Sociology: Deviance

Deviance refers to all in all deportment that is considered to be violating neighborly averages or to persons that engage in such(prenominal) demeanour (Adler & Adler (2009 21). Deviance does non righteous occur to any form of behaviour, only if we need to bear in mind the f turn of chargets that behaviour or wad that ar unnatural ar altogether defined as abnormal if and only if hostelry views that particular proposition behaviour as deviant (Adler & Adler (2009 21). Deviance can either be positive, which is over compliance but is at the same clock time positively evaluated by the audience (Heckert, 1998 23).There is similarly negative aberrancy, which is under adaptity but on the former(a)wise hand negatively evaluated, rate-busting, which refers to those individuals who under conform but are negatively evaluated by decree and there is likewise another term referred to as distortion admiration, which is the bad boy image, which is under-conformity but som ehow admired and positively evaluated by baseball club or groups in society (Heckert, 1998 23). Deviance has no fixed definition but instead, it is across-the-board and has various definitions linked to the term.There are however 5 basic definitions for deviance in sociology namely, the Reactive constructionist hail, the Normative cuddle, Violation of rights, Absolutist approach and lastly, the statistical approach. The reactive constructionist approach focuses on the reactions of an audience, which is society to legitimate behaviours. This is when behaviour is only considered deviant if it has been condemned by society. It involves publicly strike offling behaviour as deviant and besides followed by an equally negative reaction by the public (Dodge, 1985 18).The prescriptive approach on the other hand defines deviance as a departure or going against the set or generally recognised norms in society (Dodge, 1985 20). Usually, the norm that has been violated is not usually sen d into place or is not usually in existence until a behaviour, which society reacts to, is mootn as unacceptable and therefore deviant and indeed the norm is cast off into place and into existence after such occurrences.The statistical approach focuses on the behaviours that differ from average or normal experiences of society. In this case, the deviant individual or group of individuals engages in behaviour that the majority of the heap do not engage in (Heckert, 1998 25). This form of approach is chiefly applied when analysing organisations. With the violation of rights approach, behaviour is considered deviant if it, in any way, violates the rights of any other individual. The individual or individuals hat are considered are label and they receive a negative reaction from society for their behaviour. Lastly, the absolutist approach of deviance claims that deviance resides in the very nature of an act and is maltreat at all times and in all places (Heckert, 1998 28). It doe s not provoke to depend on the environment, the reaction of the audience or the penalty and acerbity of the act. Principles of right and wrong are applied and an act is deviant formerly it goes against those principles.With the case of Amanda, who was heavily criticised by the public for killing her sister by stabbing her with a bread knife, the reactive constructionist theory is close to relevant because according to her mother, she was righteous an innocent girl, who made a terrible slue and her family did not battle forgiving her, but because the media reacted in a certain way, which was negative and the reaction til nowtually spread and influenced the rest of society in which they started condemning Amanda and fashioning her life miserable, to the extent that she also condemned herself and started hating herself to the point where she believed she was sliminess and deserved to die. Another issue with deviance is the issue of mug.Stigma refers to the negative counter pane or some form of division between the deviant individuals and the people who are not deviant or do not go against the norms of society (Goffman, 1963 3). There is usually a lot of focus by the normal people and it is always the deviants that countenance to suffer and manage the tension because they are usually the minority group in the cases of deviant acts (Goffman, 1963 7). Amanda had the stigma of a killer or brutal capital punishmenter attached to her by the public and throughout the rest of her life, had had to endure trauma at the detention of the public. She had to cope with the labelling and the gossiping that constantly surrounded her.With the issue of stigmatisation, the individuals who are suffering also take hold the option of managing the stigma. In Amandas case, the one most relevant option that she did have and fairly used was turning to stigmatised others, such as people she was imprisoned with and by turning to sympathetic others, which in this case was her mother and her friends for support and coping because there was not oftentimes she could have through with(p) such as support groups etc. because she had exhausted a lot of time in prison (Goffman, 1963 14). In Amandas case, she has her family supporting her saying she is not at fault, in other spoken language that her behaviour was not deviant, art object on the other hand, the public viewed her behaviour as deviant.This so brings us to the question about whether there is a battle between deviance and crime. Some crimes may be conception of as deviant but not criminal and other, criminal but not deviant. The safest route to go by is simply saying that the difference separating deviance from crime is the breaking of the law, which is considered a crime or the violating of the social norm, which is deviance (Marshal and Meier, 2011 16). Basically, people could engage in criminal behaviour, which may be original in a particular society, such as alcohol addiction and driving , but because it is not generally frowned upon, those people are accepted and are not considered deviant by their society.One other person on the other hand, may commit a deviant act, such as Amanda, who was give tongue to to have attacked her sister unintentionally, but because society rebukes such, she is considered a deviant, an outcast and is denominate and has no freedom to live her live as she pleases without people making it miserable for her. Labelling, which