Homosexuality as a Deviant Behavior - Coursework Example

Homosexuality as a deviant behavior module 31 March Homosexuality as a deviant behavior Introduction Deviance and deviant behavior Every society possesses a set of social norms, dos and don’ts, and beliefs which are supposed to be obeyed by its members. Violation of these rules and norms may result in social condemnation, isolation and even punishment. People who violate these unwritten norms within the society are often regarded as social deviants who fail to live a normal social life. Deviance, in simple terms, can be defined as “behavior, beliefs, or characteristics that are likely to generate a negative reaction in others” (Goode, 2011, p. 3). Others in society may regard social deviance as offensive and consequently such behaviors invite societal disapproval, punishment, condemnation, or hostility. While sociologists are preoccupied with the interpersonal reactions towards deviant behaviors criminology addresses legal and criminal reactions to illegal deviant behaviors. Sociologically, deviance is characterized by four necessary ingredients: the existence of specific rules or norms; violation of those norms; presence of an audience that considers these normative violations as wrong; and, negative reaction (consisting of criticism, condemnation, censure, stigma, disapproval, and so on) by the audience (Goode, 2011, p. 5). However, societal attitudes and norms towards deviant behavior vary from one social circle to another. An act or behavior that is condemned in one society may be acceptable to another. Similarly, a behavior or act considered to be deviant in a particular society may acquire more of social acceptance in the long run. In multicultural societies societal norms that are valid for a group may not be regarded as right and acceptable by other groups or subcultures. As such, negative reaction of the society forms a significant criterion for deviance. One also needs to distinguish between societal and situational deviance. Societal deviance refers to those actions and conditions that are generally considered as deviant and therefore are condemned by the majority of the society (Goode, 2011, p. 7). For instance, there is high degree of consensus among members of the society to consider crimes such as rape, robbery, corporate theft, or terrorism as forms of societal deviance. Situational deviance, on the other hand, evaluates deviant behavior within specific group, social circle, setting, or context where such behaviors occur. Behaviors that are regarded as social deviance in many communities are not regarded as situational deviance in others and vice versa. For instance, heterosexual dancing is viewed as deviant among the haredi whereas it is widely accepted in many Western nations. It can also be seen that societal deviance is widely recognized by the majority of the society whereas situational deviance is low-consensus deviance as public opinion is divided on their deviant status. However, the theory of relativity is widely applicable in how different societies perceive deviance as one can clearly find “variations in judgments of deviance from one group, subculture, social circle, or individual to another within the same society” (Goode, 2011, p. 13). For instance, the deviance status of marijuana use is relative as certain social circles approve it whereas others condemn it. Essentialism on deviance Essentialism regards sexuality as a real thing or object like oxygen or gravitation. Essentialism views deviance as a specific and ‘concrete phenomenon in the material world’ and essentialists admit the reality of deviance (Goode, 2011, p. 14). Essentialists make use of a positivistic approach to the study of deviant behavior where they analyze deviance based on empirical and observable data. They try to explain scientifically the occurrence, rate, and distribution of deviance in the society through scientific positivism. Positivism applies scientific methods to the study of human behavior and deviance and is based on three fundamental assumptions: empiricism, objectivism, and determinism” (Goode, 2011, p. 24). Thus, positivism tends to analyze sexual deviance from a realistic point of view and emphasize on the cause and effect explanations for deviant behaviors. Free-will or rationality theories approach sexual deviance from an essentialist point of view. Routine activities theory, one of the most discussed of contemporary free-will or rationality theories, argues that criminal behavior and deviance occur “when and where there is a conjunction of three elements or factors: the motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian” (Goode, 2011, p. 28). It can thus be seen that the essentialist regard sexual deviance as an inner drive independent of the social setting or culture. Constructionism and Sexual deviance It is worthwhile to analyze how constructionists conceive sexual behavior and sexual deviance. The constructionists are preoccupied with the meaning, norms, rules and construction of appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. A major argument of the constructionists is that “sexual meanings vary from person to person, setting to setting, social circle to social circle, and society to society” (Goode, 2011, p. 199-200). Constructionists also emphasize on the relativism of sexual behavior and sexual deviance and argue that