Theorizing Social Life - Article Example

THEORIZING SOCIAL LIFE By Presented to of The sociological perspective of career started in the study of occupations in 1940s, carried out by Everett Hughes and Oswald Hall. But it was further polished by interactionist sociologists who applied it to aspects beyond the actual occupations like deviance careers. These sociologists included Howard Becker (1963) who used this concept in the steps in ‘becoming a marijuana smoker’ where smokers learned the technique, learned to perceive the effects and lastly learned to enjoy it (Becker 1963). Likewise, Asylums (1961) by Erving Goffman, illustrated the ‘moral career’ of a mental patient, once more in three steps; pre-patient, patient and post-patient. Howard Becker (1963) not only worked on the concept of symbolic interaction, but he also analyzed the effect of social construction on the identity and actions of people. The Labeling Theory mentioned in the Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963) by Becker, theorizes that “deviance is based on the reactions and responses of others to an individual’s act (Becker 1963).” According to Becker (1963), “deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label” (Orcutt 2002). An individual is labeled as a deviant when the people around the individual study their behavior and as a result label that individual as a deviant. As Becker (1963) states clearly, “no particular act is inherently deviant until a group with socially powerful statuses or positions label it as such” (Kyvsgaard 2003). Furthermore, Becker suggests that deviance approach should be concerned with active interactionist concept rather than cause-and-effect relationships between inert variables. He states that “all causes do not operate at the same time, and we need a model which takes into account the fact that patterns of behavior develop in an orderly sequence (Becker 1963)”. Becker takes the concept of career in the labeling theory to explain deviance more clearly. In Outsiders, this concept is used to study the stages and possibilities involved in the establishment of a deviant career. Becker explains deviant career as a steady guide of deviant behavior which is a result of the labeling process (Orcutt 2002). Becker suggests that numerous individuals sometimes commit non-conforming actions without becoming directly caught up in a constant pattern of deviant activity such as becoming a marijuana user (Becker 1963). The main cause behind this is that a lot of people remain ‘secret deviants’ and do not get caught for their non-conforming actions. As mentioned by Becker “the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as deviant” (Becker 1963). It does not matter who the individual was before being labeled, it is the reaction by others towards this individual that has now become focused on one overpowering feature of his or her identity. Consequently, in the words of Becker, the next step in the development of a deviant career is that “one tends to be cut off. . . from participation in more conventional groups” (Becker 1963). This also may result in pushing the deviant further into his or her label as he or she would have to other alternative but to jump in the deviant activities that are expected. In the ultimate stages of the deviant career, there is an increased involvement of the deviant with other organized deviant groups who have been labeled similarly. The membership of a deviant group verifies the individual’s self-identity as a deviant he or she has been labeled. Furthermore, individuals belonging to such groups share a deviant subculture, “a set of perspectives and understandings about what the world is like and how to deal with it” (Becker 1963). Rationalizations and justifications are provided by this subculture in order to undertake more deviant activities. As a consequence, the deviant who in due course ends up in a structured deviant group and becomes a part of its subculture, “is more likely than ever before to continue in his ways” (Becker 1963). Becoming a marijuana user demonstrates the way deviant motives actually evolve in the course of knowledge with the deviant activity. The deviant career of a marijuana user provides the sequence of the changes in attitudes and experience which lead to the use of marijuana for pleasure (Anonymous 2006). Firstly in becoming a marijuana user the individual has to arrive at a point of willingness to try marijuana to ‘get high’. Consequently, the first step in the order of events that must occur if the person is to become a user is that he or she must become skilled at to use the proper smoking technique so that his or her use of drug will generate effects in terms of which his notion of it can change (Goode 2006). The next stage involved is the “learning to perceive the effects of marijuana.” The user must be able to differentiate the experiences to himself and then connect them with having smoked marijuana before he can have this skill. Otherwise, no matter what actual effects are produced, he considers that the drug has had no effect on him and might discontinue. The last step is learning to enjoy the effects. Sensations produced by marijuana are not automatically pleasurable. If the consumer has to continue the usage of marijuana, he or she has to come to a decision that the feelings created are enjoyable. Or else, getting high would be a distasteful experience, one he or she would rather stay away from. In addition, the new user’s interpretation of what is happening might further confuse and frighten him resulting in the discontinuation of the drug. So the learner would have to redefine the feelings as pleasurable to carry on. This redefinition occurs, usually, in communication with more experienced users of marijuana (Goode 2006). Once the user has gotten hold of the skill to enjoy by the drug, he or she will continue using it. There may be some reservations due to the interference by the society, but once the user has taken in the main concept of the drug, he or she will keep on using it. Erving Goffman (1968) expresses the moral career of mental patients, through total institution. According to him, total institutions are totalizing and encompassing and states that total institutions are "symbolized by the barrier to social intercourse with the outside and to departure