Unit 14 Differences in explanations of deviant behaviour in functionalist perspectives, labelling theory, and Marxist perspectives

1. How do functionalist perspectives, labelling theory, and Marxist perspectives differ in their ex­planations of how certain behaviour by certain people comes to be defined as deviant?

People often assume that deviance is only disruptive and that it serves no useful purpose for the social order, but the functionalist perspective suggests that this idea is false. Starting with Emile Durkheim almost a century ago, sociologists have identified several positive consequences of deviance for the social order. First, the definition and identification of deviance help to clarify the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. For example, when a mass murderer is arrested, convicted, and sentenced to a life in prison, the rest of society is reminded that taking the life of other people is unacceptable or deviant behaviour.

Second, in the case of the punishment of a mass murderer, members of a society come together and reestablish their common bonds and values. Thus deviance can promote integration and harmony in a group or society.

Third, deviance can serve as a stimulus to social change. Occasionally, violations of social norms become the accepted behaviour pattern: what once was deviant is now acceptable. When Rosa Parks sat in the front of a public bus in Montgomery in 1963, wilfully violating laws that required blacks to sit at the rear of the bus, she contributed to civil rights efforts to strike such segregation­ist and racist legislation from the books. Whether deviance leads to punishment and reaffirmation of values or serves as a stimulus to social change depends on the kind of society. In small, tradi­tional societies, deviance is threatening to the social order and typically leads to increased commit­ment to the status quo. In large, modern societies, however, where people hold to a diversity of values and lifestyles, deviance leads more often to a renegotiation of the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

" Labelling" is the assignment of a deviant status to a person—criminal, psychopath, perverted-which then dominates his or her social identity. The key sociological problem is to examine why certain people come to be identified and labelled as deviant by agents of social control, and to describe the consequences of this labelling process both for the labelled deviant and for the agents of social control. From the labelling perspective, deviance is a process of societal reaction to behaviour and not an abnormal characteristic found in certain people.

The labelling perspective distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is the simple violation of a norm, with no assumptions about the person who did it or about his or her motives. Secondary deviance is the societal reaction to a violation of the norms: how the violation is detected, how the individual is labelled deviant, and how individuals so labelled come to identify themselves as deviant. Chambliss's study of Saints and Roughnecks suggests that the same behaviour can result in very different labels being attached to the perpetrators. Though both groups violated social norms in a dangerous and costly way, the Saints (from well-off families) were defined as future leaders just " having a little fun, " while the Roughnecks (from less affluent families) were defined as future criminals starting their careers as juvenile delinquents. The labelling of people as deviant affects their later opportunities. For example, an " ex-con" may find it more difficult to get a steady job than would someone with no criminal record. In extreme cases, the labelled individual begins to follow a deviant career by fully adopting a deviant lifestyle and by identifying with a deviant subculture.

The labelling perspective has several limitations. First, people with severe mental disorders, for example, are sent to hospitals not only because some doctor (an agent of social control) labelled them deviant but because they were incapable of living on their own without hurting themselves or others. Second, not all people accept their deviant labels passively; some resist the stigma or try to hide it. Third, some deviant labels need not become lifelong master statuses. People can shed deviant stigmas, although it is usually hard to escape fully the discrimination that burdens a person labelled as deviant.

According to the Marxist perspective, the norms and laws of a society reflect the values and interests of its most powerful groups. As we have seen, no behaviour is inherently deviant; deviance

is a quality that is assigned to certain behaviour by people in society. According to this point of view, members of society hold no consensus over which behaviour is to be considered deviant. Powerful groups impose their definitions of proper and improper behaviour on those with less power, and their definitions of improper or illegal behaviour are enforced through the criminal justice system.

In the view of Marxist sociologists, the system of laws, the means of enforcement, and the penalties for violation generally benefit ruling classes (those with wealth and in positions of ownership) while selectively punishing members of powerless classes. For example, a great deal of time and money is spent in recording the incidence of street crime (murder, rape, assault, and auto theft), but the FBI does not even keep statistics on crimes committed by corporations (pollution violations, unsafe products, illegal contracts). Moreover, the penalties imposed on large corporations are proportionally much lighter than those imposed on individuals found guilty of a street crime (in relation to their respective " ability to pay"). Owners of major corporations belong to the most powerful class in American society; those convicted of street crimes generally come from the least powerful classes. The law works to the advantage of the powerful and against the powerless.

The Marxist perspective has several limitations. First, Marxist sociologists often fail to identify with precision the individuals and groups who make up the " ruling class" or the " capitalist elite." Second, many who adopt this perspective pay little attention to the conflicts that divide the ruling class; these conflicts could lead to disagreement over the definition or enforcement of a law. Third, other interest groups outside the ruling class can exert influence at times on the creation and enforcement of laws, as evidenced by recent efforts to ban smoking from a variety of public places.