Views of Social Deviance - Essay Example

19th and early 20th century pathological view of deviance The 19th and the early 20th century view of deviance are basically determined by the application of Darwinism in the society; this involves social revolution. The 19th century pathologists engaged more in the racing of the pathways followed by evolution. This is what is referred to as recapitulation. Another argument on deviance in the 19th century can be explained using Lombroso’s criminal anthropology. Both of these two arguments explain how the 19th century evolution has influenced social norms in the century. First, recapitulation is considered as one of the means by which scientists in the 19th century used to rank human beings as higher or lower in class. This means that there was a social hierarchy determined by the ranks of human beings in the evolution era. In this case, there were two ranks of human beings: inferior and superior groups. The recapitulation holds that the adults of an inferior group are like children of superior groups. This is because a child of the century represents a primitive adult ancestor (Gould 117). Recapitulation also identifies and rationalizes forms of racism in two categories: blacks and whites. It is argued in this perspective that the southern Europeans are rated in a childlike primitive stage even as adults. This is contrary to the northerners who move to higher ranks. In the same way, the blacks are characterized as being similar to Europeans, who are in their immature stages. In terms of gender, there is a male stage and a female stage. Social Darwinism indicates that male adults in the 19th century are impressive, warm and submissive to emotion, timid, and irregular in action towards the outside world. The young males exhibit the female stage which characterizes primitive evolutionary stage (Gould 118). Levels of suicides were seen to be prevalent in the female stage. Women were seen as old and primitive while men were viewed as modern and less conservative. These ideologies in the Darwinian Social evolution represent the stereotypes of the 19th century. In this case, the young male and women are seen to be the deviant in the society as compared to male people. An important aspect of deviance in the 19th century is innate criminality, which is explained as the most common aspect of deviance of the century. In the study of a skull, Lombroso identified an aspect of criminality in the 19th century. This is what was referred to in the theory as atavism. The criminal nature of the criminals in the 19th century represented human primitivism and animal inferiority. Lombroso explained the features of the skull he studied in a way that gave a picture of a criminal (a deviant in our case). These features include enormous jaws, high cheek bones, large orbit sizes, handle-shaped ears, savages, insensibility to pain, tattooing, craving of evil, and excessive idleness. These are all the features of criminality which indicate the level of deviance in the 19th century and early 20th century. 2. Functionalist view of Deviance Functionalist view of deviance is based on the social facts, not psychological or biological ideologies. In this perspective, functionalism is viewed as a macro theory of the society. Since the society is a social system characterized by an organization of social institutions, it is the responsibility of the society to create and follow its own norms. The society will therefore accept those norms that will enable the society to function normally and properly. As long as the society functions normally, the social system will remain stable and healthy. In this case, some level of deviance is acceptable for as long as the institutions will still be able to maintain equilibrium in the society system. Durkheim argues that every society is inherently ailed by the problem of criminality (59). In this case, criminality can be viewed as one form of deviance. Durkheim provides a unique argument on this controversial aspect of deviance. Viewing criminality as a form of deviance, we can determine the proposition of Durkheim on criminality. Durkheim considers criminality as normal and having some positive aspects (59). In reference to normality, Durkheim observes that what is normal is the existence of criminality to a given level which should not be exceeded. This level of criminality should not be excessively high to the level that it becomes nearly impossible to fix. Crime is seen in this situation as part of a healthy society. The positive aspect that Durkheim provides in an attempt to justify the normality of deviance is that a society without crime is in essence impossible. Durkheim claims that crime is an act which tends to offend certain collective sentiments. If crime does not exist, then such sentiments would obviously be abundant in the consciousness of many members of the society; hence, crime in its own right will not have been eliminated. This is especially so if the sentiments exist to the same degree as the contrary sentiments regarded as abnormal crime. It is also observed by Durkheim that a society of saints and perfect groups of non-criminal individuals exhibits a system without crime but manifests faults that could still be interpreted by an ordinary layman as scandals that an ordinary case of crime could have caused (60). If the society had the power to judge such a scandal, it could regard it as a crime and punish it as such. In this case, a man judges even the smallest crime with so much severity that may be considered by the society as being truly an ordinary level of crime. Durkheim observes that the society is composed of such moral consciousness that is measurable to the extent that it may prevent all acts opposing it (61). However, the society never experiences uniformity that is universal to everyone because everyone is different. Owing to the difference in the individuality of members of every society, there must always be a member with criminal character. Crime is therefore considered as a necessary part of a normal or an ordinary society. This is because it is impossible to eliminate it from the society’s normal evolution and interaction of law and morality. Crime is also considered by Durkheim as way of determining the direction and levels that sentiments take. A criminal, therefore, plays a crucial role in the society to balance the functional system in the society. A reduction of crime in every society is associated with a social disorder. 