Deviance: Who, What, When, Where, Why

 If there is one thing to be learned from this course, it is that there is an immense gray area in defining deviance.  As mentioned in my very first blog post, “deviance can be described as breaking a rule of society; doing something or acting in a way that can be considered out of ‘the norm.’ It can also provoke disapproval (Thio, Calhoun and Conyers).”   But deviance is much greater than that, or is it much smaller than that? One can interpret it either way. Deviance can be described as much greater than breaking a rule of society because there is a much variance based on who is committing the act, what they are doing, when they are doing it, where the act is being done, and the reasons why it is being done.  Here is an example of what I mean: If a teenager was drilling a whole in the pavement with a jackhammer, he would have police called on him but if an adult with a hard hat was doing it, people would assume he is a construction worker.  Going along with that same idea; if an adult with a hardhat was drilling a hole with a jackhammer in your neighborhood at 2:00am, people would think he is a lunatic but if an adult with a hard hat was drilling with a jackhammer on the state highway at 2:00am, people would drive by with caution knowing that this man is doing his job. Similarly, if a random teenage boy was drilling with a jackhammer in your neighborhood, he would get the police called on him but if a teenager was drilling on the pavement in front of his house with his father’s guidance, neighbors would talk about the importance of father and son bonding over a hard day’s work. So you see, this one act of using a jackhammer can be considered deviant based on who, what, when, where and why it is being done.

            

As I mentioned, deviance can be described as much smaller than that too because of the underlying social reasons for deviance. It is essentially a made up concept used to differentiate the “normal” from the “abnormal.” So essentially, deviance is only a big deal because society makes it a big deal. Here is an example: In this society, having a learning disability is considered deviant. It’s a big deal to be considered academically challenged and there is big social institution focused around identifying these deviants and classifying them on a different scale. Well what if that social construction did not exist? What if every student was accepted for who they from the time they enter school to the time they exit? What if students were not accepted to be at a certain level at a certain age and were instead allowed to learn at their own pace without being labeled or judged if they did not attain a desired score on a standardized test? If this were the case, “deviance” wouldn’t be that big of a deal because “saving” a student from getting labeled deviant wouldn’t be a priority and the idea of being different wouldn’t even occur to people. The whole concept of identifying a student with a disability to make sure that he is not considered deviant alienates the student and makes him get labeled as deviant anyway. 

          

  Unfortunately for us, we do not live in a society which accepts you for the content of your character but instead judges you on every aspect possible. We are exposed to a culture that systematically judges, alienates, and discriminates based on height, weight, sex, gender, cultural background, social class, education level, level of physical ability and anything else that can differentiate the “majority” from the “minority” and establish a group of “desired” and “undesired” individuals.  

This video demonstrates the sad reality of people’s perception about a man’s height. People have absolutely no control of how tall or how short they are but are forced to live with a label their whole life if they do not meet a certain height criteria. This label fallows you when you are trying to get a date, get a job or be taken seriously in your social circle. Looking beyond a person’s height, society seems to have a definition of a “real man” and a “real woman. 

As you can see, men in society have a very clear and distinct idea of what it means to be a man and they go to great lengths to be tough guys. It is these ideals that drive individuals in society to label others deviant if they do not fit the mold of what is defined.

This video displays the advertising schemes used to sell the mainstream image of “normal” as it pertains to what women should look like. The women portrayed in the media, in movies and advertisements, in commercials and billboards all across America are fictitious creations of Photoshop and airbrushing. The video explains how these ideals of beauty can never be achieved yet people are spending millions of dollars on products so that they can look like what they see on television.

