Our relationships with others may allow for rather targeted recruitment activities. Friends may encourage drug use, co-workers may support the development of a sense of larceny, extended relations may offer up opportunities for involvements in organized crime, and the classmate who is an exotic dancer may attempt to recruit new dancers for the club. All in all, people may find that their careers of involvement in deviant activity are in the first instance facilitated by the direct recruitment activities of others.
In addition to recruitment, individuals may develop particular fascinations, intrigues and curiosities about any particular form of deviant behavior. In these cases individuals may seek out those who participate in the activity in an attempt to facilitate initial involvements. In fact those involved in various businesses may explicitly attend to providing opportunities for those seeking out various forms of deviant behavior; lingerie shops may find innovative ways to market to male clients, bars may facilitate access to prostitution, web sites may provide various forms of opportunities for those seeking participation in a deviant activity to locate others with similar interests.
Individuals may also find their initial involvements in deviant behavior facilitated by drift. Drift occurs when expectations of behavior are suspended or neutralized by participants. Drift therefore facilitates initial involvements through the neutralization or suspension of everyday expectations of behavior. Closure is also a routing for initial involvements. Individuals may perceive there to be few options but to join a gang, take part in the family business, or to engage in otherwise unwelcome sexual activity for fear of loss of employment.
In developing his career contingencies model of deviant behavior, Robert Prus attends to the multiple routings that can be a part of initial involvements in deviant behavior. Rarely are the social processes of initial involvement simple. Closure can be accompanied by recruitment, while seekership and drift can help us to understand involvements in a cult.
Continuing Involvements Initial involvement may be logically necessary for continuing involvements, but they in no way ensure or require that individuals will maintain their participation in any particular deviant activity. Marijuana users may not associate the consumption of the drug with the effect, may define the effect as less than pleasurable, or may lack the interpersonal relationships necessary to sustain access to the drug or drug-use subcultures.
Sharing Worldviews Perspectives reflect the lenses that people use in attributing meaning to their worlds. Continuing involvements in deviant settings and subcultures are enhancing when the participant shares or comes to share the meaning of other participants. Over time public nudity may come to be understood differently by exotic dancers, interpersonal violence by muggers, billiards by hustlers and sexual intercourse by prostitutes. The interpretive frames found in subcultures may certainly not be uniform, but they tend to be distinct from those outside of the subculture.
We tend to find that the more fully encompassing the subculture, the more comparatively complex the set of understandings that accompany continuing involvements. Identity There is an important sociological distinction to be made between those who engage in deviant behavior and those who come to organize their identities and relations with others on the basis of deviant activities. There is an important difference between someone who considers themselves a musician who occasionally uses drugs and an individual who organizes their lives more fully around drug use and who plays gigs in order to support drug use activities.
Identities are complex social constructions that reflect the interplay between self and others. Of course there is no uniformity in this; people may simultaneously be seen and see themselves in ways that may be quite diverse. One can simultaneously be cast as the hero, the villain and the fool. However, how one defines his or her self and how others define them may be particularly relevant for continuing involvements in deviant activities.
Where subcultures expect of all members deep and at times quite personal commitments to a life-world, successful identity transformation is a requirement of ongoing participation. Learning the Ropes Deviance involves doing something — robbing a bank, stripping, getting a tattoo, or convincing others to share a particular perspective. Continuing involvements in deviant behavior require participants to develop and sustain the skills, plans of action, interpersonal relationships, and methods of realizing their deviant involvements in everyday terms.
The socialization of members involves supporting the development of the techniques required to undertake the activities of the group. Strippers learn to work an audience and dance technique, professional gamblers learn how to palm a card, and bank robbers learn to take command of an everyday setting and alter its purpose for their own ends.
For participation to continue in any particular deviant activity, members must develop minimum levels of subcultural competence. This second definition would be common amongst some members of the weak group. Thirdly, neither Law-observance nor non-observance determines normative Christ-following practice; therefore, both Law-observance and non-observance occur amongst normative Christ-followers.
Some members of both the weak group and strong group, including Paul, hold this opinion. Therefore, the weak and the strong groups are at odds over the limits of acceptable Christ-following behaviour in respect to the observance of Jewish practices. The interactionist study of deviance focuses on how some groups and individuals in a society or a group are identified and punished as unacceptably abnormal. The interactionist approach examines two sides of deviance. On one hand, interactionists study deviance as a process by which a person becomes deviant and develops his or her 'deviant career' Becker On the other hand, interactionists also analyse how a society or group, in a sense, creates deviance.
However, the notion of 'creating' deviance is a bit misleading, for it does not indicate that the society forces a person to become a deviant. What it does mean is that societies and groups engage in a process to identify and control those whom they consider deviant. Howard S. Becker sets out the basics of the deviance process, in which four types of actors participate. The rule-creators will eventually create a rule, law or custom that identifies the activity or characteristic as 'deviance', thereby labelling anyone who participates in the deviance as a 'deviant'.
Often, the rule will include corrective measures or punishments controlling the deviant. The second group of actors are rule-enforcers, who are responsible for the identification and punishment of deviance and deviants. An additional goal of rule enforcement is to deter potential deviants from engaging in deviant activities. Rule-creators may also function as rule-enforcers; however, these two groups are often distinct.
Becker lumps rule-creators and rule-enforcers into a superordinate group of 'moral entrepreneurs'. The third group of actors, whom Becker does not explicitly mention, is the general public or general group membership. As the moral entrepreneurs successively sway members of the general public to their opinion, those persuaded transfer from the general public to the moral entrepreneurs group.
