What theory states that people in all strata of society share the same success goals but those in the lower

Durkheim's Concept

‘Anomie’ was reinvented by Jean-Marie Guyau, a French philosopher with a sociological bent, in two books: Esquisse d’une morale sans obligation ni sanction, published in 1885, and L’Irréligion de l’avenir, published in 1887. Guyau opposed anomie to autonomie (Kantian autonomy). Because of the progressive individualization of the beliefs and criteria for ethical conduct, the morality of the future would be not only autonomous but anomic – determined by no universal law. For Guyau this process was both ineluctable and desirable.

After Guyau, the word appeared occasionally in late nineteenth century, in the writings of French philosophers and sociologists, such as Gabriel Tarde. But it was Emile Durkheim who would inscribe ‘anomie’ in the vocabulary of sociology, the new discipline he intended to found.

Durkheim could not accept Guyau's anarchizing individualism since for him every moral fact consisted of a sanctioned rule of behavior. He therefore considered anomie a pathological phenomenon. In De la division du travail social (The Division of Labor in Society), his doctoral thesis defended and published in 1893, Durkheim called anomie an abnormal form of the division of labor, defining it as the absence or insufficiency of the regulation necessary to ensure cooperation between different specialized social functions. As examples of anomie he cited economic crises, the antagonism between capitalists and workers, and science's loss of unity due to its increasing specialization. In all three of these cases, what was missing were continuous contacts between individuals performing different social roles, who did not perceive that they were participating in a common undertaking. At the end of his chapter on anomic form, Durkheim discussed another kind of pathological characteristic of industrial societies: the alienation of the worker performing an overspecialized task. This explains why a number of Durkheim's readers understood job meaninglessness to be an integral part of anomie. In fact, they introduced a ‘parasite’ connotation into his concept. Such alienation is not only different from anomie, it is in many ways its opposite.

Durkheim further developed the theme of anomie in Le Suicide (Suicide) (1897), defining anomic suicide as that resulting from insufficient social regulation of individual aspirations. In this connection, he discussed economic anomie, caused by a period of economic expansion; and conjugal or sexual anomie, due to the introduction and spread of divorce. In both these cases, an opening up of the horizon of the possible brings about the indetermination of the object of desire, or unlimited desire (which amounts to the same thing). This leads to frustration. The anomie that follows a passing crisis may be acute, but Durkheim was especially interested in chronic, even institutionalized anomie. This type of anomie, the ‘morbid desire for the infinite,’ was an unavoidable counterpart of modern industrial society, residing simultaneously in its value system, e.g., the doctrine of constant progress; its institutions, e.g., divorce law; and its functioning, e.g., competition in an ever-expanding market. However, along with ‘progressive’ anomie, Durkheim also evoked a ‘regressive’ type, which actually pertained to ‘fatalism.’ This last notion, which Durkheim did not really develop, refers to the impossibility of internalizing rules considered unacceptable because they were unjust or excessively repressive. Here, desires and aspirations run up against new norms, deemed illegitimate; there is a closing down of possibilities. This situation is in fact the opposite of progressive – true – anomie, where the wide, open horizon of the possible leads to unlimited desires. Fatalism, then, is the opposite of anomie, just as altruism is the opposite of egoism (Durkheim's terms for the other types of suicide). In fact, this bipolar theory of social regulation of aspirations was not clearly laid out by Durkheim, and this no doubt explains the concept's peculiar later career. After Durkheim, ‘anomie’ underwent a complete semantic revolution.

Anomie was not a permanent theme in Durkheim's thought; he was more concerned with the question of social integration. Indeed, both word and concept disappeared from his work after 1901 and they are not to be found anywhere in the works of his disciples or collaborators in the ‘French school of sociology’ and in L’Année sociologique. In Les Causes du suicide, a purported continuation of Durkheim's study of suicide published in 1930, Maurice Halbwachs confirmed Durkheim's results on many points; but he either neglected or rejected everything that could possibly pertain to Durkheim's theory of anomie, he made no reference to conjugal anomie, and he refuted Durkheim's hypothesis of a progressive economic anomie.

Yet it was in the sociology of suicide, particularly in American studies of the subject, that Durkheim's notion of anomie would endure for a time, following the 1951 English translation of Le Suicide. In this connection, mention should be made of Henry and Short's (1954) study, in which they sought to apply Durkheim's concept of anomie to their analysis of the effect of the economic cycle on suicide frequency. The largely negative results of this and other tests of Durkheim's progressive anomie hypothesis did not encourage sociologists to explore this avenue of research further. Conjugal anomie, meanwhile, was left almost entirely aside in suicide studies, which gave primacy to Durkheim's egoistic suicide, reflecting a preference for his theory of integration over the less developed one of regulation.

