Outsiders: Studies In The Sociology Of Deviance

by Howard S. Becker

One of the most groundbreaking sociology texts of the mid-20th century, Howard S. Becker’s Outsiders is a thorough exploration of social deviance and how it can be addressed in an understanding and helpful manner.

A compulsively readable and thoroughly researched exploration of social deviance and the application of what is known as "labeling theory" to the studies of deviance. With particular research into drug culture, Outsiders analyzes unconventional individuals and their place in normal society.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Psychology, Social Science, Anthropology, Academic, Social

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1963

About the author

Howard Saul Becker was an American sociologist who taught at Northwestern University.

Reviews

[G · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ensayo sociológico sobre los marginales. Antes que eso, manifiesto de una forma de hacer sociología que se llama a sí misma interaccionismo simbólico. La idea básica es que todo lo que ocurre en la sociedad debe ser entendido como una acción colectiva, una construcción dinámica de un conjunto de actores codificados de acuerdo a jerarquías institucionales o, dicho en crudo, de acuerdo al poder de cada actor. No hay hechos sociales -contra la izquierda, contra la derecha y contra el centro-. Lo que hay es siempre un emergente complejo de sentido simbólico. Una etiqueta gerenciada por el poder. Me parece que el método es pragmático, un neopositivismo en formato norteamericano. La organización de las interpretaciones -que no llegan a ser teorías dice todo el tiempo Becker- es, sin embargo, estructuralista. Se preocupa por hacer esquemas simétricos, clasificaciones, correspondencias, salvedades, que no quede celda en blanco. Por eso se percibe una tensión epistemológica que incomoda al mismo Becker. Filo-positivismo que tracciona hacia un lado. Filo-estructuralismo que tracciona hacia el otro lado. Aunque quizás sean vectores oblicuos. En una lectura más histórica se percibe un esfuerzo político y estético, una rebuscada Rettung der Aufklärung como dicen Horkheimer y Adorno en la Dialéctica de la Ilustración. Es una modernidad que se piensa a sí misma en su afirmación de la razón y la libertad. Crujen contradicciones por todos lados. Creo que esta lectura funciona como provocación para pensar la complejidad sociológica de la marginalidad. Sin embargo, parece un meñique de Foucault. También se detectan los sonidos de la época, la década de 1960, el espíritu hipster, el jazz, el pulso beatnik. Por eso es un libro altivo, pero a la vez triste.

[zynphull · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those books which changed forever the way I conceived of social science - and life, indeed, to the extent that I spend my time thinking about and living in society.

I read a chapter or two of Outsiders as part of the assigned readings for a "sociology of violence" class, and fell in love with it immediately, for various reasons. The first was seeing an actual, concrete phenomenon being studied first-hand, and (most importantly) one which seems quite quotidian - recreational cannabis use. To see such a palpable activity being considered by science was a very welcome surprise to my young eyes, so accustomed thus far to "detached" and "objective" analyses through the lens of quantitative methods, or worse still, sloppy marxist-oriented and/or functionalist sociology. Social interactionist theory showed me social science needed not concern itself solely with abstract, intangible, researcher-created categories and concepts (e.g. "superstructure", "social forces", "anomie" and the like) but instead ought to focus on studying phenomena from the point of view of all social actors involved in its making, bringing back a certain "metaphysical common sense" to sociology. This means heeding two distinct but related principles:

1. People act together
2. People give meaning to their experience as they interact with it

"People act together." This may be sociology's most obvious lesson, and thus in a way general to every social theory out there. Hardcore theoretical-oriented systemic functionalist Niklas Luhmann, for instance - the furthest one could get from Becker - asserts that (e.g.) smoking a cigarette cannot be a social act insofar as no one else but the individual themself is involved, meaning such action will have no effect on others. In a general sense, then, for some happening or action to be "social" requires it to be "collective" (as opposed to "individual"). But Becker, following symbolic interactionism's fathers Herbert Blumer and George H. Mead, means something a tad more specific than that.

[People] do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do. The result of all this adjusting and fitting in can be called a collective action, especially if it is kept in mind that the term covers more than just a conscious collective agreement to, let's say, go on strike, but also extends to participating in a school class, having a meal together, or crossing the street--each of these seen as something being done by a lot of people together.

