Talk:Sociology of deviance

It would be good to if we could find some sort of commentary on the various theories to try and tie the article together. I think I can remember one book that does it but it is quite old, so if anyone has any more recent knowledge please add contribute it. JenLouise 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anomie|Strain theory (sociology)

this sectionj says nothing about anomie, instead it is all about strain theory. yet it does mention "anomie" first as the section title, and states "anomie" as the main article. seems a bit odd..· Lygophile has spoken 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even say anything about strain theory, it just lays out the taxonomy. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the anomie main article tag now that it is headed "strain theory". I don't know what other information from strain theory should be included over and above the taxonomy, but perhaps you could improve this section? JenLouise 03:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Functions of Deviance

Someone removed the following section from the article. It does have some merit, although it is not referenced which is possibly why it was deleted. I have inserted it here so that I can go and find references for it and put it back in. Emile Durkheim (the Father of Functionalism) developed the "4 Functions of Deviance"

1. Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Without good there is no evil. Deviance is needed to define and support morality.
2. Responding to deviance clarifies moral boundaires. by defining someone as deviant draws a boundary between what is right and wrong (morally)
3. Responding to deviance unites people. Example: Sept. 11, 2001, Hurrican Katrina
4. Deviance encourages social change. Example: Rosa Parks, Rock 'n' Roll, Hippies

JenLouise 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

deviance

I have removed the section on "what is deviance" as this was really the introduction, and introductions don't have headings. I have altered some of the text to more specifically refer to the sociology of deviance, and have removed the text that was defining what deviance is. I have however added a link to the deviance article in the very first line so that readers can very easily click through to the deviance article to read about what deviance is, before continuing onto the rest of the article.

I have also removed the sections on subculture, crime, etc that deal with the concept of deviance itself. This article is about the branch of sociology that studies deviance, not the concept of deviance. The information that was in these sections can be found here [1] and can be added to the deviance article if necessary. Cheers, JenLouise 15:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

room for improvement

There is alot of room for improvement, both in this article and deviant behaviour. Both contain discussion of theories of deviance. I think we need to work out what belongs in what article and work on improving them. (Although if you can improve the article in any of the ways listed below, then please jump right in! Also I think we need to educate visitors/editors that this article is about a branch of sociology not about deviance per se. JenLouise 13:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

brief overview of development of research tradition

the article jumps right in to Becker and labeling theory-- but we don't have a sense of context for how this research area developed. just a brief paragraph that lays out the development along with key historical figures in the research tradition would be very helpful to the readers.--Htw3 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

control theory

There is no discussion of control theory. Control theory is probably one of the most important current theories applied to deviance and criminal behavior yet it is missing here. I know the Stark text has a decent overview, and that major contemporary researchers (like Robert Crutchfield) have recent research in that tradition. --Htw3 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of contemporary research

this is entirely missing. deviance is one of the biggest areas of research in sociology. this article would be much better if it tied into important recent research and introduced the types of issues that are being investigated. --Htw3 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

format =

finally-- there should not be a bibliographic entry in the middle of the document. check examples in wikipedia for how make in text citations properly. --Htw3 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

have fixed that. Whoever added it is probably new to wikipedia and was trying to add a citation where there was a "citation needed" tag. JenLouise 12:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

material removed

Quite a bit of material has been removed from this article that relates to deviance and not the branch of sociology that studies this area (which is the topic of the article). The material can be found here [2]JenLouise 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger to Deviance (sociology)

This article and Deviant behavior substantially duplicate each other. I propose that they be merged into a common article Deviance (sociology). Madcoverboy 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On intelligence under biological theory

This statement needs much better sources in my opinion:

His only theory that still holds true today is that all criminals seem to have a severe lack of intelligence

There was a single reference for this:

• Stark, Rodney. 2007. ;Sociology: Tenth Edition. Biological Theories of Deviance (pp.182- 185). Belmont, CA. Thomson Wadsworth

I don't consider that to be enough for such a statement, so I'm moving it here. --elmindreda (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)