NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Normal behaviour is defined as conforming to a standard: usual, typical, or expected (Soanes, 2001). Deviant behaviour is a divergence from normal standards: usually social or sexual. Therefore, by definition, deviance is not normal. This essay will discuss deviance in depth, looking at several theories: interaction ist, biological, and functionalist. The essay shall begin by discussing types of deviance.
The aim is to show whether or not deviance is normal. Deviance is non-conformity to a set of social norms or expectations widely accepted (Fulcher & Scott, 1999; Giddens, 1997). According to Haralambos and Holborn (1995), deviance is relative. It can only be defined in relation to a set of standards - since no standards are fixed, deviance is not absolute. For example, social standards in Britain have changed. It was once socially acceptable to smoke cannabis - it was even used for medicinal purposes - but it is now considered deviant behaviour.
Although, again, this is changing. There are two types of deviance: primary and secondary (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). Primary deviation is behaviour that is normative to expectations of a group, but which is 'normalised' by them. "while marijuana smokers might regard their smoking as acceptable, normal behaviour in the company they move in, they are fully aware that this behaviour is regarded as deviant in the wider society" (Taylor, Walton & Young, 1973 cited by Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). Many justifications for the normalisation of deviant behaviour are employed (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). For instance, a young man may expose himself in the street late at night. His behaviour is normalised: he has consumed a lot of alcohol and has 'no idea what he is doing'.
Secondary deviation arises when deviation is no longer normalised (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). It becomes stigmatized or punishable and its consequences can shape a person's future (Fulcher & Scott, 1999; Giddens, 1997). For example, a child who disrupts a class a couple of times may be labelled as a deviant by his / her teacher and may then continue to act in a deviant way. Labelling (interaction ist) is an important theory in the study of deviance. Labelling theorists interpret deviance as a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants (Giddens, 1997). "Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. " (Becker, 1963 cited by Haralambos & Holborn, 1995, p. 405) "Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits" (Becker, 1963 cited by internet source 1).
One of the most important factors in labelling is social background: "the rules in terms of which deviance is defined are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups. " (Giddens, 1997, p. 178) "the 'rich get richer and the poor get prison'" (Remain, 1990 cited by Reiner, 2000) Critics of labelling have argued that there are certain acts prohibited by nearly all cultures: murder, robbery, and rape (Giddens, 1997). However, there are examples in British society that prove these critics wrong. Forced sexual intercourse on a woman by her husband was not recognised by law as rape until recently. In times of war, killing the enemy is approved and not recognised as murder. Yet, there are other, more convincing criticisms of labelling. It is not clear whether labelling actually increases deviant conduct.
Also, labelling theorists tend to ignore the processes that lead to acts being defined as deviant (Giddens, 1997). For instance, richer children are less likely to steal from shops than children from more deprived backgrounds. Another theory concerning deviance involves biology. This suggests that 'normal' individuals conform to social expectations; therefore those who differ must have something wrong with them (Fulcher & Scott, 1999). In the nineteenth century Cesare Lombroso came up with a theory that criminal behaviour was related to skull shape, arm length, and so on. He argued that forty percent of all criminals were 'born criminals'.
Sheldon and Glueck developed a second biological theory (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). They believed that body build was connected to deviant behaviour. They came up with three types of body build: mesomorphs, ectomorphs, and endomorphs (Giddens, 1997). Endomorphs are more 'fleshy', ectomorphs are of thin physique, and mesomorphs are muscular, more active and aggressive. This suggests that mesomorphs are more deviant because of their aggression (Giddens, 1997; Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). It is argued that association between physical attributes and deviant behaviour can be explained in other ways: "lower working-class children, who are more likely to be found in criminal statistics, are also, by virtue of diet, continual manual labour, physical fitness and strength, more likely to be mesomorphic. " (Taylor, Walton & Young cited by Haralambos & Holborn, 1995, p. 387).
The functionalist perspective of deviance is concerned with society as a whole. Functionalist thought was originally pioneered by Durkheim (Giddens, 1997). "in studying any given society, we should look at how its various 'parts', or institutions, combine to give that society continuity over time. " (Giddens, 1997, p. 560) Durkheim believed that every society needed deviance to remain healthy and was therefore inevitable in every society (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). From this, he introduced the idea of anomie: a situation in which social norms lose their hold over individual behaviour (Giddens, 1997). This means that people do not know what to expect from each other (internet source 2).
Periods of anomie in society introduced changes and deviant behaviour could now become a social norm (Giddens, 1997). What constitutes as deviance has today become ambiguous (Young, 1999 cited by Reiner, 2000). Merton expanded on this by combining anomie with cultural goals. He used this in relation to American society and the goals included: success, achievement, and material gain. Only some people can achieve these goals - others resort to deviant behaviour in order to achieve them because they feel inadequate in comparison to those who have succeeded (Giddens, 1997). Merton identified five responses to cultural goals (Fulcher & Scott, 1999; Giddens, 1997; Haralambos & Holborn, 1995): conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreat ism, and rebellion.
Conformity is where the person abides by the goals and norms of a society. For example, students put in effort and study to write essays. Innovation is where the person aims to achieve goals in any way possible, even resorting to deviance. For instance, a student may borrow a friend's already completed essay and copy sections from it in order to complete their own essay on time, and hopefully pass. Ritualism is where the person sticks to social norms but abandons any hope of achieving the goal. People get jobs they can do but find boring, even though these jobs have no prospects.
Retreat ism is where the person abandons a competitive outlook altogether, rejecting dominant values. An example of this would be self-supporting communes. Finally, Rebels reject existing values and means, opting to subscribe to new ones and reconstruct the social system: being completely deviant. Radical political groups could show this. A prime example would be the case of Ireland - more recently Northern Ireland.
These responses can promote deviance (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). People will respond in one of these ways and this is a product of social and economic inequality. However, Merton fails to consider who makes laws and who benefits from them - he neglects the power relationships within a society. This conclusion will now contradict a statement made in the introduction: deviance is normal. This is because deviance differs from society to society: what may be considered deviant in one society is normal in another, what was deviant yesterday may be normal tomorrow. The definitions and theories of deviance discussed show that everyone can be deviant.
Therefore, deviance is a normal aspect of social life. Deviant behaviour is socially accepted as something that occurs, consequently, it must be normal. If deviance was not normal, society would not know how to deal with it, yet there are rules and laws which can regulate how deviant behaviour is acted upon in societies. Deviance is normal because a certain amount of deviance s necessary for the well-being and maintenance of society.
Free research essays on topics related to: deviant behaviour, internet source, interaction ist, oxford university, social norms
Research essay sample on Deviant Behaviour Interaction Ist
