Sociology

Deviance is any behavior that is considered as violation of the social and cultural norms.  Generally, deviance can be understood as doing what is against the agreed norms.  Deviance can be positive or negative depending on the resultant effects that it will have on the perpetrator. While deviance has led to negative impacts on some people, it has led to positive impact on others. Deviance is broadly perceived in sociological and criminology perspectives. In sociological perspectives, deviance is considered to be actions that violate the informal social norms like refusing to adhere to folkways. On the other hand, definition of deviance in criminology perspective has been expanded to include violation of formally enacted rules like a country laws, and it is hence considered as a criminal offence.  Deviance has been broadly studied by sociologist, psychologist and criminologist. It should be noted that definition and understanding of deviance tends to vary with the perspective in consideration. Although the three perspectives show a converging understanding of deviance, there are different internal factors in each perspective which creates variation in definition and understanding. For example, while there can be positive deviance in sociological perspective, there cannot be positive deviance in criminology perspective.

To understand and define deviance, this paper looks into society definition of deviance in reference to the two perspectives.

Definition of deviance
In general definition, deviance can be said to be any behavior that some people in the society find offensive. It is any behavior or action that is considered to be contrary to the agreed norms on relationships, whether in a group or in the society (Goode, 2004).  Deviance is any behavior that is likely to attract reprisal from the rest from the society or the group which means deviance behavior is more likely to land the perpetrator into trouble.

However, there are dynamics in general definition and understanding of deviance. In most instances, there are people who disagree with the rest of the society and hence do things in their own way from what members of the society are doing. In this regard, we it cannot be said that because individuals have disagreed with others, they are deviant. This implies that deviance is not just a behavior (Perdue, 1986). It is an action that carries with it moral judgment.  It is moral judgment that has been made by an individual, and hence decides to act in the way he or she does. In doing so, the action may be contrary to what other are doing in the society but this does not mean that one is deviant.

Therefore, deviance is a relative term. Certain acts cannot be condemned universally by all societies and hence be considered deviant, including serious offenses like murder or incense, since each society finds its own definition of acts. In any society, actions that are regarded as deviant are still undergoing radical redefinition with the changes taking place in the society (Goode, 2004). For example, in most societies, same sex marriage has long been considered as a deviant behavior. However, the changing nature of social life has seen such actions changed from deviant acts to social conformity acts.

Deviance is therefore a term that is relative to both time and place (Perdue, 1986). What is considered deviant in one society will not be considered deviant in another society which means deviance changes from place to place.  It is quite difficult to find something that will be condemned by all societies in the world.  Behaviors which will be considered deviant in one society will be accepted in another society.  As has been highlighted in the above example, something that is considered deviant in a society today may not be considered deviant tomorrow. This means that deviance changes with time as new social trends emerge.

Furthermore, deviance varies within a society. In the same society, some people will hold different view of something which brings about divided public opinion (Goode, 2004). For example, looking back at Apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandel was perceived in different ways in the same society. He was jailed at Robben Island for his political stance. To the government, Mandela was a dangerous political deviant who had to be separated from the rest of the society. However, to majority of Black South Africans, Mandela was considered a hero, a symbol of political freedom, and was highly respected among his people.  The fact that South African Blacks held a different view of Mandela from the government does not mean that they were deviant.

Therefore, it has become evident through the above analysis that deviant is a relative term that can be understood in different ways depending on time and place. Definition of deviance varies from place to place and from time to time due to the changing nature of life (Perdue, 1986). This relativity has created similarly difficulties for different societies in the world to come with a binding definition of deviance. General definition shows deviance to be any act that is contrary to the agreed societal norms.

How does society define deviant
Society perceives deviance in sociological, psychological, and criminological perspectives.  In sociological perspective deviance is perceived as a violation of social norms and as reactive construction. As was reviewed earlier, deviance is a relative term that can be defined in different ways and being so open-ended, the concept of deviance will naturally bring about disagreement, even in education circles (Goode, 2004). It is due to this relativity that deviance has been defined in different perspectives.

In sociological perspective the first understanding of deviant looks it as a violation of social norms. Social norms act as the fabric that holds the society together. Social norms can be defined as agreed codes of conduct that guide how members of the society interact with one another and carry their duties. According to Rodney (2007) social norms act likes the laws of that particular society and are mean to ensure that individuals in the society live in harmony with one another. In regulating the behaviors of individuals, social norms ensure that in carrying out their duties, individuals do not violate the rights of other people in the society.  They are unique behavioral standards that dictate how people are required to act and hence act as paradigms for the predictable behavior of members of the society.  Norms are not always moral and some are not even based on morality. They are pragmatic and sometimes irrational. Norms are therefore codes of conduct that are never static (Perdue, 1986). They keep on changing from society to society, time to time, and from class to class.

