scrutiny of thousands of strangers, and in some cases, affect their lives in significant ways. I will expand on this in the third part of this essay. Critics of labelling theory firstly point out to the fact that it fails to explain primary deviance or the reasons why a person would break laws in the first place (Caron & Brym, 2014). Additionally, the theory overgeneralizes to an extent since some societies and individuals can overcome the labelling process. It fails to consider those cases or investigate why some are successful, and some are not (Caron & Brym, 2014). Finally, labelling theory seems to be unable to operate on a macro or global level in explaining secondary deviance. This might have been true in the past. But I would argue that in the era of the internet and social media, this shortcoming is no longer valid. As Marshall McLuhan famously referred to the new world as a ‘global village,’ now more than ever, temporal and spatial distances have become meaningless, and micro-level relationships can be between people in different continents around the globe. 

Labelling theory and strain theory both contribute enormously to our understanding of deviance in society. They have differences and similarities discussed so far to some extent. When it comes to practical consequences and policymaking, they each have their implications and effects. Strain theory holds that the extent to which people in society agree upon cultural values and goals can have an impact on the size of deviance in that society. This can be both a dangerous and useful idea. As mentioned before, this can lead some to conclude that cultural diversity is a problem for the safety and harmony in a society. This can lead to potentially harmful and discriminating policies being put in place, as well as promoting ethnocentric values. 

The positive way to look at the implications is that people in a society must be more tolerant and accepting of others’ values, may they differ or not. However, when discussing policies and legal implications, the former issue is worrisome. However, the fact that strain theory points out the negative effects of class inequality and its potential impact on delinquency in society can lead to some positive societal changes such as specific tax laws, health care and welfare programs, and education. Health care is especially an important issue that can be affected because people go to extreme ends to keep their loved ones healthy and alive. Additionally, health is a precious goal, unlike money, and cannot be argued against morally. Thus, using strain theory can help argue for better health policies that prevent related cases of crime and theft. Labelling theory, as briefly discussed, has had vast implications for policies put in place, and an essential impact on the justice system. Firstly, the fact that labelling a first offender as a criminal has been shown to raise the chances of re-committing crime has helped in changing policies that deal with sentencing laws.

Additionally, cases such as the sex offender registration list have started conversations about the ethicality of impacting the individual’s life in this way. What is more, it has raised worries about the people who either truly rehabilitate or were falsely convicted. Labelling theory also can impact the laws surrounding the war on drugs. While some of the laws have changed throughout Canada and the US - i.e. Legalisation of marijuana-, there are still cases of young people being imprisoned for short sentences and serving time, which will possibly turn them into a more deviant person once outside. The labelling process can, in some cases, play a decisive role in policies and awareness. The stigma surrounding cigarettes led to countries banning smoking in roofed public spaces and transportation vehicles (Caron & Brym, 2014). Finally, labelling theory can help towards policies that make the rehabilitation and recovery easier for ex-convicts and their families and communities. These policies could include governmental work programs where local businesses are to hire formerly imprisoned people to help them rehabilitate and feel like in-groups and put the past behind them. 

Discussion and Conclusion 

After discussing the policy implications and potential consequences of each deviance theory, I have discovered labelling theory to be preferable in the current North American society. Strain theory, even with its strengths, fails to address a lot of relevant issues in the age of social media and the internet. Additionally, in recent years the political tensions and party arguments have attracted radical ideologists on both sides to accelerate the fires, the fact that strain theory could possibly promote anti-diversity and ethnocentric values cannot be ignored. Groups and individuals could take advantage of this theory to push their racist and intolerant agendas, resulting in immigration policy changes and more. Additionally, labelling theory is now becoming more relevant because of social media. The new interactive media has allowed everyone to have a voice and yet, unlike a democracy, has made silencing individuals easier than ever. In the age of controversies and cancel culture, labelling theory seems to be an important view on how society treats the deviants, and how that leads them to rebel even more. This means that policies need to be discussed. One example that comes to mind is revenge porn and how it can lead to devastating results and even suicide. Policies against revenge porn have been set in place in certain places, but it is not a majorly discussed phenomenon. Labelling young women and ‘slut-shaming’ them online can lead to horrible outcomes. Using labelling theory, necessary societal changes can be set in place to prevent tragedies like that or people’s lives being ruined for their opinions or past mistakes.

References 

• Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social forces, 64(1), 151-167. 
• Caron, C. O., & Brym, R. (2014). Commit sociology. 
• Lee, J. L., & Choi, K. (2014). Serial murder: An exploration and evaluation of theories and perspectives. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(3), 99-106. 
• Myers, W. C., Bukhanovskiy, A., Justen, E., Morton, R. J., Tilley, J., Adams, K., Vandagriff, V. L. and Hazelwood, R. R. (2008). The relationship between serial sexual murder and autoerotic asphyxiation, Forensic Science International, 176(2-3), 187-195. 
• Newburn, Tim. 2017. Criminology. 3rd ed. London: UK. 
• Routledge. Silvio, H., McCloskey, K. and Ramos-Grenier, J. (2006). Theoretical consideration of female sexual predator serial killers in the United States, Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(3), 251-259.