INTRODUCTION

Deviant behaviour is exhibited by individuals who deviate from or go against societal social
norms. Different societies conceive deviance according to the expected way of behaviour. Social
control are set of rules and regulations that design conventional or acceptable behaviour. This
course would therefore conceptualise what is crime, the relationship between deviance, norms
and sanctions, the relativity of deviance (to time, social setting, social group, and social role) and
the difference between deviance and crime. Also, explanations shall be provided on why the
occurrence of deviance in every human society is deemed normal and necessary. The concept of
social control would be articulated means with the 2 major types of social control. Major agents
of social control, as well as the relationship between deviance and social control, shall be
discussed.

THE CONCEPTIONS OF DEVIANCE

In every human society, the attempt is typically made to differentiate between lawful and
unlawful, normal and abnormal, permissible and non-permissible, desirable and undesirable,
right and wrong. The rationale behind the erection of this boundary is to clearly distinguish
between what is considered deviance and behaviours that are deemed acceptable. Despite this
demarcation, however, what constitutes deviance has been conceived in several ways. Generally,
deviance has been conceived in 4 major ways; these include

a. Deviance as constituting a numerical minority or statistical abnormality

b. The absolutist conception of deviance
c. The psychopathological conception of deviance
d. Deviance is a violation of the norms of society

Deviance as Constituting a Numerical Minority or Statistical Abnormality

According to this conception, any kind of behaviour that runs contrary to what the majority of
people in a society or a social group exhibit is deviance. In essence, deviance represents a
departure from the statistical average. This statistical definition emphasizes any behaviour that
differs from average experience. This conception assumes that what most people do or how most
people are, determines the correct way to act. Thus, any departure from the ‘typical’
consequently constitutes deviance. Superficially, this conception seems to be true because most
members of the society are not murderers, rapists, drug addicts, terrorists, prostitutes, gang
members or cult members.

However, the validity of the statistical conception of deviance has been faulted on two major
grounds: first, it is not every act that is performed by the minority in the society that constitutes
deviance. For instance, in contemporary Nigerian society, youth abstaining from premarital sex
are often regarded as ‘old school’ or ‘archaic’ by their peers. However, does abstinence from
pre-marital sex make one a deviant? Of course, the answer is NO! Similarly, the fact that the
number of university students graduating with first-class honours is usually very few every
session does not make students that fall within this category deviants. Second, the statistical
conception of deviance cannot also account for the fact that many people who are regarded as
conforming members of society have engaged in deviant acts at one time or the other. For
instance, some highly respected members of society engage in adultery, while some top
politicians engage in tax evasion.

The Absolutist Conception

Deviance is also sometimes conceived in absolutist terms. This conception of deviance is highly
value-laden. Values are important parts of an absolutist definition of deviance (Clinard & Meier,
2008). By this conception, deviance is regarded as objective, absolute and always identifiable by
the behaviour alone (Heitzeg, 1996). The absolute approach carries moralistic overtones. It sees
deviance as a behaviour that is wrong, evil, or sick. There are 2 models under the absolutist
conception, and these are

i. The religious model: within this model, religious doctrine and belief play a major in
conferring the status of deviance on a particular behaviour. For example, nearly all
the major world religions regard killing, adultery, and abortion as sins and deviance.
The perpetration of any of these acts is considered reprehensible and forbidden.
 ii. The Medical model: this model sees deviance as some kind of illness that can be
identified by the existence of some symptoms. For example, if an individual hears a
voice that cannot be heard by other people in the same location as him/her, that
individual may be diagnosed with schizophrenia, while another person who
experiences anxiety at the sight of a dog may be said to be suffering from a
symptomatic phobia.

However, the two models under the absolutist conception of deviance have their shortcomings.
The religious model does not take into consideration situational and contextual factors. For
instance, killing is permissible in war situations and it can also be done for self-defense. Also, a
pregnant woman may opt for an abortion if her life is deemed endangered by the pregnancy.
Similarly, a lady whose pregnancy results from rape may consider abortion as a better way out
instead of carrying such pregnancy to term. Furthermore, some prophets, priests, and soothsayers
regularly hear voices through divine or spiritual means.

The Psychopathological Conception of Deviance

This conception of deviance represents the idea which originated from the psychiatric point of
view. It believes that deviance or crime occurs as a result of a diseased mind or a disordered
personality- this is a condition that may be generally referred to as psychopathy. The term
psychopathy is often used to emphasize that the source of the disorder is internal, based on
psychological, biological, or genetic factors, while sociopathy is used to emphasize predominant
social factors in the disorder (Hare, 1999). In this sense, sociopathy would be the sociological
disease par excellence (Little, 2014). The concept of disordered personality is very germane in
explaining the concept of psychopathology as a cause of deviant behaviour. Abrahamsen (1944)
submitted that when we seek to explain the riddle of human conduct in general and of anti-social
behaviour in particular, the solution must be sought in the personality. Some years later, some
psychiatrists went so far as to conclude that deviant behaviour itself is only a sign of a more
psychiatric disorder.

For instance, in 1941, Hervey Cleckley in his book titled “The Mask of Insanity” described a
deviant as a psychopath or sociopath which he also called a moral idiot. He stated that a major
interpretation or characteristic of a moral idiot or psychopath is the inability to accurately
imagine how others think and feel. Hence, it becomes possible for a psychopath to inflict pain
and engage in antisocial behaviour without an appreciation of the victims suffering. According to
Cleckley, psychopathic symptoms which may appear early in life, often in teenage years,
include: lying, fighting, stealing, vandalism, or even bed wetting, cruelty to animals,
sleepwalking and fire setting. However, the idea behind this conception is questionable because
it regards the behaviour of clinically abnormal people under the overall scope of deviance. By
implication, a madman is also a deviant. However, the law operating in society cannot be
extended to this category of people, because they are not normal physically and mentally.

