This essay goes on to explore the different perspectives on whether deviance is a beneficial part of a healthy society. The key Authors used in this study is “Haralambos and Holborn”.
Discussion
In any society, an act that is considered deviant today may be defined as normal in the future. Possible examples are one parent families and polygamy. Deviance varies from time to time, place-to-place, and person-to-person, as it is culturally determined.
Functionalists argue that a certain amount of deviance had positive functions as it contributes to the maintenance and well being of society. Durkhiem(1960 ) argues that it a society there will always be differences between people. People will identify differences between themselves and others no matter how small and these differences will constitute a form of deviance. Humans do not just identify differences they also evaluate them good/bad, normal/abnormal and natural/unnatural.
Cohen (1966) argued that Deviance could be seen as a ‘safety valve’ allowing a relatively harmless expression of discontent. However in this way social order is protected. For example Cohen suggests that prostitution can release the stress and pressure of family life without undermining family stability as most relationships between prostitution and their client avoid emotional attachments. This way prostitution performs a safety valve function. Cohen also suggests that certain deviant acts are a useful warning device to alert that an aspect of society is malfunctioning. Durkheim suggested that society itself generates deviance for its own well-being. Cohen added that certain forms of deviance are a natural and normal response to particular crime.
Durkheim believed there are four functions of crime. The law makes the extremities of acceptable behaviour to set and make it clear to the rest of the public what is acceptable behaviour. The boundaries are set through the media via broadcasts etc. Another function performed by criminals is to prove a constant test of boundaries of permissible action by also helping the law to reflect the wishes and population and legitimising social change. Durkhiem finally said that crime committed is good because it reunites people and consists a healthy society.
Merton has developed the negative aspects of deviance. Merton took up durkhiems view of “Anomie” but provided some more explanations as to why people deviate (Anomie). The types of deviances that might take place when a person is in a state of conformity, Innovation, Ritualism, retreatism or rebellion. Crime is an outcome or stress between what people wish to achieve and what is possible, the theory is known as the strain theory. The burning desire to achieve the socially stressed goals actively promotes deviant behaviour. However Merton is criticised, as he does not give explanation as to why a particular person chooses one form of deviance in preference to another.
Criticisms
There are a few problems connected with Durkhiems view. The first is that he did not offer any real explanation as to why certain people are more likely to commit deviant acts than others. Marxist perspectives argue that another problem lies in Durkhiems stress of the harmony of society and the belief that law reflects the interests and views of the majority of the population. He ignores the concept of power. Marxist believes that it is the ruling class who have greater ability than the bulk of the population to influence the law making process.
Conclusion
In conclusion there are many aspects as to why deviance is a beneficial part of all healthy societies. I believe that if a society had people who are all good then when a person does an act, which violates and goes against a social norm, then this will be seen as a crime. Therefore deviance to some extent is a good aspect for every society.
References
Holborn, H. 2000 (5th edit) “ Themes and Perspectives”
London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Moore, Chapman, Aiken, S, S, D. 2001 “ Sociology for A-LEVEL “
London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Posteraro, L. 2003 “The functionalist tradition: values, strain and control”.
Handout. 2003 p 24,26,27,28