However, the general public also provides the pool for potential deviants. The fourth group of actors are those labelled as 'deviants' by the moral entrepreneurs. Rules appeal to social values, such as justice or freedom. The problem with values is that they are very generic; therefore, rules function as interpretations and applications of values. Thus, part of the moral enterprise is to sway the public or group majority to believe that their deviance-identifying rules are appropriate applications of common social values Becker The moral enterprise may fail at any point if the social consensus does not consider the rule an appropriate interpretation of the value s.
Additionally, the moral enterprise may fail if the rest of the society or group does not subscribe to the value. In such a case, the value is not a common social value but a value to a particular person or group. The deviance process becomes complicated when we consider that often 'deviants' will counter by labelling their labellers as 'deviants' Becker Indeed, as Becker explains, 'Deviance is not a quality that lies in behavior itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it.
Instead, they are the object of conflict and disagreement, part of the political process of society. Consequently, the identification of deviant behaviour functions as a means of establishing normative behaviour, particularly in conflicts involving what the social actors perceive as mutually exclusive options. Such a situation is apparently occurring in Romans , for the identity of the Law-observant Christ-followers is at stake in these chapters.
According to Stuart Henry :. Romans appears to be describing a situation of internal deviance within a group already considered deviant by the broader society. Here, the moral entrepreneurs can be divided into three, or possibly four, categories, 1 those who seek to exclude the Law-observant Christ-followers, 2 those who seek to include the Law-observant Christ-followers, 3 those undecided and 4 possibly some Law-observant Christ-followers who want to separate from non-observant Christ-followers.
The broader Christ-following community in Rome likely appealed to similar social values in this conflict. If we assume that Paul represents a moderately 'strong' position cf. Rm , the radical strong, who supported the exclusion of the Law-observant, most likely appealed to the value of freedom. The radical weak, who supported the exclusion of the non-observant, likely appealed to the value of righteousness; that is, obedience to the ordinances of the Law.
If we take references to freedom from 'the law of sin and death' and from 'the law' in Romans as references to the Christ-followers' freedom from the Mosaic Law Dunn a , we are able to see how Paul himself appeals to the value of freedom for defending the non-observant lifestyle. However, 1 Corinthians likely reflects Paul's less radical approach toward Law-observance amongst Christ-followers:. As such, freedom from the Law does not mean that Paul or any other Christ-follower is prohibited from keeping any aspect of the Law; however, it does means that one is free to observe or not to observe the Law.
The moderately strong and moderately weak likely appealed to the value of freedom as Paul apparently understood it. Thus, two hierarchies of values exist. The first is held by everyone, except the radical weak, and places freedom over righteousness. Better yet, it is clear that Paul himself subsumes righteousness under freedom. The sticking point in the conflict is not necessarily different values, but, more importantly, different interpretations of the same values.
For Paul, an element of righteousness is freedom from the Law and the equality of all Christ-followers. However, equality is not egalitarianism and thus Paul favours the weak in these verses. Although he does not label the weak as 'outsiders', he still recognises difference and subtly indicates that non-observance is more normative. Paul seems to be countering an increasingly popular sentiment in the mid-1st-century Roman Christ-movement, specifically the wholesale rejection of Law-observant Christ-following and Law-observant Christ-followers.
- Robert Prus?
- Medical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (4th Edition).
- The Johns: Sex for Sale and the Men Who Buy It!
- Profiles by type;
- Catalogue Search?
- Eustache Deschamps: Selected Poems (Routledge Medieval Texts).
- Birth Order: An Adlerian View (Theme Pack 1 on Selected Topics).
Paul seeks to drum up resistance to the radically strong opinion and thwart the radically strong's desire to see Law-observant Christ-followers and their practice excluded from the Roman churches. He is what Erving Goffman would term a 'wise' person; that is, someone who is not a deviant but is familiar with the deviants and accepts them Goffman Nevertheless, Paul's sympathy in this regard is limited. Justin Martyr and Law-observant Christ-followers.
The level of influence of Romans in the life of the Roman Church, of course, is not available within Paul's letter to Rome. Thus, we must search later writings for clues to the actual effects of Romans in the Roman Church. Andrew Das comments, 'Paul's struggle against the Christian Gentiles in Rome, who were already dismissing Judaism and the value of the Mosaic Law, also presaged problems in the future. According to L. In Dialogue 47, Justin answers Trypho's question as to whether Christ-following Jews are saved by Christ and accepted into Christ-following churches.
This passage may contain one of the earliest applications of Romans as it contains key words that appear in Romans In addition, the word Dialogue However, Justin also alludes to 1 Corinthians and possibly also to Galatians. In particular, [weakness of thinking] in Dialogue In addition, the concept of Christ-following Jews pressuring Gentiles to undergo circumcision Dialogue Nevertheless, enough similarity exists between Romans and Dialogue 47 to suggest that Justin has Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians in mind at this point.
What links these three passages and Dialogue 47 is the appearance of words related to weakness. In addition, Romans , 1 Corinthians and Galatians deal with food restrictions and commensality. Nevertheless, the only specific Jewish observance mentioned in Dialogue 47 is circumcision, which is a non-issue in Romans However, as Craig D. Allert has explained, 'In Dial. Justin explains in Dialogue 47 how he thinks the Church should treat Christ-following Jews. He associates Law-observance and other Jewish customs with [weakness of thinking]. He has two requirements for Law-observant Christ-followers in order for him to accept them as genuine Christ-followers.