Abstract

Anomie is a term that, in various forms, originally appeared in writing in Greek antiquity and biblical history. Introduced in modern sociology by means of an appropriation from social and moral philosophy at the end of the nineteenth century, the concept of anomie was first applied in the seminal works of Emile Durkheim. It was subsequently elaborated and examined in the context of the sociology of deviant behavior on the basis of the writings of Robert K. Merton. With varying levels of success, anomie has remained a mainstay in sociological theory and research until today. The meaning of anomie has thereby undergone several transformations of more and less conceptual significance.

Social Structural Approaches

Social disorganization theory/collective efficacy. The underlying assumption of social disorganization theory is that neighborhoods characterized by social disadvantage, high residential mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity are socially disorganized: informal mechanisms of social control (e.g., schools, churches, community institutions) are weak, resulting in low levels of social cohesion and a subsequent diversity of values and norms regarding appropriate behavior. Through socialization processes, values that facilitate delinquent behavior are transmitted generationally accounting for stable patterns in crime rates over time (relative to socially organized neighborhoods). The most recent and widely regarded theoretical approach within the social disorganization tradition is Sampson’s theory of collective efficacy (Sampson, 2012; Sampson et al., 1997). Collective efficacy refers to macro-level properties of communities that relate to levels of social cohesion (shared values, norms, and expectations regarding behavior), and the willingness of residents to intervene to enforce these norms, values, and expectations. Thus Sampson et al. (1997, p. 918) argue that “the differential ability of neighborhoods to realize the common values of residents and maintain effective social controls is a major source of neighborhood variation in violence.” The collective efficacy of a neighborhood, in turn, is influenced by concentrated disadvantage and residential mobility: socially disadvantaged and less stable neighborhoods result in lower levels of collective efficacy which, in turn, influence rates of crime.

The idea that neighborhood variations in offending rates relate to differences in collective efficacy has been supported by a number of studies in the United States (Sampson, 2012; Sampson et al., 1997), the United Kingdom (Wikström et al., 2012), the Netherlands (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2008), and Australia (Mazerolle, Wickes, & McBroom, 2010), although not all studies have provided unequivocal support for the theory (Bruinsma et al., 2013; Sutherland et al., 2013). However, it seems clear that differences among neighborhoods in the degree of social cohesion and willingness to enforce social norms can account for some of the variation that is found. Moreover, Sampson (2012) has argued that changes in collective efficacy over time can account for some of the historical trend towards declining rates of violence in the United States since the mid-1990s. Collective efficacy theory has been pressed into less regular service in attempts to explain variations in offending over longer time periods and among larger ecological units (cities, states, regions, and countries). However, plausibly many of the variables that predict higher rates of crime (such as poverty, income inequality, levels of trust) manifest at the more local level as a higher number of neighborhoods with relatively lower levels of collective efficacy. The long-term historical trends in violence are less readily accounted for by collective efficacy theory. Broadly speaking the historical trend has been towards less socially cohesive, more mobile, and more ethnically heterogeneous societies over time although it is unclear how this has played out at the level of individual neighborhoods.

Anomie/strain theory. For Merton (1938), crime was inextricably linked to social-structural and cultural processes. Individuals who are thwarted from obtaining the “American dream” of economic prosperity and success by virtue of social-structural barriers that impede social mobility, resort to “deviant” (i.e., criminal) routes to obtain the status that they are otherwise denied. In short, the tension arising from culturally prescribed goals and an inability to meet them produces a “strain to anomie” that is manifest in criminal behavior. Contemporary work with the strain/anomie tradition also highlights the role of cultural values and social-structural processes. In Crime and the American Dream, Messner and Rosenfeld (2013) focus on how the institutional structure of American society privileges the economy above all else, and how this impacts in adverse ways on other important institutions such as the family or the education system. As summarized by Messner, Rosenfeld, and Karstedt (2013, p. 411), Institutional-anomie theory (IAT) can explain high rates of crime as a result of

…dominant cultural values that extol the virtues of competitive individual achievement and wealth accumulation at the expense of values that emphasize noneconomic forms of achievement, collective solidarity, and the common good.

