Deviance Is a Trend

I believe that the overall definition of deviance has not changed much since 1965, but the minor details or specific actions have. The research by sociologist James D. Orcutt shows how people viewed deviance in 1965, and it is obvious that several social norms have changed since then. The table lists homosexuals at the top, and communists even had a place while beatniks had subcultural relevance at the time.

Sexual orientation does not seem a major deviance in the United States, as it once was, and I hardly ever hear mention of communists. It’s difficult to imagine homosexuals as more deviant than criminals, as well.

As seen in James D. Orcutt’s list, the explanation for the core of the change may be between believing that “deviance refers to behavior that violates social norms or to persons that engage in such behavior” and “deviance refers to behavior or persons that are defined as deviant by social audiences.” I think that both are true.

Sexuality

Something I noticed but did not think much of was how a homosexual and lesbian were separated in James D. Orcutt’s deviancy table. I have always placed anyone who was not heterosexual under the label of “homosexual” regardless of gender. I am aware of the sexism of the past, of course, which explains why some of the people that were surveyed thought of career women and girls who wear makeup as deviant.

That raises the topic of sexuality in modern times since there are so many sexual orientations and situations. While homosexuality among males and females has become more acceptable, I am not so sure about the other in-betweens or combinations especially since some seem undefinable, still.

I was surprised by how deviant homosexuality was considered in the 1960s, but the James D. Orcutt’s article did mention the difference in behavior as “immoral, weird, evil, illegal, sick, or, in a word, deviant.”

The culture in this country has consistently become more subjective which may be why there is more empathy towards people who would, otherwise, be rejected if past standards were followed. Perhaps it’s the idea of everyone being able to make their own choices as long as no one is being hurt or forced.

Positivist and Constructionist Views

When it comes to explaining deviant behavior, my idea of deviance is a combination of positivist and constructionist views. This is because I do see some actions as major social mistakes while others are minor but not harmful. The researchers Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz state how positivists generally study how “society considers relatively serious types of deviant behavior” while constructionists focus on behavior that is “pertinent to the less serious kinds of deviance.”

I agree with absolutism because there are standard social rules that most people can follow while the few that do not would be considered different or deviant. Yet, I can understand why relativism is true since smaller groups within the majority group may label a specific action different; it may be considered very deviant, somewhat deviant, or not deviant at all.

I agree more with the subjective view than the objective view because, as subjectivists believe, people are more than mere objects, and they do not need to be changed to fit a specific lifestyle.

As for determinism versus voluntarism, I evenly agree with both perspectives because I do think that genetics can result in some predetermined personality traits, yet people can make the final choice to seek change or continue with deviant behavior. Positivist perspectives are more concrete while constructionist perspectives lean to the abstract, and I think using both is a balanced way to view human behavior.

The way I see it, a criminal is deviant, but a deviant person is not necessarily a criminal. Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz declare that “most deviances are not crimes — they merely depart from some societal norm, rule, or standard, such as nude dancing.” Of course, there is still variation because nude dancing may be a crime in certain countries but not in others.

I disagree with the statement that “crimes can only be behavioral in nature” because it is possible to be arrested for wearing a uniform or badge that does not apply to a person’s official identity.

It may not be a crime, but a tattoo stating affiliation to a group known for criminal activity or violence almost blurs the line because it is likely that the person is a criminal and not just a deviant. Other criminals follow most or all social norms, yet they can cause serious harm such as the so-called white-collar crime. Violating social norms is not criminal, but criminals are deviant.

Conclusion

Thio, Taylor, and Schwartz mention how subjectivists prefer to empathize with deviants which would include criminals. I am unable to agree with those people on some level because I find certain criminals too merciless and unapologetic for that kind of understanding.

If subjectivists mean to feel sorry for any possible victimization before becoming a criminal, then I could understand, but the final choice in causing pain is where I see the point of positivism with control, correction, and elimination.

There may be a difference between murder and killing, or that may explain why it varies. My theory is that some people justify killing certain living beings if those beings seem unintelligent, and that lack of understanding does not make it murder. Yet, if any killing is murder, no matter what, then abortion and not being vegetarian would be wrong. It’s one of those moral issues, but I think it all relates to how a person views murder vs. killing.

I have a deep sense of right and wrong, as well, but I am sure I carry a variety of contradictions which may be why I agree with both constructionist and positivist views.