Symbolic Interaction Perspective on Deviance and Crime
12.4.3 Apply the symbolic interaction perspective to deviance and crime.
According to the symbolic interaction perspective, deviance and crime are produced by the processes of social interaction and the attachment of meaning to behavior. Taking this assertion as a starting point, several more specific explanations of deviance have been offered.
Primary and Secondary Deviance
Many symbolic interactionists assert that deviance consists of two broad types. Primary deviance consists of normative violations that do not produce a deviant self-identity. For the most part, these violations are regarded as mildly deviant. For instance, if you were to occasionally take a stimulant (“upper”) to get through a stretch of intense exams while working full time, your friends probably would not think of you are a habitual drug addict, nor would you think of yourself as an addict. In contrast, secondary deviance consists of normative violations and a corresponding deviant identity initiated by primary deviance. Thus, if you were to start relying on uppers and your life were to begin revolving around obtaining enough drugs to get through the day, your friends would then regard you as a drug addict, and you would self-identify as an addict. Thus, an initial act of mild and transient deviance becomes a serious, permanent act of deviance (Lemert 1951).
Labeling and Stigma
Closely related to the concepts of primary and secondary deviance is the concept of labeling: the process of defining individuals as deviant. Although some labels are positive, such as “smart” or “athletic,” other labels are derogatory and by definition carry a stigma: an implication that the person is morally unworthy of respect, disreputable, and, possibly, dangerous. For example, former drug users still carry the label of “addict.” This derogatory label makes it difficult for them to get jobs, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will return to a life of addiction. In so doing, they live up to their label. In other words, a label is more than a name; instead, a label is created through a social process that creates deviance (Lemert 1951).
Related to the process of labeling by others is the process of self-labeling: attaching a deviant label to oneself. If people cannot reconcile or manage the label imposed by others, then they might attach a label to themselves as a way of reconciling inner conflicts with their public self. Thus, a petty thief who does not get much respect on the street might self-label as a major drug dealer (Thoits 1985; Moses 2009).
Labeling theory and conflict theory come together in the analysis of who gets labeled as a “threat” or “deviant.” The dominant group labels less powerful groups as “criminals,” “dangerous,” and “drug-addicted.” To illustrate: Historically, opium was associated with Chinese Americans and cannabis with Mexican Americans. Cocaine used to be regarded as a “rich person’s drug” because most users were White and at least moderately well off. The less expensive version—crack—became associated with lower-income Blacks. Thus, by criminalizing drugs and defining crack as especially dangerous, the majority group obtained a legal tool for dominating minority groups with the police powers of the state. In this way, the “War on Drugs” turned out to be a “War on Minorities” (Musto 1999).
Labeling theory provides a plausible explanation for how social interaction creates deviance and crime. The theory, nevertheless, has gaps. It fails to account for crimes of passion that suddenly erupt without time for labeling to occur, and it may not pay sufficient attention to power. Currently, most people with power (such as judges, lawyers, and the police) are White males. For that reason, lower-class people of color may be labeled as more serious deviants than middle-class, White offenders. Lastly, the theory implies that once primary deviance occurs, secondary deviance will inevitably follow. But, in fact, many people engage in primary deviance and avoid being labeled as deviants. Although sociologists know more about why some people become deviants than why they do not, some recent work discussed below addresses that issue.
Cultural Transmission and Differential Association
Cultural transmission theory asserts that deviance is learned through the same fundamental processes as conformity, that is, through socialization. Accordingly, a child reared by thieves in a community of thieves will become a thief; furthermore, the child will internalize the norms of thievery and come to like theft and to despise conventional work.
The evidence for cultural transmission theory begins with the early research of Clifford Shaw and his associates (1929; 1942). They found that even though several different ethnic groups had inhabited certain Chicago neighborhoods over a period, the crime rates in those neighborhoods remained high. This persistence, they concluded, meant that deviance had become a part of the neighborhood’s local culture. As different people moved into the area, new arrivals learned the culture of deviance from older residents. After the new residents had been there for a time, they became the established group and then passed on the culture of deviance to the next batch of new arrivals.
While the notion of cultural transmission establishes the framework for understanding deviance as a normal response to a deviant cultural setting, it does not fully explore how this socialization takes place. Edwin Sutherland expanded the role of socialization with the concept of differential association: People learn criminal and deviant values, attitudes, and skills by close interaction with others who already have those skills and attributes (Sutherland and Cressey 1978). These interactions have four characteristics: (1) intensity, or the strength of an interaction; (2) duration, or length of an interaction; (3) priority, or how strongly attached the neophyte is to a role model; and (4) frequency, or how often the neophyte and role model interact.
Social Bonds
The explanations we have been discussing ask, “Why do some people become criminals?” However, the issue can be approached by asking the opposite question, “Why do some people not become criminals?” Social bond theory (also called social control theory) attempts to answer the latter question.
Social bonds are the connections between individuals and conventional social groups (such as the family) and conventional institutions (such as church). People with strong social bonds tend to follow a conventional lifestyle. However, people with weak social bonds tend to become deviant because they lack attachments (bonds) that prevent it (Hirschi 1969, 2004). Social bond theory asserts that four types of bonds deter deviance (Table 12.5).
Table 12.5 Quick Recap: Social Bonds
Different types of social bonds link individuals to their social environment. Individuals with links to conventional behavior are less likely to become involved in deviance and crime.
Commitment bonds (the social, emotional, and mental investment people make in conventional behavior) have an especially strong effect. Consider high school students from conventional middle-class families who do well in school, participate in organized athletics, and have many friends like themselves. These students have made a large investment in conventional behavior. If presented with the opportunity to, say, shoplift a coat, they risk losing their investment in conventional behavior by being caught. On the other hand, students from deviant families and those who do poorly in school have little to lose if they are caught because they have little invested in conventional behavior.
Although each bond has been mentioned separately, they operate simultaneously. Belief in conventional morality goes hand in hand with involvement in conventional institutions and a strong commitment to conventional behavior. Over time, these bonds strengthen and help people to maintain the moral boundary between deviance and non-deviance.
Several research studies have assessed the strength of people’s social bonds and their perceived cost of engaging in deviance. The evidence shows that people with weak social bonds engage in more deviance than people with strong social bonds and that higher social costs deter deviance (Intravia et al. 2012).
Selling cookies supports the Girl Scouts organization as well as provides young girls with valuable life lessons such as goal setting, decision making, money management, and people skills. It is through such community-based projects that social bonds are strengthened.
Table 12.6 Comparison of Three Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance and Crime
| Perspective | View of Deviance | Key Concepts and Theory |
|---|---|---|
| Functionalism | Sees deviance as a threat to the social system; reactions to deviance help define and strengthen the moral foundation of society. |
Strain theory |
|
Conflict Theory |
Sees laws as reflecting interests of the wealthy and punishments unfairly influenced by race and class. |
White-collar crime |
|
Symbolic Interaction |
Sees deviance as socially constructed by everyday encounters between people. |
Labeling theory |