Although IAT was originally developed with a focus on explaining the high rates of crime found in American society relative to other Western nations, it can also potentially account for historical and ecological variation in offending. Ecological variation in crime can be accounted for by IAT in terms of the relative emphasis that societies place on the economy as the dominant institution and their failure to insulate citizens from the vicissitudes of the market economy. More recently, Messner (2012) has attempted to bridge the macro-micro divide in criminology by integrating IAT with Wikström’s situational action theory. The focal point of this integration is morality: certain institutional “configurations” (i.e., the favoring of the economy over all else) lead to higher crime rates because of the related weakening in other important institutions (family, school, and religion) that play a central role in the inculcation of cooperative behavior by facilitating moral development along prosocial lines.

Crime pattern theories. Another theoretical perspective in criminology that has been at the forefront of efforts to explain ecological variation in crime—particularly the historical pattern over the past 50 years or so—draws on how social structural and cultural changes affect the routine activities of individuals in ways that influence criminal decision-making. Routine activities theory notes that for crime to occur three things need to converge in time and space: (1) a motivated offender; (2) a suitable target; and (3) the absence of a capable guardian (Felson, 2008). The first of these factors is simply taken for granted and then largely ignored—there will always be individuals willing to take advantages of criminal opportunities. The second two factors will, inevitably, vary across time and space: in some locations and historical periods, there are more suitable targets and less capable guardians than others, and hence rates of crime will vary accordingly. The rapid rise in rates of offending that occurred in many Western countries in the late 1960s and early 1970s can be attributed, from this perspective, to critical changes in routine activities: suburbanization and the greater entry of women into the workforce removed many capable guardians, and the rise in consumer goods created more suitable targets. This approach has also been employed to account for the drop in crime that has occurred since the 1990s. In particular, according to the “security hypothesis,” the dramatic fall in offending was largely driven by improvements in the scope, range, and quality of security measures employed to prevent crime (Farrell et al., 2011, 2014). Although this approach may only seem applicable for understanding changes in property crime, Farrell et al. (2014) argue that property offenses are “keystone” crimes that once suppressed forestall criminal careers and bring about a fall in other kinds of offending as well.

Anomie theory

Anomie refers to a state of ‘normlessness’ in society, a condition that occurs most frequently during periods of dramatic social change. The great French sociologist Emile Durkheim explained that anomie occurs when old institutions are no longer functioning in a stable way and people no longer can count on receiving the expected rewards for conforming to expected standards. Robert K. Merton later formalized Durkheim’s theory and tried to show how it might explain various dissimilar responses, some of them deviant. During an economic crisis, for example, unemployment may reach high levels, while there may be insufficient public funds or political will to pay adequate unemployment or welfare benefits. In other words, the goals toward which people have been taught to aspire (e.g., to achieve prosperity by holding a well-paid job) do not correspond to the institutionalized means that are actually available and the norms by which people are supposed to compete.

When this frustrating situation arises, people may respond in a variety of ways. Ideally they continue to conform to society’s standards, despite the difficulties, by trying harder to get ahead while following the rules. Analysts of violence are particularly interested in two types of those deviants, whom Merton called, respectively, innovators (those who adopt illegal or disapproved ways of reaching success, such as robbing banks or cheating in business) and rebels (who withdraw allegiance from the existing social system, which they consider unjust, and seek to rebuild society along different lines). Both of these types may (but do not necessarily) resort to violence. Rebels and innovators are mainly social outsiders rather than mainstream members of society. They are portrayed as marginalized people in periods of upheaval when large populations feel the need to migrate or adapt to a societal crisis after old relationships have broken down and before stable new ones have developed.

Anomie theory sometimes seems to fit empirical reality, but sometimes not. Take terrorism, for example. Often the terrorist is not a marginalized social isolate, but a leading member of some cult or political group whose members are collectively estranged from the wider society, whether or not they ever have been individually excluded from mainstream society. Indeed, a terrorist often comes from a rather privileged background and might have become a prominent person in mainstream society.

This is true of many political assassins, who think of themselves as guerrilla warriors and revolutionaries. In their own way, terrorists of this sort are self-sacrificing idealists; it is just that the ideals they espouse are contrary to those shared throughout the wider society. Sociologists can explain little about them in terms of anomie theory, but do better by applying an alternative theory of deviance, subculture theory, also known as ‘cultural transmission theory’.

