The case of the Weathermen:
social reaction and radical
commitment
P au l W alto n *
„A new W eatherm an catchw ord was „b arb arism ”. The W eatherm en
see them selves as playing a role sim ilar to th a t o f the B arbarian tribes,
such as the V andals and the Visigoths, who invaded and destroyed the
decadent, co rru p t Rom e. (Som e W eatherm en even suggested changing
their nam e to the V andals. This w ould have a double m eaning: first a
reference to the b arb arian tribe; second a reference to the line from
Bob D ylan’s „S u b terran ean H om esick Blues” - „T he pum p w on’t w ork
cause the vandals stole the handle”.) The nam e W eatherm en com es from
a line in the sam e song - „Y ou d o n ’t need a W eatherm an to know which
• way the wind blow s” (1).
G iven the rapid spread of m ilitant political deviancy in the U .S.A . and the
U .K ., there is little indication th a t sociologists are seriously attem pting to
study or analyse the phenom enon. Indeed, w ith a few notable exceptions, the
em ergence o f groups like the W eatherm en and M ad D og in the U .S.A . and
the A ngry Brigade in B ritain has led m erely to shoulder-shrugging, easy
dism issal, o r such theoretical gems as the statem ent th a t these deviants are
either „ o u t o f their caps”, o r „financed by C .I.A .”.
This is n o t surprising, for, despite the emergence o f a m ass student revolt
in M ay 1968, despite the rise o f violent revolutionary youth m ovem ents,
there is still little b u t anecdotes and speculation to guide one in the study
o f political deviancy. This fact in itself expresses and crystallises the objec­
tions which m any radical deviancy theorists have felt tow ards social theory —
* Born 1944. E d u cated a t the U niversities o f V ork an d D u rh am in E ngland. N ow lectures in
sociology a t the U niversity o f B radford.
A u th o r’s note: U nless otherw ise stated all italics are m ine.
12
namely its inability to deal w ith the u n o rth o d o x except in a trivial m anner.
Indeed, m uch of even the very best o f recent A m erican theorising looks
mundanely like „com m onsense” when faced w ith the task o f analysing
political radicalism . An exam ple here is L em ert’s clear statem ent of the
Social Reaction perspective. He notes the tu rn aw ay from th at sociology
which rested on the belief th a t crime and deviance give rise to social control
and he states:
„1 have come to believe th a t the reverse idea, i.e. th a t social control leads
to deviance is equally tenable and is a potentially richer prem ise for
studying deviance in m odern society” (2).
Now this may have been fruitful in redirecting crim inology and sociology
in its research, but it is no news to an y body w ho has looked at the radical
left that, one im portant com m on stran d in their argum ents has been th at
many of the imperatives for their actions flow from the recognition o f the
repressive existence of social control. A t its crudest, the position of radicals
has always been that social control prevents social change, and th a t therefore
social control leads to the need for social revolution, o r political deviation.
Of course Lemert m eant m uch m ore th a n this by his statem ent — as the rest
of his work indicates — yet even the m ost advanced social reaction positions
do little more than indicate th a t the pow erful have a virtual m onopoly over
the way in which social action is defined and treated. Im p o rtan t as this
recognition is, with all its im plications fo r detailed research, it rem ains
/•e-cognition. M oreover, when H ow ard Becker stated the following, he was
dealing with yesterday’s papers as far as the left was concerned:
„The question of w hat the purpose or goal (function) o f a group is and.
consequently, what things will help o r hinder the achievem ent o f th at
purpose, is very often a political question . . . if this is true, then it is
likewise true that the questions o f w hat rules are to be enforced, w hat
behaviour regarded as deviant and w hat people labelled as outsiders m ust
also be regarded as political” (3).
This, then, is the real paradox. H ow do we apply social o r deviancy theory
to the understanding of a deviant group whose perspectives and reflexivity
are often as developed, and in some cases, superior, to the fram ew ork
which is intended to explain them ? If we intend to m ove beyond mere
description then we have a rationale fo r o u r study, b u t it is precisely at
this juncture that present social analysis is weak. It is, therefore, not so
surprising that, as Stuart H all has indicated, political deviancy does not
13
figure prom inently in the study of deviant behaviour. He states:
„B ecker suggests th a t this is because, in m any form s of social deviancy,
’the conflicting segm ents or ran k s are not organised for conflict; no one
attem p ts to alter the shape o f the hierarchy’. This, despite the definition
of deviancy as a ,social problem ’, the labelling process, and the
enforcem ent o f social controls all contain an intrinsically political
com ponent. H orow itz and Liebow itz argue th at ’deviance has been
studied by em ploying a consensus-w elfare m odel rather th an a conflict
m odel’. This has tended to suppress the political elem ent in deviant
transactio n s w ith straight society” (4).
Now it seems to me th a t the problem goes deeper th an this question of our
m odels, and is in itself fruitful in th a t it can force us to re-exam ine som e of
the salient assum ptions o f deviancy theory. It is fo r this reason th at I wish
to use an analysis of the W eatherm en to repeat and develop one or two
criticism s o f existing theory which have appeared elsewhere (5). W hat recent
developm ents in deviancy theory have done is to enable m any theorists to rid
themselves o f the ridiculous. By the ridiculous I m ean the kind o f social
theorizing w hich w rote off m uch deviant behaviour as clinically pathological
o r irratio n al. It has rid us o f the need to take seriously statem ents like the
follow ing which reflect little m ore th an the ideological prejudices o f the
psychiatric profession. T aken from a piece by Seym our L. H alleck, it rem inds
us why we are often self-congratulatory and com placent a b o u t the advances
deviancy theory has m ade. W riting on „W hy S tudents P ro test” he asserts:
„ . . . there can be no true understan d in g o f such a com plex hum an
phenom enon as protest w ithout exam ining the specific psychological
needs o f individual protesters. Psychiatrists often find th a t a patient will
jo in a p ro test m ovem ent im m ediately follow ing a failure in school or
rejection by a close friend. In such cases, activism m ust be understood as
som ething m ore than an intellectual or idealistic com m itm ent. There
appears to be an inverse relationship betw een teaching o f despair and
activism .
A t the tim e o f Berkeley Free Speech controversy, adm issions to the
student psychiatric clinic dropped m arkedly. I have noted sim ilar
trends a t the U niversity o f W isconsin. D uring a massive protest o f the
d raft which resulted in a sit-in, three o f m y patients cancelled their
therap y hours. In each case they rem arked th a t psychotherapy seemed
m eaningless when there were so m any im p o rtan t things to d o ” (6).
