Explain how deviance is relative and evaluate the functions of deviance and the impact of moral panic

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.

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.

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.

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.