Anomie Theory

Anomie refers to a state of “normlessness” in society, a condition that occurs most frequently during periods of dramatic social change. The great French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1951) explained that anomie occurs when old institutions are no longer functioning in a stable way and people no longer can count on receiving the expected rewards for conforming to expected standards. Merton (1938) later formalized Durkheim's theory and tried to show how it might explain various dissimilar responses, some of them deviant. During an economic crisis, for example, unemployment may reach high levels, while there may be insufficient public funds or political will to pay adequate unemployment or welfare benefits. In other words, the goals toward which people have been taught to aspire (e.g., to achieve prosperity by holding a well-paid job) do not correspond to the institutionalized means that are actually available and the norms by which people are supposed to compete.

When this frustrating situation arises, people may respond in a variety of ways. Ideally they continue to conform to society's standards, despite the difficulties, by trying harder to get ahead while following the rules. Analysts of violence are particularly interested in two types of those deviants, whom Merton called, respectively, innovators (those who adopt illegal or disapproved ways of reaching success, such as robbing banks or cheating in business) and rebels (who withdraw allegiance from the existing social system, which they consider unjust, and seek to rebuild society along different lines). Both of these types may (but do not necessarily) resort to violence. Rebels and innovators are mainly social outsiders rather than mainstream members of society. They are portrayed as marginalized people in periods of upheaval when large populations feel the need to migrate or adapt to a societal crisis after old relationships have broken down and before stable new ones have developed.

Anomie theory sometimes seems to fit empirical reality, but sometimes not. Take terrorism, for example. Often the terrorist is not a marginalized social isolate, but a leading member of some cult or political group whose members are collectively estranged from the wider society, whether or not they ever have been individually excluded from mainstream society. Indeed, a terrorist often comes from a rather privileged background and might have become a prominent person in mainstream society.

This is true of many political assassins, who think of themselves as guerrilla warriors and revolutionaries. In their own way, terrorists of this sort are self-sacrificing idealists; it is just that the ideals they espouse are contrary to those shared throughout the wider society. Sociologists can explain little about them in terms of anomie theory, but do better by applying an alternative theory of deviance, subculture theory, also known as “cultural transmission theory.”

4 Strain Theory vs. Control Theory

No dichotomy has attracted as much attention as the opposition between strain and control theories, which was articulated by Hirschi (1969). Strain theories rest on the concept of anomie, which was borrowed from Durkheim by Merton (1938) in an article that was revised several times in subsequent work (Merton 1967). Although Merton's conception of anomie differs much from Durkheim's, they are both framed in terms of a discrepancy between means and ends. For Durkheim, anomie is the hallmark of a troubled social predicament where people have unlimited cravings and limited means to fulfill them. This strain generates a normative vacuum which is for some conducive to self-destruction. For Merton, anomie results from a breakdown in the relationship between culture goals and the legitimate or institutionalized means to achieve them. This breakdown, particularly when it occurs between goals that are accepted and legitimate means to achieve them that are either unavailable or rejected, is a source of strain that may erupt in criminal behavior.

Anomie and strain theory basically tries to answer why and how people embrace criminal behavior. Therein lies the fundamental disagreement between strain theorists and control theorists such as Hirschi. For the latter, the question worth addressing is not why people break the law but why they actually conform to it. Then, the central concern of a sociology of crime should not be deviance but conformity. The sources of deviance can nevertheless be derived from breakdowns in the machinery that fosters conformity. Control theory originally answered its question about the roots of conformity with reference to civil society. Hirschi explained conformity by social bonding relationships that strengthened the ties between an individual and law-abiding society. These relationships consisted of attachment to family, school, and peers; commitment to conventional lines of action; involvement in conventional activities; and belief in the values that triggered these social bonding mechanisms and kept them functioning. Although that was not the path originally chosen by Hirschi, conformity could also be explained in political and legal terms, that is, by pointing to the fear of sanctions meted by the state upon lawbreakers. In this way control theory is connected with deterrence theory, and more generally with research into how people are coerced to conform by the state apparatus (see Criminal Justice, Sociology of; Police, Sociology of). In this process, the sociology of crime draws a full circle: it first begins as a sociology of deviance and then, striving to explain conformity, it is transformed into a sociology of social bonding and, ultimately, a sociology of the efficacy of the penal system. Furthermore, the notion of the positive delinquent whose behavior is impelled by multiple determinants is superseded by a perception of delinquents as individuals who exercise rational choice. Deterrence theory is predicated upon such a perception.

