SMOKING AS DEVIANCE
Serene Rabah
(NOTE: Appendices not available for posting)
Serene Rabah, from Lebanon, attends the University of Toronto where she is studying Sociology. Her paper examines Smoking as Deviance. Serene first e-mailed me with questions about Deviance and some guidance for additional sources on the topic, followed by her final product for my input. All in all, I think it is a pretty good paper and Serene has given me permission to post it for you.
Any questions or comments about his paper can be directed to Sociologist At Large. You are free to use any portion of this paper as a reference. Please refer to the MLA or APA handbook on proper citing of student papers.
INTRODUCTION
Deviance is recognised as a violation of cultural or societal norms. It is the behaviour that contravenes these 'norms' and challenges boundaries set by society. Though there are different forms of deviance- criminal tolerable, criminal non-tolerable, non-criminal non-tolerable and non-criminal tolerable- only one will be looked at in this essay. Deviance which is non-criminal and tolerable is viewed negatively but not stigmatised in the worst sense of the word. People who smoke cigarettes, tolerable deviants, are given the label of smokers but they are not viewed as badly as other deviants are, like drug users, alcoholics, and sexually promiscuous people.
This paper will examine this form of deviance because of the effect it has on society as a whole and because it is a recent category of deviance. Twenty years ago nobody would have considered smoking to be deviant but in today's society, because of the research that has been conducted and the new information discovered about the effects of smoke on smokers and non-smokers, it is clear that smokers are being pushed away slowly but surely. The Canadian government is doing everything in its power to stop people from smoking by raising taxes, implementing new laws on the big tobacco companies and on public facilities that used to have smoking sections and creating new smoking cessation programs for teens and for older smokers which educate and help reduce the chances of a relapse. This form of deviance is in my everyday life because of the reasons mentioned earlier and the fact that I am a smoker, and I am having problems quitting. The fact that there is a lack of information that supports smoking, other than by the big tobacco companies who are more deviant than the smokers, shows that it is a deviant subculture. I classify it as a subculture because all those involved in smoking know what they are doing, and they know that they are outside the norm for it. One of the main reasons why it is a good idea that smoking in restaurants and public spaces is prohibited is because families can now go to these places and not worry that some body is going to be smoking next to them. The only by-law that is unreasonable, in my opinion and many other smokers, is the by-law which limits smoking to a certain part of a bar or club. Places like bars and clubs are for partying and letting loose. In these places many different forms of what society would call deviance are taking place and everyone is participating. It is a world free of deviance ideologies when it comes to alcohol, smoking and drugs (depending on what party you attend). This subculture, that accepts smokers, is also seen as deviants by those who have power in society and who use it as a way of keeping themselves at the higher end of the social scale. I am not condoning smoking; I am simply presenting a perspective which is overlooked when talking about smoking. The side effects are the same- they are bad and can kill you- and that is not a topic of argument but the lack of literature discussing smoking as a 'good' social pastime and saying it is not bad is evidence enough that it is a deviant act in modern society.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
I chose the internet as my main focus for finding research because it was almost impossible to find literature on smoking anywhere else. I began my research by looking at magazines, and quickly realized that cigarette advertisements were no longer allowed. So I started to look on the internet for old copies of Canadian magazines, and began to come across documents about all the issues being talked about now. The issue of the banishment of 'light' and 'mild' labelled cigarettes and the effects cigarettes have on individuals and non-smokers. I came to the conclusion that since there was nothing, and I mean nothing, about smoking being good (not even from tobacco companies- all they do is use smart phrases to make the tobacco sound good but they cannot deny that smoking is bad), I decided to use that as the basis for smoking being deviant. Since the public generally knows that the toxins in cigarettes are extremely harmful, to smokers and non-smokers, they should realize how bad smoking is for them. The deviance comes in from that point. People know that smoking is bad and they continue to start. Although the numbers of teens beginning to smoke has decreased, it could be as a result of more strict external controls and not the fact that tobacco smoke is deadly are deadly (see Appendix C). I looked at about 30 different articles, a common theme was 'quit smoking'. The articles I originally started with were from health Canada and they were very polarizing towards the tobacco industry so I decided to look at it from the other side and that was to look at the tobacco industry and what they have to say about the remarks Allan Rock, health minister, was making.