14
Now deviancy theory certainly teaches its students to distrust
psychologising and to seek analysis which is tru e r to the deviant phenom enon,
but whether it can really move beyond attack in g this perspective is
questionable. Its attraction and success so far depends on its superiority
over the comments of professional psychiatrists, psychologists, and
criminologists whose theories take flight into m ysticism. Deviancy theory
looked radical for it enabled its students to m ock those who resorted to a
language similar to that of their paym asters. „T hose bum s a t Berkeley” as
President Nixon would have it, or, in the w ords o f a d eparted M inister of
Education, Edward Short: „ . . . it is high tim e one o r tw o o f those thugs were
out on their neck . . . they are ju st a m ixed group o f w reckers, some m aoist,
some just Brand X revolutionaries” (7). A m ongst this melee o f stigm ata and
stereotyping deviancy theorists have looked radical in their explanations.
Yet, as the transactionalist wing of deviancy theory has show n, explanations
and definitions of reality are transacted betw een the pow erful and others.
In this respect — despite m uch belief to the co n trary — the sociology of
deviancy is no exception. F or as radicals have always insisted, sociology
has no special claims, it m ust be constantly questioned for it too is social
thought which is produced in a pow er-governed society.
The Social Reaction Approach
Now what does all of this say ab o u t the utility o f present deviancy theory.
Aside from encouraging scepticism, it suggests we should thoroughly
examine the assum ptions of deviancy theory, we m ust take our theory
seriously, for we only understand the w orld in term s o f those theories. There
is no a-theoretical approach to some „real” world: the w orld is situated and
located via our theory, and, in this sense, there are only two types o f theory:
the good and the bad. Some of it is bad — fo r m uch deviancy theory
perpetuates reification; it accepts an estranged society as norm al and reads
off its problems from such an assum ption. H ere, an o th er p a rad o x appears,
for it is in the under-studied area o f political deviancy th a t such lim itations
would be clearly exposed, as H orow itz and Liebow itz note in their seminal
article, written in 1968:
„The traditional distinction between social problem s and the political
system is becoming obsolete. Behaviour which in the past was perceived
as social deviance is now assum ing well-defined ideological and
organisational contours; while political m arginals are ad opting a
15
deviant life-style. This m erger o f social deviance and political
m arginality creates a new style o f politics, based on strategies th a t are
trad itionally considered illegitim ate. The result o f this trend is estim ated
to be an increase in the use o f violence as a political tactic, and the
developm ent o f a revolutionary p o tential am ong the expanding ranks of
deviant sub-groups” (8).
These insights have been rapidly confirm ed — for the end o f the Sixties and
the beginning of the Seventies have indeed witnessed an increase in the use
of violence as a political tactic, and has in consequence forced som e of us
to transcend o u r Ivory Tow er theories. In England, the first really cogent
a ttac k on deviancy theory was produced by T aylor and T aylor in their
radical article „W e Are All D eviants N ow ”, in which they suggested th at
m uch deviancy theory is underpinned by little m ore th an a conservative
theory of values. They argued that:
„T he ’m agic’ w ords in this type o f theo risatio n are values, goals, norm s
and status. Individuals in society are seen as playing a gigantic fru it­
m achine, b u t the m achine is rigged and only some players are consistently
rew arded. The deprived ones then resort to kicking the m achine or to
leaving the fun-palace altogether (e.g. attack s on property or involvem ent
in d rug-taking sub-cultures). N obody appears to ask w ho put the
m achine there in the first place, an d w ho it is w ho takes the profits.
C riticism o f the gam e is confined to changing the pay-out sequence so
th a t the deprived can get a better deal. W hat at first sight looks like a m ajor
critique o f society (th at is, anom ie theory) ends by taking the existing
society fo r granted. M uch o f the sam e m ay be said ab o u t labelling (or
tran sactional) theory which also attra c ts its share o f radical adherents.
This concentrates on the way in which those who accidentally or
unintentionally b reak the rules governing the playing o f the m achine
are dealt w ith by society, by describing the way in which people are
defined by others (by social reaction) as delinquents, drug addicts, or
m ental patients. In other w ords, it is concerned with those w ho by their
actions tu rn others into social problem s. A gain, w hat starts out as an
attack upon the official an d unofficial pow er-holders in society (e.g.
p ro b atio n officers, teachers an d policem en) emerges as a com plex
theoretical edifice w ith arguable psychological assum ptions and conside­
rable political am biguity. O f course there are definers and defined b u t w hat
do the definers represent? W hat interests are they defending? How do their
actions reinforce the existing nature o f capitalist society? No answ ers to
16
such questions are provided: the definers are a group of free-floating
’baddies’ ” (9).
It is to this latter theory th a t we now tu rn — for labelling theory appeared
to many of us to offer a radical prom ise which m ay now appear unfulfilled.
We must know why. The short answ er is th a t whilst it acts as an explosive
démystifier of cruder, m ore reified theories, in itself it is n o t so m uch a theory
as a method. W hat labelling theorists or transactionalists have done is to
inform the study of deviancy by borrow ing from phenom enology. They
have insisted that a definition or label is som ething endow ed on action, and
that it is not the action itself. They have thus insisted th a t the sam e action can
be endowed with several m eanings, and th a t these m ay vary. But if it is true
that certain social meanings are only acceptable in certain social contexts,
then the social meanings of acts and the choice to com m it them are not as
variable as many of these theorists w ould have them be.
This leads us to confront one o f the central weaknesses o f such theorynamely the statem ent o f H ow ard Becker’s th a t „ deviance is n o t a quality
o f the act the person com m its” ( 10). F o r Becker’s statem ent can only be true
of physical action, that is an action to which no social m eaning has yet been
given. I would suggest th at deviants, like every o th er actor, frequently
endow their action with m eaning; and th a t, further, this m eaning is not
re-invented on each occasion th a t individuals engage in physical action.
Rather is it derived from a fairly co n stan t stock o f social m eanings which
exist to describe physical acts. It is only by crudely opposing physical to
social action that the transactionalists o r m ore especially Becker and Lem ert
can claim that an action is only deviant when so defined by others. Their
approach is then, almost unw ittingly, directed tow ards the problem atics o f
the definition. However, m ost deviant, an d especially crim inal, acts, have
quite-clear social meanings. W here is the crim inal w ho engages in the
robbing of banks, who is unaware th a t he is engaged in the social act of
stealing? Taking an object (a physical act) w ith o u t the ow ner’s perm ission
will always be described as stealing, in those societies where the institution
of private property exists.
My objection, then, to one central assum ption o f the transactionalist
position is that we do not act in a w orld free o f social m eaning. F o r with the
exception of new behaviour it is often clear to people w hat actions are
deviant and what are not deviant. In co n trast to transactionalist theorists,
I would assert that m ost deviant behaviour is a quality o f the act, since
the way in which we distinguish between behaviour and action is th at
17
behaviour is merely physical and action has m eaning th a t is socially given.
In the now classical exam ple o f the m ariju an a sm oker, it is obvious th at this
activity is m otivated by hedonism — b u t there is a fundam ental difference
betw een engaging in an action for pleasure which is approved by every­
body, and engaging in a pleasurable act which is regarded by large num bers
o f people as deviant, and in this case, as illegal. The aw areness th a t an act is
deviant fu n d a m e n ta lly alters the n atu re o f the choices being m ade.
