Essay - Final Draft PDF

Preview

Summary

Why is deviance important in society ...

Description

“In what ways is deviance important in preserving the stability of social life?”

Any form of society, no matter size, shape or function will maintain a set of boundaries. Setting and maintaining such boundaries is pivotal to the success of any society as it allows members to gain a sense of understanding of their role as society members. Society draws a “symbolic set of parentheses” around the outer limits of acceptable behaviour. Which in turn highlights to members exactly which behaviours are accepted within the boundaries, and subsequently those inappropriate behaviours that drift outside the radius - as deviant behaviour marks the outer edge or limit of society. By highlighting which experiences belong inside the boundaries, and those which fall outside, deviant behaviour provides an imperative condition for preserving the stability of social life. Such boundaries create a sense of appreciation of the opportunities available to compliant members, and emphasize the subsequent loss associated with displaying deviant behaviour. There are numerous theories which aim to decipher and explain the effects of deviance such as Functionalism and the Centripetal Model, theorised by Emile Durkheim and Kai Ericsson, respectively.

From a purely sociological standpoint, deviance is equivalent to any behaviour that requires the attention of social control agencies (Goode, 2011). Simply put, deviant behaviour is any behaviour which violates social norms. In a similar sense to boundaries setting the limit of acceptable behaviours, norms are behavioural standards in place to guide society members to act in a level of accordance that conforms with social acceptability (Adler and Adler, 2015). The boundaries and norms of any society are under a constant state of evolution, altering their limits and range depending upon the behaviour and views of its members - an “accumulation of decisions made by the community over a long period of time which gradually gathers

Sara Douglas S1310174

1

enough moral influence to serve as precedent for future decisions (Erikson, 1962). Norms – whether it be a folkway, more, or law – need not be agreed upon by every member of society but are determined in accordance with the majority view. Rarely expressed as a firm rule or law, norms are often unwritten rules and opinions held. For example, the stark difference between the behaviour expected within a professional environment compared to the expected behaviour within a social environment.

Similar to a finger print or strand of DNA, every community, group and society operates in a unique manner, with differing levels of deviance accepted in each as “society has the moral function of regulating and limiting passions” (Goldstein, 2005: 69). Couple with the fact that the range of human behaviour is so immense, any society that aims to function successfully must make clear statements about the range of acceptable behaviour, making such boundaries acts as crucial reference point for members. With every act of deviance committed sharpening the authority of the violated norms, and thus working to re-establish the boundaries of the group. Furthermore, by reprimanding and labelling a deviant as such, society is making a (often) public declaration in accordance with the limit of “how much variability and diversity can be tolerated within the group before it begins to lose its distinctive shape, and unique identity” (Adler and Adler, 2015). The constant loop of setting boundaries, producing norms, and subsequently breaking those norms and boundaries works towards creating a more dynamic society.

Emile Durkheim, the founding father of sociology and of modern social science, regards society as an organism comprised of several interdependent components, working together to achieve a state of equilibrium. Just like within an organism, society can become diseased if its components do not work together successfully. Metaphorically speaking, if deviance is

Sara Douglas S1310174

2

causing disease then the only remedy available to society comes in the form of punishment. Although deviance may be perceived as harmful to society and social life in general, Durkheim states that an abnormally high or low level of crime are equally as toxic. Durkheim theorizes that it is utterly impossible for a society to exist without the existence of deviance. Due to this factor, all societies will be confronted with the problem of deviance at some point, crime and subsequently deviant behaviour becomes normalized. Due to his opinions and practises, Durkheim is often regarded as a Functionalist. Functionalists propose that deviance is imperative to continuing stability of social life, as it reinforces norms by acting as a reminder of the consequences to members of violating them. The reaction to functionalism gave much of modern sociology it intellectual shape (Hughes, Martin & Sharrock). The functionalist approach takes the view that society is more than the sum of its parts. Each section of our interdependent society is organized to fill different needs, with each holding particular consequences for the form and shape of society. For example, our government provides free education for children, while the parents of those children pay taxes to support the Government. The education being provided will in turn allow the children to gain qualifications and thus a suitable job, which they will subsequently earn a living off of while paying tax, all in support of the Government. Under functionalist approach, a successful society is one where in which all segments of society will continue to provide stability and order to society as whole. If unsuccessful, the segments of society must alter their functions and aim in support of providing the stability and order that society as a whole require. Due to the interdependent nature of society, if one segment fails to achieve stability – whether that be due to the associated effects of deviance, or other reasons – it will affect the other components. Within the theoretical framework of Functionalism, deviance is understood as a positive force as it not only rehabilitates positive functioning, it aids the evolution of further social change.

Sara Douglas S1310174

3

For every approach to explain deviance and its effects, there are subsequent criticisms. For example, a functionalist would argue that as crime is so prevalent within society, it can be deemed as ‘normal’ behaviour. However, due to the rapid transformation of modernization, the component parts of society were not given sufficient time to fully develop and reach an equilibrium. If we were to live in a completely deviant and crime free society, we would merely start to define currently accepted behaviours as deviant. However, Durkheim stated that if this equilibrium could one day be achieved; crime would effectively eradicate itself. Functionalism has also been criticized for not encouraging the members of society to take an active role in changing and improving their social environment, and instead assuming that the components involved will naturally develop together in a harmonious fashion. Humans, by nature, require some form of regulation in their daily lives, with norms providing the imperative focus for positive behavior (or at least the awareness of what constitutes positive or ‘negative’ behavior). As well as norms to guide behavior, legal and social measures can be used to mark disapproval. For example, same sex marriage is a topic that has generated copious amounts of attention of late. A prospect that was once not only socially unacceptable but also illegal has now transformed into an act that is completely legal, and is generally, looked upon with no social disapproval. Advancements like this would have never arisen without those ‘deviants’ who weren’t willing to accept what they were being told they could and couldn’t do, further emphasizing that deviance is a force changing our society and creating a more dynamic future. The functionalist view exemplifies the idea that deviance preserves social life by challenging it, providing a generally succinct explanation of the effects of deviance. However, as previously noted, there are numerous criticisms of the theory. Functionalism provides a generally simple explanation, paradoxically lacking in the complexity that it describes to be a key characteristic of modern societies. Additionally,