In Becker's sociology of deviance, this implies looking at "at all the people involved in any episode of alleged deviance":

When we do, we discover that these activities require the overt or tacit cooperation of many people and groups to occur as they do. When workers collude to restrict industrial production (Roy, 1954), they do so with the help of inspectors, maintenance men, and the man in the tool crib. When members of industrial firms steal, they do so with the active cooperation of others above and below them in the firm's hierarchy (Dalton, 1959).

As Becker wisely points out, such observations "cast doubt on theories that seek the origins of deviant acts in individual psychology" - by seeing "deviance" to some mental property of individual persons, one misses out on the collective action required for whatever "deviance" to take place. But if deviance is not an intrinsic property of an act, nor of an agent, what is it? Symbolic interactionist requires us to remember that the very definition of any phenomenon as "deviant" requires a definer, a process which may also be seen as collective action.

That something is or is not deviant is, it should go without saying, often very controversial. It is sufficient to point out that at the time Outsiders was published in 1966, "homosexuals" were openly categorized under the same line of inquiry - "deviance studies" - as cannabis users, jazz musicians, and "juvenile delinquents". Social categories, and societal moral evaluations of them, shift over time and space, demonstrating their volatility to active interference and manipulation. Indeed, one need only look at the impact of data-marketing agencies in the past several elections worldwide on directing (or diverting) the focus of public debate/anger at this or that out-group to see how categories are 'arbitrarily' created and maintained by actual, living people with conscious purposes in mind.

In other words, social categories such as the property of being a "deviant" act or person do not come ready-made from nature. Any serious study of "deviance" as a social (collective)phenomenon should then speak not only - as done traditionally - of "deviants" themselves - as if their behavior had some metaphysical property in common - but crucially also about those who create and enforce the social rules which label deviants as such. This means looking, too, at i) the activities of those who enact or create official or unnofficial rules - legislators and interest groups (lobbies, businesses, activists, etc.), but also "moral entrepreneurs", the mass media, educational institutions, etc.: in short, every actor and group involved in creating beliefs which go about claiming that "behavior X (homosexuality, jazz playing, or cannabis use) is wrong"; and at ii) the actions aimed towards enforcing such beliefs, through verbal censorship, arrest, violence, or other types of punishment - which inserts the entire state apparatus of policing within this our sphere of analysis, but also the dynamics of public political discourse (see #MeToo and other public calls for the redefinition of some abusive actions as "sexual assault").

This raises epistemological (and moral) questions of the social researcher's viewpoint, or language, adopted in her account of social reality. For instance, i) by describing the point of view of policemen, surely the researcher is vindicating their actions, overvaluing them over those of those who complain about such actions, such as drug users? ii) Should she then take up a scientifically detached stance uniquely distinct from and more objective than those of the subjects studied? A moral point is clearer in the first question, while an epistemological point is raised when considering the second.

Question (i) may be rephrased as: by studying a collective social phenomenon from the point of view of group X (and not groups Y, Z, etc. who also take part in its making), and describing group X's experience, mental categories, and "reasons for action", is the researcher not condoning group X's stance in a - often heated - debate on the legitimacy of the actions of this or that group? The unstated consequence of this, of course, is a potential charge of partiality (or lack of scientific objectivity). Becker states the problem as such:

If we study drug addicts, they will surely tell us and we will be bound to report that they believe the outsiders who judge them are wrong and inspired by low motives. If we point to those aspects of the addict's experiences which seem to him to confirm his beliefs, we will seem to be making an apology for the addict. On the other hand, if we view the phenomenon of addiction from the point of view of enforcement officials, they will tell us and we will be bound to report that they believe addicts are criminal types, have disturbed personalities, have no morals, and cannot be trusted. We will be able to point to those aspects of the enforcer's experiences which justify that view. In so doing, we will seem to be agreeing with his view. In either case, we shall be accused of presenting a one-sided and distorted view.

To this, one of Becker's answers is natural scientific, quasi-Baconian: the best way to ensure objectivity is to exempt no one from study. "To be exempted from study means that one's claims, theories, and statements of fact are not subjected to critical scrutiny" (p. 197). It is in the rich description of the experiences of and interactions between all those involved in a social situation where lies any possibility of theorizing about such situation.