Deviance as a Violation of Societal Norms

This conception looks at behaviour that violates the general norms of society. It captures the
entire elements of the other 3 conceptions. This is the only useful standard through which any
act worthy of being called deviance can be measured. A norm is a standard about what human
beings should or should not think, say, or do under given circumstances (Blake and Davis, 1964:
456). The conception of norms as expectations or predictions highlights regularities of behaviour
based on habit or traditional customs.

Deviance constitutes departures from norms that draw social disapproval such that the variations
elicit, or are likely to elicit if detected, negative sanctions. This definition incorporates both
social disapproval of actions and social reactions to the disapproved actions (Best and
Luckenbill, 1994). Perhaps the key element in this conception is the idea of a norm. Norms do
not simply operate in society. They are created, maintained, promoted, and sometimes in
competition against one another. Society creates norms in much the same sense that the idea of
deviance itself results from social construction and negotiation (Pfuhl and Henry, 1993).
Therefore, deviance can be defined as any behaviour or activity that breaks the generally shared
norms of society. It ranges from simple acts that violate social norms to serious criminal acts that
are illegal (Aderinto and Ojedokun, 2014).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEVIANCE, NORMS AND SANCTIONS

Norms constitute the major basis by which deviance is determined. Deviance is a violation of
socially constructed norms and is thus, accompanied by socially constructed sanctions. Hence,
norms, deviance and sanctions lead to one another. Norms separate acceptable behaviours from
unacceptable. The violation of acceptable behaviour is tantamount to deviance, and any deviant
behaviour attracts a designated sanction.

All societies have norms and rules that delineate acceptable behaviour and statuses. Norms
define appropriate acts and conditions for a society’s members (Weitzer, 2002). They are rules or
prescriptions that govern social behaviour, and they include standards of etiquette and custom,
moral codes, and the law. Some norms are prescriptive i.e. they tell us what we ought to do. We
should greet our parents when we wake up in the morning, we should respect the elders etc,
while some are proscriptive; they tell us what we should not do. For instance, we should not
steal, we should not kill, we should not walk naked in the street etc. All social norms go together
with corresponding sanctions or punishments that can be applied to those who violate them. In
fact, norms are meaningless without sanctions i.e. a rule is not a rule unless there is an attendant
consequences for breaking it. Sanctions are rewards or punishments that the society set up to
enforce the norms. Sanctions may be positive (offering of reward for conformity) or negative
(punishment for behaviour that does not conform with the acceptable norms of the society).

Generally, norms and sanctions are in 3 major forms:

(i.) Formal norms and sanctions

(ii.) Informal norms and sanctions
(iii.) Medical norms and sanctions

Formal norms and sanctions- the major feature of this category is that they are codified and
formalised in every way. The norms are written in-laws; they are enforced by specially
designated and empowered agents of social control (police officers, prosecutors and judges).
These sanctions are fixed by law and are carried out according to stipulated procedures. Formal
norms and sanctions can be found in the three types of laws – criminal law, civil law and
administrative law. Criminal law includes the most serious rules and drastic punishments of a
society. It covers crimes like homicide, rape, cybercrime, armed robbery etc. While criminal law
is concerned with public wrongs, civil law is designed to resolve private disputes (Samaha,
1993). Administrative law involves the legislative creation of certain agencies empowered to
enforce law within a specific sphere of our social life.

Informal Norms and Sanctions

Informal norms and sanctions are the direct opposite of formal norms and sanctions. They are
more flexible and are not codified. The sanctions are also informally administered. Informal
norms govern several aspects of our lifestyles. Some norms regulate our mode of dressing, mode
of greeting, dietary pattern etc. Informal sanctions can be punitive to the extent that it can lead to
the banishment of the offender, he or she can be forbidden from getting married, or ostracized.
The sanctions operate at individual and group levels. Informal sanctions have no designated
control agents and there is no fixed punishment (Heitzeg 1996). Where informal norms operate
effectively, then formal law will become less utilised.

Medical norms and sanction- the idea behind this category of norms and sanctions is that
deviance can also be defined and controlled medically. It is different from both the formal and
informal norms and sanctions because it is based on the absolutist conception of deviance. It
believes that deviance is a disease and an unintentional condition that may be objectively defined
via the presence of certain symptoms. This category relies on the use of different sanctions.
Sanction under this conception does not intend to punish any individual but to correct/reform the
deviant. For example, mental illness as an unintentional condition requires treatment, not
punishment. This is based on the notion that if illnesses are caused, then, they can be cured. In
other words, the major goal of sanctions or controls of the medical model is the eradication of the
deviant condition through treatment which requires the cooperation of the deviant.

DEVIANCE IS NORMAL AND NECESSARY

Deviance is a permanent feature of every society because every member of the society cannot
behave the same way. Even though all societies and all social groups operate within the
established norms, some members will occasionally act differently. The occurrence of deviance
in any society is a normal phenomenon. Even in the community of “saints”, there would still be
members that would act differently. Emile Durkheim, a prominent sociologist, believes that
deviance is not a pathological social aberration to be shattered. Rather, it is a normal and
necessary part of every social order. Deviance is normal because it is present in every society. It
is the rule, not the abnormal exception. Durkheim stated that even in a society where there are no
murders, kidnappings, armed robberies, rapes, aggravated assaults etc, there will be something or
someone that is deviant. Whoever, whatever, there will be deviance; it is a normal part of all
societies (Durkheim, 1960).