3. Labeling theory and constructionist views of deviance The constructionist perspective of deviance relies mostly on the maxim that deviance is relative. This implies that deviance is considered to be deviance only if it is compared against a given parameter. Therefore, a deviant is more subjective than objective, i.e. what is deviance lies on the eyes of the beholder and what matters is who the beholder is. Generally, we determine whether a given phenomenon is a deviance by establishing the person from whose point of view the assumption is made. There are studies which attempt to explain constructionist views of deviance. For instance, Becker suggests that deviance does not just emerge independently without a negative reaction from people who oppose it (4). He claims that deviance should not be classified as a quality of an act committed by an individual. In essence, it is the application and imposition of sanctions and/or regulations on the offender that makes his/her actions to be seen as deviance. Becker holds the ground that outsiders determine whether one’s actions should be considered as being deviant. Independently, a person’s actions are not deviant, but to his/her perceptions they are the right things to do. Different groups of people regard different things as being deviant. Essentially, the phenomenon of deviance revolves around a set of outsider processes. The person making judgment on deviance, the process involved in making the judgment, and the situation leading to the decision of making such a judgment are all the determinant factors in establishing deviance. Labeling theory suggests that deviance is about what people perceive of others, how they react to others and how they respond to their actions. Deviance is therefore a question of how people label others in the society. What determines whether an action is a deviance depends on how certain behaviour is labeled as a deviant in the society. It also depends on the subject of the scenario being labeled, that is, how an individual is labeled as a deviant. Groups of individuals also get labeled as deviance. How the groups are labeled determines whether they are deviants. Becker observes that a single criminal act can be labeled as crime. Someone who commits one act of criminal nature is presumed to commit another crime in the future. This is labeling. In general, we may argue that deviant behaviour is the act which people label as a deviance. In this case, labeling differs from power and authority in that labeling is about what others perceive of someone while power and authority are the legal permission conferred on a given group or individual to impose certain sanctions on certain acts. People label the deviance, but the power to give sanction lies on legal authorities, who may as well be informed by labeling, since both power and labeling depends on judgment of outsiders. The difference lies in the legal aspect of power and authority. 4. Political economy views of deviance The economy and the social class have a lot to do with deviance. Bourgois suggests that economic and social relations have had a lot to do with deviance (28). This paper refers to the US economy in its analysis. The service sector of the US is characterized by resistance to subordination. This has resulted in self-destruction and social destruction where individuals engage in substance abuse and violence. These actions are true indications of deviance that is related to social issues in the society. Chambliss also explains the issues of social and economic class in relation to deviance. He explains the behaviors of eight young men who practiced many acts of deviance (Chambliss 146). They played tricks and sneaked out of school during the weekdays and did even a lot more deviant acts during the weekend. They drove recklessly in cities, got drunk, abused girls and ran a lot of dirty errands in town. They also vandalized properties, stole things and did many other acts of deviance. Despite these acts of deviance, the boys performed very well in school scoring very high marks, and the teachers never saw anything wrong with the boys, just hoping that they would do something important for their lives. Some of the boys even held high positions in their school. It was really difficult to find fault with the boys since they often spoke politely to the police when they got confronted for over speeding or breaking other rules. They also got mercy from the teachers whenever they made a mistake and pleaded for mercy. Everyone seemed to think that the boys were good. Another group of boys also had the tendency to commit deviance but they were often caught and reprimanded for their misdeeds. The society viewed them as nuisances. Both the law enforcement authorities and the school often found them guilty although they never performed more serious offences than the other group of boys. The reason as to why the former boys were seen to be good by the society is because the boys were more delinquent than the other gang. The latter boys lacked the funds to bail their way out of their predicaments and did not have enough persuasive skills to buy their way out of danger or out of school. From this illustration, it is clear that the social and economic class of individuals in the society influences their level of deviance. Whenever the economy is good and promising, the level of deviance tends to be low. On the other hand, when the economy is bad, deviance is seen to be more. This is not the clear truth of the matter; it is only that the society determines what is deviant and what is not deviant through labeling. Good boys may be labeled as bad while bad boys may be labeled as good, depending on the society’s economic and social status. Even in the society where I come from, whenever a poor member of the society steals small things like a book, they are labeled as deviants and accused terribly. However, when the rich members of the society commit serious crimes like looting millions of money or drug trafficking, they go unpunished. This too illustrates the economic and social status on labeling of deviance. Works Cited Becker, H. S. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press, 1973. Print. Bourgois, Philippe. Office Work and the Crack Alternative. In Spradley, J. and McCurdy, D.W. Conformity and Conflict. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc., 2008. Print. Chambliss, William J. The saints and the Roughnecks. In Sociology: Newman, D.M. Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of everyday life. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oak, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2000. Print. Durkheim, Emile. The normal and the pathological. In Kelly, D.H. Deviant Behaviour: A text in the sociology of Deviance. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996. Print. Gould, Stephen J. The Mismeasure of Man. London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1981. Print. Read More