Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Emile durkheim major theories
Essay on emile durkheim theories
Emile durkheim theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Emile durkheim major theories
French sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first to conceptualise deviance with today’s theorists generally accepting his theory as a functionalist theory of deviance. The Normative theories consider values as what a particular society or individual use to decide what is right and wrong, along with what is important in life. (Roach Anieu 45) They are the underlying preferences that guide our choices in life. Henslin (50) defines values as the standards by which people define what is desirable or undesirable, good or bad, beautiful or ugly.The behaviour accepted by a particular individual, group or society to live within these values is referred to as norms. Though these norms are generally positive they can also be negative depending on the sub group that one is associated with eg drug takers or car thieves. Norms can attract both negative and positive sanctions depending on how the act is looked upon by the governing values of that society. Sanctions for following a norm can range from a hug, kiss or a more material reward such as a trophy or money. When the norms are broken within society there are consequences imposed on those perpetuators who have broken them. These range from a dirty look or reprimand to goal time.While Anleu 2014 in Deviance, Conformity & Control takes the standing point that deviance a is norm violation, it is not assumed that everyone accepts the same set of norms. (Anleu 8)
Family values are usually passed down from one generation to the next, giving the structure and boundaries in which to function and thrive to the next generation. Within this is the structural value of marriage. Though the value of marriage is universal the morns that define the institution and values of a marriage vary from cultu...
... middle of paper ...
...e a societal value of both bullying and retaliation an accepted value within some subgroups of society.
Works Cited
Henslin, James. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. Pearson/Australia, 9/7/10. VitalBook file
Anleu, Sharyn L. Deviance, Conformity & Control, 4th Edition. Pearson/Australia, 01/2014. VitalBook file. http://au.reachout.com/Bullying-and-the-law Franzese, RJ 2009, The Sociology Of Deviance : Differences, Tradition, And Stigma, Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 21 March 2014.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/daniel-christie-dies-following-kinghit-punch-20140111-30ndv.html
While marriage is still quite alive, the rates are definitely declining. It is interesting to distinguish the qualities and characteristics of relationships between generations. At some point, marriage would succeed or fail depending on happiness and satisfaction of couples. Today, there is high expectation between couples. Arlene Skolnick talks about a few different topics one of them being “ For better and for Worst”. For this topic Arlene Skolnick talks about a sociologist Jesse Bernard argument that every marriage consists of two other marriages, his and hers, and how marriages typically favors men rather than the women. He sates that that the stresses that are experienced in a marriage come from expectations between the husband and wife. Anther topic Arlene Skolnick talks about is “Marriage is Movie, Not a Snapshot”. For this topic Arlene Skolnick talks a little about Heroclitis the ancient Greek philosopher saying of how “you can never step into the same river twice, because it is always moving” and how this is smaller to a marriage. Arlene Skolnick talks about a few different studies that where done over a short period of time demonstrating that families, marriages, and people can change over
DeVault, C., Cohen, T., & Strong, B. (2011). The marriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changing society. (11th ed., pgs. 400-426). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth cengage learning.
"Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance." Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. .
Adler, Patricia A., and Adler Peter. Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction. 6th ed. Belmont: Thomas/Wadsworth, 2009.
Emile Durkheim (1901) argued that although definitions of what constitutes deviance vary by place, it is present in all societies. He defined deviance as acts that offend collective norms and expectations. Durkheim believed that what makes an act or appearance deviant is not so much its character or consequences, but that a group has defined it as dangerous or threatening to its well-being (Ferrante, 134).
Societies are founded on various social norms. Norms can best be defined as a set of acceptable attitudes and practices by a given society. These norms however are found to vary from one society or cultural setting o the other. Deviance on the other hand is simply when one does something that goes against the set societal norms. Deviance is gauged on a scale of attitudes and behavior contradicting to acceptable social standards (Samuels, 2012).
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
Sociologists suggest deviance is a violation of any societal norm. Yet some have suggested deviance is a socially outmoded concept based on a Durkheim’s model of social solidarity. Therefore suggesting now it is obsolete, there is no longer a use for it in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like Australia. According to Roach Anleu (2004) Colin Sumner was one such claimant. Sumner suggested that the sociological concept of deviance and any coherent theoretical development stagnated in mid 1970s, as no agreement on how deviance should be set never happened, therefore there was never an answer to the question, “deviant from what”? Secondly, Sumner states there is no explanation for why deviance is the chosen subject of research, instead of the norms that specify deviance. He believed it only made sense to examine deviance within the framework of social disapproval. Sumner also believed the relationships between deviance, crime, and difference to be unclear. Lastly he thought that the search for a general concept to encompass such a assorted range of activities, problems and situations was misguided because there can be no behavioural unity for such a diverse range of practices. Sumner (1994) suggested that the focus should analysis how deviant categories are constructed and managed by the power relationships that are continually changing. (Sumner 1994), (Roach Anleu 2014) Roach Anleu (2014) describe norms as reflecting some level of consensus and can be laws, rules, regulations, standards, or unspoken expectations. However, within large communities, there can be individuals, and groups whose behaviour is perceived as deviant according to the accepted norms. Those individuals and or groups may not necessarily be consider...