Extensions or Reformulations in the Anomie/Strain/Status Frustration Tradition

There are also contemporary twists on anomie/strain/status frustration theories: (1) self-derogation theory, (2) integrated strain-bond theory, (3) general strain theory, (4) institutional anomie theory, and (5) control-balance theory. Such theories are classified here as part of the strain tradition in that they all include an imbalance of some kind that provides the motivation for violating laws.

Howard Kaplan (1975, 1980) and Delbert Elliott et al. (1985) were the first theorists to propose an integrated theory in which variables from strain, social control, and differential association theory all played a role in the explanation of delinquency. However, their perspectives fall in the strain/frustration tradition because they focus on frustrations in goal attainment as the process setting youth in search of a solution. Elliott viewed his perspective as an integration of strain and social control theory while others (Akers and Sellers, 2004) view the theory as quite compatible with differential association and social learning theory.

The title of Robert Agnew's most recent work is Pressured Into Crime (2005). Neither social disorganization/control theory nor cultural conflict/differential association theory require a ‘pressure’ to explain crime. General strain theory is a motivational theory and introduces pressures as a major source of motivation for crime and delinquency. It is called a ‘general strain’ theory because it is not limited to the specific types of frustrated goal achievement emphasized in the original development of the theory (i.e., failure to achieve positive goals).

Charles Tittle (1995) has developed a very elaborate theory of deviance in general named ‘control-balance’ theory. Because it includes control in its title it may be tempting to categorize it with social control theory. However, Tittle argues that deviant behavior ‘Deviant is a device’ that ‘helps people escape deficits and extend surpluses.’ Early strain theorists emphasized failures to achieve widely shared success goals, and Tittle incorporates problems in achieving more basic human needs or goals as providing motivation or ‘predispositions’ for deviant action.

In Crime and the American Dream, Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (2001) propose yet another version of a strain/frustration theory – an ‘institutional anomie’ theory in which economic dominance is the cause of high crime rates in the United States compared to other nation. While the theory is clearly anchored in the anomie-strain tradition, as evidenced by its focus on ‘anomic cultural pressures,’ the mediating mechanisms linking economic dominance to crime are quite compatible with social disorganization/social control theory. Not only do anomic ‘cultural pressures’ directly facilitate crime, but they also weaken (or prevent the development of) other social institutions as sources of informal social control.

Martin Sanchez Jankowsi's Islands in the Street (1991) and Elijah Anderson's book, Code of the Streets (1999), fall in the strain tradition because the ‘character’ traits or ‘codes’ they identify as a characteristic of gang youth are not a reflection of a wider subculture passed on through normal processes of socialization from generation to generation. Rather, gang delinquency is depicted as a response to limited resources or the irrelevance of more conventional culture to life on the streets. Based primarily on observational or ethnographic evidence, Jankowski argues that the key to understanding movement into gangs is a type of ‘social character’ called ‘defiant individualism.’ When a theorist emphasizes ‘defiance’ it implies more of a contraculture than a subculture.

Elijah Anderson reintroduced the notion of an oppositional subculture where self-respect requires a demonstration of toughness and maintenance of honor requires physical violence. Although the code is identified as most relevant to black youth, Jankowski's version is relevant to gang members in a wide range of ethnic groups, including whites. It should be noted that codes and characters can become ‘subcultural,’ if they become an enduring tradition passed on through normal learning processes in an area.

4.3 Anomie and Subculture

Merton's seminal article, Social Structure and Anomie, (1938) set the stage for another dominant strand of sociological inquiry. Merton claimed that there was a disjuncture in American society between the materialist goals to which all aspired (the ‘American Dream’) and the opportunities to reach them. In a stratified or unequal society coupled with a common value system that stresses material gain, strain, or ‘anomie,’ is inevitable. Merton developed a typology of adaptations to structurally induced strain; crime, he reasoned, was the innovative response to blocked opportunities. Merton took it for granted that anomie and crime were greatest in the lower socioeconomic strata of American society.

It fell to Cloward and Ohlin (1960) to carry Merton's theory to its logical conclusion for youth, especially adolescent males in lower-class areas of American cities. Finding routes to conventional success blocked, Cloward and Ohlin argued that deprived adolescents formed delinquent subcultures. But the opportunities for crime also varied, with some youth joining criminal subcultures, others conflict (fighting) subcultures, and still others found themselves in retreatist subcultures characterized by drugs and alcohol. Another class-based subcultural theory was proposed by Miller (1958), whereby the focal concerns of lower-class culture—especially an emphasis on ‘toughness’—were argued to spawn a generating milieu of juvenile delinquency.

