Recent Trends: Deviant Behavior and Social Control

• Published date: 01 January 1967
• Author: David J. Bordua
• Date: 01 January 1967
• DOI: 10.1177/000271626736900115
• Subject Matter: Articles

SUPPLEMENT
Recent Trends: Deviant Behavior and Social Control*
By DAVID J. BORDUA
HE
very title of this subdivision
in specific forms of deviance as evi-
Tof sociology-deviant behavior and denced by the availability of public and
social control-indicates that the two
private research funds, and may not
parts are separable but interrelated. It
either reflect or foreshadow significant
further indicates that a wide variety of
intellectual developments.
specific subject matters can be sub-
We have tried, therefore, to select a
sumed under either part. Deviant be-
limited set of areas of recent work which
havior can, after all, range from public
constitute new theoretical orientations
nose-picking to treason. Social control
of likely future interest, which bear on
can range from the refusal to reciprocate
older theoretical developments which
a dinner invitation to public execution.
are still undergoing evaluation, or which
To add to the complexity and con-
indicate changes in the social objects of
fusion, several more specific areas of
research.
inquiry which at least semantically fall
The most basic trend in the recent
under the heading of deviant behavior
past has been a shift toward more
have long histories of rather independent
interest in the social control half of the
status-the study of crime and delin-
deviance and social control field.
This
quency, for example.
renewed interest has a number of sources
If we were to adopt the notion that
and takes a number of forms not all of
the field of deviant behavior and social
which can be reviewed here.
Broadly
control is simply the summation of all
speaking, attention has shifted from a
the special studies of norm-violating
focus on the sources and etiology of
behavior, a summary report would be
deviance to the analysis of processes of
impossible. If, on the other hand, we
social control. This separation is, how-
were to focus on some special area much
ever, tied together by the idea that
at the forefront of current attention, we
social control processes are themselves
would run the risk of ignoring significant
t
importantly involved not only in the
developments elsewhere. Moreover, the
more or less successful suppression of
specific empirical research done in any
deviance, but in the very processes of
period will heavily reflect social interest
defining and producing deviance.
Because of this close interconnection,
* The help of John P. Clark is gratefully
distinctions within the larger social con-
acknowledged. Other commitments prevented
us
trol
from carrying out our original plan to
emphasis are likely to be arbitrary
write the paper jointly.
-and specific labels even more so. Yet
David J. Bordua, Ph.D., Urbana, Illinois, is Associate Professor of Sociology at the
University of Illinois. In 1962-1963 he was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study
in the Behavioral Sciences.
His publications include articles on delinquency causation
and theory and on police organization.
149

