|
|
Deviance involves breaking a norm. If you were the only male in a college classroom full of women, you probably wouldn’t be considered deviant. However, if a man were to use the woman’s restroom, we would regard him as deviant. That is because deviance is not merely departure from the statistical average. It implies violating an accepted rule of behavior. Many deviant acts go unnoticed or are considered so trivial they warrant no punishment. However, people who are observed committing more serious acts of deviance are typically punished, either informally or formally (Brym, Lie 2003: 145). Informal punishment is mild. It may involve raised eyebrows, gossip, ostracism, shaming, or stigmatization. When people are stigmatized, they are negatively evaluated because of a marker that distinguishes them from others (Brym, Lie 2003:145). Formal punishment results from people breaking laws, which are norms stipulated and enforced by government bodies. For example, criminals may be formally punished by having serve time in prison or perform community service (Brym, Lie 2003:146). Sociologist John Hagan usefully classifies various types of deviance and crime along three dimensions. The first dimension is the severity of the social response. At one extreme, homicide and other very serious forms of deviance result in the most severe negative reactions, such as life imprisonment or capital punishment. At the other end of the spectrum, some people may do little more than express mild disapproval of slight deviations from a norm, such as wearing a nose ring (Brym, Lie 2003:146). The second dimension of deviance and crime is the perceived harmfulness of the deviant or criminal act. While some deviant acts, such as rape, are generally seen as very harmful, others, such as tattooing, are commonly regarded as being of little consequence. Note that actual harmfulness is not the only issue here. Perceived harmfulness is (Brym, Lie 2003:146). The third characteristic of deviance is the degree of public agreement about whether an act should be considered deviant. For example, people disagree about whether smoking marijuana should be considered a crime, especially since it may have therapeutic value in treating pain associated with cancer (Brym, Lie 2003:146). According to Norm Sheehan (2001:3) in assessing deviant acts committed in our social group we use causal explanations, what made one of us do this? Explanations of internal causation require an evaluation of our moral center, because in attempting to understand deviant behavior we must address our culpability through affiliation to someone like us who has behaved this way. Therefore, within a social group the causal aspects of deviance from a moral norm focus on the individual deviance and the depravity of the perpetrator who must be condemned. This condemnation of the individual allows more venial conclusions to be made concerning the culpability of the group. The perpetration of child abuse within the dominant culture by a priest, for example, does not lead to general call to ban religion. The priest is condemned for what he did, because of who he is. What makes the criminal life so attractive to so many young men and women? In general, why do deviance and crime occur at all?
|