The above cases are a small fraction of what deviance is, who and how someone may be considered deviant and some underlying roots as to why the system works the way it does. This is just the tip of the iceberg however considering there is a whole other side to deviance; a criminal side. People in a society that commit a crime as defined by that society are considered deviant and there are many theories that try to explain the concept of crime as a form of deviance.  Conflict theory says that people are continuously competing for resources; Feminist theory says that men and women commit different kinds of crime at different rates due to the social construction of each of their respective roles in society; labeling theory explains that deviance is a label given to a person or group that is the minority in displaying cultural norms (Thio, Calhoun and Conyers)

With all these theories, one can only wonder who is considered deviant, at what times, under what circumstances and why? Unfortunately, there is not a handbook that one can study so that they may know who is deviant and why but what is more unfortunate than that is that no one needs one because everyone already knows. Everyone reading this knows exactly what is deviant as soon as they see it. Why is that? Why do we alienate people as a society instead of being able to accept each other for our differences? It is sad to think that there are millions of people in the U.S. that are going through some type of emotional or psychological distress because they don’t feel accepted by society. It is sad to think that some of those people may resort to hurting themselves or others as a result of lashing out to the society that rejects them.

I challenge anyone who reads this to think about all the times you have labeled someone deviant weather it was vocalized or just mental. I challenge readers to think about every time you used the word fag or gay or queer and meant it in a negative way; to think about all of the times you judged someone, made fun of someone or rejected someone because they had a certain style or a certain hair cut or talked different or looked different. Some sociologists argue that we are all a product of our environments; well does that mean that we have to conform to the norms of our environments if they are wrong; if they instill hate and discomfort in our hearts when we see something that is abnormal to us? I Challenge everyone to look around at the culture and its teachings we are submerged in and exposed to and I challenge you to challenge everything that is wrong with it because that is the only way to make a positive change. 


Reffernces


Book: Readings in Deviant Behavior 


Videos taken from Class Blog:
Height and the perception of Success
Tough Guise
Killing them Softly 4: Advertising's image of women 


Word Count: 1,363

Film Review: Live Nude Girls

The main thesis of this film is that sex work is a form of work just like any other. It raises families, puts food on the table and gets individuals through school. Also, because it is a form of work, the workers should be treated fairly just like in every other field.

The support for this thesis was given thorough the lens of performers at the Lusty Lady Gentleman’s Club in San Francisco. The establishment had racial issues, labor disputes, and personal privacy issues. They were continuously discriminated against due to race, breast size, hair color etc. They had to deal with violent costumers and subpar work conditions. The message the film was trying to convey is that these conditions would not be tolerated in any other field but since this was “sex work” it was expected to be accepted.

It is interesting to me that every time I reflect on something I’ve learned and related it to how it fits in with the class I realize something new about the course. With this film I realized that not only are sex workers humans but so are every other group of deviant people that we have talked about in this class. Society often puts a label on a group of people because they are different and it de-humanizes them to an extent so it makes it ok to talk down about them. Sex workers are human beings above all else and by labeling them and treating them as sub-humans we, as a society, continue the cycle of discrimination, racism and sexism.

The most convincing argument for me was the interview with one of the performers when she said that they are not doing this for fun, this is a means of making money and they should be treated fairly.

The least convincing argument is that these ladies start off on the wrong foot to begin with. They go into a field that is based on discriminating to ensure business profit. I think that when you go into a field that only accepts one sex and one gender; you open the door for many other discriminatory issues. I’m not saying its right but I think it is a valid point.

It would be interesting to do a longitudinal study on different dance clubs that unionize and research trends such as turnover rate, job satisfaction, absence days, equality of stage time etc. I think that doing a long term study can have some favorable results which will help other clubs start the fight for fair treatment. I think that unfair treatment of sex workers is going to be a constant fight so having research to back up the claims of dancers will be very beneficial.

Why is Alcoholism Deviant?

To understand why Alcoholism is considered deviant it is first important to note that the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual for Mental Illness does not recognize Alcoholism as a true mental illness. In fact, the DSM defines both alcohol abuse and alcohol dependance with no mention of Alcoholism which proves that the term is a social construction (Baldwin Research Institute). Science and history show that alcoholism as a disease is nothing more than speculation and the misrepresentation of the term in the media is hurting the very people it was intended to help. As stated in the class blog, we are convinced that people who drink too much are sick. Why is that? Do we truly believe that or are we just that easily manipulated by what we see in the media. It is common knowledge that alcoholism treatment programs are a multimillion dollar industry. We as society fall victim to the marketing of the term and idea of "alcoholism" while different organizations and individuals become rich off the very same concept.