sexual meaning and content vary from person to person. Similarly, constructionists argue that one’s social life, imagination, and culture exert a great influence in one’s sexuality. As such they hold that “it is social life that creates, motivates, and shapes our sexuality” (Goode, 2011, p. 200). Thus, the constructionist position holds that sexual deviance is constructed by the society and that it is a product of human contact. Unlike essentialists, constructionists are preoccupied with the ‘how’ and ‘why’ aspects of deviance and they argue that “it is the rules, the norms, the reactions to, and the cultural representations of certain behavior, beliefs, or conditions that need to be looked at and illuminated” (Goode, 2011, p. 15). Constructionists also emphasize on the relativity of deviance in various social circles and they try to show how deviant behavior is dependent on time and place and how the societal attitudes and culture determine the nature of deviance among different audiences. Sociological perspectives of deviance are strongly rooted on constructionist theories. Sociologists perceive deviance as “relative, contextual, contingent, and probabilistic;” relative because members of different societies and social circles view deviance differently; contextual because definition of wrongdoing depends on the physical or social situation or context within which behavior takes place; contingent because someone is punished, rewarded, or ignored for engaging in an act; probabilistic because condemnation and punishment do not inevitably follow discovery (Goode, 2011, p. 17). Sociological perspectives on deviance have their roots on the constructionist point of view that deviance is relativistic and socially constructed. As such social constructionists try to unearth how deviance is defined, conceptualized and represented; how deviant personalities are treated for the violation of social norms; and, how societies employ various social controls to prevent deviant behaviors. Similarly, sociologists do not consider homosexuality as a dysfunction or disorder and as such sociological conceptions of sexual deviance do not go in hand with psychological conceptions. In the same way, constructionists emphasize “external influences rather than genetic or biological features as the primary cause for a person’s sexual orientation” (Grisanti, 2008, p. 187). The constructionists also draw conclusions from the new sociology of social control. They point out how each society makes use of formal and informal social control to deter and correct deviant behaviors; while informal social control is manifested in interpersonal interactions the criminal justice system enforces formal social control to bring about conformity to the law. The latter can be coercive or repressive involving punishment or coercion enforced through various agents of the criminal justice system. Sexual deviance and sexually unconventional behavior has become a significant matter of discussion today as each society has specific norms and regulations on sexual behavior. Sexual deviances and sexual violations have attracted the attention of sociologists as these behaviors tend “to be more discrediting and stigmatizing than most other forms of deviance” (Goode, 2011, p. 197). Societal norms on sexual deviance and sexual behavior vary from society to society while members of the society are quite intolerant towards violations of societal norms on sexual behavior. Sexual transgressions and violation of sexual norms often invite severe punishments in many civilized societies. One can also notice that sexual deviances have become a substantial reason for the divorce of spouses. In fact, societies have categorized humans into many categories based on their sexual acts- homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, adulterer, prostitute, faithful wife, impotent man, rapist, and so on. Sexual deviance forms a significant category among other deviant behaviors as it involves a larger number of people and creates gaps in interpersonal relationships. Religious texts including the Holy Bible and Quran perpetuate sexual prohibitions and religious norms on sexual behavior. Similarly, these texts deal with the possible punishment for sexual deviances varying from stoning to death penalty. A sexual act is often regarded as appropriate, illegal or deviant based on such dimensions as the degree of consent, the nature of the sexual object, the nature of the sexual act, and the setting in which the sexual act takes place (Goode, 2011, p. 198). Among this homosexuality violates the second and third dimensions (nature of the sex partner and nature of the sexual act) as sex with same sex members is against the societal norms on sexual behavior and is condemned as a major sexual deviance in many modern societies. Same-gender sexual behaviors with adolescents were acceptable in ancient Greece provided that one of partners was older and had heterosexual relationships as well (Goode, 2011, p. 200). However, most of the homosexual relationships in the United States occur among peers and are not accompanied by heterosexual activities. Therefore, constructionists argue that the very concept of sexual deviance is constructed and this construction process varies from society to society based on how the audience reacts to specific sexual behaviors. Thus, the basis of deviance, according to