What views deviance as analogous to illness and uses terminology associated with disease?

Action or behavior that violates social norms

Customers at Denny's Restaurant watch May Day Demonstration-Protests. Mexico Metropolis, Mexico, May i, 1989

Deviance or the folklore of deviance ^{[1] [2]} explores the deportment and/or behaviors that violate social norms beyond formally enacted rules (e.g., crime)^[3] as well equally informal violations of social norms (east.g., rejecting folkways and mores). Although deviance may accept a negative connotation, the violation of social norms is not e'er a negative action; positive deviation exists in some situations. Although a norm is violated, a beliefs tin still exist classified as positive or acceptable.^[4]

Social norms differ throughout gild and betwixt cultures. A sure act or behaviour may be viewed every bit deviant and receive sanctions or punishments within one order and be seen as a normal behaviour in another club. Additionally, every bit a society'southward understanding of social norms changes over time, and so likewise does the collective perception of deviance.^[five]

Deviance is relative to the place where it was committed or to the time the human action took place. Killing another human is mostly considered wrong for example, except when governments permit information technology during warfare or for self-defense force. There are 2 types of major deviant deportment: mala in se and mala prohibita.

Types [edit]

The violation of norms tin can be categorized as 2 forms, formal deviance and informal deviance. Formal deviance can be described as a crime, which violates laws in a gild. Breezy deviance are minor violations that suspension unwritten rules of social life. Norms that accept peachy moral significance are mores. Under informal deviance, a more than opposes societal taboos.^[half-dozen]

Taboo is a strong social form of behavior considered deviant by a majority. To speak of information technology publicly is condemned, and therefore, almost entirely avoided. The term "taboo" comes from the Tongan word "tapu" significant "nether prohibition", "not allowed", or "forbidden". Some forms of taboo are prohibited under law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other forms of taboo result in shame, disrespect and humiliation. Taboo is not universal just does occur in the majority of societies. Some of the examples include murder, rape, incest, or child molestation.

Howard Becker, a labeling theorist, identified four different types of deviant behavior labels which are given equally:

1. "Falsely accusing" an individual - others perceive the private to exist obtaining obedient or deviant behaviors.
2. "Pure deviance", others perceive the private as participating in deviant and rule-breaking behavior.
3. "Conforming", others perceive the individual to be participating in the social norms that are distributed within societies.
4. "Secret deviance" which is when the individual is not perceived every bit deviant or participating in any dominion-breaking behaviors.

Theories [edit]

Deviant acts can be assertions of individuality and identity, and thus as rebellion against grouping norms of the dominant culture and in favor of a sub-culture. In a society, the behavior of an private or a group determines how a deviant creates norms.^[7]

3 wide sociological classes exist that describe deviant beliefs, namely, structural functionalism, symbolic interaction and conflict theory.

Structural-functionalist understanding of deviance

Structural-functionalism [edit]

Structural functionalists are concerned with how various factors in a society come together and collaborate to class the whole. Most notable, the work of Émile Durkheim and Robert Merton have contributed to the Functionalist ethics.^[8]

Durkheim's normative theory of suicide [edit]

Émile Durkheim would claim that deviance was in fact a normal and necessary part of social organization.^[3] He would state 4 important functions of deviance:

1. "Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Whatsoever definition of virtue rests on an opposing idea of vice: At that place tin can be no good without evil and no justice without criminal offense."^[iii]
2. Deviance defines moral boundaries, people larn right from wrong past defining people as deviant.
3. A serious grade of deviance forces people to come together and react in the same way against it.
4. Deviance pushes social club's moral boundaries which, in turn leads to social modify.

When social deviance is committed, the collective conscience is offended. Durkheim (1897) describes the collective conscience as a prepare of social norms by which members of a society follow.^[8] Without the commonage conscience, there would be no accented morals followed in institutions or groups.

Social integration is the attachment to groups and institutions, while social regulation is the adherence to the norms and values of social club. Durkheim's theory attributes social deviance to extremes of social integration and social regulation. He stated four dissimilar types of suicide from the human relationship between social integration and social regulation:^[eight].