For the most part they could not deny the fact that smoking was bad but they emphasised the fact that it was an individual decision and people know what the consequences are. I thought that the main description smokers had was that they were deviant but there was no literature identifying it as such due to the fact that it is only recently that smokers have been discussed. In the past smoking was not seen as a bad habit because everyone did it. In 'modern' society, like in today's time, we identify it as bad because of all the research that has emerged out of the effects of second hand smoke. That has lead to the segregation of smokers from society. The creation of the new by-laws prohibiting smoking in public spaces and limiting the smoking sections in bars and night clubs, the increase in taxes on cigarettes and the creation of new programs to help people quit (Allan Rock, 2001) are some of the many new things that further demonstrate that smoking is bad and therefore deviant. The main idea behind the new programs is that smokers cannot quit on their own and the chances of relapse are very high (see Appendix C). In all its effort Health Canada is taking on a paternal role for many reasons. They are concerned with the occupation of beds in hospitals and the abuse of the health care system by something that can be avoided, the aftermath of cigarette smoking, which Allan Rock talks about in a speech he made to the Canadian Medical Association in 2001. He also writes to the tobacco companies imploring them to remove labels such as 'light', 'mild', 'medium' and 'special' because he feels that Canadians are being deceived by such labels. That causes people to think that they are smoking a brand of cigarettes that is not as bad for them as regular cigarettes. The tobacco industry replied by saying that people smoke 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes because they know that there is lower tar content and if the strength qualifiers are removed people will not be able to tell the difference. In that sense not only are smokers considered deviant then the tobacco industry is also considered deviant because they are not willing to help out Health Canada in their attempt to lower the number of smokers in Canada (see Appendix C).
Smokers feel as if non-smokers think they are dirty, helpless and that they have nothing better to spend their money on. The truth is, in my opinion, is that the smokers of today were not being punished for smoking when they started which has lead to a group of people who are now being penalized for a habit they took up when they were younger and it was not bad to them then. It is true that the health effects of smoking are reason enough to quit but after 20, 30, or 40 years of smoking it is easier said than done, and so they are categorized as smokers and penalized as such, by people around them and by larger institutions who have the power to do so. Institutions whose job it is to look out for people's health, like Health Canada, are more concerned with the amount of money that is being spent annually on diseases that are a result of smoking, directly or second hand. In my opinion they are not concerned with the actual people. They call it their moral authority to look out for those who are suffering from smoke inhalation. They view the tobacco industry as un-cooperative in the battle against smoking. They use language that labels people into a category so that they could exercise their power over society. In the articles I came across the tobacco industry was willing to cooperate but they had some conditions of their own. It is not to say that the tobacco industry is motivated by the people, but at least they are willing to admit to what they are doing. It is clear that their main interest is their business and Health Canada is blurring the lines of who it is working for.
The way society views smokers is that they are weak willed and they need to be educated about the problems that arise out of their habit. The government creates laws that physically separate smokers from non-smokers and by that they are saying that they do not want them in the non-deviant society. They create things like education programs for smokers about their habit and they create programs to help them quit. I was not able to find information on the amount of people that had quit by themselves and not experience relapse. All the literature I have found has had negative insinuations towards smoking and the things it produces. In my opinion all the literature that I have found is focussed on making people quit smoking and it talks about the side effects of smoking and the costs it incurs on the individual and on society but non of it specifically out lines how it is seen in society. There are no opinions posted about how people feel about it and how it affects their lives. This I believe is resulting from the fact that people have just recently viewed smoking as a dangerous and unhealthy hobby. There are many psychological studies that have been conducted in regards to this topic but no sociology literature and how it affects society other than money wise.
THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS OF DEVIANCE
In Durkheim's study of suicide he identified different reasons for why people kill themselves; this applies to smoking because Durkheim promotes the idea of solidarity among individuals. Durkheim said that if people have a strong sense of community and they are well integrated they are less likely to kill themselves, or in this case start smoking (Thompson, p. 93; Deutschmann, p.53). Initially people who start smoking do so because they do not feel like they are part of a specific subculture, so they start smoking to feel like a part of a group, although it is a deviant group. That, in return brings about solidarity and they feel welcome in the deviant subculture. This applies to many different forms of deviance not just smoking.
