Social Deviance

Weeks 1-6 (Before Midterm)

Week 1: How does the witchcraft reading (WEEK 1) reflect the topics learnt/ what questions might be asked? (Subjectivist, Objectivisit and dominant moral codes)

Subjectivist: What led to the persecution of ‘witches’ in the middle ages

Objectivist: What were the ‘actions’ of these ‘witches’ that were determined deviant?

Dominant Moral Codes: the Catholic Church was the instigator of the witch trials, and many people being killed for the deviance

Week 1: What is the subjectivist perspective?

Morality is based on peoples perspectives; items are deviant when classified as so

aka. classification makes it deviant

Week 1: What is the objectivist perspective?

Moral truth, things are inherently moral/immoral; qualities ‘in and of itself’

aka. deviant-ness is self-evident

Week 1: Objectivist 4 Criterion/Characteristics:

Harm, Rarity, Negative reaction, norm violation

Week 1: What are critiques for the ‘harm’ charateristic?

• Is it a category or a spectrum (how much harm)

• What if it’s deviant, not harmful? (Walking backwards)

• What if its harmful, not deviant? (Football)

Week 1: What are critiques for the ‘Rarity’ Characteristic?

• How rare?

• Rare, but not deviant

Week 1: What are the critiques for the ‘Negative reaction’ Characteristic?

• Who deems it negative?

• How many people have to agree?

Week 1: Critiques for the ‘Norm Violation’ Characteristic?

• Assumes consensus?

Week 1: What is a moral entrepreneur?

Has the power to transform ideas, sometimes from deviant to non-deviant or vise-versa

ex. a mother who's child was killed by witchcraft, adds to the idea that witchcraft is bad

Week 1: What is the consensual view?

Arises out of social consensus

Ex. Smoking is found to be harmful, smoking is bad

Week 1: What is the conflict view?

Law being a tool used by the ruling class

Ex. Trump pardoning those who helped him on January 9th

Week 1: What is the interactionist view?

Society’s powerful defines law based on interest groups

Ex. Doug Ford deciding its ok to build on green belt due to friends and partners getting paid

Week 1: What is the continuum of Objectivist-Subjectivist and where does each side lean?

Dualistic, with both views based on the philosophic nature of reality

Objectivist leans to high-consensus

Subjectivist leans to low-consensus

Week 1: When studying Deviance, where do Objectivisit and subjectivists stand?

Objectivists lean toward acts and charactertisitics, how it was brought to be

Ex. If people know smoking is bad, why do they do it?

Subjectivists lean toward society and social pressures

Ex. Smoking used to be acceptable but no longer is, what pressures led to that change

Week 1: What is the social typing process

Description > Evaluation > Prescription

Week 1: Define all of the levels of social typing

Description: Label is placed on individual due to behaviour

Evaluation: Judgement based on level

Prescription: Last step, treatment of the individual

Week 2: What is an atavist, in terms of criminology?

Atavist means evolutionary throwback; which early criminologists assumed criminals were, as they could not conform

Week 2: What does the blind men touching the elephant analogy suggest about sociologists

The only part of the elephant the men were touching was the only part they assumed the elephant to be; ie. sociologists only know about what part of society they study

Week 2: What is the positivist approach to theories

An approach to theories that draws attention to the cause of behaviour

Week 1: What are the three positivist theories of deviance; catagories

Functionalist, Learning and Control

What is Durkeim’s functionalist theory theory of deviance

1. Deviance is normal, when integration is not possible

2. Dysfuntional levels of deviance occur when a society changes too quick (disturbing collective values →collective response to Deviance)

What are the four functions of deviance according to Durkheim? Add an example of them all.

1. Increasing solidarity

2. Determines moral boundaries

3. Tests these boundaries and creates change

4. Reduces social tension

Mechanical Solidarity vs. Organic Solidarity

Shared norms and values, low division of labour; made Deviance of self interest

Order made wither interdependence (We need each other), deviance → anomie

Define Anomie according to Durkheim

Norms and bonds deteriorating due to a rapid social change; ie. normless

What are the different types of Suicide according to Durkheim + an example of each

• Egoistic: Lacking social integration

• Altruistic: Overcommitment to ideas (Martyrism)

• Anomic: Due to rapid social change

• Fatalistic: Society controls you; ie, no personal control

Q: What is the main focus of Tony Christensen’s article Presumed Guilty?

