In the study of Sociology of Deviance, sociologists develop theories and perspective in explaining the account for deviant and studying of how the society reacts. It is an interesting field to study because the difference and changes of deviance and social norms have a significant impact on individuals and groups. In this essay, I will examine varies definitions and perspective of Erikson and Heckerts respectively in respect to the following concepts: deviance serves certain functions for society, the typology of positive and negative deviance and the "middle class norms", and the labelling perspective on deviance. To being with, Erikson claims that deviance as functional. To this reason, it is believed that Erikson derives his viewpoint …show more content…
First of all, “communities” can be understood as any organizations in the society, from small groups (family) to large groups (culture), that the members of the group share a lose-knitted relationship and a sense of belonging. Under this system, “boundary maintenance” serves as a sense of distinction of activity from group members to others within a large environment, it is a way to create social space by differencing between “we” and ‘they” mentality. It is possible to say that each of us create our own moral and cultural identity within communities through the influence of mass media, law enforcement, and other agencies by knowing deviant behaviours and its consequences. Therefore, boundary maintenance functions as social solidarity, which refers to the idea of division of labour and each role has its own function to the society, to let us determine the morally right behaviour lay. Next, the idea of “commitment ceremonies” marks the formal stage of the nature of deviancy, where deviant is being putted in a highly dramatic setting, such as prisoner. In today’s society, this formality ritual definitely results in destructive effects on the
The theoretical study of societal reaction to deviance has been carried out under different names, such as, labelling theory, interactionist perspective, and the social constructionist perspective. In the sociology of deviance, the labelling theory of deviant behaviour is often used interchangeably with the societal reaction theory of deviancy. As a matter of fact, both phrases point equally to the fact that sociological explanations of deviance function as a product of social control rather than a product of psychology or genetic inheritance. Some sociologists would explain deviance by accepting without question definitions of deviance and concerning themselves with primary aetiology. However, labelling theorists stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is ascribed deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been stigmatized, then the deviant act they are said to have committed. In addition, Howard S. Becker (1963), one of the earlier interaction theorists, claimed that, "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders". Furthermore, the labelling theoretical approach to deviance concentrates on the social reaction to deviance committed by individuals, as well as, the interaction processes leading up to the labelling.
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).
Goode, E. (2011). Constructionist Perspectives of Deviance. Deviant Behavior (Ninth Edition ed., ). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, Inc..
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
Deviance is any behavior that departs from societal or group norms. Deviance is not aimed at directly just once topic. It can range from criminal behavior, to sexual behavior, to religious behavior, and a lot more. Society is based around order and stability, without these two things conformity and predictability in human behavior would not exist. Because deviance can be so defined as so many different things, often people take offense to what they believe is wrong. The way I would define deviance is a mishap, in a person’s beliefs, and behavior that society does not agree with. The concepts 'Social Control ' and 'Deviance ' to my understandings of these terms are that they try to categorize, regulate and define different kinds of antisocial behavior. I believe that a lot of time, we as humans are afraid to break out of our shell and speak our mind because we are so afraid of what others may think. Society tells us that you have to act, be, and look a certain way, and if you do not fit these standards, then you are breaking conformity.
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.
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.
... up information about crime and it is truly sad to think about. Undeniably, crime is all around us, everywhere we go. There is always someone out there committing crime. “Deviance” is not inherent in people, it is a process in which you learn. Yet through many series of socialization, such as parents, friends, class, gender, an individual or group can become “deviant”. The interactionist theories the best sociological explanation due to the fact that it can alter people values and perception in many ways. For instance, supervision of the so called “street” parents, have a huge effect on their children’s development. However, being labeled as a criminal by the society has made people living in the so called “streets” to accept this label as a criminal and obey and commit crime. This semester has enabled me to better understand on how crime is formed and how it works.
"Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance." Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. .
Crime is an irrelevant concept as it is tied to the formal social control mechanism of the State; deviance is a concept that is owned by sociology thus our study should be the sociology of deviance, rather than criminology
Law, ?a governmental social control? (Black 2), is a quantitative variable that changes in time and space and can be defined by style: penal, compensatory, therapeutic or conciliatory (Black 5). The brief description of law and its interrelation with social control and deviant behavior can be encapsulated in the following scheme. This concept of law put into the context of social life gives a framework of the behavior of law.
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.
His belief was that each human developed their own personality through a series of stages and these stages developed due to the social experiences that one experienced through life. According to Erikson, there are eight stages and each stage centers around a conflict that has to be resolved. Under Erikson’s theory, if conflict or crisis is not resolved, then the outcome will be more crisis and struggles with that issue later on in life (Domino & Affonso, 2011).
Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development were complex, but simple. It is something everyone will go through and experiences will always be different. The lack of reinforcement to the positive aspects of his stages can lead to quite a disaster. Surprisingly, previous stages are highly influential to the proceeding stage. The lack of reinforcement to the positive aspects of his psychosocial stages can have a very devastating effect on a person. This is because the effects built up rather than taking the place of one another. The effects are quite horrifying, but with the right environment, experiences and beliefs, everything can go well.
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?