Discipline And Michael Foucault's Definition Of Crime
How does society define what is deviant?
Any conception of deviance that we can know of is never agreed upon by the whole of society. It is salient to note that the concept of ‘society’ used in this question is rather homogenous. It assumes that every different section within society, every class, race and gender, has the same definition of deviance which it is the job of this essay to unpick. Instead I will be focusing upon how any definitions of deviance are biased towards the upper class definitions. It is the upper class that have access to the institutions through which any general definitions are determined. It is the upper class that have access to the state law institution, that have the corporate control over the gate keeping media, …show more content…
and have an exuberant presence within the institutions of social definition, the church and the school. Through this essay I will adopt the theories of deviance available and examine the upper class power over institutions to demonstrate that they merely enhance the upper class definitions of deviance rather than any other. It is not a case of how society defines what is deviance, but how the upper class legitimately and successfully determine what is defined as deviance – and this includes many academic theorists on the matter. I will therefore take ‘society’ to mean the upper class.
To examine how society defines what is deviant we need to understand what deviance really is. Deviance is defined in dictionaries as the condition of being abnormal. By interpreting this from an individual’s point of view deviance can be seen as any act or practice that is not performed by yourself as it is not normally done by yourself in your regular habits, routines and practices. When we look at deviance from a society’s point of view it can be viewed similarly as something that is not done normally by the community. From an act like murder to picking ones nose, there are many things that can be looked at as deviant.
From an academic perspective, according to Paul Rock, deviancy is a social construct fashioned by members of the society in which it exists. Deviant roles are given names which single them out for purposes of elucidation, action and, often, the justification of action. (1973:19). So deviants are differentiated in society by labeling, singling out and ostracization.
Additionally, according to Steven Box, deviants were perceived as essentially different from conformists by the fact that a deviant act had been committed. The cause of deviant behaviour were speculated upon and resulted in a ‘five fold fracture in the unity between a person and (i) the meaning of his/her behaviour, (ii) the perception of his/her behaviour, (iii) the reaction of the person to the reaction of others, (iv) the reaction to the reaction of state officials, and (v) the State as the creator of rules whose violation constitutes the grounds for deviance attribution’.
Armed with these definitions I will take it that society, or specifically the upper class, defines what is deviant through many different institutions namely the state, the media, schools, and religion. I will now examine how these institutions contribute to the definitions of deviance in society.
Through the criminal justice system, the state defines crime and enforces a code of expected behavior known as the law.
And it is the state’s definition of crime that is the most powerful influence upon society’s definition of deviance. The concepts of capitalism and Marxism have been used extensively during the process of defining deviance by the state. Crime is defined by the law and practiced through imprisonment and other punishments. For example, Michael Foucault was a strong believer in the states power to provide a model of discipline, as described in his book Discipline and Punish (1977). He believed that since deviance will always be inevitable in the law, the function of imprisonment may indeed be to maintain the presence of an institution with the legitimated power to officially label deviance. By doing so, the behaviors so labeled and imprisoned can be discouraged within the majority of society. Such behavior may range from murder to petty theft. Not only is the consequence of punishment observable and acknowledged, but ideologies of society can be simultaneously reaffirmed e.g. rights to legitimate work-a-day capital, nationhood rather than civil terrorism. He particularly claims a more intrinsic function of imprisonment is as a tool for the ruling parties. He argues that its function lies in its connection to the entire social body. He claims that in prison that the art of disciplinary methods are mastered and reciprocated throughout institutions of the …show more content…
superstructure, such as education; through prison the practise of power is legitimated and naturalised such as in industrial business economics; and from prison the concept of judging and observing human accountability could materialise, suitably deflecting attention from inequalities to ostensible individual defects. Crime is thus an essential part of society as a whole, since through the penal institution society ironically ‘takes back with one hand what it seems to exclude with the other’ (p.393). Since imprisonment is fundamentally ineffective at preventing recidivism, this ulterior function of imprisonment has considerable weight in defining what is deviance.
Steven Box uses a similar basis when he defines deviant behavior in his book Deviance, Reality and Society.
