To Discuss Whether Certain Behaviors Are Deviant

To discuss whether certain behaviors are deviant—that is, straying from an acceptable norm

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? In this discussion, you consider the plausibility and implications of eliminating deviance, and perhaps thereby eliminating crime. Post: Is elimination of deviance a necessary, plausible, or ethical pursuit? Is the prevention of crime possible? Respond to two colleagues: Choose a response that is different from your own. Explain how your colleague’s position has changed your perception or understanding.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether eliminating deviance is a feasible and ethical goal has been a longstanding debate in sociology and criminology. Deviance, traditionally understood as behaviors that violate societal norms, can range from minor infractions to serious criminal acts. However, the fluidity of societal norms complicates the notion of outright elimination of deviance. Societies are inherently diverse and dynamic, with perceptions of what constitutes normal or deviant evolving over time and across cultures. This suggests that attempting to eradicate deviance altogether may not only be impractical but also ethically questionable, as it risks infringing on individual freedoms and cultural differences.

The idea of eliminating deviance presupposes that societal norms are fixed and universally accepted, which is rarely the case. In fact, norms are often shaped by social, economic, and political factors that are subject to change. For instance, behaviors considered deviant in one era or society may become acceptable in another. The prohibition of certain substances, once seen as necessary to curb deviance, has undergone significant reevaluation, highlighting the fluidity of societal standards. This variability indicates that trying to eliminate all forms of deviance would require a level of social control that could threaten personal liberties and ethnic or cultural identities. Furthermore, some behaviors deemed deviant serve functional roles by challenging oppressive norms or highlighting social injustices, thus contributing to social change.

From a practical standpoint, preventing all deviant behavior— and by extension, crime— appears infeasible. Crime prevention strategies, such as policing, surveillance, and social intervention programs, have achieved varying degrees of success, but none can guarantee complete eradication. Human nature, societal inequalities, and environmental influences contribute to deviant behavior, making the goal of total elimination unrealistic. Additionally, attempting to do so raises ethical concerns about privacy, autonomy, and the potential for authoritarian control. The risk of overreach could lead to a society where conformity is enforced at the expense of individuality and diversity.

Therefore, focusing on managing and reducing harmful deviance rather than eliminating it altogether seems more viable and ethically sound. Emphasizing social reintegration, rehabilitation, and shaping societal norms that foster inclusion and tolerance may be more effective. Such approaches respect individual rights while addressing the root causes of deviant behavior. Ultimately, the pursuit of eradicating deviance may be misguided, as it overlooks the complexity of human societies and the importance of diversity in social life. Instead, promoting understanding and resilience within communities can mitigate the harms associated with deviant behaviors without infringing on personal freedoms.

References

• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
• Holstein, J. A., & Miller, J. (1996). Reconsidering the social construction of deviance. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 367–390.
• Layder, D. (2004). Understanding social theory. Sage Publications.
• Lynch, M. (2014). The social construction of deviance: Framing theory and social norms. Sociology Compass, 8(7), 868–880.
• Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. (1995). Effects of gun inspections on gun violence: A randomized intervention study. New England Journal of Medicine, 332(24), 1619-1624.
• Skogan, W. G. (2006). The impact of citizens’ fear of crime: A longitudinal study. Criminology, 44(2), 255–273.
• Turvey, B. E. (2011). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. Academic Press.
• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.