We have here shifted the focus aw ay from the view o f the deviant as a
passive, ineffectual, stigm atised individual (w hat G ouldner has called ’m an
on his back’) tow ards th a t of a decision-m aker who actively violates (11)
the m oral and legal codes o f society, although neither view is true of all
deviants. This is o f the u tm o st im portance in the consideration o f political
deviancy, fo r o u r theory m ust allow o f a creative, b u t purposeful, deviant
w ho consciously decides to transgress law an d order. It is precisely its reliance
and dependence u p o n the cru d er phenom enologically-derived argum ents
th a t m eant th a t m uch recent deviancy theory w hich superficially appeared
to offer an advance, in fact had grave lim itations. F o r the processes by which
social obligations becom e defined an d established is n o t centrally viewed by
such th eorists as entailing a process o f struggle between large, com peting
groups, interests an d stru ctu ral positions. T hus, the outcom e — the everyday
conception o f w hat is right, the com m onsense w orld in which b o th norm als
and deviants live — is n o t fully seen as having been shaped by entrenched
positions o f pow er and interest. O ne can go further, for insofar as it is
legitim ate to view deviance as a challenge to au th o rity a t either the
instrum en tal or o ppositional level, it m ust be viewed as ultim ately
predeterm ined by stru ctu ral inequalities and ideological consensus, no
m atter h o w co m p lex the m ediatory variables. F ro m this viewpoint,
structured inequalities, preserved and protected by the pow erful, act as
causal forces p reven tin g the realisation o f acto rs’ interests by m eans other
th an deviant ones. F ro m this kind o f perspective, political deviancy begins
to be com prehensible, fo r it is my contention th a t m uch deviancy — both
political and non-political — m ust be viewed as a struggle o r reaction to
norm alized repression. A breaking-through, as it were, o f accepted, takenfor-granted, pow er-invested com m onsense rules. M y view of this repression
follows G ouldner’s statem ent in The C om ing Crisis o f Western
Sociology that:
„T he pow erful are b o th ready and able to institutionalise com pliance
with the m oral code at levels congenial to themselves. Power is am ongst
other things this ability to enforce o n e’s m oral claims. The pow erful can
18
thus conventionalize their m oral defaults. As their m oral failures become
customary and expected, this itself becomes an o th e r justification for giving
the subordinate group less than it m ight theoretically claim under the
group’s common values. It becomes, in sh o rt, norm alized repression” (12).
W hat I am suggesting here, following G ouldner, an d others, is th a t m uch
deviancy can usefully be seen as a conscious b reaking-through o f this m oral
code. Indeed, whether deviants merely neutralize this m oral code in order
to justify their break-through, o r w hether they develop an ideological
opposition to the code will be an im p o rta n t feature in any explanation or
classification of deviancy. M oreover this view o f deviancy deals with w hat
we can now isolate as the missing elem ent o f p o w e r in the creation o f
deviancy. For, if we examine the creation o f deviancy and reaction in this
way, we do not end up with a com pletely indeterm inate picture: we see th at
the institution of private property in a structured an d inequitable society
divides men from men as owners and non-ow ners. It is in the light o f this
division that the activities of thieves, police, m agistrates, and propertyowners become explicable.
Alvin Gouldner came very near to this kind o f criticism o f m odern
deviancy theory when he argued that:
„Becker’s school of deviance thus views the u n derdog as som eone who
is being mismanaged, not as som eone w ho suffers o r fights back. Here
the deviant is sly but not defiant; he is tricky b u t not courageous; he
sneers but he does not accuse; he ’m akes o u t’ w ithout m aking a scene.
Insofar as this school of theory has a critical edge to it, this is directed at
the caretaking institutions who do the m opping-up jo b , rath er th an at
the master institutions that produce the deviant’s suffering” (12).
Yet Gouldner’s criticisms are too narrow ly focused, fo r the social reaction
perspective on deviance is a necessary elem ent in any fully developed
theory; what follows in this paper is an attem p t to exam ine its difficulties
and weaknesses in the light of the rise of deviant phenom enon which seriously
threatens its working assum ptions. W hat is required for m odern deviancy
theory is not its wholesale rejection b u t its inco rp o ratio n into a m ore radical
perspective.
19
D eviancy and the Dialectics o f Com m itm ent
In the follow ing exam in atio n o f the W eatherm en I have attem pted to lay
bare the ideological road along which the w eatherm en have travelled, my
intent is n o t criticism b u t ra th e r u p o n docu m en tation o f the self-conscious
shifts in their o u tlo ok and practice. In tracing the em ergence and develop­
m ent o f one form o f political deviancy it is m y sincere belief th at b o th the
utility an d the short-com ings o f the w ork o f Becker and Lem ert is implicitly
dem onstrated. The b rief history o f the w eatherm en w hich follows is
startling fo r their emergence seemed im probable. Indeed the im pact o f the
w eatherm en u p o n the average A m erican was aptly sum m ed up by a
Chicago police chief w ho explained the inability o f the police to contain
the w eatherm en d uring their ’days o f rage’ w ith the statem ent th a t they
w eren’t p repared fo r violence and destruction, because before th a t event there
had always been a gap betw een w hat the radicals said they w ould do, and
w hat they did.
H ow ever it’s n o t sim ply th a t this gap betw een w ords and deeds m ake the
w eatherm en useful illustrative m aterial for a p artial re-exam ination of
deviancy theory b u t rath er th a t they are representative o f a whole num ber
of trends in contem p o rary deviant behaviour which seem to be leading
deviants into d em onstrating a self-consciousness and aw areness which m uch
deviancy theory w ould seem to be incapable o f analysjng. C om m enting on
contem p o rary deviant activity one astu te observer noted that:
„B ehaviour w hich in the past was conceived o f as deviant is now
assum ing well defined ideological an d o rganizational contours.
The politicization o f groups such as d ru g takers a n d hom osexuals is only
the m ost obvious m anifestation: any a ttem p t to resist stigm atization,
m an ip u latio n in the nam e o f therapy or punishm ent is a self conscious
move to change the social o rd er and in any conception o f the political
process in term s oth er th a n looking a t such m atters as voting figures,
these activities are political. O n the o th er side, political m arginals such as
the Yippies, the W eatherm en, the S ituationists, the Black P anthers are
creating new styles o f political activity based on strategies traditionally
considered crim inal” (13).
F rom this kind o f perspective the im portance o f the w eatherm en lies not
only in their pow erful im pact u p o n A m erican Society but in the m erging of
m arginality, crim inality, and deviancy in an explicitly political grouping.
