Symbolic interactions on homosexuality-a sociological perspective - Research Paper Example

? Symbolic interactions on homosexuality-a sociological perspective al affiliation Symbolic interactions on homosexuality Introduction The theme of same sex marriages has brought about numerous debates on the contemporary world. This contentious issue has claimed its place in the political, religious as well as sociological arenas with new ideologies and thoughts being relayed by most of the concerned stakeholders. However, studies indicate that with the raging debate on the issue, people tend to have a soft spot for the gay people. Benard and Mahood (2006) indicate that, the more people continue labeling these individuals in society, the more they motivate other people to try out the supposedly new ‘fashion’ in town. From a sociological aspect, many people in the society have been interviewed on the same issue; others have been requested to fill questionnaires on their view on homosexuality, while case studies have been done on homosexuality and the likely record it shall claim in the future. From the US General Social Record, Smelser (2002) indicates that the debate of homosexuality is not likely to be solved any time soon. An analysis of the questionnaires filled and records of interviews, it is evident, that many people have begun embracing homosexuality as a form of living. The blatant question of whether people of the same sex should marry recorded a tremendous 78% out of the 2000 respondents interviewed by Smelser (2002). These results were categorized on the degree of acceptance, and out of the 78%, majority were those that strongly agreed on homosexuality and legalization. Though Smelser (2002) did not find out the exact reasons why the majority agree to homosexuality, he argues that majority of the respondents were completely sure of their answers. He recommends the use of theoretical approach in an attempt to investigate the reasons behind the rising cases of homosexuality marriages. This case study will undertake a survey of the theoretical approach in an attempt to understand why so many people, especially the youth are violating the rule relating to violation on homosexuality. Among the theories that will put under study are the symbolic interaction theory on social deviance in regard to homosexuality, Kenneth’s labeling theory and the sexual stigma on homosexuality as well as Blumer, Cooley, Mead, and Kinsey’s theories. Survey on the contributions of these theories to homosexuality will be scrutinized at all points of view in an endeavor to find answers on the homosexuality issue. The symbolic interaction theory According to Benard and Mahood (2006), symbolic interaction theory is one of the best approaches in the study of marriages and relationships, especially controversial ones like homosexuality, its causes and effects in the society. A simple description of symbolic interaction theory may be explained as, beliefs that are created in relation to the symbols attached to them. These symbols may range from forms of language, objects, people, and perceptions of people amongst others. The symbolic interaction theory makes an initiative of defining how people shape realities in life and the effect of these symbols in their subsequent life. Ellis (1988) argues that the symbolic interaction theory renders people to attaching various connotations to symbols in the society, ultimately, majority end up acting in accordance to their own prejudiced interpretation of what the symbols mean in their lives. Other people will not undertake research to verify their course of action rather acts on what they think and feel is right. This is evident from the verbal discussions, whereby the uttered words play the role of symbols. Spoken words have specific meanings that are sent to the receivers of the message; the sender hopes that the message that he or she intended to send is received in its totality despite the various barriers to communication. This theory, however, intends to bring to light the fact that human beings are not static and that thy have innate feelings that drive their actions. If humans are subject to views that are contrary to their opinion, they are likely to attach symbolic meanings to what they hear, ultimately taking a stand either a negative one or a positive one. Hagan (1989) indicates that conversations among individuals interpret the perception of the human world and its inhabitants. The possibility of having symbols in the society cannot be weighed even on the slightest manner on a scale. Sociologists argue that almost everything in the society would serve as a symbol, provided they have meanings. For instance, in the case of marriages, wedding rings, bridal gown, wedding cake, all cat as symbols. It only depends how one ascribes meanings to these symbols. Other people would argue that wedding dresses and rings would mean that the bride and groom have signed their way into the most disgusting life ever recorded in the history of human kind. Others would argue that the bride and grown have just began their way into successful and fruitful life of commitment to one another. Sociologists of the contemporary world argue that the majority of men in the society get extremely disgusted by the thought of marriage, majority terming it as cliche to unsuccessful life. With the huge budgets, they not only would not want commitments, but also find other alternatives in life. Basically, proponents of the symbolic interaction theory aim to bring out their thoughts that, how people relate on society, the conversations they undertake, determines the kind of meanings people are likely to ascribe occurrence s and events in life. Though critics have brought forward their arguments on the validity of symbolic interaction theory on the basis of denying human beings the complete picture of reality and its massive influence on peoples’ interactions, this case study is interested in its functioning and its salient features that lead to people behaving in the manners that they do. Symbolic interaction and homosexuality- social deviance According to Ellis (1988) decision taken by human beings on their sexual behavior is symbolic just like any other form of behavior. He continues to argue that what people see in the society, will determine whether they will opt to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. Sexual behavior cannot be alienated from the societal perspective but relates to various activities that pertain to marriage. Sexual activities may be influenced by, the importance of children in a marriage, fun involved in the institution, exertion of power on the individual as well as attaining pleasure whilst in the