discussion
Deviance and Social Control
After decades of classification as an illegal substance, marijuana became legal in some
form in nearly every state in the US. In 2013, the Pew Research Center found for the first
time that a majority of people in the United States (52 percent) favored legalizing
marijuana. Until that point, most people were in favor of retaining the drug's status as
illegal. (The question about marijuana's legal status was first asked in a 1969 Gallup poll,
and only 12 percent of US adults favored legalization at that time.) Marijuana had, for
years, been seen as a danger to society, especially to youth, and many people applied
stereotypes to users, often conflating marijuana use with negative stereotypes about race.
In essence, marijuana users were considered deviants.
Public opinion has changed over time. While the 2013 study showed support for
legalization just over the 50 percent mark, the number was up to 67 percent by 2019.
Two-thirds of people in the US favored permitting some types of legal usage, as well as
decriminalization and elimination of jail time for users of the drug (Daniller, 2019).
Government officials took note and states began changing their policies as public
assumptions changed.
The question "What is deviant behavior?" cannot be answered in a straightforward
manner. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including
location, audience, and who is performing the act (Becker, 1963). Listening to music, for
example, is considered acceptable behavior on the way to class, but during a formal
lecture, it would be considered rude. Listening to music when on the witness stand before
a judge might cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.
As norms vary across cultures and time, notions of deviance also change. Many public
schools in the United States used to ban girls from wearing pants to class, and while the
social acceptability of pants for women has become ubiquitous, the change in attitudes
towards men wearing skirts has moved more slowly. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the act
of wearing or not wearing a mask became a matter of deviance, and in some cases,
political affiliation and legality. What people agree is deviant differs in various societies
and subcultures, and it may change over time. What, exactly, then is deviance? And what
Learning Resource
is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham
Sumner, deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms,
whether folkways, mores, or codified law (Sumner, 1959). Deviant behavior can be as
minor as picking your nose in public or as major as committing murder.
Although the word deviance has a negative connotation in everyday language, sociologists
recognize that deviance is not necessarily bad (Schoepflin, 2011). In fact, from a structural
functionalist perspective, one of the positive contributions of deviance is that it fosters
social change. For example, during the US civil rights movement, Rosa Parks violated
social norms when she refused to move to the "Black section" of the bus, and the Little
Rock Nine broke customs of segregation to attend an Arkansas public school.
Perceptions and proclamations of deviance have often been a means to oppress people by
labeling their private behavior as criminal. Until the 1970s and 1980s, sexual acts
between adults of the same sex were prohibited by state laws, with restrictions extending
to simple displays like holding hands. Other laws prohibited clothing deemed
"inappropriate" for one's biological sex. This resulted in dishonorably discharges (losing all
benefits) for veterans and servicemembers found to be gay, as well as police harassment
of LGBTQ people and regular raids on gay bars. Anti-LGBTQ hate crimes were rarely
prosecuted and generally lightly punished when they were. While most states had
eliminated their anti-LGBTQ laws by the time the Supreme Court struck them down in
2003, 14 states still had some version of them on the books.
For another example of the relativity of deviance and its relationship to perceptions of
crime, consider gambling. Excessive or high-risk gambling is often seen as deviant
behavior, but more moderate gambling is generally accepted. Gambling has been limited in
most of the United States for a long time, making it a crime to participate in certain types
of gambling or to do so outside of specified locations. For example, a state may allow
betting on horse races but not on sports. Some of these laws are changing, but for
decades, a generally non-deviant behavior has been made criminal: When otherwise law-
abiding people decided to engage in moderate, low-stakes gambling, they were breaking
the law. Sociologists may study the essential question arising from this situation: Are
these gamblers being deviant by breaking the law, even when the actual behavior at hand
is not generally considered deviant?
Here is a short video, Deviance: Crash Course Sociology #18
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGq9zW9w3Fw) , that provides
an overview of how sociologists view deviance.
Social Control
When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can
receive a speeding ticket. A student who wears a bathrobe to class could get a warning
from a professor. People might avoid an adult belching loudly in public. All societies
practice social control, the regulation and enforcement of norms. The underlying goal of
social control is to maintain social order, an arrangement of practices and behaviors on
which society's members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee
handbook and social control as a manager. When a worker violates a workplace guideline,
the manager steps in to enforce the rules; when an employee is doing an exceptionally
good job at following the rules, the manager may praise or promote the employee.