the constructionists are “condemning reactions, and these reactions are variable in societies the world over, from one historical period to another, and from one social circle or context to another in the same society” (Goode, 2011, p. 201). Sexual deviants were perceived by early researchers as different and distinct from others. As such the term sexual deviant was used to describe someone “who is impelled to act as a result of uncontrollable and distinctly abnormal motives—someone whose behavior is freakish and fetishistic” (Goode, 2011, p. 201). However, today sexual deviants are not considered as people who suffer from any sickness, disorder or illness. On the other hand, sociologists today regard sexual deviants as people who indulge in “actions (and beliefs, and conditions) that violate one or more norms in a given place and at a given time, and are likely to touch off negative reactions” (Goode, 2011, p. 201). Thus, one can come across a clear distinction between psychological and sociological deviance. While psychologists regard sexual deviance as a disorder or dysfunction sociologists perceive it as violation of norms that yield condemnation and stigma (Goode, 2011, p. 201). However, there are many who believe that there exists a strong link between sexual deviance and psychological abnormality. Homosexuality as a sexual deviance: changing trends One can clearly notice a shift in the attitude and public opinion towards homosexuality in the United States. While homosexuality had been regarded as a sexually deviant behavior in most social circles it is today viewed as decreasingly deviant by majority in the nation. Christianity and Biblical teachings strongly condemn homosexuality as immoral as it is against God’s plan. Similarly, homophobes consisting mainly of the older and the less educated ones regard homosexuality as a deviance. While fundamentalist Christians and political conservatives still condemn homosexuality public opinion polls in the nation clearly demonstrate that the majority does not perceive the sexual act as deviance. While opponents of homosexuality regard it immoral, unethical, abnormal, unnatural, and unacceptable it is a fact that the percentage of people who condemn the sexual act has considerably been decreased during the past few decades. It is worthwhile to analyze the public opinion in favor of and against homosexuality. One can see that homosexuality has gained more of public acceptance during the past 2-3 decades. Recent public opinions have revealed this changing attitude among the public. Today, a larger population believes “that homosexual relations should be legal (43% in 1977 vs. 55% in 2008); that homosexuals should be allowed to teach in elementary schools (27% in 1977 vs. 54% in 2005); and that homosexual relations are “an acceptable lifestyle” (34% in 1982 vs. 54% in 2008)” (Goode, 2011, p. 202). There are also arguments that homosexuals should be given the right to get married and that their relationship is morally acceptable. All these changing attitudes and trends demonstrate that homosexuality is no longer viewed as a sexual deviance by majority today. This change is most evident among the younger generations who are less condemnatory and show more accepting attitudes than the older segments of the population. The study also shows that accepting attitudes on homosexuality was greater among the educated population. In the past homosexuality had been perceived as a mental disorder or illness by psychologists, clinicians and psychiatrists. They strongly held that “homosexuality was a pathology, an illness or neurosis, much like schizophrenia, clinical depression, obsessive compulsive personality disorder, or a fear of open spaces” which could be cured through clinical therapy (Goode, 2011, p. 204). The prevalence of homosexuality was attributed to the presence of a too-intimate mother and a weak or punishing father. However, the view that homosexuality is a mental disorder has been challenged by modern clinicians and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from among the list of mental disorders. The APA postulated that both “heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality” and concluded that medical treatments and reorientation therapies are ineffective and at times harmful in changing the sexual orientation of lesbians or gays (Phelan, Whitehead & Sutton, 2009, p. 5). One can also find an evident gender disparity with regard to sexual deviance. The stigma and condemnation is greater when the sexual act is committed by females. That is why female sex workers are often regarded as deviants whereas their male customers are seen as normal men. However, developments in feminist theories and emergence of new lesbian and gay studies have managed to address this gender disparity to a great extent. While homosexuality has been regarded as a criminal behavior in many states the 2003 Supreme Court verdict that the Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional proved to be a landmark victory for the homosexuals in the nation. This took away the right of the states to criminalize homosexual sodomy. The same year the Canadian parliament legitimized homosexual marriages within the nation. However, American public opinion was against homosexual marriages. A Gallup poll conducted in 2000 revealed that 62% percentage of the public opposed gay marriage