Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]On: 05 October 2014, At: 04:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Deviant BehaviorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20
The relativity of positivedeviance: The case of theFrench ImpressionistsDruann Maria Heckert aa Department of Sociology , Troy StateUniversity , Troy, ALPublished online: 18 May 2010.
To cite this article: Druann Maria Heckert (1989) The relativity of positivedeviance: The case of the French Impressionists, Deviant Behavior, 10:2, 131-144
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1989.9967806
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE: THE CASEOF THE FRENCH IMPRESSIONISTS
DRUANN MARIA HECKERTTroy State University, Troy, Alabama
Labeling theory has t r ad i t i ona l l y been applied to negativedeviance; nevertheless, this paper addresses the relationship oflabeling theory to posit ive deviance. As is the case withnegative deviance, actions or behaviors that are defined aspositive deviance vary over time, across societies, and withinsocieties. Positive deviants can become negative deviants andnegative deviants can become positive deviants. To substantiateth is process, the labeling of the French Impressionists ispresented. The French Impressionists were c o l l e c t i v e l ydesignated to be negative deviants and then later elevated to apositive deviant status. Consequently, labeling theory can beapplied to elucidate the nature of positive deviance. Positivedeviance and negative deviance are similar.
The concept of posit ive deviance has f a i r l y recently emerged insociological l i terature. Societal reaction theory has often beenu t i l i z e d to analyze deviance. As noted by soc ie ta l reac t iontheor is ts , deviance is very re la t i ve . While notably the idea ofre la t iv i ty has been applied to deviance ( i . e . , negative deviance), thesame point can be made regarding positive deviance. In fact, manypositive deviants were once considered negative deviants. This paperseeks to elucidate that phenomenon, by applying societal reactiontheory to the case of the French Impressionists--now consideredpositive deviants--in their original designation as deviants ( i . e . ,negative deviants).
POSITIVE DEVIANCE
While not employing the term, positive deviance, by 1950 the eminenttheorist Sorokin (1950:3-5) realized the importance of a sociology ofpositive deviance. At that time, Sorokin fe l t that Western culturewas in a "declining sensate phase" and permeated by negativism. Thisorientation was pervasive in the social sciences, including sociology,which concentrated almost t o t a l l y on the negative elements insocieties and cultures. For example, Sorokin noted that socialscience had examined criminals, insanity, perverts, fai lures, and
Deviant Behavior, 10:131-144, 1989Copyright © 7989 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation
131
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
732 D. M. HECKERT
idiots. At the same time, he felt that social science had almostexclusively failed to examine "positive types" of individuals.Recognizing the need for sociology to examine positive behavior,Sorokin (1950:4) insightfully noted, "...for a knowledge of thepositive is necessary in order to have a full knowledge of thenegative."
Since the time of Sorokin, divergent thinking has emerged regardingpositive deviance and how it should be conceptualized. Considering thevarious ideas regarding negative deviance, this fact should not besurprising. Nevertheless, one basic difference does emerge in thatsome theorists (Best and Luckenbill 1982; Sagarin 1985) specificallydeny the existence of the concept of positive deviance. For example,Sagarin (1985:169) suggested that the very idea of positive devianceis an oxymoron and the introduction of the concept into the arena oftraditional deviance would dilute clarity in the field. Additionally,other sociologists of deviance seemingly deny the existence ofpositive deviance by the definitions of deviance they posit.Rosenberg, Stebbins, and Turowetz (1982:1), for example, maintainthat deviance can be understood as "morally condemned differences",precluding the possibility of positive deviance.
In comparison to the plethora of discussion regarding negativedeviance, there has been a relative dearth of conceptualizing ofpositive deviance; nevertheless, various social scientists havepostulated that the idea of positive deviance is valid and important.Ideas regarding positive deviance can be separated into the followingcategories: discussions of the concept not utilizing the term,definitions adopting a norm-violating approach, definitions thatadvance a labeling or societal reaction perspective, and definitionsthat are narrow in that a very specific type of behavior is maintainedto be positive deviance.
