What, exactly, is deviance? And what is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham Sumner, deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether folkways, mores, or codified law (1906). It can be as minor as picking your nose in public or as major as committing murder. Although the word “deviance” has a negative connotation in everyday language, sociologists recognize that deviance is not necessarily bad (Schoepflin 2011). For instance, the actions of Black activists who occupied public spaces reserved for Whites only were considered deviant during the civil rights movement. Yet, these forms of deviance led to significant positive social and legal changes that began to address racial inequality in the United States (figure 7.2).

Crime versus Deviance

When we think about deviance we often think about crime, a behavior that violates official law and is punishable through formal sanctions. However, deviance is a more encompassing term than crime, meaning that it includes a range of activities, some of which are crimes and some of which are not. Essentially, anything that breaks social norms is an act of deviance, such as attending a Black Lives Matter protest, making funny faces at your professor during class, or taking off your shoes and socks on an airplane.

Sociologists may study both deviance and crime with equal interest, but, as a whole, society views crime as far more significant. Crime preoccupies several levels of government, and it drives concerns among families and communities. Because of this, we see more research on crime than on the breaking of other social norms, such as students cursing in class. It should also be noted that scholars rarely frame research on civil rights or gay rights activism as an examination of deviance. Instead, this research examines the dynamics of social resistance, how social change occurs, and the effectiveness of different social movement tactics. Sociologists view “positive” deviance through the lens of community-led struggles to address inequality rather than through the lens of socially undesirable behavior that should be analyzed in the same way as crime.

Still, deviance also encompasses crime, and our definitions of crime have changed over time. For example, on November 3, 2020, ballot Measure 110 passed in Oregon. This ballot measure decriminalized drug possession and established drug addiction treatment and recovery program funding through both the state’s cannabis tax revenue and prison savings. The passage of this ballot measure was significant because it was the first of its kind in the United States. In passing the measure, it shows how what is considered criminal and deviant can vary across time and place, even from state to state. While cities and other localities have passed measures decriminalizing drugs, this was the first time a state had shifted its policies so significantly. Then in 2024, in a reversal, Oregon recriminalized drug possession. Decriminalized and recriminalizing drug possession in Oregon is not the only significant change we’ve seen in how drugs are dealt with in society—numerous other states have legalized cannabis for recreational or medical use. While cannabis possession and sales used to be defined by the state as a crime, it is now legal to possess and consume cannabis.

More broadly, there has been public debate about how to address issues in the criminal justice system, such as the vast racial disparities in policing, arrests, and sentencing. The Black Lives Matter movement has done much to bring awareness to how the criminal justice system is steeped in institutional racism and has offered policy recommendations to address these disparities. At the same time, politicians across the aisle are interested in finding ways to improve recidivism rates, which means the rate of repeat offenses. They want to find ways to improve outcomes for people who have been incarcerated. We can see these trends in how many states have also begun reforming “tough on crime” policies like mandatory minimums or sentence enhancements. In all of these examples, we see how society constantly reevaluates definitions of what is considered deviant or a crime and how society should address crime within the criminal justice system.

Societies also vary significantly in how they define deviance, address crime, and their criminal justice systems. For instance, Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, instead investing in drug treatment for individuals struggling with addiction. In contrast, in countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran, drug offenses can be punished with the death penalty.

The Social Construction of Deviance

We introduced the concept of social construction in Chapter 4. Similar to other examples discussed in this chapter, deviance is socially constructed. Because of this, the question of “What is deviant behavior?” cannot be answered in a straightforward manner. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including location, audience, and the individual committing the act (Becker 1963). Listening to music on your phone on the way to class is considered acceptable behavior. Listening to music during your 2:00 p.m. sociology lecture is considered rude. Listening to music when on the witness stand before a judge may cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.

