Others take the biological viewpoint that suggests there are defects in the human anatomy. The idea that deviance is inherited has been argued that it is true, however recent research has shown inheritance of some deviant behaviour, such as alcoholism, has no relationship to the biological opinion (E. M. Jellinek 1945). Experts nevertheless suggest crime and delinquency to stem from nutrition deficiency (Hippchen, 1977) and abnormal chromosomes (West, 1969).
Such physical defects and characteristics of a person can also make an impact on whether or not they become deviant. Some defects, such as having crossed eyes, may not directly be associated with anti-social behaviour however; it may have a large impact indirectly. This may contribute to the individuals’s perception on themselves, and how they assume others think of them, which indirectly creates a link to seek deviant behavioural groups. (Richard Dewey and W.J. Humber 1951).
In Society, to identify deviant behaviour Edwin Lemert, Howard Becker, and Kai Erikson developed a theory called “The Labelling Theory”. This theory questions the idea of how someone is identified as being “deviant”, and to explain deviant behaviour. Some beliefs show that to become “deviant” you go through a change in identity, normal to deviant. These have to be compared with the social norms of society, which have been set through decades of years that we now just take for granted, for example no stealing.
However, with “The Labelling Theory” existing, this causes problems, which argues for and against the statement that deviance is a necessity in Society. If someone is “labelled” a deviant, in some ways this could be thought that, if they were “deviant” and an “outcast” of society, why shouldn’t they live up to their label and continue to act in a deviant manner. This point argues that deviance is not a social necessity, as if everyone deviates in some negative way, the world, as we know it would be destroyed by deviant behaviour (Cohen). However, if this phenomenon occurred and everyone became “deviant characters” the social norm would be to deviant, so “deviance” would be acting against the new social norms, therefore evolving the views of society. This is a positive proposal when thinking about the necessity of deviance in society. “Labelling” deviance can be thought of in purely positive ways. In a modern society, it has become encouraged to go against the norm as long as it is in a worthy manner. Therefore in regard to this, if someone “deviates” in a positive way that gains the approval of society, then this can be rewarded and also remembered. Therefore in this case deviance is a necessity to society, as it is for the good (Marshall B. Clinard).
Arguments that go against deviance in society being positive, is the idea that the socially, deviants disrupt the natural way of life. By means of people deviating, this causes harmful affects on not just our own individual societies but also the World as a whole. If people didn’t deviate we wouldn’t have such horrors as terrorism, or racism, which leads to social exclusion, which in turn directs us to deviant behaviour and deviant ways of thinking.
Humans live in a world that constantly relies on other human beings, for personality development and for survival, which means we’re constantly living in social groups. However, social groups cannot exist without the means of social relationships, which develop between people, which in turn leads to social interaction. As stated by John Donne “No man is an island, entire of itself”, shows this necessity of needing other people to live. The process of socialisation builds up our humanity and social identity through past experiences. In regard to deviance, it is known that all behaviour is down to socialisation, therefore can it be said that deviance is a product of failure to the socialisation process? William H. Sewell suggested that socialisation involved social roles that is described to be
“the process by which the individual acquired the skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives necessary for performance of social roles”
A famous theorist, Erving Goffman suggested that Dramaturgical Analysis was a way in which describing social interaction in terms of a theatrical performance. This theory has a large input on the Social Roles Theory that can be used to help explain why deviance may be a failed form of socialisation. A person’s social status, for example a mother, may also have an impact on their social role and certain status positions influence our role behaviour. (Albert. K. Cohen). The behaviour of a deviant may show in his or her deviant “roles” or even by the “script” in which is derived from past experiences or cultural situations. These kinds of deviant behaviours can be distinguished as either primary or secondary deviance (Lemert). A well-incorporated set of roles influences primary deviance, for example getting drunk regularly, as it is rationalized when considered socially accepted, although this is deviance. Secondary involves others taking the part of the product that gives conflicting roles. An important issue when looking at deviance and society is that everyone plays “roles” in life therefore can it be said that deviance is an act of being “ the spotlight of attention”? Therefore I believe that by failing to take part in the socialisation process can be the result of deviant behaviour and can be harmful to society, as you are then able to pick up any social role that is available.
