Explain why is it important to analyse deviance in society

The expression, deviance draws reference to frown upon behaviour in a social context; the breach of various concerted norm that generally exist in a community or in society (Newman 2004). Some types of deviance are determined by criminal law, others by social standards, morality, the expectations of certain social groups, the welfare system or the medical vocation (Roach-anleu 2003).It is subjective to classify what is regarded as deviant since norms and values vary across nations and culture. Various forms of action or behaviour may well be respected in one context, or by certain groups, but may also be viewed negatively by others (Giddens 2001:687).

In this essay, we will look at the significance of analyzing deviance through its functions in society, the impact of power on what constitutes deviance, where two theoretical approaches will be highlighted, namely the Conflict Theory and significantly the Labeling Theory, in the context of homosexuality. We will further examine the social and political implications deriving from the Labeling Theory in particular, such as the notion of stigma and its consequences.

It is paradoxical that deviance is simultaneously pathological and contributory to the make-up of society; deviant behaviour conventionally denotes the violation of social norms, on the other hand deviance is normal and universal, and actually helps maintain social order to a certain extend. To understand the importance of deviance in society, we must first determine the functions of deviance in a social context. Firstly, deviance elucidates shared values and norms. The establishment of a margin between acceptable behaviour and deviant behaviour helps sustain morality. With the absence of deviance, there would not be conformity in society.

Secondly, by addressing deviance through social control allow people to have a clear definition of what constitutes deviance, and seeks to foster and maintain the perimeters on the moral community. Also, responding to deviance reinforces social cohesion by making people more mindful of shared values and norms, hence bringing members in unity through the common indignation against the deviant. Lastly, deviance foster social change; norm-breaking behaviour challenges the status quo by pushing the limitations of the community, in doing so, proposing alternative ways of social conduct (Holmes, Hughes & Julian: 2003).

The study of deviance, hence, is directly linked to social power and the influence of social class – the divisions between the privileged and the poor. The shared system of beliefs, values and ideas are framed by those in power and control, which justifies the interests of the dominant groups (Giddens: 2001). This brings us to the examination of the theoretical approaches in the studies of homosexuality as a deviant act. The Conflict Theory suggests that deviance is intentionally chosen and often political by nature. Individuals principally choose to take on deviant behaviour in response to the inequality and discrimination of the capitalist structure (Newman: 2004). As a result, members of countercultural groups are then deemed as ‘deviant’, such as supporters of gay liberation movements who were involved in conspicuous political acts which challenged the social order (Giddens: 2001).

The other and one of the most significant approaches to understanding deviance is the labeling theory. Howard Becker is one of the notable sociologists who offers the most influential formulation of the labeling perspective. According to Becker (1963, citied in Roach-Anleu: 2003), deviance is not attributed by traits of an individual or groups, but rather an effect of the successful application by people in power to individuals who break the norms. Essentially, the act of labeling is imposed on by the dominant groups who are able to inflict ideas of conventional morality on others. Through the successful application of a label, a social discredit known as stigma is attached on rule-breakers, hence outcasting the deviants. (Holmes, Hughes & Julian 2003).

Since approximately 1960, the labeling theory has been one of the chief perspectives utilized in examining the behaviour of homosexualities, amongst many other forms of deviance (Harry & DeVall 1978). Homosexuality, which indicates sexual acts or sexual feelings directed at individuals of the same sex, is possibly the most stigmatized of the major types of sexual variance (Robertson 1980). Violators of imperative social norms, in this case heterosexuality, are constantly stigmatized; they are identified to be dissimilar from supposed normal people, but they are also discerned as being socially disgraced. The society, through the church, the medical community, and the law stigmatizes gays as sick, immoral, criminal, and shameful. In the community, they are publicly given condemnatory labels, such as ‘queers,’ ‘dykes,’ ‘fags,’ and ‘fairies.’ This societal reaction to homosexuals has numerous consequences for them (Eitzen & Baca-Zinn: 2000).

The tremendously negative reaction to homosexuals may inadvertently trap many of them into gay ghettos, and also cause extreme personal distress. In the instance of the latter, gays experiencing the disgust that heterosexuals have toward them, may accept society’s negative label and regard themselves as sinners, criminals, and sick; thereby, in need of help. On the other hand, some of them may reject the dominant rules and consider those who judge them so harshly and unfairly as the problem (Eitzen & Baca-Zinn: 2000). Subsequent to labeling, ‘normal’ persons may keep out homosexuals from respectable settings.

They may be fired, shunned, deprived of employment and career promotion, or isolated. This social-distancing and exclusionary process may in turn repel homosexuals and make them more aggressive in their deemed deviance behaviour. Not being able to find a sense of belonging in the heterosexual community, they may then gradually resort to the companionship of other homosexuals. In this new community, they discover that their sheer existence is accepted, they are at ease and non-discriminated (Harry & DeVall 1978). The homosexual community offers them a break away from the condemnatory pressures and provides the socialization of new entrants into the homosexual subculture (Humphreys:1972).

The police raid in Stonewall Inn of New York’s Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969 marked the start of the gay liberation. The two hundred homosexual patrons threw objects at the police and set fire to the bar. The riot lasted for only forty-five minutes, but it gave impetus to a number of collective efforts by gays to publicize police harassment of the gay community, job discrimination, and other indignities they faced. In effect, the Stonewall resistance came to symbolize the birth of the modern gay rights movement (Humphreys:1972). Following Stonewall, gay liberation groups emerged in many cities and on university campuses. Many neighborhoods in major cities became explicitly homosexual. These communities included gay churches, associations of professionals, health clinics, and networks of gay-owned businesses to supply the gay community’s needs. The proliferation of these organizations for homosexuals has provided a supportive climate, allowing many of them to come out of the closet (Eitzen & Baca-Zinn: 2000).

In this twenty-first century, values and norms are rapidly changing, especially in a Westernized society. Perceived norm-breaking behaviour like that of homosexuality has been prominently accepted in the few decades or so. There is indeed a blurred line between what is considered normal and what is deemed abnormal. The liberalized society now has become more ‘forgiving’ per se on things that are different from what was previously known. The perception towards homosexuals have indeed gradually changed, and while there are still who view homosexuals as deviant in nature, for the majority, homosexuality is no longer a deviant practice to admit to.

Reference List

Eitzen, S. & Baca-Zinn, M. (2000) Social Problems. Boston: Ally and Bacon.

Giddens, A. (2001) “Crime and Deviance” in Sociology. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Harry, J. and DeVall, W. (1978) “Theoretical Perspectives on Male Homosexuality” in The Social Organization of Gay Males. U.S.A: Praeger Publishers.

Holmes, D, Hughes, K and Julian, R. (2003) “Deviance or Difference?” in Austalian Sociology: A changing society. New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia.

Humphreys, L. (1972) “Out from Christopher Street” in Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Humphreys, L (1972) ” Intolerable Reality” in Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Newman, D. (2004) “Constructing Difference: Social Deviance” in Sociology: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Roach-Anleu, S. (2003) “Deviance and social control” in Sociology: Australian Connections. R, Jureidini and M, Poole (eds.). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Robertson, I. (1980) “Sexual Variance” in Social Problems. New York: Random House, Inc.