But, taking up question (ii), what of social-scientific theories and concepts themselves? Surely beyond (or "underneath") the common sense of individual agents described by the sociologist, they ought to occupy a central place in sociology, just as fields do in eletrodynamics and natural selection principles do in biology? Isn't the sociologists' job to uncover such hidden principles, and construct theories describing the "truth" of social reality? Here lies one of the most precious gems of symbolic interactionism. In answer to this question, it may seem as if there are only two possible answers: either to agree that the job of sociologists (functionalist trope of Durkheim or Parsons comes to mind) is to go hunting after master principles or laws which dictate social behavior and define social ontology (the so-called "grand theories"); or, contrariwise, that there are absolutely no such things as social "theories" to be ultimately developed, and the best we can hope for is to describe groups' and individual's stances and relations, making no attempt to "generate theory".

The former position may be called "realist" regarding social-theoretical concepts, that is, it believes such concepts under study "exist" in such sense that they constitute the subject matter and end goal of social theory - which may thus be aptly called "science", as are those other fields concerned with the natural world such as physics and biology. The latter position, on the other hand, might be dubbed "anti-realist", as it denies objective ontology to any such theoretical artifacts, and is not afraid to give up the title of "science" to its activities - this seems to be the position of ethnomethodologists, among others.

Once more joining Mead, Blumer, and other interactionists, Becker escapes this dilemma by taking a pragmatist stance. In the book, this means he does not deny the possibility nor the usefulness of theorizing, but such activity clearly does not occupy central stage in symbolic interactionism: this place is reserved for people. More than once Becker makes clear this primacy of social interaction over social theorizing:

[T]he people sociologists study often have trouble recognizing themselves and their activities in the sociological reports written about them. We ought to worry about that more than we do. We should not expect laymen to make our analyses for us. But neither should we ignore those matters laymen habitually take into account when we describe, or make assumptions about, how they carry on their activities. Many theories of deviance posit, implicitly or explicitly, that a particular set of attitudes underlies commission of some potentially rule-violating act, even though the theory bases itself on data (such as official records) which cannot speak to this point. Consider the descriptions of the actor's state of mind found in theorizing about anomie, from Durkheim through Merton to Cloward and Ohlin. If the people studied cannot recognize themselves in those descriptions without coaching, we should pay attention.

It is not only the descriptions of their own mental states that actors cannot recognize. They often cannot recognize the acts they are supposed to have engaged in, because the sociologist has not observed those acts closely, or paid any attention to their details when he has. The omission has serious results. It makes it impossible for us to put the real contingencies of action into our theories, to make them take account of the constraints and opportunities actually present. We may find ourselves theorizing about activities which never occur in the way we imagine.

But as there is no such thing as a "brute description" of social reality, symbolic interactionists inevitably employ linguistic categories in social theorizing. So what is "social interaction" made of? The talk of "mental states" above was not accidental: in interactionist theories, in a similar fashion to phenomenology-oriented approaches, subjectivity occupies a central place in the explanation of social behavior. What "exists", and thus what constitutes valid entities in an interactionist explanation, are the objects (including other persons/subjectivities) of a person's lived world (aka Lebenswelt), e.g. their resources, their material, physical, or economic capabilities, but also more abstract things such as shares, rights, etc., on the one hand, and the meanings people ascribe to such objects, on the other hand. The emphasis on the meaning-attributing activity of agents towards their lived reality is at the core of symbolic interactionism: although (perhaps) not forgotten by Durkheim, Marx, or researchers in other strands, it is Mead, Blumer and their followers that an obvious truth really comes to fore: "humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things" (Blumer, 1969). Much less importance is given (if at all) to the validity (or truth-status) of agents' meanings, beliefs or reasons for action. Much more relevant are how such beliefs motivate their behavior, how reasons for action are constructed, or how meanings are acquired and changed over time and context. This stance requires that the researcher accept, at least methodologically, a certain form of epistemological relativity toward the subjects studied - a fairly consensus assumption of contemporary ethnography, I'd say (cf. e.g. the introduction of Hammersley and Atkinson's Ethnographic interview: principles and practice).

And here I believe the epistemological question raised above, regarding the possibility of an "objective language" for social science, may be taken up again. Considering the methodological tenets of symbolic interactionism (very roughly) outlined above, it should be clear why striving for any sort of "objective language" is bound to fail, from a symbolic interactionist standpoint. It is inevitable that we eventually apply any theory of social action to the sociologist herself. In our case, if sociological description is to be grounded in subjective meaning and "everyday objects", a (meta-)sociological explanation of sociological research can only also ground itself in the same sort of entity. But then we are simply adding another dimension (or another group) to the theoretical corpus (specifically, to the corpus of social research studying social research). No "jump" to an objectivity outside the text (or the theory) is made, nor is possible.