Cohen (1955) also wrote an influential treatise on delinquent subcultures, but his focus was on the status frustration of lower-class boys in an educational system dominated by middle-class standards. The motivation to join delinquent subcultures was not economic in origin, according to Cohen, but frustration borne of educational inadequacy and humiliation in school. The result was ‘negativistic’ delinquency (e.g., vandalism).

Classical Perspectives on Deviance and Power

The primary classical perspectives on deviance – such as anomie by Merton, subculture by Cohen, differential association by Sutherland and Cressy, conflict by Quinney, and their derivatives – contain three basic assumptions. First, they all assume the preexistence of a deviant category or definition; second, the individual deviant is viewed by the rest of society as violating an established norm or value; and third, particular actors within society (e.g., social control agents) will react to the perceived violator by negatively sanctioning the deviant behavior. While the latter two assumptions are theoretically and empirically informed, assuming the preexistence of a deviant category is highly problematic. It pronounces ‘deviance’ as a fixed category with unchanging parameters throughout history and across different cultures.

Definitions of appropriate and inappropriate social conduct are subject to a variety of dynamic elements and shifting historical conditions, some examples of which have been examined theoretically by Gusfield and Erikson; to assume otherwise – that definitions of appropriate social behavior somehow preexist and are lodged permanently within society – is to fundamentally misapprehend the parameters of deviance and power. In the earlier part of this century the Chicago School of Sociology firmly opened the door for this analysis of the relevance of the power to define via W. I. Thomas’s observation that if people define situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. Moreover, research from the Chicago School noted the transition zone where more recent immigrant groups would find themselves more likely to be defined as deviant as they struggled to become more fully integrated into mainstream society. The research noted explicitly the conflict of power for immigrants and revealed implicitly the roles of the market economy, which often restricted access to the mainstream, and the clash of social classes.

At a more explicit level, social class entered as a variable into the sociological study of deviance via Merton’s anomie theory. He argued that the social class distribution of crime was a key problem. Merton explained this distribution by examining the social stresses that might lead to different forms of individual deviant behavior. Burglary, for example, might be motivated by a desire for material success and an inability to achieve those institutionalized goals through legitimate means of occupational roles. The fact that this condition was statistically more frequent among the unemployed and marginally employed accounted for the observed (or assumed) relationships between burglary and social class. Merton explicated the power of societal norms in influencing individuals to seek high status which he referred to as one of the institutionalized goals of society.

The relationship between deviance and social class was also critical for subsequent researchers, such as Sutherland and Cressy. The emerging theory of differential association, however, began with a different view of the social class distribution of deviance. This theory suggested that deviance is common among all social classes and that the process of differential association creates a bias against those members of society with little power. Subsequent studies of white-collar crime demonstrated, for example, that becoming a price fixer involved the same basic learning and social support processes that led to becoming a burglar. What is interesting, from the power and deviance approach, is that this study raised serious questions about the political issues of definition. Why is it the case that offenses committed by higher status members of society typically are lightly sanctioned (e.g., corporate offenses often are adjudicated under civil rather than criminal law), while offenses committed by lower class individuals receive not only a harsher (criminal) sanction but in many instances a sanction vastly disproportionate to the relative harm of the offense?

This concern with explaining society’s reaction to deviance rather than the motivation of the actor was addressed more thoroughly by the labeling theory of the 1960s. Many sociologists suggested that the critical factor needing attention was the reaction to deviance. This reorientation, in turn, resulted in the rebirth of the sociology of law. The labeling theorists remained partially tied to the traditional concern with motivation, despite their revolution in perspective. In particular, most of them sought to demonstrate how sanctioning and the associated stigma serve to reinforce and stabilize the deviant behavior of the individual. Labeling theorists tended to take as their central mission the exorcism of explanations of deviance in terms of individual characteristics. It was believed by these theorists that deviance is a property conferred on rather than inherent in the actor. However, in fighting this war with their predecessors and focusing on the consequences of stigma, labeling theorists often overlooked the sources of the deviant labels being imposed by powerful agencies, the ways in which such labels changed, and especially the explicit processes of power underlying the development and imposition of labels.