Firstly, they cannot attempt to persuade Christ-following Gentiles to adopt circumcision, Sabbath observance and any other Jewish custom. Secondly, they must welcome and accept non-observant Christ-followers and fellowship with them. Justin declares that if Law-observant Christ-followers keep these requirements, he accepts them. Justin prefers non-observance; however, Law-observance does not prevent one from 'being saved'.
For instance, in Romans , 'the circumcised' functions as a metonym for Jews. Similarly, Justin e. Dialogue 16; 46 considers circumcision to be a characteristic cultural marker of Jews. I will make a few pertinent observations of Dialogue 47 in relation to my analysis of Romans Firstly, Dialogue , as a whole, suggests that dialogue between Christ-followers and Jews outside the Christ-movement was a real possibility.
The existence of Dialogue itself attests to this possibility; however, separation of church and synagogue seems to be quite advanced Remus , We must also not gloss over the fiercely polemical character of the rhetoric employed by Justin. As such, he demonstrates considerable disdain toward Jews and Jewish customs and he frequently employs derogatory rhetoric and fierce accusations against Jews. Justin is not beyond insults and name-calling. For example, he tells Trypho, 'you are a foolish people and hard-hearted' Dialogue Furthermore, Justin accuses the Jewish people of murder in relation to the death of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus.
In chapter 55, Justin declares:. According to Justin, not only are the Jews unable to understand Scripture properly, the prophetic gift has transferred from the Jews to Christ-followers Dialogue In respect to Jewish customs circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. However, Justin takes over these customs and concepts and gives them new Christ-following significance. Consequently, Justin either usurps, as Christ-following identity markers, the major Jewish identity markers, or completely dismisses them.
Finally, he also excludes from salvation Jews outside the Christ-movement Dialogue 26; 47; ; therefore, he considers them to stand under divine condemnation just as the Gentiles outside the Christ-movement Dialogue 19; ; The result of this fierce polemic is that Jews outside the Christ-movement are enemies for whom Christ-followers should pray. In chapter 96, Justin says:. Although Dialogue shows that discussion is possible between a Christ-following Gentile and a Jew who is outside the Christ-movement, such discussion could be filled with conflict, rivalry and venomous accusations.
The second observation concerns Justin's personal opinion regarding the salvation of Law-observant Christ-followers. Justin accepts both Law-observant and non-observant Christ-followers as genuine members of the Christ-movement; however, he admits that some Christ-followers would disagree with him. Toward the beginning of Dialogue 47, Justin begins his conditional acceptance of Law-observant Christ-followers with 'in my opinion, Trypho, such a one will be saved' Dialogue In response, Trypho takes the phrase 'in my opinion' as indication of the existence of a view contrary to Justin's Dialogue Subsequently, Justin readily admits that some non-observant Christ-followers do not accept Law-observant Christ-followers as saved.
Thirdly, Justin assumes that the vast majority of Law-observant Christ-followers are Jewish and demonstrates this assumption in two ways. Justin prohibits Law-observant Christ-followers from persuading Gentiles to undergo circumcision. Furthermore, he refers to Law-observant Christ-followers as Trypho's kin and siblings Dialogue Theodore Stylianopoulos notes that Justin never rules out the possibility of Law-observant Gentile Christfollowers.
Nevertheless, Justin seems to assume that nearly all Law-observant Christ-followers are Christ-following Jews. Thus, for Justin, the term 'Law-observant Christ-follower' is effectively synonymous with 'Christ-following Jew'. Fourthly, Justin assumes that the majority of Christ-followers are Gentiles.
He says that he will accept Law-observant Christ-followers who 'chose to live with the Christ-followers and the faithful' Dialogue Here and function as hendiadys for 'faithful Christ-followers'. For Justin, 'faithful' is surely a circumlocution for 'orthodox'. Therefore, Justin's stereotypical orthodox Christ-follower is non-observant and Gentile. Daniel Boyarin describes Justin as an inventor of Christian heresiology, although he never writes a major heresiological work.
Justin is concerned with demarcating certain groups of Christ-followers as heretics, of whom a defining quality is separation from those who practice Justin's form of Christ-following. Yet, unlike later Christ-following writers such as Jerome, Justin still considers it possible for Christ-following Jews to be 'orthodox' Boyarin Justin's opinions on Law-observant Christ-followers are substantially different from his opinions on the Marcionites.
He thinks the 'orthodox' communities should exclude the Marcionites; however, he 'welcomes' the Law-observant Christ-followers into fellowship under two conditions, 1 they must accept other Christ-followers' choice not to observe the Law and 2 they must associate with and participate in the 'non-observant' Christ-following fellowships.
The Deviant Mystique: Involvements, Realities, and Regulation
Of course, any Christ-followers who reject the validity of non-observance would most certainly disassociate themselves from non-observant Christ-following groups. The underlying principle for Justin is that Law-observant Christ-followers must accept the legitimacy of non-observant Christ-followers; however, Justin does not require non-observant Christ-followers to accept the legitimacy of Law-observant Christ-followers. Justin indicates that some Christ-followers, who are presumably 'orthodox', do not accept Law-observant Christ-followers as genuine Dialogue Failure to accept Law-observant Christ-followers into church fellowship is tantamount to labelling the Law-observant Christ-follower a 'heretic'.
We likely can assume that Justin has no problem with non-observant Christ-followers pressuring Law-observant Christ-followers to abandon Law-observance. He does not make non-observant Christ-followers' salvation dependent on accepting the Law-observant Christ-followers. Thus, my fifth and final observation is that Justin creates a double standard. Law-observant Christ-followers must accept non-observant Christ-followers, but non-observant Christ-. Additionally, Law-observant Christ-followers may not separate into distinct Law-observant churches; instead, they must participate in the churches of the non-observant.