A: It critiques how researchers use techniques of neutralization to study deviance, showing how this practice constructs deviance, endorses labels, and engages in “motive mongering.”

Q: What are Sykes & Matza’s (1957) five original techniques of neutralization?

A: 1. Denial of responsibility 2. Denial of injury 3. Denial of the victim 4. Condemnation of the condemners 5. Appeal to higher loyalties.

Q: How do techniques of neutralization explain deviance?

A: Techniques of neutralization are strategies that individuals use to justify their deviant behavior while maintaining a self-image of being good or law-abiding. They allow people to temporarily suspend their moral beliefs and rationalize actions that violate social norms.

Q: What is Christensen’s first critique of researchers using neutralization theory?

A: Interpretive framing – Researchers construct contexts that push readers to interpret statements as neutralizations instead of as genuine explanations.

Q: What is Christensen’s second critique?

A: Endorsing the deviant label – By assuming shame or guilt, researchers reinforce that the act is deviant, rather than questioning whether deviance is socially constructed.

Q: What is Christensen’s third critique?

A: Motive mongering – Researchers claim to know the “real motives” behind what participants say (e.g., guilt reduction, impression management), even without evidence.

Q: What alternative framework to neutralization does Christensen discuss?

A: Scott & Lyman’s (1968) concept of accounts (excuses and justifications). Accounts explain unexpected behavior but do not rely on assumed guilt or shame.

Q: What is the limitation of using “accounts” instead of neutralizations?

A: Accounts still risk endorsing deviant labels and require researchers to choose whose definition of the behavior (actor vs. accuser) to accept.

Q: What tension in sociology of deviance does this article highlight?

A: The divide between objectivist approaches (deviance is objectively real) and subjectivist approaches (deviance is socially constructed).This article emphasizes the ongoing conflict between those who view deviance as a concrete phenomenon and those who see it as a product of social interpretation and context.

Q: What is the overall conclusion of Christensen’s article?

A: Neutralization theory helps classify how people explain deviant acts, but its use often reinforces deviance labels, ignores alternative interpretations, and raises questions about whether researchers should impose conventional morality on subjects.

Subjectivist approaches to deviance

Deviance as a label rather than the qualities; nothing is inherently deviant

Symbolic interactionism and deviance

The origin of labelling theory; you are a product of how others think of us; by interacting and learning through symbols and developing a sense of self

What happens when people see you as deviant?

Over time, you will see yourself in that way

• Is it the label itself or what it implys (pushing out of the group, etc)

What is the looking glass self?

A concept that explains how individuals form their self-concepts based on how they believe others perceive them.

assumptions about what we think others think of us influences how we act and think

Generalized self vs significant others in deviance theory

The distinction between the attitudes and expectations of a larger society (generalized self) and the close relationships that have a direct impact on an individual's self-concept (significant others) in shaping deviant behavior.

Tagging and dramatization of evil with labelling theory

The process through which individuals are labeled as deviant, resulting in a shift in their identity and behavior as they become associated with negative stereotypes and societal expectations.

Primary vs. Secondary deviance

Primary deviance refers to initial acts of rule-breaking that may go unnoticed by society, while secondary deviance occurs when an individual adopts a deviant identity after being labeled.

Master status of deviance

A social status that overrides other identities and significantly influences how a person is perceived, often leading to increased stigmatization and discrimination.

Stigmatization as labelling theory

The process by which individuals are negatively marked or labeled by society, leading to marginalization and alteration of their self-identity and social relationships.

(EXCLUSION FOLLOWING MASTER STATUS)

What is the dramaturgy theory?

A sociological perspective developed by Erving Goffman that views social interactions as performances where individuals present themselves in various ways depending on the context and audience.

Front stage vs. backstage of dramaturgy theory

The distinction between the public personas individuals present in social settings (front stage) and their more genuine, private selves (backstage) when in less formal environments.

What is the deviant career

A term describing the progression of roles and identities individuals adopt as they engage in deviant behavior over time, often leading to a defined path in social deviance.

What are critical theories about deviance

Critical theories about deviance focus on the social power structures that define what is considered deviant, examining how inequality and marginalization influence the labeling of certain behaviors or groups as deviant.

Praxis deviance theory