1. Altruistic suicide occurs when one is also socially integrated.
2. Egoistic suicide occurs when 1 is not very socially integrated.
3. Anomic suicide occurs when at that place is very fiddling social regulation from a sense of aimlessness or despair.
4. Fatalistic suicide occurs when a person experiences too much social regulation.

Merton's strain theory [edit]

Robert K. Merton discussed deviance in terms of goals and means as part of his strain/anomie theory. Where Durkheim states that anomie is the confounding of social norms, Merton goes farther and states that anomie is the land in which social goals and the legitimate means to achieve them do not correspond. He postulated that an private'southward response to societal expectations and the means by which the individual pursued those goals were useful in understanding deviance. Specifically, he viewed commonage activeness as motivated by strain, stress, or frustration in a trunk of individuals that arises from a disconnection betwixt the social club'due south goals and the popularly used means to achieve those goals. Often, non-routine collective behavior (rioting, rebellion, etc.) is said to map onto economic explanations and causes by way of strain. These ii dimensions determine the adaptation to social club according to the cultural goals, which are the social club's perceptions near the platonic life, and to the institutionalized means, which are the legitimate means through which an individual may aspire to the cultural goals.^[9]

Merton described 5 types of deviance in terms of the acceptance or rejection of social goals and the institutionalized means of achieving them:^[three]

1. Innovation is a response due to the strain generated by our civilisation's accent on wealth and the lack of opportunities to get rich, which causes people to exist "innovators" past engaging in stealing and selling drugs. Innovators accept society's goals, but refuse socially acceptable means of achieving them. (eastward.thousand.: monetary success is gained through crime). Merton claims that innovators are generally those who have been socialised with similar world views to conformists, but who have been denied the opportunities they demand to be able to legitimately achieve lodge'south goals.
2. Conformists accept society's goals and the socially acceptable means of achieving them (e.thou.: monetary success is gained through difficult piece of work). Merton claims that conformists are generally middle-class people in middle class jobs who have been able to admission the opportunities in society such as a better education to achieve budgetary success through difficult work.
3. Ritualism refers to the inability to reach a cultural goal thus embracing the rules to the point where the people in question lose sight of their larger goals in club to feel respectable. Ritualists reject social club's goals, only accept order'south institutionalised means. Ritualists are most commonly found in dead-cease, repetitive jobs, where they are unable to achieve society'due south goals but still adhere to society'due south means of achievement and social norms.
4. Retreatism is the rejection of both cultural goals and means, letting the person in question "drop out". Retreatists decline the lodge's goals and the legitimate ways to achieve them. Merton sees them as true deviants, as they commit acts of deviance to attain things that practice not ever go along with society's values.
5. Rebellion is somewhat similar to retreatism, because the people in question also reject both the cultural goals and means, simply they go one step further to a "counterculture" that supports other social orders that already exist (rule breaking). Rebels reject society's goals and legitimate means to achieve them, and instead creates new goals and means to supercede those of club, creating not only new goals to achieve but as well new means to attain these goals that other rebels volition find acceptable.

Symbolic interaction [edit]

Symbolic interaction refers to the patterns of communication, interpretation, and adjustment between individuals. Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly synthetic in expectation of how the original speaker will react. The ongoing process is like the game of charades, only it is a full-fledged conversation.^[x]

The term "symbolic interactionism" has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct.^[xi] With symbolic interactionism, reality is seen as social, developed interaction with others. Well-nigh symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions practice develop in part or relation to something "real." People thus practise not answer to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality. Humans therefore exist in three realities: a physical objective reality, a social reality, and a unique. A unique is described as a third reality created out of the social reality, a private interpretation of the reality that is shown to the person by others.^[12] Both individuals and society cannot be separated far from each other for two reasons. One, being that both are created through social interaction, and two, one cannot be understood in terms without the other. Behavior is non defined by forces from the environment such every bit drives, or instincts, merely rather past a reflective, socially understood significant of both the internal and external incentives that are currently presented.^[13]

Herbert Blumer (1969) prepare out three bones bounds of the perspective:^[xi]

1. "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things;"
2. "The significant of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society;" and
3. "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters;"

Sutherland's differential association [edit]

In his differential clan theory, Edwin Sutherland posited that criminals learn criminal and deviant behaviors and that deviance is non inherently a office of a item individual'southward nature. When an individual's significant others appoint in deviant and/or criminal behavior, criminal beliefs will be learned as a result to this exposure.^[14] He argues that criminal behavior is learned in the same way that all other behaviors are learned, meaning that the acquisition of criminal noesis is not unique compared to the learning of other behaviors.

