Deviant Act or Normative Behavior - Essay Example

Deviant Act Introduction Deviant involves a sociology context that identifies the behaviors or actions that are a violation of social norms. This also considered the formal enacted rules together with the informal social norms violation. Deviance is a purview of psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, and psychiatrists in studying the manner in which the norms are established, the manner in which they are altered for some time and the manner in which they are enforced (Carney, 2008). On the other hand, norms involve the expectations and the rules through which the societal members are guided conventionally. Normative behavior involves the actions which are intended to make something acceptable. Deviance involves the absence in the conformation of the normative behavior. Norms are different from one culture to another. For instance, one deviant act in one community may be a normal act in another community (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). Normative behavior is a form of social influence that leads to conformity. It is some form of influence by other people that makes one to conform so as to be acceptable and liked by the people. Normative behavior is responsible in influencing the stems of power from the identity of humans as a socialization creature having the need to association and companionship. It enables people to have the public compliance which may not be necessarily acceptable. Observing deviance as a social norm violation, different sociologists have defined deviance as a type of feeling, thought, or the actions that a sociological group member judge as a violation of the rules. It could be a conduct of the group that has been violated. The violation of some form of norms where the behavior appears in a disapproved direction, and of a certain magnitude that exceeds the limit that is tolerable and the shift of some category of behavior from the norm of a certain society at a specific time is defined as deviant (Carney, 2008). Deviant is relative to place and time since whatever is considered being deviant in a single social context could be non deviant in a different one. In order to understand deviant behavior, an experiment was set to investigate deviant a deviant act. The experiment involves wearing the traditional clothes. In this study we hypothesized that wearing traditional clothes was a deviant act. Theory and Literature review One theory that explains deviant behavior is referred to as the differential association (Carney 5). This theory was advanced by Edwin Sutherland. The theory argued that deviant behavior and criminal behaviors are learnt by criminals and the fact that deviance is not totally a section of a certain nature of an individual. When one individual who is not a criminal engages n an act of criminal, the criminal behavior would be learnt due to the exposure. The theory also argues that the criminal behavior can be learnt in a similar manner that the other behaviors are learnt. This means that acquiring the criminal knowledge may not be unique in comparison to learning other different behaviors. The theory highlights vital points like the fact that learning results from the interactions between groups and individual by the use of ideas and communication symbols. Whenever the ideas and the symbols regarding deviation are extremely favorable instead of unfavorable, the individual will appear to carry the view that is favorable regarding deviance thus resorting to many behaviors. This means that the technical knowledge and motivations (criminal behavior) are similar to any type of behavior and are leaned (Carney, 2008). The basic theory assumption of differential association is that learning is an interaction that uses the communication within the personal groups that are intimate. The techniques, drives, motives, attitudes and rationalization are leant. In addition, the illegitimate and legitimate behaviors are useful in expressing an equal general demand and the useful values. A good example is the activities of a gang in the communities of the inner city. The author held the view that since some individuals’ influential peers are in a certain gang environment, the interaction with them makes one be involved in crime. This means that deviant behavior is always learned, but not born or inherited. The behavior is learned from the surrounding environment. When we interact with others we get to learn the deviant behavior. For example it is possible for one to learn to be a criminal through the words, gestures, actions, teaching others, and practices (Carney, 2008). The learnt deviancy is obtained from the people immediately in ones environment. This is done using television, newspaper, and movies. A study conducted by Rabison (2008) on deviance in Disney, did an analysis of the criminal and crime representation in Disney films. The huge fame of the Walt company located in the United States made the company to participate in the information purveyor regarding the identity hence participating in the American children idea formation concerning the world. After questioning whatever the films of Disney teach the learners regarding the crime and the roots. The author examined about 32 most popular films of Disney. The qualitative scheme of coding was utilized in monitoring the different criminal traits while focusing on the portrayals in gender, social race, and class. The study analyzed the different ways in which the crime images change with time in the representation of Disney and the new types of criminals that are introduced in recent films. The author found out that the study showed that Disney films greatly neglected the effect of social condition on the heavily correlated crime with real criminal activities in the United States. Another similar was done by Miller, Wright, and Dannels (2001) in this field reported that the deviance sociology as a specialty research was dead by the year 1975. Other influential studies on the violation of norm behavior happened only in the criminology areas that were specific. The author subjected the argument to an empirical test using an analysis of the many cited works and scholars in the two hundred and sixty three textbooks, research notes, and articles that look inside the deviance in sociology between the years 1993 to 1999. The study found out that some summers claims by the most cited scholars of deviance did the research in different areas such as criminology. Considering the 311 works that are most cited in the analysis, two of the classified 15 studies in sociology happened after 1975. The study concludes with the thoughts concerning the factors that provoke the rise and the fall of the specialization of research in sociology. Methodology Target audience, The experiment was set in the restaurant of the university. This means that the target audience of the study was mainly university students. The main visitors in a university restaurant are students hence these were the target audience. Venue The venue for the experiment was at one of the restaurant in the university Procedure The researcher chose to were his traditional clothes and went to one of the restaurant of the university. The reactions of the audience were measured through direct observations. This was, the researcher was able to observe and record the different reactions of the participants. Observation was a powerful tool in this experiment because it provided with first hand data. This is data obtained directly from the source, hence the researcher can boost as being the source of it. The variable under study includes people reactions, and the researcher’s dress code. Analysis and discussion Normative behavior is the expectation or the rules for the behavior that is shared by different members of the society or group. When the researcher put on his traditional clothes and moved to the university restaurant, he tends to break the societal norm. This is so because all the audience expect him to be in a similar dress code to them. Having a different dress code to the audience is a violation of normalcy. This is one example of a deviant behavior. The audience were surprised with the researcher and stared at him in alarm. The found his dressing strange. The social norm concept has long been respected by the sociological theories and the researches that saw the consensus as one vital fact of a social life considered to be organized. In this case, shared agreement existed in different organized societies and groups regarding the type of behavior that is expected and appropriate by the member (Carney, 2008). The consensus has been displayed in the social norm and the rules being shared to channel the required behavior in different sectors of the social life to a predictable or orderly pattern. In situations like those of the experiment, the behavior may deviate from the normal patterns. These behaviors as per the definition of normative behavior are a deviant behavior (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). This means that the researcher was a deviant. This is a person who violated the normative consensus of a society that is organized. The different type of the social norms that deviants and sociologists violate has been reported in prior studies. The researcher in this study breaks a general social norm that is applicable to almost all societal members and considers the expected behavior in almost all situations. The deviant behavior in this study is similar to a murder case. Murderers are deviants who violate the legal norms. However, being an alcoholic cannot be called as deviant in the American community (Carney, 2008). The main advantage of normative behavior lies on the objectivity of the behavior. Social norms typify a society or a group hence can be identified through the empirical research. Normative behavior can be identified by observing the pattern of characteristics of the behaviors in a society or in a group. Other norms can be found by directly requesting people the behavior expectations and whatever they share with the other members of the society or the group. In this regard, the research of scientists rather than the individual values of the social scientists establishes the appropriate standards that are used in defining the deviant behavior. The sociologists in the perspective of the normative behavior bypass the social norm study and shift directly to studying the violation of the norm. This makes the normative perspective to rely on the legality of the specified norms by the criminal law or the standards of the social scientists in different field like psychiatry. This also provides the guide lines in identifying the deviant behavior. In many cases, the different types of deviance happen to be extremely obvious in the moral norm violation. This puts some little reason in questioning the normative definition application and deviance. Looking at the case where the researcher puts on the traditional clothes, it is certain that the target audience wondered whether this behavior was a violation of the social norm. This was a situation in which the deviance was given objectively by the basic nature of the performed act. It appears to be strange when one probes the type of norms that were broken here. Rather, one could easily ask whoever the person is, or why the researcher did whatever he did. These are but the greatest normative perspective concerns (Carney, 2008). This means that the normative perspective sociologists are always directed by the deviance sensationalism in the studies. The different types of deviance that have been studied in this perspective happen to have minimum drams in relation to other deviance like murder (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). The case shows the reasons why the normative perspective attention focus directly on deviants instead of the type of the social norm that is violated. Different types of behaviors appear by its own nature for it to be objectively and inherently deviant. Trough engaging in these behaviors, a deviant appears to be seen as an individual who is objectively and inherently different from the other people. The manner of classifying the deviants together with their behavior natural results into two problems of analytic of the deviance normative perspective. This describes the traits of the deviant who takes part in an act and the explanation of the reasons behind the deviant behavior. In many cases, the definition of normative behavior or deviance classifies the