Deviance — behavior that violates the norms of a social group and provokes negative social reactions — and social control — the mechanisms through which social groups respond to norm violation and attempt to maintain conformity — are the foundational conceptual pair around which the sociology of crime has been organized since Durkheim established that deviance is a normal and functional feature of every society rather than an aberration requiring purely pathological explanation. Their relationship to crime is direct but not identical: crime is a specific subset of deviance whose violations are codified in criminal law and subject to formal state sanctions, while deviance encompasses a much wider range of norm violations — from minor social breaches through stigmatized identities to major moral transgressions — many of which are never criminalized and some of which were previously criminalized but have been decriminalized. Understanding deviance more broadly than crime enables the sociology of crime to situate criminal behavior within the wider social processes through which norms are created, contested, violated, and enforced in ways that crime-specific analysis cannot achieve.
Sociology and Criminology treats deviance and social control as the analytical framework within which crime must be understood — the broader social context that gives criminal behavior its meaning, explains why some but not all deviant behaviors are criminalized, and reveals the processes of norm construction, moral entrepreneurship, and social reaction through which the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is continuously negotiated in social life. The theoretical traditions of deviance research — functionalism, anomie, labeling, conflict, and control theory — are simultaneously theories of crime and theories of the wider social processes through which social order is maintained, challenged, and reproduced.
Introduction
The sociology of deviance begins with a definitional observation that has profound theoretical implications: deviance is not a property of acts but of social reactions. No behavior is inherently deviant — behavior becomes deviant when members of a social group define it as violating their norms and respond to it with negative sanctions. This relativistic definition, established most influentially by Howard Becker in Outsiders (1963), has several important consequences. First, it directs sociological attention from the behavior itself to the social processes through which behaviors are labeled as deviant — the role of power in determining whose norms prevail, whose behaviors are targeted, and whose violations are overlooked or excused. Second, it establishes that the same behavior can be deviant in one social context and conformist in another. Third, it creates the theoretical space for labeling theory.
The sociology of social control addresses the mechanisms through which social groups maintain conformity with their norms through both internal mechanisms (socialization that installs internalized norms) and external mechanisms (surveillance, rewards, and sanctions that respond to observed behavior). The distinction between formal social control (exercised through state institutions with explicit legal authority) and informal social control (exercised through social relationships, community norms, and the mechanisms of social approval and disapproval) is essential for the full analysis of social control — and the relative importance of these two types, and the conditions under which formal control substitutes for or undermines informal control, is one of the central empirical questions in the sociology of crime.
Classical Approaches to Deviance
Durkheim’s Functionalist Account
Durkheim’s functionalist sociology of deviance — developed in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895) and Suicide (1897) — established the framework within which all subsequent deviance theory has positioned itself. Durkheim’s central argument was that deviance is normal — not in the evaluative sense that deviance is good, but in the sociological sense that it is a regular, expected feature of all social life rather than a pathological exception to normal social functioning. Three arguments supported this claim.
First, deviance is universal: no society has ever existed without behaviors that members define as violating their norms, establishing that deviance is a structural feature of normative social organization rather than a product of any specific social pathology. Second, deviance is functional: it serves the social purposes of clarifying the boundaries of acceptable behavior (through the public reaction to violations), strengthening social solidarity (through the shared moral condemnation of deviants), and facilitating social change (through the initial deviance of innovators who challenge existing norms). Third, deviance is inevitable: any attempt to eliminate deviance completely would merely raise the threshold of sensitivity, so that behaviors currently tolerated become the targets of condemnation once more serious violations are eliminated.
The functionalist account of deviance has been critiqued for its conservative implications — by naturalizing and even celebrating deviance as socially functional, it obscures the real harms that some deviant behaviors produce and the power dynamics that determine whose behaviors are defined as deviant. But its analytical contribution — the insistence that deviance must be explained sociologically rather than pathologically, as a product of social organization rather than individual defect — established the foundational orientation that all subsequent sociological deviance theory has maintained.
Merton’s Structural Deviance
Robert Merton’s reformulation of anomie theory in “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) transformed the Durkheimian concept of anomie from a condition of normative deregulation into a specific structural diagnosis: the disjunction between the cultural goals that all members of society are prescribed to pursue and the structural means that only some members have legitimate access to. This disjunction is the specific form of anomie — the specific form of the gap between normative prescription and structural reality — that Merton argued was characteristic of American society and productive of its specific patterns of deviance and crime.
