Constructionist Approaches to Deviance

(from Goode, 6th, 2001, and 7th, 2005 chapters 2 and 3)

 Constructionists don't understand the world to be divided up into categories of right and wrong, deviant and non-deviant. The basic issue surrounding designations of deviance is not why certain people violate a particular norm, but how are norms constructed (including what factors are taken into consideration in defining certain acts/people as deviant) and how are sanctions applied--why are some people engaged in certain behaviors (or who possess particular characteristics) condemned and labeled, "deviant." It is the "social construction of deviance" that needs to be explained, not the ("wrong") choices of individuals.

 Constructionist Focus On:

1. Creation of Deviant Categories

• How is human behavior assembled into identifiable categories
• Why are certain categories selected as important and significant?
• Categories do not exist in nature, they are the products of human cognition and become embedded in the cultural tradition of particular groups and societies..

 2. Investigation of condemnation

• Why do certain rules exist?
• How does a general category become defined as wrong, a norm-violation?
• The focus is on the process of condemnation, not on the behavior being condemned.

3. Consequences of Rules

• How do specific, contextualized behaviors and identities emerge as elements of general categories?
• Pfohl's- "Discovery of child abuse"
• Homosexuality in Prison

4. Enforcement of Rules

• Constructionists see the transition "from deviance to deviant" not as automatic, but in need of explanation.
• How does the actor, the believer, or the possessor become defined as a deviant?
• "Why is a particular person who enacts a certain type of behavior, holds certain beliefs, and possesses a certain condition condemned, socially isolated, stigmatized, and punished, while another who engages in the same behavior holds the same belief, or possesses the same condition is tolerated accepted and indulged in his or her difference from the mainstream?" (Goode, 2005, page 40)

So: Constructionist can ask about:

    1. False Accusations

• If the central question is not "Why do they do it?" but "Why are there rules, why are they enforced and who is accused of wrongdoing?", then it becomes secondary that the accused person didn't "do it" i.e. Renaissance Europe's "Witch Hunt".
• For the Constructionist, the response to an instance of perceived deviance is a seperate issue to analyze independently from the reasons that may lie behind an individual's actual behavior.

2. Physical Conditions as Deviant

• Are, and to what extent, certain physical conditions regarded as deviant? i.e. Blindness.

But: There are reasons why some people violate society's rules and why some societies experience more deviance than others and these reasons can be discovered and explained. The violation of a society's norms is not randomly distributed from person to person or society to society.

But: Norms do not fall from the skies; they are created and enforced as a result of systematic, identifiable sociological processes. While the sociological positivist takes the norms and their enforcement as if they were a given, the fact is they are not, they are every bit a social product, and every bit in need of an explanation, as deviant behavior.

Central Concepts of Constructionism

1. Social Construction of Moral Meaning and Definitions
2. Relativity
3. Social Control
4. The Political Equation - The Processes of Criminalization
5. Contingency

The Social Construction of Moral Meanings and Definitions  

• Acts or traits are not intrinsically deviant.
• Moral meanings are constructed
• Notions of wrong and right come to be defined overtime within specific social and cultural context. They arise out of specific processes and structures.
• Marijuana

    Factors in the Construction of Moral Meanings

    1. Moral Entrepreneurs

• If persuasive, legitimate, active, credible figures launch a campaign to discredit an activity, it stands a high chance of being widely regarded as wrong, or immoral. Thus Deviant! i.e. Nancy Reagan's Just say No!

    2. Social Status and Power

• Relatively low status, relatively powerless individuals are more likely to find their activities or traits defined as morally unacceptable, Deviant!, than those who hold a higher status and have more power.
• 1930's scapegoat for the War on Drugs were the young and jazz musicians.

Relativity

• Behavior is not deviant in itself.
• Behavior becomes deviant when it is seen and reacted to in a society or in a particular social context.
  • Not all definitions of right and wrong vary from one society to another. Functionalism -some actions are more likely to be punished because they are dysfunctional, that is tolerating them would lead to their widespread enactment and a less cohesive society. i.e. Murder
  • There is a great deal of variation in which specific acts fall into a deviant category, and hence, qualify as worthy of condemnation.
• Most perspectives are moderately relativistic, that is they are more likely to stress the universals in deviance and crime. The similarities from one moral code to another.
• The Constructionist approach may be referred to as much more radically relativistic, that is they are more likely to emphasize difference, the variation or relativity in moral and legal codes from one society to another, as well as, from one group, subculture or individual to another within the same society.
• Plummer's societal and situational deviance -an act or type of act may be widely condemned in a given society according to that society's "abstract meaning systems", although in a specific situation, that condemnation may not have in fact taken place.
• Although some variation does exist, the agreement in the same society about what should be condemned is quite high.

Back to Defining Deviance

URL: http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/constructionism.htm
Owner: Robert O. Keel rok@umsl.edu
References and Credits for this Page of Notes
Last Updated: Monday, January 29, 2007 1:33 PM