Is Deviance Just A Label Imposed By Others Or Is It An Objec

Is Deviance Just A Label Imposed By Others Or Is It An Objective Real

Is deviance just a label imposed by others, or is it an objective reality based on societal norms? How should it be studied? Contemporary society is filled with examples of behavior once considered deviant or criminal that have become both socially acceptable and sometimes decriminalized. Discussion, you reflect on the changes to the idea of what is considered deviant. Identify something that has or had been considered deviant or criminal in the past 50 years but is now considered socially acceptable or decriminalized.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether deviance is merely a social label or an objective reality involves examining how societal norms shape our understanding of what is considered deviant behavior. Historically, many behaviors deemed deviant or criminal have shifted in social perception, reflecting changes in cultural values, legal frameworks, and collective consciousness. This essay will explore the evolving nature of deviance, focusing on a specific example: the decriminalization and increasing social acceptance of marijuana use over the past five decades.

Deviance, according to sociological perspectives such as those discussed by Inderbitzin, Bates, and Gainey (2017), is not solely based on inherent qualities of a behavior but is largely a product of societal reactions and normative judgments. The labeling theory posits that deviance is a consequence of society's stigmatization of certain acts or individuals, suggesting that deviance might be more of a social construct than an objective trait. Conversely, other perspectives argue that some behaviors are inherently problematic due to their consequences or inherent characteristics, thus asserting a degree of objectivity in defining deviance.

Over the past 50 years, there has been a significant shift in the perception and legal status of marijuana. Historically, marijuana was perceived as a dangerous drug associated with crime, moral decay, and social danger. During the early to mid-20th century, racially biased propaganda and moral panic contributed to harsh laws and severe penalties. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, alongside others, criminalized its use, marking it firmly as a deviant act deserving of social condemnation and criminal punishment.

However, starting in the late 20th century, social attitudes began to change progressively. Medical research demonstrated the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana, challenging the narrative of inherent danger. Public opinion polls indicated increasing support for legalization or decriminalization, particularly among younger populations. States such as California and Colorado led the way by passing laws that reduced penalties for possession or outright legalized the substance for recreational use. As of recent years, multiple states in the United States have decriminalized or fully legalized marijuana, and it has become a part of mainstream economic activities through the marijuana industry.

This substantial change in legal and social perception can be attributed to several factors. First, scientific research dispelled many myths about marijuana's inherent dangers, shifting the narrative from fear to acknowledgment of potential medical use. Second, advocacy and social movements played vital roles, pushing for legal reform and highlighting issues of racial injustice associated with harsh drug laws. Third, economic considerations, including taxation and job creation, motivated policymakers to adopt more lenient approaches. Lastly, broader cultural shifts towards individual autonomy and changing moral perspectives contributed to viewing marijuana use as a personal choice rather than a moral failing or criminal act.

The transformation of marijuana's societal status exemplifies how deviance can be socially constructed, affected by public opinion, scientific understanding, and political interests. It indicates that deviance is not solely an objective characteristic of behavior but is significantly influenced by cultural and historical contexts. The decriminalization of marijuana illustrates the fluidity of social norms and the capacity for major shifts in defining what society considers acceptable or deviant.

Furthermore, this change demonstrates the importance of studying deviance through a sociological lens that considers social constructionism. It underscores how laws and societal attitudes evolve in response to new information, activism, and shifting moral values. The case of marijuana exemplifies that deviance is often a dynamic concept, subject to change driven by various social forces rather than fixed inherent traits.

In conclusion, while some behaviors may have inherent harmful qualities, the classification of deviance is largely influenced by societal reactions and normative standards. The example of marijuana’s decriminalization and increased social acceptance over the past 50 years highlights the fluidity of deviance and the importance of understanding its social construction. Studying deviance requires a nuanced approach that considers historical context, societal attitudes, and power dynamics to fully grasp how certain behaviors transition from deviant to acceptable.

References

• Inderbitzin, M., Bates, K. A., & Gainey, R. R. (2017). Deviance and social control: A sociological perspective (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Adler, S. (1983). Deviance: Penal codes and social conformance. American Sociological Review, 48(3), 391-403.
• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
• Watson, A. C., & Mears, D. P. (2018). Marijuana legalization and crime: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 495-515.
• Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. (2016). What price data tell us about marijuana markets. Addiction, 111(10), 1764-1770.
• Miech, R., et al. (2019). Trends in adolescent marijuana use from 1980 to 2018: Societal impacts and implications. Journal of Pediatrics, 213, 148-154.
• Procon.org. (2023). Cannabis legalization state-by-state. https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005284
• Pacula, R. L., & Smart, R. (2017). Medical marijuana and marijuana legalization. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 397-419.
• Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2015). Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use in the United States. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 97(6), 607-615.
• Caulkins, J. P., et al. (2015). How big is the legal market for marijuana in the United States? SSRN Electronic Journal.