Deviance is therefore an act of violation of one or more societal norm. It can be described as failure by the individual to conform to the societal norms (Goode, 2004). Due to the change in social norms from once society to another, deviance varies from society to society. In one society, an act of deviance can be considered as a criminal act while it may not be considered as a crime in another society.

As a violation of social norm, sociologists have therefore viewed deviance as an act, thought, or feeling that will be considered by other members of the society as violation of their values (Perdue, 1986).  It will be viewed as any action that violates the societal definition of appropriate behaviors in reference to social norms. It is any action or behavior that will not be accepted by majority of the society members.
The other sociological view of deviance is considered to be deviant as reactive constructions.

Deviance can be negative or positive. According to Rodney, (2007) negative deviance is that action that will be condemned by majority of the society members and will come with negative consequences to the perpetrator. For example, in a society that does not allow murder, an individual who kills another person may be punished in a similar way by being condemned to death. Earlier in this paper, it was highlighted that just because an individual acts in contrary to what the society believes to be correct does not mean that they are deviant. There are individuals who do something in contrary to the society but in doing so provide a solution to a problem that the society has faced for a long term and therefore the individuals act benefits the whole society (Goffman, 1963). In this regard, the action or behavior that is contrary to other members of the society should not be considered as a negative deviant but as positive deviant.

Looking at deviance as a reactive reconstruction, deviance should be taken to be an action that is considered negative by other members of the society and leads to stigmatizing social reaction towards the perpetrator (Rodney, 2007).  There are actions which are deviant that the society does not consider them deviant as they dont raise reaction from the society. For example, it generally agreed that downloading music from the internet is a deviant act but this does not raise reaction from the society since almost all people does it. However it is violation of copyright laws. On the other hand, individual may have health conditions which according to social norms may not necessary be deviant but individual will be treated in negative manner by others. For example in some societies, HIV or other condition like dwarfism elicit social stigmatization while they are just conditions  that may not be considered deviant but due to social construction, they  become deviant actions. According to Goffman (1963) stigmatization is any conditions which set perpetrators or possessors apart from other people in the society who are considered normal. Therefore, stigmatization portrays individuals as unacceptable in society or as inferior beings to others. However, Goffman points out that the likelihood of stigmatization will vary according to different factors like visibility, obtrusiveness, and even perceived focus.  Therefore, Goffman (1963) recognize stigmatization as a power indicator of constructed deviant in the society. Further, he shows that those who are stigmatized have few options, including passing, covering, and withdrawing in dealing with perceived deviance.

According to Perdue (1986) deviance and criminology are closely related. Criminology and deviance studies have been developed in different paths but they tend to overlap at some point (Goode, 2004). As a subject of study, criminology has limited itself to issues of legality, crime, and other crime related issues.  On the other hand, deviance has studied behaviors that are considered as illegal and in criminology would be considered as a crime. However, deviance studies wide range of behaviors which may or may not be considered as crimes. Deviance studies behaviors like nose picking, flatulence, mentally disorder behaviors, and others which may not be considered a crime and at the same time study behaviors like suicide, alcoholism, and others which can be considered as a crime (Rodney, 2007). There is a converging agreement that most deviant behaviors are also considered illegal in criminology.

According to positivist school that explored biological theories of deviance, Cessare argued that deviant behaviors, herein considered as crimes, were caused by forces that were beyond individual control. Positivists argued that individuals committed deviant behaviors without their awareness. They argued that biological abnormalities could give a valid explanation for deviance in the society. This means that genetic predispositions give individuals innate deviant behaviors.  According to Cesare Lambroso, who was one of the well know positivists, physical abnormalities, which are caused by genetic factors, increased individual predisposition to commit deviant behaviors (Rodney, 2007). He claimed that atavist, or deviant criminals exhibited low foreheads and small human cranial capacities. Criminology defines deviance in same way as sociology, but they may differ in forms of deviance and their causes.