whereas the 2009 Gallup poll showed increasing acceptability of homosexual relations as the opposing rate was reduced to 57 percentage (Goode, 2011, p. 205-206). However, the legal rights of homosexuals have been acknowledged by the judicial system towards the beginning of the twenty first century. In the United States, homosexuals engaged in ‘civil union’ enjoyed the privileges, benefits and responsibilities granted to spouses in a marriage and in November 2002 “the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right” (Goode, 2011, p. 206). One can also notice considerable changes in media representations of homosexual relations. In 2003 The New York Times devoted various articles on homosexual weddings while reports of many homosexual weddings, engagements and anniversaries found their place in the magazine (Goode, 2011, p. 206). Similarly, the emergence of such gay oriented television programs as Queer As Folk, The L Word, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy also advertised homosexual cause among the public. Raley and Lucas (2006), in this respect, conducted a remarkable study on how prime-time network television programs perpetuated images of gay and lesbian sexuality among the audiences. The researchers, making use of Clark’s four stages of media representation for minority groups (non-representation, ridicule, regulation, and respect), analyzed the homosexual content of nine prime-time TV shows and identified that portrayals of Gay male and Lesbian characters have passed the non-representation and ridicule stages and “are moving into the Clark’s third stage of regulation and might even be moving into the fourth stage of respect” (Raley & Lucas, 2006, p. 32). It can thus be seen that media representations of homosexual relations have played a pivotal role in challenging the deviant status of homosexuality. Religion and cultural contexts are two significant predictors of societal attitude towards homosexuality. A person’s religious beliefs and cultural orientations exert great influence on his views on homosexuality. It has been identified that fear of divine punishment, “active religious involvement, regular exposure to religious literature, and frequent interaction with religious friends are likely to encourage anti-homosexual attitudes” and intolerance towards homosexuals (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009, p. 339). For instance, Muslim nations and orthodox Christians possess greater amount of anti-homosexual attitudes and the sexual act invites stronger punishments among such communities. In the same way, a large segment of American society still regards homosexuality as a deviance. These include conservative clergies and Christians, evangelical Protestants, and the United States military. Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits homosexuality among military personnel. However, the exclusion of homosexuals from the US military has evoked a number of debates as many hold that the presence of gays does not decrease military performance and that the law is interfering with private consensual activity. On the other hand, in the United States a group of clergies started challenging the traditional views of scripture on homosexuality and this gave way to the perpetuation of queer theology. Queer theology argues that “God created humans in His image; hence, homosexual behavior, an expression of that humanity, is a blessing, not a sin” (Goode, 2011, p. 207). There are also theologians who hold that Jesus’ relationship with his disciples was homoerotic. This newly emerged homosexual clergy and their ministerial services among gay and lesbian communities were partly responsible for the eroding status of homosexuality as a sexual deviance. There are a number of factors that challenge the traditional notion that homosexuality is a sexual deviance. The official eradication of homosexuality as an illness, strengthening of gay politics, public forums for human rights and social justice for gay people, greater celebration of gay and lesbian identity, nurturing of gay and lesbian studies, and newly recognized rights for homosexuals all contributed towards this transition (Minton, 2002, p. 265). The traditional view that homosexuality damage the institution of family, destroy conventional domestic relations, and pose great threat to human dignity was greatly challenged during the 1970s. Studies conducted by such pioneer activist-researchers as Jan Gay and Thomas Painter challenged and refuted stereotyped images of lesbian and gay relations. Their researches challenged and countered stereotyped beliefs on gay and lesbian parenting. Studies revealed that children of gay and lesbian parents showed no less social or psychological adjustments than their counterparts and this contributed towards the campaign for the legal protection of gays’ and lesbians’ parental rights (Minton, 2002, p. 270). The notion of homosexuality as a sickness “was replaced by a celebration of gay and lesbian identity” and this transition, in fact, “symbolized the challenge to be accepted into the straight world” (Minton, 2002, p. 266). Richard Troiden, in this respect, viewed homosexuality as a way of life rather than a mental illness or dysfunction. For him, a homosexual starts his journey “from the first signs of sexual difference, through phases of identity confusion, identity acceptance (coming