Merton’s typology of deviant adaptations to this structural disjunction — conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion — remains one of the most widely taught frameworks in the sociology of deviance. Each adaptation represents a different combination of acceptance and rejection of cultural goals and institutional means, and each is produced by the structural conditions that determine how many individuals occupy positions that make legitimate achievement of prescribed goals impossible. Innovation — accepting the cultural goal but substituting illegitimate means — is the primary crime-producing adaptation. Retreatism — rejecting both goals and means through withdrawal from social participation (drug addiction, vagrancy, homelessness) — is a specific deviance pattern that Merton’s structural account predicts for individuals doubly blocked from legitimate achievement.
Table 1. Theoretical Frameworks for Deviance
| Theory | Core Claim | Deviance Explanation | Policy Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functionalism (Durkheim) | Deviance is normal and functional | Insufficient social integration; anomie | Strengthen social solidarity; maintain normative consensus |
| Structural strain (Merton) | Deviance results from goal-means disjunction | Blocked legitimate access to culturally prescribed goals | Expand legitimate opportunity; reduce structural barriers |
| Labeling theory (Becker, Lemert) | Deviance is a social reaction, not an inherent property | Official labeling creates secondary deviance | Minimize formal labeling; diversion; decriminalization |
| Social control (Hirschi) | Deviance results from weakened social bonds | Absence of conventional attachments, commitments | Strengthen social bonds; institutional investment |
| Conflict theory (Chambliss, Quinney) | Deviance defined by those with power | Criminalization serves dominant group interests | Reform criminal law; address structural inequality |
| Differential association (Sutherland) | Deviance is learned through social interaction | Exposure to deviant definitions and associations | Prosocial peer programs; mentoring |
Differential Association and Deviant Subcultures
Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory — that criminal behavior is learned through intimate personal association with those who hold definitions favorable to law violation — extends naturally to the sociology of deviance by treating participation in deviant subcultures as the primary mechanism through which deviant identities, techniques, and normative frameworks are acquired. Research on deviant subcultures — the organized communities of individuals who share deviant identities, practices, and normative frameworks — has documented how subcultures provide the social organization within which deviant careers are sustained: the peer network that provides role models and social support, the normative framework that defines deviance as legitimate within the subculture, and the institutional memory through which deviant techniques and knowledge are transmitted across generations of members.
Becker’s analysis of marijuana users as a deviant subculture — documenting the progressive learning of marijuana use through social interaction with experienced users — illustrated how participation in a deviant subculture involves not merely the acquisition of a technique but the learning of a normative framework that makes the deviant behavior experientially possible. Users had to learn not only how to smoke marijuana but how to perceive its effects as pleasurable and desirable — a social learning process that required the guidance of experienced members who could teach both technique and interpretation. This subculture analysis connects differential association theory to the social constructionist insight that the meaning of deviant behavior is not inherent in the behavior itself but is produced through social interaction.
Labeling Theory
Primary and Secondary Deviance
Edwin Lemert’s distinction between primary and secondary deviance — developed in Social Pathology (1951) — is among the most consequential theoretical contributions in the sociology of deviance. Primary deviance refers to the initial norm violation, whatever its cause — the first drug use, the first theft, the first fight. This primary deviance may have many causes, and Lemert was relatively uninterested in its origins; what interested him was what happened next. When primary deviance produces a social reaction — informal social disapproval, family concern, or official criminal justice processing — that reaction reorganizes the deviant individual’s social world around the deviant label, affecting their relationships, opportunities, and identity in ways that make continued deviance more likely. Secondary deviance is the deviance that emerges from this reorganization — the criminal career that develops as a response to the label rather than as a direct expression of whatever originally caused the primary deviance.
The sociological significance of this distinction is profound: it establishes that the social reaction to deviance is itself a cause of deviance, and that the criminal justice system’s processing of individuals accused of crimes is not merely a response to crime but a social process that shapes criminal trajectories. Research testing the secondary deviance hypothesis has found consistent evidence that formal criminal justice contact elevates subsequent offending for many individuals, particularly those whose initial contact is most disproportionate to the seriousness of the behavior that triggered it — establishing the iatrogenic potential of criminal justice processing that labeling theory predicts.
Moral Entrepreneurship and the Social Construction of Deviance
Howard Becker’s concept of moral entrepreneurship — the role of “moral entrepreneurs” who campaign to have specific behaviors defined as deviant or criminal through public campaigns, legislative lobbying, and the mobilization of social authority — provides the mechanism through which deviance definitions are produced and changed over time. Becker’s analysis of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under Harry Anslinger’s campaign to criminalize marijuana documented the specific political and institutional processes through which a behavior that had not previously been subject to federal criminal law was transformed into a criminal offense — not because of objective evidence of harm but because of the strategic mobilization of racial stereotypes, institutional interests, and political opportunity by a specific moral entrepreneur with sufficient resources and political access to succeed.
