Constructing DifferenceSocial Deviance

C H A P T E R

8

Defining Deviance

Explaining Deviant Behavior

Linking Power, Deviance, and Social Control

In 1984, 22-year-old Kelly Michaels moved to New York to pursue her dream of becoming anactress. She was a mild-mannered, devout Catholic who loved children. To support herself shebegan working at the Wee Care Preschool in a New Jersey suburb. By all accounts the kids there

loved her (Hass, 1995).Two weeks after Michaels left Wee Care for a better-paying job at another nursery school, a

4-year-old boy who was enrolled at Wee Care was taken to a doctor. A nurse rubbed his back andexplained that she was going to take his temperature rectally. He said something like “That’s whatteacher [Michaels] does to me at naptime.” Although it was unclear exactlywhat he meant by this—Michaels some-times rubbed children’s backs to getthem to sleep and did take their temper-ature with a plastic forehead strip—theboy’s alarmed mother, who happened tobe the daughter of a local judge, calledthe school and the police (Michaels,1993). The police questioned the child,as well as other children at Wee Care,searching for evidence that Michaels hadsexually abused them. As word spreadof the investigation, worried parentsphoned other parents to share storiesabout the latest allegations. The police

103

ZackSeckler/Corbis

�

encouraged parents to seek state-funded psychologi-cal help for themselves as well as their children. Inturn, the therapists encouraged the parents to coop-erate with authorities in investigating Michaels.

That casual comment made by one little boy in adoctor’s office touched off a 16-month investigationby the Division of Youth and Family Services thateventually ended in a 235-count indictment againstMichaels. During the investigation, scores of parentsbecame convinced that Michaels had raped theirchildren with silverware, wooden spoons, LEGOs,and light bulbs; that she had played “Jingle Bells”on the piano while naked; that she had licked peanutbutter off children’s genitals, made them drink herurine, and forced them to eat excrement off the floor(Hass, 1995).

By the time the trial began, Kelly was being calledthe most hated woman in New Jersey. The 10-monthtrial was filled with a host of inconsistencies andquestionable legal tactics. Prosecutors never pro-vided any substantiated evidence of abuse, yet theyportrayed Michaels as “actressy” and “deviouslycharming.” None of the other teachers at the daycare center had heard or seen anything, even thoughmost of the alleged abuse took place during chil-dren’s nap time in a room set off only by a plasticcurtain. The judge in the trial allowed the children totestify on closed-circuit TV while sitting on his lapand denied the defense attorneys the opportunity tocross-examine them. One of the prosecution’s wit-nesses—a child therapist—testified that the childrenwho denied being molested by Ms. Michaels sufferedfrom something called “child sexual abuse accom-modation syndrome,” a psychological condition thatmade them deny the abuse. In fact, the more the chil-dren denied it, the more certain the child therapistwas that the abuse had actually happened.

Michaels was found guilty of 115 counts ofassault, sexual abuse, and terrorist threats and sen-tenced to 47 years in prison. In 1993, after she hadspent five years in prison—including an 18-monthstint in solitary confinement—a state appellate courtoverturned the conviction. Later, the New JerseyState Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’sdecision, decrying the original conviction withoutrage. The court wrote that all 20 children whotestified against Michaels had been led, bribed, orthreatened (Hass, 1995).

You might think that a formal declaration ofinnocence from such a powerful body as a state

supreme court would change people’s feelings aboutKelly Michaels. Yet she remained a target of hate.Several civil suits were filed against Michaels by par-ents who still believed their children had been sexu-ally abused. One mother said she would try to killMichaels with her bare hands if she had the chance.Long after Michaels’s conviction on sexual abusecharges had been overturned, the media continuedto identify her as a criminal. For instance, anAssociated Press news release about her thwartedattempt to sue the county and the state was titled“Sex Offender’s Case Denied in Court” (2001).

Why was it so hard for people to admit thatMichaels was innocent? For one thing, at a timewhen child molestation was becoming a nationalobsession, the case reflected our darkest collectivefears. The terrifying message was that our childrencould be hurt not only by creepy, middle-aged menbut also by seemingly safe, 22-year-old collegewomen. In the frenzy over children’s safety, no oneseemed willing to protect the principle that a defen-dant is innocent until proven guilty.

Even more striking about this case is what it saysabout the way people think. Once members of thecommunity concluded Kelly Michaels had commit-ted these horrible acts, no amount of conflicting evi-dence was going to sway them to believe otherwise.Deviant labels and what they imply in people’s mindscan overshadow everything else about that person.When Michaels was convicted and formally tagged acriminal, the public degradation acquired its legallegitimacy. From that point on, she would neveragain be able to reclaim a normal life and in manypeople’s minds would forever be a “child molester.”

Few of us have spent five years in prison as awrongly convicted child molester. But people areunjustifiably tagged as deviant all the time. Perhapsthere have been times in your life when you acquiredsome sort of inaccurate reputation that you couldn’tshed. In this chapter, I examine several questionsrelated to this phenomenon: What is deviance? Howdoes society attempt to control deviant behavior?Who gets to define what is and is not deviant? Andwhat are the consequences of being identified byothers as deviant?

DEFINING DEVIANCE

In its broadest sense, the term deviance refers tosocially disapproved behavior—the violation of some

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY104

agreed-on norm that prevails in a community or insociety at large. Staring at a stranger in an elevator,talking to oneself in public, wearing outlandishclothes, robbing a bank, and methodically shootingdozens of students on a college campus can all beconsidered deviant acts. If we define deviance simplyas any norm violation, then most deviance is rathertrivial—even “normal”—like driving over the speedlimit or walking across an intersection when the light isred. Most of us, at some point in our lives, occupy sta-tuses or engage in behaviors that others could regard asdeviant. But most sociologists focus on deviant actsthat are assaults on mores, the most serious of a soci-ety’s norms. It’s this type of deviance to which I willdevote most of my attention in this chapter.

The determination of which behaviors or charac-teristics are deviant and which are normal is com-plex. We usually assume that there’s a fair amountof agreement in a society about what and who isdeviant. For instance, no one would challenge thenotion that child abuse is bad and that child abusersought to be punished. But the level of agreementwithin a given society over what specific acts consti-tute child abuse can vary tremendously. Spankingmay be a perfectly acceptable method of disciplineto one person but be considered a cruel form ofabuse to another.

To further complicate the issue, some sociologistswho are identified with structural functionalism(for example, Durkheim, 1958/1895; Erikson,1966) argue that deviance, as a class of behaviors, isnot always bad for society and may actually serve auseful purpose. As you recall from Chapter 4, normviolations help define the cultural and moral bound-aries that distinguish right from wrong and increasefeelings of in-group togetherness for those who unitein opposition to deviance from group norms. At thesurface level, individual acts of deviance are disrup-tive and generate varying degrees of social disap-proval, but at a deeper level they can contribute tothe maintenance and continuity of every society.Deviance can also lead to needed change in a society(Durkheim, 1895/1958). During the 1950s and1960s, civil rights protestors purposely broke lawsthey considered discriminatory, such as those thatprevented Blacks from entering certain establish-ments or attending certain schools. These acts ofdeviance eventually helped convince many votersand politicians to support legislation ending legalsegregation.

As you may have guessed, sociologists usuallydon’t judge whether a given behavior should orshouldn’t be considered deviant. Instead, they exam-ine how deviance comes about and what it means tosociety. One of their primary concerns is whetherpeople respond to deviance from the perspective thatall human behavior can be classified as essentiallygood or bad (absolutists) or from the perspectivethat definitions of deviance are socially constructed(relativists).

Absolutist Definitions of Deviance

According to absolutism, there are two funda-mental types of human behavior: (1) that which isinherently proper and good and (2) that which isobviously improper, immoral, evil, and bad. Thedistinction is clear and identifiable. The rightness orwrongness of an act exists prior to socially createdrules, norms, and customs and independently ofpeople’s subjective judgments (E. Goode, 1994).

An absolutist definition of deviance implies some-thing about society’s relationship with the personwho is considered deviant. Many people consider“deviants” to be psychologically, and perhaps evenanatomically, different from ordinary, conformingpeople. The attribute or behavior that serves as thebasic reason for defining a person as deviant in thefirst place is considered pervasive and essential to hisor her entire character (Hills, 1980). Respectable,conventional qualities become insignificant. It doesn’tmatter, for instance, that the “sexual deviant” hasan otherwise ordinary life, that the “schizophrenic”has recovered, or that the violent act of the “wifebatterer” was completely atypical of the rest of hislife. In short, the deviant act or trait determines theoverall worth of the individual (J. Katz, 1975).Being defined as deviant means being identified assomeone who cannot and should not be treated asan ordinary human being.