However, non-observant Christ-followers may accept or exclude Law-observant Christ-followers from their communities without any effect on their salvation. Although Justin places Law-observant Christ-followers within the boundaries of 'orthodoxy', he relegates them to a relatively marginal position inside the 'orthodox' church. Comparing Dialogue 47 with Romans Justin's approach to Law-observant Christ-followers is quite similar to Paul's approach in Romans.
Firstly, both Justin and Paul accept the validity of Law-observant Christ-following, although both consider it to be a weaker form. Secondly, Paul and Justin both want Law-observant Christ-followers to meet in the same congregations as non-observant Christ-followers. Thirdly, both writers apparently know of non-observant Christ-followers who completely reject Law-observant Christ-following and vice versa. Fourthly, Paul and Justin do not require Law-observance for Christ-followers and Law-observance, as noted by Stylianopoulos , is relatively unimportant for both Paul and Justin. Fifthly, they both prohibit Law-observant Christ-followers from persuading or coercing Gentile Christ-followers to practice the Law.
Sixthly, according to both writers, God is the rightful judge of Christ-followers' behaviour.
Redefining the Sociological Paradigm: Emile Durkheim and the Scientific Study of Morality
Nevertheless, some subtle differences exist. Firstly, Justin, unlike Paul, never addresses non-observant Christ-followers' responsibilities toward Law-observant Christ-followers. Secondly, whilst Paul issues a mandate for both the weak and the strong to seek fellowship with one another, Justin does not require non-observant Christ-followers to meet with the Law-observant Christ-followers. Thus, the burden to ensure fellowship between the two types of Christ-followers falls solely upon the Law-observant Christ-followers.
Thirdly, Justin sets up a double standard. Law-observant Christ-followers' salvation depends on the acceptance of non-observant Christ-followers. However, non-observant Christ-followers may be saved regardless of whether they accept Law-observant Christ-followers. Despite Paul's favouritism toward the strong, he does not establish such a double standard.
Fourthly, whilst Paul refers to an actual situation involving Law-observant Christ-followers, Justin treats Law-observant Christ-following rather hypothetically. Fifthly, Paul calls Law-observant Christ-followers 'weak in faith' and simply 'weak', which are certainly pejorative labels. Justin, however, describes them as 'weak-minded', which is a harsher label.
Sixthly, Justin takes Paul's favouritism for non-observant Christ-following to another level by setting Law-observance on the very margins of 'orthodoxy'. The only thing keeping the Law-observant from being heretics is their willingness to accept and meet with non-observant Christ-followers. Seventhly, Justin addresses the issue of Christ-following Jews who have renounced Christ.
These former Christ-followers will face severe punishment at God's final judgement. Upon renouncing Christ, the former Christ-followers fall into the same category as heretics who misrepresent Christ and deserve condemnation at the eschatological judgement. Nowhere in Romans, nor anywhere else, does Paul explicitly address a situation in which Jewish Christ-followers renounce their Christ-following identity. Justin and Law-observant Christ-followers in the 2nd-century. Shifting the emphasis somewhat, from those participating in problematic realms of activity to matters of control and disinvolvement, chapters 10 through 13 revisit and extend some regulatory themes introduced in chapters 4 and 5.
Chapter 10 considers the commonplace, but comparatively neglected matter of handling deviance informally. Particular attention is given to agency concerns with achieving support for the control agency, accessing cases to be processed, classifying the cases encountered, emphasizing treatment, restoring justice, and pursuing internal order.
Attending to the experiences of people targeted for control and the related problematics of people becoming disinvolved from deviance more generally, chapter 13 provides another, highly consequential set of viewpoints on control efforts. Overviewing the volume in certain respects, chapter 14 addresses some of the more enduring features of deviance as an enacted community essence. Rather than envision deviance as something that is at odds with community life as many theorists have done , we ask how social scientists may better understand community life through the careful, sustained examination of deviance as an enacted feature of everyday life.
NOTES 1. Still, conceptual matters pertaining to an array of theoretical as in functionalist, Marxist, postmodernist, constructionist, and interactionist and methodological quantitative and ethnographic positions in the social sciences are addressed in rather direct terms in Prus b, , Encountering the Deviant Mystique 13 Readers seeking a more sustained overview of the various theoretical perspectives in the sociology of crime and deviance are directed to the text developed by Downes and Rock as well as the edited volumes of Farrell and Swigert , Rubington and Weinberg , and Traub and Little For collections of materials that have a more distinctive interactionist focus, see Herman , Kelly , Adler and Adler , and Rubington and Weinberg Clearly, as well, the interactionists do not deny humans the relevance of physiologically enabled thought processes as in human capacities for making distinctions, developing categories, attending to sequences, inferring effects, behaviorally engaging things, and making adjustments.
These mixtures of disapproval, intrigue, and risk represent instructive dimensions for the study of deviance. Such a necessary type of study cannot be done if it operates with the premise that group life is but the result of determining factors working through the interaction of people. Further, approaches organized on this latter premise are not equipped to study the process of social interaction.
A different perspective, a different set of categories, and a different procedure of inquiry are necessary. Blumer, Addressing the central features of symbolic interaction, this statement establishes the theoretical and methodological frame for the considerations of deviance in the chapters following.