The fact that Alcoholism or even alcohol consumption in general is a social construction is pin pointed through different events in history. For example, prior to prohibition drinking alcohol was not considered deviant, during prohibition, it was considered deviant and after the constitutions was amended, it was no longer considered deviant again. Another example is drinking age which use to be 21 in some states and 18 in other states. This meant that if you were between 18 and 21, you were considered deviant in some states but not in others. In today's society, if you have a glass of wine with dinner you are considered classy, if you have a bottle of wine, you are considered an alcoholic. Likewise, if two guys get together and share a six pack of beers, they are considered hard "real men," if two ladies do the same thing, they are considered trashy. All of this can be explained through Travis Hirschi's control theory. The theory outlines that deviant behavior is present in everyone but only some will actually go through with the behavior while others will not. The deciding factor  is the individuals bond to society. In the case of alcoholism, the deviant behavior depends on what is considered alcoholism in that point in time (Thio, Calhoun &Conyers)

In today's society, Alcoholism is considered a disease which automatically makes it  deviant but how do you define alcoholism. Most health care professionals do not even believe in Alcoholism as a true disease so then why are there so many treatment programs.



The video above is a perfect example of how Alcoholim is a social construction. The question remains, why is the consumption of alcohol considered deviant? In my opinion, the real question should not be why is drinking considered deviant but rather, why has the media made drinking seem deviant. There are a number of different answers including, the ability to make profit off of the idea of an illness, social control and scaring the public in order to manipulate their thoughts and opinions in a way that favors alcoholism as a disease. At the end of the day, society will be influenced by media above all else so no matter how many health care providers disagree with the disease aspect of alcohol consumption, society will be marketed the concept and different organizations will continue to profit from that marketing.

References

Book: Readings in Deviant Behavior

Youtube Video: Alcoholism is not a Disease

Article: The Never-ending Debate: The Legal Drinking Age in the U.S.

Article: Alcoholim: A Disease of Speculation

Word Count: 597

Film Review: Generation Rx

The main thesis of Generation Rx is that mind altering drugs prescribed to America's youth is done so not because there is a clear defined problem in those receiving the drugs but because the youth are an untapped profit mechanism. according to the film, the only mental imbalance that has been found it youth are the ones that were caused by the chemicals in the pills they were prescribed. Society has a defined ideals in how children should act and if they don't fit within those ideals, they are identified as individuals who may have problems. Doctors and Psychiatrists take advantage of a parents desire to have "normal" children and make unreal amounts of money on these youth.

The documentary had many points supporting this thesis. It stressed on many occasions that the points it was making were facts and not opinions. Some of the most compelling arguments were that these drugs that are giving to youth were not designed for their age group. Children are constantly growing and changing so the documentary made a good point in saying, "how do we know how they are suppose to be if they are altered from a very young age?" other arguments include the fact that there has been a %400 increase in prescriptions for some of these medications. Lastly, there is a lack of scientific creditability in prescribing to youth. There has been no conclusive research that shows improvement.

The thesis of this film relates to class because these are the children that are labeled deviant from a very young age and they grow older with that label and the stigma fallows them around. They are diagnosed depressed at a young age, prescribed medication which disables their brain and inhibits them to develop coping skills, they are then diagnosed with other disorders such as bipolar disorder due to the chemicals in the drugs and are trapped in a downwards spiral to nowhere. The deviant children of elementary school grow up to be the defiant youth of high school and then everyone is shocked when school shootings and traumatic events occur with these youth being the ones responsible.

The most convincing argument is that %100 percent of the FDA panel members of mood altering drugs have financial ties to the drug companies. These are the individuals who are responsible for approving the drugs and approving who gets the use the drugs. If that isn't convincing then I don't know what is.

The least convincing is that the documentary is very bias. Drugs do help some people and the documentary leaves us with the perception that doctors are just freely prescribing drugs with absolutely no regard for the patient.

