Deviance In Society

CHAOS OF STRUCTURE: THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVIANCE IN MORAL CONFORMITY
Stephanie Lane Sutton

Humans are social animals. As people, we live in countless social structures, placing a strong emphasis on human relationships. As a society, we tend to separate ourselves from other animals, emphasizing intelligence and moral values. Most sociobiologists would chalk this up to a biological predisposition toward a structure of morals which isn’t consistent in other creatures – indeed, this moral structure has, seemingly through natural selection, encouraged us to build strong relationships in both family and work environments. However, it is likely that these moral structures are completely fabricated through social interaction alone.

After
the Holocaust during World War II, Stanley Milgram set out to test morality of humans, hypothesizing that Germans were less moral and more likely to be submissive to authority. He did this by constructing an experiment in which the unknowing test subject would be made to believe that they were distributing painful electric shocks with steadily increased intensity to another person, while an authoritative figure pressured them on. He planned to conduct this study with both Americans and Germans. Milgram and many other sociologists hypothesized that most American subjects would not continue to distribute shocks after they became aware that the victim was in pain. Instead, they found that 65% of the subjects distributed the highest 450 volt shock, and no subject halted the experiment before the 300 volt shock. This experiment disproves a human predisposition to moral values while proving that human interaction is purely social – that people are bred into submission and, therefore, into social structures. Indeed, starting with the family structure and reinforced in kindergarten, people are raised to respond to authority.

This experiment also calls into question the actual value of human moral and social structures, while also questioning the suggestion of evolution and natural selection: that humans want, more than anything, to further the race. Milgram’s experiment proved that social structure trumps not only a moral need, but human necessity of protection of the race (instead of backing down to protect the victim, the subject would rather listen to authority). It also calls into question the Conflict Theory (which states that social behavior is best understood between competing groups) as well as the Functionalist Theory (that society is structured to maintain stability), which both justify trends of conformity, as well as discrimination, in contemporary human society.

Sociobiologists would suggest that a seemingly intrinsic moral value, such as monogamy, has a biological purpose – in the case of intrapersonal relationships, monogamy would secure a mate, making the furthering of the human race a definite.
However, sociobiological theories do not make room for certain human behaviors we understand to happen naturally, such as mental illness or homosexuality. In this way, these behaviors are labeled as “deviant,” and considered to be counterproductive to society and/or the human race. In this way, discrimination or, at the very least, a lack of understanding toward these natural human behaviors becomes justified. Sociologists also make the same mistake when working under the Conflict and Functionalist theories. A Conflict or Functionalist sociologist could make the argument that homosexuality needs to be regarded as unethical in order to sustain an emphasis on family structure, which has been integral to most societies since the beginning of social
study.

Both sociobiologists and sociologists make the same mistake here, assuming that moral structure is in place (albeit randomly) because it benefits the furthering of the human race, and is accountable for the success of humans as the dominant force on our planet. But the fact of the matter is that it is impossible to determine where our morals and social structures originate – assuming that there is a biological or social predisposition already set in place at the beginning of genetic history is futile, because it can never actually be proven. It is better to assume that morals come from social interactions, with one’s moral standards being conjured up based on their own experiences, and then a collective moral standard being put into place through social interaction, and reinforced through human-created belief systems, including Christianity and Atheism.

The fact that social structure is also adaptable furthers the falsity of these assumptions.
Indeed, the 20th century was one of rapid change: in 1861, slavery was still legal in many American states and women were unable to vote; in 1961, the Civil Rights Movement was underway and women had not only been granted suffrage, but were conducting a Women’s Liberation movement of their own. In one hundred years, thousands of years of social structure had come undone, because humans no longer saw these structures as beneficial to society. With an increasing emphasis on industry and a decreasing emphasis on agriculture, race and gender roles were becoming not only obsolete, but harmful. For example, in the United States during WWII, most men who would have entered the work force were drafted to war. The social structure of sex that was in place, with women working at home and raising a family, no longer was beneficial to society, because industry was becoming crippled due to lack of workers and an increased demand for products. This sparked the short-lived “Rosie the Riveter” movement, where women were allowed to work in factories in large numbers, doing work normally deemed too dangerous for their sex. This is perhaps the most drastic example of social structure being overthrown for the benefit of change and demand – after WWII, women were encouraged to return home to raise families in order to fill the demand for a population spurt after the causalities of war. Before
this period, it was considered largely unethical for a woman to be performing hard labor; afterwards, it was excused by social necessity.

But the Women’s Liberation Movement and Third-wave Feminism set out to challenge this notion. It argued that society as a patriarchy is structured to benefit males and limit females. Ultimately it should not be a question of benefiting society as a whole, but benefiting the individual. When an individual is given freedom to have their own ambitions and the freedom to pursue them regardless of social and moral values, an individual is being ethically treated as the thinking and independent human that s/he is, and this will ultimately create a better society. As can be seen in Milgram’s experiment, when one is encouraged to conform, it is not only inconsistently beneficial, but damaging to the self. It is better for one to recognize this dysfunction and learn how to work on one’s own terms than to conform to society’s moral structure – this is the only way to be truly happy, and the only way to inspire change.