Sutherland outlined some very basic points in his theory, including the thought that the learning comes from the interactions between individuals and groups, using communication of symbols and ideas. When the symbols and ideas about deviation are much more favorable than unfavorable, the individual tends to take a favorable view upon deviance and volition resort to more of these behaviors.

Criminal behavior (motivations and technical noesis), equally with whatever other sort of behavior, is learned. One example of this would be gang activeness in inner urban center communities. Sutherland would feel that because a certain private's master influential peers are in a gang environment, information technology is through interaction with them that one may become involved in crime.^[14]

Neutralization theory [edit]

Gresham Sykes and David Matza'southward neutralization theory explains how deviants justify their deviant behaviors by providing alternative definitions of their actions and by providing explanations, to themselves and others, for the lack of guilt for actions in particular situations.

There are five types of neutralization:^[15]

1. Denial of responsibility: the deviant believes southward/he was helplessly propelled into the deviance, and that under the same circumstances, any other person would resort to like deportment;
2. Denial of injury: the deviant believes that the action caused no harm to other individuals or to the club, and thus the deviance is non morally wrong;
3. Denial of the victim: the deviant believes that individuals on the receiving cease of the deviance were deserving of the results due to the victim'due south lack of virtue or morals;
4. Condemnation of the condemners: the deviant believes enforcement figures or victims have the trend to be as deviant or otherwise corrupt, and as a result, are hypocrites to stand against; and
5. Appeal to college loyalties: the deviant believes that in that location are loyalties and values that go beyond the confines of the law; morality, friendships, income, or traditions may exist more important to the deviant than legal boundaries.

Labeling theory [edit]

Frank Tannenbaum and Howard S. Becker created and developed the labeling theory, which is a core facet of symbolic interactionism, and oftentimes referred to as Tannenbaum's "dramatization of evil." Becker believed that "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance".

Labeling is a process of social reaction by the "social audience," wherein people stereotype others, judging and accordingly defining (labeling) someone's behavior as deviant or otherwise. It has been characterized as the "invention, selection, manipulation of behavior which define bear in a negative manner and the selection of people into these categories."^[sixteen]

Every bit such, labeling theory suggests that deviance is acquired by the deviant's existence labeled as morally inferior, the deviant'southward internalizing the characterization and finally the deviant's acting according to that specific characterization (i.e., an individual labelled equally "deviant" will act accordingly). As time goes by, the "deviant" takes on traits that constitute deviance by committing such deviations as accommodate to the label (so the audience has the power to non label them and have the power to stop the deviance before it ever occurs by not labeling them). Individual and societal preoccupation with the label, in other words, leads the deviant individual to follow a self-fulfilling prophecy of abidance to the ascribed label.^[3]

This theory, while very much symbolically interactionist, also has elements of conflict theory, as the ascendant group has the power to make up one's mind what is deviant and adequate, and enjoys the power behind the labeling procedure. An example of this is a prison organization that labels people convicted of theft, and because of this they commencement to view themselves as by definition thieves, incapable of changing. "From this signal of view," Howard South. Becker writes:^[17]

Deviance is non a quality of the deed the person commits, only rather a result of the awarding by others of rules and sanctions to an "offender". The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been practical; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.^{[ folio needed ]}

In other words, "beliefs only becomes deviant or criminal if defined and interfered as such past specific people in [a] specific situation."^[18] It is important to note the salient fact that social club is not always correct in its labeling, often falsely identifying and misrepresenting people as deviants, or attributing to them characteristics which they do not accept. In legal terms, people are often wrongly accused, yet many of them must alive with the ensuant stigma (or conviction) for the rest of their lives.

