Deviance: A Sociological Perspective, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Unusual behaviour has always been of interest to the social scientist. This has been a result of the discipline’s attempt to study man in his social environment, therefore, whenever the social scientists encountered behaviour that was out of the ordinary, according to Aggleton (1987), they have devoted a great deal of energy to explaining the actions of those who deviate from the norm. They do this not to excuse the behaviour they investigate but to understand it more fully

People understand deviance differently. This is based on their experiences and cultural background that may have exposed them to differing realities. This is well seen when one asks what or who he considers as deviants. You may be surprised to find that what one person considers deviant, may be seen as normal by another person. Therefore defining deviance in a single definition may be seen as a futile attempt, as many scholars have discovered (Downes & Rock, 2007, p. 6).

This has led to the rise of the study of deviance in the social sciences; this paper gives an insight on how deviance has been understood in sociology, and attempts to explain deviance from a sociological perspective using the author’s personal experience.

Definition

Defining deviance in a mutually agreed upon manner has been elusive to social scientists (Herman, 1995, p. 2). This has been due to the lack of an agreement on what constitutes deviance. Several approaches have been developed in an attempt to understand what constitutes deviance (Aggleton, 1987). These approaches would help in understanding deviance from a sociological perspective.

Approaches to Understanding Deviance

Deviance as undesirable norm-breaking behaviour

This approach has been mainly used in the attempt to explain what is viewed as ‘out of the ordinary’ behaviour in society, in this case referred to as deviance. Using this approach deviance can be defined as a recognized violation of a cultural norm.

This definition can be used to explain behaviour that goes against the grain of the society (Aggleton, 1987, p. 7), where an individual or a group of individuals are seen as deviants for violating the mutually agreed upon social norms. For example, engaging in witchcraft in a society that condemns witchcraft will lead one to be labelled deviant. This is somewhat a straight forward example that easily makes sense of the definition and easy to agree upon.

On the other hand, one may engage in activities that are not favourable in the society but are economically rewarding. This can be seen when one engages in economic activities such as garbage collection in a society that does not look favourably at garbage collectors. Such a person may be labelled a deviant based on this approach, but in reality that does not make him a deviant.

The limitation of this approach is concerned with questions such as who sets the norms in the first place (Aggleton, 1987, p. 7). For example, when someone comes from a society that considers going to church on Sundays a requirement for all members, an individual who does not go to church would be considered deviant, but the society does not attempt to know why he does not go to the church, whereby he could be having some valid reasons.

Deviance as socially acquired behaviour

This approach as discussed by both Downes and Rock (2007) and Aggleton (1987), best explains deviance when viewed in a cross cultural setting, or involving more than one culture. This is where an action considered as socially acceptable in one society may be seen as deviance in another. This is best explained using culture shock. For an example when my uncle went to Saudi Arabia accompanied by his wife, she was viewed as deviant based on her dress code and the way she exposed herself publicly.

Much as her dress code was what she had learnt from her cultural upbringing, she was in a society that considered her inappropriately dressed and deviating from the norms in Saudi Arabia, governed by Islamic teachings.

This approach can also be used to explain deviance within a cultural group, where the expectations of different classes are well laid out, but some people do not adhere to the norms in that society; instead they view that as deviance.

Deviance as biologically acquired behaviour

This approach was dominant especially in the past, and has been increasingly reduced in its dominance over the years (Aggleton, 1987). This approach uses biological composition to explain deviance, where it deviance is inherited and cannot be changed.

Unlike the deviance as socially acquired behaviour that can be un learnt, this approach considered deviance as an inborn state that cannot be changed, and passed on from one generation to another. This approach has been under much criticism, especially from the church as it attributes deviance to biological make up.

Defining deviance using this approach has not been advanced by many sociologists as it does not have much basis to support its argument. Once it is established using concrete biological terms that deviance is a biological trait, then the attempt at defining deviance would change course and follow a different direction.

Deviance as symbolic interaction approach

This approach views deviance not from the actions, but the way people view and understand those actions in the day to day interactions (Herman, 1995). This is also known as the labelling theory, where people label actions as deviance depending on how they understand them. This approach can be used to define deviance as actions that are considered abnormal as happens when one experiences culture shock.

Deviance as functionalist

This approach gained prominence through the works of Emile Durkheim who tried to understand deviance as having functions in society. This was within his functionalist theories of society where each structure in society had some functions hence its existence. Some sociologists have attempted to understand deviance in this perspective.

Using this perspective, deviance is seen as having the function of enforcing the ideas of right and wrong in a society, where deviance is viewed as the opposite of what is considered right and hence unacceptable in society.

This approach has never gained much acceptance with many sociologists, with (Downes & Rock 2007, p. 12) asserting that functionalist theory has been found wanting in its explanation of society in recent years. It has become a routine concept folly for students to demolish before moving on towards more rewarding ground.

Conclusion

Deviance is not something that can be defined using a mutually agreed upon single definition, since it means different things to different people. One can define deviance using one of the approaches discussed above, and also based on one’s experiences and cultural background.

Understanding deviance in a sociological perspective has been rapidly developing with the rise of various definitions and approaches that have been put forward by different scholars. Some of these approaches are criticism of previously held approaches, but the underlying factor about deviance has been the fact that it can be defined as behaviour that goes against the cultural values of a group of people, and should not be viewed as universal unless the cultural trait is considered universal.

References

Aggleton, P (1987). Deviance. London: Tavistock publications ltd.

Downes, D. & Rock, P. (2007). Understanding deviance, (5^th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Herman, N. J. (1995). Deviance a symbolic interactionist approach. Oxford:  General hall.