This is, of course, nothing new today: it is the famous "reflexive" character of social science, familiar to all in anthropology and common sense in theories as distant from symbolic interactionism as Niklas Luhmann's systems theory. Still, it seems to be a frequently ignored piece of common-sense outside of these areas, and certain fields, such as law or economics, seem especially keen on forgetting it, much to the world's chagrin.

[Nourhan Aly · Rating 2 out of 5]

A sociology study written in the sixties about deviance which depends on violating rules, how people react to it, motivations and interests of the outsiders, changes from time to time and who commits the act.

It had two case studies: marijuana users, and musicians dance. The author suggests that being in a system that is characterized by a balance of power and interest would eliminate the number of outsiders. He also discussed the concept based on few outsiders perspective, such as homosexuals, the writer views homosexuals as outsiders, which makes the book quite irrelevant for the current years.

To be honest, i didn't really find what i was looking for, and there was no joy in reading after the first chapter, so i stopped reading after 150 pages.

[Rodeweeks · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always been very interested in this subject - normal vs abnormal, good vs bad, right vs wrong, morality, ethics, law. What is right and why? My interest in this is because I am a deviant myself (and I think that if everyone is honest then no one will not be a deviant). There is no such thing as normal. Belonging to any one group automatically makes you an outsider of any other group. We see things as normal as we want to fit in or are scared of others judging us - the normal part is then that part we want to fit into or we grew up in. In the West when you ask someone what religion they are, for instance, the answer might be something like: 'Christian, obviously'. "Obviously" because that is what is seen as normal.
I am a white male married to a black female (making me an outsider with many whites including some of my family), I am in the process of cutting of much of my Afrikaans/Afrikaner culture (though my parents started that process), I am an Omnist Buddhist (making me an outsider with much of my Christian surroundings), I am teaching myself to live a vegan lifestyle (making me an outsider with much of my meat eating friends and family), I do not just accept laws because Government or God said so because just because something is law does not make it right and just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.
The book is an academic book but written in such a way that most will understand it. It can be a bit confusing when we read of musicians as deviants until you understand, as I said already, that belonging to any group makes you an outsider to any other group. Also keep in mind that the book is old and that is why homosexuality is seen as somewhat wrong although the author does not say it outright. The last chapter is very important as the author explains why this is a difficult subject to study - if everybody judge your lifestyle or behaviour, or might want to kill you for it or put you in jail for it, then you might not want it studied because you will not trust the one studying it.

[Nils · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic “social interactionist” account of deviance, by the notorious dope-smoking gonzo sociologist Howard Becker. He is particularly interested in deviant subcultures—how groups and collective identities form around shared participation in behavior that the mainstream collective has deemed deviant. Although mostly composed during the 1950s (and the examples are hilariously dated examples of postwar hipster bohemianism) the book carries a 1960s sensibility of fundamental doubt about the legitimacy of square values and moral judgments.

[Phoebe · Rating 3 out of 5]

thesis

[Emilia Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the first three chapters for my uni course and was intrigued enough to finish. Very insightful and thought provoking.

[Valentina Salvatierra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating book on the sociology of deviance. Furthermore, it is very well-written and accesible to the average reader. Particularly interesting and up-to-date is the qualitative analysis of a marijuana user's "career". I believe the book does justice to how groups classified as "deviant" organize themselves into subcultures with their own ideological justifications which classify as deviant the very people who classify them as deviants... This creates an interesting double perspective into the phenomenon of deviance, and accepts that an act is not deviant just because of some pre-existing moral law, but because someone labels it as such.

Considering all of the above, I was particularly interested in the way it no longer applies to groups no longer considered so "deviant" (such as homosexuals, which in the book are grouped in with thieves and drug-addicts), while being applicable to new groups of deviants such as smokers, increasingly ostracized by society for their "bad" habit.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in the sociology of how deviant behaviour and people labelled as deviant come to be.

[Suman · Rating 2 out of 5]

More speculation than science.