that is often built right into the physical plant, such as locked doors, high walls, barbed wire, cliffs, water, forests, or moors" (Goffman 1968). Goffman’s examination of the steps through which mental patients modify their idea of self and of others explains the consequence on the self between the social structure in a total institution and the social structure in a civilian institution. It also puts forward the importance of social structure in constructing conforming behavior total institutions, such as mental asylums, prisons and military establishments (De Vries 2005). People living together in total institutions are called inmates and the small group that manages them is called staff that is socially integrated to the outside world (Goffman 1968). Both these groups tend to consider the members of the other group with hostility and stereotyping. Any sort of social mobility between the two groups is out of question. Therefore, two different cultural and social worlds establish. The pre-patient phase of an inmates moral career involves a series of occurrences from being a person to being a patient (Goffman 1968). The inmates enter the institution as members of a complete society (Goffman 1968). But when the individual enters the total institution, the institution has an already established culture. The inmate enters the institution with a self. However, the inmate faces a threat to the self in admittance procedures where the standard used to evaluate the candidate may be more related to the goals of the institution itself rather than the personal goals of the patient. After entrance, the patient faces stress to conform to the institutional goals and is out in the open to dishonor to self. The process of degradation of the self entails the processes by which this civilian self is slowly cut off of its connections to the external world to the point where the self has to behave according to the internal total institution. In addition to the above humiliation of the self, Goffman also explains shame of the self through the "disruptions of the usual relationship between the individual actor and his acts" (Goffman, 1968). While the process of humiliation is in growth, the inmate starts to get formal and informal education called the privilege system or the second stage known as the patient (Goffman 1968). Till now the inmates self has been disturbed slightly by the mortification process which is mostly based on reorganization of self. The basic constituent of this stage are that there are set rules of the institution for the inmate’s conduct. So, the initial humiliation process can be seen as a method of tuning the inmate to the rules and regulations of the institutions. Secondly, in such a suffocating environment the inmates are given clearly defined rewards in return of obedience to staff. Punishment is the third element based on the institutions rules and rewards (Goffman 1968). This is present as the outcome of breaking the rules. The last stage is known as the post-patient or the adaptation alignments stage. The inmates have to adapt to the pre-patient and the patient stage. But these adaptations might result in different ways of meeting them. The same inmate would utilize different adaptation techniques at different phases in his moral career and these techniques may even vary with time. Firstly, there is situational withdrawal in the inmate at the institution. The inmate pulls out attention from everything other than occurrences related immediately to him or her. In mental hospitals, this withdrawal is known as regression (Goffman 1968). Secondly, there is the rebellious line in which the inmate deliberately defies the institution. Thirdly, a kind of colonization takes place. As the outer world is thought to be stable, therefore, it is used as a point of reference and the inmates living inside the total institutions desire to live in a world that exists outside the institution. Lastly, one method of adapting to the total institution is conversion. The inmate appears acts out the responsibility of the perfect inmate by obeying the staff (Goffman 1968). Another factor is the loyalty to the inmate group, so that in particular circumstances, the inmate has a chance of getting out of danger with the help of the inmates (Goffman 1968). The cultural aspect of the moral career is that the inmates have a strong feeling that the time spent at the institution is wastage. Secondly, in many total institutions self-concern is produced related to the low position of inmates in relation to their position in the outer world and as a result the inmates tend to develop a story in which he blames others for his existing state (Goffman 1968). Becker’s (1963) deviant career and Goffman’s (1968) moral career are classic examples of the labeling theory in the interactionist perspective. Both the theories present three distinct steps or stages in which the individuals socialize themselves in their existing situations. Furthermore, the individuals in these approaches join organized groups who are in similar situation as them and develop a subculture with new norms and values which might not be acceptable to the society. Also, both the deviant behavior and admission in a mental institute are generally stigmatized in the society. On the other hand, Goffmans work was more related with the changes in subjective images of the self experienced by patients. Another difference is that in Becker’s (1963) approach, the individual takes the path of deviance by choice. On the other hand, Goffmans approach suggests that the individual is forced into the mental institution and has to be a part of it whether he likes it or not. Reference: Anonymous, 2006, Becker: Becoming a marijuana user, Drudscience.org. Available from: [22 April 2009]. De Vries, M, 2005, Asylums, MeTZelf: Association for Medical and Therapeutic Self-Determination. Available from: [22 April 2009]. Goode, E, 2006, The marijuana smokers, Chapter 6 - Turning On: Becoming a Marijuana User, Available from: [22 April 2009]. Kyvsgaard, B, 2003, The criminal career: The Danish longitudinal study, Danish Ministry of Justice. Available from: [22 April 2009]. Orcutt, JD, 2002, Becker’s interactionist theory of labeling, The Labeling Tradition: Interpersonal Reactions to Deviance. Available from: [22 April 2009]. Read More