The means of enforcing rules are called sanctions. Sanctions can be positive as well as
negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms, like a promotion
can reward hard work. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being
arrested is a negative sanction for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social
control.
Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. Shoplifting, a form of social
deviance, is illegal, but there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch your nose.
That doesn't mean picking your nose in public won't be punished; instead, you will
encounter informal sanctions. Informal sanctions emerge primarily in face-to-face social
interactions. For example, wearing flip-flops to an opera or swearing loudly in church may
draw disapproving looks, verbal reprimands, or other consequences, whereas behavior
that is seen as positive—such as helping an elderly person carry grocery bags across the
street—may receive positive informal reactions, such as a smile or pat on the back.
Formal sanctions, on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm
violations. If a student violates a college's code of conduct, for example, the student might
be expelled. Someone who speaks inappropriately to the boss could be fired. Someone
Resources
who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. On the positive side, a soldier who
saves a life may receive an official commendation.
Functionalists argue that deviance plays an important role in society and can be used to
challenge people's views. Protesters, such as these members of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, often use deviant behavior to draw attention to a cause.
Source: David Shankbone, Flickr
Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance
Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology,
scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean
for society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological
paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.
Functionalism
Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how different
elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of
a functioning society. Strain theory and social disorganization theory represent two
functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.
Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance
Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One
way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people's present views
(Durkheim, 1997). For instance, when Black students across the United States participated
in sit-ins during the civil rights movement, they challenged society's notions of
segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently
held social norms, which also contributes to society (Durkheim, 1997). Seeing a high
school student given detention for skipping class reminds other students that they must
attend class to avoid getting detention.
Durkheim's point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments
about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the collective conscience—the beliefs,
morals, and attitudes of a society. According to Durkheim, a crime is a crime because we
condemn it. He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the
collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. For
example, in large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the
interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally
less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more
severely.
Robert Merton: Strain Theory
Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning
society, but he expanded on Durkheim's ideas by developing strain theory, which notes
that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person
conforms or deviates. From birth, people in the US are often encouraged to achieve the
"American Dream" of financial success. A person who attends business school, receives an
MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a
success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. That MBA-turned-
CEO may have grown up in an excellent school district and had the means to hire tutors.
Another person may grow up in a neighborhood with lower-quality schools and may not
be able to pay for extra help. Some people may have the socially acceptable goal of
financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to
Merton's theory, an entrepreneur who can't afford to launch a company may be tempted
to embezzle from an employer for start-up funds.
Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted
goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it:
1. Conformity. Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to
the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
2. Innovation. Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate
means by instead using deviant, sometimes criminal, means.
3. Ritualism. People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through
socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than
attaining a distant dream.
4. Retreatism. Others retreat and reject society's goals and means. Some people who
are homeless have withdrawn from society's goal of financial success.
5. Rebellion. A handful of people rebel and replace a society's goals and means with
their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society's goals through
socially unacceptable means.
Social Disorganization Theory
Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social
disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak
social ties and the absence of social control. For example, under this theory an individual
who grows up in a poor neighborhood—perhaps with high rates of drug use, violence, and
teenage delinquency—and had a lack of parental involvement is assumed to be more likely
to commit a crime than an individual from a wealthy neighborhood with a good school
system, raised by family members who are involved positively in the community.
Proponents of social disorganization theory believe that individuals who grow
up in impoverished areas are more likely to participate in deviant or criminal
behaviors.
Source: Apollo 1758, Wikimedia Commons
Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A
person isn't born as someone who will commit crimes but becomes one over time, often
based on factors in the social environment. Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989)
found that poverty and family disruption in given places had a strong positive correlation
with social disorganization. They also determined that social disorganization was, in turn,
associated with high rates of crime and delinquency, or deviance. Studies Sampson
conducted with Lydia Bean (2006) revealed similar findings. High rates of poverty and
single-parent homes correlated with high rates of juvenile violence. Research into social
disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have
found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs
teaching basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity (Lally,
Mangione, & Honig, 1987).
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance.
Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don't see these factors as positive functions of
society. They see them as evidence of inequality in the system. They also challenge social
disorganization theory and control theory and argue that both ignore racial and
socioeconomic issues and oversimplify social trends (Akers, 1991). Conflict theorists also
look to explain correlations of gender and race with wealth and crime.