[Milkeyyy · Rating 5 out of 5]

So basically Becker used qualitative research n shieeet

[Rashida]

IM FREE!!! WORST EXPERIENCE OF MY FUCKING LIFE

[Sencer Turunç · Rating 5 out of 5]

Öncelikle, kitaptaki kuramlsal tartışmalar ve ortaya konulan ampirik hususlar bakımından çok değerli bir çalışma olduğunu düşünüyorum.

Becker, sapkınlığın toplum tarafından meydana getirildiğinden bahisle, ihlal edilmesi sapkınlık olarak tanımlanan kuralların konularak sapkınlık dediğimiz mefhumun üretildiğine işaret etmektedir. Harici kavramı, iki yönlü çalışmaktadır. Hariciler, toplumun kurallara bağlı "normal" çoğunluğu dışında bulunmaktadır. Ancak, sapkınlık etiketini yemiş birisi de kendisini kuralları çiğnediği gerekçesiyle suçlayan kural koyucuları ve savunucuları aynı kavramla konumlandırmaktadır.

Modern toplum sürekli olarak kurallar ve sapkınlar üreten bir makinedir. Çok fazla farklılık birarada, çok fazla sorunla birlikte varolmaktadır. Bakış açıları, çıkarlar ve kurallar sürekli birbirleriyle çekişme halindedir. Burada, kural koyma ve kuralları dayatma meselesi bir farklılığına gelip dayanır. Toplumsal sınıfların birbirinden farklı ve orantısız birikim ve donanımları burada kimin neyin kime nasıl dayatacağını de belirleyen unsurdur. Tam bu noktadan kültürel marzisme yürümek için güzel bir yol var ancak kitap bu yola sapmadan kendi meselesini daha derli toplu ele alıyor.

"Sapkın eyleme sebep olan şey nedir?" sorusu karşımıza çıkıyor. Gerçekten de insanlar neden sapkın eylemler gerçekleştirmektedir. Bunun basit bir açıklaması yok... Ayrıca, "sapkınlık sadece eylemle ilişki bi şey midir?" diye de soruyor metin...

Tipik hariciler olarak esrarkeşlerin ve müzisyenlerin ele alındığı bölümlerin ardından, çok ilgi çekici bir tespit karşıma çıktı: Sosyoloji, çok önemli bir sapkınlık alanı olan "görevi suistimal"i yeterince çalışmamıştır. Tam bu noktada, kitabın başında şöyle bir değinilen marxist damara insan yeniden gidiyor. Sapkınlık kuramının inşasındaki sınıfsal ayrımcılık!

[Vinícius de Sousa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Felizmente, o conteúdo do livro é bom o suficiente pra fazer com que a morte lenta e cruel que é o sistema de notas no fim de texto não prejudique a nota final da obra (por que isso existe, senhor?).

O Becker é um geniozão, já na década de 60 demonstrava preocupações que ainda hoje são negligenciadas como, por exemplo, a importância da pesquisa empírica e a deficiência de teorias que se sustentam por inferências em vez de dados.

Na obra ele traz categorias bastante sofisticadas, propondo um modelo sequencial de entendimento da gênese dos delitos, em detrimento de um simultâneo, conjugando a ele a ideia de carreira que é muito bem exemplificada com os usuários de maconha.

Em relação a esses últimos, a riqueza da análise qualitativa é chocante, principalmente no 3º capítulo (tornando-se um usuário de maconha). Descobri coisas que jamais imaginei, mesmo conhecendo pessoas que fazem uso da droga.

Mas talvez, a contribuição mais importante da obra seja a ruptura com um paradigma etiológico centrado principalmente no indivíduo e a compreensão do desvio como uma ação coletiva. Além disso, a proposta de reconsiderar a teoria popularmente chamada de "da rotação" ou "do etiquetamento", que o autor refere chamar de "teorias interacionistas".