Research on moral panics — periods of intense public concern about specific deviant behaviors that are disproportionate to the objective scale of the problem — has documented the social processes through which moral entrepreneurship operates at the societal level. Stanley Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), based on research on the media reaction to British Mods and Rockers conflicts in the 1960s, documented how media amplification, police response, and the rhetoric of folk devils and moral threats create self-amplifying cycles of concern whose political consequences include legislative reforms and law enforcement responses disproportionate to the actual problem they address.
Conflict Theory and Deviance as Political Category
The conflict tradition in deviance sociology — associated with Chambliss, Quinney, and Taylor, Walton, and Young’s The New Criminology (1973) — argues that the boundaries of deviance and crime are not neutral expressions of social consensus but political categories that reflect the distribution of power and serve the interests of dominant social groups. The most powerful evidence for this argument comes from the comparative history of criminalization: behaviors that cause enormous social harm — corporate fraud, environmental destruction, workplace safety violations — are regulated primarily through civil and administrative rather than criminal law, while behaviors that cause less aggregate harm but are associated with subordinate social groups are criminalized and vigorously enforced.
Research on the differential criminalization and enforcement of behaviors across social class — documenting how drug enforcement, tax enforcement, and corporate fraud enforcement operate in systematically different ways for wealthy and poor offenders — provides the empirical foundation for the conflict critique of deviance definitions. The conflict perspective’s most important contribution to deviance sociology is not the claim that criminal law is purely class interest but the demonstration that power relations substantially shape which behaviors are defined as deviant, how vigorously those definitions are enforced, and who bears the costs of the social control apparatus that deviance definitions authorize.
Social Control Theory
Hirschi and the Bond Perspective
Travis Hirschi’s social control theory — the most influential sociological account of why most people conform rather than why some deviate — inverts the usual explanatory question of deviance theory. Rather than asking why some people deviate from social norms, control theory asks why most people do not deviate despite the temptations and opportunities that all individuals face. The answer lies in social bonds: the attachments to conventional others, commitments to conventional goals, involvement in conventional activities, and beliefs in conventional norms that tie individuals to the social order and make deviance costly to their ongoing social participation.
Control theory’s inversion of the usual deviance question has important theoretical consequences: it focuses analytical attention on the positive social forces that produce conformity rather than on the deficiencies of deviants, and it establishes that deviance requires no special motivation — it is the default when social bonds are absent — while conformity requires the social investment that bond theory describes. This theoretical orientation aligns with the empirical finding that most individuals reduce their criminal and deviant behavior substantially as they age and accumulate social investments in conventional social participation, without any specific treatment or intervention.
Self-Control and Gottfredson-Hirschi
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime extended the control framework by proposing that a single individual-level characteristic — self-control — explains the full range of deviant and criminal behaviors across all social contexts. Low self-control, produced by inadequate parental socialization in early childhood, is characterized by impulsivity, insensitivity to others, risk-seeking, shortsightedness, and non-verbal orientation. These characteristics make low-self-control individuals responsive to the immediate rewards of deviance while insensitive to the delayed costs — establishing the temporal discounting mechanism that explains why deviance often appears irrational to external observers while making short-term sense to the individuals engaging in it.
Research has extensively tested the generality claim of the self-control theory — the proposition that self-control predicts not only crime but all analogous behaviors including accidents, smoking, obesity, and unstable employment — finding consistent support for the association between self-control and diverse adverse outcomes. The theory has also generated important critiques: that it cannot explain the age-crime curve (if self-control is stable across the life course, why do crime rates decline sharply in late adolescence?), that it underestimates the role of social context in shaping behavior, and that its exclusive focus on parenting in early childhood ignores the continued role of social bonds across the life course.
Deviance, Medicalization, and Social Control
The medicalization of deviance — the process through which behaviors previously understood as moral or criminal deviance are reconceptualized as medical conditions requiring professional treatment rather than social condemnation or criminal punishment — is one of the most significant social transformations in the organization of deviance and social control in the twentieth century. Conrad and Schneider’s Deviance and Medicalization (1980) traced how alcoholism, drug addiction, hyperactivity, and other behaviors previously classified as moral failings were progressively medicalized through the combined efforts of the medical profession, pharmaceutical companies, patient advocacy organizations, and the state.