Karl Marx: An Unequal System
The foundations of conflict theory are in the work of German philosopher, economist, and
social scientist Karl Marx. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the
foundation for conflict theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with
wealth and power. Particularly significant is Marx's division of people into two groups
based on wealth and power: the wealthy bourgeois, in control of the means of production,
and the proletariat, workers who depend on the bourgeois for employment and survival.
Marx believed that the bourgeois centralized their power and influence through
government, laws, and other authority agencies in order to maintain and expand their
positions of power in society. These ideas about power and wealth underpin conflict
theorists' explorations of deviance and its intersections with inequality in society.
C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite
In his 1956 book, sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed
the power elite, a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who
hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military
leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their
decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in
favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who
decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who
have little power.
Mills' theories explain why celebrities who commit crimes often suffer little or no legal
retribution. For example, USA Today maintains a database of NFL players accused and
convicted of crimes. 51 NFL players were convicted of committing domestic violence
between the years 2000 and 2019. They were sentenced to a collective 49 days in jail,
and most of those sentences were deferred or otherwise reduced. In most cases,
suspensions and fines levied by the NFL or individual teams were more severe than the
justice system's (Schrotenboer, 2020; clickitticket.com, 2019).
Crime and Social Class
From 1986 until 2010, the punishment for possessing crack, considered a poor
person's drug, was 100 times stricter than the punishment for cocaine, a drug
favored by the wealthy.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the
wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within US society.
The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of
$15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010). In comparison, when
former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the US Securities and
Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme
fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC, 2009). This imbalance based on class power is also
found within US criminal law. In the 1980s, cocaine use was associated with the wealthy,
while the use of crack (a less expensive but powerful drug derived from cocaine) quickly
became an epidemic that swept the country's poorest urban communities. The legal
implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly
different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of
crack was punishable by a 10-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for
cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the
sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff, 2011). This inequality
in punishment paralleled the unequal social classes of respective users. A conflict theorist
would note that those in society who hold power are also the ones who make the laws
concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit themselves, while the
powerless classes, lacking the resources to make such decisions, suffer the consequences.
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, states passed many laws increasing penalties for
crimes, especially for repeat offenders. A significant federal law, the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (known as the 1994 Crime Bill), increased penalties,
funded prisons, and incentivized law enforcement agencies to further pursue drug
offenders. One outcome of these policies was the mass incarceration of Black and
Hispanic people, which contributed to a cycle of poverty and reduced social mobility. The
crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010's Fair Sentencing Act, signed into
law by Barack Obama, decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project, 2010).
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how
societies and/or social groups come to view behaviors as deviant or conventional.
Symbolic interactionism encompasses labeling theory, differential association theory,
and control theory.
Labeling Theory
Although all of us violate norms from time to time, most people do not consider
themselves deviant. Those who do, however, have often been labeled deviant by society
and have gradually come to believe it themselves. Labeling theory examines the ascribing
of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered
deviant is determined not by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them,
but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant
changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.
Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two
types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms
that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual's self-image or interactions
with others. Driving well above the speed limit is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding
ticket generally does not change the way others view you, nor would it alter most people's
own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance maintain a feeling of
belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.
Sometimes primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary
deviance occurs when people's self-concepts and behavior begin to change after their
actions are labeled as deviant by members of their society. A person may begin to take on
and fulfill the role of a deviant as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled
that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class
and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff
and develops a reputation as a "troublemaker." As a result, the student starts acting out
even more and breaking more rules; the student has adopted the "troublemaker" label and
embraced this deviant identity. Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a
master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief
characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or
grandfathers. Others may see themselves as failures, convicts, or addicts, as a result of
secondary deviance.
Techniques of Neutralization
How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done
by Sykes and Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile
delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. Neutralization refers
to the process by which individuals avoid regarding themselves as deviant when they
violate social norms. Sykes and Matza (1957) identified five techniques that individuals
might use to neutralize the deviant aspects of their actions.
Let's take a scenario and apply all five techniques to explain how they are used. Click each
of the tabs to see how these techniques might be used in the following scenario.