M oreover we can use o u r d a ta on the w eatherm en and political deviants in
20
general to indicate the direction th a t crim inology and sociology will have
to take if it is to rise above mere ideology. The w eatherm en phenom enon
provides both empirical an d theoretical evidence fo r treating sceptically
some central propositions o f the social reaction perspective, for the
weathermen are a self conscious group o f revolutionaries culturally rooted
in their recent experiences o f A m erican Society. T heir very nam e celebrates
the youth culture they sprang from , a you th culture w hose m any contradic­
tions have found frequent expression in the w ork o f Bob D ylan, superstar,
superpoet and freaky. They quote D ylan’s m etap h o r, th a t ’you d o n ’t
have to be a weatherman to know which way th e w ind blow s’, and elevate
it to an analysis of political trends. Like the Yippie, Jerry R ubin they insist
that one must D O IT, unlike R ubin, they d o n ’t believe th a t revolution can
be fun. As a self-conscious group o f crim inal revolutionaries they have
experienced the full force of social reaction. In exam ining them we shall be
examining deviancy theory in two ways. Firstly we shall use their talk, their
ideology, to counter the view o f all crim inals as creatures who are sadly
determined by external forces. As one critic o f the social reaction approach
put it:
„One sometimes gets the im pression from reading this literature th a t
people go about minding their own business and then — ’w ham ’ —
bad society comes along and slaps them w ith a stigm atised label. Forced
into the role of deviant, the individual has little choice but to be
deviant” (14).
Now anybody who examined the w eatherm en w ould be foolish to write
theories that pictured the deviant as a subject in need of pity. T o reject this
viewpoint all we have to do is listen to w eatherm en rhetoric w hich seems
often to be deliberately and explicitly setting o u t to justify crim inal positions,
not in terms of neutralization but in term s o f oppositional im peratives.
In the words of a leading W eatherm an, Jo h n Jaco b s, ex-C olum bia Univ.
student, (speaking at a W eatherm an Conference shortly before going under­
ground) the history of today’s youth begins w ith the beat generation in a
world which can best be explained via a ’white D evil’ theory o f history,
taking up the need to be, ’Crazy violent m otherfuckers’. J J as he is know n,
declared that W eathermen’s position was th a t „W e’re against everything
which is good and decent” (15). A t this same conference B ernardine D orhn
stated that the leadership of W eatherm en, the w eatherbureau, digs M anson,
„Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate d inner in the sam e room
with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim ’s stom ach
21
’W ild’ ” . . . In betw een such raps, the people sang a medley o f w eatherm en
songs, high cam p num bers such as, „ I ’m D ream ing of a W hite R iot”,
„C om m unism is w hat we d o ”, an d „W e need a Red P arty” . Spirited chants
broke o u t too: „W om ens Pow er!”, „Struggling Pow er”, „R ed Arm y
Pow er”, . . . „C harlie M anson pow er”, „P ow er to the People”,
„O ff the P ig” (16).
Faced w ith such rhetoric, in full know ledge th a t this is accurate reporting,
one is staggered. But however, one receives such statem ents, unless one
holds to some n o tio n o f collective insanity (and one assum es social
theorists w ould reject such an explanation) it is im possible to understand
unless we accept th a t beliefs are choices. F o r there are no set of determ inates
know n to sociologists which w ould fo r c e deviants to talk and act the way
the w eatherm en do. The second criticism o f social reaction theory which
emerges from a study o f the w eatherm en is bound up with the social
psychological assum ptions o f such theory. M ost o f their theories o f deviance
are decontextualised. T h a t is, the im portance o f the deviants’ w orld view,
the m eanings w hich the deviants them selves attach to their initial actions
are seen as u n im p o rta n t o r arb itrary , unless they are the result o f social
reaction. But this assum es society stops an d starts; th a t the interplay o f action
and social reaction are separable. In fact they are dialectically related.
D eviants are p a rt o f society all the tim e. T he transactionalists o r labelling
theorists aren ’t tran sactio n al enough. There can be no understanding of
deviant action and consequent social reaction, unless we grasp the role of
deviant beliefs in relation to the beliefs o f larger society. In this sense the
social reaction perspective has been very m echanical fo r it fails to stress th at
deviant beliefs bring a b o u t different kinds o f social reaction. There is a
difference betw een being revealed as a hom osexual w ho believes he has
genetic faults and being revealed as a hom osexual who argues th a t „gay
is goo d ” an d th a t it’s liberating. A gain the trad itional social reaction
perspective has failed to grasp the acceptance o f and seeking for social
reaction, w hich m uch political deviancy involves. A clear exam ple o f this
occurred durin g the M ay „events” in F rance in 1968, students reacted to the
accusation th a t they were u n d er the influence o f the „G erm an Jew ” D aniel
C ohn-B endit by p arad in g th ro u g h P aris u n d er banners em blazened with
the slogan „W e A re All G erm an Jew s”. This em brace o f the deviant label
served n o t only to highlight the spurious (in this case, irrelevant) nature
o f the label; it also helped to solidify the m ovem ent in the face o f attem pts
at a stereotypical dism issal. M oreover even a superficial look at the
22
discussions and objectives w ithin the W eatherm en group will enable us to see
that political deviancy at least involves the deviant, in careful consideration
of the image he projects onto society, an d the im portance o f this for his
future actions in view o f likely social reaction. As one W eatherm an convert
put it:
„The Chicago N ational A ction was conceived by the W eather Bureau
as an anti-imperialist action in which a m ass o f white youths w ould tear
up and smash wide-ranging im perialist targets such as the Conspiracy
Trial, high schools, draft boards and induction centres, banks, pig
institutes and pigs themselves. The m ain reason why we chose such a wide
range of targets was our desire to project the existence of a fighting force
that’s out, not primarily to make specific dem ands, but to totally destroy
this imperialist and racist society (17).
Perhaps the most lucid exposition of the W eatherm en view o f this action
is put by the same convert who im portantly was not new to the A m erican
movement, he goes on to describe the self-criticism sessions on the Bus to
Chicago in a fashion which reveals a clear a ttem p t to come to term s with
possible reaction:
„The heaviest part of our struggle on the bus was the discussion on w hat
’winning’ meant in Chicago. W hy in past street actions, when we could
have offered a pig, did we hold back? W hy are we afraid o f escalating the
struggle and of winning? W hy are we, in short, afraid of pushing out
our politics and our struggle to the very lim it in each tactical situation?
W ithout answering this question, and w ithout successfully overcom ing
this fear, we would not be able to fight in Chicago.
As the struggle on the bus developed, we realized the reason for our fear.
We were afraid winning in a particular tactical situation w ould entail
the escalation o f the struggle; th a t is to say, the ruling class and th eir pigs
would increase their attacks on us. It w ould m ean th a t the next tim e, we
would have to fight much h arder on a higher level” (18).
Part o f the problem with labelling or social reaction theory stem s fro m its
obfuscation o f the role o f thought. In erecting decontextualized p sych o ­
logical theories it has unnecessarily limited itself. The centre o f this confusion
lies in those theories erecting a fairly spurious distinction betw een prim ary
and secondary deviation. F or this distinction blurs the role o f beliefs in
commitment to a deviant role o r identity. The w eatherm en on the bus to the
Chicago action discussed and fought out the necessity of „escalating the
23
struggle’’ in term s o f w hether it was a correct strategy, a belief question.