Resumindo: quero ser igual a ele quando crescer. Ótima leitura, recomendo-a a todas e todos.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

so, i read this book in order to gain insight on the field of deviance - why people act collectively to achieve some means to and end. what i got was a description of how to approach the question of deviance, as a mutual interaction between many forces: those who act deviantly, those who interpret the deviance, those who study the deviance, and those who enforce the punishment.

obviously i focused mainly on the chapter in the book about "dance musicians" - although i was a little disappointed (or maybe a little shocked) in Becker's conclusions. basically, becker purports that dance musicians isolate themselves from society through a series of deviant acts, and talk about audience members as "squares," placing them in a position of being despised. i mean, do dance band (or jobbing) musicians *really hate the audience that much? is this still the case? i spoke with a couple friends about this, and their answer was yes. i'm not so sure about that, but i'd like to pursue these questions. any thoughts would be much appreciated.

overall a helpful and stimulating read, but conclusions may be dramatically different in our day and age :)

<3

[Gala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Había leído fragmentos de este libro en Sociología del CBC y me había quedado en la memoria porque me lo seguí acordando por varios años. Es muy fácil de leer y entretenido, salvo cuando hace los estudios de caso de los músicos de baile que ahí me aburrió un poco. Me gusta mucho más cuando hace teoría general sobre los grupos marginales, sobre las normas y sobre cómo alguien se convierte en outsiders solo cuando otra persona lo categoriza como outsider, no por la acción que comete. Sin norma no hay infracción y sin infracción no hay marginal. Según leí en la contratapa Becker fue el primero en hablar de los grupos que crean las normas para categorizar a los marginales, y no solo de los marginales en sí.

[mel · Rating 4 out of 5]

i FINALLY finished this...got it on my first year at uni, started it and used it for classes but never finished it until today 😭 non fiction takes a lot more time for me to read i like to highlight stuff a lot and take notes and ofc having to look up words very often doesnt help but anyways i did it !

this is the kind of sociology that i love, the subject of deviance is especially interesting through an interactionnist approach. the last part of this book was kind of hard to read bc it's mostly just theory but i learned a lot of useful things so thank u mr. becker 😁

"... the interactionnist approach shows sociologists that a major element in every aspect of the drama of deviance is the imposition of definitions by those powerful enough or sufficiently legitimated to be able to do so "

[Regina Ochoterena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este libro expone la teoría de Becker y algunos casos de estudio aplicados a esta. Para Becker la desviación es producto de la negociación entre los individuos y un grupo de personas que pone las reglas, comprendiendo que hay desviaciones justificadas y toleradas con base en factores sociales que definen al infractor. De este modo, Becker estudia en este libro por qué alguien cometería un crimen y cómo lo justifica o qué formas de arte son marginales y cómo se negocia entre artistas, consumidores y críticos. Es un libro teórico-metodologico imperdible.

[LF Begoc · Rating 4 out of 5]

En vrai c'est le premier bouquin de socio que je me suis mangé de a à z. Il est super lisible ce qui je crois est l'un des fil conducteur de Becker: rendre accessible son taf. Par ailleurs vraiment dar, il alterne les chapitres plus théoriques et storytelling/compte rendu d'enquête. Un peu long parfois quand faut lire les expériences de toute la Jamaïque sur la première fois où ils ont fumé un bedo, mais dans l'ensemble je reco de fou.

[Ainhoa · Rating 1 out of 5]

putísimo mojón, ok con la sociología de la desviación pero este libro es infumable y es objetivamente una mierda como un castillo

[elo · Rating 3 out of 5]

vraiment la socio c’est pas mon truc

[Ronaldo Lima · Rating 1 out of 5]

É um livro mergulhado na ideologia liberal estadunidense que acredita fortemente estar fazendo uma ciência social neutra e justamente por isso melhor que todas as outras. A série de autodefesas que Becker faz contra seus críticos ao fim do livro deixa claro o viés conservador do seu pensamento. Em favor de uma objetividade ele se recusa a olhar para certos aspectos da realidade social vivenciada pelos desviantes. Onde está a análise das opressões hierárquicas? Das disputas de poder? Das questões raciais, de gênero e classe? Me parece que o autor busca reduzir o seu escopo de análise para uma melhor penetração no tema, mas acaba fazendo um raso estudo sobre as relações sociais que compõem a vida dos desviantes.

O livro é cheio desse liberalismo pobre que esconde o seu conservadorismo por trás de uma neutralidade científica que no seu melhor faz uma pobre análise dos desvios desses indivíduos e no seu pior interpola conceitos e conclusões que pouco têm a acrescentar ao assunto. Se o livro pelo menos fosse bem escrito ele ainda poderia valer como estudo sociológico, mas metodologicamente Becker fracassa ao tentar relacionar os tópicos do seu livro de forma coesa e pouco sucesso tem em estruturar a sua metodologia. Não me surpreende esse livro ter se tornado um clássico, ele é um dos melhores manuais científicos que o pensamento liberal poderia produzir para as ciências sociais.

