DEVIANCE THEORIESsocial construction, a status imposed by one per-
son or group on others and a status that ultimately
may influence the subsequent behavior of the
designated deviant. Social reaction theories argue
that some individuals and groups may be designat-
ed or labeled as deviant and that the process of
labeling may trap or engulf those individuals or
groups in a deviant social role.
These two dimensions offer a four-fold scheme
for classifying types of deviance theories. The first,
macro-level origin theories, focus on the causes of
norm violations associated with broad structural
conditions in the society. These theories typically
examine the influences of such structural charac-
teristics of populations or communities like the
concentration of poverty, levels of community
integration, or the density and age distribution of
the population on areal rates of deviance. The
theories have clear implications for public policies
to reduce levels of deviance. Most often, the theo-
ries highlight the need for altering structural char-
acteristics of society, such as levels of poverty, that
foster deviant behavior.
The second, micro-level origin theories focus on
the characteristics of the deviant and his or her
immediate social environment. These theories typi-
cally examine the relationship between a person’s
involvement in deviance and such characteristics
as the influence of peers and significant others,
persons’ emotional stakes in conformity, their be-
liefs about the propriety of deviance and con-
formity, and their perceptions of the threat of
punishments for deviant acts. In terms of their
implications for public policy, micro-level origin
theories emphasize the importance of assisting
individuals in resisting negative peer influences
while also increasing their attachment to conforming
lifestyles and activities.
A third type of theories may be termed micro-
level reaction theories. These accord importance to
those aspects of interpersonal reactions that may
seriously stigmatize or label the deviant and there-
by reinforce her or his deviant social status. Ac-
cording to these theories, reactions to deviance
may have the unintended effect of increasing the
likelihood of subsequent deviant behavior. Be-
cause labeling may increase levels of deviance,
micro-level reaction theories argue that agencies
of social control (e.g. police, courts, correctional
systems) should adopt policies of ‘‘nonintervention.’’
Finally, macro-level reaction theories emphasize
broad structural conditions in society that are
associated with the designation of entire groups or
segments of the society as deviant. These theories
tend to stress the importance of structural charac-
teristics of populations, groups, or geographic
areas, such as degrees of economic inequality or
concentration of political power within communi-
ties or the larger society. According to macro-level
reaction theories, powerful groups impose the
status of deviant as a mechanism for controlling
those groups that represent the greatest political,
economic, or social threat to their position of
power. The theories also imply that society can
only achieve reduced levels of deviance by reduc-
ing the levels of economic and political inequality
in society.
The rest of this article is divided into sections
corresponding to each of these four ‘‘types’’ of
deviance theory. The article concludes with a dis-
cussion of new directions for theory—the develop-
ment of explanations that cut across and integrate
different theory types and the elaboration of exist-
ing theories through greater specification of the
conditions under which those theories apply.MACRO-LEVEL ORIGINS OF DEVIANCETheories of the macro-level origins of deviance
look to the broad, structural characteristics of
society, and groups within society, to explain devi-
ant behavior. Typically, these theories examine
one of three aspects of social structure. The first is
the pervasiveness and consequences of poverty in
modern American society. Robert Merton’s (1938)
writing on American social structure and Richard
Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s (1960) subsequent
work on urban gangs laid the theoretical founda-
tion for this perspective. Reasoning that pervasive
materialism in American culture creates unattain-
able aspirations for many segments of the popula-
tion, Merton (1964) and others argue that there
exists an environmental state of ‘‘strain’’ among
the poor. The limited availability of legitimate
opportunities for attaining material wealth forces
the poor to adapt through deviance, either by
achieving wealth through illegitimate means or by
rejecting materialistic aspirations and withdraw-
ing from society altogether.
According to this reasoning, deviance is a
byproduct of poverty and a mechanism through