The debate was not sim ply over „how do I see m yself’ but ra th er over
„can I take w hat others are liable to do to me next tim e”. One suspects th at
m any non-political crim inals and deviants ask themselves sim ilar questions.
T h at is, m uch com m itm ent to a deviant identity does not revolve around
„am I really a w eatherm an”, o r ra th e r „am I really a hom osexual or th ie f ’
etc., but rath er „are m y objectives w orth w hat I am risking”. In short,
com m itm ent m ust be a function o f a set o f beliefs tested against reality as
m uch it is a function o f social reaction, yet it is precisely this question
w hich is hidden in the psychologism o f m uch present transactionalism .
Let’s look m ore closely a t the con tex t in which the w eatherm en believed
the system em erged an d then retu rn to an exam ination o f deviancy theory.
The A m erican political trad itio n is full of gaps when com pared with the
European. It has no real history of Social D em ocracy or C om m unism and
its radical tra d itio n is m ore populist, derived from the W obblies; it’s a
violent, racist, w ealthy society w ith the richest w orking class in the world.
It has w ithin it m illions o f young, m oderate, m iddleclass college students,
directly affected by the V ietnam w ar, affluence and the black m ovem ent.
The consciousness o f recent A m erican radicalism bitterly em bodies these
contradictions. The w eatherm en em erged from S.D .S. (S tudents fo r a dem o­
cratic Society), which was a liberal college-based integrationalist m ovem ent
in 1962. A m ovem ent th a t constantly m oved to the left as „norm alized
repression” and consequent political im potence led it through support
for sit-ins, d raft resistance, conspiracy trials and Black Pow er. A gainst this
background the w eatherm en appeared.
The phenom enology o f the W eatherm en is the a ttem p t to refuse pessimism,
and the struggle to engage in m eaningful activism . T hus they captured part
of th e leadership of S .D .S . early in 1969 w ith w hat could be seen as a
reasonably plausible perspective on A m erican Im perialism . This was the
biggest N ational C ouncil M eeting th at S .D .S . had ever seen, over 1200
delegates an d m em bers turned up. A bout 3 to 400 of those present were
allied to a group called Progressive L ab o u r (P.L .) an A m erican M aoist
organisation whose caucus in S.D .S . was called W .S.A . (W orker, student,
alliance) they m ostly sat w earing red b uttons saying sm ash racism , and were
im m ediately criticised by the rest o f the S.D .S . for factionalism , a „get P .L .”
m ovem ent developed and P.L . was attacked. In a sense, progressive labour
drow ned itself in th a t whilst it condem ned all nationalism , it refused to
recognise the special and p articu lar oppression of the black people. The
N atio n al Collective of S.D .S. opposed P .L . and called them chauvinists, as
24
one defender of the Collective put it to P .L ., „Y ou are a white A m erican
chauvinist, not an internationalist”, „you m ust look to the world pro letariat”.
The american working class is bourgeoisified, it is no longer relevant” (19).
During this conference P.L. were expelled from S .D .S . which itself fell into
two factions, RYM I (R evolutionary Y outh M ovem ent), the W eatherm en,
and RYM II who eventually split, leaving W eatherm en by themselves.
By 11 September of 1969 we got the follow ing philosophy em erging from
W eatherman leader and S.D .S. E ducational Secretary, Bill Ayres, in an
article curiously entitled ,,A Strategy to Win", he said:
„ . . . if it is a world-wide struggle, if w eatherm an is correct in th a t basic
thing, that the basic struggle in the world to d ay is the struggle o f the
oppressed people against U.S. Im perialism , then it is the case th at nothing
we could do in the m other country w ould be adventuristic. N othing we
could do because there is a w ar going on already, an d the term s o f th at w ar
are already set”.
Later in the same article, Ayres elaborates:
„But the more 1 thought about the thing, ’fight the People’, it’s not that
it’s a great mass slogan or anything but there’s som ething to it” (20).
Weathermen beliefs spring not from some insane genetic o r psychological
distortion, but from that thinking which N o rm an M ailer has characterized
as the „Inevitable logic o f the next step”, (cf. A rm ies o f the Night). Even
their most horrendous statem ents can seem to follow logically from their
analysis of American Society, as a Society based on W hite Skin Privilege.
In itself not a difficult notion to accept. F o r the W eatherm en this belief
propels them into constant action to sm ash „w hite honky-tonk pig racist
America”. For they see themselves as agents o f the Vietcong, „bringing the
war home”. Indeed at their last conference in Flint, shortly before they went
underground, the reductio ad absurdum of their view point was expressed
by the late Ted Gold, who along with tw o o th er W eatherm en died when their
Greenwich Village, bom b factory-house was blow n sky-high on M arch
the 6th 1970. At that conference Gold stated that:
„An agency of the people o f the w orld” w ould be set up to run the U.S.
economy and society after the defeat o f the U.S. im perialism abroad.
A critic spoke up: „In short, if the people o f the w orld succeed in liberating
themselves before Am erican radicals have m ade the A m erican
revolution, then the V ietnam ese an d A fricans and the Chinese are gonna
move in and run things for white Am erica. It sounds like a Jo h n Bircher’s
25
w orst dream . T here will have to be m ore repression th an ever against white
people, but by refusing to organize people, W eatherm an isn’t even giving
them half a chance”.
„W ell”, replied G old, „ if it will take fascism, we’ll have to have fascism ”.
W eatherm an — virtually all w hite — continues to prom ote the notion that
w hite w orking people in A m erica are inherently counter-revolutionary,
im possible to organize, o r ju st plain evil — „h o n k y bastard s”, as m any
W eatherm en p u t it. W eatherm an’s blank view o f the post-revolutionary
w orld comes from an analysis o f A m erican society th a t says th a t „class
doesn’t count, race d o e s” (21).
N ow a W eatherm an’s com m itm ent to an extrem e deviant position vis-a-vis
societies belief system flowed from societal reaction in only a negative sense.
F o r p rio r to the days o f rage in Chicago they were not hunted, w anted men,
they deliberately w orked tow ards Chicago because they were com m itted
to the belief th a t „blacks were going up against the wall alone” and th at it
was w rong to allow this to happen. This view point, coupled with the belief
th a t w hite youth were potentially revolutionary whilst the m ass o f society
was reactionary, led them to decide th a t doing serious dam age to property
and the state w ould dem onstrate th a t they could win, th a t they were a
serious force, an d it w ould turn social reaction aw ay fro m blacks only to
blacks an d whites. N ow this kind o f history o f com m itm ent to deviant acts
directs atten tio n to the dialectical interplay betw een deviant beliefs and
deviant actions in a situated context; whilst a social reaction analysis of
radicalism w ould m ove us tow ards a different view o f deviant com m itm ents.
F o r instance Lem ert, a leading transactionalist, confronts the whole question
o f a self-com m itm ent to deviation by pointing to the inadequacies of the
structu ral ap p ro ach advanced by M erton and others. He suggested that
there are tw o kinds o f research problem s in the study o f deviation.