The documentary stated that the FDA is well aware of all the above statements and goes to great lengths to hide it. It would be interesting to do a survey of these FDA panel members and try to figure out the justifications they have in their minds to why it should be okay to prescribe these medications to youth. No one wants to view themselves as causing harm to children so I'm sure that every single panel member has created narratives as to why doctors should have the ability to prescribe mood altering drugs to youth. I think it is safe to say that none of them will say that it is because they are making money off it.

Film Review: Tough Guise

1.The main thesis of this film is that men feel like they need to be violent, masculine and tough to be considered real men. They need to hate women, gays, and anything feminine to prove to themselves and the rest of society that they have what it takes to be a man. Also, the main point is that men in today's society put up a "tough guise" front which emphasizes phyiscal strength and gaining the respect of others through violence. 

2.The best example of how the thesis is backed up is in the beginning minutes of the film when a group of men are interviewed and asked to describe in one word what a real man is, here is what they said: "tough, physical, strong, independent, powerful, respected, intimidating, rugged, athletic, muscular." Similarly, the men were asked what you get called if you don't meet these standards and they said: "pussy, soft, queer, emotional, girly, whimp, fag." Its clear from these interviews that men in today's society have a clear understanding of how they should be acting and know exactly how they will be viewed if they don't act that way. 

3. In the book, "Readings in Deviant Behavior" there is an entire section devoted to physical violence. According to the book, most physical violence crimes are committed by men and according to the movie this violence is the direct result of societies social construction of "real men" needing to be tough and in control. The piece, " What Triggers School Shootings?" highlights the homophobic bullying that goes on in most high schools and states that 97% of highs school aged students reported hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. This film relates to the class because the image of hyper-masculinity that the media tries to sell us is impossible to imitate but men in society are not real men unless they try to mirror what they see in the media. 

4.The points that I find most convincing the ones about violence and though men in the media. For example, the size of GI Joe action figures has increased dramatically since the 50's, in fact when blown up to scale, their biceps are larger than any realistic size. It just goes to show you how much this society values size. I found the video clip " Height and the Perception of Success" very interesting because it proved a few different points that "Tough Guise" is trying to convey. It shows that society views size as a symbol of success. 

5. The points I found least convincing were the ones made about movies, music and video games. Although I agree that movies, music and video games contribute to the problem, I don't think they are as pertinent as the film makes them to be. My main basis in thinking this is that there are violent movies, music and video games in other cultures and societies as well and they are not as male centered or violent as our society. 

6. It is clear that masculinity is very prevalent in society. It is also clear that men know exactly what it takes to be a "real man" in today's society. It would be interesting to study how early on in life boys start constructing what a "real man" is. I would design a cross sectional study of boys ages 5-12 and survey them about what it takes to be "man." The boys will be administered the same survey and will be evaluated based on how prevalent the idea of masculinity is in their thought process. 

Film Review: Murderball

The main thesis of Murderball is to convey that individuals with disabilities are very much capable of  living fulfilling lives. It is also to share with the viewers that the negative stigma that society imposes on people with disabilities does not have any validity.

The film is a documentary that fallows a few different people that are wheelchair bound. The only thing different about these people is that they are not the type of people in wheelchairs that society portrays. They all play wheelchair rugby  which is a very physical sport that many able bodies people couldn't even do. The main arguments that supported the thesis were the countless interviews with the men on the rugby team. They were content with their lives and some of them even said that they wouldn't want to go back to being able bodied. They film portrayed them as normal people. They had jobs, the had relationships and they had struggles.

In Erich Goode's piece, " The Stigma of Obesity" the author begins by describing a situation where Bertha, an overweight woman got stuck in a fast food restaurant's booth after she finished her meal. The incident resulted in her  breaking the booth to get free while everyone in the restaurant broke out in hysterical laughter. Murderball deals with the stigmatization of deviant individuals and similar to the situation involving Bertha, people in wheelchairs have to deal with negative stigmas everywhere they go. This class evaluates those stigmas and provides a different view under a "sociological telescope." The movie did a good job of explaining that it doesn't matter what makes someone deviant, they are still people with hopes, dreams and ambitions like the rest of us and I think that the purpose of this class is to do the same. That is how the movie and class relate.

