Society And Culture: Scarcity, By Bryan Turner And Rojek

Sociologists have shown that everyone is deviant to some degree, whether it be in a minute way or a substantial protest. Such deviance is defined as the fact or state of departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior. Deviating from a norm is said to be inevitable, though the true question is: is such action ever justifiable? Most people would say no, and that the laws primarily structuring society are all in place for perfectly good reasons. However, deviance doesn’t necessarily coincide with wrongdoing or poor ethics. In fact, as history shows, deviance could be performed in good faith. Henry David Thoreau argues that people’s first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law
Everyone is guilty of something and that doesn’t make them an inherently bad person. Bryan Turner and Chris Rojek support that beliefs and stated that “deviance is unavoidable in modern society.” (61) This rings true when examining norms that come in all sizes, and are then inevitably deviated from at some point, likely without clear intent to do so. In Turner and Rojek’s novel, Society and Culture: Scarcity and Solidarity, they discuss the subject of deviance in greater detail, pushing forth the argument that, again, deviance will occur despite a person’s best efforts otherwise, and it can be found to some degree in nearly every interaction people find themselves in. However, civil disobedience is about conscious and deliberate deviation from the laws, focusing on when the legal system is disregarded by an individual or grouping. The most significant difference between social deviance and civil disobedience lies in the consequences that come with them. Social deviance is a person’s deviation from unspoken and unwritten standards of human interaction, commonly specialized to the society of that location, Social deviance results in consequences within social circles and the relationships between people, whereas civil disobedience comes with legal repercussions. Despite the potential consequences,
Through these examples one can understand that ethics is an entity in itself, separate from the legal system set forth by the governing power of a country. Aside from the fact that deviance is simply unavoidable, and arguably natural, it is justifiable in instances where what is ethical does not lie within the legal bounds set forth by the majority. Historical evidence proves that a person acting within legal bounds can be performing acts of an unethical nature despite the approval of the law; while history also shows that the inverse, acting outside of legal bounds, can be categorized as ethical when the laws being deviated from violate the overarching beliefs of what is morally correct held by the human race. To do what feels natural is to follow the inherent morals humans feel, and with that comes deviation in one form or another - but fear not, because deviance is not the enemy or a negative to tarnish a person’s character; deviance is simply disobedience and civil disobedience is acceptable at times due to the sizable, aforementioned evidence that the law does not imply proper ethics, which is evident when examining history and the laws entangled in it, specifically the shifting policies, pushing forth the ever present truth that a governed society does not inherently imply a perfect