Writing Assignment 1: Deviant Act Due Wednesday, Nove 068406

Writing Assignment 1 Deviant Actdue Wednesday November 20, 2019 B

Students are required to write a reaction paper about a deviant act, which is behavior that violates social norms. Social norms include informal folkways and mores as well as formal rules and laws. Since the definition of deviance is socially constructed and varies across societies and time periods, the assignment provides an opportunity to explore the boundaries of daily life behaviors through observational experimentation. The task involves identifying regularities in social interactions within various settings, noting how individuals coordinate their actions, and then subtly violating these norms in a way that does not pose harm or breach ethical boundaries. The student should carefully document each step of the process, observe and record reactions from others, and vary parameters like time, location, and characteristics of the individual performing the deviant act to understand contextual differences.

The assignment requires a detailed account of the specific deviant act performed, an explanation of the social norms governing the setting, and a discussion of why the action qualifies as deviant based on relevant sociological theories discussed in class and readings. Additionally, the paper should include reflective analysis of the feelings and observations during the act (using third person language to maintain academic tone), a thorough description of others' reactions, and insights gained from conducting systematic versus informal observation. Ethical considerations must be maintained, ensuring that no harmful or unlawful actions are performed.

The paper must adhere to formal academic standards: double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-point font, 1-inch margins, and a minimum of 1,000 words. It should be submitted as a .docx or .rtf file by the due date to facilitate review. Early submission is encouraged if the work is complete, with late penalties applied otherwise. The assignment accounts for 15% of the final grade and should demonstrate comprehensive engagement with the sociological concepts of deviance and norm violation.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of deviant acts through systematic observation offers valuable insights into social norms and the reactions they invoke. This study will detail a carefully planned and ethically sound experiment conducted in a common social setting, such as a campus cafeteria or walkway, where subtle norm violations can occur without harm or breach of safety. The focus lies in identifying typical behaviors and routines, then intentionally deviating from them in minor, nondestructive ways to observe societal responses.

Context and Normative Framework

Social norms are unwritten rules that govern day-to-day interactions, guiding behaviors related to appearance, conduct, and communication. Folkways, as informal norms, encompass behaviors like personal space, dress codes, or manners, while mores involve more profound moral expectations. Formal rules, such as laws, enforce these norms to maintain social order. In institutional settings like campuses, norms dictate politeness, queueing, dress codes, and social interactions. Violating these norms hints at the dynamic and contextual nature of deviance, which is socially constructed and varies across environments and groups.

Description of the Deviant Act and Norm Violation

The experiment involved deliberately standing in a designated queue to order food but repeatedly stepping out of the line, redirecting attention or creating confusion. This action subtly contravened the tacit norm of queueing etiquette without causing chaos or harm. The act was performed during peak hours in a campus cafeteria, where social expectations about waiting and patience are prominent. The act was chosen for its simplicity, observability, and minimal ethical risk.

Rationale for Deviance and Theoretical Connections

This behavior qualifies as deviant because it breaches the norm of orderly queuing, which functions to ensure fairness and efficiency in social transactions. According to functionalist perspectives (Durkheim), norms serve to maintain social stability; violating them temporarily disrupts routines and draws attention. Symbolic interactionism explains that norms are socially constructed and maintained through shared meanings; an individual's deviant act alters these interactions briefly, revealing the social fabric's fragility and adaptability. Additionally, violation of such norms often triggers social sanctions, reaffirming societal expectations.

Reflections and Observations During the Experiment

Throughout the observation, a range of emotions and reactions was noted. Initially, there was a sense of hesitance or awareness of potential disruption, which gradually shifted to a neutral or amused detachment as the reactions unfolded. Witnesses showed varied responses; some quietly observed, others expressed mild irritation or confusion, and a few attempted to ignore the act altogether. The variability reflected personal dispositions, social roles, and situational context. Maintaining composure and neutrality was essential to avoid escalating the situation or eliciting confrontations. The exercise accentuated the sensitivity of social routines and how quickly they can be questioned or destabilized by minor deviations.

Reactions of Others and Social Dynamics

Reactions ranged from mild confusion to passive acceptance; some individuals glanced at the actor in surprise, while others nudged or whispered to nearby peers. A few individuals confronted the actor directly, requesting their adherence to expected norms. Interestingly, some bystanders appeared uncomfortable but did not intervene, highlighting the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. In some instances, institutional authorities or staff intervened, asking the individual to return to the queue. These reactions demonstrated that norm violations tend to evoke social sanctions, which serve to reinforce normative boundaries and social cohesion.

Learnings from Systematic Observation

Engaging in systematic, planned observation emphasized the importance of documenting behaviors, contexts, and reactions meticulously to understand the social significance of deviance. Compared to informal or impulsive actions, a structured approach provided clarity on how slight deviations can reveal underlying social mechanisms, including social control and conformity pressures. Systematic observation also highlighted the heterogeneity of reactions and the influence of situational factors, such as time and group composition, on social responses. This process underlined the importance of ethical considerations, ensuring that behaviors—though deviant—remain within safe and non-harmful boundaries, respecting the dignity of others and avoiding disruptions that could escalate into conflict or harm.

Conclusion

The experiment illustrates how deviant acts, even minor ones like queue jumping, serve as powerful tools to understand social norms, social control, and human behavior. By carefully observing reactions and behaviors, it becomes clear that norms, though often implicit, are fundamental to maintaining social order but are also flexible and context-dependent. Conducting a systematic observation offers deeper insights into societal functioning, highlighting the importance of shared expectations, social sanctions, and the social construction of deviance. This exercise affirms that social norms are dynamic and that deviations—when done responsibly—can illuminate the mechanisms by which societies uphold order and cohesion.

References

• Bentham, J. (2016). The principles of morality and legislation. Oxford University Press.
• Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labor in society. Macmillan.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
• Schur, L. (2001). Deviation and social control. Routledge.
• Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Turner, J. H. (2000). Sociology: Concepts and uses. McGraw-Hill.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
• Ritzer, G. (2010). Modern Sociological Theory. McGraw-Hill.
• Fine, G. A. (2012). Tiny public silence: An ethnography of queueing. Qualitative Sociology, 35(3), 319-339.