Deviant Behavior [Paperback]

Humans are rule-making and rule-enforcing creatures. Our society, all of the social categories and groups to which we belong, and all of the persons with whom we interact, tell us what to do, how to think, and even how to look. Not all of us are able, or willing, to conform to these rules, however. In other words, in addition to making and enforcing rules, humans are also rule-violating creatures: We are naturally rebellious and irrepressible. There is virtually no set of rules that all of us follow. No system of social control is completely successful. All of us violate some of the rules we are told to follow, and some of us violate many of them. This means that some of us are more likely to be on the receiving end of rule making and rule enforcement, while others are more likely to be at the making and enforcement end. Moreover, many social categories and groups in every society compete for dominance; that is, they try to get everyone in the society to follow their set of rules. As a result, all of us are subject to certain kinds of sanctions or punishments, whether formal or informal. In addition, some of us are accused of things we didn't do or don't believe. In other words, deviance and social control are fundamental fixtures of all human existence. These processes of rule making, rule violation, and rule enforcement are very likely the core of human life everywhere. The study of deviance is not an inquiry into marginal, exotic, subterranean activities and people, but an investigation into the human condition.

Given the importance of the sociology of deviance, the fact that this field of study has come under attack should be puzzling. Some sociologists don't like the fact that others study deviance in the first place, and proclaim its study out of existence. To address the charge that the field is defunct, I located the contemporary curricula and enrollments in institutions of higher learning around the country (Goode, 2003) and discovered that the charge is completely bogus. The field of the sociology of deviance is flourishing; in most respects, it is as vibrant and vital as it was in its glory days. It is clear that attacks on the field have a political agenda. Advocates of the leftwing perspective (Summer, 1994) seem to believe that the field disrupts the radical agenda, while the ideological right wing (Hendershott, 2002) seems to feel that the field disrupts the conservative agenda. One might be tempted to conclude that, with enemies like these—each side arguing that the field is "dead," but with exactly opposite motives—the field must be doing something right. What these critics object to is the field's foundation stone: relativity. When a political ideology is based on convincing the public that its way of looking at things is the only legitimate way, then any field that argues that reality can legitimately be looked at in a variety of ways is certain to represent a threat.

I have made substantial changes in this, the seventh, edition of Deviant Behavior. Former Chapters 1 and 2 in the sixth edition have been streamlined and merged into the current Chapter 1. Chapter 5, on the methods of studying deviance, is completely new. I have recast Chapter 6 into a discussion of violent crime and have reconceptualized white-collar and corporate crime as a form of organizational deviance, in Chapter 13. Reflecting the declining deviant status of homosexuality, I no longer devote an entire chapter to the subject; instead, it is discussed in a section in Chapter 9, on sexual deviance. Chapter 13, on organizational deviance, is new, as I said, and in fact presents a different way of conceptualizing a variety of seemingly diverse behaviors under a coherent umbrella. (See McCaghy, Capron, and Jameson, 2003, Chapter 7, for a similar conceptualization; those authors do not, however, explain their rationale for the subject's conceptual coherence.) It adds a fourth type of deviance to Erving Goffman's classic three-part division of stigmas (1963) and offers a schema by which white-collar and corporate crime can be integrated into the field of the sociology of deviance. The appendix, presenting student projects, is new. And all the personal accounts in the book are new.

Each new revision of this book has taken more and more of my time. Indeed, this revision required more effort than it took for me to write the first edition from scratch. But each revision is a learning experience for me; the fact is, I enjoy rewriting this book and bringing it into focus with new developments.

I would like to thank the contributors of the personal accounts that appear at the end of each chapter. Those who have given me their own accounts- must, quite obviously, remain anonymous. However, those who have interviewed others and wish to be named deserve a special thanks; they are: Shelley Shupp,' Shawna Stoltenberg, Danielle Fritze, Gretchen Kowalick, and Chris Berry. In addition, I would like to thank the students who gave me permission to print their papers in this book: Steven Clayton, Cara Delguidice, Rhonda Hurston, Jennifer Webb, Andrea Kearns, Krista Gawkowski, Alexis M. R. Mitchell, Mary Doherty, Berenice Juarez, Sachin Vaidya, Ariel Prager, Megan Scribner, Marie Quigley, and Matthew Slade. In addition, I'd like to thank the students who have taken my deviance course at the University of Maryland and at SUNY Stony Brook. I've learned a great deal from their challenging questions and points of view. I have also profited from discussions with Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Barbara Weinstein, and my dad, William J. Goode, who tragically died in May 2003. In addition, Thor Bjamason shared his and his students' insights-with me concerning the conceptual and methodological chapters of this book. Geraldine Foudy, at the McKeldin Library, University of Maryland, and Clare Imholtz, at the Center for Substance Abuse Research, were helpful in locating references. I'd also like to thank the reviewers of the earlier editions for their extremely helpful suggestions for its improvement, as well as the reviewers of the seventh edition: Thoroddur Bjarnason, SUNY at Albany; William Kelly, Auburn University; Myron Orleans, California State University-Fullerton; and Michael Perez, California State University-Fullerton. And lastly, as always, I'd like to thank the researchers and authors who investigate and write about the lively and fascinating topic of deviance.

A few paragraphs in this book, and in one case, a chapter, were borrowed or adapted from my previous publications: Drugs in American Society (sixth edition), McGraw-Hill, 2005; Paranormal Beliefs: A Sociological Introduction, Waveland Press, 2000; Deviance in Everyday Life, Waveland Press, 2002; and "The MacGuffin That Refuses to Die: An Investigation into the Condition of the Sociology of Deviance," Deviant Behavior, vol. 24, November-December 2003, pp. 507-533. Permission to reprint this material is gratefully acknowledged.