Explaining Social Deviance is a 10 part run-through of answers to 'what makes something deviant?'

📚 Finished reading Explaining Social Deviance by Paul Root Wolpe.

This is really a series of lectures and PDF notes. I’ve enjoyed the series before and at some point I watched enough Criminal Minds that I decided that I too needed to virtually join the fake FBI team and understand all about causes “deviance”.

This series isn’t quite that, but rather an examination of the critical question of what the category of “deviant” even means.

Over the centuries “deviance “has been defined in very different ways by different people with a wide range of consequences. Perhaps fairly obviously, there’s no right answer, or at least no obviously objectively right answer. When formulating our own views we should always examine why something is considered deviant and who benefits from that classification.

This audio-and-text then seeks to educate us about some of the theories that humankind has come up with over the years, which is an equally fascinating topic.

Here’s a quick list of the theories covered, or at least the ones I remembered. Many are of course incompatible with each other:

• Demonism: deviance is caused by dark supernatural forces; some people are just evil. Demonic possession would be an obvious example.
• Pathology: deviance should be thought of as an illness. To put it bluntly, some people get illnesses that make them deviants.
• Social disorganisation: deviance isn’t conditional on the individual. Rather it increases when communities lack stability, control and order.
• Functionalism and anomie: deviance is natural and can be useful to us. And if society sets us goals but blocks conventional means to achieve them then that strain can lead to deviant behaviour.
• Learning theory: we learn deviance via interacting with other people and acquiring some of their attributes.
• Control theory: deviance is our natural way. Instead we should be asking what makes us not deviants? It’s conformity that is learned from social bonds, fear of punishment etc.
• Labelling theory: nothing is inherently “deviant”. It’s only how people label any given act that makes it so. The whole thing is a social construct and subject to change.
• Conflict theory: the powerful strata of society determines what is “deviant” in order to defend their own interests.
• Constructionism: the similar idea that deviance is constructed via discussion and rule-making.

I’m a big fan of the Big Theory genre. This added, or at least refreshed, a few to my mental repertoire.