The sociological analysis of medicalization is ambivalent in its evaluation: medicalization reduces moral stigma and criminal punishment, which has humanitarian benefits for affected individuals; but it also substitutes medical surveillance and control for moral condemnation without eliminating social control, creates new institutional interests in defining behavior as pathological, and may pathologize forms of difference that do not require medical intervention. Research on the medicalization of childhood behavioral problems — documenting the explosive growth in ADHD diagnoses and stimulant medication prescriptions since the 1990s — illustrates both the benefits (reduced stigma, increased access to educational support) and the concerns (overdiagnosis, pharmaceutical industry influence, social control through medication) that medicalization processes generate.
The Sociology of Non-Criminal Deviance
Stigma and Social Deviance
Goffman’s analysis of stigma — the social process through which individuals with discrediting attributes are reduced from full social persons to spoiled identities in the eyes of the “normals” who interact with them — extends the sociology of deviance beyond criminal behavior to encompass the full range of socially discrediting attributes: physical disabilities, mental illness, sexual minority status, ethnic minority membership, and the criminal record itself. Goffman’s framework is important for criminology not only because it applies directly to the stigma of criminal conviction but because it reveals the general social psychological mechanisms through which labeling operates — the interaction rituals through which stigmatized individuals manage discredited identities, and the social structural consequences of stigma for opportunities, relationships, and self-concept.
Research on the sociology of mental illness as deviance — one of the most extensively studied domains of non-criminal deviance — has documented both the social construction of mental illness as deviance (through the historical analysis of who gets defined as mentally ill, under what social conditions, and with what institutional consequences) and the real harms of mental health stigma for individuals who experience it. The anti-stigma movement — which has produced evidence-based campaigns to reduce mental illness stigma — applies the sociological analysis of stigma to the practical problem of improving mental health outcomes through normalization of mental illness as a health condition rather than a moral failure or social deviance.
The Relative Deviance of Drug Use
The sociology of drug use deviance provides a particularly clear case study of how social reactions — rather than objective harm — determine what counts as deviant in a given social context. Research on the comparative harms of legal and illegal substances — documenting that alcohol and tobacco produce substantially greater aggregate harm (mortality, morbidity, social disruption) than many illegal drugs — establishes that the legal boundary separating “deviant” from “acceptable” substance use is not primarily determined by pharmacological harm but by historical, cultural, and political factors that the sociology of moral entrepreneurship explains better than the pharmacology of the substances themselves.
The rapid normalization of marijuana use following legalization in many American states — with behaviors previously defined as criminal deviance becoming routine commercial transactions in regulated markets — illustrates the contingency of deviance definitions in real time. Research documenting changes in marijuana use norms following legalization has found that social disapproval of marijuana use has declined substantially in legalization states, while use rates have not increased dramatically as legalization opponents predicted — establishing both that the deviance definition shapes behavior (through stigma reduction alongside legal change) and that the deviant behavior’s frequency is less dependent on its legal status than prohibitionist accounts assume.
Contemporary Deviance: Digital and Emerging Forms
The digital transformation of social life has created new deviance contexts that traditional sociological frameworks must adapt to address. Online deviance — cyberbullying, online harassment, digital fraud, hacking, and the various forms of norm violation that digital platforms make possible — operates through the same fundamental social processes (norm definition, reaction, labeling) that offline deviance does, but with important modifications produced by the distinctive features of digital social environments: the anonymity that reduces accountability, the scale that enables one individual to reach millions simultaneously, and the architectural features of platforms that can amplify or dampen deviant behavior through algorithmic and design choices.
Research on cyberbullying — which studies have found affects approximately 15–30% of adolescents — has documented the social dynamics of online norm violation, the characteristics of online bullying situations that make them more harmful than comparable offline situations (the permanence of digital content, the audience scale, the 24/7 availability), and the effectiveness of intervention approaches that address the online context specifically rather than applying offline bullying interventions without modification. The extension of deviance theory to online environments requires both the adaptation of existing frameworks to the digital context and the development of new theoretical tools for understanding social norms, social reactions, and social control in environments whose structural properties differ substantially from those of the offline social contexts that classical deviance theory addressed.
Research on restorative justice as an alternative social control mechanism — which responds to deviance through processes of harm repair and community reintegration rather than through stigmatizing formal sanctions — applies the deviance sociology insights about secondary deviance and labeling to the design of social control institutions that avoid the iatrogenic consequences that formal labeling produces. The consistent finding that restorative justice processes produce higher victim satisfaction, lower recidivism, and better community cohesion outcomes than formal criminal justice processing for comparable offenses provides empirical support for the labeling theory-based argument that minimizing formal stigmatization produces better deviance control outcomes than maximizing formal sanction.
