p.p1 distinction between conformity to the norm and deviance

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 15.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

Deviant behaviour, at its most basic, is measured against the subjective definitions and situational, negotiated, and interactive rules set in society. Standards and deviant behaviour play a central role, however they no longer completely determine action, they are a more or less variable direction of action whose materialization depends on the interpretation and creativity of the actors. Deviant behaviour is thus a societal discourse, through which institutions and categories of deviant are institutionalized and imposed (). This perspective also leads to a redefinition of crime research and to giving priority to questions about the process of developing penal norms and their selective application in the process of criminal prosecution.
The object of research of the sociology of deviant and criminal behaviour will hereby be discussed in regards o the societal or structural conditions of the transgressions of the rules and norms constitutive of a social order, whereby the distinction between conformity to the norm and deviance is at the heart of the analysis. In this perspective, it will be argued that deviance appears as the consequence of conflicting expectations or role conflicts, or the result of the failure of socialization and social control.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Background
The social order, in a classical way, is understood as a moral order in which the individual needs and interests of the social actors are restricted and mutually connected or are linked in an active process. The totality of the social order is based on the constitution of a moral order and crime is the immanent mechanism that guarantees this order (). The function of society and crime is conceived as a regulatory constraint on individual needs, perspectives, and interests. The deviance, then, was less of a departure from a typical behaviour or situation than a deviation from social rules and norms, which Parsons () interpreted as consensual, endowed with compulsory, and whose function was to produce the social order. 
If criminal behaviour is considered the normal behaviour of individuals who normally respond to situations defined as undesirable, illegal and therefore criminal, then the fundamental problem is that of the social and political organization of established values ??or definition of what can and can not be (). It is good to focus on the notions of group and politics involved in this conception of the criminal phenomenon. In other words, instead of looking at social problems from a technocratic, control-oriented and practical perspective, functionalist theory called for considering the social contexts of crime and for conducting critical sociological reflection on the processes by which social control bodies imposed their rules (). Deviance is then seen an established and widely used sociological concept, which distinguished itself from classical criminology, which was traditionally centred on the pathology of delinquents.
Additionally, such a conception of competition between social groups should lead to an equally superficial and schematic view of the process of criminalization and its political character, which, as we shall see, is a common defect of conflict criminologists (). No less simplistic is the way in which conflict theorists represent the process of criminalization as a process in which powerful groups succeed in influencing legislation by using penal institutions as a weapon to combat and neutralize opposing group behaviour. 
The ideologically conservative character of structural-functionalist theories and the link between their consolidation have been the subject of in-depth analysis in sociology. The need to overcome, on the ideal level, the social conflict and the predominance of a sociological theory which denied the objectivity of conflict – and thus the function of conflict and social change – arguably contributed to the strategy of conservative stabilization of the system ()(). Hereby, the discussion and criticism of structural-functionalism becomes a central theme not only in the context of an alternative sociology of direct or indirect explanation, but also in that of liberal sociology as the political and economic conditions were changing. It no longer became possible to mystify with the models of stability, equilibrium, homogeneity of interests and consensus, for the support of which structural-functionalist theories describe and explain social systems.