Under-socialisation is the main cause of deviance.’ Critique and Alternative Perspectives

The assertion that under-socialisation is the main cause of deviance offers a compelling argument; however, it suffers from a degree of reductionism, neglecting the intricate tapestry of sociological, psychological, and cultural factors that contribute to deviant behaviour. While inadequate socialisation can undoubtedly play a role, attributing deviance solely to this factor is an oversimplification of a complex phenomenon.

Cultural Variations and Subcultural Influences

One argument against the view that under-socialisation is the main cause of deviance is that it fails to account for the role of differences in culture, specifically in terms of subcultural influences. Deviant behaviour can often be attributed to belonging to a particular subculture that has norms and values divergent from mainstream society. For instance, what might be considered deviant in one culture might be entirely acceptable in another. Albert Cohen, in his study of "delinquent boys", found that working-class youth often formed subcultures with values that opposed those of the dominant middle-class culture. These subcultures, he argued, provided alternative avenues for achieving status and respect, often through activities deemed deviant by mainstream society (Cohen, 1955).

Measurement and Definition of Socialisation

Moreover, the concept of under-socialisation is challenging to measure and define accurately. It is difficult to determine what constitutes adequate socialisation and thus study whether under-socialisation truly leads to deviant behaviour. The very definition of deviance is itself socially constructed and subject to change across time and place, making it challenging to establish a causal link between under-socialisation and deviance.

Alternative Sociological Perspectives: Labelling, Resistance, and Marginalisation

Furthermore, sociological perspectives highlight social resistance and marginalisation as factors influencing deviant behaviour. For example, certain groups may be labelled as deviant due to power dynamics and societal perceptions, leading to their marginalisation and resistance against conforming to societal norms. This perspective, known as labelling theory (Becker, 1963), argues that deviance is not an inherent quality of individuals or their actions, but rather a consequence of the labels applied to them by others. Once labelled as deviant, individuals may internalise this label and act accordingly, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Beyond Socialisation: Biological, Psychological, and Structural Factors

Biological and psychological explanations for deviant behaviour emphasize traits or personalities predisposed to deviance, shifting the focus away from under-socialisation as the primary cause. While these perspectives should be approached with caution, they highlight the potential role of individual differences in shaping behaviour.

Furthermore, evidence of social pressure promoting conformity, as suggested by social exchange theory, contradicts the notion that under-socialisation always leads to deviance. This theory posits that individuals engage in deviant behaviour when the benefits outweigh the costs. In other words, people are rational actors who weigh the potential rewards of deviant behaviour against the potential risks and punishments.

Lastly, structural approaches underscore the role of socio-economic factors in shaping deviant and criminal behaviour. These perspectives argue that societal inequalities and structural conditions, such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and social disorganisation, can contribute significantly to deviant acts, independent of under-socialisation. For instance, Robert Merton's strain theory (Merton, 1938) argues that deviance arises when there is a disconnect between culturally defined goals (like financial success) and the legitimate means to achieve those goals. This disconnect can lead individuals to pursue alternative, and often deviant, means to attain these goals.

Conclusion: A Multifaceted Understanding of Deviance

In conclusion, while under-socialisation can be a factor contributing to deviance, sociological perspectives offer alternative explanations that critique this singular view and highlight the multifaceted nature of deviant behaviour. Cultural variations, labelling processes, social inequalities, and individual differences all contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why individuals engage in actions that deviate from societal norms. Reducing deviance solely to under-socialisation risks overlooking these crucial factors and oversimplifying a complex social phenomenon.