Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
rant/
I have the "what is deviance" discussion with people everyday and a lot of people think you are making a personal value judgment when you say something is a form of deviance. Deepimpact2 is making a personal value judgment because of how she feels about homosexuality. However considerations of deviant behavior are widely accepted in some fields, even among those like myself who don't feel negatively of every deviant behavior and the people who engage in them.
Deviant behavior is anything that goes against normative behavior and it does not have to be based on religion. I prefer it not be. There's generally a consensus regarding what this society's norms are, whether based on the ruling of the majority in numbers or the majority in power.
Based on this perspective, homosexuality, crime, alcoholism, suicidal ideation and behaviors, mental disorders, and drug use are among the conditions and behaviors that are considered deviance regardless of how prevalent they are. Prevalence is difficult to prove for many forms of deviance where there are inconsistent rates, underreporting, etc.
When what this society considers to be the norms change, or the powers that be no longer feel threatened by a condition and its prevalence, so will what people consider to be deviance. If you read scholarly articles published decades ago for a few fields of study, divorce is considered abnormal and deviant. While this is still the case in terms of its impact on society, it is less the case as the divorce rates are so high and people have accepted different family structures.
/rant
|
I'm more comfortable basing my ideas on "deviance" on the laws as they exist today. Granted, that mentality has its own pitfalls, in that many of the laws are based on notions of morality, and that previous laws have been found to be inconsistent with the realities of society.
But, as noted above, I feel uncomfortable having religion (as opposed to law) being the baseline from which to judge deviation.
ETA: Your post didn't appear to be a rant; it seemed like a scholarly take on the discussion.