There’s another element of unfairness involved inthe absolutist approach to deviance. People routinelymake judgments about deviants based on stronglyheld stereotypes. If you ask someone to imagine whata typical drug addict looks like, for instance, chancesare that person will describe a dirty, poor, strung-outyoung man living on the streets and resorting to theftto support his habit. The image probably wouldn’tbe one of a middle-class alcoholic stay-at-homemother or a clean-shaven, hard-working physician

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 105

hooked on prescription drugs, even though thesegroups constitute a higher percentage of drugaddicts than any other in U.S. society (Pfohl, 1994).

In U.S. society the consequences of absolutedeviant stereotypes fall heavily on members of eth-noracial minorities. Latinos and African Americansmake up over 60% of the male population in stateand federal prisons and jails, even though they com-prise only about 27% of the general male popula-tion (Sabol, Minton, & Harrison, 2007; U.S. Bureauof the Census, 2007). The Bureau of JusticeStatistics estimates that 4.8% of all black men,1.9% of Latino men, but only 0.7% of white menare currently in jail or prison (Sabol, Minton, &Harrison, 2007). According to the Justice PolicyInstitute (2002), the number of black men in jail orprison has grown so much in the past two decadesthat there are now more black men behind bars thanare enrolled in colleges and universities. Race andethnicity also affect the amount of time a convictspends in prison. The average federal prison sen-tence for Blacks convicted of violent or drugoffenses is over nine years; for Whites it’s about sixyears (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005).

Although some people may see such figures asclear evidence of higher rates of minority involvementin crime, other statistics seem to suggest somethingdifferent. For instance, African Americans make upabout 13% of the nation’s population and constituteroughly the same percentage (13%) of all illegal drugusers; yet they account for 34% of drug offensearrests and 43% of drug offense convictions in federalprisons (Butterfield, 1995; U.S. Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 2005). In 75% of cases in which a federalprosecutor sought the death penalty between 1995and 2000, the defendant was a member of an ethno-racial minority group; and in half the cases, the defen-dant was black (cited in Bonner & Lacey, 2000).

Absolutist images of deviants are often oversimpli-fied and fall short of accounting for every individual.The vast majority of African Americans do not com-mit crimes, just as the vast majority of gay men arenot sexual predators, the vast majority of Italians arenot involved in the Mafia, and the vast majority ofMuslims are not terrorists. Nevertheless, the degree towhich an entire group is characterized by an abso-lutist stereotype is important, because it determinesindividual and societal responses. If affluent house-wives and businesspeople who abuse drugs are notconsidered typical drug addicts, they will never be the

focus of law enforcement attention, collective moraloutrage, political rhetoric, or public policy.

Relativist Definitions of Deviance

Reliance on a strict absolutist definition ofdeviance can lead to narrow and often inaccurateperceptions of many important social problems. Thisshortcoming can be avoided by employing a secondapproach to defining deviance, relativism, whichdraws from symbolic interactionism and the conflictperspective. This approach—which parallels themore general “cultural relativism” discussed inChapter 4—states that deviance is not inherent in anyparticular act, belief, or condition; instead, it issocially constructed, a creation of collective humanjudgments and ideas. Like beauty, it is in the eye ofthe beholder. Consequently, no act is universallydeviant. The relativist approach is useful when thefocus of study is the process by which some group ofpeople or some type of behavior is defined as deviant.

For the relativist, complex societies consist ofdifferent groups with different values and interests.Sometimes these groups agree and cooperate toachieve a common goal, as when different segmentsof society join together to fight a foreign enemy. Butmore often than not there is conflict and struggleamong groups to realize their own interests and goals.

Different people or groups can thus have dramat-ically different interpretations of the same event. In1995, a 35-year-old white former Marine namedWilliam Masters was taking his usual armed, late-night walk through a barren neighborhood in LosAngeles. He came upon two young Latino menspray-painting graffiti beneath a freeway overpass.Masters wrote down the license number of their caron a small piece of paper. When the men saw himand demanded the paper, Masters pulled out his9 millimeter pistol and shot them, wounding oneand killing the other. He told police that the menthreatened him with a screwdriver and that he actedin self-defense, even though both were shot in theback. He was not charged with murder. Eventuallyhe was found guilty of one count of carrying a con-cealed gun in public and one count of carrying aloaded gun in public—charges that carried a maxi-mum of 18 months in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Shortly after his arrest, Masters made a case forwhy his actions shouldn’t be defined as deviant. Hetold one interviewer he was sure people were glad

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY106

that as an intended victim he had gotten away andthat no jury would ever convict him (Mydans,1995). Many people agreed. Callers to radio talkshows and letters to newspapers applauded him forhis vigilant anti-graffiti efforts and for his foresightin carrying a weapon for self-protection. A few sug-gested that society would be better off with morepeople like William around (Mydans, 1995). Butothers expressed dismay at the verdict and arguedthat Masters was simply a racist out looking fortrouble. They felt he was a deviant who literally gotaway with murder.

All those who expressed opinions on this casewould likely agree on one thing: “Murder” is adeviant act at the far end of the spectrum of socialacceptability. However, their perceptions of whetherWilliam Masters was a “murderer” were quite differ-ent. Was he a “hero” or a “killer”? The answer liesnot in the objective act of taking another’s life but inthe way others define and respond to such an act.

To fully understand the societal and personalimplications of deviance designations, we must lookat how these definitions are created and perpetu-ated. One key factor is who is doing the defining.One person’s crime is another person’s act of moralconscience; one group’s evil is another group’svirtue; one culture’s terrorist is another culture’sfreedom fighter.

Definitions of deviance are also relative to partic-ular cultural standards. In Singapore a young vandalis a serious deviant (punishable by caning), as is aperson who leaves chewed gum where it can bestepped on. The fine for simply bringing one stick ofgum into Singapore is $10,000. A blasphemer in afundamentalist Islamic society may be put to deathfor just questioning the existence of God, an“offense” most Westerners would probably considertrivial. In Bulgaria, the punishment for a seconddrunk driving conviction is execution. In ElSalvador, a drunk driver could face a firing squadfor his or her first offense.

Deviance definitions undergo changes over timeas well. For instance, several states at one time hadlaws that were designed specifically to protectwomen’s virtue. Florida had a law that prohibitedwomen from parachuting on Sundays. Michigan lawmade it a crime for men to use profanity in front ofwomen. In Texas, it was a crime for women toadjust their stockings in public. The state ofWashington still has a law on the books that makes

it illegal to call a woman a “hussy” or “strumpet” inpublic (Kershaw, 2005).

Conflict over deviance definitions often reflects dif-fering cultural expectations. In 2005, for instance, anappeals court in Florida upheld a judge’s earlier rul-ing that a Muslim woman could not wear a burka—a traditional veil that covers all but a woman’seyes—in her driver’s license photo. In 2005, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that the federal governmentcould prohibit the medicinal use of marijuana even inthe 11 states that explicitly permit it (Greenhouse,2005). Even though people in the United States whowear burkas or smoke marijuana for medical pur-poses don’t consider themselves deviant, these courtrulings meant they could be defined and treated thatway by the dominant culture.

The absolutist approach assumes that certainindividual characteristics are typical of all deviants,but the relativist approach acknowledges that thereis no typical deviant. In fact, the same act commit-ted by two different people may yield very differentcommunity responses. In 1980, a Bayonne, NewJersey teacher named Diane Cherchio was caughtkissing and groping a 13-year-old male student at aneighth grade dance. A few years later, after beingpromoted to guidance counselor, she had sex withan 11th grader, became pregnant, and eventuallymarried him upon his graduation in 1985. Yetinstead of being fired or even reprimanded, she wasallowed to continue working in the public schooldistrict for two decades. When the son she gavebirth to grew up to be a teenager, Ms. Cherchiobegan having sex with one of his friends. She usedher school authority to rearrange the boy’s scheduleso they had time for their sexual trysts. When thatboy’s parents found out and complained to thepolice, she was arrested. Again, she was not fired.School officials instead allowed her to take an earlyretirement package that increased her pension. Theyeven gave her a gala farewell party. When she finallypled guilty to sexual assault charges in 2005, glow-ing references from coworkers convinced the judgeto sentence her to probation and to spare her fromregistering as a sex offender (Kocieniewski, 2006).