We learn these socially constructed definitions of what behavior is and is not deviant through socialization. Because of this, acts defined as deviant reflect broader social ideas about what behaviors society sees as acceptable, rather than an individual’s ideas about which kinds of behavior are or are not acceptable. A person may disagree that an act should be considered deviant. Still, the power of social construction means that a person will likely try to avoid being labeled by society as someone who engages in that behavior unless they’re trying to create social change. For example, a person may think that having a speed limit of 65 mph on the highway is too slow and that all drivers should be able to drive up to 80 mph. Still, they’ll likely avoid driving 80 mph (especially in the presence of a police officer) because they don’t want to get a ticket and be labeled as someone who’s a speeder.

In contrast, groups can use deviance to challenge social constructions. We can see an example of this use of deviance in the activism of undocumented youth. Even though entering the United States without authorization is considered a deviant act, many undocumented youth activists have publicly shared their stories of how they were brought to the United States as children and have lived here for most of their lives. The purpose of drawing attention to their deviant behavior is to motivate changes to social and cultural norms by challenging the social construction of all undocumented immigrants as “deviants” or “criminals.” Additionally, these activists want to see changes to current immigration policies and to convince politicians to pass legislation that would provide them with a path to citizenship: both of which would formally redefine their existence in the United States as legitimate rather than as deviant.

As norms vary across cultures and time, it also makes sense that notions of deviance change over time. While getting tattoos, divorcing a spouse, and wearing pants as a woman are common today, these actions used to be considered deviant. Recently, the act of wearing or not wearing a mask became a matter of deviance, and in some cases, political affiliation and legality. Whether an act is deviant or not also depends on society’s response to that act. In Oregon, for example, cannabis is now recreationally legal and can be legally purchased by adults over 21 at state-licensed dispensaries. Consequently, it is hard to argue that consuming cannabis in Oregon is still considered deviant in the same way that it was during the period when cannabis was illegal for medicinal or recreational use.

Sanctions and Social Control

When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can receive a speeding ticket. A student who wears a bathrobe to class gets a warning from a professor. An adult belching loudly is avoided. All societies practice social control, the regulation and enforcement of norms. The underlying goal of social control is to maintain social order, an arrangement of practices and behaviors on which society’s members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee handbook and social control as a manager. When a worker violates a workplace guideline, the manager steps in to enforce the rules; when an employee is doing an exceptionally good job at following the rules, the manager may praise or promote the employee.

The means of enforcing rules are known as sanctions. Sanctions can be positive as well as negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms. A promotion at work is a positive sanction for working hard. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being arrested is a punishment for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social control.

Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. Figure 7.3 shows the relationship between different types of sanctions. Although shoplifting, a form of social deviance, may be illegal, there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch your nose. That doesn’t mean picking your nose in public won’t be punished; instead, you will encounter informal sanctions. Informal sanctions emerge in face-to-face social interactions.

Formal sanctions, on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm violations or adherence. On the positive side, a soldier who saves a life may receive an official commendation. In contrast, if a student violates a college’s code of conduct, the student might be expelled. Someone who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. An issue we’ll explore later in the chapter is whether formal negative sanctions are applied equally to all groups. Sociologists study this issue because of how inequalities based on race and class affect outcomes in the criminal justice system.

Licenses and Attributions for Deviance and Social Control

Open Content, Original

“Deviance and Social Control” by Alexandra Olsen is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Deviance and Social Control” first 5 sentences of paragraph 1 the first 5 sentences and paragraph 3 sentences 2-4 are from “7.1 Deviance and Social Control” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, OpenStax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“The Social Construction of Deviance” last 5 sentences of paragraph 1 and first 5 sentences of paragraph 4 modified from “7.1 Deviance and Social Control” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, OpenStax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Edited for consistency and clarity.

“Social Control” paragraphs 1-3 and paragraph 4 edited for clarity and brevity from “7.1 Deviance and Social Control” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, OpenStax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 7.2. “people sitting on gray concrete pavement during daytime” by Clay Banks is licensed under the Unsplash License.

Figure 7.3 “ Informal and formal sanctions” from “7.1 Deviance and Social Control” by Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang in Introduction to Sociology 3e, OpenStax, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Edited for clarity and brevity.