The theory of social control also applies to this because in some circumstances there is a lack of external control mechanisms which allow the individual to either conform or not. Some people may have more freedom in the way they conduct their everyday lives and so they begin to smoke others may conform because of the lack of freedom they have from the family or the institutions around them. At the same time according to Durkheim the individual can rebel against too much control. In suicide, this is called the altruistic form of suicide. In this case people rebel against the external controls, this is when there is too much regulation and integration. This is also applicable to gangs, drugs and alcohol abuse (Bachmann et al., 1997, ch. 4). Bachmann et al. identify smoking as a gateway drug which can lead to alcohol abuse and elicit drug use, and they identify the different health effects smoking has on individuals (p. 50). The theory they discuss about smoking is related to Durkheim's analysis of suicide and integration. They talk about stability and its role it plays in the development into adolescence and adulthood. Stability is identified to be the leading cause of young smokers due tot heir transition into young adulthood (Bachmann et al., p.51). They say if there are high levels of stability during this transition the pupil is not likely to begin smoking but if there are low levels of stability smoking is a possibility. They do not discuss causality. They also believe that when an individual leaves high school, graduates or not they are more susceptible to higher levels of smoking (Bachmann et al., p. 51). They say that they believe that there is a "growing tendency to view cigarette use as a form of drug dependence." (Bachmann et al., p, 51). In this quote they are discussing the views people have of smokers and they it is not a positive image. This view has been increasing as more research has been done on the topic of the side effects of smoking. Another component of their theory is the stress levels associated with post high school activities. Bachmann et al. consider different jobs and the effects they have on smoking patterns (p. 57-61), they examine different living arrangements and marital statuses and their influence on the rates of smoking (p. 61-63, 67-71), and finally the effects that parenthood and pregnancy have on the rates and habits of smokers.
The theories presented by Bachmann et al., are supportive of the idea that smoking is an individual choice that is based on the need to cope and deal with the stress and instability that is presented to youths when they are finished high school. To argue their point Koven (1996) has come up with a theory that claims it is not necessarily the people who are at fault but the industry. He claims that the advertising campaigns launched by the tobacco industry to lure prospective smokers, is so clever and catchy that it is difficult to get away from the images and gimmicks presented by them. He claims that is also the reason why rates of smoking have decreased since the banishment of cigarette ads in magazines and news papers. In his book "Smoking: the story behind the haze" he talks about smoking as being the responsibility of everyone but the smoker. He talks about the different things that have been created to combat smoking in the last decade (p. 83-95). He starts the book by talking about the different things that can result from smoking, eighteen things in particular that he talks about (Koven, p. 19-32). These range from asthma to cancer. Then he begins talking about the different people in the media that have been affected by smoke in one way or another. In the end he gets to the point that he media is the one to blame for people beginning to smoke. He says that the tobacco industry needs to replace the people that die from smoking on a daily basis with new smokers so they target the young high school students who still do not know more than smoking is bad for you (Koven, p.1). Since the affects of smoking are long term and it is easy for people to ignore the warning from their doctors and continue to smoke (Koven, p. 17-36, Chambers, p.379). Koven then goes on to talk about the different ads that have been created to capture the women and children of society. The camel ads and the Virginia Slims ads were the two that he focused on throughout the book. Koven discusses the Virginia Slims ad and how it was designed to catch women. In the 1920s when women were in need of independence and power in society, Virginia Slims was the company gave that to them. They had slogans like 'you've come a long way baby' in commercials that said things like 'the man is the master and the women were slaves' and women won them all in the 1920s (Koven, p.127). Things like that were specifically designed for women. Virginia Slims also market the cigarette as slim and made especially for the woman's hand (Koven p.127). Overall, his theory is that smoking is not the result of an individual decision but a result of the conditioning that the tobacco industry has done to people to make them embark on a habit that is guaranteed to kill them before they can quit (Koven, p. 127).