---

150
some division does exist between recent
selves as something of a &dquo;school&dquo; and
studies that focus on organized agencies
acknowledge greater or lesser debt to
of social control themselves and other
Lemert.2
2
work which focuses on the nature and
It is useful to begin presentation of
effects of social control in the generation
the &dquo;societal reaction&dquo; school by consid-
and perpetuation of deviance. Purely
eration of a recent book by Kai T. Erik-
for present convenience, we can discuss
son.3
3
Building upon Durkheim’s ideas
work on organized agencies, as such,
of the functions of deviance in societies,
under the heading of social control
Erikson develops an approach to devi-
agencies, and the work on the definition
ance which stresses the functions of
and perpetuation of deviance under the
deviance and deviance-definition as cen-
heading of the societal reaction to devi-
tral to the maintenance of social bound-
ance.’
One point of contact between
aries and community identity. A peo-
these two areas is study of the decision-
ple know whom and what they are by
making processes in formal social control
whom and what they condemn. It fol-
agencies.
lows then that a continuing group iden-
If we may be granted this rather arbi-
tity requires a continuing condemnation.
trary terminology, the discussion will be
Erikson then applies the perspective
divided into two major sections. In the
to three deviance-defining and (in his
first, we discuss recent work on the
interpretation, at least) boundary-main-
societal reaction to deviance.
In the
taining sets of events in the history of
second, we focus on study of formal
the Puritan Commonwealth of Massa-
agencies of social control, with main at-
chusetts Bay. The three examples are
tention to studies of the hitherto ne-
the Antinomian controversy involving
glected police.
Anne Hutchinson, the Quaker &dquo;inva-
sion,&dquo; and the witchcraft persecutions.
SOCIETAL REACTION TO DEVIANCE
These are cases where either the
There is a long tradition in the sociol-
&dquo;norms&dquo; were ambiguous or where there
ogy of deviance that focuses on the con-
was ambiguity about the conforming
sequences of social control processes
or deviant status of particular acts and
for the development of deviance.
In-
persons, even if norms themselves were
deed, sociologically influenced policy
more or less clear.
innovations such as the juvenile court
Erikson’s discussion of these ex-
were based on the notion that traditional
amples may stand for a general char-
control procedures were not only inhu-
acteristic of the &dquo;societal reaction&dquo; per-
mane but even productive of greater
spective-it focuses on problems of
deviance.
Given the existence of this
social ambiguity. Two closely related
tradition, it is rather difficult to properly
but separable definitional processes are
give credit where it is due. Neverthe-
involved. In the first situation, that of
less, it seems appropriate to cite the
&dquo;normative ambiguity,&dquo; the process of
work of Edwin M. Lemert as especially
deciding whether a behavior is deviant
relevant in inspiring more recent devel-
involves the creation of new norms or
opments. This is especially the case as
the recasting of old norms. A model
the more recent writers constitute them-
2
See especially Edwin M. Lemert, Social
1
This distinction is not likely to be of more
Pathology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951).
than temporary value. Thus, the Department
3
Kai T. Erikson; Wayward Puritans (New
of Sociology at the University of Illinois has a
York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1966).
See also
training program with the title, "Research on
an earlier paper by the same author, "Notes on
Operations and Effects of Agencies for Reac-
the Sociology of Deviance," Social Problems, 9
tion to Behavioral Deviance."
(Spring 1962), pp. 307-314.

---

151
here is the Common Law.
In the
essentially a search for the patterns of
second situation, that of &dquo;behavioral
inference used to assess the existence
ambiguity,&dquo; where norms are more clear,
of deviant &dquo;conditions.&dquo;
the
definitional
process
determines
There are two levels on which this
whether an individual or group action is,
problem of inference can be approached
in fact, that proscribed by the norms.
-on
the level of popular stereotypes and
Where the behavior is fairly ambig-
on the level of formal or official decision-
uous, a stereotyping process may develop
making.
Studies of popular or inter-
which can in extremes convince not only
personal stereotyping of deviants are
the conformers but also-to a degree-
rare, as compared, for example, with the
the &dquo;deviants&dquo; that they are, in fact,
elaborate literature on ethnic or racial
deviant. Thus, in the case of the witch-
stereotypes.
Two recent studies have
craft prosecutions not only were observ-
appeared which indicate beginnings in
ers convinced that the accused were
that direction.’
witches, but the accused seemed con-
At the level of official decision-mak-
vinced also.
The witchcraft accusa-
ing, more work has been done.
Some
tions came to have less and less defining
of this will be discussed later in con-
criteriality, however, as the finger was
nection with studies of police decision-
pointed at persons more eminent about
making with juveniles.
Perhaps the
whom the accusations made much less
most interesting of the recent studies of
&dquo;sense&dquo;-persons whose eminence, we
official decision-making in the context
might suppose, provided them not only
of the societal-reaction approach are in
with social protection from the accusa-
papers by Scheff and by Sudnow.5
tion but also self-protection. They seem
The study by Scheff is particularly
to have had sufficient self-esteem to re-
relevant to the raging controversy over
fuse to entertain any self-doubt.
the modes of defining mental illness and
This problem of the behavioral am-
the appropriate uses of state power in
biguity of deviance is of especial inter-
coercing &dquo;treatment.&dquo; Insofar as depri-
est whenever the deviant behavior is
vation of liberty is involved, the ordi-
attributed to a &dquo;condition&dquo; of the person
narily applicable apparatus is the court,
whose behavior is under scrutiny, or
and the ordinary decision-rule is that it
where the condition, as such, is defined
4
John I. Kitsuse, "Societal Reactions to
as of basic social concern and the be-
Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and
havior is only an...