While not taking advantage of the term, positive deviance, sometheorists (Sorokin 1950; Lemert 1951; Wilkins 1965; Katz 1972) havespecifically recognized the importance of analyzing positive behaviorsin the context of a discussion of deviance. For example, in a studyabout altruists which focused on American good neighbors andChristian-Catholic saints, Sorokin (1950) suggested that in as much ascriminals are deviant, "good neighbors" are also deviant. As Sorokin(1950:81) explained, "If criminals are deviants falling below thelegally prescribed norms of moral conduct, "good neighbors' are alsodeviants, but above the level of moral conduct demanded by theofficial law." Further elaborating the concept of social deviance atthe positive end of the continuum, Sorokin (1950:82) explained thatthere are two types of "social deviants". These two types are thesubnormal, of which criminals are an example and the "supra-normal",or innovators in different aspects of life. In addition, Lemert(1951:23-24) very clearly recognized the need to examine positivedeviance when he wrote "...variations from social norms in desirableand enviable directions should be explored as profitably as the morefrequently studied sociopathic variations." As examples, Lemert(1951:21) cited geniuses, movie stars, beautiful women, andoutstanding athletes.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE 133
While not always explicitly expressing their adoption of a specificparadigm, some theorists (Sorokin 1950; Wilkins 1965; Winslow 1970)have basically suggested that positive deviance could be considered tobe a violation of norms (i.e., in the sense that norms are exceeded).For example, Winslow (1970:112-121) has suggested that there arevarious frameworks in deviance at this time, all presenting separateimages of social change and social organization. Deviance as aphenomenon that is "relative to statistical norms" is one of theperspectives from which deviancy can be examined. If deviancy isviewed as approximating a normal curve of conformity and deviance,normative acts are in the middle of this curve. One end of the curve,beyond the tolerance limits, contains disapproved behaviors which areconsidered deviant, such as crime, mental disorder, and suicide.Approved deviations beyond the tolerance limits include wealth,patriotism, health, wisdom, and virtue. In other words, the normshave been exceeded and as such, a violation of norms has occurred.
Offering a different point of view, other theorists (Freedman and Doob1968; Steffensmeier and Terry 1975; Hawkins and Tiedeman 1975;Norland, Hepburn, and Monette 1976; Scarpijtti and McFarlane 1975) tendto explain positive deviance from a labeling perspective, even thoughnot all explicitly express their acceptance of this paradigm. As anexample, Hawkins and Tiedeman (1975:59) proposed, "Deviance is thatphenomenon which is perceived (i.e., recognized) as violatingexpectations held by participants to an event." Deviance, then, isperceived to be and reacted to as atypical or unusual behavior.Consequently, those actions or attributes which exceed definitions arealso deviant. The genius, the movie star, a very beautiful woman, oran exceptional athlete should be examined similarly to such negativedeviants as criminals. In addition, Scarpitti and McFarlane (1972:2-5) have offered the following definition, "Social deviance includesthose acts, attributes, and beliefs which, when performed or madeknown about an actor, elicit an evaluative social sanction orsanctions from an observer." Thus, positive deviance exists in thesense that evaluations occur on a continuum that ranges from good tobad, while sanctions range from positive to negative. In relation tonegative deviance, criminal actions tend to be negatively evaluatedand sanctioned. On the other hand, positive deviants, includingintellectuals and saints are among those who are positively evaluatedand sanctioned. Normative behavior elicits neither responses norsanctions. These phenomena represent a continuum rather than adiscrete deviant-non-deviant categorization.
Finally, it must be noted that positive deviance has been defined bysome theorists (Ewald 1981; Buffalo and Rogers 1971) in a veryspecific manner to refer to only one type of behavior. Thus, thesedefinitions cannot be classified in either the category of the norm-violation approach or the labeling one. Ewald (1981), for example,utilized the concept of positive deviance to refer only to over-conforming behavior. The socialization to deviant subculture model,postulated by Becker (1963) to explain negative deviance (i.e.,marijuana use) was applied to weightlifting and running as forms ofsubcultural positive deviance. Thus, Ewald (1981:30) posited:
Positive deviance is where the relationship to societal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
134 D. M. HECKERT
norms is not one of blatant violation but rather extension,intensification, or enhancement of social rules. In thiscase the zealous pursuit or overcommitment to normativeprescriptions is what earns the individual or group thelabel of deviant. The individual or groups is essentiallytrue to normative standards but simply goes "too far" inthat plausible or actual results are judged inappropriateby the general culture.
In essence, the term positive deviance has been used in the followingways: from a norm-violation perspective, from a labeling paradigm, andfrom a specific point of view. Some resolution can be reached betweenthe normative and interact ion ist perspective. Consequently, positivedeviance will be defined as behavior that people label (i.e., publiclyevaluate) in a superior sense. As such, that labeling will usuallyresult because that behavior departs from that which is considerednormal or normative in the particular case or behavior. In addition,as Thio (1978:23) noted, deviance can vary in the amount of publicconsensus garnered, ranging from higher-consensus deviance in thatthere is maximum public agreement to lower-consensus deviance in whichthere is minimal public consensus. For example, a Nobel Prize winnerwould be a higher-consensus positive deviant and a successful highschool quarterback would be a lower-consensus positive deviant.
