Oxford University Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

Marxist Theories of Deviance and Teleology: A Critique of Spitzer Author(s): Allan Horwitz Source: Social Problems, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Feb., 1977), pp. 362-363Published by: on behalf of the Oxford University Press Society for the Study of Social

ProblemsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/800087Accessed: 31-05-2015 15:52 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/800087?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Sun, 31 May 2015 15:52:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARXIST THEORIES OF DEVIANCE AND TELEOLOGY: A CRITIQUE OF SPITZER

ALLAN HORWITZ Rutgers University

In "Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance" (Social Problems, June, 1975) Steven Spitzer has attempted to develop a general Marxian theory of deviance processing. However, like other attempts to develop "conflict" or "Marxian" theories of deviance processing (cf. Chambliss, 1973; Quinney, 1974) Spitzer's analysis lacks the basis of a true theory: that it be demonstrable. Since Spitzer states his "theory" in teleological form, it is unclear what evidence could refute his assertions.

For Spitzer, "deviants are culled from groups who create specific problems for those who rule" and "their problematic quality ultimately resides in their challenge to the basis and form of class rule" (640). The forms and functions of the deviance processing systems which arise to control problem populations stem from the "needs" of the rulers of the capitalist system to preserve hegemonic, orderly control over the rest of the population. When one form of deviance processing no longer serves the "needs" of the rulers, another more effec- tive form will arise. For example, Spitzer states that segregative controls such as prisons and mental hospitals lead to high costs and the overproduction of deviants (648). Since these segregative controls cannot resolve the problems of surplus population and surplus produc- tion, the major problems faced by monopoly capitalism, alternative deviance processing systems such as "normalization," "conversion," "containment," and "support of criminal enterprise," are developed.

Spitzer's analysis is a classic example of teleological reasoning: a social structure is caused by the needs of the social order that the fact fulfills (Turner, 1973: 19). The cause of deviance processing systems (such as their conscious development by the ruling class, pressure from middle-class interest groups, the interests of law enforcement and treatment personnel), is not distinguished from the function of these systems for the capitalist economy. The "cause" of virtually any form of deviance processing-community treatment centers, halfway houses, old age homes-is found in the "needs" of the capitalist system which these structures fulfill. Since Spitzer uses this form of teleological reasoning, his "theory" generates no testable propositions but provides only a framework to interpret reality after the fact. If repressive control systems are adopted it is because they are most effective in maintaining the dominance of the ruling class. If, however, integrative controls replace repressive controls, they are evidently better suited to solving the needs of the ruling class. Whichever control system is adopted must, be definition, fit the needs of the ruling class. There is no set of circumstances to falsify the theory: hence it is untestable.

Teleological explanations such as Spitzer's need not be immune from dispute. (Cf. Stinch- combe, 1968: Chapter Three). If Spitzer would specify a range of deviance processing systems a society might adopt and specify the type most effectively meeting a defined set of "needs" of the ruling class, the theory would be testable. The analyst would predict that one deviance processing system would be adopted because it most effectively stabilizes the rule of the capitalist class. If this system is not adopted, the theory is false. Without

1 This critique will consider only one of the problems in Spitzer's theory, that of teleology. A number of other problems are present in the theory including the failure to consider alternative explanations of the same phenomena, the lack of definitions of key phenomena such as "ruling class" and "problem behaviors," and the model of class structure used in the theory.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Sun, 31 May 2015 15:52:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Communication 363

such a procedure, whichever social control system is adopted becomes the one which best stabilizes ruling class dominance. The results of the analysis are known in advance-control systems are functional for the capitalist system-and the analysis becomes an ingenious attempt to show how control systems actually fit the needs of the capitalist system. As Spitzer's theory is presented, nothing gives us a hint of what could be a refutation of a Marxian theory of deviance.

Marxian theories of deviance and social control may be as demonstrable as any other theory as long as the theorist is willing to construct propositions that are susceptible of proof. I hope Spitzer will do so in his attempts to test his theory. In addition, these criticisms of Spitzer are not unique to Marxian theories. The same problems of teleology and proof apply to Parsonian theories of law (cf. Black, 1970; Mayhew, 1970). Until we are willing to cast theories, of whatever philosophical persuasion, in testable form and consider evidence which might disprove them, it is unlikely that the field of deviance and social control will move beyond the stage of social philosophy into one of scientific development.

REFERENCES

Black, Donald 1970 "On law and institutionalization." Sociological Inquiry 40 (Winter): 179-182.

Chambliss, William 1973 "Functional and conflict theories of crime." MSS Modular Publications, Module 17.

Mayhew, Leon 1970 "Teleology and values in the social system: reply to Donald J. Black." Sociological Inquiry

40 (Winter): 182-185. Quinney, Richard

1974 Critique of the Legal Order. Boston: Little Brown. Spitzer, Steven

1975 "Toward a marxian theory of deviance." Social Problems 22 (June): 638-651. Stinchcombe, Arthur

1969 Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Turner, Jonathan

1974 The Structure of Sociological Theory. New York: Dorsey.

This content downloaded from 128.184.36.22 on Sun, 31 May 2015 15:52:11 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions