Sociology Questions & Answers

1) Following Durkheim, what are some of the positive functions deviance may have in a society?

It is quite ironic to draw a conclusion that a bad event could have good functional outcomes. For instance, how could one positively justify the murder of a famous, heavily sought-after virtuous person, and argue that such a criminal event against that person is essentially a forward-step in societal measures, even when the person worked so hard to glue together societies with juxtaposed ideals and won the hearts of many, including those who were initially against him/her? To answer such a sophisticated and delicate question, it is essential to understand a functionalist’s point of view on deviance. Generally, a functionalist’s position on any given scenario is that if something exists in society in spite of widespread disapproval, as in the case of prostitution, then it must serve a function (Hewitt et al., 2008). More specifically, deviance would be perceived as inevitable and could even serve as a ‘safety value’ is some situations (Covington, 1999). According to Durkheim, each society has its own interpretations and common expectations regarding the behaviours of those who encompass it, based on shared values and beliefs (Hewitt et al., 2008). In other words, the majority of members agree what is right and what is wrong, and act according to these widely accepted principles. However, in order to make these principles of what is right and wrong made know to all members, criminal laws must be established and practiced. This is especially evident in societies that are undergoing major change, such as the war-torn Iraq, where confusion over what is right and wrong is evident.

According to Hewitt et al. (2008), deviance functions to: (1) unit and unify society; (2) mark the extremities in society, demonstrating what is allowed or not allowed; (3) call attention to flaws in the system; (4) promote social adaptation, where bonds are strengthened; (5) is a source of employment; and (6) provides somewhat of a ‘safety valve’. Crime is an archetypical example that can vividly exemplify each one of these postulates. Normally, criminal events can bring a population together and enhance group solidarity (Social Deviancy, 1998). Let us assume that in a hypothetical town, the crime rate increases after 9 p.m. The town is made up of middle class residents and has an unusual high rate of teenagers, who are presumed to be causing the crime. The town officials hold a meeting with the residents and agree that a curfew should be put in place to reduce the amount of crime taking place. This example clearly demonstrates how the majority of the town’s inhabitants are united in their decision to stop late-night crimes. It illustrates to all societal members what is acceptable and what will not be tolerated. This scenario also reminds each individual that they are stewards to their neighbour and should continually look out for the greater good of one another. In addition, it promotes adaptation to new laws and regulations and illustrates the significance of consensus. Finally, it leads to a source of employment since more police officers will be required to survey suspected areas.

For interest sake, according to Bob Roshier’s book ‘Functon of Crime Myth’ (1977), the idea that crime results in positive effects on society is challenged and rebutted (Social Deviancy, 1998). He speculates that function which derives from deviance is, in fact, social control. He mentions that to accept that deviance brings order to society is a misconception. This claim actually demonstrates the rejection of deviance, which is a form of social control, and not the functions of deviance (Social Deviancy, 1998).


2. Consider a deviant behavior, such as alcohol abuse, and demonstrate how the processes of labeling is in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How members of society label other members can have profound effects on the person, both psychologically and socially. The theory coined to the notion that society creates deviance through its reaction to the people who break its rules is the labelling theory (Hewitt et al., 2008). The labelling theory contends that problems are only problems because someone defines or ‘labels’ it accordingly (Hewitt et al., 2008). However, labels placed on certain behaviours expressed by individuals in society do not emerge in unison. Instead, they develop and mature over time in a process of exchange with the large society (Hewitt et al., 2008).

Moreover, according to Hewitt et al. (2008), a self-fulfilling prophecy is defined as the ‘possibility that the act of predicting an outcome helps to bring about that outcome.’ In other words, it is a prediction of a particular circumstance that subconsciously perpetuates into the mind of the person prophesying, to a point where they believe it is true or becomes true, either directly or indirectly. For instance, a young man who has a family history of diabetes will continue to believe that due to his family history, his genetics are doomed to play a major role in his future health and well-being, even though he does not known precisely which genes he inherited. Eventually, due to all his stress and anxiety, the genes in which code for the defective protein that leads to diabetes, and which were initially inactive prior to continual stress, become active, causing his prediction or prophecy to become true.

