Sociological perspectives and analysis

¶ … emotionally charged concepts in the study of sociology is that of what constitutes "deviance." In common conversation, to call someone is a "deviant" is usually meant as an insult to that individual's character. It suggests that he or she lives beyond the pale of the law, or engages in aberrant sexual or social behavior. However, in James Henslin's Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, it becomes clear that our notions of deviance are tied to our culture, and what constitutes deviant behavior as a category is not a pre-existing 'fact.' For example, some Indian tribes accept hallucinogenic drug use as natural, rather than as illegal, unlike our own society (Henslin 2005: 139). The "relativity" of deviance in sociological terms means merely departing from a particular socially constructed norm. The sociological notion of relative deviance implies the relative nature of what constitutes a crime (for example, homosexual acts were deemed criminal not so long ago, because societal prejudices were codified into the law), or the relative nature of what is a social faux pas. A fast food cashier refusing to 'seat' a customer with crying children would be shocking, while this behavior might be acceptable in a fancy French restaurant (Henslin 2005: 140).

Membership in deviant groups may be voluntary (like a punk rocker teen who sports a Mohawk and a safety pin through his lip), involuntary (like a person with a diagnosis of cancer undergoing chemotherapy that results in hair loss) or a mixture of the two (a woman who decides to pursue a largely all-male occupation like becoming a chef because of her love of cooking may not do so because she wants to seem different, but she is still willing to overcome negative social sanctions to do so) (Henslin 2005: 140).

Some categories of deviancy are questionable and seem based more upon societal prejudice, but this is not clear in all cases of deviancy. For example, what about 'social phobia'? In some societies, shyness is not seen as abnormal, but in the U.S.'s competitive and confrontational culture, it is. But on the other hand, one cannot be so relativistic and state that deviance is just in the eye of the beholder. Jeff Bell, as he discusses in his article in the New York Times on February 6, 2008, entitled "When Anxiety is at the Table," has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder to such a degree that dining out in a restaurant can feel traumatic. People with OCD are a category of 'deviants' but they do not share many common characteristics otherwise, unlike members of marginalized races or socioeconomic classes. "We are an eclectic bunch spanning every imaginable cross-section of society, and we battle an equally eclectic mix of obsessions and compulsions. Some of us obsess about contamination, others about hurting people, and still others about symmetry" (Bell 2008:1).

This deviance is not chosen, like a physical disease, but it can affect the individual's entire character from an early age, unlike being diagnosed with cancer or AIDS. Individuals with this psychological disorder (that may have its roots in a chemical imbalance or genetic tendency or a combination of both) are not necessarily 'unified' like members of other socially deviant categories who lobby to have their deviancy accepted. Instead, therapists try to treat OCD in a way that they hope changes the biological 'wiring' of the brain that contributes to OCD by slowly exposing suffers to different anxiety-fraught situations.

Regardless, OCD manifests itself in a way that will be read as socially deviant by observers. Some people with OCD in a restaurant will demand to examine the waiter's hands for scratches, in case the server's blood might contaminate their food, or have to rotate through several tables to find one that does not wobble (Bell 2008:1-2). These rituals, as they become increasingly difficult to replicate, can make living in 'normal' society increasingly difficult.