Cherchio was eventually punished, as have otherolder women who’ve had sexual relationships withteenage boys. Nevertheless, it’s hard to imagine aschool accommodating a male teacher who seducedteenage girls in such a way. Because she was ayoung, attractive, intelligent woman whose victims

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 107

were willing teenage boys, people in this communitylooked the other way. When she did it, somehow itwasn’t so bad. One author summed up the publicresponse to such incidents: “A teenage boy who getsto live his fantasy? What can be the harm?” (Levy,2006, p. 2).

Immediate situational circumstances, such as thetime and location of an act, can also influence def-initions of deviance. For example, drinking alcoholon the weekend is more acceptable than drinkingduring the week, and drinking in the evening ismore acceptable than drinking in the morning. In2005, the state of Florida expanded its self-defenselaw so that people could use concealed guns orother deadly force to defend themselves in publicplaces without first trying to escape the attacker(Goodnough, 2005). In fact, 15 states haveadopted “stand your ground” laws that allow vic-tims to use deadly force in situations that aren’t lifethreatening (Liptak, 2006). Had William Masterslived in any of these places instead of Los Angeles,he wouldn’t have even faced minor criminalcharges; he would have simply been a citizen exer-cising his legal right.

If deviance is relative, then even acts of extremeviolence may be defined as acceptable under certaincircumstances. Killings committed under the aus-pices of the government—shooting looters during ariot, killing enemy soldiers during wartime, or exe-cuting convicted murderers—fall outside the cate-gory of behaviors deemed deviant and problematicin society. However, a relativist approach to defin-ing deviance doesn’t mean that we can’t be upset byactivities that some people consider acceptable:

Relativity does not require moral indifference, andit does not mean that one can never be . . . horrifiedby what one experiences in another group or cul-ture. . . . [It] just reminds us that our personal beliefsor our cultural understandings are not necessarilyfound everywhere. (Curra, 2000, p. 13)

Relativists, like absolutists, acknowledge thatevery society identifies certain individuals and certainbehaviors as bothersome and disruptive and thereforeas justifiable targets of social control, whetherthrough treatment, punishment, spiritual healing, orcorrection. However, to a relativist the main concernsin defining deviance are not so much what is commit-ted but rather who commits the act, who labels it, and

where and when it occurs. Some people have thewherewithal to avoid having their acts defined asdeviant; others may fit a certain profile and be definedas deviant even if they’ve done nothing wrong.Definitions of deviant behavior change over time, andcertain acts are acceptable to some groups and notothers. The definitions most likely to persevere andbecome part of the dominant culture are those thathave the support of influential segments of the popu-lation or have widespread agreement among themembers of that society.

The Elements of Deviance

The two perspectives on defining deviance raisesome complex and controversial issues. The defini-tion of deviance that is most applicable to both per-spectives is: behavior (how people act), ideas (howpeople think), or attributes (how people appear) thatsome people in society—though not necessarily allpeople—find offensive, wrong, immoral, sinful, evil,strange, or disgusting.

This definition has three important elements(Aday, 1990):

• Expectation: Some sort of behavioral expecta-tion must exist, a norm that defines appropriate,acceptable behavior, ideas, or characteristics. Theexpectations may be implicit or explicit, formal orinformal, and more or less widely shared.

• Violation: Deviance implies some violation ofnormative expectations. The violation may be real oralleged; that is, an accusation of wrongdoing may beenough to give someone the reputation of being adeviant.

• Reaction: An individual, group, or society mustreact to the deviance. The reaction is likely to lead tosome sort of response: avoidance, criticism, warnings,punishment, or treatment. The reaction may accu-rately reflect the facts, or it may bear little relation towhat really happened, as when people are punishedor ostracized for acts they did not commit.

Deviance, then, cannot exist if people don’t havesome idea of what’s appropriate, if someone hasn’tbeen perceived as or accused of violating some socialnorm, and if others haven’t reacted to the allegedtransgression.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY108

EXPLAINING DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

The question of how certain acts and certain peoplecome to be defined as deviant is different from thequestion of why people do or don’t commit acts thatare considered deviant. Psychological or biologicaltheories addressing this question might focus on thepersonality or physical characteristics that give riseto deviant behavior, such as proneness to violence oraddiction, genetic predispositions, chemical imbal-ances, or neurological defects. Most sociological the-ories, however, focus on the environmental forcesthat act upon people and the effectiveness of variousmethods to control them.

The structural-functionalist perspective, forinstance, tells us that it is in society’s interest tosocialize everyone to strive for success so that themost able and talented people will come to occupythe most important positions. Sociologist RobertMerton’s “strain theory” (1957) argues that theprobability of committing deviant acts increaseswhen people experience a strain or contradictionbetween these culturally defined success goals andaccess to the legitimate means by which to achievethem. Those who believe that being wealthy andachieving the “American Dream” are importantgoals but who have no money, no employmentopportunities, and no access to higher education,Merton argues, are more inclined than others to tryto achieve the goal of success through illegitimatemeans. One of the most consistent findings in crimi-nal research is the correlation between unemploy-ment (a factor closely associated with economic dis-advantage) and property crime (Hagan, 2000). Inthis sense, people who sell, say, illegal drugs orstolen video game consoles to get rich are motivatedby the same desires as people who sell real estate toget rich. But people who lack access to legitimatemeans may also reject the culturally defined goalof success and retreat from society altogether.According to Merton, such deviants as vagrants,chronic drunks, drug addicts, and the mentally illfall into this category.

Another sociologist, Edwin Sutherland, bases histheory of deviance (Sutherland & Cressey, 1955) onthe symbolic-interactionist principle that we allinterpret life through the symbols and meanings welearn in our interactions with others. Sutherlandargues that individuals learn deviant patterns ofbehavior from the people with whom they associate

on a regular basis: friends, family members, peers.Through our associations with these influentialindividuals, we learn not only the techniques forcommitting deviant acts (for example, how to pick alock or how to snort cocaine) but also a set of beliefsand attitudes that justify or rationalize the behavior(Sykes & Matza, 1957). To commit deviant acts ona regular basis, we must learn how to perceive thoseacts as normal.

Deterring Deviance

Some sociologists have turned away from theissue of why some people violate norms to the issueof why more people don’t (see, for example, Hirschi,1969). Their concern is with the mechanisms societyhas in place to control or constrain people’s behav-ior. Deterrence theory assumes that people are ratio-nal decision makers who calculate the potentialcosts and benefits of behavior before they act. If thebenefits of a deviant act (for instance, money orpsychological satisfaction) outweigh the costs (forinstance, getting caught and punished), we will beinclined to do it. Conversely, if the costs exceed thebenefits, the theory predicts that we’ll decide it’s notworth the risk (van den Haag, 1975).

The controversy surrounding capital punishmentis, essentially, a debate over its true capacity to deterpotentially violent criminals. According to deter-rence theory, a punishment, to be effective, must beswift as well as certain and severe. However, capitalpunishment is anything but swift. Currently, morethan 3,200 inmates are on death row in the UnitedStates, but only about 1,050 prisoners have beenexecuted since 1976, when the death penalty wasreinstated. On average, death row inmates spendover 12 years awaiting execution, a figure that hasbeen growing steadily for three decades (Snell, 2006).

In addition, opponents of the death penalty arguethat violent offenders are often under the influence ofdrugs or alcohol or are consumed by passion whenthey commit an act of violence; their violence is moreor less spontaneous. Hence they may not be thinkingrationally (weighing the potential benefits of the actagainst the costs of punishment) at the time of the crime.The threat of being condemned to death may not detersuch people when they are committing the act.Researchers have, indeed, found little empirical supportfor the argument that the publicized threat of capitalpunishment reduces murders (W. C. Bailey, 1990;

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 109

Galliher & Galliher, 2002). Nor have they foundthat well-publicized executions deter homicides(R. D. Peterson & Bailey, 1991). In fact, over the lasttwo decades, the homicide rate in the 38 states withthe death penalty has been 48% to 100% higherthan in the 12 states without the death penalty(Bonner & Fessenden, 2000).