Research on drug courts, diversion programs, and other alternatives to formal criminal processing — all of which reduce formal labeling while maintaining social accountability for deviant behavior — has found consistent reductions in subsequent offending compared to formal prosecution, establishing the general principle that social control approaches that minimize unnecessary stigmatization are more effective than those that maximize formal labeling for offense types where the secondary deviance risk outweighs the deterrence benefit. This research literature represents the most direct policy application of labeling theory’s sociological insights, translating the theoretical account of how labels produce criminal careers into specific institutional alternatives that produce better outcomes by applying the theory rather than ignoring it.
The sociology of deviance’s engagement with intersectionality — the analysis of how race, gender, class, and other social categories shape whose behaviors are labeled as deviant, under what conditions, and with what consequences — has been one of the most productive developments in contemporary deviance research. Research documenting how the same behavior produces different social reactions depending on the social characteristics of the actor — how Black youth are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for the same behavior as white youth — establishes that deviance labels are not applied through a neutral social reaction process but through one substantially shaped by the power relations and stereotypes that intersectionality analysis reveals. Research by Crenshaw, Potter, and others on the intersectional dimensions of gender and race in criminal justice processing documents how women of color face distinctive deviance labeling experiences that single-axis analyses of either gender or race cannot capture — establishing intersectionality as an essential analytical dimension for contemporary deviance sociology.
Conclusion
The sociology of deviance has undergone substantial development since Durkheim’s functionalist foundation — from Merton’s structural elaboration through the labeling revolution of the 1960s and 1970s through the conflict critique of the 1970s and 1980s through the contemporary engagement with digital deviance, medicalization, and the global sociology of norm variation. Each development has both enriched and challenged the preceding theoretical framework, producing the theoretical plurality that characterizes contemporary deviance sociology alongside the empirical accumulation that has tested and refined its key propositions. The theoretical heterogeneity of the field — which some see as fragmentation and others as productive diversity — reflects the genuine complexity of a social phenomenon that operates at multiple levels simultaneously: the biological and psychological level of individual propensity, the social psychological level of socialization and social interaction, the institutional level of social control mechanisms, and the societal level of norm production and political economy.
Deviance and social control are the conceptual infrastructure of the sociology of crime — the analytical framework that situates criminal behavior within the broader social processes through which norms are produced, contested, violated, and enforced. Understanding crime requires understanding deviance, because crime’s definition as a specific category of deviance subject to formal state sanction reflects the same social processes — moral entrepreneurship, power politics, cultural values — that produce all deviance definitions, and because crime’s consequences for individuals reflect the general mechanisms of stigma, labeling, and secondary deviance that deviance sociology has documented across a century of empirical research.
The practical implications of deviance sociology for crime policy consistently point toward minimizing the unnecessary formal labeling of minor deviance that produces secondary deviance without addressing underlying problems, investing in the informal social control mechanisms that prevent deviance without requiring state intervention, and reforming the criminal law to reduce the scope of criminalization to behaviors that warrant formal state response rather than maintaining the extraordinarily broad criminalization that the conflict critique of criminal law documents. A criminology that takes the sociology of deviance seriously is one that asks not only what produces crime but what produces the social reaction to crime that determines its consequences — and that treats both questions as equally important for the comprehensive understanding and effective reduction of crime’s social costs. The sociology of deviance’s enduring contribution to criminology is precisely this insistence that crime cannot be adequately understood without understanding the social processes that define it, the power relations that enforce those definitions selectively, and the social reactions that shape criminal careers in ways that are as important as the causes of the initial behavior.
References
- Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
- Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
- Bernburg, J. G. (2009). Labeling theory. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, & G. P. Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 187–207). Springer.
- Chambliss, W. J. (1964). A sociological analysis of the law of vagrancy. Social Problems, 12(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/799699
- Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. MacGibbon and Kee.
- Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. W. (1980). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. Mosby.
- Durkheim, É. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
- Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (2009). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
- Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2020). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (3rd ed.). Corwin.
- Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
- Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology. McGraw-Hill.
- Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
- Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. Prentice-Hall.
- Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
- Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Little, Brown.
- Rosenfeld, R. (2011). The big picture: 2010 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 49(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00219.x
- Scheff, T. J. (2018). The labeling theory of mental illness. Sociological Perspectives, 61(6), 961–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418773523
- Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083937
- Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Ginn.
- Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge.
- Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Rand McNally.
- Uggen, C., & Inderbitzin, M. (2010). Public criminologies. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(4), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00666.x