,,(i) how deviant behaviour originates;
(ii) how deviant acts are sym bolically attach ed to persons and effective
consequences o f such attach m en t for subsequent deviation on the
p a rt o f the p erson” (22).
In this w ork, Lem ert utilizes this im p o rtan t distinction betw een w hat he
term s prim a ry an d secondary deviation. F o r Lem ert prim ary deviation is
„assum ed to arise in a wide variety o f social, cultural and psychological
contexts, and a t best to have only m arginal im plications for the psychic
stru ctu re o f the individual: it does n o t lead to sym bolic reorganization
26
at the level of self-regarding attitudes an d social roles”.
Whereas secondary deviation is conceived as:
„deviant behaviour, or social roles based u p o n it, which becomes a
means of defense, attack or a d ap tatio n to the overt and covert problem s
created by the societal reaction to prim ary d eviation” (23).
The significance of this distinction is its concern to give some description
of the process of com m itm ent. At the level of p rim a ry deviation, deviation
has to be explained in different term s from those in which secondary
deviation is dealt with. The causes o f prim ary deviation for Lem ert, are wide
and varied, br as Becker puts it:
„There is no reason to assume th a t only those w ho com m it a deviant
act actually have the impulse to do so. It is m uch m ore likely th a t m ost
people experience deviant impulses frequently” (24).
But secondary deviation is seen as different.
„In effect, the original causes of the deviation recede and give way to
the central im portance of the disapproving, degrad ational and labelling
reactions of society” (25).
In short the secondary deviant internalizes and is com m itted to
deviancy for reasons different fr o m his original action. N ow this kind of
analysis of commitment to deviancy seems to me to be faulty, im proven, and
ridden with unjustified psychological assum ptions. As a recent critic o f this
approach has stated:
„to see the full irony of this possibility — th a t social co ntrol can lead to
deviance — interactionist analysis has been directed tow ards exam ining
the social-psychological im plications o f official registration. U n fortunate­
ly, the theoretical links between social co n tro l and fu rth er deviant
behaviour have never been com pletely forged, yet alone subjected to
adequate empirical testing” (26).
Moreover as the same critic suggests in looking at the distinction between
primary and secondary deviation.
„The distinction between the two is either in term s of etiology or the
extent to which the offender has a deviant identity. Thus Lem ert
suggests that secondary deviation refers to a ’special class o f socially
defined responses which people m ake to problem s located by societal
27
reactions to their (prim ary) deviance’, an d it is com m itted by people
’whose life an d identity are organised aro u n d the facts o f deviance’ ” (27).
These distinctions are unw orkable in theory and unproven in practice.
If we take political deviancy it is clear th a t the „original causes of the
deviaton” m ay in n o way „recede” sim ply because of social reaction. Indeed
it m ay be argued w ith m ore justification th a t social reaction to radical
ideas, in the form o f „norm alized repression” is the cause o f initial com m it­
m ent to political deviation. F u rth erm o re it is by no m eans clear except in
the case o f political deviants th a t there are m any deviants „w hose life and
identity are organised aro u n d the facts o f deviance” for m ost deviants are
n o t full-tim e deviants. The exceptions are m ainly highly organised crim inals
and political revolutionaries — W hat appeared to m any deviancy theorists
to be a radical theory is revealed as a totally inadequate account o f com m it­
m ent to deviancy. Indeed it seems th a t the concern of m uch o f this approach
avoids the question o f initial deviation and drives it tow ards a dubious
stress on the psychological im pact o f social reaction. Yet it is perfectly
possible to conceive of deviants who never experience the kind of social
reaction th a t Lem ert an d Becker are talking ab o u t, yet are constantly
com m itting deviant acts e.g. sm oking pot, stealing, agitating, engaging in
sexually deviant acts etc. Im plicit in the social reaction app ro ach is some
peculiar fascination w ith the a ttem p t to erect a p riori explanations o f why
som e people becom e „ h a rd core” crim inals and deviants and others d o n ’t.
But ex planations o f this kind will only be revealed by looking a t social
contexts and beliefs. In any case the search for h ard as against soft deviation
seems to me to be largely based on the assum ption th at these people are
radically different from us. We have criticised the social reaction approach
as un-social and psychological; in doing this the claim is n o t being m ade
th a t social psychology is unnecessary b u t ra th e r if we are to have such
explan atio n s they m ust in no way be ahistorical. If we substituted the term s
socialization for deviation, it w ould becom e im m ediately ap p aren t th a t
contextually em bedded beliefs an d experiences are prim ary determ inants
o f com m itm ent. F o r w hat w ould p rim ary as opposed to secondary sociali­
zation m ean unless we had som e theory which clearly differentiated between
them . Yet the social reaction theorists have no real theory to explain why
secondary deviation is m ore im portant in com m itm ent to deviancy th an is
initial deviation. Let us retu rn to the W eatherm en to exam ine this question.
Up until the „D ays o f Rage a t C hicago” the W eatherm en were an open,
extrem e radical g roup w hose decision to stress the im portance o f the
28
blacks was influenced by the powerful and relatively successful strength of
the Black Power m ovem ents like the Black P an th ers w ho were taking the
brunt of repression in A m erican Society. T heir decision to „bring the w ar
home” to Chicago was a result o f the beliefs th a t led to their „initial
deviation”. The events a t Chicago which were discussed a t their conference
in Flint, Michigan, shortly afterw ards led the W eatherm en to reject any
mass white support.
As Harold Jacobs has suggested:
„Prior to the ’Days of Rage’, W eatherm en still retained its faith in the
revolutionary potential of white w orking class youth. But ra th er than
criticising itself for the low tu rn o u t in Chicago, it instead began to tu rn
its back on white people . . . M uch of W eatherm an’s political activities
after this reflected a despair at organizing w hite people. A t Flint, W eather­
men decided to become nothing b u t a su p p o rt group for the blacks an d the
Vietnamese” (28).
Chicago was a turning point for the weatherm en, fo r it m arked their isolation
from the rest of Society, one m ight say, Chicago forced them underground,
for they expected a mass response to their co n fro n tatio n strategy. Their
own tactics drove them underground. A non-w eatherm an, Jo h n Gerrassi
describes Chicago as follows:
„The first major W eatherm an battle fought last O ctober in Chicago.
Weatherman has expected thousands to show up for the declared objective
to break up the loop (Chicago’s rich business district). Firearm s were
forbidden although they knew the fighting w ould be heavy and deaths
likely. Only 500 scared, self-conscious collective m em bers arrived. They
were outnumbered by the police alm ost ten to one, w ith the N ational
Guard on call nearby. „W ell”, shouted a W eatherm an leader, „you
know why we came, and what we said we’d do. This is only the beginning.
Whether it’s also the end o r not depends o n us, now. So let’s do it”. And
they charged. The fighting was probably the h ardest yet in the history of
the New Left. Thousands o f police, w ith tear gas an d clubs and then with
guns against a wild but tightly disciplined group o f w hite kids, protected by
helmets, boots and steel genital guards, using lead pipes and chains.