Chambers (1987) identified the median as a source of influence over the behaviour of the youth population. He supports Koven in his theory of the effects of the media and he also supports Bachmann et al. in their theory of vulnerability, stress and stability. Chambers says that a combination of both those theories offers the most applicable explanation for the reasons behind smoking. One thing all the theories agree on is the severity of the effects of smoking. Chambers presents the idea that the behaviour, smoking, is something also learned in the house hold (p.380). He argues that among women, the ones who occupied high positions were more likely to smoke and the ones in blue-collar work were not, the reverse was true for men (p.380). Chambers has not found any difference in race or ethnicity in terms of amount smoked or age of onset. (p.380). He talks about the difference in smoking patterns in different sectors of the economy (Chambers, p.388). Chambers also talks about the different problems women encounter as a result of smoking and how that acts as a deterrent for most women (p. 390-392). As discussed in the article about Women's Attitudes towards Smoking (see Appendix D) even women who smoke feel repulsed by the smell of smoke and they acknowledge that the risks do not out weigh the benefits. In this study the women discuss different methods to hide their smoking. One of the reasons they wanted to hide it was because of the smell, another reason was because usually women thought that their parents would be very disappointed if they found out (see Appendix D). In such case they knew they were doing something bad but they did it anyways and they did it in groups and helped each other hide it which I believe promotes solidarity among smokers. In most circumstances women started smoking because of the weight loss factor associated with smoking (see Appendix D). Smoking presented an alternative method of weight loss in a short amount of time. Furthermore, smoking was used as a stress controller. Women started smoking because of the amount of stress that they experienced in their everyday lives (see Appendix D).
ASSESSMENTS OF 'DEVIANCE'
In terms of the objective and the subjective paradigms, smoking is seen in two different ways. In the objective perspective it is seen as a part of the system. It is seen as belonging to society and contributing to the proper functioning of society. It contributes to society because of explanations like the power relations reaffirmation structure, which says that there are certain people in certain positions so that the powerful can keep their status. If smokers were to all of a sudden disappear the position of those in power would be jeopardised due to the fact that they use the label of smokers to antagonize those who smoke. The label is given to those in certain economic conditions that allow others to keep their status in society. In the objective, deterministic perspective it hold that individuals are a product of their environment and it is explained as something external to the individual (Podilckak, 2001). On the same level the subjective paradigm would suggest that the deviance is a product of individual choice and is voluntaristic.
Within both these paradigmatic views there are further explanations as to how deviance can be explained. The radical change perspective holds that here are always transformations in society and the rapid change is what causes the deviance. This would hold true to Bachmann's theory that people begin smoking as result of the stress and instability they encounter in their everyday lives. This perspective also holds that there are distinct stages that society goes through and that these stages are what contribute to the development and improvement of the society as a whole. This applies to Koven's theory because he says that as the media is less focused on smoking so will the people in that society. In the past smoking was not viewed negatively and as time as passed society entered a stage of enlightenment about the effects of smoking. There is an evolutionary process which society goes through and there are certain things that come with that change. In this case smoking became deviant and is now being treated as an addiction problem and in psychological terms is being termed as a personality disorder like alcoholism. In the order/census perspective change is seen as incremental and it tries to describe how things are held together. Under this theory of deviance, smoking is seen as having a functional role in society because although it is a deviant act it is explained as another part of society which is a necessary component and is held to society by a greater common interest. The idea is that there is something in the center holding things together. This is where the idea of solidarity is brought in. The individual who smokes is part of a larger sub group of society which is external to it. The group that is formed out of smokers recognizes itself as a labelled deviant group but does not think, for the most part, that he acts which they are doing are deviant since all members are doing it. At that point it would be difficult to label any person in the group as deviant because they are all participating in the 'deviant' activity. Going back to the discussion of 'deviant' groups in class, it was difficult to use a 'negative' label against an individual if you were a 'negative' label your self. The same applies to this. Smokers cannot antagonize smokers but they can antagonize heroin addicts because their addiction is far more 'deviant' than theirs. The social hierarchy of deviance discussed in class perfectly represents this theory. There is a scale of severity of 'deviance' established by society and as mentioned earlier; because of the side effects of smoking it is climbing the scale to a severe 'deviant' subculture. The theories discussed above fit into one paradigmatic view or the other. They are arguing different causes of smoking and they are supporting them with what is seen in society. Bachmann's theory for example supports the idea that smoking is an individual choice that is representative of their stress level and the amount of stability in their lives. Some may argue that there are many alternatives to dealing with stress than smoking, but it is easier to start a bad habit than a good one, and I think that is just common knowledge.