On a similar annotation, order often employs double standards, with some sectors of society enjoying favouritism. Certain behaviors in one grouping are seen to be perfectly acceptable, or can be easily overlooked, but in another are seen, by the same audiences, as beastly.

The medicalization of deviance, the transformation of moral and legal deviance into a medical condition, is an important shift that has transformed the fashion society views deviance.^{[3] : 204} The labelling theory helps to explain this shift, as behaviour that used to be judged morally are now being transformed into an objective clinical diagnosis. For instance, people with drug addictions are considered "sick" instead of "bad."^{[three] : 204}

Primary and secondary deviation [edit]

Edwin Lemert developed the idea of primary and secondary deviation as a way to explicate the process of labeling. Primary deviance is any general deviance before the deviant is labeled as such in a particular way. Secondary deviance is whatsoever activity that takes place later primary deviance as a reaction to the institutional identification of the person equally a deviant.^[iii]

When an player commits a criminal offense (primary deviance), notwithstanding mild, the institution will bring social penalties down on the actor. However, punishment does non necessarily cease crime, so the histrion might commit the same primary deviance again, bringing even harsher reactions from the institutions. At this point, the histrion volition get-go to resent the institution, while the institution brings harsher and harsher repression. Eventually, the whole community will stigmatize the histrion as a deviant and the histrion volition not be able to tolerate this, but will ultimately have his or her role as a criminal, and volition commit criminal acts that fit the role of a criminal.

Main and secondary difference is what causes people to become harder criminals. Primary deviance is the time when the person is labeled deviant through confession or reporting. Secondary deviance is deviance before and after the primary deviance. Retrospective labeling happens when the deviant recognizes his acts as deviant after the principal deviance, while prospective labeling is when the deviant recognizes future acts as deviant. The steps to becoming a criminal are:

1. Chief divergence;
2. Social penalties;
3. Secondary deviation;
4. Stronger penalties;
5. Farther deviation with resentment and hostility towards punishers;
6. Customs stigmatizes the deviant equally a criminal;
7. Tolerance threshold passed;
8. Strengthening of deviant comport because of stigmatizing penalties; and finally,
9. Acceptance as role of deviant or criminal actor.

Broken windows theory [edit]

Broken windows theory states that an increase in minor crimes such equally graffiti, would somewhen atomic number 82 to and encourage an increase in larger transgressions. This suggests that greater policing on minor forms of deviance would lead to a decrease in major crimes. The theory has been tested in a variety of settings including New York City in the 90s. Compared to the state'southward boilerplate at the fourth dimension, trigger-happy crime rates fell 28 percent every bit a result of the campaign. Critics of the theory question the direct causality of the policing and statistical changes that occurred.^[19]

Control theory [edit]

Control theory advances the proposition that weak bonds betwixt the individual and society complimentary people to deviate. By contrast, strong bonds make deviance costly. This theory asks why people refrain from deviant or criminal behavior, instead of why people commit deviant or criminal behavior, according to Travis Hirschi. The control theory adult when norms emerge to deter deviant behavior. Without this "command", deviant behavior would happen more ofttimes. This leads to conformity and groups. People will suit to a grouping when they believe they accept more to gain from conformity than past deviance. If a potent bond is accomplished there will be less chance of deviance than if a weak bail has occurred. Hirschi argued a person follows the norms considering they have a bond to gild. The bond consists of iv positively correlated factors: opportunity, attachment, belief, and involvement.^{[3] : 204} When any of these bonds are weakened or broken 1 is more likely to human action in defiance. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi in 1990 founded their Self-Control Theory. It stated that acts of force and fraud are undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest and self-command. A deviant deed is based on a criminals ain cocky-control of themselves.

