Two viewpoints—the normative
perspective and the situational perspective—have been advanced to
define deviant behavior. The normative perspective sees deviance as human
behavior that violates existing and generally accepted social norms. For example, few people would have any
trouble applying the label “deviant” to a man who runs naked down a crowded
street. Not only is such behavior typically a violation of widely shared and
generally agreed on behavioral standards, but to most people it seems somehow
inherently “wrong” and even disgusting. Hence, from the normative perspective,
a naked man running down the street not only provides an example of deviant
behavior, but it also makes it easy to see the man himself as a “deviant.”
The situational perspective shifts the
focus away from the individual and to the social situation surrounding the
behavior in question. Let’s imagine that the naked man running down the street
was not alone but instead was among a large party of naked naturalists
celebrating a Gaia festival in the midst of a nudist colony fully secured from
public view. If such were the case, his behavior might seem to be quite
“natural” (pun intended). Not only would such an overt display of physical
nudity not have violated the social norms of the colony, it would have
reinforced them. Hence, the situational perspective is relativistic in
that it understands deviance primarily in terms of when and where it occurs.
Some behaviors are defined the same way
by both normative and situational perspectives, and activities that are
mutually acceptable to both are the most obvious forms of conformist or nondeviant
behaviors. Conversely, when behaviors are negatively defined socially but
nonetheless are consistent with the normative structure of society, they may be
viewed as extreme forms of conventional behavior (e.g., workaholics, overachievers
in school, etc.). Finally, certain behaviors do not adhere to the normative
structure of society and are almost always situationally condemned. Such
behaviors are clearly deviant and often also contravene administrative statutes
or criminal law; in the latter case, this would make such behaviors crimes.
The overlapping between Deviance and
Crime
Some forms of behavior may be against
the law but may not be thought of as deviant by a majority of the population (i.e., exceeding the speed limit in certain
locales), whereas some behaviors may be deviant but not criminal, and
others may be both deviant and criminal. The relationship between crime and
deviance is not static, of course, and forms of behavior considered deviant in
the past might be legal today, whereas some of today’s deviance might be
criminalized in the future.
Two sociological concepts culture and social organization are particularly useful in determining whether
certain behaviors should be classified as deviant. Culture refers to “a body of widely shared customs and values
which provide general orientations toward life and specific ways of achieving
common goals”. Culture is fundamental to the social order and relatively
stable over time, yet it may provide a dynamic approach to the continually
evolving challenges of everyday life. Changes in customs and values may
originate among certain segments of the society, for example, adolescents and young adults who are involved in
continual changes in style of dress, patterns of speech, and forms of
entertainment. Another example is special interest groups that seek to foster
the acceptance of particular rights or protections, usually of vulnerable
populations or the environment. These cultural changes may become
institutionalized and persist through time, or they may be short-lived and
disappear from the social landscape. The value of body piercing and tattooing
may well dissipate over time, as do styles of dress and verbal expression.
Culture provides meaning and stability to everyday life while allowing for
innovation, creativity, and the reassessment of traditional customs and values.
Culture, then, provides a backdrop for the establishment of acceptable
behaviors. Behaviors that fall outside of defined cultural parameters are
considered, in varying degrees, deviant.
Social organization provides the means
social interactions between individuals, social groups, and institutions. A
central purpose of social organization is to ensure that conflict and discord
in social interactions do not impede the effective functioning of society.
Everyday life is remarkably devoid of mass disruption. For the most part the
daily interactions of more than 6.8 billion persons worldwide are carried out
in a reasonably predictable and orderly way. Millions of cars travel at high
speeds in close proximity to one another, planes take off and land within
minutes of each other, transnational business and commerce is conducted around
the clock, and individuals communicate across time and cultures worldwide
largely without incident.
Social interaction is organized by a
complex set of social norms and roles. Social norms are those generally agreed
on guides for behavior that provide boundaries for interpersonal relations.
Social roles are defined by a set of social norms for the behavior of
individuals who occupy given statuses within society. For example, a college professor occupies a given status within the
academy and in the larger society. Norms for the appropriate behavior of
college professors serve as guides to carry out the role of a faculty member.
Social norms may be classified as expectational
or behavioral. Expectational norms refer to behaviors that are ideal
for individuals who are enacting a particular social role or who are in a given
social situation. Expectational norms govern the behavior of persons in
positions of high responsibility (e.g., surgeons, airline pilots, and heads of
state) and persons in extreme life-threatening situations. Acceptable error in
the operating room, at the controls of an airliner, or in the Oval Office is
extremely limited. Surgeons, for example,
are expected to operate on the afflicted part of the patient’s body—to always
amputate the correct limb and to remove all surgical instruments from the
patient’s body after an operation. Yet, as we know medical malpractice, pilot
error, and political misjudgment does occur, often with dire consequences.
Behavioral norms refer to what persons
typically do when occupying a particular social role or in a given social
situation. Students are expected to attend class, yet most students miss class
on occasion. A minority of students adhere to the expectational norm for class
attendance, whereas most students follow more flexible “behavioral” norms. Behavioral
norms are significantly influenced by social demographic and situational
characteristics. Younger persons are given more flexibility in the ways they
dress, speak, and interact in public than are older persons in positions of
more responsibility. Behavioral norms establish a range of acceptable behaviors
and therefore are far less rigid or exacting than are expectational norms.
Strict adherence to expectational norms
always telling the truth and answering questions in a completely honest way—is
required when testifying in court or filing an income tax return. However,
honest candor is not always expected when your mother asks, “How do you like my
new clothes?” In short, expectational and behavioral norms appropriately guide
social interactions differently for persons who occupy particular social roles
and who are in well-defined social situations.
All societies provide for certain
standards of human behavior. These standards of behavior, are called norms, but
no society completely success in getting all its members to behave in accordance
with the social norms. Some of them fail to conform to these norms. Failure to
conform to the customary norms of the society is called deviant behavior. Thus
deviant behavior is any behavior that fails to conform to some specified stand.
Parson defines it as “a
motivated tendency for an actor to behave in contravention of one or more
institutionalized normative patterns” and “the tendency on the part of one or more of the component actors to
behave in such a way as to disturb the equilibrium of interactive process.”
FIVE TYPES OF DEVIANTS BEHAVRIOUR
The five types of deviants and thus
explain the nature of deviance.
i.
Freak. The definition of deviants as ‘freak’ focuses not so much on
behavioural patterns, as on physical attributes. Here, deviance merely means
variation from the average norms, in a statistical sense. The ‘freaks’ are
those who stand at the extreme ends of the normal curve. The inadequacy of this
definition is, that attitudinal and behavioural attributes are not distributed
in the population in the same way as physical attributes. Secondly, even those
who are placed at the extremes are not necessarily viewed as ‘undesirables’.
That is, the mentally retarded may not be equated with a genius (though both
stand at extreme ends).
ii. Sinful. The deviant as
‘sinful’ is adjudged as such on the basis of religious ideological codes,
commandments, texts and doctrines. The terminology applied to such deviants
include sinner, heretic, and apostate. The sinner violates certain norms and
doctrines which he/she accepts. The heretic rejects the doctrines or
prescriptions; and the apostate not only rejects the faith or dogma, but
accepts some other alternative norms and traditions. This amounts to
‘ideological treason’ from the group’s view point.
iii. Criminal. The ‘criminal’
deviant is defined according to the legal codes, particularly the criminal law.
Laws are ostensibly enacted to prevent acts, injurious to society and group
welfare. Those who violate these laws are labelled as deviants and invite
punishment. But not all laws are so detrimental to society. There are four
types of legal enactment’s designating four types of deviant action, not all
equally injurious to society. First, laws prohibit acts which are definitely a
threat to the society and cannot be tolerated. For example, murder, theft,
treason, incest etc. There is generally a social consensus about the necessity
of such laws.
Second, some acts which are not necessarily immoral or
abnormal, but they interfere with public order or public good, and so are made
illegal, violation of traffic rules are examples. Third, some criminal laws
define certain acts as crimes, but without any victims; these acts do not cause
harm or injury to others, and are not malicious as other criminal offences are.
The drug addict, the homosexual, and the drunk are examples of such deviants
whose behaviour is stigmatised as crime, mainly to enforce certain moral
conceptions. Fourth, there are laws which prohibit acts which are ‘crimes with
willing victims’. Illegal gambling and prostitution are some examples, in which
the ‘victim’ actively seeks criminal services. What all this implies is that
some laws prohibiting certain acts, may be based on a general consensus and
receive ready acceptance in the larger society. But many laws which proscribe
certain acts, particularly those on the border-line of vice and morality, raise
critical questions and issues about their justification. The legal definition
of deviance (crime) may not always be based on consensual norms of morality. In
many situations, it may just be the result of arbitrary processes of
legislation, and specific pressures of various interest groups in society.
iv. Sick. The conception of
deviant as ‘sick’ is based on a disease model and defined in the pathological
framework. Seen from this view-point, the elements of wilfulness and
responsibility on the part of the deviant are removed. When defined as ‘sick’
or abnormal, the reaction of the society towards the deviants changes from
punitive to a treatment orientation. There is now a growing tendency to think
of such behavior which was earlier regarded as vicious, criminal or depraved,
as manifestation or symptom of an illness. The drug addict, heavy drinker, and
homosexual, for example, are now regarded more as ‘victims’ of some illness
rather than criminals. Yet they are more likely to be seen as deviants insofar
as such behaviour is perceived as socially (undesirable). The identification of
deviance is based on certain internal or intrapsychic symptoms. These may
include, apart from intrinsically psychotic conditions, such persistent psychic
state as hostility, guilt, shame, escapism, withdrawal etc. It is obvious that
the definition of these conditions as ‘normal’ and Social Deviance ‘abnormal’
varies cross-culturally. It also depends on the socio-economic status of the
‘sick’ persons. Thus this definition of deviant as ‘sick’ involves several
difficulties.
v.
