The Sociology of Deviance - Assignment Example

One of the most significant attributes of criminology is the exploration for the explanations of crime and deviancy. The initial dilemma arises in relation to the core notion of cause because the term ‘cause’ has been used to broad array of various concepts. An examination of these concepts is almost unnecessary. Science has deserted the notion of cause apart from indicating a functional correlation between or among components of realities. Sociological perspectives or theories, namely functionalist, conflict, feminist and symbolic-interactionist, attempt to provide a coherent and persuasive explanation of the phenomena of crime and deviance; this paper then will use a variety of available literatures on the subject matter, which hold information, insights and substantiations written from a specific sociological point of view to fulfil particular objectives or convey particular perspectives on the nature of crime and deviance and how it is should be explored, and the effective review of these available literature with regard to the sociological perspectives. I. Functionalism: A Structuralist Look at Crime and Deviance There continues a remarkable predisposition in sociological theory to point the dysfunction of social structure mainly to those of the domineering biological drives of humans which are not sufficiently regulated by social control. In this perspective, the social order is exclusively a tool for ‘impulse management’ and the ‘social processing’ of pressures; these particular impulses which infiltrate social control, be it remarkable, are believed to be biologically rooted. Nonconformity is believed to be entrenched in one’s nature. Conformity is by repercussion the outcome of a functional calculus or unjustified conditioning. This perspective, whatsoever its other insufficiencies, evidently implores one question. It presents no groundwork for identifying the non-biological circumstances which encourage deviations from accepted behaviour and attitude. In the functionalist perspective, it is proposed that particular stages of social structure produce the conditions in which violation of social norms comprises a ‘normal’ response (Dubois, 2002, 84). Among the components of the socio-cultural structure, two are relevant for the functionalist analysis of crime and deviance. These are systematically detachable even though they come together unnoticeably in tangible circumstances. The first comprises of culturally defined objectives, meanings and interests. It contains a frame of envisioned reference. These objectives are roughly incorporated and involve differing intensities of status and outlook. They represent a fundamental, but not the special, element of designs for group dynamics and existence. A number of these cultural goals are associated to the initial drives of individuals, but they are not established by them (Browne, 2005). The second stage of the social structure identifies, controls, and normalizes the acceptable forms of attaining these objectives. All social groups consistently pair their scale of intended outcomes with moral or traditional control of acceptable and prescribed procedures for achieving these objectives. These dogmatic norms and moral directives do not automatically correspond with scientific or competence norms (Prus & Grills, 2003). Several procedures from the viewpoint of particular individuals would be mainly competent in protecting and stabilizing values such as unlawful oil-stock agenda, larceny, scam, are excluded from the traditional dimension of prescribed conduct. The preferences of measures are constrained by the traditional norms. II. Conflict Theory: A Look on Marx’s Perspective of Crime and Deviance Karl Marx, the most prominent icon of the conflict perspective, focused on problems of the political economy and the interconnections of capital and labour. However, Marx did not write substantially in particular on the issue of crime and deviance. There is insignificant substantiation that Marx had further interest in crime as a feature of human behaviour. There is, nonetheless, a frequently overlooked but very relevant part in The German Ideology on crime and punishment. However, Marx’s colleague Engels does address the issue of crime to a certain extent in his empirical works (Taylor et al., 1988, 62). According to Engels, crime such as alcoholism seemed mainly a type of demoralization, a decline of individuals’ humanity and self-respect, and a manifestation, as well, of societal collapse. Demoralization was a result of capitalist ventures. And labouring individuals generally trapped in this mechanism, had no much say or choice in the matter (Taylor et al., 1988, 62). On the other hand, in contrast to the disastrous viewpoint in Engels, Marx’s personal meagre works on crime can be interpreted on the surface as elaborating on the usefulness of crime in maintaining capitalist social relationships, and, particularly, its function in expanding and sustaining the division of labour and work-related organizations of early capitalist social orders. In a satirical statement in Theories of Surplus Value, Marx expresses his standpoint on crime as (Carrabine et al., 2004). A philosopher certainly creates insights; a clergyman utters sermons, academician professional journals and so on; the felony instigates not merely criminal acts but as well as criminal law, and with it the academician who delivers lectures on criminal law and besides this the unavoidable collection of literary works in which this same academician gives his lectures onto the common market in the form of commodities. This carries with it reinforcement of national assets, quite aside from the individual employment which the document of the compendium carries to the creator himself (Carrabine et al., 2004, 110). This statement has frequently been inaccurately interpreted by criminologists to imply