marriage. Analysts argue that the symbolic meanings attached to sexuality influence the manner in which people relate with each other in the society and the perceptions that the society will create. How sexual individual are, have a lot to do with their cultural backgrounds and settings. Through observations, and direct contacts with other people, people are in a position to learn the basics of the society. In light to homosexuality, it would be argued that the media has had a massive impact on the view that homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. Some people opt to become homosexuals not from their own will, but as a result of the perceptions the society has created over the same issue. In a normal society governed by principles and ethical basics, it is expected that homosexuality is termed as a dreadful deed that no one is supposed to undertake in or even think about. However, studies have indicated that in the societies we inhabit, homosexuality has taken over and is on the move to ensure that its roots, by any chance are not loosened. As earlier indicated in the case study on the remarkable 78% of individuals advocating for homosexuality, one would wonder why the practice has become extremely prevalent in our societies today. Sociologists argue that deviance could be on e of the major reasons why most in the society have taken the way of homosexuality as part of their living. Hagan (1989) defines deviance as a mere violation of the rules and regulations set by the society. The set rules and regulations are formulated as a way of governing the situation from deviant behaviors that may lead to complete erosion of what has taken the society a lot of time, energy and resources to create. Homosexuality can be categorized under the most notorious forms of social deviance in the history of human kind. Since time immemorial it has been known that God created man and woman and ordained them to live together and not the vice versa. Homosexuality has been described as deviant behavior that does not conform to the set rules and regulations in the society. All forms of deviant behavior have the same characteristic of having an element of discrepancy that renders individuals being termed as extraterrestrial in the society. In light to this context, social deviance has a great correlation with the rule violation on homosexuality. All human beings are controlled by societal norms that attempt to regulate their thoughts and behavior. How the society defines homosexuality as deviant is related to the way the society is organized. It is important to note that deviance is deep rooted in the society and that the society may sometimes not be in a position to handle this situation at all. Personality traits may explain the social deviant behaviors that individual portray in the society. In relation to homosexuality, the individuals who attribute homosexuality as a virtue may be explained as having abnormal personality traits. Individuals who violate the rule on homosexuality may have had social experiences on the issue. This form of deviance in the context of homosexuality can be viewed as a result of ineffective socialization of the individual within the society. West (2008) illustrates this view in his work by investigating the ability of people to handle tricky situation in the society. From his survey, he indicates that those individuals who have a high self esteem are less likely to involve themselves in deviant behaviors that may cost them their lives. On the other hand, individuals who were not in a better position to handle tough circumstances and frustrations in their lives were more likely to indulge in activities that violate the law. In this case, this relates to homosexuality. Individuals, who are not well adjusted to the societal values, end up violating the rules that govern it, in turn end up being homosexuals not judging the consequences of their actions in a sensible manner, but bay simply perceiving it as a way of life that needs to be embraced. These individuals are noted to have low self esteem of themselves and end up taking parts in deeds that violate the set rules and regulations. Homosexuality as a form of social deviance may be described as involving social powers. In the work of Boydell (1972), he argues that both the creation of social standards and the definition of people’s involvement in adherence to rules are related to social influences on the society. People may opt to indulge in homosexuality as a way of protecting what they feel is right for their lives. It does not matter what the society will perceive of them so long as they protect what they feel is right. The application of social norms in this light reflects the various forms of inequalities in the society. The society only creates deviances to mark the border lines of what should be done and what should not be done. Just like Durkheim indicates that deviance is mandatory in a society, for the purposes of finding solutions to a problem, the same is deviant behaviors in homosexuality. People violate the laws on homosexuality for the purposes on forcing the society to develop a reaction for their behavior. For instance, in the event of murder – deviant behavior- the government may undertake measures of ensuring that such behaviors do not take place by either jailing the offenders or putting stringent governing laws on the behavior. Individual who violate rules on homosexuality may be driven by their thoughts towards the need for the government and other authorities to protect their rights or even formulate laws that would make their lives better in the society. Deviance on the rules and regulations governing homosexuality may not be in any way abnormal. In the work of Kelly and Clarke (2002), on ‘Deviant behavior’ deviance plays numerous roles in society. It is from deviance on the rules on homosexuality that the society is in a position to verify its cultural morals and customs. All moral beings have a way in which they have a preference to some activities over others. Analysts argue that the society cannot have any moral authority on its individuals unless something of the opposing idea is done. Upon, deviance on the rules of homosexuality, the society is in a better position to define the boundaries of its operation as well as support what it feels is the correct thing to do. Deviance has been documented to set clear boundaries on individuals’ behavior. If the society marks the boundaries of homosexuality, then the society will find a way of accepting the deed as people’s opinion, and that homosexuals are human beings just like the others in the society. The society will slowly adapt to homosexuality and will no longer have to set