Deviance?

Which theory of deviant behavior do you agree with and why?

This is a challenging question. Of the varying theories behind deviance, I tend to like elements of each.

The most interesting statement I found in the textbook discussion was on page 136: "Everyone is deviant to some extent or other, at one time or another, but not everyone is a criminal."

Please allow me to digress for a moment. I must acknowledge the lens through which I view this topic and all topics for that matter. I was raised in a very conservative family which placed great emphasis on the teachings of the Bible. I attended private schools that caused me to
pursue independent thought in the context of moral absolutes. As a young adult, I attended two years of formal concentrated Biblical/religious training. This has unquestionably influenced my perspectives. I cannot eliminate this from who I am, nor do I desire to do so.

I will not claim to be a great theologian or Biblical expert, but I do have a little more than average familiarity with its words and meanings as well as varying perspectives and interpretations of its teachings.

This said, I find it rather fascinating that the writers of the Bible depict a startlingly clear representation of what some have termed, "the human condition." This is the very same concept the textbook discussed (see above). One Biblical writer wrote, "All have sinned and come short of the glory [perfection] of God." (The Letter to the Romans, Chapter 3) There are many other references and allusions to this same concept. Regardless of one's definition of "God" the idea that no human is perfect corresponds well with the idea of general human deviance.

I also find it interesting that the Bible alludes to a genetic passing of this imperfection (as by one man - Adam - death by sin entered the world, so by one man - Christ - all may be made alive). I truly believe that weaknesses and/or proclivities toward certain behaviors may be perpetuated from generation to generation (familial tendencies toward alcoholism, depression, etc. are well-documented).

Additionally, I have to agree that not only are we all "imperfect" and deviant; not only are we all genetically flawed in one way or another; but, we are all affected by the environment in which we are raised, and by the psychological self-perception we derive from the input of
others. Biblical writers also addressed these issues by encouraging family stability, consistency of individual and societal norms and values, and the responsibility of each individual to make choices and live according to the positive or negative consequences of those choices.

In conclusion:
I comprehend the relativity of deviance.
I believe in some biological/genetic factors of deviance.
I disagree with the psychological position that all deviance is medically based.
I acknowledge the existence of genuine medical/mental/chemical disorders that may contribute to deviant behavior.
I agree that Social Integration or lack thereof (anomie) does impact one's tendencies toward or away from deviant behavior...but it is not a sole motivator.
I also agree that cultural transmission and labeling plays a serious and possibly causal role in deviant behavior, but again it is not the sole motivator.
Except in the case of the genuinely mentally/medically impaired individual, choice always still has a role.

There is a lot more to be said, but I think that's enough for now. :-)

The textbook referred to is Contemporary Society: An Introduction to Social Science, by John A. & Erna K. Perry. ISBN: 0-205-45884-X

Nature Vs. Nurture?

This is from a discussion I posted to about the nature vs. nurture debate in one of my college classes. It is original for whatever it's worth.

With a quick scan of some of the available material on the subject, it appears that currently the nature vs. nurture is moving away from its traditional roots a little bit. While nurture traditionally was understood to be the home and family in which one was raised (or lack thereof) now it is becoming more common to understand the nurture side of things as being the totality of environment in which one is brought up. The nature of course refers to one's own innate qualities or inner self.

As to which one is responsible for human behavior and proclivities, I tend to walk somewhere in the middle. I also ascribe to the Biblical perspective which I will briefly delineate.

I believe that the rapid rate of discoveries in the field of genetics holds great promise for unlocking many of the biological "players" in our bodies that predispose us to certain strengths or weaknesses. However, given the nature of human beings, some squander great opportunity and others overcome great adversity to triumph. This demonstrates that it is not entirely genetic nor is it entirely a choice. It is most often a combination of the two.

The Biblical perspective is that mankind was created in the image of God with great perfection and nobility. It describes a process by which that perfection was marred and mankind became morally and biologically imperfect from its original design.

This to me illustrates why some people without faith can accomplish great acts of goodness and nobility and conversely why some people of faith can wreak great havoc and corruption. The reason is simply that all men hold vestiges of their originally intrinsic goodness as well as an intrinsic marred morality. This makes makes all men subject to the greatest of liberties: to choose their own pathway to the left or right...toward right or wrong...toward life or death in the great and small. This Biblical perspective I believe to be a remarkably accurate portrayal of the state of man. It is clear and direct and pulls no punches. It paints a picture of humanity as we are.

Therefore when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I believe we are genetically wired toward good and bad, strength and weakness: biologically and morally. However, what is done with that package is also heavily influenced by the environment in which it is placed. I would have to posit that I believe in nature and nurture.