Containment theory is considered past researchers such as Walter C. Reckless to be part of the control theory considering it also revolves around the thoughts that stop individuals from engaging in crime. Reckless studied the unfinished approaches meant to explain the reasoning backside delinquency and criminal offense. He recognized that societal disorganization is included in the study of delinquency and offense under social deviance, leading him to merits that the bulk of those who live in unstable areas tend not to take criminal tendencies in comparison those who live in middle-class areas. This claim opens up more possible approaches to social disorganization, and proves that the already implemented theories are in need or a deeper connection to farther explore ideas of law-breaking and delinquency. These observations brought Reckless to ask questions such equally, "Why practice some persons intermission through the tottering (social) controls and others do non? Why do rare cases in well-integrated club break through the lines of stiff controls?" Reckless asserted that the intercommunication between cocky-control and social controls are partly responsible for the development of runaway thoughts. Social disorganization was not related to a particular environment, just instead was involved in the deterioration of an individuals social controls. The containment theory is the idea that everyone possesses mental and social safeguards which protect the private from committing acts of deviancy. Containment depends on the individuals ability to separate inner and outer controls for normative behavior.^[20]

More contemporary control theorists such every bit Robert Crutchfield take the theory into a new lite, suggesting labor marketplace experiences non only touch on the attitudes and the "stakes" of individual workers, but tin can also affect the development of their children's views toward conformity and cause involvement in delinquency. This is an ongoing written report as he has found a significant human relationship between parental labor marketplace involvement and children's delinquency, only has not empirically demonstrated the mediating role of parents' or children's attitude.^{[ commendation needed ]} In a study conducted by Tim Wadsworth, the human relationship between parent'south employment and children'southward delinquency, which was previously suggested by Crutchfield (1993), was shown empirically for the first time. The findings from this written report supported the thought that the relationship between socioeconomic status and delinquency might be better understood if the quality of employment and its role as an informal social control is closely examined.^[21]

Disharmonize theory [edit]

In folklore, disharmonize theory states that gild or an system functions so that each individual participant and its groups struggle to maximize their benefits, which inevitably contributes to social change such as political changes and revolutions. Deviant behaviors are actions that do not go along with the social institutions as what cause deviance. The institution's ability to change norms, wealth or condition comes into conflict with the individual. The legal rights of poor folks might be ignored, eye class are as well accept; they side with the elites rather than the poor, thinking they might rise to the top by supporting the status quo. Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economical forces operating inside society. However, it explains white-neckband criminal offence less well.

This theory besides states that the powerful define criminal offense. This raises the question: for whom is this theory functional? In this theory, laws are instruments of oppression: tough on the powerless and less tough on the powerful.

Karl Marx [edit]

Marx did non write nearly deviant beliefs just he wrote about alienation amongst the proletariat—besides as between the proletariat and the finished production—which causes conflict, and thus deviant behavior.

Many Marxist theorists have employed the theory of the capitalist country in their arguments. For example, Steven Spitzer utilized the theory of bourgeois command over social junk and social dynamite; and George Rusche was known to present analysis of different punishments correlated to the social capacity and infrastructure for labor. He theorized that throughout history, when more labor is needed, the severity of punishments decreases and the tolerance for deviant behavior increases. Jock Young, another Marxist author, presented the idea that the modern world did not corroborate of diversity, but was not afraid of social conflict. The late mod world, however, is very tolerant of diversity.^[iii] However, it is extremely afraid of social conflicts, which is an caption given for the political correctness movement. The belatedly modern society hands accepts difference, but information technology labels those that it does not want as deviant and relentlessly punishes and persecutes.

Michel Foucault [edit]

Michel Foucault believed that torture had been phased out from modern society due to the dispersion of power; there was no need any more for the wrath of the state on a deviant private. Rather, the modern state receives praise for its fairness and dispersion of power which, instead of controlling each individual, controls the mass.

He too theorized that institutions control people through the utilize of discipline. For case, the modern prison (more than specifically the panopticon) is a template for these institutions because information technology controls its inmates by the perfect use of subject.

Foucault theorizes that, in a sense, the postmodern society is characterized by the lack of free volition on the role of individuals. Institutions of knowledge, norms, and values, are simply in place to categorize and control humans.

