Protesters and Deviant Behavior - Essay Example

Protesters and Deviant Behavior: A Sociological Perspective In his book, Sociology, John Macionis (1991) mentions the 1984 case of Gregory L. Johnson who, as a twenty-seven-year-old member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, went to Houston, Texas to engage in a political protest while the Republican National Convention was being held (p.199). Part of their demonstration was a flag-burning, for which Johnson was convicted of violating a Texas law against defiling the flag. His conviction was subsequently appealed, and in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that …the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech, protects the burning of the flag as a form of political protest (Macionis, 1991, p.199). The decision predictably met a lot of dissenting voices, primarily because Americans felt incensed at the thought that the symbol of the country was violated and still the act was deemed justified by the law. However, it should be noted that the important underlying question is whether or not to consider such an act offensive. More significantly, should such an act of protest be considered deviant? In this paper, the author examines the concept of deviance from a sociological perspective by looking at some of the relevant sociological theories that define and account for such behavior, while consciously seeking to apply the theories to the act of social protest. In what ways are protesters seen as deviant? This is the main question being addressed in this paper. The Concept of Deviance Deviance is the recognized violation of cultural norms (Macionis, 1991, p.200). From this rather broad definition, it can be seen that the concept of deviance itself is wide-ranging in its application for the simple reason that norms, as defined by various cultures, are highly varied as well. Violations of cultural norms also vary from the mild, such as simple nonconformity to fashion styles, to the extreme, such as crimes. Crime, as a deviance, is defined as “the violation of norms formally enacted into criminal law (Macionis, 1991). While it is quite easy to conceive of nonconformity as negative behavior, that is as a negating act in the sense of purposive veering away from the norm, there are also positive nonconforming instances, such as when referring to a person of high moral values vis-à-vis all other persons with shortcomings, then the former is in a sense, deviant. In other words, the concept of deviance more than anything else has something to do with a difference, either positive or negative, that elicits certain reactions from individuals that force a distancing, that is, a designation of “we” in relation to not just an “other,” but an “outsider”. As Calhoun and others (1989) stated, "Sociologists define deviance as any behavior that members of a social group define as violating their norms. This concept applies both to criminal acts of deviance and non-criminal acts that members of a group view as unethical, immoral, peculiar, sick, or otherwise outside the bounds of respectability" (p. 168). Thus, delinquency is a socially defined concept, one that characterizes an act that goes against particular social limits. Deviance then, as a social behavior, is shaped by society. It does not exist outside of a society. It is the society that establishes the cultural norm, consequently, it also defines what is deviant behavior. Sociological Imagination Sociological Imagination refers to the capacity of an individual to somehow connect independent, social, and historical forces to specific incidents in a person’s life. In the Sociological Imagination, Mills (1959) writes: The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of individual men and women. When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated or becomes a businessman. When classes rise or fall, a person is employed or unemployed; when the rate of investment goes up or down, a person takes new heart or goes broke. When wars happen, an insurance salesperson becomes a rocket launcher; a store clerk, a radar operator; a wife or husband lives alone; a child grows up without a parent. Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both (Mills, 1959). He seems to suggest that people somehow view their personal problems as societal problems, connecting their experiences with the wider historical changes and public issues that are occurring in society. This helps to understand the act of protesting against social policies or actions that are in turn related to particular issues. For example, a person who finds himself in an impoverished condition may interpret his status as a consequence of a public or social ill, thus the perceived need to protest against this particular social problem. There is some sort of projection of personal experience into the sphere of public experience, identifying this impoverished state as a shared experience. Mills writes further: The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues (Mills, 1959). Labeling Theory and Symbolic Interactionism Labeling is a theory founded on interactionism, a sociological perspective which asserts that a social organization is formed in a manner that operates on an interweaving of social relations. Such an interweaving of relations in turn helps to create personal identities of individuals, hence making the notion of individuality meaningful in the first place. In his work, Mind, Self and Society George Herbert Mead (1934), stated, “The meaning of a gesture by one organism, to repeat, is found in the response of another organism to what would be the completion of the act of the first organism which that gesture initiates and indicates” (p. 147). Certain gestures may affect individuals similarly, as in the case of language as a symbol. “Thinking always implies a symbol which will call out the same response in another that it calls out in the thinker” (Mead, 1934, p. 148). Symbols then become significant in that they give consistency and meaning to particular social actions or moves. Symbols, then, function to influence the actual formation of the self. Labeling is an interesting theory that might indeed be crucial in understanding and curbing deviant behavior, such as that of juvenile delinquency. Leighninger and others (1996) stated that: Social groups make deviance by making rules whose infractions constitute deviance and by applying these rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act that a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the "offender." The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is the behavior that people so label (p. 332). This implies that when an individual, such as a child, gets caught for engaging in a particular offense, s/he may begin to see him or herself in a negatively. Such is the power of labeling, especially if the ones who so label are persons of influence such as family members or peers, or institutions such as schools or perhaps the state itself. In short, a negative self image resulting from negative labeling might make a person prone to engaging and perhaps associating with criminal activities and agents. On a larger scale, labeling theory becomes an important perspective in looking at protesters as deviant, precisely because of the power that society holds. When society “catches” the protester in an action that is particularly opposed to certain societal policies for example, it is fairly easy to reinforce that label and thus, the protester in a sense chooses to perpetuate the act of protest. In other words, the protester begins to see himself or herself as a protester by nature. How does the society make its power felt? One powerful tool at its disposal is the available media. How the media portrays the protesters reinforces the label. If the latter are portrayed as heroes, then the whole image changes. However, if they are depicted by the media precisely as “protesters”, then the image of deviance is reinforced, and the label sticks. Conclusion The question of deviance and deviant behavior function within culturally defined boundaries. Even within those boundaries, the definition of deviance may shift, depending on the forces that shape it. Protest actions can be understood as deviant behavior from the perspectives of various sociological theories. A perceived connection between personal conditions and public issues; formation of selves through interactions and projections; and formation of image through labels and reinforcements: these are some of the major factors that influence and shape society’s understanding of protesters as deviants. Bibliography Calhoun, C., Light, D., & Keller, S. 1989, Sociology (5th ed.), Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Leighninger, L., & Popple, P. 1996, Social work, social welfare, and American society (3rd ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. Macionis, J. 1991, Sociology 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Mead, G. H. 1934, Mind, Self and Society (Charles Morris, ed.), University of Chicago, United States of America. Mills, C. W. 1959, The Sociological Imagination, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, USA, retrieved May 1, 2006, available at: http://www.lclark.edu/~goldman/socimagination.html Sapp, S. 2005, The Sociological Perspective, Iowa State University, Dept. of Sociology, retrieved April 29, 2005, available at: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/SocPhilo130.html West, B. 2003, Synergies in Deviance: Revisiting the Positive Deviance Debate, Electronic Journal of Sociology, vol. 7-4, retrieved April 29, 2005, available at http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.4/west.html Read More