Emile Durkheim further illustrated the normalcy of deviance by saying that crime (a form of
deviation) may execute or carry out a required service to society by bringing people together in a
common position of anger and indignation (Erikson, 2002). The deviant act violates the rule of
conduct which the rest members hold in high respect. When people come together to express
their infuriation over the infraction and to bear witness against the offender, they develop a
tighter bond of solidarity than the type that existed earlier. The enthusiasm generated by the
crime, in other words, heightens the pulse of interaction in the group and creates an atmosphere
in which the private sentiments of many different persons are combined into a common sense of
integrity.

In addition, every society creates deviance because it needs social boundaries to define its
membership, provide it with a sense of belonging and cohesion, and cast deviants out. Hence,
deviance is necessary because it brings the society together. Thus, it unites conforming members
of a social group and reaffirms their values while strengthening group cohesion. It also delimits
the boundaries and the norms of acceptable behaviour. If there was no deviance, there could be
no society. Deviance shows the line in which the group members may not cross.

The deviant act also creates a sense of mutuality among the people of a community by supplying
focus for group feeling. For instance, when there is an outbreak of war, flood or terror attack,
deviance makes people more alert to the interests they share in common and draws attention to
those values which constitute the collective consciousness of the community. To Durkheim, for
social organisation to be possible, the rhythm of group life must be punctuated by the seldom
moments of deviant behaviour (Durkheim 1958).

Finally, deviance solidifies conformity and verifies group norms. It defines the in-group by
illustrating the out-group. Certainly, if there is no rule, no deviance, then, no social order.
Therefore, deviance is normal because it is necessary. There are always rules made and broken,
without rules and rule-breakers, there would be no social order at all. Society needs deviance to
define its outer limits, to set its boundaries and to verify what it stands for by punishing what it is
not in tandem with the established rules and conduct (Heitzeg 1996).

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVIANCE AND CRIME

Cultural and structural changes in society often lead to shifts in what is considered deviant, why
it is considered deviant, the circumstances under which it is considered deviant, what sort of
deviance it is thought to be, and what is thought to be the best way to respond. Thus, deviance is
related to the social conditions people find themselves in and the social positions (roles) they
employ. Crime is deviance that breaks a law, which is a norm stipulated and enforced by
government bodies.

Deviance and crime are often confused as a result of the fact that deviance is an an-embracing
concept that not only covers acts that are prohibited outrightly in the criminal law but also
includes behaviours that depart from the social norms of society. Examples of deviant acts are
behaviours like committing murder, committing rape, being a nudist, and farting in a public
place (Siegel 1983). However, it will probably be erroneous to say that all deviant acts are
criminal. In fact, many deviant acts are not criminal no matter how disgusting and immoral they
may be (Siegel 2011). For example, a motorist who witnessed the occurrence of an automobile
accident, but made no effort to rescue the accident victims has not committed any crime.
Although other members of the society will probably frown and condemn the person’s behaviour
as immoral and deviant, in reality, this behaviour would not attract any legal sanction. In general,
many criminal acts, but not all, fall within the confine of deviance. A deviant behaviour becomes
a crime when it is believed to become a social threat or socially harmful; it then will be
specifically defined, proscribed with punishment, and prescribed under the criminal code (Siegel
2011).

THE RELATIVITY OF DEVIANCE (TIME, SOCIAL SETTING, SOCIAL GROUPS,

SOCIAL ROLES)

Deviance is relative because it does not take place in a social vacuum. Sociologists do not use the
term ‘deviance’ to refer specifically to things that are “bad” or “immoral”. Rather, they only use
it to address things outside of the boundaries of cultural norms or values (Aderinto and
Ojedokun, 2014). It is not the act itself that is deviant; rather it is people’s definition or judgment
of it that makes it deviant (Sullivan 2003). Any behaviour that is considered (inappropriate)
deviant in a particular circumstance or situation may be adjudged acceptable in another. In other
words, as a result of a change in cultural norms and values, deviant activities may be redefined to
become non-deviant. Deviant is a relative term, it is not a property inherent in activity; rather, it
is a property conferred on it. Norms and sanctions are socially created (Erikson, 1966).
Therefore, the rules and punishments regarding deviant acts are not rigid. Rather, they are
flexible, changeable and relative. Thus, deviance depends on its relativity to time, social setting
and situation, social groups and social roles.

The relativity of deviance to time

What makes something deviant to a very large extent is contingent on the factor of time.
Deviance depends on time. For instance, certain acts that were considered in the past as deviants
are no longer so in the contemporary time. Some decades ago, it is considered deviant for males
in Nigeria to plait hair, except for the priests of some traditional religions. Similarly, females
who wear trousers were regarded as deviants. However, these situations have changed today.
Hence, deviance is relative to time.

The relativity of deviance to social settings and situations

Deviance also depends greatly on where we are and what we are doing. Several norms and
sanctions define appropriate conduct in certain social settings and situations. School, cinema,
workplace, mosques, churches, parties, clubs and bars each have their own rules and expected
conduct. It is deviant for an individual to smoke within a mosque or church premises. Also, it is
considered inappropriate to carry a Quran or a Bible to a nightclub. Similarly, it is a deviant act
for a secretary to wear a bikini to her place of work.