Most societies around the world have abandonedthe use of capital punishment for both moral andpractical reasons: It isn’t humane, and it doesn’tdeter crime. Even in China, a country responsible formost of the world’s court-ordered executions, legis-lators voted in 2006 to bar all but the nation’s high-est court from approving death sentences (“ChinaChanges,” 2006). Nevertheless, the majority ofU.S. citizens—about 64% according to one recentstudy—continue to favor the death penalty (PewResearch Center, 2007b). Recent legislative efforts toincrease the number of offenses punishable by deathand to reduce the number of “death row” appeals anoffender can file reflect this popular attitude.

Labeling Deviants

These theories help us to explain why some peo-ple engage in deviant acts and others don’t, but theybypass the question of why certain acts committedby certain people are considered deviant in the firstplace. Labeling theory attempts to answer this ques-tion by characterizing a deviant person as some-one—such as preschool teacher Kelly Michaels—towhom the label “deviant” has been successfullyapplied (Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1972). According tothis theory, the process of being singled out, defined,and reacted to as deviant changes a person in theeyes of others and has important life consequencesfor the individual. Once the label sticks, others mayreact to the labeled deviant with rejection, suspicion,withdrawal, fear, mistrust, and hatred (A. K. Cohen,1966). A deviant label suggests that the person hold-ing it is habitually given to the types of undesirablemotives and behavior thought to be typical of othersso labeled. The “ex-convict” is seen as a cold-blooded and ruthless character without hope ofreform, the “mental patient” as dangerous andunpredictable, the “alcoholic” as weak willed, the“prostitute” as dirty and immoral.

The problem, of course, is that such labels over-generalize and can be misleading. For instance,a study by two marketing professors found that

convicted felons showed just as much integrity asMBA students on a test of ethics related to difficultbusiness situations. In fact, the convicts were lesslikely than the students to indicate that they’d stealemployees from competitors or scrimp on customerservice to increase profits (“MBA vs. Prison,” 1999).

Cities around the country use humiliating labelsas an alternative to incarceration. For example, anIllinois man convicted of assault was required toplace a large sign at the end of his driveway thatread “Warning: A Violent Felon Lives Here. Travelat Your Own Risk.” In some states, convicted drunkdrivers have to put special license plates on their carsand convicted shoplifters must take out ads in localnewspapers that use their photograph and announcetheir crimes. The Chicago police department postson its Web site photographs and partial addresses ofmen arrested for soliciting prostitution, even thoughthey’ve not yet been convicted. Other cities, likeDenver, Akron, and Durham, post this informationon local television stations. Oakland and Omahadisplay photographs of such offenders on prominentbillboards (Ruethling, 2005). Such penalties aredesigned to shame the labeled individuals intobehaving properly and to deter others from commit-ting such crimes. In the process, they satisfy thepublic’s need for dramatic moral condemnation ofdeviants (Hoffman, 1997).

Deviant labels can impair an individual’s eligibil-ity to enter a broad range of socially acceptableroles. Consider the impact of the 1994 FederalCrime Bill on convicted sex offenders. This lawrequires states to register and track convicted sexoffenders for 10 years after their release from prisonand to privately notify police departments when thesex offenders move into their community. In 1996,the U.S. Senate approved a measure requiring allstates to make public the whereabouts of paroledsex offenders.

A Web site, sexualoffenders.com, provides infor-mation on released sexual offenders in all 50 states,including their names, addresses, and photographs.Sixteen states have “sexually violent predator”statutes that give officials the power to commit vio-lent sex offenders to mental hospitals involuntarily orto retain them in prison indefinitely after their prisonterms are up (C. Goldberg, 2001). These convictshave “paid their debt” to society by serving theirmandated prison sentence. But under these laws con-victed sex offenders can never fully shed their deviant

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY110

identity. Finding a decent place to live or a decent jobmay be a problem for the rest of their lives.

All ex-offenders experience the “stickiness” oflabels to some degree. Potential employers oftenrefuse to hire ex-convicts, even when the crime hasnothing to do with the job requirements. Like thepublic at large, many employers believe that prisonsdo not rehabilitate but actually make convicts moredeviant by teaching them better ways to commitcrime and by providing social networks for criminalactivity on the outside (R. Johnson, 1987). Thesesuspicions can vary by race. A study of ex-offendersin New York found that white men with prisonrecords receive far more job offers than black menwith identical records (cited in von Zielbauer,2005). In fact, other research has found that whiteex-offenders are more likely to be hired than blackmen who have led law-abiding lives (Pager, 2003).

Deviant labels are so powerful that a mere suspi-cion of criminal activity can taint a person’s charac-ter. You may recall the case of Richard Jewell, thesecurity guard originally suspected of setting off thebomb that killed two people and injured more than ahundred during the 1996 Summer Olympics inAtlanta. Television news shows spoke of him as ifhe’d already been convicted, even though no criminalcharges were ever filed. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a front page article identifying himas the focus of the federal investigation and statingthat he “fit the profile of a lone bomber” (quoted inGoodman, 2006). Operating on unsubstantiated tipsand hearsay, the FBI launched a full investigation ofJewell’s life and character. Three months later theJustice Department sent him a letter stating that hewas no longer a suspect. Jewell sued the newspaperand several news outlets including NBC and CNN forthe stigmatizing effect their stories had on his life. Heeventually settled the suits against the television sta-tions out of court. The suit against the newspaper wasstill pending at the time of his death, 11 years later.

LINKING POWER, DEVIANCE,AND SOCIAL CONTROL

Because deviance is socially defined, the behaviorsand conditions that come to be called “deviant” canat times appear somewhat arbitrary. Sociologistsworking from the conflict perspective would say thatdefinitions of and responses to deviance are often aform of social control exerted by more powerful

people and groups over less powerful people andgroups. In U.S. society, the predominant means of con-trolling those whose behavior does not conform to thenorms established by the powerful are criminalizationand medicalization. Labeling people either as criminalsor as sick people gives socially powerful individuals,groups, and organizations a way to marginalize anddiscount certain people who challenge the status quo.Criminalization and medicalization also have eco-nomic and other benefits for certain powerful groups.

The Criminalization of Deviance

Presumably, certain acts are defined as crimesbecause they offend the majority of people in a givensociety. Most of us trust our legal institutions—legis-lators, courts, and police—to regulate social behav-ior in the interest of the common good. Butaccording to the conflict perspective, most societiesensure that those offenders who are processedthrough the criminal justice system are members ofthe lowest socioeconomic class (Reiman, 2007). Poorpeople are more likely to get arrested, be formallycharged with a crime, have their cases go to trial, getconvicted, and receive harsher sentences than moreaffluent citizens (Parenti, 1995; Reiman, 2007). In2002, 69 poor people in Atlanta who had beenarrested on petty charges—shoplifting, trespassing,public drunkenness—and who couldn’t afford bailremained in jail for weeks and in some cases months,awaiting a lawyer and a court date, despite a law thatrequires anyone arrested for a misdemeanor to gobefore a judge or lawyer within 48 hours. All of themhad spent more time behind bars than they wouldhave had they been convicted (Rimer, 2002).

The quality of legal representation for defendantsin criminal cases is also skewed along socioeconomiclines. When wealthy or powerful individuals aretried for capital crimes (an occurrence that, in and ofitself, is rare) they are usually able to afford effectivelegal representation. In contrast, poor defendants insuch cases are often represented by public defenders,who have fewer resources available for investigativework and who may have little, if any, experience insuch matters. For instance, in one Alabama case, thepublic defender for a poor man facing the deathpenalty had never tried a capital case and had nomoney to hire an investigator before the case wentto trial. The defendant was sentenced to death.Similarly, a poor man in Texas, sentenced to death

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 111

in 1996, was appointed an attorney for his appealwho had never handled such cases and who hadbeen sanctioned several times for neglecting hisclients. The man’s appeal was denied and he wasexecuted in 2002.

Cases like these have intensified the nationaldebate over class and racial disparities in the qualityof legal representation. In response, some states havetaken steps to address such biases, especially in theway that capital cases are handled:

• In 2001, the governor of Illinois called for amoratorium on executions in his state after 13 menon death row—most of whom were either Latino orAfrican American and all of whom were poor andwere represented in their trials by public defenders—were proven innocent. Two years later, he commutedall death sentences in the state to prison terms of lifeor less after declaring the system fundamentallyflawed and unfair (Wilgoren, 2003).

