The Deviancy Amplification Spiral, originallyformulated by Wilkins (1964), is a usefulexample of an Interactionist approach todeviance both in itself and because it involves awide range of concepts used throughoutInteractionist sociology. Built on ideasdeveloped by Lemert (1951), it’s based on twotypes of deviation:

• Primary deviation is deviant behaviour in its‘pure form’: some form of rule breaking (real orimagined).

However, unless and until attention is drawn –and sanctions applied – to primary deviation, ithas little or no impact on the “psychologicalstructure of the individual”: they may not, forexample, consider themselves deviant.

• Secondary deviation refers to how someoneresponds to being labelled as deviant. Theoffender interprets their behaviour in the light ofthe labelling process, where repeated devianceis “a means of defence, attack or adaptation” tothe problems created by being so labelled.

Deviancy amplification involves a positivefeedback loop based on the idea that behaviourthat begins as relatively minor deviance isamplified into more-serious forms of criminaldeviance by the heavy-handed intervention ofcontrol agencies such as the police and massmedia.

ProcessPrimary deviance is identified and condemned.This leads to:

Social isolation and resentment on the part ofthe deviantly-labelled group. This leads to an:

Increased social reaction on the part of controlagencies. This might involve things like lesstolerance of deviant behaviour and developsinto:

Secondary deviation: the labelled group cometo see their deviance as increasingly central totheir sense of individual and group identity andtheir deviant behaviour increases. This leads to:

Increased social reaction as informal controlagencies such as the media demand action andformal control agencies such as the policerespond to these demands. As more resourcesare committed to “fighting the deviant menace”more deviance is discovered and formalresponses, such as the creation of new laws,lead to the criminalisation of deviants.

In this way each group - deviant and control -feeds off the actions of the other to create a“spiral of deviance”.

D5. Deviancy Amplification

1Shortcutstv.com

Click image to play video

http://www.shortcutstv.com

2

Sociology Crime and Deviance

Shortcutstv.com

The Role of the MediaThe various points the media may contributeto the amplification process include:

Bringing primary deviance to the attention of awider audience through the activities of moralentrepreneurs - individuals, such as politicians,and organisations, such as newspapers, whotake it upon themselves to patrol society’s“moral standards”. Entrepreneurs add a moraldimension to primary deviance by reacting toand condemning behaviour, something that’spart of a wider labelling process.

More-recently the growth of social media - andsites such as Twitter in particular - has meantmoral entrepreneurs are increasingly likely tobe individuals and groups acting through thismedium.

If entrepreneurial activity is successful (andthere’s no guarantee it will be), the mediacreates what Cohen (1972) calls folk devils –people who, in Fowler’s (1991) words, are“outside the pale of consensus” and can be:• represented - as threats to the moral order.• labelled - as “subversive”, for example.• scapegoated - blamed for social problems.

These representations in both traditional andnew media play a role in the creation of adeviant self-image: how a deviant group, aspart of secondary deviation, comes to defineitself in reasonably coherent terms (they may,for example, accept the ‘deviant label’ as a formof resistance). Media play a role here in areaslike:

• Publicising deviant behaviour and bringing itto a wider audience, some of whom may decidethey want to be part of the “deviant subculture”.• Labelling deviant groups (”chavs”, “terrorists”,“predatory paedophiles”) to suggest theyrepresent a coherent social group (rather than,perhaps, a disparate group of individuals).

This may also involve the development of amoral panic - a situation, Cohen (1972) argues,where a group is ‘defined as a threat to societalvalues’ and is presented in a ‘stereotypicalfashion by the mass media’ as a prelude to thedemand for ‘something to be done’ about theirbehaviour.

This can take the form of a moral crusade,where ‘the media’ take up arms against aparticular type of offender – paedophiles beingan obvious example – and demand from theauthorities a moral clampdown on the deviantand their behaviour.

These ideas and processes, Miller and Reilly(1994) argue, reflect ideological social controlas a prelude to political action.

Moral panics represent a way of ‘softening up’public opinion so that people are prepared toaccept repressive social controls (new laws, forexample) as ‘solutions to a particular problem’.

Finally, an idea that arises from the above andhas implications for social policies designed tolimit and control deviance, is that of a deviantcareer: Becker (1963) argued the successfulapplication of a label frequently has the effect of‘confirming the individual’ as deviant, both tothemselves and others (teachers, employers,etc.). This may block off participation in ‘normalsociety’ (a criminal, for example, may be unableto find legal work), which, in turn, means thedeviant seeks out the company of similardeviants, resulting in increased involvement indeviant behaviour.

The public stigmatisation (‘naming andshaming’) of paedophiles in the UK media, forexample, may illustrate this process;paedophiles are shunned by ‘normal society’and so start to move in organised groupswhose development, arguably, increases thelikelihood of deviance.

http://www.shortcutstv.com

3

Sociology Crime and Deviance

Shortcutstv.com

EvaluationAlthough deviancy amplification demonstrateshow the behaviour of control agencies mayhave ‘unintended consequences’ in terms ofcreating a class of deviant behaviour (such ascrime) out of a situation that was only a minorsocial problem, it’s not without itsproblems or critics.

1. Although the concept uses a range ofconstructionist ideas (labelling, for example), itwas originally presented by Wilkins (1964) as amodel for predicting the development of socialbehaviour.

However, the general unpredictability of theamplification process - sometimes a spiraldevelops, but at other times it doesn’t - meansits strength is in descriptive analyses ofbehaviour ‘after the event’. Young’s (1971)classic analysis of drug takers is a case inpoint, as is Critcher’s (2000) explanation for thedevelopment of moral panics surrounding ‘raveculture’ and its use of Ecstasy.

2. McRobbie (1994) argues the concept of a moralpanic has been so overused by the media - todescribe any kind of behaviour that seems to upsetpeople - it has lost whatever sociologicalmeaning it once had.

In addition, McRobbie and Thornton (1995)suggest some parts of the media have becomeso sophisticated in understanding howamplification and panics work that “moralpanics, once the unintended outcome ofjournalistic practice, seem to have become agoal”.

In other words, attempts are made to createthem for their shock value rather than becausethere is an actual moral outrage fanning theirgeneration.

3. Miller and Reilly (1994) point out the problemof understanding how and why moral panicsever end. Although Interactionist sociologyclearly sees power as a significant variable inthe creation (and possible negation) of labels,there’s no clear idea about where such powermay originate.

4. Waiton (2010) argues contemporarysocieties generate a range of fears andassociated panics that are of a different order tothe classic "Mods and Rockers" moral panicoriginally described by Cohen (1972).

He argues moral panics are less likely to occurbecause societies no-longer have a strongcentral moral core shared by most of thepopulation.

In its place we have "competing moralities"where a wide range of moral viewpoints arebelieved or tolerated and he suggests amoralpanic is now a better description of media-fuelled panics - from the MMR jab "causing"autism to bird-flu - that generally lack a clearmoral dimension.

http://www.shortcutstv.com