The relativity of deviance to social group

Deviance is also closely related to social group. The appropriate behaviour expected of members
of a given social group is usually defined by certain norms and sanctions that are required of the
members to understand. There are certain modes of behaviour exclusive to motor-park boys that
may be considered deviant by people outside their group. Also, pork, which is considered a
highly nutritious meat by the Christians is forbidden for the Muslims to consume. In addition,
members of the kegites club in tertiary institutions in Nigeria often display certain behaviours
during their gyration sessions which are deemed normal to them, but viewed by non-members as
deviant.

The relativity of deviance to social roles

For something to be deviant also depends on the social roles expected of individuals by sex, age,
or status. Some social roles are based on ascribed characteristics, while some are hinged on
achieved distinctiveness. Ascribed characteristics relate to gender and age. There are different
roles for men and women, young and old. Normative expectations are attached to particular roles
and role relationships. For instance, it is a deviant act for the President of a country to eat in a
roadside restaurant. Also, a traditional ruler in Yorubaland is not expected to sit and drink in a
beer parlour. Males are not expected to wear heavy make-up and it is considered deviant for a
grown-up man to play with dolls.

MEANING OF SOCIAL CONTROL

All societies have means of dealing with behaviour that violates social norms. All these means,
put together, are called social control (Meier, 1982). The concept of social control was first used
in 1901 by Edward Alsworth Ross in his book ‘’Sin and Society’’. Social control connotes the
mechanisms designed to ensure that socially acceptable behaviour is enforced on members of a
given society. Social control measures serve the social purpose of ensuring, or at least attempting
to ensure, conformity to norms. Schafer (2003) conceived social control as the techniques and
strategies for preventing deviant human behaviour in any society. For Roberts (2009), social
control is the mechanism through which the social norms may be internalized during
socialization; they are also enforced by sanctions, positive and negative, formal or informal.

In general, the underlying goal of social control is to maintain social order, an arrangement of
practices and behaviours on which societal members base their daily lives. There are two
processes of social control in every human society; these include: i) the internalization process
and ii) the sanctioning process.

Internalization Processes

The internalization of social expectations and social control is mainly achieved through the
process of socialization. In other words, the internalization of group norms aids the achievement
of social control when an individual learns and accepts the norms of her or his group. This is a
result of the fact that the socialization process motivates members to conform to group
expectations irrespective of external pressures. People generally learn mechanisms of social
control which include: customs, traditions, beliefs, attitudes, and values through prolonged
interactions with other members of the society. Most people conform to social expectations and
norms most of the time not only because they have learned the content of those norms, but also
because they have accepted these norms as their own and take those standards for granted in
choosing their behaviours. Indeed, a great deal of conformity to norms results from socialization
that convinces people that they should conform, regardless and independent of anticipated
reactions from others. In this sense, socialization deserves the label self-control because this
conformity often results from the socialization process. Social control consists, in a sense, of
processes that teach an individual to avoid processes of deviance. Social control processes teach
how not to engage rather than how to engage in deviant behaviour (Gottfredson and Hirschi,
1990).

Sanctioning Process

This is an important process through which a society ensures its members are socially controlled.
Sanctions are social reactions to behaviour. Sociologists, sometimes, classify them according to
their content. Social controls through external pressures include both negative and positive
sanctions. A negative sanction is a punishment meant to discourage deviant conduct, while a
positive sanction is a reward meant to encourage conduct that conforms to a norm. Sociologists
also classify sanctions according to their sources, that is, who supplies the reactions. Informal
sanctions emerge in face-to-face social interactions. For example, gossip, cursing, use of satirical
songs and ostracism are unofficial reactions of groups or individuals to the conduct of another
person or group of persons. Formal sanctions are ways to officially recognize and punish the
violation of the laws. These two types of sanctions play a role in social control.

Donald Black (1976) identifies four key styles of social control, each of which defines deviance
and the appropriate response to it in a different manner. Penal social control functions by
prohibiting certain social behaviours and responding to violations with punishment.
Compensatory social control obliges an offender to pay a victim to compensate for harm
committed. Therapeutic social control involves the use of therapy to return individuals to a
normal state. Conciliatory social control aims to reconcile the parties of a dispute and mutually
restore harmony to a social relationship that has been damaged. While penal and compensatory
social controls emphasize the use of sanctions, therapeutic and conciliatory social controls
emphasize processes of restoration and healing which is the principal aim of prisons and other
correctional homes (Little, 2014).

TYPES OF SOCIAL CONTROL

Social control typically originates in interactive human social relationships. It may be informal or
formal. Both means of social control are derived from habituation and institutionalization which
arise from repeated interaction (Buckner, 1967). However, the preferred methods of control vary
with the purpose and character of the group in question.

Informal Social Control

The culture in which we are socialised greatly shapes our behaviours. Through socialization,
members of society learn what is expected of them to conform to their groups’ norms. Informal
social control processes are based on the dictates of moral precepts or rules, folkways myths,
legends, mores, traditions, tortures, intimidations and symbols, social conventions and other
informal processes of control. Informal social control represents individual and unofficial efforts
directed towards the control of human social behaviour which of course includes criminal
conduct. Individuals provided their security and standards of conduct casually and mutually.
There are various examples of informal social control mechanisms, and some of these include
ritual cleansing, ridicules and gossip, confinement, use of satirical songs, ostracism, banishment,
trial by ordeals, oath taking etc. The long exposure of individuals to a consistent body of norms
or informal social control seems to create a strong internal standard that governs their
behaviours. Informal social control is achieved through the internalisation process.

