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!