Societal and Situational Deviance (www.sociology.org.uk)

When thinking about the nature of rule-making in any society, it is evident that we need to think about two main levels of analysis, namely the cultural and the subcultural. This distinction is important because it's clear that while a society as a whole may proscribe some form of behaviour (by making it illegal, for example), this is not necessarily true for a subcultural group.

On the contrary, for some subcultural groups the very fact that their behaviour is considered deviant by "society" (the cultural level of analysis) may be a significant factor in a subcultural group's formation and internal cohesion.

Sociologically, we can express this idea in terms of what Plummer has argued is the difference between societal (that is, society wide or cultural) and situational (that is, local or subcultural)  deviance. This distinction is particularly helpful because it reinforces the idea that behaviour considered deviant in one situation may be considered non- deviant in another.

By "societal deviance" Plummer means the various categories of behaviour that are either illegal or which are "commonly sensed" by people to be deviant (such as swearing at your teacher).

"Situational deviance", on the other hand, refers to the way different subcultural (or situational) groups develop norms of behaviour that may be at odds with those of "society as a whole". In such situations, behaviour that might be considered deviant in a particular culture (theft, homosexuality and so forth) may be perfectly acceptable in a subcultural setting.

To illustrate the above, consider the example of a couple removing their clothes:

• If they insist on doing this in the middle of a busy street they are "societally deviant" since, in terms of the basic norms governing public behaviour in our society, this is a deviant act.
• If they do the same thing in the privacy of their own home, however, this behaviour is not, situationally, deviant since no norms of behaviour have been broken.

This distinction serves to highlight both the complexity of "deviance" ( when we consider it in terms of the behaviour of real people) and the fact that how behaviour is interpreted by different groups (in effect, what the same behaviour means to different people) is a significant factor in relation to their behaviour. In this respect, Howard Becker captures the cultural and subcultural complexity of "deviance" when he argues:
"Deviance is not a quality of what people do (the act). Rather it is a quality of how people react to what you do"

Societal vs Situational Deviance

Work of Ken Plummer

• Ideas clearly influenced by Becker
• Relative
• Homosexual
• Interactionist

Societal Deviance

• Those attitudes, behaviours or conditions that are widely recognised to be deviant and are likely to be negatively reacted to by many (or, perhaps most) of society's members.
• Examples include murder, infanticide (Killing a child at birth), necrophilia, rape, paedophilia, grooming

Situational Deviance

• Where a group defines its behaviour as non deviant, even though such behaviour is considered societally deviant!
• Hence, different subcultures and groups develop norms of behaviour which are at odds with wider society. The behaviour is neutralised and is viewed as acceptable in the subcultural setting. E.g. Swinging, cross dressing, use of drugs, etc. 

Back to 'relativity':

• As with other forms of deviance, Plummer's distinction still allows for a degree of relativity.
• What is not societally deviant may be situationally deviant.
• For example, kissing in certain contexts, failing to belong to a certain religion, club or youth movement, using profanity etc.

Because of the variety and relativity of deviance Interactionists, in some ways provide the best definition. They argue that whether an act is deviant depends not on the act itself but on people's reaction to it.

Back to 'Social Construction'

• Q/ How do Interactionist views fit in with the notion of a 'social construction'?
• Litmus test = if the phenomenon or activity being assessed is changing and not static, it is likely to be a 'social construct'. This being particularly true if it changes across time and location or between cultures.
• (Opposed to a 'social fact' which is universal and unvarying (positivist concept))

Hagan (1984)

• Canadian Criminologist
• States that what we regard as formally and informally deviant is determined by society at large.
• For example, making something which has been viewed as informal into formal if enough people think it should be i.e. stalking, cyber bullying. And vice versa, down grading of cannabis

Deviance is constructed out of 3 measures of seriousness

1. The degree of agreement about the wrongfulness of the act
2. Severity of the social response elicited by the act
3. Societies evaluation of the harm elicited by the act

Illustrative Examples:

• 9/11- an act which undoubtedly scared America and permanently altered the way we live and see the world in its aftermath; Western society was united in the way it saw the extreme wrongfulness if the act; and there was a severe response as a result.
• Cloning- an act which causes social divisions; there is a disagreement on the harm this causes; and as a result its wrongfulness is debatable.

Summary

• Deviance is a continuous variable- it constantly changes shape and nature.
• It does this because what is deviant is determined by society.
• Therefore, deviance is a SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED term
• Thus, crime and deviance are RELATIVE terms; there are subject to change across time and location!

The Social Construction of Deviance

Crime refers to acts that contravene or breaks the criminal (formal) laws of society. Many, but not all, are often regarded as deviant as well.
What constitutes a crime seems easy to define, as the law states what a criminal act is. However, interactionist sociologists like Newburn argue that no act in itself is criminal. To interactionist sociologists an act only becomes a crime when a particular label of 'crime' has been applied to it, and even similar acts can be treated quite differently depending on the reaction of others (including the law enforcement agencies) in society to it, and the context in which it takes place. For example, killing someone is not in itself a criminal act. But if it happens during a knife fight outside a pub in Britain, it's likely to be defined as criminal, but not if the knife fight takes place with an enemy soldier in wartime.
Newburn also points out that even if a crime is defined as whatever the law says it is, the fact is that a criminal law varies from one country to the next, and that crime changes over time, reinforce the idea that there is nothing that is in itself criminal. Howard Becker reinforces this by pointing out that crime is only that which we label as such and that terms like crime and deviance are relative i.e. related to time, place and context. Even when an act appears to be against the law, the fact is that the police and other criminal justice agencies have to interpret or make a judgement about whether that behaviour is prohibited.
Interactionist sociologists suggest that terms like crime and deviance are therefore socially constructed. By this they mean that because we can demonstrate that there is nothing in itself criminal and that what is seen as criminal involves decisions made by the police and others that crime and deviance are based on societal reactions and not on fact.
Many sociologists have developed the idea that crime or deviance are social constructs i.e. not 'real' things in their own right, but simply invented through the ideas that people in a society/group have and the way these ideas make them behave in relation to these things.
The idea of 'social constructionism' is very popular, particularly amongst Interactionist sociologists such as Howard Becker. Becker argued that no particular behaviour is deviant - deviance is simply behaviour that some people in society react to and identify or 'label' it as 'going against what is acceptable/right'.
However, despite accepting the basic idea of social constructionism, theories like Feminism or Marxism have different views to Interactionists about who or what has the power to 'construct' (invent) deviance in a particular way.

Strengths

• Crime is created by society
• Looks at social processes
• Helps to explain patterns in OCS
• Alternative to structural/positivist theory

Weaknesses

• People use as an excuse to commit crime
• Too Sympathetic
• Not focused on background of offender
• Subjective- difficult to prove