Discuss Whether Certain Behaviors Are Deviant Or Strange

To Discuss Whether Certain Behaviors Are Deviantthat Is Straying Fro

To discuss whether certain behaviors are deviant—that is, straying from an acceptable norm—may imply that there is a clear arbiter of “normal.” But is human society that rigid? Or is society’s perception of “normal” fluid and more like a continuum? If deviant is a malleable term, then so too may be normal —so what would it mean to try to actually eliminate deviance? Consider the plausibility and implications of eliminating deviance, and perhaps thereby eliminating crime.

Edwards (2006) explored the relationship between law and the boundaries of acceptable deviance, emphasizing that the definition of deviant behavior is often constructed through legal and social norms, which are neither static nor universally agreed upon. This relativity is further examined by Curra (2016), who argues that deviance is inherently relative, contingent upon cultural, social, and historical contexts. The notion that deviance is fluid suggests that defining and addressing it require a nuanced understanding of societal norms and their variability.

The question of whether it is possible or desirable to eliminate deviance altogether is complex. Some theorists, influenced by the ideas of Émile Durkheim, posit that deviance serves a functional role in society by affirming norms and promoting social change. Durkheim viewed deviance not solely as a problem but as an integral aspect of social cohesion and evolution. From this perspective, attempting to eradicate deviance could undermine social stability and the natural processes that facilitate societal progress.

Furthermore, eliminating deviance could imply a move toward a highly regulated, possibly totalitarian state where societal conformity is enforced at all costs. Such an approach would raise significant ethical and practical concerns, including the suppression of individual freedoms and the difficulty of defining and enforcing what constitutes "acceptable" behavior across diverse populations.

From a criminological standpoint, the attempt to eliminate deviance would involve enormous challenges, as human behavior is influenced by complex biological, psychological, social, and economic factors. Even if a society could identify and deter all forms of deviant behavior through advanced technology or social engineering, new forms of deviance might emerge as responses to such controls. This phenomenon underlines the cyclical and adaptive nature of deviance and crime, suggesting that complete eradication may be unattainable and perhaps undesirable.

Moreover, criminal behaviors often serve as a manifestation of underlying social issues, such as inequality, marginalization, and lack of access to resources. Addressing deviance, therefore, involves not only legal sanctions but also social reforms aimed at reducing systemic causes of dissatisfaction and deviance. In this sense, the focus shifts from elimination to mitigation and management, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes the inevitability of some forms of deviance within a healthy society.

Technological advancements, such as predictive policing and surveillance, have been proposed as means to control deviant behavior more effectively. However, these methods also pose significant risks related to privacy, civil liberties, and social justice. The potential for overreach and misuse underscores the importance of establishing ethical boundaries in efforts to manage deviance.

Ultimately, the concept of eliminating deviance raises fundamental questions about human nature, societal values, and the role of law. While the desire to create a perfectly orderly society is understandable, it must be tempered by an awareness of the costs and implications of such an endeavor. Recognizing the fluid and relative nature of deviance encourages a more pragmatic and humane approach—one that seeks to understand and address the root causes of deviant behavior, rather than attempting to eradicate it entirely.

References

• Curra, J. O. (2016). The relativity of deviance (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Edwards, M. A. (2006). Law and the parameters of acceptable deviance. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(1), 49–100.
• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviations. New York: Free Press.
• Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the study of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Durkheim, É. (1895). The rules of sociological method. New York: Free Press.
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
• Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and social justice. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37(1), 37–50.
• Sulzer, M. (2020). The social construction of crime and deviance. Criminal Justice Review, 45(2), 105–123.
• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.