SOCIETAL REACTION OR LABELING THEORY
Societal reaction, or interactionist, or labeling theory, which isstrongly rooted in symbolic interactionism, has emerged as a majorapproach to the elucidation of deviance. Although not addressing thesame issues (e.g., etiological issues) as other approaches, societalreaction theory has filled in many gaps in theoretical knowledgerelated to deviance.
One of the important functions that labeling theory has performed isto offer a relativistic stance towards deviance. Until the 1950's,absolutist perspectives were, in fact, dominant, as noted by Clinard(1974:11). For example, as Becker (1963:4-8) proposed, there areseveral ways in which deviance can be conceived. Rejecting astatistical, a pathological, and a more sociological (i.e., behaviorthat fails to abide by group rules) approach, Becker supported arelativistic position that different groups assess different actionsas deviant. In turn, this fact supports his idea that other factorssuch as the decision that someone else or some other behavior isdeviant, the process through which this decision is made, and thesituation in which it occurs, all become important factors in thestudy of deviance. Besides various groups making divergent judgementsabout deviance, there is also variation over time as to what is tobe deviant. Simmons (1969:4) noted this idea, when he wrote perhapssomewhat facetiously, "...deviance like beauty, is in the eyes of ofthe beholder." Lemert (1972:22), on the other hand, suggested asomewhat more moderate stance. Proposing that some of the moreextreme relativistic positions create the false idea that virtuallyany meaning can be conferred on human beings, he supported the viewthat human interaction takes place within limits, includingbiological, psychological, ecological, technical, and organizational
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE 135
ones. Thus, some acts will viewed as having deleterious consequencesin practically every situation. Accordingly, acts such as incest,adultery, rape, theft, and lying are disapproved, although in varyingdegrees, by virtually every society.
Labeling theory has been valuable since it has facilitated the studyof the societal reaction to an action, which stands in contrast toseveral types of theories that focus almost exclusively on theindividual and the etiological reasons for the behavior. Becker(1963:11) suggested very emphatically that society creates deviance:
Social groups constitute deviance by making rules whoseinfraction constitutes deviance, and by applying thoserules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of theact the person commits, but rather a consequence of theapplication by others of rules and sanctions to an"offender". The deviant is one to whom that label has beensuccessfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior thatpeople so label.
In addition, Becker (1963:17,143) has explained how the rules arecreated in the first place. Rules emerge from the initiative of moralentrepreneurs who function to create and enforce rules in society.People have different ability to make and apply rules to otherindividuals due to political and economic power.
Various authors have conceptualized the process through which thelabeling of individuals proceeds. For example, Kitsuse (1961:248,254-255) has proposed that individuals in groups, communities, orsocieties engage in the following process: the interpretation ofbehavior as deviant, the definition of individuals who engage in suchbehaviors as important, and the treatment of these individuals in away which is deemed as important. Conventional members of society canutilize the following sanctions against deviating members: explicitdisapproval and subsequent withdrawal, implicit disapproval andpartial withdrawal, and no disapproval occurring with the maintenanceof the relationship continued. Schur (1971:41-60) offered thefollowing scheme. There are basic response patterns including thefollowing: stereotyping, or the imputation of traits such asdifferentness to the individual or his behavior; retrospectiveinterpretation, or the réévaluation of the past behavior of theindividual; and negotiation, or the bargaining that takes place whichinvolves the discretionary power of the control agents in society.
A final important idea that labeling theory has offered has been tosuggest that the labeling of individuals affects their lives, mostoften in a negative fashion. Tannenbaum (1980:244-247) was among thefirst to note this process. When an individual is labeled as deviantand separated from his group, there is a "dramatization of evil" inthat others begin to feel that the total person is bad rather thanjust the behavior that he performed. As a result, this process tendsto cause other such actions in the future by the presumed "evil"person. Lemert (1972:48-63) also had many important comments to makeregarding the impact of the labeling process on individuals when he
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
736 D. M. HECKERT
posited the notions of primary and secondary deviance. Primarydeviation denotes that individuals, although they may be engaging indeviant acts, still manage to hold conventional status and roles andstill continue to have an unscathed psychic structure. On the otherhand, secondary deviance suggests that the individual has organizedhis life and his identity around his deviance, facilitating hisattempts to deal with the various problems associated with thesocietal reaction to his primary deviation. During socialization, orthat process involved with role transitions, the individual willacquire in varying degrees the following characteristics: a morallyinferior status, special knowledge and skills, an integral attitude orworld view, and a distinctive self-image.
