Deviance and Conformity in Society - Essay Example

Deviance and conformity in society Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Conformity and deviance The bodies in the society are dependent on the cultural and social contexts that generate the social norms for their presentation. In spite of being natural and finite, the body is subject to social regulation. As such certain social controls are placed on the body with reference to medicalisation and mental illness. Furthermore, various social norms and expectations are placed on bodies in everyday life. The strong connection between the ideas of gender, sexuality and race determines the sociology of the body. Depending on the society, place and time the definition of normative bodies as fit, healthy and beautiful varies. Moral judgemeent and saction are imposed on bodies when they are considered deviant, unfit and unhealthy (Adams, 2009). According to Cummings (2011), deviance refers to the behaviours and actions that violate the cultural norms, rules and even social norms. Scholars in this field of sociology attempt to understand how the norms are formed, how they change and how their enforcement is conducted. In addition to violation of the set norms, deviance is failure to adhere to culturally reinforced norms. Depending on the cultural context, social norms vary accordingly. For instance a deviant act in one culture may be considered normal in another society and culture. Depending on the society or culture, some extreme acts of deviance are termed criminal; thus deviance is the strict breaking of intact norms otherwise esteemed by the members of the society. Sociologists have for a considerable period of time studied deviance as violation of social norms, and have thus labeled it “any thought, feeling or action that has been judged by a social group as a violation of their rules or values”, “breaking a society’s norms” and “departure of behavioural forms from the norms of a particular group”. Similarly, as a reactive construction, deviance is relative to time and place, because a definitely deviant behavior in one social context may pass for a non-deviant behavior in another context. For instance, murder is universally deviant except for acceptable situations when governments are in war and the need for self-defense arises. As such, the definition of deviance cannot be divorced from the issue of social power because with the influence on the legislators, some groups in the society can criminalize the actions of minority groups to their own advantage (Darab & Cummings,2011). Theories of deviant bevaviour Symbolic interactionist perspective Symbolic interactionist perspective of deviant behavior postulates that deviance originates from an individual’s learning of the behavior. The deviant can either learn the deviant from the deviant individuals surrounding them as they grow or once the deviant establishes justification for the deviance. According to this perspective, sociologists have to consider details and symbols of everyday life, what the symbols infer, and how people interact. Sociologists can therefore understand individuals’ interaction, negotiation, manipulation, and effect on the reality. Because symbolic structures already exist in a society into which individuals are born, deficiency processing of certain emotions interferes with normal socialization, thus increasing the risk of violent behavior during growth (Dennis & Martin, 2005). Depending on their subjective interpretations, individually-attached meanings to symbols dictate the overall actions of the individuals. This is evident in verbal communication whereby spoken words are termed as predominant symbols. During the communication process, the words have a specific meaning to the “sender” which is expected during an effective communication to convey a similar meaning to the “receiver”. Consequently, words being transient in nature require intention and interpretation. Symbols interact during a conversation whereby individuals interpret the world around them differently. Such an interpretation allows for use of anything as a symbol as long it refers to something beyond itself. A song composed of musical notes may seem as dots and lines on a piece of paper; but from the organization and interpretation of the writer, the notes receive form to make music. Thus a symbolic interactionist concentrates on how people act, and attempt to understand the meanings that persons assign to their symbols and actions, as well of the actions and symbols of others (Pearson, 1975). Symbolic interactionism applied to a western institution of marriage, the vows of commitment, wedding cake, wedding bells, white bridal dress, flowers, church ceremony and music would serve as symbols. Although the western society denotes meanings from such symbols, individuals consider the symbols according to their own perceptions. Viewing the circular wedding ring as a “never ending love,” another individual may term the ring to symbolize a life binding agreement (Lawson & Heaton, 2009). Some criticism leveled against symbolic interationism claim that it overlooks the micro level of social interpretation – the bigger picture. By focusing closely on the “trees”, such as the quality of diamond in the ring, symbolic interationism overlooks the “forest” that infers the quality of the wedding. Similarly, symbolic interationism is also criticized for failing to acknowledge the influence of social forces and institutions on individual interactions (Pfuhl & Henry, 1996). The functionalist perspective Deviance according to the theory of functionalism is based on the interdependence of society aspects that contribute to the functioning of the society. For instance children’s education provided by the government is indirectly funded by the taxes that the state collects from the parents. While the running of the government is dependent on the parents, the family in turn depends on the school to enable their children acquire good jobs to enable them succeed in life and