[Elara Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

While exploring various sexual kinks, such as infantilism, through the lens of this book, I initially thought its interactionist framework would provide a compelling base for understanding. However, as I delved deeper, the structural explanations I sought for these behaviors remained elusive. The book’s neopositivist approach acknowledges the existence of observed phenomena, thereby validating behaviors often considered deviant. Yet, when trying to employ a structuralist approach within the interactionist framework to unravel the deeper dynamics of these kinks, I was met with disappointment. My experiences dealing with individuals who cannot articulate the root of their kinks have led me to increasingly consider neurobiological explanations as more plausible. The structural framework in the book, though initially promising, ultimately falls short of providing a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions underpinning sexual kinks. Despite these shortcomings, the book remains a seminal read, valued for its pioneering discussion on interactionism, even if it does not fully resolve the complexities I am investigating.

[Johan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is in my opinion a must read for sociologists. It’s a short read, highly accessible and handles the subject of deviance in an excellent and interesting way. Becker first talks about some of his theoretical aspects which he then applies to the field work he did, interviewing and observing marijuana users and dance band musicians. There’s plenty of interesting and sometimes outright funny quotes and remarks made by his informants.

My version came with a closing conference paper by the author about some of the critique that’s been directed against the labeling theory (which he argues wasn’t a theory at all in the first place). There he also takes up on some interesting methodological problems one might encounter while doing field work among social groups deemed deviant by mainstream society.

[Sara · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF
Maybe in the 60s this sociology study was ahead of its time, although now it is outdated and could benefit from a revised version. In a discussion about “deviants” and “rule-breakers” to give as examples “homosexuals and drug addicts” is wrong and disrespectful. Not to mention the examples given on the discussion of illness and signs of mental illness!
I had to read this book and particularly the “Becoming a Marihuana User” (which I read before starting this book) essay for a class, but I gave up on continuing reading it somewhere in section 1.

[Jesús Bedoya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una revisión teórico-conceptual del campo sociológico de la desviación. Howard S. Becker plantea las definiciones y tipologías del comportamiento desviado, entendido como toda acción que es de previo socialmente clasificada como reprochable y sancionada desde múltiples espacios normativos legales o morales.
Los ensayos más teóricos se complementan con dos estudios empíricos sobre los consumidores de marihuana y los músicos de jazz.

[Ivana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Besides learning a lot about musicians in Chicago and marihuana use this book enthusiastically defends interactionist approach to study of society and describes its advantureous nature.

Recommended as free-time academic reading.

[Loewieze · Rating 2 out of 5]

Compulsory for my criminolgy studies, but what a traumatic experience...

It was so hard to understand what Becker was trying to tell, and when I did understand, I did not agree at all.

Most theories were based on biased opnions or convictions, not on proven science.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting points but overall very dated and written for a different time. It was a hard read for me but I did finish it.

[Christian Kasmara · Rating 4 out of 5]

J’ai terminé Outsiders après un peu plus d’un mois de lecture, et ce que je peux dire d’emblée, c’est que ce livre n’est pas seulement un classique de la sociologie de la déviance, c’est un tournant dans la manière même de faire de la sociologie.

Howard Becker ne se contente pas de théoriser la déviance : il déconstruit radicalement l’idée qu’elle serait une « propriété » attachée à des comportements ou à des personnes en particulier. Ce n’est pas l’acte en soi qui est déviant, mais la manière dont il est perçu et traité par la société. Cette idée, fondatrice de l’interactionnisme symbolique (et héritière directe de l’École de Chicago), est posée clairement dès le départ :

« La déviance n’est pas une propriété simple […] mais le produit d’un processus qui implique la réponse des autres individus à ces conduites. »

Ce cadre conceptuel fait mouche. Ce que Becker propose, ce n’est pas une explication du « pourquoi » on devient déviant, mais un déplacement du regard vers le processus de désignation sociale. C’est le regard des autres, la réaction sociale, l’étiquetage qui fabriquent la figure du « déviant ». Et parfois même… l’amplifient :

« Quand le déviant se fait prendre […] ce traitement lui-même peut en outre contribuer à amplifier sa déviance. » (p.57)

Cette approche m’a particulièrement marqué car elle est à la fois sociologiquement rigoureuse et profondément humaniste. Becker ne moralise pas, il observe, écoute et analyse. Et surtout, il donne la parole à ceux qu’on n’écoute jamais.