In essence, the important issues addressed by the societal reactiontheorists include the relative nature of deviance, the labeling ofacts as deviant and individuals who engage in them as deviants, andthe consequences of being labeled deviant on the attributed person.
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE
Interactionist theorists have noted that deviance is a very relativephenomenon. In other words, actions or behaviors that are defined asdeviant vary over time, across societies, and within societies. Alongthese same lines, what is considered positive deviance must also beconsidered to be very relative. An action or behavior that is sodefined in one era, society, or group, is often defined as a normativebehavior (i.e., in a neutral manner) or even as negative deviance byanother era, society, or group. Positive deviance, like negativedeviance, is relative.
In an anecdotal manner, in his seminal Yankee City series, Warner(1959:15-16) has analyzed the life of one individual, who during thecourse of his life was labeled a positive and a negative deviant.Biggy Muldoon was a politician in Yankee City who underwent ametamorphosis by the community in which he lived. At first, he wasdeemed to be a punk from the wrong side of the tracks. At some point,he became converted in their collective minds to a symbolic heroadmired for being a politician who defended the common people.Through a series of unfortunate circumstances, the community began toshare the opinion that he was reprehensible, a fool, or a villain.Warner (1959:16) explained that Muldoon had not really changed, butthat the symbols that the community had attached to him had undergonea transformation. In fact, Warner (1959:85) noted that the role ofthe hero and the role of the villain are "dualistically conceived" inthis culture. To appreciate one role is to appreciate the other role.In essence, Warner, has sketched, through the life of Biggy Muldoon,the process through which deviant labels change over time. Thecommunity labeled Biggy in a neutral manner and then elevated him tothe role of positive deviant and then later demoted him to a negativedeviant. On the other hand, a negative deviant is often converted toa positive deviant.
Although not using the terminology of positive deviance, varioustheorists have pointed out that negative deviants can become positivedeviants or that positive deviants can become negative deviants.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OE POSITIVE DEVIANCE 137
Merton (1968:238) has explicitly stated that the rebel, revolutionary,nonconformist, individualist, or renegade of one era is oftentransformed into the cultural hero of another era. In fact, attimes, their heroism is acknowledged due to the fact that theindividual had the spirit and/or sagacity to deviate from thenormative patterns of another era.
Coser (1967) has also discussed this phenomenon in relation toinnovators. A society may define some innovative behavior as anundesirable departure from the norm and the behavior can then benegatively sanctioned. At another point in time, however, this samebehavior may not be viewed from the same perspective and will beelevated. Consequently, if the innovator is still alive, his personalstatus will be drastically increased. At times, the individual willbe co-opted as a standard bearer for conformity. On the other hand,the innovator can become a "posthumous saint."
Dinitz (1969:12) has also substantiated this position. Like fashions,designations of deviance vary through time. Sinners, rebels, misfits,malcontents, aliens, outsiders and at times, criminals of their eramay become heroes; even heroes that endure through time. On the otherhand, different conformists and nondeviants can come to be regarded asdeviants (i.e., negative deviants).
Hawkins and Tiedeman (1975:45) have offered the following story whichclearly explains the source of this change in one particular case:
Envision a primitive society where extreme violat ion ofinteractional rules are seen as signification of a link tothe gods. The violator is seen as a prophet whose strangeactions provide clues to the primitive re l ig ion. Theseprophets are consequently given high status in the tribe.Subsequently, this primitive society acquires a team ofChristian missionaries and medical personnel. Through thec iv i l i z ing process of Christianization, the natives aretaught about false gods, and are told that the prophet'sbehavior is due to a sickness of the mind. The prophet'srole is devalued. The missionaries as moral entrepreneurshave redefined the rule-violating behavior as mental illnessand the prophet is stigmatized for his new disease and forthe evilness of past rule-representative of a false god.I t is to note that the behavior of the prophet has notchanged.