Sociological Imagination Sociological Imagination refers to the capacity of an individual to somehow connect independent, social, and historical forces to specific incidents in a person’s life. In the Sociological Imagination, Mills (1959) writes: The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of individual men and women. When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated or becomes a businessman. When classes rise or fall, a person is employed or unemployed; when the rate of investment goes up or down, a person takes new heart or goes broke.

When wars happen, an insurance salesperson becomes a rocket launcher; a store clerk, a radar operator; a wife or husband lives alone; a child grows up without a parent. Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both (Mills, 1959). He seems to suggest that people somehow view their personal problems as societal problems, connecting their experiences with the wider historical changes and public issues that are occurring in society. This helps to understand the act of protesting against social policies or actions that are in turn related to particular issues.

For example, a person who finds himself in an impoverished condition may interpret his status as a consequence of a public or social ill, thus the perceived need to protest against this particular social problem. There is some sort of projection of personal experience into the sphere of public experience, identifying this impoverished state as a shared experience. Mills writes further: The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals.

It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues (Mills, 1959). Labeling Theory and Symbolic Interactionism Labeling is a theory founded on interactionism, a sociological perspective which asserts that a social organization is formed in a manner that operates on an interweaving of social relations.

Such an interweaving of relations in turn helps to create personal identities of individuals, hence making the notion of individuality meaningful in the first place. In his work, Mind, Self and Society George Herbert Mead (1934), stated, “The meaning of a gesture by one organism, to repeat, is found in the response of another organism to what would be the completion of the act of the first organism which that gesture initiates and indicates” (p. 147). Certain gestures may affect individuals similarly, as in the case of language as a symbol.

“Thinking always implies a symbol which will call out the same response in another that it calls out in the thinker” (Mead, 1934, p. 148). Symbols then become significant in that they give consistency and meaning to particular social actions or moves. Symbols, then, function to influence the actual formation of the self. Labeling is an interesting theory that might indeed be crucial in understanding and curbing deviant behavior, such as that of juvenile delinquency. Leighninger and others (1996) stated that: Social groups make deviance by making rules whose infractions constitute deviance and by applying these rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.

From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act that a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to the "offender." The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is the behavior that people so label (p. 332).

Read More