The city watched in am azem ent as the W eatherm en, m eekly a t first, then
increasingly stronger, pushed through, dispersed, regrouped, dispersed
again and got through from their staging area to the L oop where they did
as they had said — smashed windows and wrecked stores. M ore th an 200
Weathermen were arrested and eight were shot (none died), yet the next
29
day, they were back. This tim e, the m ain th ru st was to com e from the
W eather w om en. T here were only 65 o f them , surrounded by 150 cops.
The girls were m ore scared th a n the day before, feeling m ore isolated.
T hen B ernardine D o rh n , a 31 year old form er lawyer and m em ber of the
W eather B ureau, told the w om en „the fear th at people feel in this
d em o n stratio n has to be put against the hunger, fear, death and suffering of
black, brow n an d yellow people in this country and all over the w orld”.
Then she led them out of G ran t’s P ark across from the H ilton H otel and
into the police lines waiting. The W eather w om en fought well to o , and
dow ned m any cops, b u t they were stopped. Still, they were back again
the n ext day, an d so th ro u g h the week. A t the end, 284 were in jail with
bail o f $ 1,000,000 (29).
Chicago failed for, follow ing it, m ost w eatherm en went U nderground, their
su p p o rt in A m erica is m inute, their actions are described by other Left groups
as „insane” . The developm ent o f an outlaw view point soon emerged with its
culm ination in the b om b the bourgeoisie thesis. Bringing the W ar hom e from
the un d erg ro u n d , can m ean little b u t inactivity o r bom bing. The W eather­
m en chose to bom b. The philosophy was simple:
„L o o k , even when we lose we win. We know how The M an is. The M an is
repressive. The M an is fascist. T he M an w ould like to put all in Baltim ore,
Belsen. Every trash we do, every bom b we plant, is forcing The M an to
repress th a t m uch m ore an d th a t m uch m ore visibly. He has to buy more
pigs, an d m ore m achines an d the taxes go up and the people get screwed
even m ore.
Look, we are costing The M an m oney, an d we m ake him paranoid. Twenty
pigs hit already - right! Every pig is looking over his shoulder, they go
ro u n d in tw os and threes. They can’t get recruits” (30).
Finally even this strategy has been abandoned. U nderground the W eather­
m en ap p ear to have reached D esolation Row . H owever there is little d o ubt
th at they have b o rn m ore th a n their own lim itations, fo r they have
introduced a new note o f seriousness to all discussion in the A m erican
m ovem ent. B om bing an d bom b th reats ju m p ed so high in the U.S.A . th at
in 1970 a N ational Bom b D ata Centre was established in W ashington,
according to its rep o rts betw een Ja n u a ry 1st 1969 and A pril 15th 1970. 40
people were killed, 384 injured and 22 m illion dollars w orth of dam age was
done in 4,330 reported bom bings. Indeed N ixon’s new Crime C ontrol Bill
has sections which provide the d eath penalty for those convicted o f fatal
bom bings (31).
•
30
Moreover thousands of extra FBI agents have been hired to deal with
the Youth revolt; in this atm osphere G overnor R eagan has stated th a t, if it
„takes a bloodbath to remove the student problem , let’s get it over w ith.”
Now if one viewed the W eatherm en phenom enon from the social reaction
perspective presumably one could argue th a t the social reaction to Chicago
drove them underground. T hat, u nderground secondary deviation occurred
and their „life and identity are organized aro u n d the facts o f deviance”. The
problem with such a perspective is th a t it would be ju st as well fo r a m ove­
ment that didn’t go underground an d sim ply w ent m eekly to jail, o r again a
movement which used the trials as an agitational platform as did the
earlier Chicago conspiracy trial defendants. F o r all the perspective states
is that secondary deviation is different from prim ary. B ut in fact this is not
even empirically true — some o f the people who w ent u n derground weren’t
even at the „Days of Rage” they simply accepted the w eatherm en’s view of
revolutionary action, advanced a t the F lin t conference. M oreover the
implications of the social reaction approach is th a t increased social reaction
leads to increased deviation but as countless revolutionary m ovem ents know
it may well have the opposite effect. Indeed m ost politically deviant groups
are sensitively aware of the fact th a t their own activities can increase or
decrease deviancy am plification depending u p o n how their actions are
understood by larger society. The W eatherm en stopped bom bing recently
and engaged in selfcriticism for exactly this kind o f reason. They sent out a
„communique” signed com plete w ith fingerprints by B ernardine D o rh n ,
announcing like Dylan’s recent L. P. a „N ew M orning” changing w eather.
A few extracts are enough to indicate its m ood.
The deaths of three friends ended o u r m ilitary conception o f w hat we are
doing . . . Because their collective began to define arm ed struggle
as the only legitimate form o f revolutionary action they did n o t believe
that there was any revolutionary m otion am ong w hite youth. It seemed
like black and third world people were going up against A m erican
imperialism alone . . . this tendency to consider only bom bings or
picking up the gun as revolutionary, with the glorification o f the heavier
the better, we’ve called the m ilitary error. A fter the explosion, we called
off all armed action until such time as we felt the causes had been under­
stood and acted upon. We found th a t the alternative direction already
existed among us and had been developed w ithin other collectives. We
become aware that a group of outlaw s who are isolated from the youth
communities do not have a sense o f w hat is going on, cannot develop
31
strategies th a t grow to include large num bers o f people, have becom e „us”
and „th em ” (32).
The debates aro u n d the question o f the „m ilitary e rro r” and the suspension
o f bom bings until the causes had been understood dem onstrate a dialectically
sensitive interplay betw een theory and practice, beliefs and reality, which
is rarely allow ed for in deviancy theory. Yet it’s exactly this kind o f interplay
w hich is fu ndam ental to deviant com m itm ent, even if m ost openly
recognizable in political deviancy.
Conclusions
We have looked a t radical com m itm ent as a way o f exam ining deviant
com m itm ent an d its treatm en t w ithin the social reaction approach. We may
conclude th a t no absolute advance has been m ade since the rejection o f the
view point o f the founding father o f C rim inology C. L om broso, th a t radicals
were in the same grouping as hereditary crim inals (33). F o r although an
advance u p o n m ore conservative theories o f deviance the social reaction
a p p ro ach to deviance an d com m itm ent leaves m uch to be desired. We have
revealed th a t its assum ptions tend to be psychological rath e r than
sociological. T h at it is ahistorical in its treatm en t o f deviant m eanings and
th at it plays dow n the role o f pow er. In refusing to see th a t m ost deviance is
a quality of the act, these theorists have erected a massive ideological
edifice u p o n shaky fo undations. M oreover this wreck has stood in the way
o f m ore profitable directions for deviancy theory, fo r it appeared in a
radical guise. The aim o f this paper was to dem onstrate th a t som e deviants
can exhibit purposefulness, choice and com m itm ent, in a very different
m anner th a n th a t allow ed by the social reaction interpretation. M uch
evidence fo r the w eaknesses o f the social reaction ap p ro ach is external but
m uch o f o u r critique has been im m anent, th a t is to say from the inside of
such theories. M ore evidence could be derived from Lem ert’s own treatm ent
o f radicalism which is a case study o f the inadequacy o f the social reaction
appro ach . Indeed his attem p ts to explain radicalism lead him to m ake such
statem ents as the following,
„ a cross-sectional role analysis o f the radicals in a given society will reveal
n o t only a num ber o f sym bolically disordered persons, b u t also a large
num ber — perhaps the m ajority — o f persons who profess the extrem ist
beliefs because o f general o r special situational pressures” (34).