Les chapitres consacrés aux fumeurs de marijuana et aux musiciens sont d’une finesse rare. J’ai trouvé ça très original, voire audacieux, qu’il s’appuie notamment sur les parcours de musiciens pour illustrer les logiques de déviance. Ça casse les clichés qu’on pourrait attendre dans ce genre d’étude (les « délinquants », les « jeunes des quartiers », etc.), et ça évite surtout de tomber dans une posture moralisatrice. C’est ce qui rend le livre intemporel, même si bien sûr, la recherche a évolué depuis.

Ce qui m’a également frappé, c’est sa critique implicite mais constante des institutions et de ceux qui définissent les normes. L’idée que :

« Pour crier au voleur, il faut y trouver un avantage »
ou encore que :
« les agents et les institutions chargés de faire respecter les lois tendent à avoir une vision pessimiste de la nature humaine »
m’a rappelé à quel point la déviance est avant tout une affaire de pouvoir, d’ordre symbolique et de narration sociale. Qui a le droit de dire ce qui est « normal » ou pas ? Qui décide de ce qu’on sanctionne, ou non ? Et pour quels intérêts ?

Becker va plus loin encore dans la critique en soulignant que de nombreuses études se contentent de dossiers judiciaires, sans jamais s’intéresser à ce que vivent ou pensent les « déviants » eux-mêmes. Or, lui fait l’inverse : il privilégie l’observation directe, les témoignages, les récits de vie. C’est peut-être banal aujourd’hui (encore que…), mais à l’époque, c’était franchement novateur. Cette méthode m’a captivé : on comprend les logiques de sens des individus, sans les écraser sous les catégories de la psychologie ou de la statistique.

L’un des passages qui m’a le plus fait réfléchir est celui sur l’éthique protestante et le refus de la perte de contrôle :

« L’individu devrait assumer la pleine responsabilité de ce qu’il fait et de ce qui lui arrive […] il ne devrait jamais rien faire qui puisse lui faire perdre la maîtrise de soi. »
C’est une grille morale très présente dans nos sociétés occidentales, et qu’on retrouve dans bien des discours encore aujourd’hui sur les drogues, mais aussi sur la pauvreté, la sexualité ou même les trajectoires professionnelles.

Enfin, petit bémol personnel : j’ai trouvé la postface (où Becker revient sur l’impact supposé de son livre dans les débats sur la légalisation de la marijuana) un peu superflue. Ce passage aurait pu faire l’objet d’un essai séparé, tant il est à part du cœur de l’œuvre.

[Jimi'O · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overview:
All in all the definition of it was interesting and the main scientific aspect of it which occurred after the examples was the most interesting. The start, especially as other reviewers have seen, has not aged well, given it mentions homosexuals and as deviants and uses it clumsily - though this was the sign of the times it should be added.

In thinking about it now, it has not really answered any questions, but it has made food for thought and I will add , as a sceptic of sociology, I found the information was both interesting and believable , even though it is an old text

About the structure of the book:
Initially the book gives a description of what it is talking about, and then gives examples,then some analysis. This Analysis is then closed with a lot of discussion of what the theory is based around , i.e. the labeling or interactionist theory (the author did not like the former term , for good reason I think).

This was the hardest part to get through, where examples of deviant groups are given, with some coming across quite cringe worthy i.e. the weed smoker and the Musician.

Half way through the book, he starts to discuss how the theory projects and how these groups work against each other. To say it was a 'string' case , where one case is mirrored by another was interesting and reasonable to assume.

This aspect is the most interesting as it describes how these groups interact and I found the author to be more through. He tries to be through it seems.

Then a lot of discussion is had about the state of sociology of the time as well, where it seems more research needs to be done. It is interesting how research is phrased about the upper echelon of the society - which is required and is hard to achieve; morally and practically.

Morality becomes a big part of the end analysis of sociology, as well as the critics of the theory. It is interesting to read that the deviant term is being stretched and criticised by many parties of different political motivation and what that criticism is from each side, i.e. a right winger would say it is breaking establishment, whilst a leftie at may suggest it is enforcing certain stereotypes and conventions.