Focusing on the study of human knowing and acting, symbolic interaction is associated most directly with the works of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer Still, the roots of symbolic interaction go much deeper. Conventionally, the origins of interactionism are located in American pragmatist philosophy and the ethnographic research tradition associated with the University of Chicago. However, symbolic interaction also is indebted to European scholarship Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel and can be traced even further back to the classical Greek era. Thomas, clearly could not anticipate that 16 The Deviant Mystique Chicago would be the site in which interactionist thought would develop.
However, by building on the sociology of Georg Simmel, attending to the emergent ethnographic tradition in anthropology,2 and encouraging their students to view the city as their own laboratory in which to explore community life, these early sociologists were not only laying the foundations for an ethnographic methodology but also for what would become a more sustained interactionist tradition. These early developments in Chicago sociology took place somewhat concurrently with the emergence of American pragmatist philosophy.
Given their intellectual overlaps, the traditions of anthropology and pragmatist philosophy would become intertwined in Chicago sociology. Although their emphases were somewhat diverse e. Thus, the pragmatists work with multiplistic, situated, emergent notions of reality and rationality, wherein things acquire meaning by virtue of the ways in which people act toward them. Working within this evolving philosophy of human knowing and acting, George Herbert Mead provided what would become the central theoretical frame for symbolic interaction.
While observing that the social sciences would be unable to match the rigor and precision of the physical sciences, Blumer , argued for the necessity of a methodology that examines the ways in which people make sense of and actively engage the world about them. As an empirically informed approach to human knowing and acting, interactionist theory exists as a developmental process in which the instances of human group life examined in ethnographic research are used to inform, adjust, and extend earlier conceptions of human group life.
Further, whereas the subject matter of deviance is but one theme explored by early Chicago sociologists, some of the most consequential material on deviance has its foundations in early Chicago ethnography. Thus, while sociologically more diverse than the term symbolic interaction implies, Chicago viewpoints were notably at variance from those promoted by the social pathologists of the same era late s onward.
By contrast, the Chicago sociologists approached deviance as a natural product and process of human group life. Although Chicago sociologists often focused on things considered troublesome or deviant in the community at large as in homelessness, crime, control agencies, and policy , they also resisted the tendency to explain deviance in psychological, psychoanalytic Freudian , or medical terms.
Attending to pragmatist thought more generally, the broader emphasis was on the ways that people engage one another amidst the various associations, interactional contexts, and transitions that constitute group life in the making. The task of maintaining a position that is distant from the moralists and others caught up in the deviant mystique has been only part of the intellectual struggle facing the interactionists. The interactionists also are highly attentive to both the idealist-pragmatist and the structuralist-intersubjectivist divides.
Thus, while adopting a relativist stance on the meanings of things and attending to the mediating quality of language, the pragmatists differ from the idealists who reduce everything to arbitrary text or language by virtue of the pragmatist emphasis on a people engaging in activity within a world of objects and b focusing on the production of action in sustained analytical and methodological interactionist terms. In contrast to the structuralists who insist on studying the things that affect human behavior, the pragmatists not only attend to a a linguistically enabled reality, but also b focus on the ways in which people, as agents, enter into the causal process or engage the world of objects as meaningful, deliberative, agents.
The interactionists do not deny the value of science or logic for human endeavor, but insist that a science of the human condition respect the human subject matter that is at the very core of the social science enterprise. From an interactionist standpoint, science and logic also represent human constructions Intersubjective Accomplishment 19 and are to be approached in the same way that researchers might study any other instances of human group life in the making.
For these reasons, the interactionists have not only been critical of what passes for social science in a set of disciplines dominated by structuralist viewpoints, but also are concerned about articulating the premises of a social science that is genuinely attentive to human lived experience. It is an approach that insists on rigorously grounding its notions of the ways in which people do things within the context of community life.
Central to the interactionist approach is the notion that human life is group life; that human life is thoroughly intersubjective in its essence. At base is the recognition that humans and human behavior cannot be understood apart from the community context in which people live.
People derive their social essences from the communities in which they are located, and human communities are contingent on the development of shared or intersubjectively acknowledged sets of symbols or languages. This means that there can be no self without the community other. It is in the course of developing familiarity with the language of a community that people are able to approximate rudimentary understandings of, or perspectives on, human life-worlds.
Only with the acquisition of a language-based set of understandings or perspectives are people able to take themselves into account in developing and pursuing particular lines of action. Accessing or sharing a language does not presuppose that people will automatically act in cooperative ways or in manners that others might deem rational. However, language provides the basis on which people establish common community understandings and it is through ongoing symbolic interaction with the other that people may achieve more precise levels of intersubjectivity or more comprehensive understandings of the viewpoints of the other as well as more intricate senses of self.
Because people are born into preexisting groups or communities each with its own prevailing stocks of knowledge , the individuals within do not bring the objects of their awareness into existence on their own, at least not on a meaningful, foundational level. The recognition that people do not merely act toward objects, but also can make self-indications i. As entities that are able to think, anticipate, act, interact, assess, and adjust to situations, people knowingly enter into the causal process as agents. However, they do so only by invoking intersubjectively achieved and sustained symbolic realities.
This emphasis on intersubjectivity is to be appreciated within the context of human activity. People are not perpetually or uniformly active, but human group life is characterized by activity. Human activity does not simply involve someone invoking behavior of some sort, but more accurately entails several subprocesses.
- Lonstermash’s Stats.
- Shop The Deviant Mystique: Involvements, Realities, And Regulation !
- [PDF] The Deviant Mystique: Involvements, Realities, and Regulation - Semantic Scholar.
- Beyond the Malachite Hills: A Life of Colonial Service and Business in the New Africa!
