Brown Stephen E. - Routledge Handbook on Deviance

Outside of scholars of deviance, most construe the phenomenon as comprised of bad characteristics or behavior. Indeed, even among accomplished social science scholars, deviance is often envisioned within a narrow framework of purportedly harmful or undesirable characteristics that ascribe ill will to the deviant. Even informed reviewers of the original proposal for this Handbook on Deviance took umbrage at our inclusion of several illnesses and religious orientations. Yet as Pat Lauderdale outlines in the opening chapter, the concept of deviance may be extended well beyond negative behaviors and conditions alone.

Central to understanding deviance is its relativity (Curra, 2017). That is, what is successfully defined as deviant will vary across time and space. Using the deviant label of terrorist as an example, Lauderdale poses the question of who is successfully so labeled. The answer to such questions, it is asserted, goes beyond time and place. Citing Oliverio (1998: 5), it is offered that it is revealing to examine the political processes and practices that maintain, create, and change the definitions of certain acts as terrorist. Deviance, Lauderdale contends, can be viewed as reactions to diversity: how and why some behaviors and conditions across a continuum are successfully labeled deviant while others are not. In fact, there exists a plethora of examples of behaviors that threaten human life yet avoid state definition as deviant (criminalization), while other behaviors lacking evidence of harm to others are so criminalized (Brown et al., 2015). Central to accepting a diverse range of human behaviors and conditions versus their designation as deviant is a function of the distribution and role of power. Lauderdale cites Kai Eriksons (1966/2004) classic analysis of New England Puritans creation of deviance and Thomas Horejess (2013) examination of the political defining of disabilism in making the case that hegemony, domination through cultural control, creates deviance from diversity.

Undoubtedly, societal reactions and the power marshaled behind them shape the deviance chronicle. Yet many theoretical frameworks seek to explain the origin and continuity of behaviors that ostensibly violate norms, perhaps bringing social harm. Defining deviance as norm violation, Sren Kristiansen reviews the historically preeminent efforts to explain deviance.

First reviewed is Edwin Sutherlands differential association portraying deviance as entirely a function of the social process of learning, successfully casting criminology within the sociological domain in the mid-twentieth century. In quite a different vein, and echoing many of Lauderdales views of deviance, Kristiansen outlines the conflict perspective. In particular, summarized is the Marxian economic view that a ruling class creates a surplus population of deviants. Returning to a dominant mainstream theory, Robert Mertons (1938) landmark casting of anomie as a product of social structure is summarized. Finally, accentuating the diversity of explanations of deviance that have been proffered, Kristiansens theoretical discussion is closed with the labeling perspective that deviance is created by the response of others rather than the behavior of the actor who is dubbed deviant. This creation of deviance through social reaction echoes the relativity of deviance and is reflected in many of the chapters of this handbook.

Equally crucial to the study of deviance, along with a theoretical framework, are the methods of study. Kristiansens chapter summarizes and contrasts qualitative and quantitative approaches to the study of deviance. The chapter closes with an examination of longitudinal designs as a technique for attempting to sort out causal order in understanding deviance.

One of the goals of this volume was to construe deviance in the broadest sense. Nicole A. Shoenbergers review of the concept of positive deviance provides a framework for analyzing the full range of human behavior and reactions to it. Normative behavior is distributed across a bell-shaped curve, with positive deviance representing the counterpart to the much more frequently examined negative deviance. Shoenberger makes the case that the extension to include positive deviance yields a more vibrant and complete deviance field.

The Shoenberger chapter reveals the lack of accord in defining and conceptualizing this emerging theoretical extension of deviance. Of particular interest are those who exceed normative expectations only to face negative sanctions. Examples include the A student being viewed as a rate-buster, the aging athlete who refuses to age gracefully, or the highly devout religious individual being labeled an extremist. This has important implications for understanding labeling and stigma. While some debate the value of recognizing positive deviance, it is surely of value in understanding the dynamics of stigmatization.

This opening collection of essays, setting the stage for the nine groupings to follow, concludes with a chapter examining the role of the media in defining deviance. Gray Cavender discusses media power in the context of sport frames, thus also providing a transition into the next set of chapters addressing sport and deviance.

If deviance is to be understood as norm violations, negative reactions to behavior, and/or stigma-tizing selective behaviors or qualities, the shaping of both norms and reactions to behaviors/qualities is critical. Cavenders widely shared contention is that the media play a major role in deviance construction. Investigating sports as an example, ample evidence of media glorification of athletes and athletics is unveiled, even while some coverage is allotted to both deviant behavior of athletes and institutional sports deviance.