Becker (1978:13-14) has also demonstrated very convincingly, uti l izingthe labeling perspective, how collectively, geniuses were once veryrigorously, reinforced with scientific evidence, defined as mad; asmentally i l l members of society. At one point, geniuses were viewedas sane and rational individuals. Beginning with the Romantic Era andthe def in i t ion of the i r ra t iona l i t y in the work of geniuses, thenegative stereotyping became more virulent by the mid-nineteenthcentury and reached its peak during the period from 1880-1920. Thus,positive deviants became negative deviants. The collective opinionhas again turned the other way in regard to geniuses, aided by thepioneering work Terman (1959) and his studies demonstrating that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
738 D. M. HECKERT
exceptionally intelligent children live and grow up to live otherwisenormal existences.
Due to the relativity of both positive and negative deviance, positivedeviance or deviants can become negative deviance or deviants andnegative ones can become positive ones. Labeling theory is thusrelevant to both positive and negative deviance. To exemplify thispoint, a group of innovators that were defined in their subcommunityand in their society and in their era as negative deviants, but havecome to be viewed as positive deviants will be discussed.
THE TRANSITION FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE DEVIANCE: THE FRENCHIMPRESSIONISTS
One group of individuals who were originally designated as negativedeviants by their subcommunity (the artistic establishment) and theirsociety were the French Impressionists. This devaluation of theirwork, however, did not last long, since after a short passage of time,they were elevated to a very high position by the artistic communityand by their society. Hence, negative deviants became positivedeviants. Specifics of how they were actually negatively labeled willbe discussed.
For descriptive purposes, Impressionism will be briefly described.Impressionism served as the culmination of a nineteenth centurynaturalism and served as a bridge for the abstract art of thetwentieth century (White, 1978:4). Stylistically, Impressionistsproduced an innovative form of art in that they were interested in thefollowing: removing black and brown from their paintings, utilizingrecently available chemically produced colors to increase syntheticaccents of greater strength, and producing paintings composed of clearcolors and their mixtures (Mount, 1966:306). They also pursued abasic concern with natural settings and in freely capturing a momentas Craven (1931:45) noted when he wrote that Impressionism means"...an instantaneous vision of the world, or of that very small pocketof the world which may be grasped instantaneously, a glimpse ofexternals, a sensational record of appearances."
A premonitory event that shocked the entrenched art community in Pariseven before the Impressionist movement of the 1870's were somepaintings done by Manet. Le Bain, was a painting by Manet which wasrefused exhibition at the "Sal on, the official representative of theFrench art community. Instead, this painting had to be presented atthe Salon des Refuses which was initiated by the Emperor to appeasevarious rejected artists. Besides displaying a nude accompanied bytwo young painters seated on the grass, the painting violated thepredominant techniques of the established French art community, sinceit displayed clear tones rather than the differentiation between lightand shade that was expected, or considered normative, at the time.Additionally, the rejection by the Salon of the 1865 painting,0lympia, created controversy and destined Manet to be an unwittingleader of the then nascent Impressionist movement (Slocombe, 1969:36-42,53-56).
Around the same period of time, in 1862, the young artist, Monet, was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE 139
studying art at the Academy of Gleyre. Although he soon left as hedid not find the school to be suitable to his tastes, Monet met andintroduced various new techniques to some other artists, includingRenoir, Sisley, and Bazille. Besides adopting new techniques, thisgroup, along with other artists such as Degas, Fantin-Latour,Pissarro, and Cezanne became involved in the endeavour to supportManet and his disputes with the Salon. Meeting regularly at the CafeGuerbois to discuss these matters resulted in the eventualestablishment of the Société Anonyme Cooperative des Artistses,Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc. Because of the refusal of theSalon to recognize the works of these artists at their annualexhibitions of current paintings, the group eventually set up theirown exhibition in 1874 which represented 165 paintings and thirtyartists. The group held their final exhibition in 1886.
The labeling of these artists as negative deviants occurred at variouslevels. In the first place, the artists viere defined disparagingly bythe artistic community. As noted by Canaday (1969:878), besides beingthe heart of the art world, Salons, or official exhibitions were heldannually and prizes were awarded. To start a career or to becomeestablished in the art world, it was necessary to be accepted by thissystem. The power of the Salon at the time was absolute.Additionally, according to Canaday (1969:879), during the second halfof the nineteenth century, the following situation had emerged:
Human frailty had lowered the benevolent institution ofofficial patronage in France to the level of organizedfavoritism, while the admirable academic intention ofpreserving and developing the best expressions of Frenchcreative genius had been debased into the enforcement ofdogma...the whole system of instruction, patronage, andproselytization of art in France seemed directed towardthe discouragement of any painter who applied his talent toanything better than the repetition of threadbare formulas,the pedants who had vitiated the system.