Formal Social Control

Formal social control is the institutions of the state officially established to regulate human
conduct. It is oriented towards enforcing the laws of the state. Formal social controls involve an
organized system of reactions from specialized agencies and organizations, such as the Police,
Army, Nigeria Customs Service, National Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSDC), Nigeria
Immigration Service etc. The development of formal systems of social control may be related to
conditions that weaken informal systems of control (Horwitz, 1990). When family, church, clan,
or community does not apply controls, as occurs in the process of urbanization, society needs
alternative forms of control. These alternative forms involve actions by third parties to enforce
various norms and regulations.

Relationship between Deviance and Social Control

Social control and reactions to deviance are intimately bound up. Indeed, social control
represents the only major way through which deviant behaviour is designated, identified and
controlled. Donald Black (1976) defines deviant behaviour “as conduct that is subject to social
control” and social control as “the normative aspect of social life, or the definition of deviant
behaviour and the response to it, such as prohibitions, accusations, punishment, and
compensation.” Black (1976) also suggests that “the quantity of social control defines the rate of
deviant behaviour.” The implication of this is that both deviance and social control need to be
more clearly distinguished from one another.

Gibbs (1981) differentiates between deviance and social control. He ultimately rejects the
prophylactic conception because the concept surpasses “reactions to deviance” and that not all
reactions to deviance are instances of social control. According to Gibbs, any attempt to get
someone else to do something or refrain from doing something can be considered an attempt at
“control,” but social control has certain special qualities. To qualify as “social” control, such
attempts must involve three parties.

Social control is an attempt by one or more individuals to manipulate the behaviour of another
individual or individuals by or through a third party (by means other than a chain of command or
sequence of orders). Gibbs’ “third party” can be an actual person or a reference to “society,”
“expectations,” or “norms.” It is a type of “referential” social control. If one party attempts to
control another by punishing a third (e.g. general deterrence), it is a form of “vicarious” social
control. Numerous categories and subcategories of social control are delineated by Gibbs, but the
major point is that the third party distinguishes social control from mere external behavioural
control, simple interpersonal responses, or issuing orders for someone to do something. This
definition clearly distinguishes social control from “prophylactic” conceptions of social control.
A variety of phenomena typically thought of as types of social control are not clearly “reactions
to deviance” (such as propaganda, advertising, education, strikes, protests, and governmental
regulations).

THEORIES OF DEVIANCE

BIOLOGICAL/GENETIC THEORIES

Scholars have made several attempts to link genetics/biology to the occurrence of deviance.
Some of the theories that have been put forward to explain the connection include the bad seed
theory, the study of chromosomes, the twin studies and studies of adoptees.

Bad Seed Theory

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, there was a strong assertion that nature played a
stronger role than did nurture. It was also known as the nature-nurture debate. Thus, observation
of widespread deviant behaviour within a family was viewed as what could only be explained by
genetics, with little thought given to environmental factors or the need to control for other factors
that might cause both deviance and particular biological characteristics. This approach was
known as Eugenics in its early days of popularity. During that epoch, no one could stop to think,
for example, that both stunted growth and deviance could be products of social disadvantage, i.e.
environmental influences. It was concluded by many biological theorists that differences in the
physiques of offenders must be the cause of observed patterns of deviance (Brown, Esbensen and
Geis, 2010).

The Study of Chromosomes

The study of chromosomes was another attempt to establish a relationship between genetics and
crime. The x-y-y chromosomal supplement is one of such genetic characteristics that has
stimulated a great deal of research about whether it is associated with criminal behaviour.
Chromosomes are complex structures in the nuclei of plant and animal cells that determine the
particular characteristics of the organism. Every cell of all normal human beings contains 23
pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46. One pair of these is the sex chromosomes which
determine the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of the individual. In the normal
female, these chromosomes are of similar size and are referred to as xx after their shape.
However, one of the 2 sex chromosomes of a normal male is smaller. They are of different
shapes and are referred to as xy.

At conception, an ovum and a sperm, each containing 23 chromosomes unite to form a single
cell which will then develop into an embryo. At times, however, an abnormal cell division occurs
before conception so that the sperm or the ovum contains more than one sex chromosome. The
resulting embryo would then have an unusual number of sex chromosomes. The first of these sex
chromosome abnormalities to be investigated was that of XXY individuals. Although these
findings have been widely disputed, the XXY individuals were reported to be associated with
degeneration of the testis and sterility, breast enlargement and moderate mental retardation. It
has also been associated with alcoholism, homosexuality, and over-representation in the
institution of the sub-normal. According to this theory, these people are usually found in mental
rehabilitation homes or prisons. This chromosomal combination will make the individual engage
in some criminal behaviour. Interest in the possibility of chromosomal abnormalities in other
institutionalised homes led to an investigation of prisoners. Since the presence of a Y-
chromosome determines maleness, it was hypothesized that a person with an extra Y-
chromosome (XYY) might be a super-male is more aggressive and inclined to criminality (i.e.) it
has been suggested that XYY males are more crime-prone than XY males because of increase
aggression as the key factor in XYY male criminality.
However, this theory has been criticised for ultimately failing to explain deviance because it
ignores the relativity of deviance and the essentially social process for determining and judging
human behaviour (BarCharts, 2000). Also, some researchers have found that on the contrary, the
proportion of crimes committed by XYY males who are aggressive does not appear to differ
substantially from those committed by XY males. Furthermore, there have been reports of
socially well-adjusted men with an XYY constitution. Therefore, chromosomes would not be a
factor.