boundaries that the deed is wrong. Basically deviance results into social modifications that incorporate all individuals, whether of varying views or of the same view as those of the society at large. Labeling theory and Sexual stigma: an internationalist account- Plummer Kenneth views Plummer (2006) indicates that symbolic interaction approaches aid in explaining how people view and hold perceptions on deviance in the society. According to Sagarin (2005) the symbolic interaction theory, labeling basics argue that deviance and conformity do not necessarily emanate from what people do but from what people perceive of their actions. Labeling theory indicates that the deviance ranges from one person to the other. People may define behavior in various ways depending on their perceptions on the issue. Considering individuals who take part in homosexuality, some people may define the deed as barbaric and uncouth. The consequences of homosexuality depend on whether the society will accept the deed as okay or dreadful. The construction of reality by individuals depends on how these individuals detect, describe and retort to homosexuality. Benard and Mahood (2006) argue that, violations on the homosexuality rule may result into varying reactions in the society, but that does not affect the way the individuals think or perceive the society. The individuals who violate the rule on homosexuality may be said to have acquired primary deviance, and it may be extremely difficult to change their self concept on their lifestyle. If the society attempts to discriminate the homosexuals, Plummer (2006) indicates that there is a great likelihood that these individuals are bound to continue violating the law. The mechanism behind their action is that these individuals feel extremely reject by the society, in turn try to find a way of proving that their actions are not horrible as most people perceive them. They persist in their behavior in an attempt to get away from the labels ascribed to them as a defense mechanism. Labeling, according to Plummer (2006) has not been a sensible of dealing with bad behavior in the society. From his survey on ‘Social Stigma’, he indicates that if the society results into labeling homosexuals in the society, there is a great likelihood that these homosexuals are likely to incorporate more members into their group for purposes of support from group members. Bottomless deviant individuals in relation to homosexuality will be evidenced in the society. Stigmatization of homosexuals in the society, according to Sacco (1988) would result into the creation of more deviant individuals and followers of homosexuality. This would be the reason why members of various societies opt to go for homosexuality unlike heterosexual relationships. In short labeling and stigmatization of homosexuals in the society deepens deviant behavior of these individuals who end up more motivated to carry on with what pleases their lives. Either way, individuals must be responsible for their actions in the society. Blumer, Cooley, Mead, and Kinsey’s theories have a major relationship with symbolic interactions and social deviance in the society. In the work of Plummer (2006), Cooley indicates that one’s self concept and the resultant feelings have a high correlation with the interactions of the individuals in the society. How people evaluate certain occurrences in the society depend on what they have heard or seen. In the context of homosexuality and violation of rules in society, the individuals may have resulted into homosexuality as a result of what they have seen or heard in the society, in this case, the media especially. Mead on the other hand, relates to behavior of individuals through symbolic forms of communication. Mead indicates that the self, is identified on their individual to apply other peoples’ perspectives in their lives. The ability of an individual to take up certain roles in the society is as a result of the symbols created by the society. In regard to homosexuality individual would violate the rules and take part in the practice as a result of the symbols they have acquired from the society (Plummer 2006). Finally, Kinsey theory indicates that meanings applied to activities, the self, identity and reactions to situations depend on their symbolic interactions in the society. Face to face interactions will situations may lead to individuals taking part in certain activities. Homosexuals, therefore, have had immense information on the deed that leads to their violation of the rules set, in order to have what they claim best in their lives. Conclusion Conclusively, Plummer (2006) holds the view that sex should not be referred to as a powerful force but should be termed as a system of constructed denotations generated through various encounters in the society. His work adopts the symbolic interaction approach discussed in the essay. He undertakes studies to a theoretical study on deviance and its implications on human sexuality. According to him, sexual differentiation and stigma may not be the solution to sexual problems like homosexuality in the society. This essay has benefited a lot from his case studies on homosexuality and the male in society, the resultant reactions as well as the procedural steps of one becoming a homosexual. He concludes his work by identifying the challenges facing homosexuals and that sexual deviant behavior are consequences of stigmatization emblems ascribed to homosexuals. References Benard, S. and Mahood, L. (2006). Social Control in Canada: A Reader on the Social Construction of Deviance. Toronto : Oxford University Press Boydell, C. (1972). Deviant behavior and societal reaction. Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada. Ellis, D. (1988).The wrong stuff: an introduction to the sociological study of deviance. New York: Collier Macmillan. Hagan, J. (1989). The social control in Canada: A reader on the social construction of deviance. The disreputable pleasures: crime and deviance in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Sociology. Vol. 8, No. 3 (May, 1989), pp. 400-402 Kelly, H. and Clarke, E. (2002). Deviant Behavior. L.A. :Wood Worth Publishers. Plummer, K. (2006). Sexual Stigma: An Interactionist Account. (4th edition).Australasia: Law Book Co of Australasia. Sacco, V. (1988). Deviance: Conformity and control in Canadian society. Scarborough, Ont. : Prentice-Hall Canada. Sagarin, E. (2005).Deviants and deviance: An introduction to the study of disvalued people and behavior. New York: Praeger Publishers. Smelser, N. (2002). Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. West, D. (2008). Homosexuality: Its Nature and Causes. New York: Aldine Publishers. Read More