Deviance

Deviance involves, to an extent, a degree of stigmatization of a sub-population. These social stigmas are positioned and sanctioned by the majority population on the basis of certain, and sometimes subtle, differences. As societies expand, various behaviours may be removed from abnormal categories, therefore altering the depiction of deviance in a society. For example, prior to 1972, it was considered a crime and socially deviant to be a homosexual. Eventually human rights became more relevant and integrated into North American culture, thus handing the gay community some insight from social structures and abolishing the theory of homosexuality as deviant. Just as well, several behaviours may be added to the category of abnormality to accomplish the same standpoint on deviance in today’s society. A myriad of social theories have been presented as to why and how individuals become branded deviant and thus marginalized in a culture. As Erich Goode in Deviance, Norms, and Social Reaction states, there are two dimensions between distinguishing social deviance. Goode suggests there is the “objectively given versus the subjectively problematic” (Goode 1996:36). If one is to view deviance as objectively given, their basis for this theory would be that the acts of deviance committed are wrong regardless of how they are evaluated. An individual harboring this approach is more of an absolutist. “The evil in these actions is an objective fact, even if this fact is not recognized in a given society” (Goode 1996:36). In essence, to an absolutist, deviance is not determined by the judgment of our social peers, but by an individual studying the social field. On the other hand, there are the theories wrought on by subjectivism. This is a more relativistic stance on deviance. Relativists agree deviance exists when members of certain cultural groups deem any act wrong or liable to be punished by. Relativists believe judgments vary by society and time period and are classified