Psychoanalytic Theory (The Personality of the Offender)

Psychoanalytic theory was developed by a prominent psychologist Sigmund Freud. The

personality of the offender as put forward by psychoanalytic theory views criminal behaviour
primarily in terms of enduring personality attributes of the individual. The theory argues that
criminal behaviour originates primarily in the personality of the offender rather than their
biology.

Furthermore, it opined that causes of criminal behaviour are found in unconscious elements of
the personality. For example, the Freudian theory states that the mind is composed of 3 parts,
namely: id, ego, and superego. The id is permanently unconscious and responds to only what
Sigmund Freud called the pleasure principle, that is, if it feels good, do it. The id is the
animalistic, sadistic and unconscious elements that we possess at birth (id is an unsocialised
instinct). The superego is the moral conscience and reflects requirements that develop from the
individual’s social experience in a particular cultural milieu (the force of the society). Finally,
what Freud called the ego is the unconscious personality and operates on the principles of reality
principles. So, the ego is the person’s personality which develops from the id and superego.
Given this basic organisation of personality, Freud explained how the ego handles all conflict
between the superego and the id.

There are a variety of ways the individual may handle the situation. In sublimation, the drives of
the id are diverted to activities approved by the superego. For example, aggressive and
destructive urges may be diverted to athletic activities. This is the only normal and healthy way
the ego handles the conflict between the drives of the id and the prohibition of the superego. In
repression, these drives are stuffed back into the unconscious and the individual denies that they
exist. Freud believed that these basic conflicts were out in different ways at different points of
the life cycle. Of particular interest to him were the experiences of early childhood. He argued
that each infant goes through a series of phases of phases in which the basic drives were oriented
around the oral drives, anal drives and genital drives. Within the psychoanalytic personality,
criminal behaviours are attributed to disturbances or malfunctions in the ego or superego. The id
in contrast, is viewed as a constant and inborn biologically based source of urges and drives. It
does not vary substantially among individuals. The psychoanalytic theory views deviant
behaviour as an almost necessary outcome or expression of the personality and hence, does not
always necessitate contact with deviant culture.

However, psychoanalytic theory has been criticised in several ways. Even though the id and
superego conflict may be true to some extent, it must be realised that the whole process of
socialisation is to ensure that the biological being is transformed into a social being. If this is so,
it follows, therefore, that human behaviour is a product of social experience and not that of an
innate animalistic instinct called id. That is, man does not act on instinct, whatever he does is a
result of interaction with other people in society.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

The submissions of biological/genetic and psychoanalytic theories are inadequate because they
all viewed the phenomenon of deviance from the individual perspective. However, deviance is a
social phenomenon which can better be understood sociologically. Therefore, some prominent
sociological theories shall be the focus of this section.

Anomie-Strain Theory

The anomie-strain theory was developed by a renowned American scholar, Robert K. Merton.
He borrowed Emile Durkheim's concept of anomie to form his own theory . The term anomie
appeared in the English language as early as 1591 and generally referred to a disregard for law
(Fox, 1976). Anomie is a Greek word which means “without norms”. Merton (1957, pp. 131–94)
viewed anomie as a condition that occurs when discrepancies exist between societal goals and
the means available for their achievement. This discrepancy or strain between aspirations and
achievement has resulted in Merton’s conception being referred to as the “anomie-strain theory.”
According to this theory, every society is firm in judging people’s social worth based on their
apparent material success and in preaching that success is available to all who work hard and
take advantage of available opportunities. In reality, the opportunities or means of achieving
success (“the American dream”) are not available to all. Thus, according to Merton’s theory of
anomie, antisocial behaviour (crime) is produced by the very values of the society itself in
encouraging high material aspirations as a sign of individual success without adequately
providing approved means for all to reach these goals. This discrepancy between goals and
means (strain) produces various “modes of personality adaptation,” different combinations of
behaviour in accepting or rejecting the means and goals. Given this high premium placed on
individual success without concomitant provision of adequate means for its achievement,
individuals may seek alternate (nonapproved) means of accomplishing this goal.

Merton presents five modes through which members of society adapt to strain caused by
restricted access to socially approved goals and means. The chosen response or modes of
adaptation depend on the individual's attitudes toward cultural goals and the institutional means
to attain them. The conformist is the most common mode of adaptation. Such individuals accept
both the goals as well as the prescribed means for achieving the goal. Conformists will accept,
though not always achieve, the goals of society and the means approved for achieving them.
Innovators accept societal goals but have few legitimate means to achieve those goals, thus they
innovate (design) their means to get ahead. The means to get ahead may be through robbery,
embezzlement or other such criminal acts. Ritualists, the third adaptation, abandon the goals they
once believed to be within their reach and thus dedicate themselves to their current lifestyle.
They play by the rules and have a daily, safe routine. Retreatists, the fourth fifth adaptation is
given to those who give up not only the goals but also the means. They often retreat into the
world of alcoholism and drug addiction. These individuals escape into a non-productive and non-
striving lifestyle.

Merton’s typology of adaptations to anomie

Cultural goals Institutionalised means

Conformity + +
Innovation + _
Ritualism _ +
 Retreatism _ _
Rebellion + ±

(+) signifies “acceptance,” (-) signifies “rejection”, and (+ ) signifies “rejection and substitution
of new goals and standards” (Williams III and McShane, 1999).

The final adaptation, rebellion, occurs when the cultural goals and the legitimate means of the
society are rejected and new ones are created. These individuals create their own goals and their
means. Mertons’s theory was widely received in sociology and criminology as a useful theory
for understanding the involvement of some members of society in deviance.