- Ghoul Interrupted: Ghost Hunter Mystery Series, Book 6 (Ghost Hunter Mystery, Book 6).
- Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice.
- Download The Deviant Mystique Involvements Realities And Regulation 2003;
Human activity, thus, cannot be reduced to sets of preexisting individual properties or learned dispositions. Human behavior is fundamentally informed by, and emerges within, the ongoing interchanges that humans have with one another. Intersubjective Accomplishment 21 Basic Assumptions Recognizing the centrality of the standpoint adopted here for the comprehension and study of deviance, it may be instructive to specify a set of assumptions that people working within an interactionist tradition normally make sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly as they approach the study of human lived experience:9 1.
Human group life is intersubjective. Human group life is community life and human behavior cannot be reduced to individual properties. Human group life is multi perspectival. Rather than posit the existence of a singular or objective reality that people would experience in some uniform manner, people distinguish and develop meanings for [objects] as they interact with one another and develop styles of relating to those objects. Through interaction with others, and by taking the viewpoint of the other with respect to oneself, people develop capacities to become objects of their own awareness.
Human group life is activity-based. Whereas human behavior is meaningful only within intersubjectively constructed, conveyed, and mediated contexts, and implies an ongoing interpretive process with respect to behaviors invoked in both solitary and collective instances, human group life is organized around the doing, constructing, creating, building, forging, coordinating, and 22 The Deviant Mystique adjusting of behavior. There is no requirement that the activity in question need be successful as intended, nor need it be viewed as wise or rational by others or even by the actors themselves.
Human group life is negotiable. Human group life is relational. This premise not only acknowledges the differing identities i. Human group life is processual. Human lived experiences are viewed as emergent or ongoing social constructions or productions. Intersubjectivity and the sharing of symbolic realities is an ongoing process.
Perspectives also are best approached in process terms, as the meanings that people attach to objects are developed, acted upon, and changed over time. The primary conceptual and methodological implication of this processual emphasis is this: Because all aspects of group life take place in process terms or develop over time, it is essential that the human condition be conceptualized and studied in manners that are acutely mindful of the emergent nature of human lived experience.
The research implications of these assumptions are highly consequential. Even when richly detailed, observational material is too limited on its own i. However, observational materials particularly those that are more detailed, more descriptive in essence can be very valuable in helping researchers formulate questions to be pursued in interviews as well as in providing a means of assessing and contextualizing the information one obtains through interviews and participant observation. Participant-observation adds an entirely different and vital dimension to the notion of observation.
While beset by problems of representation as in concerns with typicality, authenticity, depth, and scope , researcher experiences as participants may provide scholars with invaluable vantage points for appreciating certain aspects of particular life-worlds. As well, these role-involvements generally enable researchers to access through conversation the experiences of others in these settings in much more meaningful fashions than can be accomplished through questionnaires or experiments. Like those doing straight observation, researchers engaged in participantobservation normally try to remain fairly unobtrusive or nondisruptive in the Intersubjective Accomplishment 25 setting being studied.
Additionally, since participant-observation typically puts researchers in close, sustained contact with others, this methodology generates further opportunities for researchers to gain insight into the viewpoints and practices of others through ongoing commentary and other interactions. Interviews or extended, open-ended inquiries into the experiences circumstances, viewpoints, dilemmas, activities, adjustments of others represent the third, and generally the single most important, method of gathering ethnographic data.
By inquiring extensively into the experiences of others, interviewers may learn a great deal more about the life-worlds of the other than is possible in either observation or participant observation.
Deviant Urdu Meaning with 2 Definitions and Sentence(s)
Interview material is much more valuable, too, when researchers concentrate on developing a fuller, more open sense of the world as is experienced by and in the terms of the other. Rather simultaneously, too, this implies that researchers open themselves to participant viewpoints and practices and avoid imposing their own concepts and moralities on the other. When researchers are able to establish high levels of trust and openness with people who are willing to share their experiences and teach them about their life-worlds, extended, open-ended interviews can be extremely valuable.
Even here, however, it is most instructive to supplement interviews with extended 26 The Deviant Mystique observation and, wherever possible, more extensive instances of participantobservation, being particularly mindful in all instances that the objective of ethnographic research is to represent the other as fully, accurately, and carefully as possible. Thus, even the very best interview materials are apt to be enhanced by sustained observation and participant-observation.
One more methodological caveat may be in order. It is essential that researchers attend to the things that people do from the viewpoints of the participants rather than the moralities of researchers or others. For those engaged in the study of deviance as with any other realm of human endeavor , the approach developed by Mead and Blumer addresses a general theory of human behavior. Whereas these and other matters pertaining to the study of deviance will be addressed further in subsequent chapters, we now turn to a more direct consideration of the various theaters of operation in which people engage deviance in one or other ways.
As with chapter 2, chapter 3 frames the ensuing analysis of deviance as a community process. In another project, Prus has been examining the development of pragmatist social thought from the early Greeks c— b. In the absence of a more distinctive social science over the intervening centuries, it has been most instructive to examine scholarship in the areas of rhetoric, poetics, theology, history, and philosophy as the intellectual bridges spanning the centuries.
In the briefest of terms, the early Greeks explicitly addressed a number of themes that we would presently identify as more distinctively pragmatist or interactionist in essence. However, these analytical themes were developed amidst wide arrays of theological, moralist, and philosophical standpoints. Intersubjective Accomplishment 27 Although aspects of pragmatist thought would persevere in a wide variety of humanly engaged European theaters as in law, politics, education, religion, and entertainment over the millennia, these emphases would largely assume applied dimensions, with more explicit scholarly considerations of pragmatist thought receding into the background, amidst various political, military, and religious ventures, diverse intellectual intrigues, and assortments of natural and humanly precipitated disasters.