“Deviant behavior is nothing less or more than it has always been: Rule breaking. It is behavior which is proscribed by those who have the institutionalized power, and occasionally the consensual authority, to create rules; it is behavior which places its perpetrator at risk of being punished by those who have the institutionalized power, and occasionally the consensual authority, to do something to those who do not keep up the rules.” (1981:9)
Through this labeling, the general population i.e. society, is able to recognize deviance and define it accordingly. The states practice of punishment is a visible form of defining deviance. It directly influences current social perceptions and they are for the most part the basis that society uses to determine what is deviant and what is not. Steven Box states that deviant acts can be identified as such by reference to the quality of the reaction to them, but not by this alone. He goes on to say,
“Official deviant behavior and persons labeled as deviant are selected by official agents from a much larger reservoir of acts and persons potentially at risk of being so
designated.”(1981)
In a court of law, a trial by jury is an example of how much importance is given to society in terms of defining what is deviant. A jury is made up of peers of the accused that are selected to represent the society that is examining the act committed. This jury determines whether the act is considered deviant or not and this is what decides the fate of the individual or group that is being tried.
It is important to note that though crime is always defined as deviant, deviance is not always considered a crime. Falling asleep and snoring while at the opera would be considered as deviant to the society that enjoys the opera but is still not seen as criminal. Murder in cold blood is considered to be a highly punishable crime and is seen as deviant. One can argue that deviance is subject to the conscious actions of the individual performing the deviant act. As Peter McHugh remarks, “…deviance is not merely not following a rule but whether the rule can be conceived to have been follow able [sic.], and follow able [sic.] in the situation in which it was not followed.” (1970:66). This states that in order to truly commit a deviant act, the deviant individual must consciously and deliberately commit the act, even though there might have been non deviant alternatives. The arrival at this conclusion strengthens Edwin Lemert’s theories of Primary and Secondary deviance, more significantly the latter. As Lemert (1951) says, primary deviance is an initial deviant act; that deviant behaviors that are short-term or cease with adult status and is correlated with social, cultural, structural and psychological conditions. Through persistent powerful media representations this deviance is strengthened as a concept, as a definition. Secondary deviance is deviance that results from being labeled as deviant and evolves out of the offender's self-concept. It evolves from other's conception of a person. Secondary Deviance is long-term and does not cease with adult status. Secondary Deviance includes chronic deviant behavior by people who come to identify themselves as deviant.
Society is influenced greatly by the perceptions of deviance created by the media. Upper class deviance is less noticed and not as amplified as lower class deviance. For example corporate fraud has a bigger impact on society but is rarely talked about in newspapers whereas lower class benefit fraud is magnified by different media campaigns as a more serious deviant act. Therefore, society’s definition of deviance is determined by working class crime. This results in amplifying secondary deviance within a working class person. They are labeled as deviant through ubiquitous media representations of working class media and therefore come to see themselves as deviant. There is an abundance of mainstream movies that showcase working class crime, such as Oceans Eleven (2001) and The Italian Job (2003). This strengthens the common perceptions of deviance and obscures upper class crime. There are movies that showcase upper class corporate crime (for example Antitrust (2001)) but in comparison to ones of working class crime, they are sparse and few. This facet of the media plays a large part in defining deviance according to society.
Society’s determinations of deviance also influenced by and exhibited by the media in different ways. Media coverage is determined by the severity of how deviant an act is. For example news coverage of a murder trial or a celebrity committing deviant acts is a lot more likely to feature than coverage of a local weather report.
Video games with deviant themes such as Grand Theft Auto emphasize deviance and reward the players when their video game character commits deviant acts. The very basis of designing a game that does this depends greatly on the incorporation of society’s views of deviance and making them the goal of the game. The function of games like these is to allow the players to pretend that they are deviants and within the simulated world of the video game perform deviant acts that they are technically not permitted to in real life.
.
Society is constantly evolving and its values are evolving with it. What was once considered criminal and punishable in the past, for example homosexuality, is now accepted by many societies – though not all of them, depending on many culturally specific factors. In the same vein, what was once considered normal and a sign of high status is now looked at as deviant, for example the ancient Greek pedophilic custom of consorting with young boys. So as society evolves, definitions of deviance evolve with it in terms of what is presently and culturally acceptable.
Society’s definitions of what is deviant depends almost completely on that particular society’s values. What one society deems normal can be seen as blasphemous and deviant by another. For example a British teacher in Saudi Arabia was recently sentenced to be flogged for naming a stuffed animal in her classroom Mohammed. Such a practice in another setting for example Canada would not be deemed deviant and would not garner much attention at all. A graffiti artist, such as Banksy, has a completely different view of vandalism to that of a gang member who throws rocks at windows. Stanley Cohen argues that it is difficult to practically define vandalism in legal terms as it is, instead, a label. (1973:23). He quotes, ‘vandalism is neither a precise behavioural description, nor a recognisable legal category, but a label attached to certain types of behaviour under certain conditions’ (p.23, my emphasis). I think there is an important issue when he describes certain conditions. He goes on to explain that ‘[this continuum] refers less to categories of behaviour than to certain conditions under which illegal property destruction becomes tolerated, acceptable, institutionalised or, as some sociologists have expressed it, normalised.’ (p.23, my emphasis). Basically, he argues that since vandalism is a label, in some situations what is basically vandalism is regarded as normal and acceptable, whereas is other situations it is particularly frowned upon and perceived as deviant. As many sociologists have argued, the process of sociological study itself and media folk devils can amplify in which situations ‘vandalism’ is perceived, and the degree of ‘deviance’ with which it is perceived e.g. committed by youths in gangs, on a non special day etc.
The social structure also plays a large part in society’s arrival of what is deviant. A upper class society member would think it deviant to be seen in a discount store whereas a lower class one might think it an almost criminal waste to buy an expensive item of designer clothing. Not reporting a clerical error to a bank that results in money being put into ones account is seen as deviant in the eyes of the banking society but considered lucky in the eyes of the working class. But it is only ever the upper class definitions of deviance which are successfully incorporated into society as a whole.
Schools also play a large role in society’s definitions of what is deviant. A school can be viewed as a microcosm of society - disciplining the individual and harboring social norms within them. For example, not doing homework is seen as going against school policies – which is an analogy of not going to work seen as going against state rules. Schools have their own methods and practices of punishment for individuals that do not comply with their policies such as detention, suspension and expulsion. It is important to note that as an institution that defines and enforces a code of conduct, a school will only enforce punishments up to a certain level before referring the deviant individual to a higher powered institution such as the state. To mete out punishments that exceed this level would be a deviant act in itself and the institution would be condemned by society and the state.
Deviance is also defined through religious institutions – arguably the most powerful instrument of propaganda in our society today. Many religions have used deviance or a similar concept to establish a code of conduct of sorts by which its followers should adhere to in order to lead a fulfilling and content life. Those who did not adhere are labeled as deviants and led to believe that their lives are empty.
“ …according to the Puritan reading of the Bible … there were only two important classes of people on earth – those who had been elected to everlasting life and those who had been consigned forever to hell … persons who had reasons to fear the worst would drift suddenly into the lower echelons of society, highly susceptible to deviant forms of behavior. ” (Erikson, 1966)
Probably the most powerful religious institution is the Church. Headed by the pope and armed with the Bible as a media tool, the Church has had tremendous influence on modern society and its values. The ten commandments put forward by the Bible serve as much of the basis for the framework of law for many different governments. Similarly the countries of Middle East follow the creed of the Quran, the values of which run almost parallel to the Bible. What is interesting to note is the concept of Jihad put forth by the Quran. By Islamic law it is the only form of warfare that is permissible, and though its translation is struggle or strive, much of the terrorism that takes place in recent times is done in the name of jihad. This is due to the Islamic society defining it as non deviant. In western cultures, jihad is viewed as extremely deviant and any form of taking a life, with the sometime exception of self defense, is deemed deviant and criminal.
It is interesting to note that society can only define something as deviant if that something is generally known. An individual that adheres to the perceived rules of his/her society but has constant thoughts of murder, lust and other deviant notions cannot be labeled as deviant because the society has no knowledge of anything the individual wishes to keep secret. Thus the inherent deviance of the individual is not recognized because it remains internalized and psychological. Even with the public expression of the private enabled by the internet, this is still relatively anonymous.