• Concerned with the inadequate legal representa-tion poor defendants were receiving, the AmericanBar Association in 2001 passed a resolution callingfor a nationwide moratorium on executions(Fleischaker, 2004).

• In 2002, the governor of Maryland imposed amoratorium on executions in his state because of con-cerns over racial bias. In Maryland, 81% of homicidevictims are African American, yet 84% of deathsentences were cases involving white victims. Twothirds of the people on death row there are AfricanAmerican (Amnesty International, 2004a).

Persistent imbalances in the justice system gobeyond the way poor people are treated by police,judges, attorneys, and juries. If they were simply amatter of discrimination against the poor, the situa-tion would be relatively easy to deal with. Instead,they occur because the actions of poor individuals aremore likely to be criminalized—that is, officiallydefined as crimes in the first place. When poor peopledo commit certain crimes—car theft, burglary,assault, illegal drug use, and so on—they become“typical criminals” in the public eye (Reiman, 2007).

The Social Reality of Crime

Followers of the conflict perspective point outthat powerful groups often try to foster a belief that

society’s rules are under attack by deviants and thatofficial action against them is needed. The strategyhas worked well. In polls taken in the United Statesin the 1980s and 1990s, an average of 83% ofrespondents felt that the justice system was notharsh enough in dealing with criminals (Gaubatz,1995). Governments at the state and federal levelresponded to the popular sentiment by “gettingtough on crime”—cracking down on drug users anddealers, reviving the death penalty, scaling backparole eligibility, lengthening prison sentences, andbuilding more prisons. By 1999, 15 states had abol-ished parole boards and early release programs,resulting in more prisoners serving their full sen-tences (Butterfield, 1999).

Not surprisingly, the inmate population in thiscountry has swelled. According to the U.S. JusticeDepartment, the number of inmates in prisons hasgrown exponentially over the past several decades.In 1970 there were fewer than 200,000 people instate and federal prisons; by 2006 that figure hadgrown to over 2.2 million (Sabol et al., 2007). Atany given point in time, over 3% of the adultAmerican population is either on probation, in jailor prison, or on parole (U.S. Bureau of the Census,2007). No other country comes close to incarcerat-ing as large a proportion of the population as theUnited States does (International Centre for PrisonStudies, 2007).

But other problems have popped up. Newlyreleased inmates—who are likely to be poor andmembers of ethnoracial minorities—are significantlyless likely than their counterparts of two decadesago to find jobs and stay out of the kind of troublethat leads to further imprisonment (Butterfield,2000). Many states have sharply curtailed educa-tion, job training, and other rehabilitation programsinside prison. In addition, parole officers are quickerto rescind a newly released inmate’s parole for rela-tively minor infractions, such as failing a drug test.In California, for instance, four out of five formerinmates who return to prison do so not for commit-ting new crimes but for violating the conditions oftheir parole.

The question you might ask is, Who benefitswhen it becomes so hard for ex-convicts to stay outof prison? According to advocates of the conflictperspective, the law is not a mechanism that merelyprotects good people from bad people; it is a politi-cal instrument used by specific groups to further

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY112

their own interests, often at the expense of others(Chambliss, 1964; Quinney, 1970). Law is, ofcourse, determined by legislative action. But legisla-tures are greatly influenced by powerful segments ofsociety, such as lobbying groups, political actioncommittees, individual campaign contributors, andso on. Tellingly, the acts that threaten the economicor political interests of the groups that have thepower to influence public policy are more likely tobe criminalized (and more likely to be punished)than are the deviant acts these groups commit. Forinstance, it’s against the law to fail to report incomeon one’s annual tax return. But poor working peo-ple are far more likely to be audited by the InternalRevenue Service (IRS) than wealthy people(Johnston, 2002). That’s not surprising, given thatthe IRS looks for tax cheating by wage earners muchmore closely than it does by corporations or by peo-ple whose money comes from their own businesses,investments, partnerships, and trusts.

Through the mass media, dominant groups influ-ence the public to look at crime in ways that arefavorable to them. The selective portrayal of crimeplays an important role in shaping public percep-tions of the “crime problem” and therefore its “offi-cial” definition. For instance, decades of researchshow that crimes depicted on television are signifi-cantly more likely to be violent than the actualcrimes committed in the real world (cited in Reiman,2007). When politicians talk about fighting the U.S.crime problem, or when news shows report fluctua-tions in crime rates, they are almost always referringto street crimes (illegal drug use, robbery, burglary,murder, assault, and so on) rather than corporatecrimes, governmental crimes, or crimes committedby people in influential positions.

Such coverage creates a way of perceiving crimethat becomes social reality. We accept the “fact”that certain people or actions are a threat to thewell-being of the entire society and therefore athreat to our own personal interests.

Corporate and White Collar Crime

Consequently, people in the United States take forgranted that street crime is our worst social problemand that corporate crime is not as dangerous or ascostly (Reiman, 2007). U.S. citizens simply shaketheir heads over the exploitative practices of corpo-rations or wealthy despots in such places as the rain

forests of Brazil and Indonesia and the sweatshops ofSoutheast Asia. However, unsafe work conditions;dangerous chemicals in the air, water, and food;faulty products; and unnecessary surgery actually putpeople who live in the United States into more con-stant and imminent physical danger than do ordinarystreet crimes. A little over 14,000 U.S. residents weremurdered in 2004 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007).At the same time, it’s estimated that 56,000 U.S.workers die each year on the job or from occupa-tional diseases such as black lung and asbestos.Hundreds of thousands more die from pollution,contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products,and hospital malpractice (Mokhiber, 1999). TheCenters for Disease Control estimates that almost100,000 people die each year from health-care-associated infections (Klevens, Edwards, Richards,Horan, Gaynes, Pollock, & Cardo, 2007).

Corporate and white collar crimes also posegreater economic threats to U.S. citizens than doesstreet crime. The FBI estimates that burglary androbbery cost the United States $3.8 billion a year. Incontrast, fraudulent schemes to bilk the governmentout of aid money in the aftermath of HurricaneKatrina alone cost taxpayers over half that (Lipton,2006). The total cost of white collar crimes likecorporate fraud, bribery, embezzlement, insurancefraud, and securities fraud amounts to perhaps asmuch as $500 billion a year (Reiman, 2007).

To be fair, some people actually do view certaintypes of corporate crime (such as knowingly manu-facturing defective products) as more serious thanstreet crimes (Mokhiber, 2000). And in a few highprofile cases, executives convicted of corporatemalfeasance have received prison sentences of 15 to25 years (though in the majority of such cases, thepunishments are far less severe). For their part,politicians have been quick to jump on the anti-corporate-crime bandwagon in recent years, passinglegislation ensuring the accuracy and reliability ofcorporate disclosures and increasing the penaltiesfor corporate fraud.

But these steps have been directed at individualwhite collar criminals. Corporations themselvesrarely receive heavy criminal punishment when theirdangerous actions violate the law (Reiman, 2007).For example, after it was revealed that Bayer A.G.—a German pharmaceutical company—had failed todisclose the results of a study that indicated thata widely used heart surgery medicine increases the

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 113

risk of death and stroke, the Food and DrugAdministration did not take the drug off the market(Harris, 2006). In 2004, the pharmaceutical com-pany GlaxoSmithKline agreed to settle a $2.5 mil-lion lawsuit brought by the state of New Yorkalleging that the company had hidden results of drugtrials showing that its antidepressant Paxil mighthave dangerous side effects, like increasing suicidalthoughts in children.

At Congressional hearings lawmakers beratedexecutives from GlaxoSmithKline and other drugcompanies for hiding study results that challengedthe effectiveness of their drugs. The companiespromised to do better. But according to studiesfinanced by the National Institutes of Health, crucialfacts about many clinical trials continue to be with-held from the Food and Drug Administration (citedin Berenson, 2005).

To ease the inconvenience of prosecution for cor-porate wrongdoers, the U.S. Justice Department hasinstituted a form of corporate probation. Severalmajor companies that have been charged with bil-lions of dollars worth of accounting fraud, bid rig-ging, and other illegal financial schemes—includingAmerican International Group, PNC FinancialServices Group, Merrill Lynch, and AOL-TimeWarner—have agreed to deferred prosecutions, inwhich they accept responsibility for wrongdoing,agree not to fight the charges, agree to cooperate,pay a fine, and implement changes in corporatestructure to prevent future criminal wrongdoing. Ifthe company abides by the agreement for a period oftime—usually 12 months—prosecutors will drop allcharges (Mokhiber & Weissman, 2004).