Many of the factors that may contribute to changes in the definition of acts or actors have been touched upon by a variety of labeling theorists. Among these theories are those that discuss the methods used by the deviants, and the status of the definers (labelers) and the defined. The focus of the labeling approach, however, has been somewhat misdirected. As an illustration, it may be instructive to compare these developments with contemporary developments in the sociological field called stratification. The research in stratification has taken the direction of emphasizing individual motivational issues at the expense of political and structural questions. The field became consumed with the process of status attainment by individuals, tracing out the career trajectories of individuals in the occupational structure, and with the rather precise estimation of the role of actual performance versus unearned progress in an individual’s career development – but failed to account for impediments to the attainment of status, for example, as a result of inequities in power.

Some ideologies present a system of thought that offers what could be considered a pragmatist’s view of deviance and social control. Rather than attempting to explain, define, or alter how deviance is viewed, these explanations simply accept that deviance exists and must be controlled. Related to this idea is the concept of pluralism. Pluralism appeared to many as a working feature of the political system that allowed for at least minimal fulfillment of the needs of all groups in society. While it is accepted that there are competing power elites, it is believed that by the nature of their competing interests no group is able to wield an inordinate amount of control or power over another. Based on these perspectives, there can be some similarities in interpretations of political reality between those in power and those subjected to that power. Politics, as the ongoing discussion of means and ends, seemed to subside since what was meaningful for the rulers appeared meaningful for the ruled as well. These pluralistic perspectives fell by the wayside during the political protests of the late 1960s.

The history of the sociology of deviance is also replete with debates concerning the relative importance of legal and extralegal factors in society’s reaction to deviancy. The notion that societal reaction is the most fundamental process of deviance is an established observation. The literature to date reveals that society nearly always ‘reacts’ to deviancy, so continued efforts to estimate the relative impact of legal and extralegal factors are no longer particularly fruitful. The attendant body of knowledge currently consists of a number of competing and divergent arguments, and while each has some merit and potential in explaining the process of the reaction to deviant behavior, they appear, as Sumner demonstrates, incapable of being reconciled with one another, and moreover fail to address the role of power by which behavior comes to be defined as deviant. A power and deviance approach specifies and then seeks to elaborate the conditions under which amorphous behavior becomes ‘defined’ as deviant, or behavior that was once characterized as deviant becomes ‘redefined’ as some kind of nondeviant conduct or attribute, as in the case, for example, when the medical or psychiatric communities redefine a deviant behavior as a physiological malady or cognitive abnormality (i.e., ‘sickness’).

Classical Overview of Deviance and Power

The primary classical perspectives on deviance—such as anomie by Merton (1938), subculture by Cohen (1955), differential association by Sutherland and Cressey (1966), conflict by Quinney (1977), and their derivatives—contain three basic assumptions. First, they all assume the pre-existence of a deviant category or definition; second, the individual deviant is viewed by the rest of society as violating an established norm or value; and third, particular actors within society (e.g., social control agents) will react to the perceived violator by negatively sanctioning the deviant behavior. While the latter two assumptions are theoretically and empirically informed, assuming the pre-existence of a deviant category is highly problematic. It pronounces “deviance” as a fixed category with unchanging parameters throughout history and across different cultures.

Definitions of appropriate and inappropriate social conduct are subject to a variety of dynamic elements and shifting historical conditions, some examples of which have been examined theoretically by Gusfield (1963) and Erikson (1966); to assume otherwise—that definitions of appropriate social behavior somehow pre-exist and are lodged permanently within society—is to fundamentally misapprehend the parameters of deviance and power. In the earlier part of this century the Chicago School of Sociology firmly opened the door for this analysis of the relevance of the power to define via W. I. Thomas's observation that if people define situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. Moreover, research from the Chicago School noted the transition zone where more recent immigrant groups would find themselves more likely to be defined as deviant as they struggled to become more fully integrated into mainstream society. The research noted explicitly the conflict of power for immigrants and revealed implicitly the roles of the market economy, which often restricted access to the mainstream, and the clash of social classes.

At a more explicit level, social class entered as a variable into the sociological study of deviance via Merton's (1938) anomie theory. He argued that the social class distribution of crime was a key problem. Merton (1938) explained this distribution by examining the social stresses that might lead to different forms of individual deviant behavior. Burglary, for example, might be motivated by a desire for material success and an inability to achieve those institutionalized goals through legitimate means of occupational roles. The fact that this condition was statistically more frequent among the unemployed and marginally employed accounted for the observed (or assumed) relationships between burglary and social class. Merton (1938) explicated the power of societal norms in influencing individuals to seek high status which he referred to as one of the institutionalized goals of society.