Following the rediscovery of various Greek texts, Thomas Aquinas — , Francis Bacon — , Thomas Hobbes — , and John Locke — would explicitly engage notions of pragmatist social theory. However, these emphases would be obscured as subsequent European philosophers emphasized matters pertaining to theology, idealism, moralism, structuralism, and socialist utopias as opposed to concerns with studying the humanly known and enacted world.
Thus, it is not until the last century, with the efforts of some German interpretivists especially Wilhelm Dilthey, — and the American pragmatists that we begin to see a more sustained emphasis on the study of human knowing and acting. Far from being a recent innovation, the ethnographic research tradition is more appropriately rooted in the works of Greek ethnohistorians Herodotus c— b. However, social scientists typically envision ethnography as a much more recent development.
For overview statements on the development of nineteenth- and twentieth-century ethnography in anthropology and sociology, see Wax and Prus b. Konvitz and Kennedy provide a collection of statements extracted from ten scholars they identify as American Pragmatists. Cooley, and George Herbert Mead, with respect to the development of symbolic interactionism, see Meltzer et al. Mead never completed his doctoral studies with Wilhelm Dilthey in Germany.
However, when Mead returned to the United States, he pursued a line of scholarship regarding human knowing and acting that conceptually paralleled the position taken by Dilthey Prus, b. Drawing philosophical inspiration from the hermeneutic or interpretivist tradition associated with religious studies and especially the scholarship of Friedrich Schleiermacher , Wilhelm Dilthey — introduced the concept of Verstehen interpretive understanding to the study of the human condition about a century ago.
Not only does Dilthey Ermarth, address Verstehen earlier and in much more comprehensive terms than does Max Weber with whom sociologists typically credit this concept , but Dilthey also explicitly and centrally argues for the development of a human science that entails a different set of premises than that associated with the physical sciences. Like Mead, Dilthey does not argue against the concept of science as the careful, sustained study of some phenomenon , but rather insists that people are very different from other objects of study.
Because people differ from other things by virtue of a community-based language and relatedly their linguistically mediated senses of reality, social scientists require a theory and a methodology that respects these unique features of human lived i. Although Charles Horton Cooley spent his career at the University of Michigan rather than at Chicago, Cooley , , , contributed notably to the development of what would later become known as symbolic interaction. Cooley also indicates the relevance of this methodology for studying more molar aspects of social life as well as smaller associational units.
Even with these groundbreaking studies, Chicago sociologists did not consistently sustain a substantial ethnographic thrust. Thus, Sutherland —80 contends that criminal behavior 1 is learned behavior; 2 this learning takes place through interaction with other people; and 3 this learning occurs primarily and most effectively within small intimate groups. Relatedly, people may learn criminal and conventional behavior patterns through association with both criminal and noncriminal persons. As well, Sutherland stresses, criminal behavior 8 is an expression of the same interests that persons would have in engaging in other law-abiding behavior.
Notably, too, Sutherland fails to address the enacted features of crime i. Still, readers may appreciate that the present text addresses in some detail a number of ideas that Sutherland introduced in his formulation of differential association. We are particularly indebted to Mead and Blumer in developing this list of assumptions. Intersubjective Accomplishment 29 We refer here to those who may be envisioned as practitioners, supporting casts, implicated parties, vicarious participants, and targets.
Thus, in addition to those who directly engage in activities designated as deviant, however tentatively or intensively they may pursue these roles, we should also 32 The Deviant Mystique recognize those who opportunistically develop roles that support particular deviants or forms of deviance; those who become implicated through intimate association with particular deviants; those who experience deviance vicariously; and those who assume a variety of target roles. Clearly, this does not exhaust the set of participants in the deviance-making scenarios that unfold in the community at large, but it provides an instructive starting point for appreciating and permeating some of the complexities surrounding the deviant mystique.
Being Practitioners A review of the career contingencies i. On still other occasions, people may become involved in deviance on a most reluctant level as they experience closure or envision themselves to have no viable alternatives. People may actively participate in particular forms of deviance with wide variations in the scope and intensity of involvements.
In addition to those more centrally involved as participants in deviance, it is important to consider those who become involved in deviance in more marginal manners. Those involved in these supplementary activities may experience some disrespectability, but members of supporting casts may play integral roles in facilitating and accommodating deviance. As Whyte points out, one of the characteristics of relatively stable slum communities is the existence of legitimate business interests surviving alongside various less respectable trades.
Establishments such as hotels, bars, and restaurants sometimes organize their activities in such a way as to facilitate the patronage of people involved in a wide variety of deviant activities. Having access to settings in which they may be both seen and unseen, accessible but not too openly so, enables practitioners to make desired contacts with others and sustain particular forms of activities.
The print e. His point is logically obvious but sociologically complex. He asks us to recognize the interpersonal and relational i. This adds additional elements of risk to the business at hand and, if practitioners are to survive in these arenas, added precautions will likely be advantageous.
Though the concept of organized crime brings with it the burden of mass-media images, the organization of crime normally focuses on those goods and services e. Living Vicariously Role-taking or the ability to share, or evoke in oneself, a meaning possessed or experienced by the other , as Mead observes, is an essential feature of human group life.