Such arrangements are meant to avoid more dras-tic punishment, which could destroy these compa-nies and cost thousands of innocent employees theirjobs. But the penalties they do receive are relativelyminor and don’t deter future law violations by thecompany. For instance, as punishment for itsinvolvement in an illegal bid-rigging scheme for aNASA contract in 2006, Boeing was forced to pay a$615 million fine, a modest fee for such a large com-pany. The government also agreed not to file anycriminal charges because the company had cooper-ated with the investigation. It then went one step far-ther and designated the fine as a “monetary penalty”rather than a “criminal penalty,” thereby making thepayment tax deductible. It’s no wonder that manylarge corporations consider the punishments they

receive for wrongdoing simply a cost of doing busi-ness (Mokhiber & Weissman, 2006).

The imbalance in the legal response to thesecrimes versus street crimes is glaring. If you were anindividual thief who had robbed a bank at gunpoint,a shop owner who had defrauded your customers ofmillions of dollars, or a small businessperson whohad knowingly manufactured a potentially lethalproduct, it’s highly unlikely that you would beallowed to avoid any criminal prosecution simply by“cooperating with the investigation.” Our massivelaw enforcement and criminal justice machinerywould no doubt mobilize its vast resources to seethat you were prosecuted to the fullest extent of thelaw. Yet large corporations engage in such activitiesevery day largely without much public outcry ormoral panic. In fact, most aren’t even prosecuted atall under criminal statutes. Between 1982 and 2002,about 170,000 American workers died on the job.During that same period, federal and state work-place safety agencies investigated 1,798 fatalitycases in which companies willfully violated work-place safety laws—for instance, by removing safetydevices to speed up production, denying workersproper safety gear, or simply ignoring explicit safetywarnings. But only 104 of these cases were everprosecuted. And of those, only 16 resulted in crimi-nal convictions (Barstow, 2003).

Why aren’t these dangerous and costly corporateacts considered deviant the way face-to-face streetcrimes are? According to sociologist Jeffrey Reiman(2007), the answer resides in the perceived circum-stances surrounding these acts. People typically see theinjuries caused by corporate crime as unintentional,indirect, and a consequence of an endeavor defined inthis culture as legitimate or socially productive: mak-ing a profit. In most people’s minds, someone whotries to harm someone else is usually considered moreevil than someone who harms without intending to.Moreover, harming someone directly seems moredeviant than harming someone indirectly. Finally,harm that results from illegitimate activities is usuallyconsidered more serious than harm that is a by-prod-uct of standard business activities.

The Menace of “Illegal” Drugs

Different cultures show varying levels of toler-ance when it comes to drug use. For instance,throughout the South Pacific people commonly

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY114

chew betel nuts for their stimulant effects; in theBolivian and Peruvian Andes people chew cocaleaves during their ordinary workday. The Huicholof central Mexico ingest peyote—a small cactus thatproduces hallucinations—as part of their religiousrituals. And in the United States we wink at the useof many substances that alter people’s states ofmind, such as coffee, chocolate, and alcohol.

But when it comes to illegal drugs, U.S. attitudeschange dramatically. Like, the term terrorist, theterm drugs is an easy and popular scapegoat onwhich to heap our collective hatred. The UnitedStates has been described as a temperance culture(H. G. Levine, 1992)—one in which self-control andindustriousness are perceived as desirable character-istics of productive citizens. In such an environment,drug-induced states of altered consciousness arelikely to be perceived as a loss of control and thusfeared as a threat to the economic and physical well-being of the population.

The United States has been in an ill-defined,undeclared, but highly publicized “war” against ille-gal drugs for many years. The Drug EnforcementAdministration, the FBI, and the U.S. CustomsService seized over 3 million pounds of illegal drugsin 2004, over six times as much as was seized in1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007). During thatsame period, the drug arrest rate increased from435 people per 100,000 to 587 per 100,000. Morepeople are behind bars in the United States for drugoffenses than are in prison for all crimes in England,France, Germany, and Japan combined (Egan,1999). Federal spending on antidrug campaignsincreased from $420 million in 1973 to $12.7 bil-lion in 2006 (Katel, 2006).

With so much attention and resources nowfocused on homeland security and the “War onTerror,” it would seem that the fight against drugdealers and users could no longer be a national prior-ity. Indeed, cuts in the federal budget have reducedthe availability of resources devoted to drug enforce-ment, and some antidrug programs and agencies havebeen folded into antiterrorism efforts. Nevertheless,there remains a widespread belief that although ter-rorists pose an external danger, drug users and drugdealers are slowly destroying the country from withinand therefore need to be stopped.

Many conflict sociologists, though, argue thatantidrug campaigns and legislative activities aredriven chiefly by political interests (see, for example,

E. Goode, 1989). The war on drugs in the UnitedStates has permitted greater social control overgroups perceived to be threatening, such as youngminority men, and has mobilized voter support forcandidates who profess to be “tough” on drugs.Capitalizing on the “drug menace” as a personaland societal threat is a common and effective politi-cal tactic (Ben-Yehuda, 1990).

As with deviance in general, the very definition ofwhich substances are “illegal” is influenced bypowerful interests. Behind the phrase “war ondrugs” is the assumption that illegal drugs (mari-juana, ecstasy, cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin,and so forth) are the most dangerous substances andthe ones that must be eradicated. However, the dif-ference between legal and illegal drugs is not neces-sarily a function of their relative danger.

For instance, each year about 1,700 college stu-dents die from alcohol-related injuries, nearly100,000 are victims of alcohol-related sexual abuse,and over 2 million are cited for drunken driving(Mantel, 2006). But alcohol is big business—sales ofalcoholic beverages topped $140 billion in 2004(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007). Hence efforts tocompletely criminalize it are few and far between.While most colleges now offer “alcohol-free” hous-ing, encourage students to “drink responsibly,” orsponsor alcohol-free social events, few have bannedalcohol outright.

Tobacco is an even clearer health risk than alco-hol—or marijuana and heroin for that matter(Reiman, 2007). But aside from some age restric-tions, it is legally available to anyone. Tobacco kills440,000 U.S. residents annually. In fact, one inevery five deaths in the United States is smokingrelated. More people die from tobacco-relatedcauses than from AIDS, illegal drug use, alcohol use,motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders com-bined. It’s estimated that 25 million U.S. residentsalive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illness (Centers for Disease Control, 2006b).

And tobacco doesn’t just affect those who chooseto consume it. Over 126 million nonsmokingU.S. residents are exposed to secondhand smoke athome, in vehicles, at work, and in public places eachyear. Such exposure, even for brief periods, cancause health problems. Nonsmokers exposed to sec-ondhand smoke at work or at home increase theirrisk of heart disease by 30% and risk of cancer by25% (Centers for Disease Control, 2006b).

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 115

In 2003, the U.S. Justice Department took theunprecedented step of demanding that the nation’sbiggest cigarette makers forfeit $289 billion in prof-its derived from over 50 years of dangerous and“fraudulent” marketing practices, such as manipu-lating nicotine levels, lying to customers about thehealth effects of smoking, and directing advertisingcampaigns at children (Lichtblau, 2003). Yet know-ing the hazards of selling and smoking cigarettes hasnot prompted our society to outlaw it entirely, as wehave marijuana smoking and cocaine use. It’s truethat some states have enacted smoking bans in bars,restaurants, and other enclosed public places, andsome cities have banned outdoor smoking as well(Springen, 2006). But completely criminalizingtobacco would have a disastrous impact on manylarge corporations and on several states whoseeconomies depend on this crop. The tobacco indus-try has one of the most powerful lobbies inWashington. In fact, in 2005, the Justice Departmentdecided to reduce the amount it sought in its casefrom $289 billion to a mere $10 billion, out of con-cern over the financial impact that the originalamount would have on the tobacco companies(Leonnig, 2005).

