Positivist vs. Constructivist Theories of Deviant Behavior
This paper examines two contemporary theoretical frameworks for understanding deviant behavior — the positivist perspective and the constructivist perspective — and contrasts them with three discredited biological theories: Sheldon's Body Type Theory, Lombroso's born-criminal theory, and the XYY (extra Y chromosome) theory. The positivist view treats deviance as an observable, causally determined phenomenon, while the constructivist view holds that deviance is relationally defined and exists only in the perceptions of observers. The paper explains why each of the three older biological theories has been scientifically discredited, and concludes that no single biological marker reliably identifies criminal or deviant tendencies.
- Introduction: Overview of theories examined in the paper
- The Positivist Perspective on Deviance: Deviance as objectively real and causally determined
- The Constructivist Perspective on Deviance: Deviance as relative and socially perceived
- Sheldon's Theory of Body Types: Body morphology linked to personality and criminality
- Lombroso's Born-Criminal Theory: Physical traits as markers of innate criminality
- The XYY Chromosome Theory: Extra Y chromosome as a supposed criminal predictor
- Summary and Conclusion: All three biological theories found scientifically unsupported
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly contrasts two living theoretical frameworks (positivist and constructivist) against three historically discredited biological theories, giving the reader a logical comparative structure.
- It provides specific examples for each theory — such as Lombroso's list of physical characteristics and the XYY "super male" concept — grounding abstract claims in concrete detail.
- The conclusion ties all five theories together with a unified evaluative statement, reinforcing the paper's central argument that no biological marker reliably predicts deviance.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical analysis: it does not simply describe each theory in isolation but consistently evaluates each against the standard of empirical validity, noting where control groups were absent (Lombroso), where consensus is lacking (constructivism), and where subsequent research overturned earlier findings (XYY theory). This move — presenting a theory, then assessing its evidentiary basis — is a foundational skill in sociology and criminology writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then devotes one section each to the positivist and constructivist perspectives. Three subsequent sections address the discredited biological theories in turn. A short concluding section synthesizes the findings. The numbered-section format makes the paper easy to follow and signals a clear analytical agenda from the outset.
Introduction
This paper examines two theories of deviant behavior that represent current thinking in sociology and criminology: the positivist perspective and the constructivist perspective. It also examines three theories now considered outdated — Sheldon's Theory of Body Types, Lombroso's Theory, and the XYY Chromosome Theory — and explains why each has been discredited by subsequent research.
The Positivist Perspective on Deviance
The positivist perspective views deviance as "absolutely or intrinsically real, in that it possesses some qualities that distinguish it from conventionality" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 4). Deviant individuals are viewed as having specific characteristics that make them different from conventional individuals. Criminologists around the turn of the twentieth century held that criminals possessed specific biological traits not found in law-abiding individuals. These traits included "defective genes, bumps on the head, a longer lower jaw, a scanty beard, and a tough body build" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 4) — all considered inherited characteristics. The prevailing belief was therefore that criminals were born rather than made, and that they were "feebleminded, psychotic, neurotic, psychopathic, or otherwise mentally disturbed" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., pp. 4–5).
Today's positivist sociologists have, however, "largely abandoned the use of biological and psychological traits to differentiate criminals from noncriminals" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5). Instead, the role of social factors in determining an individual's criminal status is now recognized. The positivist sociologist holds that deviant behavior is "an observable object in that a deviant person is like an object, a real something that can be studied objectively" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5). It is assumed that sociologists "can be as objective in studying deviance as natural scientists can be in studying physical phenomena" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5). From this standpoint, the individual is treated much like a natural object of study.
The positivist view also holds that deviance is "determined or caused by forces beyond the individual's control" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5). Contemporary positivist sociologists do, nonetheless, assume that human beings possess free will — and this assumption does not undermine the scientific principle of determinism, since "no matter how much a person exercises free will by making choices and decisions, the choices and decisions do not just happen but are determined by some causes" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5).
The Constructivist Perspective on Deviance
The constructivist perspective challenges the positivist view and holds a "relativist view that deviant behavior by itself does not have any intrinsic characteristics unless it is thought to have these characteristics" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5). Constructivists argue that apparently inherent deviant characteristics do not arise from the behavior itself but from the perceptions of observers — in other words, "an act appears deviant only because some people think it so" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 5).
Studies of law enforcement agents conducted from a constructivist standpoint have found "a huge lack of consensus on whether a person should be treated as a criminal. The police often disagree among themselves as to whether a suspect should be arrested, and judges often disagree among themselves as to whether those arrested should be convicted or acquitted" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 8). This variation is further illustrated by the fact that a specific behavior may be deemed deviant in one state while the same behavior is not considered criminal in another. Constructivists "strongly emphasize this realistic view, according to which deviance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" (Pearson Higher Education, n.d., p. 8).
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.