The reading helped me realize that there are different types of deviant acts ranging from consensus crimes, about whose unacceptability there is an almost unanimous agreement, to socially diverse acts that may be perceived differently, depending on the observer. Throughout this course, it has become clear that deviance is not a monolith but rather a concept that stems from culturally specific codes of behaviors, mores, and traditions.
Because there is great cultural diversity, two facts seem to be true about deviance. Firstly, what one culture may accept and even encourage, another one may frown upon and condemn. Furthermore, cultural norms are not static – they change constantly and, hence, transform, a culture’s understanding of the deviant. For example, in Western countries, homosexuality was seen as a moral failing and a dangerous quality that defined a person in a negative way. In North America, up until the 1960s, being outed as a homosexual could lead to ostracism, isolation, assault, and even legal prosecution. Today, gay rights have evolved to make diverse sexual orientations more acceptable.
I found the social disorganization theory to be the most constructive in approaching the issue of deviance. The theory argues that it is social ties and relationships that play a central role in reinforcing moral values and codes of behavior. Therefore, a person who is attached, committed, and involved is less likely to violate the norms. He or she seeks others’ approval, is assigned roles and responsibilities within a given community, and has something to lose, be it respect, reputation, employment, or other benefits. It seems that the social disorganization theory counters a common deterministic view that some people are born criminals. Instead, it emphasizes the impact of environmental factors in shaping individuals and predicting their compliance with the norm.