The response to illegal drug users also shows howconceptions of deviance are socially constructed.Take, for instance, discrepancies in prison sentencesfor the possession and use of cocaine. Although thetwo types of cocaine—powdered and crack—causesimilar physical reactions, the sentences for thoseconvicted of selling them are vastly different. Theaverage length of a sentence for selling less than 25grams of crack cocaine is 65 months; for powderedcocaine it is 14 months (Coyle, 2003). According tofederal law, it would take 500 grams of powderedcocaine (or 5,000 doses) to draw the same manda-tory minimum sentence of five years in prison that aperson convicted of possessing 5 grams (or 10 doses)of crack cocaine would get (Greenhouse, 2007a).

Many law enforcement officials argue that thedifferent levels of punishment are justified becausecrack cocaine is more closely associated with vio-lence than powdered cocaine, it is more dangerousto the user, and it is more likely to cause birthdefects in babies whose mothers use it while preg-nant. However, a study of the physiological and psy-choactive effects of different forms of cocaine foundthey are so similar as to make the existing discrep-ancy in punishment “excessive.” In addition, other

research has found that the effects of maternal crackuse on fetuses are no different from those of tobaccoor alcohol use (cited in Coyle, 2003).

Some sociologists argue that the problems associ-ated with crack usage have as much to do withpoverty and race as with the drug itself. Harsh sen-tences for crack offenses have had a disproportion-ate effect on black and Latino men in poor urbanareas where crack is much more common than thepowdered cocaine favored by white users. In 2000,93% of those convicted of crack possession wereblack and Latino/a; only 6% were white. By con-trast, 30.3% of those convicted of powdered cocainepossession were black, 18% were white, and 51%were Latino/a (though most of these individuals arewhite) (Coyle, 2003).

Meanwhile, little has been accomplished in theway of stopping the illegal activities of the rich andpowerful interests that participate in the drug indus-try. Established financial institutions often launderdrug money, despite laws against it (Parenti, 1995).Massive international crime organizations that ensurethe flow of illicit drugs into the country have grownbigger and richer, despite a decades-long attempt tostop them (Bullington, 1993). Unlike low-status usersand small-time dealers of illegal drugs, these organi-zations wield tremendous economic power and politi-cal influence (Godson & Olson, 1995).

The Medicalization of Deviance

One of the most powerful forces in definingdeviance in the United States today is the medicalprofession. Throughout the 20th century, the medi-cal profession gained in prestige, influence, andauthority. This professional dominance gavemedicine jurisdiction over anything that could bedesignated “healthy” or “sick” (Conrad & Leiter,2004). This trend, what sociologists call medicaliza-tion, is the process through which deviant behavioris defined as a medical problem or illness and themedical profession is mandated or licensed to pro-vide some type of treatment for it (Conrad, 2005).Each time we automatically refer to troublesomebehavior or people as “sick,” we help to perpetuatethe perception that deviance is like an illness. Manyphysicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists,insurance agents, as well as the entire pharmaceuti-cal industry in the United States benefit from amedicalized view of certain deviant acts.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY116

According to some, we’re currently in the midst ofan “epidemic of diagnoses” (Welch, Schwartz, &Woloshin, 2007), meaning that actions once catego-rized simply as misbehaviors are being redefinedas psychiatric diseases, disorders, or syndromes.Between 1952 and 2000, the number of mentaldisorders officially recognized by the AmericanPsychiatric Association increased from 110 to close to400 (Caplan, 1995; Horwitz, 2002). Many of thesedesignations seem to have nothing to do with illness.Take for instance a malady called “ConductDisorder,” a diagnosis restricted to children and ado-lescents. According to the American PsychiatricAssociation (2000), the “symptoms” of this disorderinclude bullying or threatening behavior toward oth-ers, physical cruelty, destruction of property, theft,and violations of other rules like staying out latedespite parental prohibitions. In another era, this sortof misbehavior was called “juvenile delinquency.”

To accommodate the growing number of “ill-nesses,” the number of psychiatric professionals hasalmost tripled over the last two decades, as has thenumber of people seeking psychiatric help. The com-bined indirect and related costs of mental “illness”in this society, including lost productivity, lost earn-ings due to illness, and social costs, are estimated tobe at least $113 billion annually (National MentalHealth Association, 2005). According to theNational Institute of Mental Health (2007), 26.2%of U.S. adults suffer from a diagnosable mental dis-order. It also estimates that 55% of Americans willsuffer from a diagnosable mental disorder sometimeduring their lifetime (cited in Carey, 2005a). Alongwith alcoholism, drug addiction, and serious mentalillness, these disorders now include overeating,undereating, shyness, school stress, distress overfailed romance, poor performance in school, addic-tion to using the Internet, and excessive gambling,shopping, and sex. Some scientists even argue thatmen’s marital infidelity is a neurological disorderthat can be controlled with drugs (Kirn, 2004).

For their part, drug companies sometimes createmedicalized conceptions of deviance by marketingdiseases and selling drugs to treat those diseases.In 1997, Congress passed the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) Modernization Act, allowingdrug companies to advertise directly to the publicand to create heightened demand for its products.Between 1996 and 2000, drug company spendingon television advertising increased by 600% to $2.5

billion, and it’s been rising ever since. They nowspend as much money on this direct-to-consumeradvertising as they spend on advertising to physi-cians in medical journals (Conrad, 2005).

In the early 2000s, GlaxoSmithKline sought FDAapproval to promote the antidepressant drug Paxilas a treatment for the relatively obscure conditions“Social Anxiety Disorder” (or “Social Phobias”)and “Generalized Anxiety Disorder.” In general, theprincipal symptoms of these “disorders” are worryand anxiety in social and performance situationswhere embarrassment may occur. After receivingapproval, the company spent millions to raise publicvisibility of these conditions. Before this campaign,diagnoses of these disorders were relatively rare.Today, some mental health organizations maintainthat perhaps as many as 30 million people sufferfrom one of these problems and are in need of diag-nosis and pharmaceutical treatment (Mental HealthChannel, 2007).

Why has the medical view of deviance become sodominant? One reason is that medical explanationsof troublesome social problems and deviant behav-iors are appealing to a society that wants simpleexplanations for complex social problems. If violentbehavior is the result of a dysfunction in a person’sbrain, it then becomes a problem of defective, vio-lent individuals, not of the larger societal contextwithin which violent acts occur. Likewise, when ourdoctor or therapist tells us our anxiety, depression,crabbiness, and insecurity will vanish if we simplytake a drug, we are spared the difficult task of look-ing at the social complexities of our lives or thestructure of our society.

The medicalization of deviance also appeals tohumanitarian values. The designation of a problemas an illness removes legal and moral scrutiny orpunishment in favor of therapeutic treatment (Zola,1986). The alcoholic is no longer a sinner or a crim-inal but a victim, someone whose behavior is an “ill-ness,” beyond his or her control. Children who havetrouble learning in school aren’t disobedient anddisruptive, they are “sick.” If people are violatingnorms because of a disease that has invaded theirbodies, they should not be held morally responsible.Medicalization creates less social stigma and con-demnation of people labeled deviant.

Despite its enormous public appeal, the tendencyto medicalize deviance has serious social conse-quences (Conrad & Schneider, 1992). These include

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 117

the individualization of complex social issues andthe depoliticization of deviance.

Individualizing Complex Social Issues

Individualistic medical explanations of devianceare not necessarily wrong. Some violent people dohave brain diseases, and some people diagnosedwith clinical depression do have imbalances ofchemicals in their brains. But when we focus exclu-sively on these explanations for everyone whosebehavior diverges from social expectations, the solu-tions we seek focus on the perpetrator alone, to theexclusion of everything else.

Consider the problem of attention-deficit/hyper-activity disorder (ADHD), one of the most com-monly diagnosed maladies among U.S. children today.A child diagnosed with ADHD is difficult to dealwith at home and in the classroom. He or she fidgetsand squirms, has difficulty remaining seated, can’tsustain attention in tasks or play activities, can’t fol-low rules, talks excessively, and is easily distracted(American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

Fifty years ago, such children were consideredbad or troublesome and would have been subjectedto punishment or even expulsion from school.Today, however, most hyperactive behavior is diag-nosed as a symptom of a mental disorder, and drugsare prescribed to treat it. An estimated 4 millionchildren in the United States are taking drugs tocurb their overactivity or inattentiveness(President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003). Between2000 and 2003, spending for drugs used to treatADHD increased 183% for all children and 369%for children under the age of 5 (AIS Health, 2004).The number of prescriptions for these drugs writtenfor U.S. children is growing at a faster rate than forany other drug; more prescriptions are written forthem than for antibiotics or asthma medication(Conrad, 2005).

