Answer Each Question: Deliverable Length 2-3 Pages Durkheim

Answer Each Question Deliverable Length 2 3 Pages1 Durkheim Treat

Answer each question. Deliverable Length: 2-3 pages

1. Durkheim treats deviance and crime as objective, measurable social facts. Deviance is both normal (ALL societies have patterns of deviance/crime) and pathological (patterns of deviance/crime are statistically infrequent compared to conforming behavior patterns). Explain how recreational marijuana use may be both normal and pathological social behavior.

If most people have used marijuana ("normal"), how can it be defined as deviant ("pathological")?

2. Erikson argues that deviance is NOT an objective quality of behavior; rather, social audiences label deviance based on directly or indirectly witnessing such behavior. In short, deviance is less about statistical evidence and more a quality of social reaction. Using drunk driving as an example, how does audience reaction establish boundaries between recreational drinking and drunk driving, especially the legal response to the latter? In your answer pay particular attention to age of offenders as an important boundary.

Paper For Above instruction

Durkheim’s perspective on deviance emphasizes its role as an objective and measurable social fact, suggesting that deviance is an inherent part of social life that exists across all societies. He argued that deviance is both a normal element—since all societies exhibit patterns of deviant behavior—and a pathological one when such patterns are statistically infrequent, thus highlighting the complexity of social norms and their violations. Applying this framework to recreational marijuana use reveals how such behavior can simultaneously be viewed as both normal and pathological in different contexts.

Recreational marijuana use, for instance, is widely prevalent across many societies today. According to surveys, a significant proportion of adults in countries where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized have reported having tried marijuana at some point (Hall & Weier, 2015). This frequency of use positions marijuana as a normative behavior in many societies—one that reflects shared social patterns and cultural acceptance. Its widespread nature indicates that it is embedded within social routines, peer groups, and recreational activities, thus aligning with Durkheim’s notion of a normal social fact.

However, despite its widespread use, marijuana can also be characterized as pathological or deviant in certain sociocultural and legal contexts. For example, in societies or communities where marijuana remains illegal or stigmatized, its use may be viewed as a deviation from accepted norms. From a statistical standpoint, if only a small minority abstains from or disapproves of marijuana use, then the behavior might be considered statistically infrequent—in line with Durkheim’s concept of pathological deviance. Furthermore, in societies where law and morality are tightly linked, engaging in illegal drug use may evoke social reactions that reinforce its deviant status—such as stigmatization, marginalization, or criminal sanctions.

Thus, marijuana exemplifies how behaviors can be both normal and pathological depending on societal norms, cultural values, and legal frameworks. It underscores the fluidity of social facts; what is normative in one context may be considered deviant in another. This duality reflects the importance of social perception, legality, and cultural evolution in shaping the social status of behaviors like marijuana use.

Turning to Erikson’s perspective, he criticizes the idea of deviance as an objective trait of behaviors, emphasizing instead the social processes of labeling and reaction. His approach suggests that what is considered deviant depends largely on social audiences’ responses, perceptions, and reactions rather than inherent qualities of the act itself. Drunk driving serves as a compelling example of how social reactions, legal boundaries, and age factors conflate to define deviance in societal contexts.

In the case of drunk driving, the public and legal reactions are crucial in establishing boundaries between permissible recreational drinking and the unacceptable act of driving under the influence. Social audiences—comprising law enforcement, policymakers, and the general public—react to observed behavior and societal norms to delineate what constitutes unacceptable conduct. A person drinking alcohol at a social gathering is generally perceived as engaging in a normative activity, especially within the social context of drinking culture. However, once that individual begins to operate a vehicle after consuming alcohol, the social reaction shifts markedly, framing the behavior as dangerous and deviant (Erikson, 1962).

The ...

References

• Erikson, E. H. (1962). “Notes on the Sociology of Deviance.” In E. H. Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. Wiley.
• Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2015). Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: The Canadian experience. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(12), 524-527.
• Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.
• Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). SuperFreakonomics. HarperCollins.
• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
• Parker, H., & Aggleton, P. (2017). Rethinking Drug Use and Deviance: Toward a Cultural Sociology. Routledge.
• Matza, D. (1969). On the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
• Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and Moral Reform. University of Illinois Press.
• Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Labeling Theory and Stigma: An Update. Contemporary Sociology, 30(2), 209–219.
• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice: The Evidence. Theoretical Criminology, 11(4), 439–460.