GENERALLY, CRIMINAL DEVIANCE PHENOMENA ARE REPRESENTED UNDER THE HEADING OF 'DIFFERENCES'; MUCH RESEARCH HAS BEEN CENTERED ON WHY AND HOW SOME COMMIT CRIMES, WHILE OTHERS DO NOT. SINCE THE 1960'S THERE HAS BEEN A GRADUAL MOVEMENT AWAY FROM THE 'DEVIANT' TOWARD THE MECHANISMS AND PROCESSES OF STIGMATIZATION. ALTHOUGH THIS TREND HAS NOT BROUGHT MANY POSITIVE RESULTS, IT EMPHASIZES THE DIFFICULTIES OF A SOCIOLOGY BASED ON EXPLANATION OF THE DEVIANT ACT. THE FIRST DIFFICULTY ARISES FROM OFFICIAL STATISTICS OR OBSERVATIONS OF PRESELECTED POPULATIONS USED IN THIS APPROACH, WHICH AMOUNT TO A DETERMINISTIC 'NATURALIZATION' OF THE DELINQUENT. SECONDLY, ONLY THE VISIBLE FORMS OF CRIMINAL DEVIANCE ARE CONSIDERED. THE INTERACTIONISTS OR POSTINTERACTIONISTS GO NO FURTHER THAN TO SUGGEST A SHIFT OF INTEREST FROM THE CRIMES OF THE OPPRESSED TO THOSE OF THE OPPRESSORS, OR THE REPLACEMENT OF MEAD'S CONCERN WITH THAT OF DAHRENDORF, WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE SOCIOLOGY OF CRIMINAL DEVIANCE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN TWO DIRECTIONS. FIRST, WITH REGARD TO INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF NORMS, THE SIMPLISTIC OPPOSITION OF CONSENSUS TO CONFLICT MUST BE ELIMINATED, EITHER BY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NORM'S RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OR BY STUDY OF ITS RECEPTION. SECONDLY, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NORM, THAT IS THE GENERAL FORM, EVOLVING SPECIALIZED FORMS, AND HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FORMS OF SOCIAL CONTROL OF CRIMINALS MUST BE INVESTIGATED WITH ATTENTION TO GENEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION PROCESSES. FINALLY, BY EXAMINING THE PUBLIC RECORD OF SOCIETY'S CONTROLLING AGENCIES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHO SPEAKS AND WHAT MESSAGE IS PRODUCED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. --IN FRENCH. (INL)