Sara Douglas S1310174

4

functionalism promotes holism which impedes the exploration of just how deviance affects the different sub groups of society (Cohen, 1982). Interestingly, the teleological nature nature of the functionalist approach leaves it at risk to criticism as it is generally deemed as an unacceptable standpoint. However, just as crime comes with society, deviance comes with human nature by association, thus there must be a substantial resort to teleology in a discipline devoted to human activity (Cohen, 1982).

An alternative to the Functionalist approach is the “Centripetal Model”, suggest by American sociologist Kai T. Erikson. If we envision society as a static, stable line, then according to the centripetal model, deviant behavior causes a bump in the surface of this line. As previously stated, it should not be assumed that a society can be deemed as successful if it eradicates crime and deviance. The variety produced as a result of social structure, coupled with the natural deviance involved in group differentiation are both relevant in maintaining the constancy and stability of social life. If we imagine any society in the centripetal format that Ericsson suggests, the center or nucleus of the model contains ‘normal’, social accepted behaviors that reside within the range of basic norms. Any alternative behavior that is neither attracted or repelled from the center of the model (through legal or social methods) is classed as deviant. Deviant behavior cannot be merely dismissed and perceived as disruptive. According the Ericsson’s analysis, society responds to the behaviour of members by reward or punishment. Drawing those conforming members into the nucleus of the model allows society to reward them with a good job and generally stable future, where as the removal of these future prospects acts as a deterrent to potential deviants. By testing the limits of behavior, deviant behavior – in controlled quantities - maintains the very limits, stabilizing social life. A contrasting proposal to Functionalism is the Conflict theory, suggested by Karl Marx. The functionalist theory suggests that the separate components of society work

Sara Douglas S1310174

5

together in an effort to maintain a constant level of social homeostasis. Where as the conflict theory would suggest that the differing groups (the capitalist class, and the working class) within society are always engaged in a state of conflict, competing for a limited set of resources. With the capitalist class comprising of those elite, wealthy and powerful members of society who control or own a means of production. Compared to the working class group which comprises of those members of society who are instead relatively powerless, and can only sell their labour to the capitalists. Due to the power and wealth associated with those members of the capitalist class, they can design and pass laws that will benefit themselves, while being detrimental to those in the working classes. In relation to deviance, the conflict theory suggests that members of both groups are just as likely to commit deviant acts or crimes. However, those elite members in the capitalist classes are less likely to be punished or judged harshly by the justice system as they are more likely to have a good relationship with to those in power, as well as having more disposable income to hire an expensive lawyer.

The extent to which deviant behaviours can act a stabilizing force within social life is further emphasized by the way in which the act is responded to by group members. We, as society members, create our own boundaries thus creating the limit within which non deviant and deviant acts reside. The social construction of boundaries would then imply that deviance is not a simply a quality found within particular acts or behaviors itself. It is instead the product of a process which involves responses from others (Bean, 2003). As deviance is not a quality of behaviours themselves, numerous factors such as the time, date, and location can all alter whether or not an act will be classified as deviant or not. An act is defined to be deviant based upon the reaction is gathers from others, meaning that the nature of a deviant act is as influential as the response gained from the act in the efforts to continue to stabilize social life.

Sara Douglas S1310174

6

However, if deviance is to be regarded a positive, forward moving factor, are our societies thus organized to promote and enable deviance as a resource? On a macro level, it is apparent that deviant behaviours gain support from the very social control agencies employed to eradicate such behaviours. This segregation and alienation created by incarcerating criminals gives rise the possibility of creating career criminals. For example, prisons provide criminals with not only protection, food but perhaps most influentially, an opportunity to converse and connect with criminal peers. This gives prisoners the opportunity to learn new skills and attitudes form each other, consequently further reinforcing the already prevalent sense of alienation and segregation from greater society. German philosopher, sociologist and most importantly, critic, George Simmel sums up this notion so eloquently in saying, “just as the universe needs love and hate, that is, attractive and repulsive forces, in order to have any form at all, so society, too, in order to attain a determinate shape…society, as we know it, is the result of both categories of interaction, which thus both manifest themselves as wholly positive” (1971).

To conclude, human beings, by default, require boundaries to guide their behaviours in a social acceptable direction. With no boundaries, there is no way to anticipate which behaviours will be accepted and not accepted within a social circle. By travelling, or trespassing, beyond the set boundaries and norms of society one is suddenly subjected to the ‘evil’ forces that lie beyond the comfort of social life. With such unacceptable behaviours acting as an unseen danger threating the very security that group life is created to nurture. Which subsequently highlights the benefits of remaining within those boundaries. By highlighting the difference between life within and outwith society, deviance acts a an imperative factor which works towards the continued stabilization of social life.

Sara Douglas S1310174

7...