Biological theories of deviance [edit]

Praveen Attri claims genetic reasons to be largely responsible for social deviance. The Italian school of criminology contends that biological factors may contribute to crime and deviance. Cesare Lombroso was among the start to research and develop the Theory of Biological Deviance which states that some people are genetically predisposed to criminal behavior. He believed that criminals were a product of before genetic forms. The principal influence of his enquiry was Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution. Lombroso theorized that people were built-in criminals or in other words, less evolved humans who were biologically more related to our more primitive and animalistic urges. From his enquiry, Lombroso took Darwin'due south Theory and looked at archaic times himself in regards to deviant behaviors. He establish that the skeletons that he studied mostly had depression foreheads and protruding jaws. These characteristics resembled primitive beings such equally Homo Neanderthalensis. He stated that petty could be done to cure built-in criminals considering their characteristics were biologically inherited. Over fourth dimension, most of his research was disproved. His enquiry was refuted by Pearson and Charles Goring. They discovered that Lombroso had not researched plenty skeletons to make his research thorough enough. When Pearson and Goring researched skeletons on their ain they tested many more than and found that the bone structure had no relevance in deviant behavior. The statistical report that Charles Goring published on this enquiry is called "The English Convict".

Other theories [edit]

The classical school of criminology comes from the works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria assumed a utilitarian view of lodge along with a social contract theory of the state. He argued that the role of the country was to maximize the greatest possible utility to the maximum number of people and to minimize those deportment that harm the society. He argued that deviants commit deviant acts (which are harmful to the society) because of the utility information technology gives to the private individual. If the state were to match the hurting of punishments with the utility of various deviant behaviors, the deviant would no longer have whatsoever incentive to commit deviant acts. (Note that Beccaria argued for only punishment; as raising the severity of punishments without regard to logical measurement of utility would cause increasing degrees of social harm one time information technology reached a certain signal.)

The criminal justice arrangement [edit]

In that location are three sections of the criminal justice system that function to enforce formal deviance:^[5]

1. Law: The police maintain public gild by enforcing the police. Police use personal discretion in deciding whether and how to handle a situation. Research suggests that police are more than likely to brand an arrest if the offence is serious, if bystanders are present, or if the suspect is of a visible minority.^[3]
2. Courts: Courts rely on an adversarial process in which attorneys-one representing the accused and i representing the Crown-present their cases in the presence of a judge who monitors legal procedures. In practice, courts resolve most cases through plea bargaining. Though efficient, this method puts less powerful people at a disadvantage.^[3]
3. Corrections system: Community-based corrections include probation and parole.^[five] These programs lower the toll of supervising people convicted of crimes and reduce prison overcrowding simply have non been shown to reduce recidivism.^[3]

There are four jurisdictions for penalization (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, societal protection),^[3] which fall under ane of 2 forms of justice that an offender volition face:^[8]

1. Punitive justice (retribution & deterrence): This form of justice defines boundaries of acceptable behaviors, whereby an individual suffers the consequences of committing a crime and in which pain or suffering inflicted on the private is hidden from the public.
2. Rehabilitative justice (rehabilitation & societal protection): This class of justice focuses on specific circumstances, whereby individuals are meant to exist fixed.

Run into also [edit]

• Abnormality
• Antisocial behavior
• Deviant Beliefs
• Libertine
• Nonconformity
• Personality disorders
  • Antisocial personality disorder
• Political corruption of psychiatry
• Positive deviance
• Psychopathy
• Role engulfment
• Rudeness
• Sin
• Social disorganization theory
• Sociopathy
• Workplace assailment
• Workplace deviance
• Victimology

