Deviance, Relativity and Moral Panic - TCE Sociology (Tasmania) - Level 3
“Explain how deviance is relative and evaluate the functions of deviance and the impact of moral panic”
Deviance is behaviour that breaks the norms of a social group. It is relative: what counts as deviant changes with time, place, culture, gender and age. Emile Durkheim argued deviance is normal and even functional, reinforcing shared values and driving change, though too much becomes dysfunctional. Stanley Cohen showed how the media create moral panics, identifying folk devils and amplifying public fear, which leads to harsher control of those labelled deviant.
What this dot point is asking
The TASC course treats the nature of deviance as a distinct content area: deviance is relative to a range of factors, it has functions and dysfunctions, and the media can generate moral panics that shape who gets treated as deviant. This dot point is about the concept of deviance itself rather than the full menu of crime theories. You need to explain relativity, apply Durkheim's claim that deviance is functional, and analyse the moral panic process with an Australian example.
Deviance is relative
Nothing is deviant in itself. An act becomes deviant only when a social group defines it as breaking a norm, so the same behaviour can be normal in one context and deviant in another. The course names the key factors that make deviance relative:
- Time: behaviour once deviant becomes acceptable and vice versa. Smoking indoors was normal in Australia decades ago and is now restricted and frowned upon.
- Place: drinking alcohol is normal in a pub but deviant in a classroom.
- Culture: gestures, dress and diet that are ordinary in one society can be offensive in another.
- Gender: the same behaviour, such as drinking heavily or being sexually active, is often judged more harshly for women, a double standard feminists highlight.
- Age: behaviour tolerated in a young child or excused in a teenager can be deviant in an adult.
Deviance is any behaviour that breaks the norms of a social group and attracts disapproval. Crime is the narrower category of deviance that also breaks the formal law and attracts official sanctions. All crime is deviant, but much deviance, such as queue jumping or unusual dress, is not criminal.
Durkheim: the functions of deviance
Emile Durkheim made the counter intuitive argument that deviance is normal and performs positive functions for society. Punishing offenders reaffirms shared values and strengthens social solidarity through boundary maintenance: a public reaction to wrongdoing reminds everyone where the moral line sits. Deviance can also drive social change, as yesterday's deviants, such as campaigners who broke unjust laws, become tomorrow's reformers. Durkheim also warned of anomie, normlessness during rapid social change.
Durkheim argued a moderate level of deviance is functional: it clarifies norms, reinforces solidarity and allows change. But too much deviance is dysfunctional, signalling a breakdown of shared values and threatening social order. The functionalist view is therefore that some, but not too much, deviance is healthy for society.
Cohen: moral panic and folk devils
Stanley Cohen studied how the media react to deviance and coined the idea of the moral panic: an episode in which a group or behaviour is defined as a threat to social values, the media amplify and exaggerate it, and authorities respond with tougher control. The targeted group becomes a folk devil, a symbol of what is wrong with society. Cohen described a deviance amplification spiral: media coverage generates fear, which prompts more policing, which uncovers more deviance, which fuels more coverage. An Australian example is recurring panics over youth gangs, drugs or refugees, where coverage can outrun the actual scale of the problem.
Evaluating these ideas
The relativity of deviance is a strong insight, supported by clear historical and cross cultural evidence, and it underpins the interactionist and labelling theories of crime. Durkheim's functional view usefully explains why every society has deviance, but critics say it cannot tell us how much deviance is the right amount and ignores who has the power to define norms. Moral panic theory powerfully links media, fear and social control, though critics argue that in a fragmented media environment panics are harder to sustain and audiences are more sceptical than Cohen assumed.
A common task asks you to explain or evaluate the moral panic process using an example. Work through it in steps.
Step 1: Define the moral panic
State Cohen's definition: an exaggerated reaction in which a group or behaviour is defined as a threat to social values and the media amplify public concern.
Step 2: Identify the folk devil and the media role
Name the group cast as the folk devil and explain how the media exaggerate and stereotype it, for example youth gangs or drug users in Australian coverage.
Step 3: Trace the amplification spiral
Describe the deviance amplification spiral: coverage creates fear, fear prompts harsher policing and policy, which uncovers and creates more apparent deviance, fuelling further coverage.
Step 4: Evaluate
Weigh the theory's strength in linking media, fear and control against the criticism that fragmented modern media make panics harder to sustain, then reach a judgement.
This dot point is about the concept of deviance, its relativity, its functions and moral panic, not a complete account of Merton, labelling, Marxism and feminism. Keep the focus on why deviance varies, Durkheim's functions and dysfunctions, and the moral panic process, and use those theories only to support these points.
This dot point links back to social control and forward to the inequality module: who is defined as a folk devil, and who escapes the deviant label, usually reflects existing patterns of power and disadvantage in Australian society.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of TASC exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice5 marksExplain, using two examples, what sociologists mean when they say that deviance is relative.Show worked answer →
A 5 mark short-answer response needs the meaning of relativity plus two clear, correctly placed examples.
The meaning. To say deviance is relative is to say that no act is deviant in itself; an act becomes deviant only when a social group defines it as breaking a norm, so the same behaviour can be normal in one context and deviant in another.
Example one (time or place). Smoking indoors was normal in Australia decades ago but is now restricted and frowned upon, showing relativity over time; or drinking alcohol is acceptable in a pub but deviant in a classroom, showing relativity by place.
Example two (culture, gender or age). Dress or gestures that are ordinary in one culture can be offensive in another; or heavy drinking is often judged more harshly for women than men, showing relativity by gender.
Markers reward a clear definition and two examples drawn from different factors (time, place, culture, gender, age). A common loss of marks is giving two examples of the same factor.
Practice14 marksEvaluate the claim that the media create moral panics that shape who is treated as deviant in society.Show worked answer →
A 14 mark extended response needs an explanation of the moral panic process, applied evidence, and an evaluation of how far the claim holds.
Explain the process. Stanley Cohen defined a moral panic as an episode in which a group or behaviour is defined as a threat to social values, the media amplify and exaggerate it, and authorities respond with tougher control. The targeted group becomes a folk devil.
The mechanism. Cohen described a deviance amplification spiral: coverage generates fear, fear prompts more policing, more policing uncovers more deviance, which fuels more coverage. This shows the media do not just report deviance but help to construct it.
Apply evidence. Recurring Australian panics over youth gangs, drugs or asylum seekers illustrate coverage outrunning the actual scale of the problem and reshaping policy and policing.
Evaluate. The theory powerfully links media, fear and social control and is supported by clear cases. However, critics argue that in a fragmented, social-media environment panics are harder to sustain, audiences are more sceptical, and folk-devil groups can answer back online. A strong answer concludes that the media remain influential in defining deviance but no longer monopolise the process. Markers reward the named concept, applied evidence and a balanced judgement.