Any behavior that violates cultural norms is called deviance. Deviance can either be formal or informal. The former is exemplified in day to day crimes such as arson, assault, homicide, robbery, fraud, theft, rape and so on. It follows that perpetrators of such crimes often violate formally instituted laws. The other category of deviant behavior is exemplified in most of mannerisms exhibited by certain individuals and which often violate certain rules. This is occurs uniformly across cultures or it can apply to a specific culture. Examples include, belching out loud, talking while eating just to name a few. It is quite difficult to understand why certain people engage in norm violating behavior given the willingness of most people to conform. Since deviance occurs every time cultural norms are violated, a look at cultural perspective of deviant behavior can help clarify the difference between formal and informal deviant behaviors.
There are numerous theories that try to explain the nature of deviance. Man being a social animal does not act alone; rather his actions are to a wide extent dictated by his social group. A person will always exhibit behaviors prevalent in a group within which he or she is a member. Membership can be formal or informal (Liska and Messner, 1999).
In any given society, relationships between different groups are often not good. Conflict can occur not only between different groups but inside any given group resulting into formation of subgroups with conflicting interests. A person’s culture is classified according to the group he or she is affiliated to. The group can be political, ethnic, social, economic or religious (Larry, 2012). Every group is characterized by some values or norms which can be similar or completely different from those of other subcultures.
In pluralistic nations like US, there are lots of different groups each with its own norms and values. These can either be in harmony or in conflict with nation wide culture. The difference in cultures is evident when a person moves from one state to another. Crossing over from Manhattan to Chinatown is no different to moving from Haiti to Japan. The cultures are completely different. Distance is not a factor as long as religious, political, economical and social groupings are different (Larry, 2012).
A person who moves from one group setting to another may find it hard to conform to values and norms of his host group and as such, some of his or her behavior may seem deviant to the host group. Such behaviors may be perfectly acceptable from the persons group of origin. Deviant behavior is mostly evident where there is one group of people with values and norms that dominate those of a lesser group. It can be values and norms held by high social economic class and which are imposed on people from lower class or religious beliefs imposed by a dominant sect over a minority and so on. Any attempt by an individual to behave contrary to set standards is labeled as deviant behavior (Hirschi, 1969).
A study conducted on a group of working class adolescent males revealed that group members highly resented people from the middle class. They reacted by forming norms and values that were different from those of broader American culture. The kind of value system they embraced made it even much difficult for them to ascent the economic ladder. The group of males found it difficult to cope with value system and aspirations of the middle class. This made them feel frustrated as a result of strain or conflict that existed between the two value systems (Hirschi, 1969).
According to Hirschi (1969) strain comes about as a result of placement of too much emphasis on the on achievement based on material possessions. It can also be due to changes occurring as the society becomes more sophisticated. In such a society, a person of low means may find it difficult to achieve success. This can be due to bureaucratic restrictions placed by the advanced society. In this case, norms and values are no longer clear and rampant poverty results to strain.
Increased lack of opportunity leads people to form alternative values. This is called anomie. The values so formed are often negative in the view of the dominant group but in essence, those holding such values do so in order to improve their chances of making it in life through illegitimate means. Studies have noted that during times of increased economic success, crime rates are normally high (Hirschi, 1969). This can be explained using relative deprivation theory. It follows that increased success by some members of the society causes other envious of their success and often from lower class to commit crime in order to be successful as well. Such criminals act out of sheer perception whereby they mentally compare themselves with changes occurring in their social environment.
People living in slums tend to be involved in committing crime more than others. Most of the crimes that they commit involve property. The individuals coming from such backgrounds possess little education and skills and the feel that the only way they can make it in life is through stealing. This is called social disorganization theory. Areas with high rates of crime have increased police presence. Police officers decision to arrest is mostly influenced by social class of the suspect. Other environmental factors that predispose an individual to crime include low income, dysfunctional families and poor housing (Larry, 2012). Poor social control is what contributes to increase in crime.
If a residential area is neglected where houses are no longer maintained and petty offenses overlooked, this could attract worse crime since it indicates lack of communal concern. This is what is called the broken windows theory. In such a case, vigilante groups, drug dealers and vandalism would be on the rise followed by rape, homicide, and robbery. Perpetrators feel there is no one who will charge them with anything since no one cares (Larry, 2012).
Cultural deviance theory is a combination of strain and social disorganization theory. Anomie is an extension of strain theory while broken windows theory is an extension of social disorganization theory. A unique subculture is formed when there is so much strain which results to isolation and disorganization (Larry, 2012). The people in the bottom rung of the social ladder form and embrace values and beliefs that suit them. Such beliefs justify their inclination to crime especially against those from the upper class. Such beliefs are taught to others through cultural transmission. Social disorganization theory links factors that lead to the commission of crime such as fleeting neighbors, family malfunction, and racial heterogeneity to individuals from upper and middle class. However, people from lower class are much inclined towards committing crime.
References
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Larry, J. (2012), Criminology. Cleveland, OH: Wordsworth, Inc.
Liska, A. & Messner, (1999). Perspectives on Crime and Deviance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.