Obviously, a group of artists who favored drastically new techniquesunder these circumstances would not be favorably received.
The Salon served as a labeling institution in several respects. Inthe first place, as Craven (1931:439) noted, Manet and the youngImpressionist painters were continuously rejected. Considering thepredominant position of the Salons in being able to keep new artistsfrom starting their careers, this exclusion served as an ultimatenégative sanction for an artist. Canaday (1969:885,900) reported thatthe Salon persecuted this group of artists, especially Manet.
Another source of labeling came from the art critics and the press,both of which exercised tremendous authority in Paris (Slocombe,1969:5). Their scurrilous criticism attributed a myriad of featuresto these artists. For example, according to White (1978:5) even thepopular usage of the term Impressionism originated as a derogatorycomment. Upon viewing Monet's Impression-Sunrise, the art critic,Louis Leroy sarcastically commented in an article entitled "Exhibitionof the Impressionists" in the April 14, 1874 edition of the Charivari:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
740 D. M. HECKERT
Impression-I was certain of it. I was just telling myselfthat since I was impressed, there had to be some impressionin it...and what freedom, what ease of workmanship!Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished than thatseascape.
Their artistic techniques were also assaulted. For example, accordingto Reutersvard ( 1978b :45-46), the critic Cardon offered the followingrecipe for painting, Impressionist style:
Dirty three-quarters of a canvas with black and white, rubthe rest with yellow, then dash on haphazardly green, redor blue spots and you will finally attain a true impressionof spring.
Along these lines, according to Renoir (1962:161-162), these abilitieswere compared to that of children by Le Presse on April 29, 1874:
For it is nothing less than the negation of the mostelementary rules of drawing and painting. A child'sscrawls have a naivete and sincerity as touching as theyare amusing, but the excesses indulged in by this schoolare nauseating and revolting.
Among the more amusing, but still denigrating incidents reported bythe critics of the press were the following. According to Slocombe(1969:68), one critic compared the impression that these artistscreated to that of a cat walking across a piano or a monkey runningaway with a paint-box.
Also, Canaday (1969:901) noted that one cartoon presented a coprefusing to allow a pregnant women to enter the Impressionist exhibitout of a concern for safeguarding her soon to be born child. Jansen(1973:492) pointed out the fact that various critics suggested thatthe sunlight depicted in a Monet painting was so intense that it hurtthe eyes.
Finally, the most insidious of the criticisms directed toward theartists was that they were mad. For example, according to Renoir(1962:158-159) the critic Pierre Wolff from j e Figaro wrote thefollowing piece after attending one exhibition:
Some people are content to laugh at such things. It makesme sad at heart. These self-styled artists have assumed thetitle of Intransigents; they take canvas, paints andbrushes, splash a few daubs of color about, and sign theresult. The inmates of the Ville-Evrard Asylum behave muchthe same way when they pick up little stones in the roadand imagine they are diamonds. It is a horrible spectacleof vanity ending in madness. Just try to persuade M.Pissarro that trees are not purple, the sky the color ofbutter; that the kinds of things he paints cannot be seenin any country; and that no real intelligence could beguilty of such excesses. You would be wasting as much timetrying to make one of Dr. Blanche's lunatics, who thinks he
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE 141
is the Pope, understand that he lives in the Baltignollesand not the Vatican...Try to explain to M. Renoir thatwoman's torso is not a mass of rotting flesh, with violet-toned green spots all over it, indicating a corpse in thelast stages of decay. There is also a woman in the group,as in all famous gangs; her name is Berthe Morisot, and sheis a curiosity. She manages to convey a certain amount offeminine grace in spite of her outbursts of delirium...thisselection of vulgarities has been exhibited in publicwithout thought for possible fatal consequences...Yesterdaya poor man was arrested in the rue Le Pelletier, afterleaving the exhibition, because he was biting everyone insight.