During the movie, one of Mark Zupan's friends commented on how Mark was an asshole before he got in a wheelchair. I found this to be the most convincing argument because it showed, in very simple terms, that people in wheelchairs are human beings above all else. society tends to view them for their master status of being in a wheelchair but at the end of the day we are all the same and it is unfortunate that we view each other in any other way.

I didn't really notice arguments that were less convincing however I think that the documentary could have done a better job at showing how society treats people with disabilities. It seems like the entire documentary focused more on the struggles  of  the  rugby team than the struggles of living in a society that doesn't see you as normal. In the video, "Height and the Perception of Success" it is clear that the taller man seems more successful. I think that the same is true with people in wheelchairs. They are always going to be perceived as less successful than people that aren't in wheelchairs. I don't think the documentary did a good job talking about that harsh reality.

The movie talked about the process of coming to terms with the realities of being in a wheelchair. It would be interesting to design a longitudinal study around the idea of being in a wheelchair. A researcher could fallow individuals from the time that they become wheelchair bound to the time that they are comfortable with the idea of being in a wheelchair. It is important to note that some people may never get comfortable with the idea  but the study would find the average amount of time it takes someone to accept the fact that they are in a wheelchair. It would also uncover the different coping techniques to transitioning from being "normal" to "deviant"

References

Film-Murderball

Book-Readings in Deviant Behavior


Video Clip-Height and the Perception of Success

Film Review: Middle Sexes

The main thesis of this film is simple: research, other societies, and human nature tell us that there are more than two sexes so it is impractical to live in a society with only two excepted sexes. The film told the stories of many different individuals who deal with their sexual deviance due to societies lack of acceptance. The film also gave the perspective of different cultures who are more excepting of "middle sexes." It is fitting, in my opinion, that the class was assigned to read "Real Women" by Hanne Black on the same week we watched this film because even though the two are dealing with different issues, they are very similar in ideologies. Black writes about all the things that real women are and are not, like and do not like, have and do not have with the main point being that there are many variations of women so it is wrong for society to appreciate and value one type.

Some main arguments that were in support of the thesis were the mention of research that proves the complexities in sex and the fact that there are at least five known sexes. Also, the countless personal stories of people who were assigned the wrong sex at birth and the struggles they face. Other arguments were the research done in other countries such as India and Japan were middle sexes are widely accepted. I feel as though American society hides the acknowledgement of middle sexes by the rest of the world and makes it seem like it is only a U.S. problem so that they can justify calling it a "problem." I think that if the American public knew that this is normal in other developed countries, they would be more accepting of it.

The thesis of the film relates to class in a number of ways. First off, it is dealing with sexual identity deviance. The film is trying to convey the point that identifying with a sex other than the dominant male and female is only considered deviant because people are taught that it is relevant to their lives. Relativism as defined by the book states that "deviant behavior by itself does not have any intristic characteristics unless it is thought to have those characteristics" (Thio & Calhoun & Conyers, 3). The film can also be related to class because of the many different aspects of deviance it covered. not only did it talk about ones sexuality but it also dealt with deviant bodies, genders, family approaches and ways of dealing with the issues at hand.

I thought the entire film was a great argument in favor of multiple sexes. I don't think that any one point or argument was better than the other because they all had merit and all were relevant. I think the mixture of personal stories and research helps convey the message because it is hard to watch the personal stories of people and not empathize with them. The one story that stands out to me was that of Noah who was born intersex and surgically converted to male. As he got older, he started expressing himself in feminine ways and clearly does not conform to societies ideals as a male.

In the film, it was mentioned that around 1 in 100 babies are born intersex. I would design a study around that. It would be a longitudinal study that fallowed several intersex individuals from the time that they were born to the time they hit puberty. The study would consisted of different surveys that the parents fill out immediately after birth and periodically during the study to gauge any changes in opinions.  The study would also measure the well being of the intersex individual at different stages of life. I think an intricate study like that could benefit the intersex community and open the public's eyes to their issues.



References

Film-Middle Sexes: redefining he and she

Book-Readings in Deviant Behavior

Article- Real Women