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.
Symbolic interactionist make the major point. Because different groups have different norms, what is deviant to to some is not deviant to others. Structural functionalist could not be the correct answer because the functional perspective on deviance is that deviance also has functions. In contrast to this common assumption, the classic functionalist theorist Emile Durkheim (1893/1933, 1895/1964) came to a surprising conclusion. Deviance, he said—including crime—is functional for society. Deviance contributes to the social order in these three ways:
Before the 1950’s theorists focused on what the difference was between deviants and criminals from “normal” citizens. In the 1950’s researchers were more involved exploring meaning and reasons behind deviant acts. This led to the most dominant question in the field of deviance, “what is the structural and culture factors that lead to deviant behavior?” This question is important when studying deviance because there is no clear answer, everyone sees deviance in different ways, and how deviance is created. Short and Meier states that in the 1960’s there was another shift in focus on the subject of deviance. The focus was what causes deviance, the study of reactions to deviance, and the study of rule breaking and rule making. In the 1960’s society was starting to speak out on what they believed should be a rule and what should not; this movement create chaos in the streets. However, it gave us a glimpse into what makes people become deviant, in the case it was the Vietnam War and the government. Short and Meier also write about the three levels that might help us understand were deviance comes from and how people interact to deviance. The first is the micro level, which emphasizes individual characteristics by biological, psychological, and social sciences. The second level is macrosociological that explains culture and
Marriage was once for the sole purpose of procreation and financially intensives. Living up to the roles that society had placed on married couples, more so women, is no longer the goal in marriage. Being emotional satisfied, having a fulfilled sex life and earning money is more important in marriage (Cherlin, 2013). Couples no longer feel the obligation to put the needs of their partner in front of their own needs. In the 1960’s and later it was the woman’s job to ensure that the house was clean, the children were bathed and dinner was prepared before the husband came home work. However, once more and more women began to enter the workplace and gain more independence, a desire for self-development and shared roles in the household lead way the individualistic marriage that is present in today’s society (Cherlin,
Deviance is defined as actions or behaviors that violate socials norms. In turn the concept of deviance is dependent on the social observation and perception. “By it’s very nature, the constructionism through which people define and interpret actions or appearances is always “social.” ”(Henry, 2009 , p. 6) One’s perception of a situation may be completely different from another depending on cultural and social factors. The way someone talks, walks, dresses, and holds themselves are all factors that attribute to how someone perceives another. In some cases what is socially or normally acceptable to one person is deviant in another’s eyes. For this reason there is a lot of gray area involving the topic of deviance because actions and behaviors are so diversely interpreted.
As we all have observed, throughout history each culture or society has unique norms that are acceptable to that group of people. Therefore, to establish and come to the acceptance of these basic norms, each society must develop its’ own strategies and techniques to encourage the fundamentals of behavior, which is clear in our modern society. Most do assume that everyone in a society will follow and respect such norms. However, some tend to deviate from the adequate norms and demonstrate deviant behavior. Nevertheless, we are inclined to ask ourselves, why do people decide to violate such important standards of living?
Throughout the years, societies view on marriage and cohabitation has been changing, especially from the 1950s up until now. Marriage and cohabitation are in relation to social location, education, immigration and social class. In addition, these changes are influenced through socialization and their surrounding environments as people’s beliefs and expectations vary from what a defined family really is. Same-sex couples are now getting married and the divorce rate is on the rise, including non-married couples raising children. Most importantly, each individual determines who they marry or whom they share their love with through conditioning or in the course of shared similarities. People have dissimilar values, beliefs and attitudes and throughout the life course may change again, including the future generations. This paper reviews why marriage is on the decline and cohabitation is now the accepted social norm, including other aspects such as specific rights that couples have over others in the past. Religion is a powerful tool that alters minds of those who are affiliated with it. As a result, their beliefs are conditioned and marriage is valued differently than those who are not married. All in all this paper will further explain the change, continuity and