The arrival of the internet has brought with it a whole new world of deviance as well as possibilities. The ability to have an anonymous presence on the internet has taken anonymity far beyond the low level deviance of a prank phone call. Pedophilia, drug trafficking, human trafficking, pornography, terrorism, and a host of other deviant and criminal practices have thrived on the internet since its integration into society. Denegri-Knott and Taylor (2005) have looked at how the internet has not yet been normalised or had normalisation social rules out onto it yet. As a result, it produces a ‘conflicting’ site for deviance. At the same time, the internet is a ‘Lawless land’ but we still apply our offline media definitions to it of what is right and wrong.
Throughout this essay I have examined the different ways in which society may define deviance. I have examined the power of the state, the potential of media representations, the social processes of labelling, the ‘infallible’ work of religion, and examined the problematic entity of the internet which is yet to fully define normality against deviance. I have also drawn attention to how any conceptions of deviance are largely derived from the behaviours and representations of the working class, both within academia and society. And that it is the upper class society that is able to do this, since they posses access to the institutions of definition. Therefore I ask, since the working class have been prevented from hosting any institutions within which they can enforce definitions of deviance, is it ever possible for the working class definition of deviance to be known and used within society as a whole?
Bibliography
Box, S. Deviance, Reality and Society, 2nd ed . - London : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1981
Cohen, Stanley. ‘1. Property destruction: motives and meanings’ in Colin Ward (ed.) Vandalism, The Architectural Press: London, 1973, pp.23-53
Denegri-Knott, Janice and Taylor, Jacqui ‘The Labelling Game: A conceptual Exploration of Deviance on the Internet’ in Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring 2005, 93-107 [accessed 05/03/08]
Foucault, Michel. (1997; 1996) ‘The Carceral’ in John Muncie, Eugene McLaughlin and Mary Langan (eds) Criminological Perspectives – A reader, London : Sage (abridged from Discipline and Punish (trans. Alan Sheridan), London : Allen Lane, 1997)
McHugh, P. 1970. ‘A common-sense conception of deviance’ in J. Douglas (eds.), Deviance and Respectability New York : Basic Books, 1970
Rock, P. E. Deviant behaviour, London : Hutchinson University Library, 1973
Any conception of deviance that we can know of is never agreed upon by the whole of society. It is salient to note that the concept of ‘society’ used in this question is rather homogenous. It assumes that every different section within society, every class, race and gender, has the same definition of deviance which it is the job of this essay to unpick. Instead I will be focusing upon how any definitions of deviance are biased towards the upper class definitions. It is the upper class that have access to the institutions through which any general definitions are determined. It is the upper class that have access to the state law institution, that have the corporate control over the gate keeping media, …show more content…
and have an exuberant presence within the institutions of social definition, the church and the school. Through this essay I will adopt the theories of deviance available and examine the upper class power over institutions to demonstrate that they merely enhance the upper class definitions of deviance rather than any other. It is not a case of how society defines what is deviance, but how the upper class legitimately and successfully determine what is defined as deviance – and this includes many academic theorists on the matter. I will therefore take ‘society’ to mean the upper class.
To examine how society defines what is deviant we need to understand what deviance really is. Deviance is defined in dictionaries as the condition of being abnormal. By interpreting this from an individual’s point of view deviance can be seen as any act or practice that is not performed by yourself as it is not normally done by yourself in your regular habits, routines and practices. When we look at deviance from a society’s point of view it can be viewed similarly as something that is not done normally by the community. From an act like murder to picking ones nose, there are many things that can be looked at as deviant.
From an academic perspective, according to Paul Rock, deviancy is a social construct fashioned by members of the society in which it exists. Deviant roles are given names which single them out for purposes of elucidation, action and, often, the justification of action. (1973:19). So deviants are differentiated in society by labeling, singling out and ostracization.
Additionally, according to Steven Box, deviants were perceived as essentially different from conformists by the fact that a deviant act had been committed. The cause of deviant behaviour were speculated upon and resulted in a ‘five fold fracture in the unity between a person and (i) the meaning of his/her behaviour, (ii) the perception of his/her behaviour, (iii) the reaction of the person to the reaction of others, (iv) the reaction to the reaction of state officials, and (v) the State as the creator of rules whose violation constitutes the grounds for deviance attribution’.
