e times, such as "blue laws", and while some may consider them deviant, they are not criminal. The reactivist definition defines deviance as that where there exists actual concrete instances of negative reactions to the act. The flaw with this thinking is that there is nothing wrong with it if you don't get caught. The normative definition is where the act violates a group norm. This is too simplistic of a definition and assumes that things are black and white.
             The best and most complete definition of social deviance is provided by Erich Goode in the moderate reactivist position. He distinguishes between societal and situational acts, then looks at the degree of significance of the act based on numbers, power, and intensity to determine if the act is deviant. Take the act of shoplifting and apply it to this definition. The theft negatively affects society by raising prices to cover the loss and theft is generally considered wrong as a societal norm. When caught, why the person stole will be taken into consideration in determining the punishment, if they stole food because they are starving versus stealing a necklace because they liked it. The who and the why are looked at in determining if the act was deviant. If the thief was a four year old who carried out a toy without its mother's knowledge then the act would not be deviant because in this situation, people would not disapprove like the deliberate act of shoplifting by a teen who knows right from wrong. This definition takes into account intent and motive and is what I agree with most as a definition. I think that each situation needs to be looked at in the context of what happened, did it hurt anybody or society, and why they did what they did before saying that it is social deviance. The other definitions are too simplistic and narrow and don't take situational circumstances or other views into account.
             2. Once you have a working definition of social ...