The relationship between deviance and social class was also critical for subsequent researchers, such as Sutherland and Cressey (1966). The emerging theory of differential association, however, began with a different view of the social class distribution of deviance. This theory suggested that deviance is common among all social classes and that the process of differential association creates a bias against those members of society with little power. Subsequent studies of white-collar crime demonstrated, for example, that becoming a price fixer involved the same basic learning and social support processes that led to becoming a burglar. What is interesting, from the power and deviance approach, is that this study raised serious questions about the political issues of definition. Why is it the case that offenses committed by higher status members of society typically are lightly sanctioned (e.g., corporate offenses often are adjudicated under civil rather than criminal law), while offenses committed by lower class individuals receive not only a harsher (criminal) sanction but in many instances a sanction vastly disproportionate to the relative harm of the offense?

This concern with explaining society's reaction to deviance rather than the motivation of the actor was addressed more thoroughly by the labeling theory of the 1960s (Becker, 1963).

Many sociologists suggested that the critical factor needing attention was the reaction to deviance. This reorientation, in turn, resulted in the rebirth of the sociology of law. The labeling theorists remained partially tied to the traditional concern with motivation, despite their revolution in perspective. In particular, most of them sought to demonstrate how sanctioning and the associated stigma serve to reinforce and stabilize the deviant behavior of the individual (Goffman, 1963). Labeling theorists tended to take as their central mission the exorcism of explanations of deviance in terms of individual characteristics. It was believed by these theorists that deviance is a property conferred on rather than inherent in the actor. However, in fighting this war with their predecessors and focusing on the consequences of stigma, labeling theorists often overlooked the sources of the deviant labels being imposed by powerful agencies, the ways in which such labels changed, and especially the explicit processes of power underlying the development and imposition of labels.

Many of the factors that may contribute to changes in the definition of acts or actors have been touched upon by a variety of labeling theorists. Among these theories are those that discuss the methods used by the deviants, and the status of the definers (labelers) and the defined. The focus of the labeling approach, however, has been somewhat misdirected. As an illustration, it may be instructive to compare these developments with contemporary developments in the sociological field called stratification. The research in stratification has taken the direction of emphasizing individual motivational issues at the expense of political and structural questions. The field became consumed with the process of status attainment by individuals, tracing out the career trajectories of individuals in the occupational structure, and with the rather precise estimation of the role of actual performance versus unearned progress in an individual's career development—but failed to account for impediments to the attainment of status, for example, as a result of inequities in power.

Some ideologies present a system of thought that offers what could be considered a pragmatist's view of deviance and social control. Rather than attempting to explain, define, or alter how deviance is viewed, these explanations simply accept that deviance exists and must be controlled. Related to this idea is the concept of pluralism. Pluralism appeared to many as a working feature of the political system that allowed for at least minimal fulfillment of the needs of all groups in society. While it is accepted that there are competing power elites, it is believed that by the nature of their competing interests no group can wield an inordinate amount of control or power over another. Based on these perspectives, there can be some similarities in interpretations of political reality between those in power and those subjected to that power. Politics, as the ongoing discussion of means and ends, seemed to subside since what was meaningful for the rulers appeared meaningful for the ruled as well. These pluralistic perspectives fell by the wayside during the political protests of the late 1960s.

The history of the sociology of deviance is also replete with debates concerning the relative importance of legal and extra-legal factors in society's reaction to deviancy. The notion that societal reaction is the most fundamental process of deviance is an established observation. The literature to date reveals that society nearly always “reacts” to deviancy, so continued efforts to estimate the relative impact of legal and extra-legal factors are no longer particularly fruitful. The attendant body of knowledge currently consists of a number of competing and divergent arguments, and while each has some merit and potential in explaining the process of the reaction to deviant behavior, they appear, as Sumner (1994) demonstrates, incapable of being reconciled with one another, and moreover fail to address the role of power by which behavior comes to be defined as deviant. A power and deviance approach specifies and then seeks to elaborate the conditions under which amorphous behavior becomes “defined” as deviant, or behavior that was once characterized as deviant becomes “redefined” as some kind of nondeviant conduct or attribute, as in the case, for example, when the medical or psychiatric communities redefine a deviant behavior as a physiological malady or cognitive abnormality (i.e., “sickness”).