social behavior into two categories. The first is the norm-violating behavior, and the other is the conforming behavior. Having a choice of the given alternative of deviance, different deviants do conform. This is one assumption that has been made by the perspective or norm on deviance. The behaviors that are conforming to the normative situations that are shared by the people of the society would be rewarded and expected. This means that conformation is not problematic to the members of the society and to the normative perspective sociologists. The challenge comes up when the behavior surpass the heavy odds in the conformity favor. Different people may select to behave in a manner that is a violation of the expectations hence running the risk of having the punishment by the society (Carney, 2008). To be able to identify the reasons behind a deviant behavior, the choices of the deviant should be taken as being free. The deviant behavior can be explained as a choice that is forced and determined by the factors that causes the deviant act differently from the norm. The theories of deviant behavior have attempted to emphasis some difference in determining the factors behind deviance. The nonsociological theories locate the reasons behind deviance within the deviant person. These theories observe deviant behavior as a pathology product or personality deficiency and biological deviant constitution (Carney, 2008). The theories of sociology on deviant behavior do locate the reasons behind deviance on the social environment sounding the deviant. This includes the distinctive traits of the deviant social relationship or the disorganization and the pressure effects in the society for the factors that give the deviant behavior. In cases where the other theories have focused on the different types of people of explaining the different types of deviance, the sociological theories have been targeted on the different types of environment. Attempting to describe the key traits of deviants clues would be sought to the types of environments and the factors that would be responsible in provoking deviant behavior. The search for the environmental factors that determine deviance cannot be done on a random basis but through some guided theoretical concepts that provides the definition of the selected sociological environment aspects. This aspects would be worthy of the sociological attention. Similar to the deviance concepts, the social environment concepts can be defined by some sociological agreements. The main issue has been the disagreements regarding the most useful concepts that explain the deviant behavior. The various concepts in the social environment establish the basis for the vital division between the approaches of theory to the deviant behavior in a normal situation. The most common and important division between these approaches rely on the different ways of analysis that brings out the traits of the different concepts of the social environment. Other theories of deviance deal with the macro analysis level while others target the micro analysis level. The macro theories of deviance behavior rely on the concepts which focus on the large scale social environmental features and happen to explain the broad variation patterns in deviant behavior. This includes the community, social class, or institution. On the other hand, the micro environment involve such terms that consider the small scale features of the environment like the face to face links and the influences of the group on different people. The theories of micro-level and deviant behavior have attempted to analyze the effect of deviance in the immediate social environment following the act (Davis, 2003). This theory classification and the approaches as per the conceptual analysis level are useful in understanding the different sociological explanation of the deviant behavior in a perspective that is normative. Even as the theories may be categorized in the perspective of deviance by the commonality in the definition, their deviant explanation is dissimilar as it focus on the different level phenomena of analysis. This means that the macro-micro distinction can be applied to the approaches of theory in the deviance perspective. Conclusion The study classified the act of the researcher putting on his tradition clothes as being a deviant behavior. The study founded out that, the definition of normative behavior or deviance classifies the social behavior into two categories (Carney, 2008). The first is the norm-violating behavior, and the other is the conforming behavior. Having a choice of the given alternative of deviance, different deviants do conform. This is one assumption that has been made by the perspective or norm on deviance. The behaviors that are conforming to the normative situations shared by the people of the society would be rewarded and expected. This means that conformation is not problematic to the members of the society and to the normative perspective sociologists. The challenge comes up when the behavior surpass the heavy odds in the conformity favor. Different people may select to behave in a manner that is a violation of the expectations hence running the risk of having the punishment by the society. The objectives of the study were achieved. The study, therefore, approved the hypothesis. References Carney, S. (2008). Representations of the social responsibility and race: News stories about failure and neglect to protect. In M. Fine, L. Wies, L. Powll, & A. Burns, Off-white: Readings on power, privilege and resistance. New York: Routledge. Rabison, R. (2008) Deviance in Disney: Representation of crime in Disney films; a quantitative analysis. Weslwyan University. Retrieved on 19th April 2014 from http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=etd_hon_theses Miller, M, Wright, R. & Dannels, D. (2001). Is deviance dead? The decline of sociological research specialization. The American Sociologist, Retrieved on 19th April 2014 from http://ponce.inter.edu/acad/facultad/jvillasr/LECTURAS/Is%20Deviance%20Dead.pdf Davis, A. (2003) Are prisons obsolete? New York: Seven stories press.2003. Print Einstadter, W. & Henry, S. (2006). Criminology theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefiels Publishers, Inc. Read More