Foundational to all symbolic communication and a requirement of all human language, the ability to adopt the standpoint of the other enables people to make indications to themselves, as well as to communicate with, adjust their behaviors to, and coordinate their activities with others. Still, in addition to more open sharing of meanings with the other, people also may attempt to adopt and experience the viewpoints of the other as a 36 The Deviant Mystique more personal and private form of activity. Although those engaged in deviance as practitioners also may be interested in hearing about accounts of their life-worlds and many practitioners also may live somewhat vicariously, working with dreams of much greater success and daring in these settings than they actually expect to achieve , those experiencing deviance more exclusively at a vicarious level are apt to be among the heavier consumers of materials pertaining to deviance in this or that setting.
Some of these people eventually may become insider actual participants in the very situations that they presently experience only at a vicarious level. Because these people are experiencing deviance via self-generated accounts, they have greater abilities to control the directions that their fascinations and fantasies assume than can most insiders who as actual participants are highly dependent on those they encounter for their experiences of the world. Hence, those vicariously entering deviant worlds can do so in idealized settings, free from the hazards that mark the lived experience of full participants.
Nevertheless, they may deeply appreciate the entertaining features of experiencing deviance, even from a distance. However, it would be no more desirable for analysts to assume roles as dramatists, moralists, or advocates with respect to those assuming target roles. It also allows researchers to compare and contrast cases in which targets may be subject to more unilateral treatments from tacticians with those in which those considered to be targets engage tacticians in more interactive and sustained manners. Distinctions of these sorts are fundamental if analysts are to move past the deviant mystique.
Though people e. Likewise, those regulating deviance may develop and sustain a wide range of relationships with those targeted for control. If we are to permeate the deviant mystique, it will be necessary to attend to the ways that the people in the setting make sense of and actually approach the instances of deviance that they see themselves as encountering. Still, because these moral frames may become focal points for highly intensive realms of enterprise, this aspect of deviance merits considerable attention on the part of analysts especially see chapter 4.
People embarking on these activities typically presume a moral or ethical position and attempt to generate an awareness of disparities between community ideals and the activities of particular individuals or groups within the 40 The Deviant Mystique community. While the targets of moral crusades can be exceedingly wide ranging e. Stepping out of their often banal community routines to take action of more exceptional proportions, moral entrepreneurs Becker, or crusaders Klapp, may both pursue and be pursued by the media,12 as well as become the focal points of public interest more generally.
In drawing attention to their causes, consciousness-raisers and those they encounter in these missions become sources of intrigue and entertainment in the broader community. Troubled parties also may e develop alignments with other concerned parties in order to embark on activities designed to deal with troublesome cases on a collective basis.
On many occasions, though, these collective ventures may be relatively short-lived and may dissipate before handling even a single case. To the extent that their activities denote selective treatments applied to those considered to be deviants, those involved in attempting to regulate or control deviance further objectify the deviant mystique. This seems especially true when these activities are accompanied by heightened senses of moral indignation and trust violation. To this end, people may attend to treatment decisions, the implementation of treatments, and reactions from targets and others, and longer term implications of treatments for the targets and others in the community more generally.
Relatedly, many outsiders 42 The Deviant Mystique seem entirely happy to distance themselves from these activities as a consequence. Thus, the control agents dealing with troublesome cases on a more intimate or long-term basis may be accorded a certain aura. As with those involved more explicitly in rule enforcement directed at particular deviants, these secondary aid professionals tend to develop industries around deviance and help to sustain a focus on particular forms of deviant activity.
Although they generally are thought to have less confrontational forms of contact with practitioners or their associates , some mystique may also be associated with their involvements with deviants as in criminal lawyers, psychiatric social workers, and so forth. It is not implied that people who talk about deviance possess or provide accurate information on the subject matters.
In the process, as well, we begin to see some other roles even if somewhat more distant that people in the broader community may assume with respect to both particular instances of deviance and the deviant mystique more generally. As will become evident, too, those informing us about deviance in one or other ways assume Theaters of Operation 43 a variety of motives and motifs, but one of the more central themes is that of being compelling in the process.
Talk about others seems a regular aspect of community life and particular rumors may be started by anyone. Still, it should be noted that not all talk about other people is equally interesting even when the alleged behaviors are the same and not everyone is equally adept at generating, spreading, and sustaining rumors.
Not only may certain people be seen as more interesting topics of conversation because of their existing situations or earlier reputations in the community, but particular members of the community may routinely make more effective use of gossip as a resource for attempting to shape community sentiments than do others in the setting.
As people become more adept at using talk about others as a resource, and establish links with others who tend to do so as well, then we may speak of the development of rumor mills. Further, gossip, rumor, and rumor mills are not only the precursors to the mass media, they also may be quite intertwined in some instances.
Importantly, too, it also thrusts the messengers into somewhat privileged positions as a consequence of the informative and entertainment potential they represent. In addition to being in a position to wrest concessions or favors from and blackmail targets in some instances, those with interesting information 44 The Deviant Mystique to disclose may be able to use these materials to gain special considerations from other audiences.
As long as they can sustain interest in particular episodes, these messengers also may be imbued with a celebrity status of sorts. Educators and Scientists When people in the community desire more careful, reliable or thorough information about deviance they sometimes turn to educators and scientists. In general, as well, members of the academic community are more apt to be discouraged from unduly sensationalizing deviance. Still, some academics do become heavily involved in the dramatization or sensationalization of evil.
This seems more likely when they attempt to promote particular political ideologies i. Such conclusions may be far from their respective intents, but scholars working in avenues of these sorts suggest that deviance represents a separate, specialized form of the human condition.