is closely linked to stigma, refers to the public seeing the deviants as divers(prenominal) to anyone else and are principally carried out by object lesson entrepreneurs (Marshal and Meier, 2011 17). There are three different forms of labelling which can be taken into consideration, which is prime deviance, unoriginal deviance and tertiary deviance. These forms or theories of labelling come with consequences as well.In the case of primary deviance, an individual is disposed a label but they are not affected by s uch, so they basically ignore and abandon the label given to them by the public (Marshal and Meier, 2011 21). The second scenario, which is secondary deviance, individuals are given a label and so as a form of escapism, they then live up to that label that they have been given, such as psyche being call uptight, condescending or in simpler words, a snob, then tends to try and intimidate and bring people down by all means possible (Marshal and Meier, 2011 20). With tertiary deviance, an individual is labelled, but refuses to neither deny nor accept and instead tries and proves that there is nothing deviant about their behaviour (Marshal and Meier, 2011 19). In Amandas case she was both primarily and secondarily labelled.Her family attempt denying the primary labelling for her, but rather she took up secondary deviance, where she actually accepted that she was a murderer and that she deserved to die like a murderer. clean-living entrepreneurs are those individuals who try to creat e and enforce new definitions of cleanity and what is deviant and what is not (Adler & Adler, 2009 136). These new definitions that they try and enforce are mainly put in place to try and benefit them and what they believe in (Adler & Adler, 2009 137). In many cases, if not all, there is always a number of moral entrepreneurs and not just one and they are each trying to act at their own self-interest (Adler & Adler, 2009 137).In Amandas case, the main moral entrepreneurs are the society, Amanda and her own mother. Society created a label for Amanda that she carried with her and was never removed until the twenty-four hours that she died. Society sawing machine her as a criminal who deserved to be punished because in that society, killing people with bread knives was not considered moral, even though they did not know the main reason or what had simply happened. Amanda on the other hand did not see anything wrong that she had done and instead got negatively influenced by the stig ma that had been attached to her and therefore saw herself as a deviant that deserved the most severe punishment possible.With Amandas mother, she saw her daughter as the innocent one used by society. She blamed society for her daughters misery claiming that she had not done anything wrong, even though it was evident that she had murdered her own sisters for reasons unknown, but because she did not see anything wrong with her daughters actions, she believed that she should not be punished even though murder is considered a crime and should therefore be punishable. They then in a way were seen to be a folk devil, which means that they were viewed as a threat and a bad influence to society (Dodge, 1985 28). It is rather awing how Amandas case eventually turned out.Some people, mainly family were on her side, while the whole public was against her. Now it is a mystery as to how such situations can be explained and justified. Why would, in one society, people have different beliefs? A ccording to the Marxist socialist theory of deviance, society is not based on consensus and shared values, but rather, it is an outcome of the continuing try between the social classes, the elite and the proletariat (Marshal and Meier, 2011 19). In this form of society, which is mainly a capitalist society, there are individuals who exploit others and those who are victimised and therefore those who commit crime are doing those who are exploited umpire (Marshal and Meier, 2011 19).In Amandas case, there is no clear reason as to why the crime was committed, but her sentence was not heavy and therefore this could also be a sign as to how much influence they had on the ruling system, showing how much those who are influential can make everything in society ranging from economy to politics and laws. Amandas case is a clear example of what we call moral panic. Moral panic, according to Cohen (1972), cited in Victor (1998 542), is societal response to beliefs about a threat from facto rs or individuals known as moral deviants. The group of individuals become defined as a threat to the values as well as the interests of that particular society and they are presented in this way by the mass media and other key actors (moral entrepreneurs).Society managed to foster moral panic because a widespread annoyance about the issue was promoted by much attention by society and basically the whole issue eventually took center stage. According to Adler & Adler (2009 137), moral panic must be triggered by specific event at the right moment, draw attention to a specific group as a target, have provocative content revealed, and supported by dinner dress and informal communication outlets, which in Amandas case happened because now her disaster attracted much attention from society and basically caused a panic. This again just proves how deviance has no set barriers, but instead the classification of deviance has no set or particular traits, but rather, behaviour is seen as devi ant only based on the social definitions that vary from society to society at different times. Society is the biggest role player in distinguishing deviant behaviour and through moral panic, they managed to exclude, label and target deviants because they have gone against what is believed to be social norms.Reference List Adler, P. and Adler, P. (2009). (6th ed). Constructions of Deviance social power, scene and interaction. Belmon, Calif Thomson/Wadsworth. Pages 135-138 Chapter 17. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. St Martins New York. Dodge, D. (1985). Deviant doings The over-negativized conceptualization of deviance. Los Angeles California. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York united States. Heckert, D. M. (1998). Positive deviance A classificatory model. New York United States. Marshal, C & Meier, R. (2011). Sociology of Deviant behaviour (14th ed). Belmont USA.