Sociology of Deviance Labelling - Essay Example

Deviance Labelling Marriage in a family of different tribal background comes with diverse challenges ranging from prejudice to discrimination among others. In the case of the girl married in a different family, a lot of thoughts arise from the other family. According to sociologists, labelling theory often manifests itself when certain classifications determine behaviour of persons and their self-identity. It means the family of the husband will bring elements of the stereotype and self-fulfilling prophecy as mechanisms of deflecting deviant behaviour in the woman. Additionally, the elements are meant to place a negative label on the victim to suppress deviant acts that go against cultural norms (Anleu 2005, p. 69). It is a view supported by culture theory whereby the adaptation to a given human environment is an inevitable process for the success of the marriage. Primary deviance, thus, starts to show when the woman notes discrimination based on her tribe from the family of her husband. Alternatively, primary deviance means that an individual embraces the first steps of internalizing forms of deviant identity without alteration of accepted self-concepts of society (Slattery 2003, p. 144). Consequently, by integrating primary deviance, it implies that the marriage happens without the knowledge of the family. In other words, the deviance enables the couple to adapt to material as well as social processes caused by the dynamics of culture and nature. On the other hand, materialization of secondary deviance will emerge when the family begins to label the girl as from another tribal family instead of viewing the couple as a unit. The family, therefore, is made aware of the violations of societal norms stipulated by the husband’s culture that will result in the labelling process (Anleu 2005, p. 77). Aspects of the labelling process include unwanted categorizations that elicit deviance and stigma in the targeted victim. Overall, labelling is meant to distort social identity and self-concept of an individual to prevent her from questioning consequences of stigmatization in the marriage. Interestingly, there are numerous ways in which I was seen as deviant in the family set-up of my husband’s household. First, my primary deviance started when the family refused to acknowledge our marriage because of existing tribal differences. It shows that my deviance emanated from the social construction of reaction of the husband’s family and not action to formalize the marriage. Contrastingly, cultural values and norms play an integral role in encouraging labelling resulting to either primary or secondary deviance (Slattery 2003, p. 146). Subsequently, my defiance to persecution by the family is what caused the label of a deviant. The norms that I was seen as violating were varied in terms of their context and social description in my husband’s society. For example, marrying from a family of a different ethnic background was deemed to contravene the acceptable social roles and expectations of that given society (Anleu 2005, p. 89). Consequently, my deviant label was pegged on the perceptions of the norms of my husband and not the social expectations within the marriage. In addition, norms of conformity equally contributed to the suspicion of violation because of the family’s biased response to my deviant actions. Conversely, the family believed I was violating the norms of their culture something that is against their values and customs. The values and customs dictate that a man should not marry outside his tribe because such a move contravenes social standards of their subculture. In a subculture, a community walls itself away in regards to cultural rules against accepted norms accepted by the rest (Slattery 2003, p. 149). A deviant subculture, hence, emanates from my husband’s community because their social structure engages in labelling theory of those who breach the stipulated subculture. My case, then, was a result of violating abnormal acts viewed as a normal. There are several societal reactions that were manifested mostly by my appearance, background, behaviours, and beliefs worth noting. First, involved the label as a primary deviant because of displaying a deviant identity in form of my different tribal background. Second, encompassed the social reaction occasioned by appearance based on the ethnic origins (Anleu 2005, p. 73). My husband’s community viewed my appearance not as a wife material, but, instead, as another strange person coming from another world unlike that of their subculture. The subculture defined the values and norms that have an overall impact on expected behaviour in accordance with the requirements of the cultural theory of adaptation. The complex situations that have caused social reactions are diverse because of my husband’s subculture and the existing labels in that community. For instance, the decision to sire a child with my husband was labelled as a secondary deviance causing stigmatic roles that eventually led to condemnation of the marriage. Issues of morality and negative stereotypes also became popular when I questioned the persecution from my husband’s family (Slattery 2003, p. 147). On that note, situations such as attempts to integrate into the subculture elicited a social stigma from the entire community in order to criminalize our marriage as violating conventional norms and customs. The aforementioned reactions were strong in the sense that they had serious ramifications toward our marriage and perception about love. Strong reactions were characterized by specific incidents such as persecution without a reason leading to early stages of primary deviance. It means the reactions were caused by fear of social stigma when a man married a woman from another tribal background. Perceptions about love, on the other hand, developed because of negative stereotype formed by husband’s family that disapproves of marriages outside their tribe (Anleu 2005, p. 66). The reactions, therefore, increased because of labelling that declares a person as different from the rest. Aspects of stereotype attached to the label that was applied were also clearly evident particularly from my husband’s parents (Slattery 2003, p. 139). The negative stereotype of a social deviant, for example, assumed the label of criminality thus causing the application of social stigma. It is a social stigma that occasioned acts of persecution such as declaration as an adulterer and unfaithful. Questioning of the marriage status and its subsequent validity was another consequence of stereotype perpetuated by the applied label of an outsider. An outsider symbolized rejection of the subculture’s values and norms especially on the basis of tribe when it came to marriage. Feelings of stigmatization and being viewed as deviant resulted to unwanted labels that eventually forced my husband’s community to criminalize the union. Similarly, the relationship between social stigma