that Marx perceive crime as fulfilling a revolutionary function, particularly, in expanding the division of labour (Carrabine et al., 2004). III. Feminist Perspective: Gender Blinded Crime and Deviance Feminists assume that criminology has been prevailed over by intellectual men investigating criminal men. A primary interest for feminist authors on this issue is that for numerous people the world is perceived as a chauvinistic one, in spite of the realities apparently proving that it is comprised of both feminine and masculine features, they believe that this is an evident instance of gender blindness. It is essential to understand if the study of crime and deviance could have turn out to be entrenched with gender theories assumes so and that they were made through different theoretical and logical frameworks within criminology, as well as of the same judgment justifying that these theories did exist and that they were undoubtedly so profound in the foundations of the investigation that they were discarded as given (Haralambo, 2004). It is evident that the study of crime and deviance has been through tradition too tolerable with concepts of female offense being investigated to a more insignificant extent to that of the male offenders. The writings and movements of feminists writers has proved to be significant in enlightening people on the subject matter and due to this and the evident history of a numbers of research carried out on women it would be inaccurate to conclude that it was actually gender blind, possibly another word which would be more appropriate is gender-discriminated, which ever is accurate, still both signify a direct prejudice within the study of crime and deviance towards women (Dubois, 2002). IV. Interactionist Perspective: A Labeling Theory of Crime and Deviance Crime and deviance, similar to beauty, is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. These is nothing intrinsically abnormal in any human behaviour, something is abnormal merely because a number of people have been winning in labelling it as such. The meaning of the circumstance indicates that if you give meaning to a circumstance as real, it is genuine merely in its implications. Labelling theory, originating from the assumptions of Cooley, Mead and Lemert, has its roots someplace within the milieu of the last century. Nevertheless, Edwin Lemert is generally regarded as the creator and pioneer of the initial account of labelling theory (Browne, 2005). In the sociology of crime and deviance, the labelling theory of the so-called deviant behaviour is frequently applied interchangeably with the assumption of the collective reaction on deviancy. Actually, both expressions signify mutually to the reality that sociological perspectives of deviance purpose as an outcome of social control rather than an end product of psychology or heredity. A number of sociologists would elaborate on deviance through approving without doubt meanings of deviance and focusing themselves with key aetiology (Prus & Grills, 2003, 91). Nevertheless, labelling theorists emphasize the purpose of viewing deviance from the point of view of the deviant person. They maintain that if an individual becomes labelled as deviant, and is attributed deviant behaviour inclinations, it is as much, to carry out the manner they have been labelled, and then the deviant behaviour they are assumed to harbour within themselves (Prus & Grills, 2003, 91-92). V. Conclusions The sociological perspectives should be able to situate the deviant behaviour in terms of its broader structural roots. These structural deliberations will include acknowledgment of the transitional structural questions that have customarily been the dimension of the sociology of criminology but it would situate these in opposition to the general social context of disparities in power, affluence and influence in the highly industrialized society. Likewise, there would be deliberation of the inquiries conventionally addressed by psychologists interested with the structures contributing to individual demoralization, specifically with an individual’s isolation from normal social interaction. However, yet again, there would be an effort to situate these psychological interests in the backdrop of a society in which the basic unit of societies is merely one fraction of an interconnected but conflicting structural whole. The departure from the perspective of man as an individualized individual, excluded from families or other particular sub-cultural circumstances, protected from the demands of existence under the dominant social contexts. References A.Coser, L. (1975). The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Browne, K. (2005). An Introduction to Sociology. London: Polity Press. Carrabine, E. et al. (2004). Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. New York: Routledge. Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dubois, N. (2002). A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Social Norms. New York: Routledge. Haralambo, M. (2004). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. Collins Educational: London. Leps, M.-C. (1992). Apprehending the Criminal: The Production of Deviance in Nineteenth Century Discourse. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Prus, R. & Grills, S. (2003). The Deviant Mystique: Involvements, Realities, and Regulation. Westport, CT: Praeger. Schur, E. M. (1965). Crimes Without Victims: Deviant Behavior and Public Policy Abortion, Homosexuality, Drug Addiction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shoham, S. G. (2000). Personality and Deviance: Development and Core Dynamics. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Steffenhagen, R. & Burns, J.D. (1987). The Social Dynamics of Self-Esteem: Theory to Therapy. New York: Praeger. Taylor, I. et al. (1988). The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance. London: Routledge. Read More