out), and finally a commitment to adapting homosexuality as a way of life” (Minton, 2002, p. 269). This identification of homosexuality as a way of way immensely contributed towards gay and lesbian liberation movements. The homophile activism during 1940s to the 1960s witnessed a shift in societal attitude towards homosexuality. The period is characterized by two significant books on same sex by Alfred Kinsey-Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). Kinsley’s studies identified increasing participation in same-sex sexual activities. Kinsley thus argued that ‘homosexuality should not be treated as pathological or criminal’ and postulated that sexual discrimination towards homosexuals was a matter of prejudice (Stein, 2012, p. 44). A number of organizations were founded in the 1940s to support the cause of homosexuals in the nation: Veterans Benevolent Association offering support to gay men; the Eucharistic Catholic Church offering ministry to gays and lesbians; and, George W. Henry Foundation providing advocacy and counseling services to homosexuals (Stein, 2012, p. 45). In 1951 sociologist Edward Sagarin (writing under the pseudonym of Donald Webster Cory) described homosexuals as ‘a persecuted minority group’ who should be offered greater freedom of expression, sexual liberation and democratic rights (Stein, 2012, p. 48). All these paved way for the emergence of the homophile politics in the 1950s and 1960s which culminated in the recognition of the rights of gays and lesbians. Similarly, the 1970s marked a remarkable progress in gay and lesbian studies within various professional organizations, including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and modern languages. The foundation of the interdisciplinary Journal of homosexuality in 1974 was a significant step towards the recognition of gay and lesbian rights. Similarly, by the late 1980s gay and lesbian studies found their place in academic disciplines and a number of universities and colleges including the City College of san Francisco, Yale University, and the City University of New York started including gay and lesbian curricula and programs (Minton, 2002, p. 268). During the first decade of the twenty first century the rights of homosexuals were widely recognized in many Western nations including the European Union (EU). The leaders of the EU passed a resolution in 2006 that regarded homophobia as a violation of human rights similar to racism, xenophobia, anti- Semitism, and sexism and guaranteed homosexuals same-sex marriage status (Grisanti, 2008, p. 200). The resolution also calls for the criminalization of homophobia. Today, same-sex marriage is permitted in many nations including Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. It can thus be seen that homosexuality is undergoing a transitional phase and is gaining more of public acceptance among the public as well as in media representations. A number of factors have caused for homosexuality’s departure from the status of a sexual deviance. These consist of changed attitude towards gay parenting, less negative media representations of homosexuals, increasing societal acceptance of gay sexuality, support from increasing percentage of Christians, court’s ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, recognition of homosexuality as a way of life rather than a mental disorder, increasing recognition of gay rights, and the inclusion of gay and lesbian studies in the university curricula (Goode, 2011, p. 209). Society’s attitudes towards sexual behaviors and sexual deviance have considerably been changed during the past few decades. Just as premarital sex and prostitution had been regarded as sexual deviances in the past so will be the deviant status of homosexuality in the long run. Homosexuality is most likely to overcome its deviant status and sociologists will no longer discuss it as a form of sexual deviance. Conclusions References Adamczyk, A & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38, 338–351. Goode, Erich. (2011). Deviant Behavior. 9th ed., Karen Hanson. Grisanti, M.A. (2008). Cultural and medical myths about homosexuality. The Master’s Seminary Journal, 19 (2), 175-202. Minton, H.L. (2002). Departing from Deviance: A History of Homosexual Rights and Emancipatory Science in America. USA: University of Chicago Press. Phelan, J.E., Whitehead, N & Sutton, P.M. (2009). What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 1-121. Raley, A. B & Lucas, J. L. (2006). Stereotype or Success? Prime-Time Television’s Portrayals of Gay Male, Lesbian, and Bisexual Characters. Journal of Homosexuality, 51 (2), 19-38. Stein, Marc. (2012). Rethinking the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Illustrated ed: Routledge. http://kenplummer.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/homosexual-categories-some-research-problems-in-the-labelling-perspective-of-homosexuality.pdf http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_11-editionID_70-ArticleID_285-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Ctowards.pdf http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/GLIP_Review_vol1_no2[1].pdf http://www.glhv.org.au/files/GLIP_Review_Vol2_2.pdf http://roundtable.menloschool.org/issue10/3_Taylor_MS_Roundtable10_Fall_2011.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Lax_Phillips_Gay_Policy_Responsiveness_2009.pdf Read More