and deviant behaviour generated condemnations of the marriage based on tribal background and other legitimate factors. According to most laws, annulment of most unions between a man and a woman is often occasioned by cases of infidelity or divorce (Anleu 2005, p. 63). However, in my case, I suffered unwanted persecution that was characterized by negative stereotype and imposition of values and norms from a different subculture. My primary deviance was equally increased by stigmatization compelling me to take a decisive action of dealing with the problem. The first solution to address stigmatization encompassed understanding the concept of self while acknowledging the role and responsibility of my husband’s community. Understanding, thus, involved reflecting on varying facets of human behaviour in relation to diversity of race, ethnicity, and tribe among others. Suppression of negative stereotypes was another mechanism of reducing stigmatization because it came with a positive label instead of a negative label. Another resolution encompasses the alteration of social roles and moral responsibilities particularly those pertaining to marriages premised on different tribal backgrounds (Slattery 2003, p. 143). Protection from others’ negative evaluations was also a critical step toward eradicating social stigma and manifestations of negative stereotype. I first confronted most of labels lodged within the subculture of my husband through concerted challenge to their values and moral norms. Subjective conception of self equally eliminated most of the negative evaluation that breached the boundaries of our marriage principally the tribal diversities. Re-defining of social roles through organization of human culture played a fundamental step in integrating primary adaptive mechanism (Anleu 2005, p. 65). According to sociologists, primary adaptive mechanism is vital for individuals because it enables human existence to change their attitudes in form of cultural change. However, there are techniques of neutralization or stigma management strategies that turned helpful in managing my deviant status. First, entailed defining of moral responsibilities and social roles that instil neutralization of stigma pegged on bad behaviour. Second, included reversing the conventional values and norms of my husband’s subculture in order to de-criminalize persecution for tribal reasons (Slattery 2003, p. 139). Another stigma management that has worked efficiently is encouragement of positive labels that abide by the community standards especially in consideration of anticipated consequences. Overall, stigma management operated against the labelling theory that had been popularized by my husband’s family. Countering of stereotypical images they had of me demanded a deeper understanding of the labelling theory as applied to husband’s family in refusing the marriage. Therefore, the labelling theory must assume a positive route to help re-define the cultural expectations of a given community (Anleu 2005, p. 60). On that account, in culture theory, adaptation is a critical aspect of human survival through exhibition of standard moral behaviour that condemns any forms of stereotyping. Additionally, in adoption, individuals and nature establish a neutral point of existence with respect to societal expectations and other sociological behaviours that accept marriage unlike cases of persecution and negative labels. My choice of the particular techniques aforementioned was guided by numerous factors worth noting. First, the techniques were mostly applicable in the social context of my predicament. By social context, it means I was directly challenging the subculture of that family with the need to reform their norms and values of judging marriage. Second, a technique such as comprehending the working of culture theory proved instrumental particularly when interrogating the relationship between individuals and nature. In other words, adaptive strategies for all primates usually occurs in accordance with human biological evolution (Slattery 2003, p. 140). The human biological evolution is a phenomenon mostly caused by the need for cultural change hence my choice of technique. Human behaviour is equally altered when the underlying factors of psychological and sociological aspects are investigated. Integration into another deviant subculture was another critical step toward managing my deviant status in many exciting ways. For example, I could have selected the deviant subculture of the minorities where norms and values are very restricted to avoid cases of persecution, as witnessed with my husband’s family (Anleu 2005, p. 61). On the other hand, in the management of my deviant status, I could have equally adapted the secondary deviance as a form of subculture. In secondary deviance, I accept my deviant status as a means of asserting the label imposed on my identity by family irrespective of the societal consequences. It also helps me to cast off bad labels that are geared to criminalize our marriage because of tribal differences. A deviant subculture integrates the self into a new realm of acceptance through reduction of social stigma. The choice to embrace another deviant subculture made interesting differences in regards to management of my deviant status within my husband’s family. First, the step reduced negative stereotype that had abound within the environment within which our union was defined (Slattery 2003, p. 138). Second, unwanted labels were equally eliminated because of the primary adaptive strategies that form the basis of culture theory. In other words, my choice resulted in a harmonious existence between my husband’s family and me without cases of persecution and discrimination. It is an experience that elicited varied reactions particularly the boundaries that define both cultures and subcultures in different societal set-ups. A decrease of primary deviance behaviour was also occasioned by the choice to accept another subculture as the eventual solution to our marriage problems. The phenomenon eventually suppressed self-conception my husband’s community. Precisely, the above observations enabled me to understand sociology and its relation to society especially how it affects individuals. This is because I evaluated the reasons why people make certain choices in relation to labelling perspective for those who fail to abide by societal roles and other acceptable norms (Anleu 2005, p. 59). Additionally, my experience with deviance aided me in analysing how labelling theory often affects individuals both positively and negatively. Positively, the theory helps a person to define herself within a certain subculture. However, negatively, the individual suffers the consequences of social stigma and stereotypes that are meant to make the person feel unwanted in society. References Anleu, S. (2005). Deviance, Conformity & Control. New York, NY: SAGE. Slattery, M. (2003). Key Ideas in Sociology. Mason, OH: Routledge. Read More