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Erikson, Kai T. (1962). "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance". Social Problems. 9 (4): 307–314. doi:10.2307/798544. ISSN 0037-7791.
2. ^ Goode, Erich (2015), "The Sociology of Deviance", The Handbook of Deviance, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–29, doi:10.1002/9781118701386.ch1, ISBN978-1-118-70138-six , retrieved 2021-eleven-05
3. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k 50 m n} Macionis, John; Gerber, Linda (2010). Sociology (7th Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson. ISBN978-0-13-511927-3.
4. ^ Heckert, Alex (2002). "A new typology of deviance: Integrating normative and reactivist definitions of deviance". Deviant Behavior. 23 (5): 449–79. doi:10.1080/016396202320265319. S2CID 144506509.
5. ^ ^{a b c} "Introduction to Sociology 2e". OpenStax CNX (Open source textbook). Rice University. Deviance and Control. Retrieved 2019-02-28 .
6. ^ "Sociology". Social Science LibreTexts. Open Education Resource LibreTexts Project. 2018-07-30. 7.1B: Norms and Sanctions. Retrieved 2019-04-22 .
7. ^ "7.1E: The Functions of Deviance". Social Sci LibreTexts. 2018-07-30. Retrieved 2019-04-22 .
8. ^ ^{a b c d} Conley, Dalton (2017) [1969]. Y'all May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Similar a Sociologist (5th ed.). New York: Due west. W. Norton. ISBN9780393602388. OCLC 964624559.
9. ^ Paternoster, R.; Mazerolle, P. (1994). "General strain theory and malversation: A replication and extension". Journal of Research in Criminal offence and Malversation. 31 (3): 235. doi:10.1177/0022427894031003001. S2CID 145283538.
10. ^ Griffin, Em (2012). A Outset Look at Communication Theory . New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 54. ISBN978-0-07-353430-five.
11. ^ ^{a b} Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic interactionism; perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN978-0-13-879924-three. OCLC 18071.
12. ^ J. M. Charon. 2007. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, Integration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
13. ^ Meltzer, B. Due north., J. W. Petras, and 50. T. Reynolds. 1975. Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, Varieties, and Criticism. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14. ^ ^{a b} Botterweck, Michael C., et al. (eds.). 2011. Everyday Sociology. Elmhurst, IL: Starpoint Press. p 152.
15. ^ Mitchell, Jim; Dodder, Richard A. (1983). "Types of neutralization and delinquency". Journal of Youth and Boyhood. 12 (4): 307–18. doi:10.1007/BF02088729. PMID 24306310. S2CID 206811362.
16. ^ Jensen, Gary F. 2007. The Path of the Devil: Early Modern Witch Hunts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 88.
17. ^ Becker, Howard Southward. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Gratis Printing. ISBN 978-0-684-83635-5.
18. ^ Thomson, Doug. 2004. Crime and Deviance. p. 12.
19. ^ Greene, Jim (2018). Broken Windows Theory. Salem Printing Encyclopedia.
20. ^ Flexon, Jamie L. (2010). "Reckless, Walter C.: Containment Theory". In Cullen, Francis T.; Wilcox, Pamela (eds.). Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 777–82. ISBN9781412959186.
21. ^ Wadsworth, T. (2000). "Labor markets, delinquency, and social control theory: An empirical cess of the mediating process". Social Forces. 78 (three): 1041–66. doi:ten.1093/sf/78.3.1041.

Farther reading [edit]

• Clinard, M. B., and R. F. Meier. 1968. Sociology of Deviant Behavior.
• Dinitz, Simon, Russell R. Dynes, and Alfred C. Clarke. 1975. Deviance: Studies in Definition, Management, and Treatment.
• Douglas, J. D., and F. C. Waksler. 1982. The Sociology of Deviance: An Introduction. Boston: Lilliputian, Brownish & Co.
• MacNamara, Donal E. J., and Andrew Karmen. 1983. DEVIANTS: Victims or Victimizers? Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
• Pratt, Travis. north.d. "Reconsidering Gottfredson and Hirschi's Full general Theory of Crime: Linking the Micro- and Macro-level Sources of Cocky-control and Criminal Behavior Over the Life-class."
• Bartel, Phil. 2012. "Deviance." Social Control and Responses to Variant Behaviour (module). Vancouver Customs Network. Web. Accessed seven April 2020.
• "Types of Deviance." Criminal Justice. Acadia University. Archived from the original on 17 October 10. Retrieved on 23 Feb. 2012.
• "Inquiry at CSC ." Correctional Service of Canada. Government of Canada. Web. Retrieved on 23 Feb 2012.
• Macionis, John, and Linda Gerber. 2010. "Emile Durkheim"s Bones Insight" Sociology (7th ed.).
• Macionis, John, and Linda Gerber. 2010. "The Criminal Justice System" Folklore (7th ed.).

External links [edit]

wilesweass1985.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_%28sociology%29