The Ever-Changing Deviant Society Essay

Brym, R.J., & Lie, J., & Rytina, S. (2010) Deviance and Crime. Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. 3rd Canadian Edition. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Toronto: Nelson

To suggest that deviancy was socially constructed – Deviancy was viewed as bas behaviour that was defined as bad or unacceptable by a powerful group of people who controlled the operations of the state, and who were able to utilise their power to stigmatise actions which they did not approve. This suggested that crime and deviance were based upon subjective considerations and value judgements.

Within any culture lies an array of definitive demeanors and actions that are deemed socially adequate and inadequate. Depending on the distinguishing behavior of a given individual and the society that they live in, there are invisible “laws” that prevent people from acting a certain way. If the individual’s behavior is adverse to the superior, predominant norms of their society, the actions of that individual are considered to be deviant. Social deviance in shown in a variety of dissimilar faces: within physical appearance, actions done to oneself and others, and religious groups.

The article written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down”, illustrates the decline of social morals in the last 50 years within the United States. According to Moynihan, the amount of abnormal behavior being accepted into society is on the rise, if we don’t do something about this development the future generations will be impacted quite heavily. The abnormal behavior of society includes crime, mental illnesses, broken family structures and violence. He defines these terms by breaking them up into three different categories, the altruistic, the opportunistic, and the normalizing. These categories borrow ideas from people such as Emile Durkheim, Kai T. Erikson, Edwin Torres, and many others. Moynihan also uses articles and statistics in addition to the ideas of the people I mentioned to further develop his three categories. The first category, the altruistic, is illustrated by a movement that appeared in the 1950s known as the deinstitutionalization movement focusing on the mental health profession. The second category, the opportunistic, mainly portrayed

A cross-cultural examination of certain deviant acts surface interesting observations of both the root of function of deviance in that given society. This observation will illustrate how the ways in which deviance is viewed in a specific culture is not universal. The author also touches upon how the “concept of normal” is equated with the “concept of good”; therefore, by consequence, anything remotely outside this pre-established box is viewed in a negative manner (Benedict 1934:4). The category of deviance is employed by society as a strategic means of reducing diversity, maintaining order and above else, upholding the social norm. Individuals who threaten this system are immediately labeled as evil wrongdoers who are then treated differently on every level. A further scholar, Erikson, compares the social system to a “nucleus, “which” draws the behavior of actors toward [itself] within range of basic norms,” (Erikson 1962: 309). This analogy provides powerful imagery of how the social system functions and the reason for why deviance is seen as such a threatening act. He further draws a comparison between the law and the norm arguing that both are reinforced by consistently being “used as a basis for judgment,” (Erikson 1962: 310). The entanglement of

“Deviance in sociological context describes actions or behaviors that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms.”

There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.

Among any community there is a set of boundaries that must be respected under penalty of being labeled as deviant. Consequently, a community will create agencies of control in order to punish and fight against all the forms of behavior considered as deviant. In his Study in the Sociology of Deviance, Kai T. Erikson defends the point that deviant forms of behavior are a natural and beneficial part of social life. One of his main arguments is that, in our modern society, “the agencies of control often seem to define their job as that of keeping deviance within bounds rather than obliterating it altogether” (Wayward Puritans 24:2). Now, what if society gave to its agencies of control the role of annihilating deviance? What if the set of

Deviance and crime are wide-ranging terms used by sociologists to refer to behavior that varies, in some way, from a social norm. Cultural Norms are society's propensity towards certain ideals; their aversion from others; and their standard, ritualistic practices. Essentially the 'norm' is a summation of typical activities and beliefs of group of people. This essay will evaluate the sociological theories associated with crime and deviance and to compare and contrast these main theories. And find links between these theories to today’s society. There are various Sociological deviance theories, including Structuralist: why do some people break the rules? ,

Deviance is an unavoidable part of human nature, and as such, is a fascinating and essential social phenomenon to study. The film Easy A explores how a high school student turns to deviance in order to benefit in popularity and financially. A number of sociological theories are recognisable in this film. It demonstrates clearly the motivations behind how primary deviance leads to secondary deviance. The text raises the theories of

‘social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of vie, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of the rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied, deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. (Becker 1963, pg 9)

Deviance is described as being behaviour that is not part of the norms in your particular society. This can be different throughout the world because some cultures have very different norms (Stephens and Leach, 1998:17). Most deviant behaviour will attract disapproval from others in the society or punishment from authorities. There are many different types of deviance such as addiction, mental illness, alcoholism, criminality and homosexuality. Throughout this essay six types of theories will be discussed about how and why people are deviant. Four of these theories support the idea of deviance being biological and three support the idea of it being caused by your social construction. Also the essay will talk about the differences between

The research done in this paper provides a better understanding of deviance and social control. There are various factors to research on the topic to develop a complete understanding of the two ideas. Specifically, the goal is to identify factors that directly impact deviance and social control and if one can exist without the other. These topics provide a better understanding of the human behavior and actions because of social control and societal norms. The focus of this discussion is to provide a detailed analysis of societal norms, deviance, and social control. I have used supporting research and my own personal ideas to develop the findings in this paper. It has become evident that without societal norms there would be no social

Deviance can be defined as an absence of conformity to the social norm. Not all deviant behavior is necessarily illegal or harmful to individuals, these behaviors can range from standing in another’s personal space to murdering another individual. In some cases, it can be looked upon as a positive change or a unique and favorable act. Although, considered deviant because it is not the social norm, it still can have a very positive social aspect or lead to social change. Culture and the societies within these cultures have a significant impact on what is considered deviant and what is acceptable or even lawful behavior. The degree of deviance is measured by society’s reaction towards the action and the lawful sanctions that may take

Deviance is socially constructed because it is defined and outlined firmly by society’s norms. As a result, a deviant act in one society may not be considered deviant within a different society. Societies define themselves through the shared common values of the individuals and in order for a society to maintain these values and cultural identity they create and maintain boundaries (Erikson, 2005, p17). These boundaries allow individuals to relate to each other in an articulate manner and so that they may develop a position within society (Erikson, 2005, p17). The boundaries are created by individuals’ behavior and interactions in their regular social relations. Deviance then becomes the actions which society perceived to be outside of its boundaries. In other words, an act is viewed as deviant when it falls outside of those commonly shared values and norms which created the boundaries. This is because the society is making a declaration about the disposition and arrangement of their boundaries. Boundaries are not fixed to any society rather they shift as the individual’s redefine their margins and position on a larger cultural map (Erikson, 2005, p20).