This growth is part of an alarming trend towardthe increased use of drugs for children in general(Safer, Zito, & dosReis, 2003). For instance, pre-scriptions for sleeping pills among childrenincreased 85% between 2000 and 2004 (Harris,2005b). Between a quarter and a half of all kids whoattend summer camps take daily prescription medi-cations (Gross, 2006). Critics worry not only aboutthe safety of these drugs but also about the mixedmessages children receive when they are handed a

daily pill to medicate away their troublesome behav-ior, while at the same time being told to say no todrugs (Koch, 1999).

Despite occasional adverse side effects, the drugsused to treat ADHD are generally successful in qui-eting unruly and annoying behavior (Whalen &Henker, 1977). But are we ignoring the possibilitythat hyperactive behavior may be a child’s adapta-tion to his or her social environment? In some cases,it may be a response to an educational system thatdiscourages individual expression (Conrad, 1975) orthat expects more self-control from young childrenthan they’re capable of exercising (Duncan, 2007).Narrowly defined norms of acceptable behaviormake it difficult if not impossible for children topursue their own desires and needs. Some pediatri-cians argue that the symptoms of ADHD may justbe children’s natural reaction to living in a fast-paced, stressful world (Diller, 1998).

I’m not suggesting that all children who are diag-nosed with ADHD are disruptive simply becausethey are bored in school or because their individualcreativity and vitality have been squashed byunsympathetic teachers. Some children do havedebilitating problems that require treatment. Thepoint is that from an institutional perspective, thetendency to label disruptiveness as an individualdisorder protects the school system’s legitimacy andauthority. The institution could not function ifdisruptiveness were tolerated (Tobin, Wu, &Davidson, 1989). But imagine if our educationalsystem promoted and encouraged free individualexpression rather than obedience and discipline. Insuch an environment, overactivity wouldn’t beconsidered disruptive and wouldn’t be a problemin need of a medical solution.

When inconvenient behavior is translated into anindividual sickness, medical remedies (usually drugs)become a convenient tool for enforcing conformityand upholding the values of society. When parentssay they want “better children,” they typically meanthey want children who are in line with our culture’svalues: “well-adjusted, well-behaved, sociable,attentive, high-performing, and academically adept”(President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003, p. 73).Parents who don’t want their children to have thesecharacteristics become objects of suspicion.

So it’s not surprising that we have come to rely ondrugs to help us through many of our commonproblems in living.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY118

Depoliticizing Deviance

The process of individualizing and medicalizingsocial problems robs deviant behavior of its powerto send a message about malfunctioning elements ofsociety. Disruptive behaviors or statements auto-matically lose their power to prompt social changewhen they are seen simply as symptoms of individ-ual defects or illnesses. We need not pay attention tothe critical remarks of an opponent if that opponentis labeled as mentally ill. Totalitarian regimes oftendeclare political dissidents insane and confine themto hospitals in an attempt to quiet dangerous politi-cal criticism. The Chinese government, for instance,has forcibly hospitalized and medicated hundreds offollowers of the outlawed spiritual movement FalunGong, which it has condemned as a dangerous cult(Eckholm, 2001). In 2007 a Russian activist washeld in a psychiatric clinic for months after publish-ing an article detailing the harsh treatment ofpatients in the same hospital.

Such practices are not found only in foreigncountries. In the early 1990s, a Dallas MorningNews investigation discovered that high-rankingU.S. military commanders were trying to discreditand intimidate subordinates who reported securityand safety violations or military overpricing byordering them to undergo psychiatric evaluationsor by sending them to a mental ward (Timms &McGonigle, 1992). When a low-ranking naval offi-cer reported that fellow sailors had raped threewomen while stationed in Bermuda, he was com-mitted to a psychiatric hospital for a week(Zwerdling, 2004). A chief petty officer in the AirForce contended that his forced hospitalization waspart of a retaliation for reporting payroll abuses atDallas Naval Air Station. He insightfully describesthe power of medical labels to discredit his politicalcriticism: “What happened was nobody wouldspeak to me. Let’s face it. After someone has goneto a mental ward, you kind of question what’sgoing on. It was a nice ploy, and it worked. Whatthey did was totally neutralize me” (quoted inTimms & McGonigle, 1992, p. F1).

Creating the image of deviants as sick people whomust be dealt with through medical therapies is apowerful way for dominant groups in society tomaintain conformity and protect themselves fromthose whom they fear or who challenge the way“normal” social life is organized (Pfohl, 1994). The

seemingly merciful medical labels not only reduceindividual responsibility but also reduce the likeli-hood that such potentially contagious political criti-cism will be taken seriously (Hills, 1980).

CONCLUSION

When we talk about deviance, we usually speak ofextreme forms: crime, mental illness, substance abuse,and so on. These activities are indeed troublesome,but for most people they remain comfortably distantphenomena. I think most of us would like to clingto the belief that deviants are “them” and normalpeople are “us.”

The lesson I hope you take away from this chap-ter, however, is that the issue of deviance is, essen-tially, an issue of social definition. As a group,community, or society, we decide which differencesare benign and which are dangerous. Standards andexpectations change. Norms come and go. The con-sequence is that each of us could be considereddeviant to some degree by some audience. We haveall broken unspoken interactional norms; many ofus have even broken the law. To a lesser degree, weare all potentially like Kelly Michaels, subject tobeing erroneously labeled deviant and unfairlytreated as a result. Given the right—or wrong—circumstances, all of us risk being negatively labeledor acquiring a bad reputation.

This chapter has examined deviance as botha micro and a macro-level sociological phe-nomenon, as something that plays a profoundrole in individual lives and in society as a whole.Although sociologists are interested in the broadsocial and political processes that create culturaldefinitions of deviance, they are also interested inthe ways these definitions are applied in everydaylife. Societal definitions have their most potenteffect when expressed face-to-face. We can talkabout such powerful institutions as medicine cre-ating definitions of deviance that are consistentwith broader political or economic interests, butif these definitions aren’t accepted as appropriateto some degree by a majority, they will be inef-fectual. Again, we see the value of developing thesociological imagination, which helps us under-stand the complex interplay between individualsand the culture and community within whichthey live.

Constructing Difference: Social Deviance 119

CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS

THE CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND SOCIETY120

� According to an absolutist definition of deviance, there aretwo fundamental types of behavior: that which is inherently accept-able and that which is inherently unacceptable. In contrast, a rela-tivist definition of deviance suggests that it is not a propertyinherent in any particular act, belief, or condition. Instead, devianceis a definition of behavior that is socially created by collectivehuman judgments. Hence, like beauty, deviance is in the eye of thebeholder.

� The labeling theory of deviance argues that deviance is aconsequence of the application of rules and sanctions to an

offender. Deviant labels can impede individuals’ everyday social lifeby forming expectations of them in the minds of others.

� According to conflict theory, the definition of deviance is aform of social control exerted by more powerful people and groupsover less powerful ones.

� The criminal justice system and the medical profession havehad a great deal of influence in defining, explaining, and control-ling deviant behavior. Criminalization is the process by which cer-tain behaviors come to be defined as crimes. Medicalization is thedepiction of deviance as a medical problem or illness.

KEY TERMS

aabbssoolluuttiissmm Approach to defining deviance that rests on the assump-tion that all human behavior can be considered either inherentlygood or inherently bad

ccrriimmiinnaalliizzaattiioonn Official definition of an act of deviance as a crime

ddeetteerrrreennccee tthheeoorryy Theory of deviance positing that people will beprevented from engaging in deviant acts if they judge the costs ofsuch an act to outweigh its benefits

ddeevviiaannccee Behavior, ideas, or attributes of an individual or group thatsome people in society find offensive

llaabbeelliinngg tthheeoorryy Theory stating that deviance is the consequence ofthe application of rules and sanctions to an offender; a deviant is anindividual to whom the identity “deviant” has been successfullyapplied

mmeeddiiccaalliizzaattiioonn Definition of behavior as a medical problem andmandating the medical profession to provide some kind of treatmentfor it

rreellaattiivviissmm Approach to defining deviance that rests on the assump-tion that deviance is socially created by collective human judgmentsand ideas

�

