A Popular Misunderstanding of Social Deviance - Research Paper Example

April 17, Professional Deviance: Stephen Glass and Doris Kearns Goodwin Popular misunderstanding of social deviance is that it is best applied to the lives and self-presentation of hippies, gangsters, criminals, terrorists, psychos and total weirdos. There are at least two things wrong with that understanding. The first is that deviance is not a synonym for crazy, strange, bad or evil, but is a term that refers to the violation of social norms, or social expectations, so it can apply to anyone in society, at any level. Secondly, deviance is completely relative. A hippie is not deviant in a hippie community, nor is a terrorist deviant in a terrorist cell. A criminal is not deviant among other criminals, and a psycho may be admired as such in the eyes of other psychos. Because deviance is relative, it is quite possible to justify one’s own deviant behavior, and because deviance refers to a violation of norms, to be judged deviant requires a specific social standard against which one is being measured (edu.LearnSoc.org). There are psychosocial considerations related to deviant behavior, Stephen Glass was an apparently fantastic journalist, with a knack for running into exciting people, intriguing events, and fascinating details. As it turned out, Stephen invented a web of lies which grew bigger and more complex all the time. Because he was a bright and accomplished liar, with a vivid imagination, he wove a support system of manufactured falsehood to support his lies, and he built a stunning professional career out of these lies, until it finally all collapsed (Leung). Had he built a career writing fiction, he would have been highly successful and never been judged deviant, because fiction does not require truth, and imagination is an asset, rather than a liability. However, the norms in journalism are different than those used to measure fiction authors (Brewer). This is a case of professional deviance. Stephen Glass did not murder anyone, but he killed the professional trust placed in him and he compromised the trust placed in the magazines in which his stories were published. Stephen did not con any old people out of their life savings, but he conned the people he worked with and the public. He did not steal anyone’s property, but he stole respect and a good professional reputation that did not belong to him, under the circumstances. When people make mistakes, even big mistakes, the social expectation is that one immediately offers a personal and heartfelt apology. Especially in journalism, it is important to correct mistakes and apologize (Brewer). For the longest time, Stephen Glass did not offer an apology, other than a recent semi-apology on national television. It did not communicate in a personal way, and was associated with publicity for his book (Leung). Although he spent five years in therapy, to get answers for himself about why he did what he did, for a decade he did not share those insights with the people he wronged, his colleagues and the public (Leung). This is an additional act of professional deviance. I am sure that people do not expect details, but it would have been comforting to have some sort of an explanation, along with a sincere apology. The reason a professional person is expected to apologize to people for mistakes done is to show professional respect and integrity. It is a professional norm that a person does not burn their bridges behind them (Hansen). They stay in touch, even when they leave, and they do their best to act in a respectful manner, even when they made mistakes. Stephen Glass, however, after the original deviance of extensive lying and compromising the integrity of his colleagues and bosses, continued the disrespect and deviance by failing to apologize, and then further complicated the situation with more disrespect and deviance, by staying out of touch for five years, offering no real insight into his behavior (Leung). Now that Stephen has spent a decade trying to become a lawyer (he finished law school, was rejected by New York State, passed the exam, and has been going through California courts and even the Supreme Court, to force the Bar committee to approve his appointment to practice in California), details have emerged, and they center around his difficult childhood (Shafer). Many people are less than sympathetic, although he had an impressive line-up of character witnesses testify to his rehabilitated status and current moral integrity. Many people are not convinced (Shafer). The case of Doris Kearns Goodwin, another professional deviant, is similar to Stephen’s in some ways and different in others. She had a strong career, was formerly an aide to President Lyndon Johnson, and became a well-respected historian (Lewis). She published several books and apparently did an honest job of them. But she wrote a book, published in 1987, which is profoundly plagiarized, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys (Lewis). It’s an embarrassing situation because the book was a bestseller and was made into a miniseries, so a lot of people know about it (Lewis). To add insult to injury, she loudly criticized another author for plagiarizing parts of that book she wrote. The fact is that she plagiarized and the man she accused actually gave her credit for passages he quoted or paraphrased (Lewis). Doris’s credibility has suffered. Unlike Stephen, however, Doris admitted, right away, that there may be some irregularities with her work and, as accusations and evidence mounted, she carefully and quickly apologized, offering an explanation that her book was the result of sloppy research (Lewis). She wrote an essay on her situation, and immediately announced that all unsold copies of the book would be destroyed, that she is hard at work, with her researchers, to identify all problem areas and correct them, citing all sources. She announced that a financial settlement was reached with one of the sources, and she actually identified problems in her book which had not yet been noticed by her critics and accusers (Lewis). This certainly helped to restore her credibility somewhat. Indications that her credibility has not totally collapsed can be seen in the fact that, although she was placed on leave from her professional position, she was not terminated and was given an opportunity to correct her mistake (Lewis). Also, she is still being quoted as an expert. This is a very different outcome than one experienced by Ambrose, another popular historian who earlier was found by The Standard to have plagiarized work. Ambrose lost his position and is still sulking and not being quoted as an expert, even though he was one (Lewis). The big difference is that Ambrose did not apologize and was not forthcoming about the situation, the way Doris was about her situation. Stephen Glass eventually settled on an explanation of his unfortunate childhood, as a reason that led to his deviant behavior. I suspect that why people are more willing to accept Doris’s explanation for her deviance than Glass’s explanation for his is that his explanation places the blame on his parents, while she accepts responsibility for doing sloppy research. After several years of therapy, it is probable that Glass’s insights into childhood rejection and pressures from highly controlling parents (Shafer) are, in fact, reasonable explanations. I support this explanation, because I think that coming to understand the dynamics that shape a person is a reasonable path to accepting responsibility. In fact, I personally find more merit in Glass’s excuse than in Doris’s excuse. Stephen was very young and in turmoil from his parent’s failure to affirm his career preference as valid (Shafer). Doris was a mature, professionally experienced woman and absolutely understood that plagiarism is not tolerated. Being caught in a web of lies is somehow understandable with a young man who wanted so desperately to please others and gain the approval he lacked as a child and teenager. His brother also required extensive therapy (Shafer), so I suspect this confirms, to some extent, Glass’s claims. Karen Horney, a Vienna Analytic Society contemporary of Sigmund Freud, suggests that we need approval desperately and, when that approval does not come from our parents and teachers, or when approval is conditional, then we bury our true self deep inside and instead rely on a projected idealized self that has more chance of approval. In doing so, we cooperate in our own psychic suicide, since we eventually come to think of that idealized self as the real self (Horney). Stephen Glass was unable to gain the approval of his overly-controlling parents. They wanted him to go into the field of medicine, and they had nothing kind to say about his blossoming talents in journalism (Shafer). By lying, he projected an idealized self, which gained him approval. Doris, I suspect, coming from a Washington DC background, serving as an aide to President Lyndon Johnson (Lewis), was immersed in institutionalized deviance, perhaps learning that the ends justify the means, as Johnson apparently believed with respect to his campaign, foreign and domestic policy (Caro). Complicating that was the fact that, being a busy woman, she relied on research assistants (Lewis) and probably took shortcuts she shouldn’t have and maybe didn’t check her assistants’ research as she should have. However that same background provided role models for cleaning up a tarnished image and controlling scandal. Also, her maturity supported better decision-making in responding to the charges made about her plagiarism. Stephen Glass was young and had no experience and no such role models. In fact, he has described himself as being socially awkward and not fitting in with the other kids in high school, experiencing social rejection there as well (Shafer). Peer experience is critical to later competence. Perhaps his lack of social fluency and confidence was the result of his parents labeling him in very negative ways, creating a self-fulfilling prophesy based on his looking glass self reflection, seen in the mirror of his parent’s social construction of reality and social interaction. Conflict Theory would suggest that Stephen’s parents were the capitalists, who owned the means to production and set all the rules, most of them unrealistic. Stephen and his brother were the have-nots, who sold their labor (as obedient children) for survival, since they were without power on their own. Stephen developed a class identity in line with exploitation of the marginalized worker. When he changed jobs from obedient child to journalist worker, he carried that class identity with him and used the same survival skills to address power imbalance that he had earlier used, perhaps. Doris Kearns Goodwin identified with the ruling class. She criticized the self-deception enjoyed by President Johnson (Lewis), and she wrote books about the ruling class. She was able to use her power and her identity with power to survive her scandal. When people commit acts of deviance, there is a social expectation that they will suffer in some way, as a result. When a criminal commits a crime, it is expected they will go to prison. When a young adult gets 20 tattoos and a host of piercings, all in places that show, it is expected that they will be limited in their lifestyle and employment options, consequently. These consequences function as incentives, according to Deviance Regulation Theory, to insure conformity with standard social norms (Blanton). Stephen Glass lost his job, the respect of his colleagues, his professional reputation, but he made a nice profit from a book he modeled after his experience with professional deviance, completed studies at a prestigious law school and is making a very high salary working in a law office, even though he does not yet have State clearance to be admitted to the Bar (Leung). If he is still presenting a fantasy self, and not a rehabilitated self, he may one day use his talent for professional deviance to support those outside the law, who would benefit by the application of Glass’s willingness to lie, support lies, and use his imagination to paint pictures that are not really there at all. It may be that Glass has done enough therapy and gained enough insight and resolution that he poses no social risk, in that regard, but people are unsure and it makes them worry and wonder. Glass made up stories and, because of his position, that false information became part of the remembered history of the public. This is especially deviant behavior for a journalist because the public relies on journalists to tell the truth, no matter what (Brewer). Journalists have been imprisoned, tortured and killed to support that principle of journalistic truth. His deviance is especially unforgivable by the public, which holds journalistic integrity as a sacred vow. Doris, on the other hand, was an author, not a journalist, a person who writes history, and history is frequently re-written anyway. Her lie was only implied, and could be more easily scrambled around to lessen the seriousness of the charge. These are some of the psychosocial considerations in these two cases and their outcomes. Works Cited Blanton, Hart. "The Regulation of Good and Evil: A Deviance Regulation Analysis of Societal Control." n.d. Oklahoma State University. Web. 17 April 2012. Brewer, David. "The Importance of Accuracy in Journalism." 4 May 2010. Media Helping Media. Web. 17 April 2012. Caro, Robert. Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson). New York: Vintage Books, 1991. Print. edu.LearnSoc.org. "Deviance and Norms." 2010. edu.LearnSoc.org. Web. 17 April 2012. Hansen, Randall S. "Resigning with Class: How to Diplomatically Resign From Your Job." 2011. Quintessential Careers. Web. 17 April 2012. Horney, Karen. Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Towards Self-Realization. New York: W. W. Norton, 1991 (originally published 1950). Print. Leung, Rebecca. "Stephen Glass: I Lied For Esteem." 11 February 2009. CBS News. Web. 17 April 2012. Lewis, Mark. "Doris Kearns Goodwin and the Credibility Gap." 27 February 2002. Forbes. Web. 17 April 2012. Shafer, Jack. "More Legal Insight: The Trial of Stephen Glass." 8 December 2011. Thomson Reuters News and Insight. Web. 17 April 2012. Read More