The opposite of deviance is conformity; it is both to accept the mainstream societal goals and to use legal ways to achieve those goals (Merton, 1957). Many sociological theories exist in an attempt to explain why someone would become a deviant or a conformist. Any behavior can be considered deviant depending on the circumstance (Simmons article, as cited in Ferrante, 1995). Therefore, to assume that someone can be completely non-deviant would be counterintuitive. I however, for the most part, am a conformist. Deviance is not a behavior that I am familiar with and in most circumstances try to avoid.
This can be best explained by the Differential Association Theory, which states that deviant or criminal behavior is learned through peoples’ close associations with other deviant people (Sutherland & Cressey, 1977). For example if someone were going to steal a car, they would have to be taught how to break into it without being caught and how to hot-wire it. They would also have to learn the rationale or motivation for stealing the car. People are not born knowing how to steal cars. Although, this theory helps to explain deviant behavior it equally explains non-deviant behavior (Sutherland & Cressey, 1977). For example, I was raised by two middleclass Midwestern Catholic parents. I was taught the value of a good education, hard work, and family. I was never exposed to any type of illegal activity nor was I exposed to anyone that would be considered deviant in society today. My father owned his own construction business and my mother worked for a semiconductor plant, making microchips. Not only was I rarely shown deviant behavior but I was taught to be a “good catholic” girl. Although Differential Association Theory begins to explain why I was not a deviant child or teenager, it does not fully explain why I maintain my conformity as an adult, for this I look to Control Theory.
Control Theory is the idea that one’s connections to society can predict the likelihood of them being deviant or criminal (Hirschi, 1969). Travis Hirschi describes the commitment component of the control theory. He says that those who are committed to conformity are in fear of losing the things they have worked for and therefore do not act upon criminal or deviant ideas (Hirschi, 1969). As a wife and mother of two, I am definitely committed to conformity. It is important for me to be seen as a good role model for my children. Because I am very involved with my children’s’ schools and my husband’s business it is important that my community views me as responsible and trustworthy as well. The Control Theory also states that both the deviant and the non-deviant believe the rules of society, they only differ in what extent they believe they should obey those rules (Hirschi, 1969). Maybe that is where Differential Association comes in, to the extent that if someone is taught that the rules do not apply to them then they will choose when to believe them and when not to.
Together Differential Association Theory and Control Theory explain why I am not deviant. My close associations with people taught me to conform to societies written and unwritten laws and my close bonds to society continue to reaffirm my decision to conform. Of course, this only applies to deviant behavior that one chooses and not to any societal deviance, which one is born with.
While choosing to act deviant for a day I conducted an informal experiment in personal space. American society has an unwritten rule about individual space that we all seem to learn sometime in early childhood. Most people in public seem to stay at least four feet away from each other. To sit or stand closer to strangers is considered deviant. This video from Seinfeld illustrates the awkwardness that people feel when this personal space is invaded. In this video
Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ character Elaine has a new boyfriend that Jerry has coined as “a bit of a close talker” notice the reaction of Kramer as he meets the close talker for the first time. The reactions of Kramer, although extream,clearly show the inappropriateness of this behavior.
To conduct this experiment I went to various public places, stood as close as I could to complete strangers, and observed their responses. As the conformist, that I previously mentioned, I was nervous to begin this experiment. Therefore, I decided to start with my 11-year-old son. Immediately upon him coming home from school, I began getting closer and closer to him and asked how his day was. As soon as I got within about a foot from his face, he stopped what he was saying and with a confused look said, “What are you doing mom?” I then began the experiment in public.
It was surprisingly difficult to get close to many of the people in the grocery store. I found that as soon as I would get within about three feet of them they would quickly move. I soon realized that the only people I was going to be able to get close to, were the people trapped in the checkout line. I approached the checkout line and stood behind a woman about 40 years old. She had already placed her groceries on the conveyer belt so I knew she could not move. I walked up behind her and stood as close as I could to her without touching her. She immediately turned around and asked if I wanted to go ahead of her. After I politely declined, she turned back around, my presence clearly making her uncomfortable. I myself was getting uncomfortable and was nervous about what she might say to me. With great relief, she said nothing more. The woman continued facing forward, shifted her weight from foot to foot and began to sigh loudly seeming very nervous. After what seemed like an eternity, she stepped to the side and pretended to look at the candy bars until it was her turn to check out. I then went to a local coffee shop where there was another woman standing at the counter waiting for her drinks. I ordered my drink and walked over to the appropriate waiting area. I again got as close to the women as I could. She quickly stepped to the side putting a comfortable distance between us. I again stepped close to her and without looking at me, she quickly moved across the room, as if I had the plague, until her drinks were done. It was all I could do to contain my laughter.
I then went to a sandwich shop and proceeded to perform the same actions to the 20 or so young man standing in line. To my surprise, he completely ignored me. After he paid for his sandwich he turned to walk away and I smiled at him, he did not smile back and quickly looked the other way.
This experiment gave me a small look at what it is like to be seen as a deviant. Having people feel uncomfortable around me was something I had not experienced before. I was very nervous about what the reactions of people would be. While I was standing with the woman in the grocery store, my heart was pounding fast and I felt very anxious. The fact is that because I am a white, middle class, woman of somewhat appropriate size I was not seen as much of a threat in these situations. It is possible that if I had been a man, the woman in the grocery store would have thought I was being a pervert or maybe a pickpocket. Of course, I could not know what the reactions would have been if I were a person of color or someone that is morbidly obese, but I can only expect that they would have been more overt. This is not to say that I now know what it is like to be known as a deviant however, maybe now I am a little more empathetic.
Word Count- 1,344
References:
Ferrante, J. (1995). Sociology A Global Perspective. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Control Theory. In A. Thio, T. C. Calhoun, & A. Conyers, Readings In Deviant Behavior sixth edition (pp. 30-32). Pearson Education Inc.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Strain Theory. In A. Thio, T. Calhoun, & A. Conyers, Readings In Deviant Behavior sixth edition (pp. 21-26). Pearson Education Inc.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1977). Differential Association Theory. In A. Thio, T. C. Calhoun, & A. Conyers, Readings In Deviant Behavior sixth edition (pp. 27-29). Pearson Education Inc.
