Problems_in_Defining_Deviance

The concept of deviance is a derogatory public term but to sociologists it is an objective and neutral concept. A very wide spectrum of ideas and theories are involved in describing deviance. It is a dynamic concept which can be explained from different perspectives by individuals in different cultures, across cultures at different times. The view towards deviance is influenced by many things which include norms, values, and beliefs of a society. Some instances of deviance barely raise eyebrows, other cases command a swift and severe response, (Macionis and Gerber; 2002).This essay will be discussing the problems that arise in attempting to define deviance. There is always the assumption that there is some agreement regarding what is deviant and who gets defined as deviant for example no one would challenge the notion that child abuse is bad and the abusers should be punished. However the level of agreement within a given society over what is deviant and what specific acts constitute child abuse. Newman (1995)Some argue that beating a child is abuse but others assert that beating a child is part of discipline hence there has been debates on whether there should be an abolishment of child beating or there should be a limit, a method of discipline to one parent could be child abuse to another. The conventional view of deviance is norm violation or breaking rules or crime. This approach is primarily valuable in defining deviance in terms of criminal deviance as it focuses in characteristics of the deviant as well as the social structural conditions that lead to deviant acts. However this approach cannot explain non criminal deviance and there are criminal acts which are not defined as deviance for example in Zimbabwe there was time people sustained themselves by engaging in foreign currency deals, these were commonly called money changers. This absolutist definition of deviance does not allow alternative conceptions of right or wrong, Newman (1995). This can lead to inaccurate and narrow perceptions of many acts that could be overlooked and taken as right when they wrong. The absolutist approach assumes that certain individual characteristics are typical of all deviants but the relativist approach argues that there is no typical deviant; life cannot be seen in terms of absolute right or wrong. At a certain time, at a certain place everyone was once a deviant and no thought or action in inherently deviant. It becomes deviant only in relation to particular norms for example use of marijuana is unacceptable to a Christian group but to Rastafarians, marijuana is used as part of their rituals and they smoke it without shame during these ceremonies. Abortion is seen as killing in some societies but in some societies it an easy solution out of an unwanted pregnancy. Even laws are not the same in all countries; they differ from place to place. Deviance can be problematic to explain when it is subjective. As we interact with each other we interpret certain behaviors as deviant while the next person is not defining it as deviance. In studying deviance from an interactionist angle, sociologists are interested in the perspectives and actions of those who label and those who are not labeled. Frequently people who are labeled as deviant simply because they are different in some way tend to end up being deviant just to prove that they can be what people are saying about them. The weakness of this view is that not everyone who is labeled as deviant is a deviant. A child who is very good at something like reading or mathematics can be seen as deviant by those who not able to do it. Pfohl goes on to say that deviants never exist except in relation to those who attempt to control them, they exist only in opposition to those whom they threaten and those who have enough power to control against such threats. For example in Zimbabwe and other African countries homosexuality is seen as a threat to African kinship and marriage which are the basis of the African culture but in European countries it is normal to see a man holding hands with another man or two women living as husband and wife. Deviance then, becomes a negotiated order. Like homosexuality it violates some group assumptions about reality or social order and it violates the expectations. It explains a threat which calls for containment and control of the threat and in doing so there is maintenance of normalcy. The problem of deviance can be brought up on the question of who defines what is deviant and what is not' According to Pfohl deviance is a story of the battle to control the way people think, feel and behave. It is a story of winners and losers and of the strategies people use, Individuals or groups in power want to instutionalize their own views on what is right or wrong. According to the conflict perspective power is added to the mix of deviance formation through interactions of those who hold power and hold an advantageous position over others. Pfohl argues that a poor and unimportant burglar may be incarcerated as a hard core criminal deviant but a respectable corporate executive who participates in decisions to manipulate fuel prices or builds unsafe buildings is not considered one. The losers labeled as deviants are either jailed, shamed, executed, hospitalized. They are not treated as normal but they are stigmatized. Deviance therefore exists in opposition to those who attempt to control it and those who have managed to control it. Pfohl (1994).This perspective allows individuals to justify any behavior, however wrong, as non deviant. Marx asserted that the law amounts to little more than a strategy by which powerful people protect their interests for example owners of an unprofitable factory have a legal right to close their business, even if in doing so they will be throwing thousands out of work. But if workers commit and act of vandalism that closes the same factory for a single day they are subject to criminal prosecution and can be labeled as deviants. This shows that deviance can be problematic in defining it because norms and their application are linked to social inequality. (Macionis and Gerber; 2002) Definitions of deviance can prejudice against women for example on the idea of what to wear. In Zimbabwe women walked around practically before colonization but with colonization women were only allowed to wear long dresses with long sleeves, dresses that could did not show a lot skin. The fashion changed with time and colonization ended but any woman seen wearing a trousers was beaten. Women now can wear trousers. In the British society divorce was once considered deviant but now it is commonly accepted within the bounds of normal behavior. In these contexts, norms and values change over time hence definition of deviance can change historically within a given culture. What is considered deviant today may be defined as normal in future. According to Newman immediate situational circumstances can also influence definitions deviance. Intake of alcohol is acceptable in a bar but not in classroom, during weekends but not during the week and in the evening more than in the morning. Even acts of violence like killing may be accepted for example killing in war or as self defense. Deviance cannot be viewed as negative, sometimes it is starting point for changing society for the better. Without deviance societies would have been stagnant for example when Zimbabwe and other African nations were colonized, if they had not rebelled against the colonial regime they would not have moved forward. If women had not stood up against the patriarchal system they would be confined to their homes, they would not be involved in decision making, they would not be in those highly ranked offices as company executives, and they would not have been lawyers or doctors. Without deviance societies would not be moving forward. There is no absolute way of defining a deviant act because deviance is relative. It can only be defined in relation to particular standards and no standards are absolute and fixed. Standards vary from time to time, place to place and from situation to situation. It is not a property of any particular beliefs, acts or conditions instead it is socially created by human judgments and ideas of people who are looking after their own interests at the expense of others. Bibliography Pfohl S J. 1985.Images of deviance and social control: A sociological History. Macionis J J.1999. Sociology. New York. Prentice hall O’Donnell M. 1992. A New Introduction to Sociology. London. Thomson Publishing Company Perry J A, Perry E K. 1991.Contemporary Society. An Introduction to Social Sciences. New York. Harper Collins. Newman D M. 1995. Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. California. Pine Forge. Macionis J, Gerber Linda. 2002. Sociology 4th Edition. Toronto. Prentice Hall