Alienated. The definition of deviant as
‘alienated’ persons, focuses on certain categories of social dropouts such as
hippies. In the modern industrial society, many people feel estranged and
isolated from the values and norms of the society. They are confronted with a
sense of powerlessness and meaninglessness. They feel impotent either to
control their environment or to determine their own fate. They rarely find an
opportunity to express themselves as real or ‘whole’ persons. There is a
complete loss of individual meaning in the face of a vast, segmented
impersonal, and uncontrollable social order. They are estranged from the normative
order of the larger society in a way that, ‘they are in the society but not of
the society’. As alienation increases in the modern industrial societies, the
number of such alienated deviants also increases, ranging from suicides to
addicts.
Such is the variety and complexity
of social deviance, that there cannot be any universally applicable classificatory
system of this phenomenon.
CAUSES
OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR
Deviant behavior may be caused due to
the individual inability or failure to conform to the social norms or the
societies failure to make its components follow the norms set by it as normal
behavior. The inability to conform may be the result of mental or physical
defect. On account of mental illness, a person is unable to perceive and respond
to realities in an orderly and rational manner. Hence he becomes a social
deviant. The causes of mental illness may be both physical and social. The
stresses and strains of modern social life produce mental illness. But some
people fail to conform even though they are physically and mentally capable of
learning conventional behavior. To explain such causes of deviation some
theories have been put forward. These are:
i. Physical-type
theories: These theories seek to relate deviant
behavior with body type. Cesare Lombroso
was of the view that certain body types are more given to deviant behavior than
others. Deviants were classified in to physical types to explain their
behavior. A number of serious errors have been pointed out in the method of
their classification.
ii. Psychoanalytic
theories: These theories attribute deviant
behavior to the conflicts in human personality. Sigmund Freud was a leading psycho-analytical theory. He gave the
concepts of id, ego and super-ego.
Deviant behavior is the result of conflicts between the id and the ego. The
psychoanalytic theory is still improved by empirical research. Sometimes,
culture frustrates biological drives and impulses leading thereby to deviant
behavior. Thus our culture makes approved provision for the satisfaction of
sexual drives of the unmarried, widowed or separated.
iii. Failure to
Socialization: Both the types of theories fail to
explain deviant behavior adequately. Everyone affected with physical or mental
illness does not become a deviant likewise, every member of a society who is
frustrated by the clash of his biological drives with the taboes of this
culture, but not everyone becomes a deviant. The social scientists are of the
opinion that some persons are deviant because the socialization process has
failed in some way to integrate the culture norms and he behaves in the
unexpected manner. His lapses are rare. Behavior norms are mainly learnt in the
family.
iv. Cultural Conflicts: The society is an extremely heterogeneous society. There
are many sets of norms and values which compete with one another. The family
norms may come into conflict with the norms of trade union. One religion
teaches one thing, another teaches a different thing. The school teaches
respect and obedience. The party teaches resistance and secularism. The
religious system teaches that one should be generous and self-sacrificing, but
our economic system rewards those who are ruthless and selfish. Our formal
mores demand chastity until marriage, but our films present too much sex. The
young people are exposed to sexual literature. Thus culture conflicts are a
unique feature of the modern complex and changing society. They are found
virtually in all societies.
v. Anomie: Anomie is a condition of normlessness. By normlessness we do not mean that modern societies
have no norms, instead it means that they have many sets of norms with none of
them clearly binding on everybody. The individual does not know which norms to
follow, whether to follow the norms of the family or of the school. Anomie thus
arises from the confusion and conflict of norms. People in modern society move
about too rapidly to be bound to the norms of any particular groups.
In traditional
societies people were guided by a coherent set of traditions which they
followed with little deviation. But the modern society lacks coherent
traditions, different groupings having different norms. According to Durkheim “when there is a sudden change, the normative structure of the
regulating norms of society is slackened, hence, man does not know what is
wrong or what is right, his impulses are excessive, to satisfy them, he seeks
anomie”. The post Soviet Union societies are good example of this.
vi. Personal Factors: Sometimes personal factors may also be involved in the
genesis of deviant. As a result of their particular experiences, many of the
people acquire deviant attitudes and habits. An ugly face may deprive some
people of the opportunity to participate in the affairs of the community. Some
persons are so seriously affected by an experience that they isolate themselves
from certain groups or situations. Thus some people may refuse to ride trains
because of some accident in which they were involved. The sight of a dead man
led Lord Buddha to renounce the
crown. A mouse eating the food offered to the idol made Swami Dayanand a critic of idol-worship.
vii. Social Location: The location of people in the social structure also causes
deviant behavior. The position a person occupies in the stratification system,
his position in the age and sex structure of the society and his position in
the special arrangements of the society make a difference in how he behaves.
The life chances of people depend on the particular position they occupy in the
society.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of the new norms through
deviant behavior can be easily seen in the family relationships. In the
nineteenth century a woman going out of the norm to work in an office and earn
an independent living was a deviant but today it is common place. It may,
however, be noted that all forms of deviation are not socially useful. The
behavior of the animal, the sex deviant or the drunk rarely contributes to the
creation of a socially useful norm. It is only a few forms of deviant behavior
which may become future norms. The behavior of individual due to social
conflict leads to the formation of new norms.
Post a Comment