Scenario: Sam is working for a retail store as a cashier. His cash drawer has been coming
up short for a few days. When Sam's boss confronts him, he is labeled as a thief for the
suspicion of stealing. How might Sam deal with this label?
Using Techniques of Neutralization
The Denial of Responsibility
This technique is used when people don't take
responsibility for their actions or blame others. They
may say that it was their boss's fault because they
don't get paid enough to make rent or because they're
getting a divorce. They are rejecting the label by
denying responsibility for their actions.
The Denial of Injury
Sometimes people will look at a situation in terms of
what effect it has on others. Someone using this
technique may say, "What's the big deal? Nobody got
hurt. Your insurance will take care of it." This
technique dismisses the importance of the action by
seeing it as harmless.
The Denial of the Victim
If there is no victim, there's no crime in this
perspective. In this technique, the person sees the
action as justified or the victim as deserving it. In our
scenario Sam may look at his situation and think, "I've
worked here for years without a raise. I deserve that
money and if you won't give it to me, I'll get it my own
way."
The Condemnation of the Condemners
With this technique, Sam might "turn it around" and
blame the boss. He may say something like, "You don't
know my life; you have no reason to judge me." This
takes the focus off of his actions and puts the onus on
the accuser to, essentially, prove he is living up to the
label. This also shifts the narrative away from the
deviant behavior.
Appeal to a Higher Authority
The final technique is to claim that the actions were
for a higher purpose. Sam may tell the boss that he
stole the money because his mom is sick and needs
medicine or for another compelling reason. People
using this technique justify their actions by presenting
the purpose for the behavior as a greater good than
the action is bad.
Have you ever used any of these techniques?
Social Policy and Debate
The Right to Vote
Should a previous felony conviction permanently strip a US
citizen of the right to vote?
Source: Joshin Yamada, Flickr
Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and
mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she
was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud
under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her
debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.
Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than 10 years later, she is still feeling the
sting of her sentencing. Why? Because under the Fourteenth Amendment, states
are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in
"rebellion or other crime" (Krajick, 2004). Although there are no federally mandated
laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony
disenfranchisement.
Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process?
Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to
society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal
deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn't the only instance in which ex-
felons are denied rights; many state laws also ban released criminals from holding
public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting
property (Lott & Jones, 2008).
Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a
basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds.
Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was
used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately
target poor members of racial minorities, denying them a chance to participate in a
system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to
their disadvantage (Holding, 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that
denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If
ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from
society?
Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association
In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant
behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other
aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub, 2006). His
conclusions established differential association theory, which suggested that individuals
learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of, and
opportunities for, deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice
and more a result of differential socialization processes. For example, a teenager whose
friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable for
teenagers.
Sutherland developed a series of propositions to explain how deviance is learned. In
Proposition 5, for example, he discussed how people begin to accept and participate in a
behavior after learning whether it is viewed as favorable by those around them. In
Proposition 6, Sutherland expressed the ways that exposure to more views and behaviors
favoring the deviant behavior than those opposing it can eventually lead a person to
partake in deviance, applying almost a quantitative element to the learning of certain
behaviors (Sutherland, 1960). In our example, a teenager may find sexual activity more
acceptable once a certain number of their friends become sexually active, not after only
one does so.
Sutherland's theory may explain why crime can be multigenerational. A longitudinal study
beginning in the 1960s found that the best predictor of antisocial and criminal behavior in
children was whether their parents had been convicted of a crime (Todd & Jury, 2011).
Children who were younger than 10 years old when their parents were convicted of a
crime were more likely than other children to engage in spousal abuse and criminal
behavior by their early thirties. Even when taking socioeconomic factors like dangerous
neighborhoods, poor school systems, and overcrowded housing into consideration,
researchers found that parents were the main influence on the behavior of their offspring
(Todd & Jury, 2011).
Travis Hirschi: Control Theory
Another approach that examines large social factors is control theory, which states that
social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results
from a feeling of disconnection from society. Individuals who believe they are a part of
society are less likely to stray from its norms, including committing crimes.
Travis Hirschi identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society (Hirschi,
1969):
Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to
people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society's norms in
order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic
partners.
Commitment refers to the investments we make in the community. A well-respected
local businessperson who volunteers at the synagogue and is a member of the
neighborhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a
person who doesn't have any ties to the community.