6.3.2 Differential Association Theory (DAT)

Differential association theory developed by Edwin Sutherland in 1934 is another important

sociological theory that explains peoples’ involvement in crime and deviance. The theory opines
that individuals become predisposed toward criminality because of an excess of contacts that
advocate criminal behaviour. Due to these contacts, a person will tend to learn and accept values
and attitudes that look more favourably on criminality. Sutherland’s theory was strongly
influenced by Charles Horton Cooley’s (1902) theory of personality—“the looking-glass self.” In
Sutherland’s explanation of criminality, crime is a learned social phenomenon, transmitted in the
same manner that more conventional behaviour and attitudes are passed on.

By the “differential association”, Sutherland meant that “the contents of the patterns presented in
the association would be from individual to individual (Sutherland, 1939). Thus, he never meant
mere association with criminals would cause criminal behaviour. Instead, the content of the
communications from others was given primary focus. In essence, he viewed crime as a
consequence of conflicting values; that is, the individual followed culturally approved behaviour
that was disapproved (and set in law) by the larger society (Williams III and McShane, 1999).
The nine propositions of the differential association theory are these (Sutherland, 1947):

1. Criminal behaviour is learned.

2. Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of
communication.
 3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal
groups.
4. When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes; techniques of committing the
crime, which are sometimes very simple; and the specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes
as favourable or unfavourable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation
of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anticriminal
patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behaviour is an explanation of general needs and values, it is not
explained by those general needs and values since noncriminal behaviour is an expression
of the same needs and values.

Sutherland’s differential association theory was not directed at the issue of the origin of crime in
society but concentrates instead on the transmission of criminal attitudes and behaviour. It is a
behaviouristic theory—“previous behaviour causes subsequent behaviour”—and contains
elements of a “soft social determinism,” that is, exposure to groups does not cause but
predisposes individuals to criminal activity or causes them to view it more favourably. Why,
then, do not all with similar exposure become similarly criminal? Sutherland’s notion of
variations in contacts provides for individual reactions to social groups and exposures (Hagan
2007).

Labelling Theory

Labelling theory, also called the interactionist perspective, combines two distinct components: a
definition of deviance and the theory of secondary deviation. The labelling theory focuses on the
reaction of other people and the subsequent effects of those reactions which create deviance.
When it becomes known that a person has engaged in deviant acts, she or he is then segregated
from society and thus labelled, a "whore," thief," "addict," "alcoholic," and the like. Howard
Becker (1963) noted that this process of segregation creates "outsiders", who are outcast from
society, and then begin to associate with other individuals who have also been cast out. When
more and more people begin to think of these individuals as deviants, they respond to them as
such. Thus, the deviant reacts to such a response by continuing to engage in the behaviour
society now expects from them.

Specifically, labelling theory examines the process of conferment of the deviant label on a
person by other members of society. Therefore, what is considered deviant is determined not so
much by the behaviours themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of
others to these behaviours. As Becker put it, “deviance is not a quality of the act the person
commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the
offender. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour
is behaviour people so label”. It is important to note that labelling theory does not address the
initial motives or reasons for the rule-breaking behaviour, which might be unknowable, but the
importance of its social consequences. It does not attempt to answer the question of why people
break the rules or why they are deviant so much as why particular acts or particular individuals
are labelled deviant while others are not. How do certain acts get labelled deviant and what are
the consequences?

Another sociologist, Edwin Lemert, expanded the concepts of labelling theory by identifying the
two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms
that do not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with
others. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in
society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future. Sometimes, in more extreme
cases, primary deviance can metamorphose into secondary deviance. Secondary deviance occurs
when a person’s self-concept and behaviour begin to change after his or her actions are labelled
as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfil the role of a
“deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labelled that individual as such.

Social Bond Theory

Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory analysed deviance and crime from an entirely different
approach. He didn't attempt to explain why individuals engage in criminal acts, but rather why
individuals choose to conform to conventional norms. According to Hirschi (1969), individuals
maintain conformity for fear that violations will rupture their relationships (cause them to “lose
face”) with family, friends, neighbours, jobs, school, and the like. In essence, individuals
conform not for fear of prescribed punishments in the criminal law, but rather from concern with
violating their groups’ mores and the personal image of them held by those groups.

Travis Hirschi presented four social bonds which promote socialization and conformity in
society (DeMello, 1999); these include attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. He
claimed that the stronger these four bonds, the less likely an individual would become
delinquent. Hirschi first assumes that everyone has the potential to become delinquent and
criminal and it is social controls, not moral values, that maintain law and order. Without controls,
he argues, one is free to commit criminal acts. Hirschi further assumes that a consistent value
system exists and all of society is thus exposed to such a system. Moral codes are then defied by
delinquents because their attachment to society is weak. He views delinquents as rejecting such
social norms and beliefs (DeMello, 1999).

