Deviance And Relativist Conception Of General Strain Theory

Deviance is defined through two perspectives “normative conception” and “relativist conception” (Inderbitzin, Bates, & Gainey, 2017). By definition, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) described normative conception as “the conception of deviance that assumes there is a general set of norms of behavior, conduct, and conditions on which all individuals can agree” (p.577). Additionally, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) defined relativist conception as the assumption “that the definition of deviance is constructed based on interactions with those in society” (p. 578). Furthermore, Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory (GST), indicates the negative influences in one’s life and the stressors caused by them, coupled with the inability of an individual to achieve a certain level of success as defining factor in why an individual chooses to engage in deviant behavior. Moreover, the societal “norms” concept developed by Sumner (1906) further defines how behavior becomes labeled deviant.
Sumner defined these “norms” as “rules of behavior that guide people’s actions” and furthermore, classified them as “folkways, mores, and law” (as cited in Inderbitzin et al., 2017, p.3). The category of “norms” that the individual’s behavior violates ultimately constitutes which level of deviance the individual has committed. Often, these behaviors are labeled as antisocial and will result in simple judgment. Conversely, certain behaviors are condemned by society and can result in both judgment and legal sanctions. Yet, not all behavior rendered deviant is always considered illegal or criminal. Gambling falls into both of these