Nevertheless it can be argued that even with failed socialisation, it gives us a chance to learn and investigate such problems that society may have. In such cases as Genie, who at thirteen years old was victimised by social isolation. Genie was deprived from socialisation and critically scarred for life, which gave evidence that we need people to survive physically and mentally. Although Genie will never be able to live in our society with our developed norms, such cases like these teach us about socialisation and the great importance that it holds. (Curtiss, 1977;Pines, 1981;Rymer 1994) Consequently, it can be said that some forms of deviance are necessary for society, as we need to learn more about our world and the way we live in it.
A question that is asked is “How do you know what is normal if you don’t have abnormal?”(Marshal. B. Clinard). This is a valid point when discussing whether or not deviance is a social necessity. For some thinkers, it was believed that deviance stemmed from people who were evil, possessed, bewitched or earmarked by God. Erikson suggested it was according to the bible, where people who were good went to heaven and people who “feared the worst would drift sullenly into the lower echelons of society, highly susceptible to deviant forms of behaviour.” (Erikson) This is an important issue and clearly defends the statement that deviance is not a social necessity, as it is purely to distinguish what the opposite of bad is.
Similarly to Erikson’s ideas, Plato suggested that you need opposites to survive, for instance you can’t have life without death. Likewise, Emile Durkheim, 1964a,orig, a functionalist theorist, suggested that abnormality and deviance is a necessity to society by presenting the four vital functions that are essential to Society. The first, “Deviance affirms cultural values and norms.”(Macionis and Plummer) Which just repeats what some previous theorists believed, that without evil there would be no good. An example of this is, without crime there can be no justice.(Macionis and Plummer) Durkheim believed that deviance was a way of creating and sustaining morality.
The second function to society that Durkheim suggested was essential to society was that by having deviance, it showed the moral boundaries to the correct way and the wrong way of living. (Macionis and Plummer). An example of this is, people are punished and sent to jail if they murder or rape, this shows the moral boundaries from right and wrong.
Next Durkheim suggested that Deviance brings people together in society. This was shown when the two planes crashed into the twin towers on September 11th, all the American citizens came together and “reaffirmed their moral ties”(Macionis and Plummer)
Finally Durkheim believed that deviance is a big part of social change, as explained earlier. “Today’s deviance sometimes is tomorrow’s morality” (Durkheim 1964) An example of this I feel is homosexuality as many people from as early as the 1930’s disregarded homosexuality and called it a “mental illness” nevertheless in today’s Society it has become more or less Socially accepted.
In conclusion, it is evident that there are more arguments to suggest that deviance is a social necessity rather than deviance having taking no part in society at all. With the influence of Durkheim it is difficult, I feel, to argue against his work. Although at times we feel that deviance is harmful to our Society, as it is generally thought of in a negative manner, I think it is underestimated and without it our world and society that we live in would be a shambles.
References
Jack D. Douglas, 1970 Deviance and Respectability, The Social Construction of Moral Meanings. New York / London: Basic Books, Inc.
Macionis and Plummer, 2002 Sociology a Global Introduction
Italy: Pearson Education Limited
Marshall B. Clinard, 1963 Sociology of Deviant Behaviour
USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Paul Rock and Mary McIntosh, 1974 Deviance and Social Control
USA: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc
Steven Box, 1981 Deviance Reality & Society
Great Britain: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd
Bibliography
Donal E.J Macnamara and Andrew Karmen, 1983 Deviants Victims or victimizers?
Beverly Hills / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications
Henry N. Pontell, 1993 Social Deviance Readings in Theory and Research
USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc
Jack D. Douglas, 1984 The Sociology of Deviance
USA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc
