Deviant Behavior
Introduction
Deviant behavior entails actions outside the established social fiber or norms. These behaviors and actions are considered violations and judged against the dynamic cultural norms. The perpetuators are subjected to stigmatization and a diminished social image (Thio 2010). Even thought the results of violation are the same, the violations are different depending on time and place. This can be explained by the varying cultural norms distinct to particular cultures, societies and subcultures (Giddens & Sutton 2010). Subcultures may have different believes and norms from the cultural context they are in for instance gangs robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
In the American society, infidelity has long been considered a deviant behavior. This is particularly so with high profile individuals who have to sell themselves to the society as faithful and committed family men to garner public confidence. Take for instance former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. His case has dominated news media for a while provoking subtle societal dislike. Arnold has had numerous achievements, constantly putting him the society’s good books but as characteristic of deviant behavior, the violator of social norms risks losing or having a totally changed reputation.
Facts of the event
Arnold admitted to having an affair and ultimately a child with his former house servant Mildred Patricia Baena in episodes between 1996 and 1997. Having discovered the child’s existence in 1998 Arnold made immediate child support arrangements and has been doing so for the fourteen years. To escalate further the issue, he kept the issue discrete from his wife and public for thirteen years. During his tenure as governor, the issue had come while he was running for his first term but discredited as mere rumor (Roxanne & Argetsinger 2011).
When he was first confronted, about the issue during his last months as governor he denied it but while leaving the office he admitted and apologized for the moral discretion. Arnold’s wife Mariah Shiver came of certain knowledge of the affair and the child last year even though she had presumably known of it. This came after she bluntly asked Patricia who confirmed her long-held suspicions. Mariah immediately made a request to Arnold to move out of their home, a request that was denied forcing her to move out into a Beverly Hills hotel.
Joseph Baena is the Arnold’s child with Patricia whom had worked in the household staff for nearly twenty years. To add to public incense was the fact Patricia was also married at the time of the affair implying she was also cheating on her husband. In those twenty years, Patricia witnessed the birth and raised three of four of Arnold’s children with Shiver. Currently, Arnold and Shiver are working on a divorce settlement in regards to custody of their last child and division of their wealth (Roxanne & Argetsinger 2011).
Having stated the facts, it is obvious from the public reaction and subtle prejudice towards Arnold’s actions that those actions are socially deviant. For an action to be deviant, it must induce negative reaction and possible punitive measures against the actor. Consequently, if the allegations could have been confirmed before Arnold run for the governor’s office, society would have denied him the authority and leadership privilege. This denial is equivalent to other punitive measures administered within a society to prevent deviance from occurring (Roxanne & Argetsinger 2011).
Characteristics and causes
Four characteristics are identifiable to make a behavior or action by a person deviant. The first is digression from social norms illustrated by Arnold having an extra-marital affair with Patricia who in turn cheats on her husband. The details of this action evoke resent and dislike from majority of the society thus a disregard to social norms. Deviant behavior is performed either individually or collectively as a group. This is the second characteristic and in Arnold’s case it is collective given Patricia is involved. Thirdly, deviant behaviors are differentiated in respect to cultures. For instance, whereas Arnold could have married Patricia as a second wife in some cultures in the American society it is perceived as infidelity. Lastly, deviant behaviors have punitive consequences such as diminished movie ratings for Arnold who happens to a movie star.
Several reasons are attributed to as causing deviant behavior. One such reason is faulty socialization where individuals have dysfunctional social relationships molding them to have wrong perceptions of normal. For instance, children maybe brought up by lying parents inducing them to lie when in trouble. The fact that social norms are not always understood due to ambiguity contributes to deviant behavior (Goode, 2005). For instance, Arnold may not have understood completely the consequences of his actions where he tried to conceal the matter from the public and his wife. There is high possibility he had not envisioned the effect it would have on his children perceptions about marriage.
Unequal enforcement of social laws and regulations increase the occurrence of deviant behavior where power creates dominance and alters enforcement. This is illustrated by the ease of getting away with white-collar crimes since the individual is politically powered as compared to a street criminal. Additionally, the differentiation and multiplicity of social norms creates many grey areas and individuals find it easy to rationalize or justify their behavior. In the event under consideration, the affair was at its peak when Arnold’s wife Mariah had business engagements in Europe thus her emotional unavailability may be used to justify Arnold’s infidelity. Another cause of deviant behavior is ineffective control or social control. For instance, there are no formal controls in marriage or in the generic society against infidelity. The implication from this is the individual exercises choice and self control at will.
Deviant theories explaining the event
One imperative question addressed in sociology of deviance is the reason behind the deviant behavior in this case why Arnold would cheat on his wife. Several theories are in place explaining the trigger behind deviant behavior the first being the strain theory. In the most basic sense, this theory attributes deviance to pressure conferred upon individuals to attain goals and objectives set by the society (Giddens & Sutton 2010). For instance, the society has set ethical living, experiencing pleasure, freedom and functional relationships as some of it goals.
Additionally, the manner of perception and attainments towards these goals creates a differentiation and ranking. Conformists agree on both the established goals and means of attainment, while innovators agree on the goals but formulate their own ways of attainment. On the other hand, ritualistics agree on the means of attainment and disregard the goals, while the retreatists disregard both the goals and ways of attainment ultimately secluding themselves from the society. The last group is the rebels who apart from disagreeing with both the goals and the means, formulate their own and try impose them on the society.
In view of the discussed strain theory, Arnold partly fit where he is in agreement with some goals such as pleasure, functional relationships and ethical living. However, he has different approached to attaining these goals where in pursuit of pleasure he engages in an extra-marital affair and in an attempt to maintain a functional relationship with his wife, he conceals it. He also conceals the information from the society since it would prevent leadership being conferred to him (Goode 2005). Additionally, he discretely offers child support to the love child indicating his acknowledgement of ethical living where an individual is liable or responsible for his decisions.
Another theory formulated to explain deviant behavior is the conflict theory where the society is divided into two groups namely the dominant and the deviant groups. The dominant group creates the social rules and regulations governing the society and labels characteristics of deviation from such rules. Dominance in a society can be credited to wealth or enumeration where a higher proportion consenting on particular rules makes the rules the social norms. For instance, the fact that most Americans uphold fidelity and honesty makes these two social norms to be adhered.
The conflict theory particularly aims at explaining deviance by low-income individuals where laws are deemed formed by the wealthier middle and high-income individuals. However, the theory is incapable of adequately explaining deviation in the dominant group such as white-collar crimes. This is in consideration of the dominant group having the prerogative to label deviants and thus cannot label itself as deviant (Giddens & Sutton 2010). In Arnold case, it only applies partly since it can explain why infidelity is a deviant behavior given majority of the population values fidelity.
Control theory is integrated with labeling theory characterized by the dominant group formulating the goals, means and regulations. Unlike the control theory, the labeling theory suggests the actor to be a result of labeling. The implication is the actor only becomes a deviant after being labeled so and aligns his or her behaviors with the labeling. The labeling is further divide into primary and secondary (Goode 2005). The former constitute the labeling occurring prior to the first deviant action where a person may be labeled a criminal accidentally without ever committing the crime. However, with time the labeling is rampant and regular where society views the individual as a criminal.
The person gives up on the idea of being good and strives to acting in alignment with the label. The labeling occurring after the person has acknowledged their deviant is the secondary labeling. In the instance of Arnold and Shiver, there was denial of infidelity from both parties at first. Only later did Arnold admit his affair and fathering a child outside his marriage. This can indicate both primary and secondary labeling. This theory fails to account fully for Arnold’s engagement in deviant behavior since he was not labeled as deviant prior to the action (Thio 2010). Additionally the theory proves faulty where there are persons who after being labeled do not align their behaviors to the label.
The neutralization theory can also be used to judge the situation and it is typified by the perpetuator or actor readjusting the definition of deviant in order to justify their actions. The justifications come in five classifications where the first is denial of responsibility characterized by the actor blaming the circumstance. In this classification, Arnold would justify his infidelity by probably stating his wife Shiver was not emotionally available leading to the extra-marital affair. This means if another person was in the similar circumstances they would resolve into similar deviant behavior
Denial of injury is the second justification where the actor validates the action by stating it did not injury or harm anyone. For instance, Arnold would say his infidelity did not hurt anyone provided it was kept discrete and he constantly paid the thirty thousand dollars of child support monthly. The denial of injury is closely associated with denial of victim where the actor views the deviant behavior as righteous force towards the victim (Goode 2005). In this case, Mariah deserved to be cheated on given she had estranged and distanced herself by her business commitments to Arnold.
The fourth justification arises where the actor justifies the action as a discrete norm and the condemners are being hypocritical since they are discretely involved in similar behaviors. This can be exemplified by Arnold accusing the society of hypocrisy since many men are involved in infidelity and thus it is almost a norm invalidating his deviant behavior. Additionally, he can question the sincerity of concerned members of the society since Patricia equally cheated on her husband but is not subject to similar resent and critic. The last and fifth justification under the neutralization theory is the actor claiming a higher righteous authority or obligation than the societal rules. This is explained where children lie to police to keep their parents from jail. In the instance of Arnold and Shiver, the concealing of the affair and the child for over a decade can be warranted by his intention to prevent a divorce or shame to the family.
Cultural transmission is another theory through which Arnold and Patricia’s extra marital affair can be filtered thorough (Thio 2010). This theory states that deviance is transferred or induced to a person by other deviant members. The basic argument behind this notion is a person’s behavior can be altered through information regardless of the person’s consent. The possibility of an individual engaging in deviant activities is determined by the contact ratio between deviants and conformists. For instance, Arnold was induced into infidelity by prolonged exposure to friends engaging in infidelity. On the other hand, Patricia consented to Arnolds approach since she had exposure to person’s engaged in infidelity. This theory is faulty since it only explains spread of deviant behaviors but not how it arises.
References
Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2010). Sociology: Introductory readings. Cambridge: Polity.
Goode, E. (2005). Deviant behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Thio, A. (2010). Deviant behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Roxanne R. & Argetsinger A, (2011). How did he keep the secret so long? Washington post, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable source/post/schwarzeneggers-love-child-how-did-he-keep-the-secret-so-long/2011/05/17/AF4gd35G_blog.html
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]