Armed with these definitions I will take it that society, or specifically the upper class, defines what is deviant through many different institutions namely the state, the media, schools, and religion. I will now examine how these institutions contribute to the definitions of deviance in society.
Through the criminal justice system, the state defines crime and enforces a code of expected behavior known as the law.
And it is the state’s definition of crime that is the most powerful influence upon society’s definition of deviance. The concepts of capitalism and Marxism have been used extensively during the process of defining deviance by the state. Crime is defined by the law and practiced through imprisonment and other punishments. For example, Michael Foucault was a strong believer in the states power to provide a model of discipline, as described in his book Discipline and Punish (1977). He believed that since deviance will always be inevitable in the law, the function of imprisonment may indeed be to maintain the presence of an institution with the legitimated power to officially label deviance. By doing so, the behaviors so labeled and imprisoned can be discouraged within the majority of society. Such behavior may range from murder to petty theft. Not only is the consequence of punishment observable and acknowledged, but ideologies of society can be simultaneously reaffirmed e.g. rights to legitimate work-a-day capital, nationhood rather than civil terrorism. He particularly claims a more intrinsic function of imprisonment is as a tool for the ruling parties. He argues that its function lies in its connection to the entire social body. He claims that in prison that the art of disciplinary methods are mastered and reciprocated throughout institutions of the …show more content…
superstructure, such as education; through prison the practise of power is legitimated and naturalised such as in industrial business economics; and from prison the concept of judging and observing human accountability could materialise, suitably deflecting attention from inequalities to ostensible individual defects. Crime is thus an essential part of society as a whole, since through the penal institution society ironically ‘takes back with one hand what it seems to exclude with the other’ (p.393). Since imprisonment is fundamentally ineffective at preventing recidivism, this ulterior function of imprisonment has considerable weight in defining what is deviance.
Steven Box uses a similar basis when he defines deviant behavior in his book Deviance, Reality and Society.
“Deviant behavior is nothing less or more than it has always been: Rule breaking. It is behavior which is proscribed by those who have the institutionalized power, and occasionally the consensual authority, to create rules; it is behavior which places its perpetrator at risk of being punished by those who have the institutionalized power, and occasionally the consensual authority, to do something to those who do not keep up the rules.” (1981:9)
Through this labeling, the general population i.e. society, is able to recognize deviance and define it accordingly. The states practice of punishment is a visible form of defining deviance. It directly influences current social perceptions and they are for the most part the basis that society uses to determine what is deviant and what is not. Steven Box states that deviant acts can be identified as such by reference to the quality of the reaction to them, but not by this alone. He goes on to say,
“Official deviant behavior and persons labeled as deviant are selected by official agents from a much larger reservoir of acts and persons potentially at risk of being so
designated.”(1981)
In a court of law, a trial by jury is an example of how much importance is given to society in terms of defining what is deviant. A jury is made up of peers of the accused that are selected to represent the society that is examining the act committed. This jury determines whether the act is considered deviant or not and this is what decides the fate of the individual or group that is being tried.
It is important to note that though crime is always defined as deviant, deviance is not always considered a crime. Falling asleep and snoring while at the opera would be considered as deviant to the society that enjoys the opera but is still not seen as criminal. Murder in cold blood is considered to be a highly punishable crime and is seen as deviant. One can argue that deviance is subject to the conscious actions of the individual performing the deviant act. As Peter McHugh remarks, “…deviance is not merely not following a rule but whether the rule can be conceived to have been follow able [sic.], and follow able [sic.] in the situation in which it was not followed.” (1970:66). This states that in order to truly commit a deviant act, the deviant individual must consciously and deliberately commit the act, even though there might have been non deviant alternatives. The arrival at this conclusion strengthens Edwin Lemert’s theories of Primary and Secondary deviance, more significantly the latter. As Lemert (1951) says, primary deviance is an initial deviant act; that deviant behaviors that are short-term or cease with adult status and is correlated with social, cultural, structural and psychological conditions. Through persistent powerful media representations this deviance is strengthened as a concept, as a definition. Secondary deviance is deviance that results from being labeled as deviant and evolves out of the offender's self-concept. It evolves from other's conception of a person. Secondary Deviance is long-term and does not cease with adult status. Secondary Deviance includes chronic deviant behavior by people who come to identify themselves as deviant.
