Deviance Theories Paper

docx

School

Arizona State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

340

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MinisterReindeerMaster1648

Corinna Arabia-Meyer SOC340 11/4/17 Deviance Theories Paper Question 1: Explain what deviance is socially constructed means. Discuss 2 types of positive deviance and 2 types of negative deviance which are socially constructed in the United States. Provide examples of each . Deviance is any kind of nonadherence with the norm, or in other words deviance represents the behavior, or should I say misbehavior, of an outsider or miscreant in society. One may question how someone is defined as deviant, and wonder what it is that makes them so. This concept is discussed in Becker’s labelling theory, which delves into why deviance occurs in the first place; it is created by social groups who define those who break their rules as “deviant”. Becker proposes that those who do not adhere to the guidelines established by these societal formations are labelled as outsiders and therefore explains that deviant behavior itself is merely a behavior that society has applied a label(Becker, 40-41). The idea of deviance is therefore a social construct within itself. Without the bounds and limitations which a society sets for itself, a nonconformist, or one who defies these boundaries, is considered a deviant archetype. However, not all deviant behaviors are considered bad or evil. Because deviance is socially constructed, it is also situation-based; depending on which member of that society experiences the behavior, who it is performed by, and under what circumstance. As Becker explains, deviance is not a quality that lies in behavior itself, but instead it lies in the interaction between whoever commits the act and whoever responds to it(Becker, 42). As one can guess, this leads to different ideologies about different “deviant” behaviors; some deemed as positive and some as negative.

Regardless, however, this just goes to further prove that society is what deems a behavior as deviant or not. Negative deviance is viewed as deviant behavior(nonconformity or overconformity) which is negatively evaluated by the audience, while positive deviance is described as the overconformity or hyper conformity which is positively evaluated(Heckert and Heckert, 28-29). For example, a negative deviant act could refer to drunk drivers. They are not adhering to the law prohibiting driving while intoxicated, and are therefore met with a negative response. Likewise, criminals such as burglars or rapists are also met with negative responses due to the degree of nonconformity and type of crime committed. In the United States, we value honesty, responsibility and peaceful behavior as common norms. Therefore, these examples mentioned are negatively viewed because they defy these norms, disrupt that peace, are highly irresponsible and lack prudence. On the other end of the spectrum, positive deviance examples are acts which overconform or hyper conform to norms. Actions such as working extra hard to be a straight A student, or becoming a monk or nun to prove one’s loyalty to their religion are deviant behaviors viewed as positives. Since the United States views responsibility and moderation as valued norms, any behavior which super adheres to these is deviance(Heckert and Heckert, 36). These actions are deviant in that they hyper conform(the student acting as an overachiever and being hyper responsible in order to get good grades), or overconform(the nun/monk who go overboard on the moderation norm). Both are deviant behaviors, but viewed positively. Question 2: Which theory(ies) or approach(es) from part 1 or 2 is(are) most surprising to you for explaining deviant behavior? Why? Provide an example of deviance or crime to explain.

The theory I find most surprising, but also accurate in terms of logic is Emile Durkheim’s view that crime as a very necessary and ultimately normal part of any society. He explains that it is inevitable, that the wickedness of man is incorrigible, and therefore crime/deviance becomes an integral part of every society’s public health(Durkheim, 74). I find this suprising as a theory explaining deviance because it is unique, nonuniform in nature, and goes just a step beyond the average explanations for crime in society. I agree with this theory wholly, as man is imperfect in nature and therefore society will reflect his flaws inevitably. Both man and society are bound, one made from another, and both will carry the characteristics of one another. Durkheim notes that without actual crime in society, flaws(however minor they may be) will be considered in the harshest sense because they will essentially take the place of “crime”(Durkheim, 75). This got me thinking in an entirely new way(which made this theory stand out to me), and I came to the conclusion that he is absolutely correct; a society cannot exist functionally without crime as a societal norm-one which is sanctioned based on degree and which is systematically handled based on circumstance. If crime did not exist, Durkheim explains, then “crimes” would be unknown, and instead a man’s faults would create the same social scandal that an ordinary crime would create(Durkheim, 75). For instance, if school system and educators never had to deal with cheaters, then even the slightest acts of nonuniformity would be considered deviant. In that respect, if cheaters did not exist in the school system, those who perhaps position themselves differently or look a little too long at another near them may be faced with the same judgement and consequence as the average “cheater” would. In essence, even the most innocent fault may result in an equally as severe punishment as a true crime would. Therefore, crime is essential in creating and maintaining a functional, well-rounded and balanced society.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Question 3: Which theory(ies) or approach(es) from part 1 or 2 is(are) do you disagree with or tend to not think is(are) most helpful for explaining deviant behavior? Why? Provide an example of deviance or crime to explain. I disagree with some aspects of Sutherland and Cressey’s Differential Association theory. They claim that criminal behavior is learned, and because it is earned, it is “normal” crime and should not be regarded as pathological since it is also learned as any other normal behavior(Sutherland and Cressey, 85). I find this theory to be flawed, not only because they deem this “learned behavior” of committing crimes as “normal”, but also because they do not discuss criminal cases where the deviant behavior was not learned. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that every criminal began deviant acts only after being taught by an “intimate personal group” or by learning criminal behavior only by association with criminal patterns(Sutherland and Cressey, 85-86). I believe that classifying criminals as mere learners of behaviors who then decide to practice what they have learned as inaccurate and very narrow in scope. I feel that this theory does not encompass the mass amount of criminals, as many are mentally ill or have pathological tendencies which cause them to act deviantly. I would give this theory more credit if they noted those criminals who do not solely learn the behavior, but this is not touched upon. Likewise, the text does not account for those who are surrounded by criminal behavior and fail to act upon it themselves. In that respect, I find this theory has too many holes to be deemed even close to accurate. Instead, I find it can only be justifiable if the theory is notably speaking in terms of a percentage of criminals, and if it makes a point of explaining the many exceptions to this idea. For example, I believe there are many cases in which an individual surrounded by criminal behavior chooses to reject that behavior and instead decides to uphold the regulations which attempt to limit criminal activity. This can be seen in a news article I read recently, where a girl