The first bond, attachment, refers to a bond to one’s significant others (such as family and peers)
and important institutions (such as churches and schools). Weak attachment to parents and
family may impair personality development, while poor relationships with the school are viewed
as particularly instrumental in delinquency. One's acceptance of social norms and the
development of social consciousness depend on attachment to other human beings. Hirschi views
parents, schools, and peers as important social institutions for a person. Attachment takes three
forms—attachment to parents, to school, and to peers. The second bond is commitment which
simply involves time, energy, and effort placed on conventional lines of action. In other words,
the support of an equal partaking in social activities ties an individual to the moral and ethical
code of society. Hirschi's control theory holds that people who build an investment in life,
property, and reputation are less likely to engage in criminal acts which will jeopardize their
social position.
A lack of commitment to such conventional values will cause an individual to partake in
delinquent or criminal acts. The third bond is involvement which entails engagement in
legitimate social, and recreational activities that either leave too little time to get into trouble or
bind one’s status to yet other important groups whose esteem one wishes to maintain. Hirschi
argues that an individual's heavy involvement in conventional activities doesn't leave time to
engage in delinquent or criminal acts. The final bond is that of belief which entails respect for
laws, and the people and institutions which enforce such laws. Hirschi argued that people who
live in common social settings share similar human values. If such beliefs are weakened, or
absent, one is more likely to engage in antisocial acts. Also, if people believe that laws are
unfair, their bond to society weakens and their possibility of committing delinquent acts
increases.
 References
Abrahamsen, D. 1944. Crime and the Human Mind. New York: Columbia University Press.

Aderinto, A. A. and Ojedokun, U. A. 2014. Deviance: An Introduction. In A. A. Aderinto (Ed.),

Deviance and Social Control-An African Perspective (pp. 1-16). Ibadan, Nigeria:
Ibadan University Press.

Best, J. and Luckenbill, D. F. 1994. Organising Deviance (2nd edition). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, Enlarged edition. New
York: Free Press.
Belmont, USA: Thomson Corporation.

Blake, J., & Davis, K. 1964. Norms, Values, and Sanctions . In R. E. Faris, Handbook of
Modern Sociology (pp. 456–484). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Black, D. 1976. The Behaviour of Law. New York: Academic Press.

Buckner, H. T. 1967. The Police: The Culture of a Social Control Agency. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept.
of Sociology, University of California.

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F.-A., & Geis, G. 2010. Criminology, 8th Edition. Waltham, USA:
Elsevier Inc.

Christiansen, K. O. 1977. A Preliminary Study Of Criminality Among Twins. In S. A. Mednick &

K. O. Christiansen (Eds.) Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behaviour, New York, NY:
Gardner

Crowe, R. R. 1972. The Adopted Offspring of Women Criminal Offenders: A Study of their Arrest
Records. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27, 600–603.
Cleckley, H. M. 1941. The Mask of Sanity (5th Ed.). Augusta, GA: Emily S. Cleckley.
Clinard, M. B., & Meier, R. F. 2008. Sociology of Deviant Behavior, Thirteenth Edition.

DeMello, D. M. 1999. Criminological Theory on the Web.

Dugdale, R. L.1877. The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperity, Disease and Heredity. New York: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons.

Erikson, K. 2002. The Sociology of Deviance. In R. Weitzer, Deviance and Social Control: A
Reader. McGraw Hill.

Estabrook, A. H. 1916. The Jukes in 1915. Washington: The Carnegie Institute of Washington.

Fox, J. A. The Identification and Estimation of Deterrence: An Evaluation of Yunker’s Model.

Journal of Behavioural Economics 2: 225-242.

Goddard, L. 1955. The Overtrained Audience. The Reporter.

Gibbs, J. P. 1989. Control: Sociology’s Central Notion. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois
Press.

Gottfredson, M. and Travis, H. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Hagan, F. E. (2007). The Global Fallacy and Theoretical Range in Criminological Theory. Journal
of Justice , 19-31.

Hare, R. D.1999. Psychopathology and Its Nature: Implications for Mental Health and Criminal
Justice Systems. T. Million, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith and R. Davis (Eds.)
Psycopathy: Antisocial, Criminal and Violent Behavior. New York: NY: Guilford
Press. 188-212.

Heitzeg, N. 1996. Deviance: Rulemakers and Rulebreakers. West Publishing Company.

Hirsch, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Horwitz, Allan V. 1990. The Logic of Social Control. New York: Plenum.
Little, W. 2014. Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition. Canada: William Little and
Ron McGLittle, W. ( 2014). Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition.
Canada: William Little and Ron McGivern.

Meier, Robert F. 1981. Norms and the Study of Deviance: A Proposed Research Strategy.
Deviant Behavior 3: 1–25.

Lange, J. 1930. Crime as Destiny. New York: Charles Boni.

Mednick, S. A.1977. A Biosocial Theory of Learning of Law-Abiding Behavior. In S. A. Mednick

and K. O. Christiansen (eds), Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behaviour. New York:
Gardner. 1-9.

Merton, R. K.1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York. NY: The Free Press.

Sutherland, E. H. 1939. Principles of Criminology. Third Edition. Philadelphia, P.A.: J. B.

Lippicott.
Sutherland, E. H.1949. White Collar Crime. New York, NY: Dryden.

Pfuhl, E. H. and Henry, S. 1993. The Deviance Process, 3rd edition. New York: Aldine de
Gruvter.

Ross, H. L. 1993. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
ivern.

Samaha, J. 1993. Criminal Law, 4th Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Siegel, L. 2011. Criminology: the Core. Wardsworth: Cengage Learning.

Sigel, J. 1983. Criminology. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Sullivan, T. 2003. Introduction to Social Problem, 6th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schafer, S. 1976. Introduction to Criminology. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.

Toby, Jackson. 1957. ‘‘Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors
in the Predatory Behaviour of Hoodlums.’’ Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science 48: 12–17.

Weitzer, R. 2002. Introduction. In R. Weitzer, & R. Weitzer (Ed.), Deviance and Social
Control: A Reader. McGraw Hill.