support their families. Consequently, the children become law-abiding citizens and pay taxes to support the state. In the transition is a success, the part of the society will be orderly, productive and stable. However, if it is not successful, the part of the society must reorganize to ensure the existence of stability, order and productivity. In a financial recession period for example, the high rates of inflation and unemployment causes a reduction in socials services available to the public. While institutions offer fewer programs, the families minimize on the spending and in the long run a new social order, productivity and stability is established (Fox & Harding, 2005). The social consensus – the binding factor of the society that functionalists believe in and work towards together- is a form of cohesion that ensures the best for the society as a whole. The social consensus is structured into two, according to Emile Durkheim. First, mechanical solidarity arises when people within the society uphold similar beliefs and value, and participate in similar types of work. This form of cohesion is common with the simple societies where such activity as cattle herding is practiced by every member. A suitable example is the Amish society. In contrast, the second form of social cohesion known as organic solidarity exists when society members are interdependent, despite subscribing to different values and beliefs and participate in varying types of work. In industrialized and complex societies is home for organic solidarity. An example is large UK cities like London (McCaghy, 2008). According to Lawson and Heaton (2009), the European functionalists were focused at unveiling the functions of human behavior while their European counterparts concentrated at explaining the internal workings of social order. According to one American functionalist, Robert Merton, human functions are divided into latent functions and manifest functions. While latter is considered intentional and obvious, the former is unintentional and not obvious. For instance, attending a church manifests its function as worship for a religious community, but the latent function may be to help attendance to discern institutional from personal values. Evidently, manifest functions are obvious but latent functions requires a sociological approach to decode it. In functionalism, a sociological approach bridges the gap between the functions of the smaller parts with the functions of the whole. Just like any other sociological theory, criticism leveled against functionalism denotes its neglect on the negative functions of such as event as divorce. Similarly, it is claimed that functionalism justifies the complacency and status quo of the members of the society. Further it is claimed that the perspective does not allow for people to actively transform their social environment, even if the change is beneficial. Instead it considers active social change as undesirable because, in the long run, the various parts of the society will naturally compensate for the problems at hand. In other words, the society is a self-regulating system, and support from the members is not necessary. The conflict perspective Thirdly, the conflict perspective based on Karl Marx’s writings on class struggles adopts a societal approach different from the other two approaches. Unlike the functionalist and symbolic interactionist view of positive aspects of life, the conflict perspective focuses on the negative, conflicted and ever-transforming nature of society. Instead of protecting the status quo, avoiding social change and encouraging people to cooperate towards social order, as believed by the functionalist’s, conflict theorists counters the status quo, fosters social change, and acknowledge the imposition of social order to the poor and the weak by the rich and powerful. For example, conflict theorist’s may consider an “elite” board of regents holding a fundraising to pay for new programs that will improve the status of a local college as self-serving instead of beneficial to the students (Roach, 2006). Despite previous socialists overlooking the role of conflict perspective, American Sociologists embraced the idea that the only conflict in the society is economic. Today, social conflict exists between many groups with the possibility of inequality, such as economic, racial, political, religious, and gender. Conflict theorists posit that uequal groups content with conflicting agendas and values prompting competition among themselves; hence the basis of the ever-transforming nature of society. The overly negative view of society by the conflict perspective is variously criticized. Eventually, the theory associates humanitarian efforts, democracy, and other positive aspects of the society as vital in managing the masses, instead of maintaining the society and social order. References Adams, J. (2009). ‘Bodies of change: a comparative analysis of media representations of body modification practices.’ Sociological Perspectives. vol. 52 (1). pp. 103–129. Cummings, J. (2011). Deviance in Society: Study Guide. Southern Cross University: Lismore. Darab, S. & Cummings, J. (2011). Deviance in Society: Book of Readings. Southern Cross University: Lismore. Dennis, A & Martin, P.J. (2005). ‘Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power’. The British Journal of Sociology. vol. 56 (2). p. 191. Fox, C & Harding, D. J. (2005). ‘School shootings as organizational deviance’. Sociology of Education. vol. 78 (1). pp. 69–98. Lawson, T & Heaton, T. (2009). Crime and Deviance. 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. McCaghy, C. M. (2008) Deviant Behavior: Crime, Conflict, and Interest Groups. 8th edn. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon: Boston. Pearson, G. (1975). The Deviant Imagination. Macmillan: London. Pfuhl, E & Henry, S. (1996). The Deviance Process. 3rd edn. Aldine de Gruyter: New York. Roach, R. A. S. (2006). Deviance, conformity and control. 4th edn. Longman: South Melbourne. Read More