Similarly, levels of involvement, or participation in socially accepted activities, lessen
a person's likelihood of deviance. A child who plays Little League baseball and takes
art classes may have fewer opportunities to commit crimes.
The final bond, belief, is an agreement on common values in society. If people view
social values as being in line with their personal beliefs, they will conform to them.
An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park because a clean
environment is a social value to them.
This table provides a helpful overview of the major sociological theories of deviance:
Theory or concept Associated theorists Deviance arises from
Functionalism
Strain theory Robert Merton Inability to reach
socially accepted
goals by
accepted methods
Social disorganization
theory
University of Chicago
researchers
Weak social ties and a
lack
of social
control; society's inability to enforce norms with
some groups
Conflict theory
Unequal system Karl Marx Inequalities in wealth and
power
that arise from the
economic system
Power elite C. Wright Mills Ability of those in power
to define
deviance in ways that
maintain the status quo
Theory or concept Associated theorists Deviance arises from
Symbolic interactionism
Labeling theory Edwin Lemert The reactions of others,
particularly
those in power who can
determine labels
Differential
association
theory
Edwin Sutherland Learning and modeling
deviant
behavior seen in other
people close to the individual
Control theory Travis Hirschi Feelings of disconnection
from
society
There are many sociological theories of deviance. If you would like to
learn more about them, read this section on sociological explanations of
deviance (http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1099295&site=eds-
live&scope=site&profile=edsebook&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_186) from
Connecting Sociology to Our Lives: An Introduction to Sociology.
This peer-reviewed journal article, Sex, Drugs, and Deception: Deviance
in the Hair Salon Industry (http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sih&AN=111589658&login.asp&site=ehost-
live&scope=site) , looks at deviance in the workplace.
Although the word tends to have a negative connotation, deviance can
have a positive effect on society. Check out the Positive Deviance
Initiative (http://openstax.org/l/Positive_Deviance) , a program
initiated by Tufts University to promote social movements around the
world that strive to improve people's lives.
References
Akers, R. L. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 7(2): 201–211.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Clickitticket.com. (2019). A complete list (with statistics) of the NFL players arrested for
domestic abuse in the 21st century. https://www.clickitticket.com/nfl-domestic-
violence/
Durkheim, É. (1997). The division of labor in society. Free Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/property_crime/index.html
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Resources
Holding, R. (2006, November 21). Why can't felons vote? Time.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
Krajick, K. (2004, August 18). Why can't ex-felons vote? The Washington Post, p. A19.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html
Lally, J. R., Mangione, P. L., & Honig, A. S. (1987). The Syracuse University Family
Development Research Program: Long-range impact of an early intervention with
low-income children and their families.
Laub, J. H. (2006). Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler Report: Searching for the
soul of criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44:235–57.
Lott, J. R., Jr. & Jones, S. D. (2008, October 20). How felons who vote can tip an election.
Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441030,00.html
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.
New York Times Editorial Staff. (2011, June 29). Reducing unjust cocaine sentences. New
York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/opinion/30thu3.html
Sampson, R. J., & Bean, L. (2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory
of community-level racial inequality. In R. D. Peterson, L. J. Krivo, & J. Hagan
(Eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity, and crime in
America. NYU Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crimes: Testing social-
disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94:774–802.
Schoepflin, T. (2011, January 28). Deviant while driving? Everyday Sociology Blog.
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-
driving.html
Schrotenboer, B. (2020). NFL player arrests database: Records since 2000. USA Today.
https://databases.usatoday.com/nfl-arrests/
The Sentencing Project. (2010). Federal crack cocaine sentencing. The Sentencing Project:
Research and advocacy reform.
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/dp_CrackBriefingSheet.pdf
Sumner, W. (1959). Folkways. Dover.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressy, D. R. (2006). A theory of differential association. In F. T. Cullen
& R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to present : Essential readings (p.
122–125). Roxbury Company.
Todd, R. & Jury, L. (2011, October 23). Children follow convicted parents into crime. The
Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/children-follow-convicted-
parents-into-crime-1321272.html
Licenses and Attributions
Introduction to Sociology 3e (https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-sociology-
3e) by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang from OpenStax is
available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license. © June 3, 2021,
OpenStax. UMGC has modified this work and it is available under the original
license. Download for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-
3e/pages/1-introduction (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-
introduction)
© 2022 University of Maryland Global Campus
All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity
of information located at external sites.