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.