Dimensions of Deviance Crime and Deviance Deviance Dimensions Dimensions of Deviance Absolute Relative Societal Situational Culpable Non-culpable Teaching Notes Dimensions of Deviance   Absolute conceptions have two main dimensions: Firstly, the idea that some forms of behaviour are proscribed (considered deviant) and negatively sanctioned in all known societies at all times. Secondly, particular types of individual are inherently (genetically, socially or psychologically) predisposed to deviance - they can’t, in other words, help breaking social rules. Relative concepts also have two dimensions. Firstly, the idea that no behaviour has always been considered deviant in all societies (a cross-cultural dimension) and at all times (a historical dimension). Secondly, that deviance, according to Becker (1963) is not a quality of what someone does but rather a quality of how someone reacts to that behaviour; the relative dimension here is the idea that the same behaviour can, for example, be seen as deviant in some societies but not others. Societal deviance, where there’s a broad consensus in a society that behaviour is morally wrong, illegal and so forth and: Situational deviance, where a group defines their behaviour as non-deviant, even though such behaviour is considered societally deviant. Roberts (2003), for example, argues “Swinging” (“An increasingly popular leisure choice for married and courting couples”) fits this particular category - an idea that suggests deviance can be a matter of personal choice (if I don’t want to “swing” then I don’t go to swinger parties). Deviant behaviour carried out with an awareness of its deviant nature is: Culpable deviance - behaviour for which the offender is held personally accountable - something that differentiates it from: Non-culpable deviance - acts for which the offender is not held personally accountable (such as crimes committed by the mentally ill, for example). © www.sociology.org.uk, 2009