Response Paper 1 In the book Wayward Puritans, Kai Erikson stands to argue that deviance and the consequences and punishments of this deviance form a significant mechanism of social regulation. Truly the main purpose of "Wayward Puritans" is to argue that deviant forms of behavior are often overlooked as a valuable resource in society. These forms of deviancy provide a point of contrast which is essential for the maintenance of a rational social order. As a sociologist, Kai Erikson views our history as a replication of changes in societal norms and expectations. In this book, Erikson revisits the society of the Puritans. By exploring and investigating several “crime waves” throughout history, Erikson notes several forms in which we as a society have seen deviance throughout history. Erikson begins the discussion of his research of Puritan lifestyle and the influences of deviance; Erikson investigates the Antinomian Controversy, the Quaker Invasion, and the Witches of Salem Village. In chapter one, Erikson gives a nod of recognition to Emile Durkheim’s work. Erikson notes Durkheim’s assertion that crime is really a natural kind of social activity. I started to think that Erikson may be trying to assert that if crime is a natural part of society, there is an indication that it is necessary in society. Erikson claims that non-deviants congregate and agree in a remarkable way to express outrage over deviants and deviancy, therefore solidifying a bond between members of society. Erikson continues to argue that this sense of mutuality increases individual’s awareness to the common goals of the society. In my view, Erikson delivers the most original and influential application of functionalist view on deviance. He states "Human behavior... ... middle of paper ... ...ightened by Erikson’s arguments. It is not often that I hear a sociological theory and think “AH HA! I get it.” But in this case I felt as though I could have a very clear understanding of what he was trying to say. However, although the evidence of deviance through our history as humans really does go to show that deviancy brings us together in a joint force for what we believe to be the common good and morality. Erikson’s evidence of mainly court records is not an adequate basis on determining a theory to explain the nature of society and its relationship with deviancy. I think if he had a true record of how the communities he studies reacted to deviance on every level. So far his study is without official statistics. It is my belief however this study could be more accurate if there were to be data collected on processes were enables to provide alternative data.
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
Salem in the 1600s was a textbook example of an extremist society with sexist norms and no separation of church and state. Because it had no laws, only people considered authorities on law, it was always a society based on norms laid down by the first settlers and severity on the verge of madness. The power was imbalanced, focused subjectively in the people who had means to control others. Some people attempted to right the wrongs of the powerful, as people are wont to do eventually. Because of them, change indeed came to Salem, slowly and after excessive ruin and death. Before the rebels’ impact took hold, Salem’s Puritan society was a religious dystopian disaster, a fact illustrated excellently by Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible. This religious dystopian disaster carried many flaws and conflicts that can be seen in other societies, both historical and modern.
Today, scholars continue their dispute over the degree to which the Puritan colonists influenced American law, morality, and culture. In the area of law, this image is supplemented by lurid accounts of witch trials and corporal public punishments.
As flawed people, achieving perfection is an impossible task. Yet, despite this inevitability, individuals strive for perfection only to reveal and witness imperfections. The Puritan lifestyle attempted to achieve this unattainable mission by setting strict morals upon the people of Salem, Massachusetts, however they struggled to do so. Salem faced a major change as a result of the Puritan ambition. Because of their thought on the ideal community as a straitlaced society, those who portrayed an imperfect model were to be isolated. Suspicion flooded the holy Puritan town, and led to accusations of innocent people. After a close analysis, it may be relevant to look at the Puritan belief system as a possible catalyst for the events that occurred during the Salem witch trials.
General Strain Theory was reinvented by Robert Agnew in 1992 and contributed a new perception to the present strain theory that was popularized a couple eras ago (Agnew, 1992). Classic strain theory is connected; first with Merton’s (1938), Cohen’s (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960). Founded on Durkheim’s theory of anomie (1893), Merton industrialized his theory of deviancy inside a societal fundamental context. Merton’s interpretation on the topic is that goal-expectation inconsistencies, composed with social stratification generates strain between underprivileged societies in turn leading them to use any means necessary, such as criminal, in order to accomplish socially defined goals (Merton, 1938). Merton specified that deviance was a creation of inconsistency amongst social goals and the genuine means to attain these goals (Smith & Bohm, 2008). Merton shaped a typology of deviance contingent on how diverse human beings adjust to ethnically persuaded strain. Conferring to Merton, crime can be elucidated by the predictable socially acknowledged goals and the conceivable genuine means of accomplishing them.
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
regard to its beliefs and ideology. Both past and present day beliefs make Puritanism a challenge
After reading all four articles, it has come to my attention that deviant behavior is everywhere in our society, and all around the world. Different cultures have different norms and morals making things we believe are normal, deviant. Deviance can be seen in everything, sexual intercourse, rock n roll, and even so much as technology.
The Puritan Dilemma is the story of John Winthrop growing up in the Puritan colonization of America. This book tells the reader of the events that Puritans had to go through during that time period. The book also talks about the attempts, both by John Winthrop and the Puritans, to establish a new type of society in the New World, something they couldn’t do in England. This story is told by the theology of the Puritan ideas, and focuses a lot on how their beliefs intervene in their daily lives, churches, and political ideologies. Puritanism was the belief that the Church of England should remove traditions that inherited from the Catholic Church, and make the Church of England more pure in Christ.
As America slowly began molding into the creases of different values and cultures, so did its literature. One trait that had always been securing itself within the lines of these literary texts was the protagonists’ naivety. Theses characters typically established an intention to do good things, but eventually fail due to tumbling upon tempting obstacles and falling into the trance of distractions. An example of this situation occurred long ago during the 16th and 17th century. A cult of English Protestants known as Puritans aimed to “purify” the Church of England by excreting all evidence of its descent in the Roman Catholic Church. The Puritans enforced strict religious practices upon its believers and regarded all pleasure and luxury as wicked or sacrilegious. Although their “holy” cond...
"Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance." Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. .
Crime is an irrelevant concept as it is tied to the formal social control mechanism of the State; deviance is a concept that is owned by sociology thus our study should be the sociology of deviance, rather than criminology
There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
In contrast, Emile Durkheim argued that crime is a functional part of society; each society has its own rates and types of crimes. Durkheim stated, “What is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality, provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level, which it is perhaps not impossible to fix in conformity with the preceding rules.” (Durkheim, p. 61) Durkheim did not see crime as something habitual or as a symptom of a diseased society. I agree with Durkheim’s opinion of crime and society, I think that crime will not entirely disappear; instead the form itself will change. (Durkheim)