To substantiate their mental disabilities, various critics pointed tothe tendency for using blue, indigo, and violet, that was common amongthe Impressionists (Reutersvard, 1978b:39). Thus, as Retersvard(1978a:4) noted, the critic Husymans found evidence of their"indigomania" and support from psychopathologists when he concluded:
Most of them in fact could confirm the experiments of Dr.Charcot on the alternatives in the perception of color whichhe noted in many of the hysterics at the Salpetriere (homefor the aged and mentally afflicted women in Paris) and in anumber of people suffering from diseases of the nervoussystem. Their retinas were diseased. The cases certified bythe oculist Galezowski and cited by Veron concerning theatrophy of several nerve fibers to the eye and notably theloss of the notion of green, which is the warning symptom ofthis type of ailment, were without a doubt like the cases ofthese painters. For green has almost disappeared from theirpalettes, whereas blue, acting on the retina most freely andacutely, persisting until the end in this disorder of sight,dominates and drowns everything in their canvases. Theresult of these ophthalmics and nerve disorders was soonapparent. The most afflicted,the weakest of these paintershave been overcome; others have recovered little by littleand now have only rare recurrences.
Besides the Salon and the critics or press, however, the generalpublic also negatively evaluated the artists and their art. They wereprobably very much influenced by the first two groups. In the firstplace, as Mount (1966:245) explained, although over 200 people camedaily to the first public exhibition, none came to seriously examinethe art. As Slocombe (1969:63) reported, these artists-especiallyCezanne-soon came to be the butts of jokes on the streets and cafesand also were brought up in the songs of the chansonniers. Also,Renoir (1962:161) noted that a visitor spat upon a painting by Cezanneand comments overheard at their exhibit included "What Mugs" and"Where did he dig up those models."
All in all, it can be noted that there existed societal reaction atvarious societal levels, in that the art (i.e., actions) of theImpressionists was labeled as negative deviance. Additionally, due totheir continuous rejection by the established art community, they were
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
742 D. M. HECKERT
also negatively sanctioned. Perhaps, more c lear ly presented by thec r i t i c s was the imputation of a l l types of derogatory t r a i t s to thesea r t i s t s based s o l e l y on one aspect o f t h e i r t o t a l r o l e s andat t r ibu tes - the i r painting techniques. Thus, they were accused ofbe ing c h i l d - l i k e , m o n k e y - l i k e , and s u f f e r i n g f rom p h y s i c a labnormalit ies, and being mad. I t can be seen that a master status wasappl ied to these i n d i v i d u a l s . At a minimum, s tereotyp ing waspracticed against th i s group to a great extent. A l l in a l l , t h i sgroup of a r t i s t s became negatively labeled deviants.
However, th i s group of negative deviants-through the course of t ime-became accepted as a group of posi t ive deviants. According to White(1978:4) the a r t i s t s were not accepted or understood u n t i l the 1890's,when they were for the most part in the i r f o r t i es and f i f t i e s . Bythat t ime, the movement was approved and adequate prices were paid fort h e i r a r t . At the present t ime , of course they are accepted asposit ive deviants, as having been geniuses in the i r innovation in a r t .
CONCLUSION
Posit ive deviance is a very re la t ive phenomenon. Designations ofnegative deviance are often o r i g i na l l y applied to those who are laterelevated to the status of posi t ive deviance. This point raises manyinterest ing issues. Since posit ive deviance is also behavior that isd i f ferent ( e . g . , the genius and the i d i o t bear something in commonthat a person of average intel l igence does not ) , perhaps i t is asd i f f i c u l t for positive deviance to be accepted as for negativedeviance. Under what circumstances are individuals or behaviorslikely to be considered positive deviance originally or likely to beconsidered negative deviance at f i r s t and then raised in theestimation of the collective mind? What consequences are there of theoften negative effects of being a positive deviant (e .g . , thebr i l l iant adolescent admired, yet designated as a "geek")? Negativeand positive deviance are similar.
REFERENCES
Becker, Howard. 1963. Ou ts ide rs . New York: The Free Press ofGlencoe.
Becker, George. 1978. The Mad Genius Controversy. Beverly H i l l s : SagePubl icat ions.
Bes t , Joel and David F. L u c k e n b i l l . 1982. Organiz ing Deviance.Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prent ice-Hal l .
Buf fa lo, M.D. and Joseph W. Rodgers. 1971. "Behavioral Norms, MoralNorms, and Attachments: Problems of Deviance and Conformity."Social Problems 19:101-113.
Canaday, John. 1969. The Lives of the Painters (Vol . 3). Neo-Classicto Post-Impressionist. New York : W.W. Norton.
Cl inard, Marshall B. 19b4. "The Theoretical Implications of Anomieand Deviant Behavior." Pp. 1-56 in Anomie and Deviant Behavior,edited by Marshall B. Cl inard. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
. 1974. S o c i o l o g y of Dev ian t B e h a v i o r . New Y o r k : H o l t ,Rinehart, and Winston.