The sociology of regulation is concerned with seven different things, and the sociology of radical change is concerned with seven things that counter the regulation perspective. The first of these seven things in regulation is the status quo, which describes the way society is right now and its evolution, the radical change perspective talks about radical change and the fact that society is in constant motion of change. Deviance is seen as a process which will change. The second in regulation is social order and the idea that different parts of society have different functions which hold it together. Making deviance necessary because it sets the boundaries for which society operates: smokers show non-smokers that smoking is bad and if they start then they will suffer great health problems, acts as a deterrent. The radical change's second component is the theory that there is structural conflict and it is when different groups have different vested interests which causes conflict in the system: the tobacco industry and Health Canada. The third in regulation is that we submit to the values of the group and deviance is a rejection of societal values which are known by all: the smoker is still part of society but it viewed negatively and must be watched. The third in radical change is the different modes of domination which makes deviance and ideological struggle. It suggests that somebody is using power label someone because of economic contradictions: occasional smokers are still classified as smokers and are treated as such. The fourth in regulation is social integration and cohesion and the role they play in society, the idea that everyone needs their own individuality. In radical change the fourth is contradiction, meaning that not all societal groups are following the same societal values. The deviance is a threat to certain people because of their position in the world. In regulation the fifth is, solidarity, as discussed earlier, solidarity within the deviant group because of common understanding of societal expectations smoking is seen as a moral and psychological breakdown. In radical change, the theory of emancipation is the fifth, and it talks about deviance as an individual choice. In this perspective deviance seen as a positive element of society because it challenges societal expectations. The sixth and seventh elements of regulation and radical change: need for satisfaction and actuality (regulation) and deprivation and potentiality (radical change) are not applicable to my deviance my opinion. Therefore although smoking is a negative act and there are many different explanations for the reasons behind smoking it cannot be completely understood as an isolated event in society. It serves some purposes, like setting boundaries, at the same time it was labelled as a deviant act by those who would benefit from the label (it is hard to say who).
CONCLUSION
So as it is seen there are many different forms of deviance and they are all culturally identified. The smoking subculture is aware of the position it has in modern society and it knows that its role has changed over time. It is aware of the fact that to many people it is considered to be a deviant subculture. The theories presented about smoking are interconnected. They discuss the fact that smoking is a result of stress and stability (Bachmann et al., 1997); smoking should be blamed on the immoral tobacco industry (Koven, 1996); the idea that both the media and the individual are to blame for their smoking habits (Chambers, 1987); and finally the individual is responsible and has made a conscious decision to start (see Appendix D). It would be difficult to identify which theory 'best' explains 'my deviance' because they all are applicable. There are many different ways of looking at this form of 'deviance'. The different perspectives offer a plethora of explanations which would aid us in understanding the reasons for this deviance being termed that. At this point in time though, since smoking was recently classified as a deviant act, I don't think that people want to be enlightened and understand the reasons why people smoke, they simply want them stop their habit so that they and those around them do not suffer in the long run. Smoking is different than other forms of deviance because of the health risks associated with it, for the smoker and for the non-smoker. That is reason behind its negative view in recent years.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bachmann, J.G. et al. 1997, Smoking, Drinking, and Drug Use in Young Adulthood: The impacts of New Freedoms and New Responsibilities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey.
Chambers, Carl. D. 1987, Chemical Dependencies: Patterns, Costs, and Consequences. Ohio University Press, Athens
Deutschmann, Linda B. 1990, Deviance and Social Control. 2nd ed. ITP Nelson, Toronto.
Koven, Edward L. 1996, Smoking: The Story Behind The Haze. Nova Science publishers Inc., New York.
Stebbins, Robert A. 1996, Tolerable Deviances: Living with Deviance. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, Toronto.
Thompson, Kenneth, 1985, Readings from Emile Durkheim. Routledge, New York.