Although the correlation between labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy is quite clear, the two types of deviance must be discussed: primary and secondary deviance. Put crudely, primary deviance is when a person initially engages in the act of deviance. It is any act of deviance prior to the deviant being labelled as a deviant. Punishment then leads to secondary deviance, which is any action that takes place ‘second’ to the primary act of deviance, typically occurring once the deviant has internalized the label. Therefore, it is this labelling that generally causes deviants to perceive themselves as different, often resulting in larger crimes. For instance, if one is caught stealing. Primary deviance is the time when he or she is confronted for the first time. Similar acts of deviances that occur after that initial measure is considered secondary deviance.

Historically, the use of alcoholic beverages at gatherings has always been a symbol of celebration and success. However, the overuse and abuse of alcohol has many detrimental effects on one’s health, family life, and financial budgets. By labelling a person who experiments with alcohol as an alcoholic, it initiates primary deviance. Even though the person may consume moderate amounts once in a while, which is typical amongst most people, he/she may subconsciously feel that even moderate consumption of their favourite beverage is considered an addiction. After being confronted and additionally hearing or reading how alcohol has ruined the lives of many men and women in the past, the alcohol drinker suddenly believes that his/her marriage and family life will fail and fears that this is bound to happen to him/her. After drinking a second time and being confronted once more that he/she should stop drinking, the person begins to feel that this falsely-predestined state he is concerned about has become a reality and should continue to make drinking alcohol a part of his lifestyle. This false notion averts the person from holding back his/her desires; eventually, this once-harmless habit matures into a deviant career, causing his family life to ultimately fail due to abuse of the substance, as a result of societal labels. In fact, due to this positive feedback between acts of deviance and belief predication, the predications become self-fulfilling.


RESPONSE

I think your decision to use graffiti as a deviant and uncivil practice is an excellent choice; however, I think your reasoning falls somewhat short of why it could possibly serve as a positive function. We know that graffiti has many negative impacts on any community. For instance, it presences on building walls has a negative impact on citizens’ perception of safety in their community as it can signal the presence of gangs and be used to intimidate others. This type of vandalism costs tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to eliminate, sometimes even going beyond city budgets and workers capacity. To the artists, graffiti is costing them nothing more than their time. But I think there is more to it than doing it for the sake of "[expressing] oneself" because there are much simpler ways of expressing oneself just as effectively as graffiti, without breaking the law. According to Appel (2006), this form of vandalism is committed because it contests and challenges the values and beliefs that preserve the status quo. This is why almost all major cities feel threatened by this type of behaviour. Sometimes, a blank, clean wall indicates the absence of dispute in a region marked by opposing societal. Thus, by outlawing this type of behaviour, it marks the extremities in society, as I mentioned in my original post, and provides somewhat of a ‘safety value’ for those who are yearning to express themselves.


----

I think the reason why smoking is considered an act of deviance is because of all the scientific literature depicting the negative affects it has on one’s lung or the health of those who are constantly exposed to it via second-hand smoke. Unlike how you interpreted it, I think it is more-so what they are doing as opposed to what they are not doing, which allows individuals to respond to it in a negative way. For instance, imagine it was 1990 again and you were at a bar or restaurant where half of the customers are smoking and filling the air with cigarette smoke. This smell is not only irritating your lungs, but is affecting the quality of the food ordered and the well-being of you and your family, assuming they are with you.

To be honest, I do not think the act of deviance can be successfully demonstrated using the process of labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy; I feel that this is a misnomer. There are too many biological influences associated with the content in cigarettes, generally, that allow people to continue their addiction, not because one labels them as a cigarette smoker. For instance, some people enjoy smoking cigars at the end of a hard battle, as a symbol of success or accomplishment. If you were to label them as a smoker at that very instance, it would definitely not influence them to quit their ritual the next time they accomplish something. Since smoking is a habit as a result of nicotine, a biochemical that possesses addictive properties, smoking as an act of deviance does not fit this criteria.