32
The social reaction approach is in fact revealed as profoundly un-radical as
its predecessors. M eanwhile the rise o f contem p o rary political deviancy
and its merger with m ore traditionally deviant life styles has provided us
with opportunity to reassess our position and w ork tow ards new und erstan d ­
ings. It must be stressed th at the w eatherm en have been used here
illustratively. We have in no sense given a full analysis o f th a t m ovem ent, yet
my view is that they are a consequence o f su bstituting Blacks o r youth for
class, and only make rational sense in term s o f such beliefs. The difficulties
encountered in explaining, understanding an d accounting for such a deviant
phenomenon highlights the inability o f contem p o rary social theory to move
much beyond social history whatever its guise. Indeed if this lim ited study
has any absolute conclusion it is th a t history m ust be b rought back to social
theory for its advances are em pty w ithout it. Finally, if we are reflexive, Bob
Dylan’s dialectical poetry can provide relevant quo tations for both the
weathermen and m odern deviancy theory, fo r „th ere’s no success like failure,
and failure’s no success a t all”.
References and acknowledgements
1 would like to thank Jo ck Y oung, Ian T aylor, L aurie T aylor, G rah am M urdock an d P au l R ock,
for their helpful advice and criticism even where ignored. I m ust stress th a t w hatever theoretical
originality this paper possesses is in part derived and dependent u p o n co llaborative w ork w hich
will appear in I. Taylor, P. W alton, and J. Y oung The New Crim inology, 1973.
1. San Francisco Good Times.
2. Lemert, Edwin, Human Deviance, Social P roblem s an d Social Control, 1967.
3. Becker, Howard, Outsiders: Studies in the S ociology o f D eviance, New Y ork, 1963, p. 7.
4. Hall, Stuart, Deviancy, Politics an d the M edia. P ap er given to the B ritish S ociological
Association A nnual C onference, E aster 1971.
5. G ouldner, Alvin, „T he Sociologist as P artisan: S ociology and the W elfare S tate” in:
American Sociologist, M ay, 1968; H orow itz, I. L. & M . L iebow itz, „S o cial D eviance and
Political M arginality" in: Social Problems, Vol. 15, No. 3, W inter 1968; T aylor, Ia n & L aurie
Taylor, „We Are All D eviants N ow ” in: International Socialism 34, 1968; C a n n an , Crescy,
„Deviants: Victims o r Rebels?" in Case-Con 2, 1970 (T he Jo u rn a l fo r R evolutionary Social
W ork, London); and see C ohen, S tanley (E d.), Images o f D eviance P enguin B ooks, 1971.
6. Halleck, Seym our, L. in M cG uigan, G. (Ed.) Student Protest, L o n d o n , 1970, p. 164.
7. Short, E. M. P. The Times, 30 Ja n u a ry 1969.
8. Horowitz & Liebowitz, op. cit., p. 280.
9. Taylor & Taylor, op. cit., p. 30.
10. Becker, „outsiders” , op. cit., p. 9.
11. Gouldner, Alvin, The Coming Crisis o f Western S ociology, L o n d o n , 1971, pp. 296-7.
12. Gouldner, Alvin, „T he Sociologist as P artisan: Sociology an d the W elfare S tate” in:
33
A m erican Sociologist, M ay, 1968, p. 107.
A lso see T ay lo r, la n an d P au l W alto n , „V alues in D eviancy T heory an d S ociety” in:
British Journal o f S ociology, Vol. X X I, N o. 4, D ecem ber 1970.
13. C ohen, S., Protest, Unrest a n d D elinquency. U npublished p a p e r delivered a t In tern atio n al
Sym posium o n Y o u th U nrest. Tel-Avrv, O cto b er 1971.
14. A kers, R o n ald , L „ „P ro b lem s in the S ociology o f D eviance: S ocial D efinitions and
B ehaviour” in: S ocial Forces, Vol. 46, N o. 4 (Ju n e 1968), p. 463.
15. The Guardian, N ew Y ork, Ja n u a ry 10th, 1970, p. 14.
16. The Guardian, ibid.
17. See S h in ’ya O n o , „Y ou do need a w eath erm an to know w hich way the wind blow s" in:
H . Ja c o b s (E d.), W eathermen, 1970, p p. 227-274.
1 8 .Ibid.
1 9 .Ibid.
20. Q u o ted in „T h e S .D .S .’s D eso latio n R ow ”, in: International Socialism , F eb ru ary , 1970.
See full article p p . 184-195 in H . Ja c o b s (E d.), W eatherm en, 1970, op. cit. T his is a fairly
com prehensive read er on an d by w eatherm en, an d non-w eatherm en.
21. The Guardian, L ib e ratio n N ew s Service, Ja n u a ry 10th, 1970, p. 3 an d also see „ S to rm y
W eath er” in H. Ja c o b s (E d.), op. cit.
22. L em ert, E ., H um an D eviance, Social P roblem s an d Social Control, 1967, p. 17.
2 3 .Ibid.
24. B ecker, H ., Outsiders, 1963, p. 26.
25. L em ert, E., op. cit., p. 17.
26. B ox, S., D eviance, R eality a n d Society, 1971, p. 218, M y italics.
27. Box, S., ibid., p. 219.
28. Ja c o b s, H. (E d .), op. cit., p. 311.
29. G errassi, J o h n , Blow Up A m erica, Black D w arf, A pril 1970.
30. M a rtin W alk er’s second re p o rt from the A m erican U nderground „S trateg y o f T e rro r” ,
The Guardian (E n g land), 1971.
31. See Cole, J., „T h ey Bom bed in New H av en ” in: W orkers Power, N ovem ber 1970, p. 6 a n d
also The Plain Truth, Vol. X X X V I, 1971, no. 6.
32. See The M ilitant, Ja n u a ry 22nd, 1971 an d Peace N ew s 9 A pril 1971. M y italics.
33. L o m b ro so , C., Les A narchistes, 1894.
34. L em ert, E., Social Pathology, 1951, p. 188.
P au l W alto n ’s b o o k s include Situating M arx edited w ith S. H all, L o n d o n , 1972; and From
A lien ation to Surplus Value w ith A. G am ble, L ondon, 1972. T his latter book w on the Isaac
D eu tsch er M em orial A w ard th e sam e year. His next book is The N ew C rim inology w hich will
be published early in 1973.
34