According to Perdue (1986) deviance can be explained using different theories. Three dominant theories that explain deviance include structural functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.   Structural functionalism categorizes individuals in the society into four categories. There are those who are very integrated into the society, those who are very unintegrated, those who are very regulated, and those who are very unregulated, each falling into altruism, egoism, fatalism, and anomie groups respectively (Goode, 2004). According to Durkheim, deviance can be attributed to the dimension of the group one falls as given the in above four groups. Individual may commit deviance based on the dimensions of the group that one falls into.  Functional understanding of deviances argues that deviance is important for preservation of social order, which means it assist in maintaining social cohesion and collective conscious. Dhurkheim emphasized the need for deviance in the society as it served as a tool for boundary maintenance. For example, the media, which is the vocal tool reporting deviances, tends to educate the public on the society rules and the punishment that accompanies breaking of social rules. Deviance therefore plays an important role in contributing to social change. It offers individuals alternative definitions to what is considered right in the society. In some cases, the alternative becomes acceptable as the right way to do things, which implies that deviance can act as tool for social change (Rodney, 2007). For example, political revolutions are considered as deviant behaviors but they may give correct form of governance that becomes acceptable in the society.

Conflict theory has been used to explain deviance as a source of crime in the society. Conflict theory stipulates that the society is made up of individuals and groups which work to benefit maximally. In most instances, social institutions come into conflict with individuals since they try to change norms or social statues, constraining on the ability of individuals and groups to maximize their benefits (Rodney, 2007). According to symbolic interactionism theory, deviance is considered to be a learned behavior.  This means that individuals learn deviance after interacting with deviant individuals. Interactionism theory is modeled along social learning theories which shows that human beings learns from their interaction with others (Goode, 2004).  When individuals interact with others in the society, they create symbolic structures which give them meaning in life.  This means that people must not perceive things the ideal way but they define things and give the meaning so that they appear real.  Sutherland theory of differential association also asserts that deviance is learned in the same way people learn conforming behaviors. Whether a person becomes deviant or not depends on the individual exposure to pro-criminal and ant-criminal experiences in the course of interaction (Rodney, 2007).

One of the theories that have been widely used in sociology to explain deviance is Mertons strain theory. Merton anomie theory looks into deviance in terms of goals and means. Merton deviates from Durkheim in explanation of his anomies. Instead of looking at anomie as confounding of social norms, Merton digs deeper and looks into anomie as a state where individuals sets social goals  but does not have the means to attain them (Merton, 1957).  Therefore Merton asserts that how an individual responds to expectations from the society and the means one uses to purse the set goals must be considered in understanding deviance.  For example, Merton shows that collective actions like rebellion, riots, and others arise from the disconnection between goals set by society and the means that are available to achieve these goals.

While Merton perceives anomie as alienation from the society resulting from conflicting norms, he points out to the conflict between societys ideal life and the legitimate ways that may be used to live this life, which are two dimensions that do not match (Merton, 1957).  In his speculation on societies which are supposed to generate more deviant behaviors, he realized that the societies which  were prone to more deviant behaviors were those societies placing greater emphases on achievement of specific goals like wealth and at the same time  have not put in place means to achieve those goals.  A society may set goals but means to achieve the goals are available to only given segment of the society while others have to struggle to achieve them through illegitimate means. According to Merton, deviance results from universal cultural desire to have material success and comfort and on the other hand, limited legitimate opportunities to achieve them. In light of the above, Merton then describes an anomie as an individual who is confuse and in  normless state, usually faced with the dilemma to achieve societal goals while there are no legitimate means to achieve them (Merton, 1957).

Albert Cohen, through his sub-cultural theory provided more insight into deviance. Like Merton he speculated that delinquent behaviors were motivated by the need to meet economic ends. He asserted that delinquents were motivated by status frustration. Delinquents feel that they are looked down upon by the whole society and hence they are denied any status (Cohen, 1966).  As a result, they develop an alternative means of gaining status and this most likely leads to delinquent behaviors. Individuals who are more disenfranchised from the mainstream society are more likely to become deviant.

Conclusion
Deviance is quite relative. Understanding and definition of the term varies with time and place. Generally, deviance is accepted as an act or behavior that is contrary of the agreed norms of the society. What is considered deviant in one society may be accepted in another society.  Even in the same society, an action or behavior that is considered deviant now may be acceptable in the future.  In defining deviance, it is important to put into consideration the relativity of the term with place and time. Society definition of deviance also varies depending on the perspective taken. Deviance can be defined in perspectives of sociology, criminology, and psychology.  In sociology, deviance is defined as acting contrary to what is considered right by the society. Deviance may be understood in terms reactive construction and functionalism. In sociology deviance can be negative or positive and in functionalism approach deviance is considered an agent of change. In criminology, deviance is considered as committing crime, or doing an illegal act which comes with punishment. Unlike in sociology where deviance may be considered as an agent of change, deviance is considered a crime in criminology and is punishable.  Therefore, society definition of deviance is relative with time and place, and depends with the perspective taken.