Lesson 1 - Objective vs. Subjective Deviance PDF

Preview

Summary

Parnaby...

Description

Objective vs. Subjective Deviance Sociological Theory    

A sociological theory is a set of general propositions meant to explain social phenomena Sociological theories are never perfect and often have exceptions There is an important difference between objective theories of deviance and subjective theories of deviance There are also theories that fall a little bit into both categories – these have no set name

Objectivist Theories 





Deviance lies in the characteristics/qualities of an act or a person o There is something about a person or their behaviour that makes them deviant o For people who believe this, it is often treated as common sense o E.g., homicide is believed to be deviant simply because its always treated as such; its just common sense that homicide is a deviant thing to do Which characteristics or qualities make something inherently deviant? o Harm (its deviant because it inflicted harm on someone or something) o Rarity (its deviant because it rarely happens) o Reaction (its deviant because of how society reacts to it) o Norms (its deviant because it violated social norms) Lots of theories in sociological academia begin with the assumption that a behaviour is inherently deviant – e.g., theories of domestic violence, bullying, racism, mental illness, drug use, etc.

Harm  

By objectivist theory, harm is a quality or characteristic that makes an act deviant (psychological harm, environmental harm, physical harm, etc.) There are many critiques of this theory: o Degrees of harm – how much harm is required for an act to be considered deviant? o There are many things in our lives that are harmful that are not considered to be deviant – e.g., being a soldier in combat is often very harmful, but instead of being considered deviant, its celebrated o There are also many things that are considered deviant that are not harmful – e.g., bad table manners, picking your nose in public, etc.

Rarity  

Objectivists also say that social behaviour that is rare is deviant There are many critiques of this too: o The threshold problem – how rare does it have to be? o There are lots of rare things that aren’t deviant – e.g., winning the lottery, acts of heroism o There are tons of things that are common but deviant – e.g., tax fraud is becoming increasingly common, as is domestic violence

Reaction 

Objectivists will argue that something is deviant because it generates a negative social reaction



o That which society condemns or rejects One of the main critiques – what does ‘society’ mean? Everyone? How many people have to have a negative reaction for it to be considered deviant? o If reaction is an indicator of deviance, we have to figure out what the tipping point is

Norm Violation 



Objectivists believe something is deviant when it violates a social norm – if anyone deliberately steps outside of those norms, it is inherently deviant o In other words, deviance is a characteristic/quality that violates behavioural standards/expectations There is one key critique of this too: o The issue of normative “consensus” – it assumes that we all subscribe to the same set of norms o Norms and values between places or between people can be very different

Objectivist Theories    

Some objectivist theories include Merton’s anomie, differential association, strain, etc. The problem is that there are ongoing inconsistencies embedded into each of these theories’ logic The appealing thing about these theories is that they seem like common sense; they take a pragmatic view on the world But what if its possible that deviance has nothing to do with a characteristic/quality of a person/act? What if its just a matter of interpretation or perception? o These are the kinds of questions subjectivist scholars ask

Subjectivism 







Subjectivists believe that deviance is a subjective perception of human beings, rather than an objective characteristic/quality o Nothing is inherently deviant; it is all about the labels that are applied to it Example – homicide is not inherently deviant; we know this because killing is accepted and celebrated in many contexts (war, euthanasia, etc.) o We bring different kinds of understanding to the same act, depending on the context Deviance is a perception/interpretation applied to the phenomenon – but how do phenomena come to be interpreted as deviant? o What social processes are involved? There are many dimensions of deviance: o Sociocultural (e.g., what happened in pop culture to make smoking weed less deviant than it used to be?) o Institutional (e.g., did our cops or the courts do anything to make smoking weed less deviant than it used to be?)





o Interactional o Individual (e.g., why do we personally see smoking weed as less deviant than it used to be?) How would a subjective approach examine/explain drinking and driving? o Years ago, drinking and driving was not seen as deviant – everybody did it o Over time, drinking and driving has become more and more of a problem – if you do it, you are shamed, charged, punished, etc. o On the institutional level, one of the reasons for this is MADD, which has changed many peoples’ perceptions of drinking and driving How would a subjective approach examine/explain tattooing? o Years ago, tattoos were seen as deviant o Nowadays, nobody really cares if people have tattoos o This is simply because perceptions have changed over time

Subjectivist Theories  

Examples of subjective theories include labelling theory, conflict theory, etc. The most profound critique of subjectivist theories is this – is nothing truly deviant? o This is a difficult concept to understand for many people o When we deem things like child abuse to be deviant, that is just a matter of perception/opinion (that almost all people agree with)

Blending Subjective and Objective Approaches  

Deviance is something that violates social norms (i.e., an objectivist assertion) but those norms are socially constructed (i.e., a subjectivist assertion) When you combine these two theories, you get an approach that fulfills both areas in a “hybrid” approach...