Society is influenced greatly by the perceptions of deviance created by the media. Upper class deviance is less noticed and not as amplified as lower class deviance. For example corporate fraud has a bigger impact on society but is rarely talked about in newspapers whereas lower class benefit fraud is magnified by different media campaigns as a more serious deviant act. Therefore, society’s definition of deviance is determined by working class crime. This results in amplifying secondary deviance within a working class person. They are labeled as deviant through ubiquitous media representations of working class media and therefore come to see themselves as deviant. There is an abundance of mainstream movies that showcase working class crime, such as Oceans Eleven (2001) and The Italian Job (2003). This strengthens the common perceptions of deviance and obscures upper class crime. There are movies that showcase upper class corporate crime (for example Antitrust (2001)) but in comparison to ones of working class crime, they are sparse and few. This facet of the media plays a large part in defining deviance according to society.
Society’s determinations of deviance also influenced by and exhibited by the media in different ways. Media coverage is determined by the severity of how deviant an act is. For example news coverage of a murder trial or a celebrity committing deviant acts is a lot more likely to feature than coverage of a local weather report.
Video games with deviant themes such as Grand Theft Auto emphasize deviance and reward the players when their video game character commits deviant acts. The very basis of designing a game that does this depends greatly on the incorporation of society’s views of deviance and making them the goal of the game. The function of games like these is to allow the players to pretend that they are deviants and within the simulated world of the video game perform deviant acts that they are technically not permitted to in real life.
.
Society is constantly evolving and its values are evolving with it. What was once considered criminal and punishable in the past, for example homosexuality, is now accepted by many societies – though not all of them, depending on many culturally specific factors. In the same vein, what was once considered normal and a sign of high status is now looked at as deviant, for example the ancient Greek pedophilic custom of consorting with young boys. So as society evolves, definitions of deviance evolve with it in terms of what is presently and culturally acceptable.
Society’s definitions of what is deviant depends almost completely on that particular society’s values. What one society deems normal can be seen as blasphemous and deviant by another. For example a British teacher in Saudi Arabia was recently sentenced to be flogged for naming a stuffed animal in her classroom Mohammed. Such a practice in another setting for example Canada would not be deemed deviant and would not garner much attention at all. A graffiti artist, such as Banksy, has a completely different view of vandalism to that of a gang member who throws rocks at windows. Stanley Cohen argues that it is difficult to practically define vandalism in legal terms as it is, instead, a label. (1973:23). He quotes, ‘vandalism is neither a precise behavioural description, nor a recognisable legal category, but a label attached to certain types of behaviour under certain conditions’ (p.23, my emphasis). I think there is an important issue when he describes certain conditions. He goes on to explain that ‘[this continuum] refers less to categories of behaviour than to certain conditions under which illegal property destruction becomes tolerated, acceptable, institutionalised or, as some sociologists have expressed it, normalised.’ (p.23, my emphasis). Basically, he argues that since vandalism is a label, in some situations what is basically vandalism is regarded as normal and acceptable, whereas is other situations it is particularly frowned upon and perceived as deviant. As many sociologists have argued, the process of sociological study itself and media folk devils can amplify in which situations ‘vandalism’ is perceived, and the degree of ‘deviance’ with which it is perceived e.g. committed by youths in gangs, on a non special day etc.
The social structure also plays a large part in society’s arrival of what is deviant. A upper class society member would think it deviant to be seen in a discount store whereas a lower class one might think it an almost criminal waste to buy an expensive item of designer clothing. Not reporting a clerical error to a bank that results in money being put into ones account is seen as deviant in the eyes of the banking society but considered lucky in the eyes of the working class. But it is only ever the upper class definitions of deviance which are successfully incorporated into society as a whole.
Schools also play a large role in society’s definitions of what is deviant. A school can be viewed as a microcosm of society - disciplining the individual and harboring social norms within them. For example, not doing homework is seen as going against school policies – which is an analogy of not going to work seen as going against state rules. Schools have their own methods and practices of punishment for individuals that do not comply with their policies such as detention, suspension and expulsion. It is important to note that as an institution that defines and enforces a code of conduct, a school will only enforce punishments up to a certain level before referring the deviant individual to a higher powered institution such as the state. To mete out punishments that exceed this level would be a deviant act in itself and the institution would be condemned by society and the state.
