DEVIANCE THEORIESof norms in society and that deviant behavior may
best be understood in terms of norms and their
enforcement. These theories typically stress the
importance of labeling processes—the mechanisms
by which acts become defined or labeled as ‘‘devi-
ant—and the consequences of labeling for the
person so labeled. Many of these theories are
concerned with the development of deviant life-
styles or careers; long-term commitments to devi-
ant action.
One of the most important writers in this
tradition is Howard Becker (1963). Becker argues
that deviance is not a property inherent in any
particular form of behavior but rather a property
conferred on those behaviors by audiences wit-
nessing them. Becker (1963, p. 9) notes that ‘‘...
deviance is not a quality of the act the person
commits, but rather a consequence of the applica-
tion by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offend-
er.’ The deviant is one to whom that label has been
successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior
that people so label.’’ Thus, Becker and others in
this tradition orient the study of deviance on rules
and sanctions, and the application of labels. Their
primary concern is the social construction of devi-
ance—that is, how some behaviors and classes of
people come to be defined as ‘‘deviant’’ by others
observing and judging the behavior.
Building on the idea that deviance is a proper-
ty conferred on behavior that is witnessed by a
social audience, Becker (1963) also developed a
simple typology of deviant behavior. The dimen-
sions upon which the typology is based are wheth-
er or not the individual is perceived as deviant and
whether or not the behavior violates any rule.
Conforming behavior is behavior that does not
violate any rules and is not perceived as deviant.
Individuals in the opposite scenario, in which the
person both violates rules and is perceived by
others as deviant, Becker labeled pure deviants.
Some individuals, according to Becker, may be
perceived as deviant, even though they have not
violated any rules. Becker identified these indi-
viduals as the falsely accused. Finally, the secret devi-
ant is one who has violated the rules, but, nonethe-
less, is not perceived by others as being deviant.
Equally important is the work of Edwin Lemert
(1951). Stressing the importance of labeling to
subsequent deviant behavior, he argues that re-
petitive deviance may arise from social reactions to
initial deviant acts. According to Lemert (1951, p.
287), deviance may often involve instances where
‘‘a person begins to employ his deviant behav-
ior... as a means of defense, attack or adjustment
to the... problems created by the consequent
social reactions to him.’’ Therefore, a cause of
deviant careers is negative social labeling; instanc-
es where reactions to initial deviant acts are harsh
and reinforce a ‘‘deviant’’ self-definition. Such
labeling forces the individual into a deviant social
role, organizing his or her identity around a pat-
tern of deviance that structures a way of life and
perpetuates deviant behavior (Becker 1963; Schur
1971, 1985).Perhaps the most significant developments in
this tradition have contributed to knowledge about
the causes of mental illness. Proponents of micro-
level reaction theories argue that the label ‘‘mental
illness’’ can be so stigmatizing to those labeled,
especially when mental-health professionals im-
pose the label, that they experience difficulty re-
turning to nondeviant social roles. As a result, the
labeling process may actually exacerbate mental
disorders. Former mental patients may find them-
selves victims of discrimination at work, in person-
al relationships, or in other social spheres (Scheff
1966). This discrimination, and the widespread
belief that others devalue and discriminate against
mental patients, may lead to self-devaluation and
fear of social rejection by others (Link 1982, 1987).
In some instances, this devaluation and fear may
be associated with demoralization of the patient,
loss of employment and personal income, and the
persistence of mental disorders following treat-
ment (Link 1987).Hence, micro-level reaction theories reason
that deviant behavior is rooted in the process by
which persons define and label the behavior of
others as deviant. The theories offer explanations
of individual differences in deviance, stressing the
importance of audience reactions to initial deviant
acts. However, these theories make no attempt to
explain the origins of the initial acts (Scheff 1966).
Rather, they are concerned primarily with the
development and persistence of deviant careers.Micro-level reaction theories have very differ-
ent implications for public policy than macro- and
micro-level origins theories. Micro-level reaction
theories argue that unwarranted labeling can lead