The definition of deviance defines the threat and allows for containment and control of the threat. The definition of deviance preserves, protects, and defines group interests and in doing so maintains a sense of normalcy. Deviance can consequently be seen as a product of Social Interaction; the result of setting boundaries and limitations, rules and laws, acceptable and unacceptable. "In sum, by deviance I mean one thing and one thing only: behavior or characteristics that some people in a society find offensive or reprehensible and that generates--or would generate if discovered--in these people disapproval, punishment, condemnation of, or hostility toward, the actor or possessor....What we have to know is, deviant to whom?" (Goode, 1994, page 29) Psychological theories of crime and deviance really only describe the difference between supposedly ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ human characteristics.
Social Deviance Social deviance is a term that refers to forms of behavior and qualities of persons that others in society devalue and discredit. So what exactly is deviance? In this essay we are concerned with social deviance, not physiological deviations from the expected norm. In general, any behavior that does not conform to social norms is deviance; that is behavior that violates significant social norms and is disapproved of by a large number of people as a result. For societies to run with some semblance of order the problem of deviance is essential and intrinsic to any conception of social order.
In this concept what is emphasized is we imagine how we must appear to others, we imagine the judgment of others, and we develop our self through the judgments of others. With the interactions, specifically with others one begins to develop a generalized identify about who one is as well as empathy for others based on the judgment one has on that specific person. The most significant restraint of the symbolic interaction theory is the fact that it overlooks macro-social structures, such as norms and culture, basically focusing on micro-level interactions primarily. Some symbolic interactionists, however, would state that the concept of role theory addresses this criticism. This can be related by to my paper because symbolic interaction emphasizes how a magazine, TV, images and other forms of media can truly make a difference and mean a lot to the female population and create cultural/gender
Both symbolic interactionist and functionalist have their respective ways of explaining the cause of deviance. On one hand, symbolic interactionist tried to explain this phenomenon through the basic principle that an individual 's actions are dependent on their situation that varies depending upon one 's culture and surroundings which include the differential association theory, control theory, and labeling theory. On the other hand, in the functionalist perspective, they see that society as one system and is composed of interrelated parts. They argued that deviance is an element of society and fulfils specific functions in society. As shown in the strain theory, the existence of deviance allows for the establishment of cultural goal and institutionalize means that results in the operation of
However, we see that this is the nature of human society especially during times of “crisis”. During such times, society creates the binary notion of “us vs. them”; “us” are people who identify with the norm and are not seen as deviants, where “them” are people who are seen as “the others”, those who do not conform to our societal expectations. The others are seen as a national threat to the security of the nation state. To understand Shohat’s perspective as a victim of binarisms, analysis of the creation of “us vs. them” is critical in comprehending the oppressions that binaries create. Furthermore, we must explore what and who are threats to norms of society especially when the nation-state declares a “state of emergency”.
Weber believes each society is different and comes up with ideal typical constructs to explain a certain society. His starting point for his theory is meaningful social action. Weber believes that humans are naturally valuing beings who carry certain values and interpret natural and social factors based on their values. Humans are conscious creatures who attach meaning towards an act which is directed towards another individual. Weber is concerned with social action, its subjective meaning and the unintended consequences of the actions.
The importance of locating identity within the social arena is expressed as it is believed that people conform to expectations placed on them by various social forces (Stryker, 1968). The self is distributed across different social arenas and the notion of people playing roles can feel uncomfortable as it can be seen as autonomic and manipulating (Stryker, 1994). Although, the individual would still have a strong basis of sense of self, there are a variability in behaviour in which side of self the individual would show depending on what’s appropriate and adaptable to the situation or setting (Turner, 1987). This alternative view contributes a better understanding in the notion of competing roles, as it is useful for individuals to have competing traits where we change within different relationships or situations to suit the needs of different aspects in life. The CP approach see the self as de-centred, where identity is claimed to be more prominent and tied to social and cultural ideals (Freeman, 1993).
Yet, MacDonald and Leary (2005) reflected that social pain of exclusion are functional in responding to danger and guiding social groups from threats (p.223). Symbolic Interactionism by other scholars Blumer (1986) alleged that racial and ethnic exclusion is formed via interactions between the dominant groups. However, dominants would not hold racial and ethnic views without interactions. So, these interactions conduce to an imagery of the subordinates which allows the dominants to support its view of the subordinates, thus maintain the status quo.
Delving deeper into the internal and external attribution types, Kelley (1967) developed the covariation model that provided deeper explanation for self-perception and social-perception. Furthermore, the term covariation principle reasoned that at the same ... ... middle of paper ... ...ttribution, Maller B.F 2006). The actor versus observer bias explains how people will attribute behaviour either to internal or external factors depending on whether they are the actor in the situation or observer. Miller and Norman (1975) showed that if a person is in a particular environment, they are more likely to blame their actions on that rather than make generalizations of their own personality. However, when the roles are reversed, they tend to attribute the other person to internal factors.
In the analysis of society in today's times, the motives of social change, control, and conformity provides the basis of how society controls human behavior. The ideals and expectations place onto people in modern society are established through means of control where people are expected to behave within a spectrum of normality and what society deems as acceptable behavior. Forms of social influence as simple as peer pressure and wanting to fit in transform into major controls of society like laws, law enforcement officers and the government as a whole. The way that people make sense of their environment is through formed first impressions, interpretations of other people's behavior and how that behavior affects their attitudes, stereotypes, and perceptions of other types of people. The overall impact of these ideas on individuals shows how conformity, persuasion, stereotypes, and culture affect how society maintains and changes social norms.