Writing Assignment 1 Deviant Act Due Wednesday, November 20

Writing Assignment 1 Deviant Actdue Wednesday November 20, 2019 B

Write a reaction paper regarding a deviant act. Deviance refers to behavior that violates social norms. Social norms can be informal folkways and mores or formal rules and laws. What constitutes deviant behavior is socially determined and varies across cultures and time periods.

You will perform a deviant act that breaks usual norms and rules in a social setting such as campus, home, street, or cafeteria. Observe patterns of behavior, take notes, and identify subtle norm violations. Carefully record your steps and reactions of others, varying context or characteristics if necessary.

Ensure your experiment is ethical — do not commit illegal or harmful acts. The assignment requires a detailed account of your actions, description of the norms in the setting, an explanation of why your act is deviant (relating to relevant theories), your observations and feelings (without using first person pronouns), reactions of others, and what you learned through systematic observation.

The paper should be double-spaced, using Times New Roman size 12 font, with 1-inch margins, and be at least 1,000 words. Submit as a .docx or .rtf file by the deadline. The assignment counts for 15% of the final grade.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of deviant acts through systematic observation offers valuable insights into social norms and the reactions they provoke. This paper documents an experiment conducted in a university campus setting, where a subtle norm violation was purposefully carried out to observe societal responses and personal perceptions of deviance within a familiar social environment.

Behavioral Observation: The Deviant Act

In a typical lunchtime setting at the university cafeteria, the experimenter deliberately violated a common social norm regarding personal space and seating arrangements. The experiment involved sitting unusually close to individuals already seated, without attempting to initiate conversation or acknowledge the breach of personal space. Specifically, the experimenter sat very close to a stranger who was eating alone, thereby infringing upon what is culturally considered a respectful distance. This act of boundary crossing was performed consistently over a period of thirty minutes, targeting different individuals at various tables, with varying times of day to diversify the sample of reactions.

The experiment was conducted discreetly, ensuring that no disruptive or illegal actions occurred, and that all interactions remained superficial, focusing solely on spatial violation. The actions were designed to be subtle, intended to generate mild discomfort or surprise rather than overt aggression or hostility.

Norms and Behaviors in the Setting

The university cafeteria is a space governed by social norms of politeness, personal space, and shared expectations about seating. Folkways such as maintaining a respectful distance when eating or engaging with others are generally observed, alongside mores that uphold politeness and respect. The norm dictates that individuals should respect the personal space of others and avoid intrusive behaviors, especially in a communal eating environment. These norms facilitate orderly social interaction, foster comfort, and maintain a routine social order within the cafeteria setting.

Deviance Explained: Theoretical Perspective

The intentional violation of personal space constitutes a form of deviance because it contravenes the informal norms of polite conduct in the cafeteria. According to functionalist theories, norms serve to promote social stability; hence, violations threaten this stability and evoke social sanctions. Symbolic Interactionism emphasizes the importance of shared meanings and expectations in social interactions; the norm of personal space is embedded in the collective understanding of respectful conduct. When this norm is violated, individuals interpret the behavior as signaling disrespect, discomfort, or social awkwardness.

Labeling theory further suggests that acts are deemed deviant based on societal reactions. The experiment's mild norm breach was likely to be perceived as deviant because it deviated from shared expectations, prompting reactions that reinforce social boundaries. In addition, Goffman's concept of social face-work aids in understanding reactions, as individuals may attempt to restore their sense of comfort or face after experiencing a norm violation.

Observations and Personal Reactions

The observation revealed a spectrum of reactions among those targeted. Many individuals displayed subtle signs of discomfort, such as shifting positions, avoiding eye contact, or adjusting their personal space. Some appeared visibly surprised, emphasizing their unspoken expectation of personal boundaries. A few individuals looked directly at the experimenter with mild suspicion or confusion, while others simply ignored the breach, returning their focus to their meal. No overt confrontations occurred; reactions remained largely nonverbal, consistent with social norms discouraging direct conflict in such settings.

From an observational standpoint, the reactions highlighted the importance of spatial boundaries in social interactions. The calm but perceptible discomfort suggested that personal space violations are quickly recognized and often quietly addressed through subtle cues, reinforcing the norm without explicit confrontation.

This systematic approach illuminated the social processes underlying norm enforcement. The reactions—ranging from discomfort to ignoring the breach—demonstrate how social norms shape behavior and how deviations are socially managed through nonverbal cues and subtle responses rather than open conflict.

Reflections and Lessons Learned

Conducting this systematic observation of a deviant act underscored the importance of context and the collective understanding of norms. Unlike informal or accidental breaches, deliberate norm violations allow for controlled study of specific behaviors and societal responses. The process emphasized that norms serve as guidelines embedded in shared expectations, and violating them often triggers instinctive reactions aimed at restoring social equilibrium.

Furthermore, the experiment reinforced the concept that deviance is highly contextual and subjective. While standing too close might be acceptable in some cultures or situations, within the university cafeteria space, it was perceived as intrusive. The observations demonstrated how societal reactions serve to reinforce normative boundaries, often through nonverbal communication, and how individuals partake in the social regulation of behavior.

In addition, conducting this activity without direct confrontation exemplifies how social sanctions are often enacted subtly, maintaining social harmony while discouraging norm violations. The experiment highlighted the importance of observing nonverbal cues and contextual cues in understanding social norms and deviance.

Overall, systematic observation provides a richer, more nuanced understanding of deviant behavior than informal or casual encounters. It allows researchers to capture the complexity of social reactions and the underlying norms governing everyday interactions.

Conclusion

Through the deliberate, controlled breach of personal space norms, the experiment demonstrated how everyday social rules maintain stability, and how their violation prompts predictable reactions rooted in social norms. Such empirical observation enhances understanding of deviance as a socially constructed phenomenon, reinforcing the importance of norms in fostering order and predictability in social interactions. Systematic observation proves to be an invaluable method in social research, providing detailed, reliable insights into human behavior and societal expectations.

References

• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books.
• Henslin, J. M. (2017). Society: The Basics (13th ed.). Pearson.
• Nash, D. B., Joshi, M., Ransom, E. R., & Ransom, S. B. (2019). Creating Alignment: Quality Measures and Leadership. In The Healthcare Quality Book: Vision, Strategy, and Tools (4th ed., p. 310). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
• Jahoda, M. (1958). The Development of Norms: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 48(2), 329–342.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
• Bekker, M. M., & Tillema, H. H. (2018). The social construction of deviance: Analyzing the norms within social groups. Sociology of Deviance, 2(1), 15–29.
• Fine, G. A., & Friedland, R. (2017). The social construction of deviance: How social groups define, interpret, and respond to deviance. Sage Publications.
• Hollander, B. (1958). Norms, Deviance, and Social Control. Oxford University Press.