Coser, Lewis A. 1965. Men of Ideas. New York: The Free Press.. 1967. Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict. New
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE RELATIVITY OF POSITIVE DEVIANCE 143
York: The Free Press.Craven, Thomas. 1931. Men of Art . New York: Simon and Schuster.D i n i t z , Simon, Russell R. Dynes, and A l f r e d C. C la rke . 1969.
Deviance: Studies in the Process of Stigmatization and SocietalReaction." New York: Oxford University Press.
Ewa ld , K e i t h . 1 9 8 1 . The E x t e n s i o n of t he Becker Model o fSocialization to Positive Deviance: The Cases of Wight Liftimg"and Running. Unpublished Ph.D. D isser ta t ion : The Ohio StateUniversity.
Freedman, Jonathan L. and Anthony N. Doob. 1968. Deviancy: ThePsychology of Being Different. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, Richard and Gary Tiedeman. 1975. The Creation of Deviance.Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Mer r i l l .
Jansen. H.W. 1973. History of Art . New York: H.N. Abrams.Katz, Jack. 1972. "Deviance, Charisma, and Rule-Defined Behavior."
Social Problems. 20:186-202.Kitsuse, John. 1961. "Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior." Social
Problems 9:247-256.Lemert, Edwin M. 1951. Social Pathology. New York:McGraw-Hill.
. 1972. Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control.Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Liazos, Alexander. 1975. "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance:Nuts, S lu ts , and Perver ts . " Pp. 9-19 in Examining DevianceExperimentally. Port Washington, New York: Alfred Publishing.
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social St ructure. NewYork: The Free Press.
Mount, Charles Mer r i l l . 1966. Monet. New York: Simon and Schuster.Norland, Stephen, John R. Hepburn, and Duane Monette. "The Effects
of Labeling and Consistent Dif ferentiat ion in the Construction ofPositive Deviance." Sociology and Social Research 61:83-95.
Renoir, Jean. 1962. Renoir, My Father. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, andCompany.
R e u t e r s v a r d , Oscar 1978a. " J o u r n a l i s t s (1876-1883) i n"V io le t toman ia ' . " Pp. 38-45 in Impressionism in Perspective,edited by Barbara Erlich White. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
. 1978b. "Journa l is ts (1874-1896) in the Accentuated BrushStroke." Pp. 44-50 in Impressionism in Perspective, edited byBarbara Erlich White. Englewood c l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall .
Rosenberg, Michael, Robert A. Stebbins, and Allan Turowetz. 1982. TheSociology of Deviance. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Sagarin, Edward. 1985. "Positive Deviance: An Oxymoron." DeviantBehavior 6:169-181.
Scarp i t t i , Frank R. and Paul T. McFarlane. 1975. Deviance: Action,Reaction, Interaction. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Schur, Edwin M. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harperand Row.
Simmons, J.L. 1969. Deviants. Berkeley: The Glendssary Press.Slocombe, George. 1969. Rebels of A r t : Manet to Matisse. Port
Washington, New York: Kenikat Press.Sorokin, P i t i r im A. 1950. The Reconstruction of Humanity. Boston:
The Beacon Press.Steffensmeier, Darre l l J . and Robert M. Terry. 1975. Examining
Deviance Experimental ly. Port Washington, New York: A l f redPublishing.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
144 D. M. HECKERT
Tannenbaum, Frank. 1980. "The Dramatization of Evil." Pp. 244-248 inTheories of Deviance, edited by Craig B. Little and Stuart H.Traub. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Terman, Lewis M. and Melita H. Oden. 1959. The Gifted Group at Mid-Life. Vol. 5, Genetic Studies of Genius. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.
Thio, Alex. 1969. Deviant Behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Warner, W. L loyd. 1959. The Liv ing and the Dead: A Study of the
Symbolic Life of Americans. Yankee City Series Vol. 5. New Haven,Connecticut: Yale University.
White, Barbara Erlich. 1978. Impressionism in Perspective. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Wilkins, Leslie T. 1965. Social Deviance. Englewood C l i f f s , NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.
Winslow, Robert W. 1970. Society of Transition: A Social Approach toDeviance. New York: The Free Press.
Received November 16, 1988Accepted February 1, 1989
Request reprints from Dr. Druann M. Heckert,Department of Sociology, Troy State University, Troy, AL
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Il
linoi
s at
Urb
ana-
Cha
mpa
ign]
at 0
4:00
05
Oct
ober
201
4