who was molested as a child decided to become a cop and ended up arresting the very man who abused her. This is a perfect example of an exception to the Differential Association theory, and one which I believe is common for many young people who grow up surrounded by or victimized by criminals. The link to this news article is below: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-little-girl-who-grew-up-to-become-a-cop-and-catch-the- man-who-sexually-abused-her Question 4: Which theory(ies) or approach(es) that you have read in part 1 or 2 do you agree with or makes the most sense to you for explaining deviant behavior? Why? Provide an example of deviance or crime to explain. I found Hirschi’s Control Theory to be very reasonable, logical, and accurate in terms of psychology when it comes to analysing why people commit crimes and behave deviantly. Hirschi talks about on delinquency, focusing on the age at which most people tend to sway one way or the other in terms of deviance, and attempts to pinpoint exactly why these members of society have chosen to behave the way they have. His focus is individualistic, which I find to be inevitably more accurate than simply placing every person in the same pool labelled “society”(Hirschi, 89). He looks at the individual bonds between a person and society, and theorizes that deviant behaviors tend to be more prominent in members of society who lack strong attachments to society(Hirschi, 89). Likewise, those who have strong ties, relationships, and attachments to those around them and to groups in society, are less likely to risk these relationships, and therefore do not participate in active crime. I believe this approach to deviance is highly reputable, and makes enough logical sense in that it brings the human psyche and

mentality into consideration. By recognizing that those with more to lose are less likely to risk losing these things, we can get closer to understanding why criminals in society do the things they do. For example, a person who is happily married, with a stable job, children, a circle of friends and a reputable position in society is much less likely to commit a crime that could take all these things from him. Likewise, someone who has no family, no children, no job and no real place in society is logically more likely to commit a crime because he has much less to risk. I find this theory wholesome and practical enough that it can be easily tested and experimented easily within any given society. Many other theories I have learned about so far in this course I found to be very far out there in terms of graspability, and could not see how they could be tested for validity. Hirschi’s Control Theory however, is extremely easy to test and therefore can be made accessible and clear to a larger audience. Overall, this theory was one I found to be the most accurate, accessible, and easily explainable for any audience. Adler, P., & Adler, P. (2016). Constructions of deviance: Social power, context, and interaction. San Francisco: Cengage Learning.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Related Documents

Untitled document.docx

A statement of the topic (1).docx

HSE-310_7-2_Final Project.docx

HSE-310_3-2_Final Project Milestone Two.docx

HSE-220_Course Discussion Posts.docx

SW Research Paper.docx

FSMT340W3DISCUSSION.docx

FerrellJEDR8400-5.docx

FerrellJEDR8400-1.docx

FerrellJEDR8400-3.docx

FerrellJEDR8400-2.docx

Anti Bias Education CHD 265.docx

Recommended textbooks for you

Social Psychology (10th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134641287

Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers

Publisher:Pearson College Div

Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780393639407

Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum

Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company

The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...

Sociology

ISBN:9781305503076

Author:Earl R. Babbie

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...

Sociology

ISBN:9780134477596

Author:Saferstein, Richard

Publisher:PEARSON

Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134205571

Author:James M. Henslin

Publisher:PEARSON

Society: The Basics (14th Edition)

Sociology

ISBN:9780134206325

Author:John J. Macionis

Publisher:PEARSON

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780393639407
Author:Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis...
Sociology
ISBN:9781305503076
Author:Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien...
Sociology
ISBN:9780134477596
Author:Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134205571
Author:James M. Henslin
Publisher:PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:9780134206325
Author:John J. Macionis
Publisher:PEARSON