Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The issues of the occurrence of deviance and the ways in which it affects society have been objects of interest in the field of sociology for decades. Deviance can be defined as nonconformity to sets of norms accepted by a substantial number of people in society or a community (Giddens et al., 2018). When considering deviance from, or conformity to, social norms and rules, the question of whose norms and rules these are should always be asked. In fact, people’s definitions of deviance are directly related to social aspects of their lives, and leading deviance and crime theories agree with it.
Society cannot be divided between people deviating from norms and people conforming to them. It seems reasonable as most people tend to sometimes violate generally accepted rules of conduct. Granted, a significant proportion of all deviant acts (such as assault or murder) is criminal and illegal; however, many deviant behaviors – from dressing bizarrely to joining a cult – are not crimes. Similarly, many technically criminal behaviors, such as underage drinking or speed limit exceeding, are not deemed deviant because they are fairly normative. Modern sociological thinking highlights that definitions of deviance and conformity vary in accordance with social context. Societies today include many subcultures, and behavior conforming to the norms of one of them might be seen as deviant outside it. Moreover, wide disparities in social wealth and power have a significant impact on criminal capabilities of different groups. For instance, theft and burglary are mostly committed by the poorest, while misappropriation and tax evasion are limited to those in positions of superiority.
Since the emergence of sociology, researchers have been developing theories in an attempt to understand the nature of deviation and crime. According to Giddens et al. (2018), these theories can be classified into four main sociological paradigms: functionalist, interactionist, conflict, and control theories. In accordance with functionalist theories, the crime is the result of people’s aspirations not coinciding with available opportunities. For example, a French sociologist Émile Durkheim believed that deviant behavior occurs due to the structure of society (Giddens et al., 2018). He coined the notion of anomie, which is the state of no strong standards guiding behavior in a certain area of public life. Durkheim argued that in such circumstances, people feel lost and anxious, and deviance and crime become inevitable. Moreover, a modern age individual is less limited than one in traditional society. In today’s world there is more room for personal choice, and nonconformity is the logical outcome of it.
Sociologists working in the interactionist tradition deem deviance a phenomenon created by society. From their perspective, there are no inherently deviant behaviors, and they focus on how and why only some are labeled as such. As per Giddens et al. (2018), in the 1940s, Edwin H. Sutherland linked crime to so-called differential association. The theory of differential association states that people learn deviant behaviors just as they learn conventional ones, that is, from contacts with family members, peers, and colleagues. Deviance occurs when one is exposed to higher levels of deviant individuals and behaviors as compared to conventional influences. There is one more important interactionist approach to understanding crime, labeling theory. In the 1960s, Howard S. Becker studied marijuana smokers and discovered that becoming one depended on a person’s acceptance by and closeness with experienced users, as well as their attitudes towards non-users (Giddens et al., 2018). From deviance being interpreted as an interaction process between deviants and non-deviants, it comes that it is not a specific act that makes a person deviant, but other people’s reaction to it. Therefore, to understand the nature of deviance, this theory’s proponents attempt to establish why some people are labeled deviant.
Conflict theory argues that deviance is deliberate and often politically motivated. In accordance with it, deviance cannot be ‘determined’ by biology, individuality, anomie, or labels. Rather, people choose deviant behavior as a reaction to the capitalist system’s inequalities (Giddens et al., 2018). That is, members of counter-cultural groups perceived as deviant – for example, Black Power movement supporters or gay liberation movement advocates – are involved in political acts that challenge public order. Control theory, in its turn, holds that crime is the result of an imbalance between the impulse to criminal activity and the controls that interdict it. Giddens et al. (2018) note that, as per control theory, most people act rationally only because they do not have the opportunity to perform deviant acts. Travis Hirschi, a famous control theorist, believes that humans are essentially selfish creatures who make thoughtful decisions about whether to engage in criminal activities by pondering over benefits and risks.
When it comes to what theory appeals the most to me personally, I would say it is interactionist one. It seems logical to me that no act, or, at least, not most of them, are deviant inherently. What is acceptable and unacceptable varies from one group to another because it is defined by a given society. Those defining it are people in power that decide what is best for their specific environment, or simply pursue their own interests. Moreover, the theory of differential association is something the evidence of which I have observed many times in my life.
In conclusion, social norms and rules differ from society to society. Definitions of conformity and deviance depend on social context, and what is considered a norm in one community or society can be seen as deviant by those outside it. Researchers, upon trying to understand the nature of deviation, have been developing theories, which can be classified into four main paradigms: functionalist, interactionist, conflict, and control. All of them have reasonable justifications and can be viewed as convincing rationales for the nature of deviation.
Reference
Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum, R. P., & Carr, D. (2018). Introduction to sociology (11th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.