Deviance is also defined through religious institutions – arguably the most powerful instrument of propaganda in our society today. Many religions have used deviance or a similar concept to establish a code of conduct of sorts by which its followers should adhere to in order to lead a fulfilling and content life. Those who did not adhere are labeled as deviants and led to believe that their lives are empty.
“ …according to the Puritan reading of the Bible … there were only two important classes of people on earth – those who had been elected to everlasting life and those who had been consigned forever to hell … persons who had reasons to fear the worst would drift suddenly into the lower echelons of society, highly susceptible to deviant forms of behavior. ” (Erikson, 1966)
Probably the most powerful religious institution is the Church. Headed by the pope and armed with the Bible as a media tool, the Church has had tremendous influence on modern society and its values. The ten commandments put forward by the Bible serve as much of the basis for the framework of law for many different governments. Similarly the countries of Middle East follow the creed of the Quran, the values of which run almost parallel to the Bible. What is interesting to note is the concept of Jihad put forth by the Quran. By Islamic law it is the only form of warfare that is permissible, and though its translation is struggle or strive, much of the terrorism that takes place in recent times is done in the name of jihad. This is due to the Islamic society defining it as non deviant. In western cultures, jihad is viewed as extremely deviant and any form of taking a life, with the sometime exception of self defense, is deemed deviant and criminal.
It is interesting to note that society can only define something as deviant if that something is generally known. An individual that adheres to the perceived rules of his/her society but has constant thoughts of murder, lust and other deviant notions cannot be labeled as deviant because the society has no knowledge of anything the individual wishes to keep secret. Thus the inherent deviance of the individual is not recognized because it remains internalized and psychological. Even with the public expression of the private enabled by the internet, this is still relatively anonymous.
The arrival of the internet has brought with it a whole new world of deviance as well as possibilities. The ability to have an anonymous presence on the internet has taken anonymity far beyond the low level deviance of a prank phone call. Pedophilia, drug trafficking, human trafficking, pornography, terrorism, and a host of other deviant and criminal practices have thrived on the internet since its integration into society. Denegri-Knott and Taylor (2005) have looked at how the internet has not yet been normalised or had normalisation social rules out onto it yet. As a result, it produces a ‘conflicting’ site for deviance. At the same time, the internet is a ‘Lawless land’ but we still apply our offline media definitions to it of what is right and wrong.
Throughout this essay I have examined the different ways in which society may define deviance. I have examined the power of the state, the potential of media representations, the social processes of labelling, the ‘infallible’ work of religion, and examined the problematic entity of the internet which is yet to fully define normality against deviance. I have also drawn attention to how any conceptions of deviance are largely derived from the behaviours and representations of the working class, both within academia and society. And that it is the upper class society that is able to do this, since they posses access to the institutions of definition. Therefore I ask, since the working class have been prevented from hosting any institutions within which they can enforce definitions of deviance, is it ever possible for the working class definition of deviance to be known and used within society as a whole?
Bibliography
Box, S. Deviance, Reality and Society, 2nd ed . - London : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1981
Cohen, Stanley. ‘1. Property destruction: motives and meanings’ in Colin Ward (ed.) Vandalism, The Architectural Press: London, 1973, pp.23-53
Denegri-Knott, Janice and Taylor, Jacqui ‘The Labelling Game: A conceptual Exploration of Deviance on the Internet’ in Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring 2005, 93-107 [accessed 05/03/08]
Foucault, Michel. (1997; 1996) ‘The Carceral’ in John Muncie, Eugene McLaughlin and Mary Langan (eds) Criminological Perspectives – A reader, London : Sage (abridged from Discipline and Punish (trans. Alan Sheridan), London : Allen Lane, 1997)
McHugh, P. 1970. ‘A common-sense conception of deviance’ in J. Douglas (eds.), Deviance and Respectability New York : Basic Books, 1970
Rock, P. E. Deviant behaviour, London : Hutchinson University Library, 1973