There are three theoretical and ideological biases in the field of the sociology of deviance. (1) Despite the attempt to show that the “deviant” is not different from the rest of us, the very emphasis on his identity and subculture may defeat that aim. (2) Certain forms of “deviance,” especially by the economic and political elite, are neglected. (3) The substantive analyses of sociologists of deviance contain no exploration of the role of power in the designation of “deviance,” despite their many statements to the contrary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Liazos (1972) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: