Response Paper #3
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry
In the reading “The World According to NAMBLA”, the author is attempting to explain the ways in which the members of NAMBLA justify and rationalize their deviant behavior and/or beliefs. The author outlines and provides examples of four strategies NAMBLA’s members use to rationalize their beliefs, those of condemnation of the condemner, denial of injury, appeal of higher loyalties, and denial of the victim. In doing so, the author generalizes the specific case of NAMBLA, and provides an explanation of rationalization relevant to all instances of deviant and normal human behavior.
While reading this chapter, I was struck by the audacity that society labels things as harmful, when they could in fact not be. I began to critically examine concepts most people take for granted, like age of consent, or the accepted “damage” that is done by sexual activity between children and adults, and really distinguish the many viewpoints possible in those situations from a socially acceptable paradigm of “right” and “wrong”. In simple terms, what struck me most about this reading was how readily I understood the positions of the NAMBLA members, and how uncomfortable that made me feel, despite believing that I disagreed with them.
I agree wth the author’s main premise, that, when a belief held by a person or group is unpopular with the ruling societal consensus, that that group or person has “…a vested interest in justifying and thereby normalizing its philosophy and…practices.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 116). People are always attempting to describe their thought processes to those who assault their philosophical positions in order to elicit empathy, and by inference, societal acceptance. Outliers aside, I believe that it is an inherent urge for members of a society to attempt to belong to or even change a society rather than remove themselves from it.
I do not disagree with the authors so much as I wish they would have extended their analysis of rationalization beyond deviance and at least hinted that the desire to rationalize one’s behavior does not begin where societal norms end, and does not end where they begin. Most members of a society attempt to blend into the fabric of it, their status as acceptable or not regardless.
Because of its analysis of the seemingly universal drive for rationalization, and because this reading attempted to generalize specific examples of rationalization tactics to much broader themes, it has a wide application to the sociological study of deviance on the whole. Examples of “explanations” for deviant behavior, from the perspective of the deviant actors themselves, are present in the vast majority of types of social deviance, and so this reading sheds light on the vast majority of cases encompassed by “the sociological study of deviance”.
In addition to describing common themes of rationalization, this reading also highlights the deep intolerance contemporary western society has for any sexual activity outside the norm. By using words like “taboo” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 105) and “trauma” (pp. 109) to describe popular perceptions towards the nature and effects of adult/child sexual relations, this reading touches on the commonality of semantics used to describe sexual deviance, both violent and non-violent, and blurs the line between the two.
I do not think any particular sociological theory of deviance can be applied to the subject matter of this reading to explain NAMBLA’s behavior. The authors’ main premise was that deviant members of a society attempt to rationalize their behavior, because it is in their interests, so…Game Theory? Game Theory advocates a metaphorical view of human relationships: that of a game, with complicated rules. Game Theory would state that NAMBLA is only attempting to realize greater return in the societal game of acceptance by convincing the greater populace that their behavior is rational, and therefore acceptable, as if they were able to do so, they could pursue their chosen behavior more freely and, presumably, to greater lengths.
In chapter 10, “What’s a Nice Girl Like You Doing In a Place Like This?” the authors are attempting to explain that women strip as a means of limited social acceptance. Dancing provides a stripper with different aspects of a social conception of acceptability, through socially unacceptable means. By citing evidence of low self-esteem and other factors that would be detrimental to the women’s self-perception, the authors describes stripping as both a job choice and a path to achievement to socially acceptable goals like “…beauty, popularity, …fame, praise, and money.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 158).
To be honest, much of this reading did not surprise me, but I was shocked by the study stating “Three of every four strippers reported one or both parents abused alcohol, and fully one half had at least one parent who abused drugs.” It would make sense for sociological deviance to be a result of dysfunctional households during childhood, but numbers that high are staggering.
I agree with this reading in the sense that I also have come to the conclusion that the allures of stripping are not “deviant”, only in that it is labeled such is it actually a deviant act. The desire to acquire socially acceptable things is certainly understandable, and the “Ugly Duckling Syndrome” described by the authors contributes to the decision to take up stripping as stripping offers the same benefits as modeling without the social acceptance. For these girls, the study concludes and I agree: the benefits of stripping outweigh the detriment of being declared a deviant. Also, the final sentence of this reading “[strong and confident] qualities are typically present in dancers, but they are not qualities that lead women into stripping,” was very insightful, and ties in the authors’ belief that stripping provides these women with something they previously lacked, rather than being a simple job.
I don’t disagree with the authors of this reading on anything. Their hypothesis and conclusion; that strippers as a demographic have similar life characteristics, is supported by their research.
By exploring the factors resulting in deviance in a person’s life in one circumstance, any conclusions can be used to decrease or increase the occurrence of that deviance. These results would also be of interest to policymakers, for example, interest groups that want to reduce the occurrence of stripping in the US could concentrate on minimizing the characteristics that most female strippers share (i.e., a broken home, low self-esteem, etc).
This reading is related to other readings on sexual deviance because a common theme in sociology is the search for a cause: in this case, what causes women to pursue a career in stripping? By examining the strippers’ pasts, and their attitudes towards themselves and their past and present situations, a sociologist can determine the factors that led them to the decision to engage in deviance.
Structural Functionalism satisfactorily explains this reading. Stripping would be a societal structure with the purpose of providing women with low self-esteem fulfillment. Stripping, Functionalism would argue, has a purpose in society in that it provides a service to a demographic.
In chapter 11 of Sexual Deviance: a reader, Exposing the “Pretty Woman” Myth, the authors attempt to convey the complexity of the factors that converge to lead a woman into prostitution. The authors’ main point was that popular perception is that prostitutes are either beautiful women who get “saved” from the street life by a prince or are depressed drug-addicts who define their life by prostitution, and that this perception is incorrect; prostitution is the result of a complex interplay of factors, leading to the decision to engage in a dangerous act for very specific benefits.
I was most struck by the high incidences of abuse represented in the sample. Nearly all of the subjects had been severely abused in one way or another before turning toward prostitution, and nearly all were abused after beginning to prostitute themselves. Also, I was struck by this assertion: “Still, when asked, participants explicitly reported personal responsibility for choices made.”(Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 183) This statement caused me to really think about the mentality of the prostitutes, and how I would deal with personal responsibility in an environment that seemed to force prostitution on me. The realization that accepting personal responsibility for things I would have no control over would be the ONLY control I would have, like when one subject said “I ain’t givin it away…I ain’t no 10, 15$ ho”, really pushed the whole reading into both stark contrast and parallel with my own life.
I did not disagree with any assertions made by the authors in this reading. I do think the evidence overwhelmingly points to external factors strongly influencing women to engage in prostitution, and that personal choice is a meaningless term when questions of survival, drug addiction, and children go unanswered.
Like the other readings in this section, the factors that lead to a life of deviance are of special interest to policy makers and to people who are faced with the same situations as the subjects. If we can understand what influences a person to engage in dangerous activities, it is theoretically possible to decrease, or even eradicate, negative situations for people considering deviance in their lives.
This reading ties in well with other readings on sexual deviance, in that so far they have examined factors that are present in deviants’ histories before they choose to begin deviating from the normal standard of behavior. As in the reading on strippers, the pursuit of socially acceptable goals by unacceptable means has distinct commonalities depending on the demographic and society, regardless of the actual act. Ironically, I think, the actual goal is misunderstood by both blue and white-collar deviants because inherent in the goal is an understanding that it was acquired through socially acceptable means.
I wouldn’t have said this before the reading, but Differential Association theory is very strongly suggested throughout. Many of the subjects reported being coerced into trying drugs or prostitution by their male acquaintances, frequently referred to as husbands or boyfriends or pimps, implying a somewhat intimate relationship. As far as this study is concerned, associating themselves with deviant individuals directly influenced the subjects’ own decisions to engage in deviance.
The authors of the study “Male Street Hustling” attempted to show that a major factor in the choice to engage in hustling was that of peer introduction to it, and also that identification of the hustler as not gay (or, at least, not “slutty”-gay) was very important to the subculture.
I was most struck by this study’s depiction of hustlers vehemently protecting their heterosexual label. It made me think that there are many deviant groups in our society that attempt to rationalize their behavior into the mainstream, instead of remaining outside it. This ties in very well with the reading on NAMBLA, and the universal desire to fit in, despite being different.
I agree with the authors in their assertion that separating the hustlers from the clients is a means to identity. In today’s society, the perception is that having sex with men makes you gay, and having sex with females makes a man straight, where in reality the sexual act is generally a function of sexual attraction, and not the other way around. The hustlers’ uses of words like “queer” and “fag” were indicators of identity declaration, in a situation where they perceived many people would be confused as to the hustler’s sexual orientation.
In their conclusion, the authors stated that failure to avoid arrest would result in stigmatization. I disagree with this, as I believe avoidance of public knowledge of deviant acts is an acknowledgement of a pre-existing stigma, held by the hustlers; if people knowing about your behavior is realized to be a negative thing, then the stigma has already set in a personal sense. I admit that stigmas could easily have little effect on one’s life outside hustling before they are realized in the public sphere, but the shame inherent in avoiding a public stigma goes unmentioned, which I feel is an oversight.
The intentional separation of hustler from client that this study depicted reminded me of the rationalization of NAMBLA’s attitudes towards adult/child sex. In both instances, the deviant group was vehemently attempting to justify its actions: NAMBLA by exclaiming the benefits of adult/child sex and rejecting the claims that it is harmful, and the hustlers by making it very clear to the researchers that their motivation was strictly monetary, whether it was or not.
As in the reading on female street prostitution, male prostitution seemed to strongly suggest Differential Association theory, as “The majority of these hustlers became involved in male prostitution as a result of peer introduction.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) This would indicate that association with deviant individuals positively influenced the subjects’ perceptions towards that deviance. Evidence of this is seen not merely in the general act of male prostitution, but in the specific acts, as inductees were given “…key instructions…[as to]…the type of sexual acts they should engage in with their tricks,” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) which implies a great influence of peers over perception of specific aspects of hustling.
I selected these particular readings because they were the ones that I felt provided a good sample of the readings we did for this unit, and because I thought they all had interlocking themes. Rationalization, and the select deviance being well-described by Differential Association theory, were common themes. However the readings differed from one another in that some attempted to describe why deviance was engaged in (Strippers, Prostitutes), while others only attempted to explain how (Hustlers). The reading on NAMBLA did neither, instead choosing to focus on a characteristic of the deviant’s that occurs after the deviant act becomes a part of their life.
Bibliography:
Sexual Deviance: A Reader (Hensley & Tewksbury, 2003)
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry
In the reading “The World According to NAMBLA”, the author is attempting to explain the ways in which the members of NAMBLA justify and rationalize their deviant behavior and/or beliefs. The author outlines and provides examples of four strategies NAMBLA’s members use to rationalize their beliefs, those of condemnation of the condemner, denial of injury, appeal of higher loyalties, and denial of the victim. In doing so, the author generalizes the specific case of NAMBLA, and provides an explanation of rationalization relevant to all instances of deviant and normal human behavior.
While reading this chapter, I was struck by the audacity that society labels things as harmful, when they could in fact not be. I began to critically examine concepts most people take for granted, like age of consent, or the accepted “damage” that is done by sexual activity between children and adults, and really distinguish the many viewpoints possible in those situations from a socially acceptable paradigm of “right” and “wrong”. In simple terms, what struck me most about this reading was how readily I understood the positions of the NAMBLA members, and how uncomfortable that made me feel, despite believing that I disagreed with them.
I agree wth the author’s main premise, that, when a belief held by a person or group is unpopular with the ruling societal consensus, that that group or person has “…a vested interest in justifying and thereby normalizing its philosophy and…practices.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 116). People are always attempting to describe their thought processes to those who assault their philosophical positions in order to elicit empathy, and by inference, societal acceptance. Outliers aside, I believe that it is an inherent urge for members of a society to attempt to belong to or even change a society rather than remove themselves from it.
I do not disagree with the authors so much as I wish they would have extended their analysis of rationalization beyond deviance and at least hinted that the desire to rationalize one’s behavior does not begin where societal norms end, and does not end where they begin. Most members of a society attempt to blend into the fabric of it, their status as acceptable or not regardless.
Because of its analysis of the seemingly universal drive for rationalization, and because this reading attempted to generalize specific examples of rationalization tactics to much broader themes, it has a wide application to the sociological study of deviance on the whole. Examples of “explanations” for deviant behavior, from the perspective of the deviant actors themselves, are present in the vast majority of types of social deviance, and so this reading sheds light on the vast majority of cases encompassed by “the sociological study of deviance”.
In addition to describing common themes of rationalization, this reading also highlights the deep intolerance contemporary western society has for any sexual activity outside the norm. By using words like “taboo” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 105) and “trauma” (pp. 109) to describe popular perceptions towards the nature and effects of adult/child sexual relations, this reading touches on the commonality of semantics used to describe sexual deviance, both violent and non-violent, and blurs the line between the two.
I do not think any particular sociological theory of deviance can be applied to the subject matter of this reading to explain NAMBLA’s behavior. The authors’ main premise was that deviant members of a society attempt to rationalize their behavior, because it is in their interests, so…Game Theory? Game Theory advocates a metaphorical view of human relationships: that of a game, with complicated rules. Game Theory would state that NAMBLA is only attempting to realize greater return in the societal game of acceptance by convincing the greater populace that their behavior is rational, and therefore acceptable, as if they were able to do so, they could pursue their chosen behavior more freely and, presumably, to greater lengths.
In chapter 10, “What’s a Nice Girl Like You Doing In a Place Like This?” the authors are attempting to explain that women strip as a means of limited social acceptance. Dancing provides a stripper with different aspects of a social conception of acceptability, through socially unacceptable means. By citing evidence of low self-esteem and other factors that would be detrimental to the women’s self-perception, the authors describes stripping as both a job choice and a path to achievement to socially acceptable goals like “…beauty, popularity, …fame, praise, and money.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 158).
To be honest, much of this reading did not surprise me, but I was shocked by the study stating “Three of every four strippers reported one or both parents abused alcohol, and fully one half had at least one parent who abused drugs.” It would make sense for sociological deviance to be a result of dysfunctional households during childhood, but numbers that high are staggering.
I agree with this reading in the sense that I also have come to the conclusion that the allures of stripping are not “deviant”, only in that it is labeled such is it actually a deviant act. The desire to acquire socially acceptable things is certainly understandable, and the “Ugly Duckling Syndrome” described by the authors contributes to the decision to take up stripping as stripping offers the same benefits as modeling without the social acceptance. For these girls, the study concludes and I agree: the benefits of stripping outweigh the detriment of being declared a deviant. Also, the final sentence of this reading “[strong and confident] qualities are typically present in dancers, but they are not qualities that lead women into stripping,” was very insightful, and ties in the authors’ belief that stripping provides these women with something they previously lacked, rather than being a simple job.
I don’t disagree with the authors of this reading on anything. Their hypothesis and conclusion; that strippers as a demographic have similar life characteristics, is supported by their research.
By exploring the factors resulting in deviance in a person’s life in one circumstance, any conclusions can be used to decrease or increase the occurrence of that deviance. These results would also be of interest to policymakers, for example, interest groups that want to reduce the occurrence of stripping in the US could concentrate on minimizing the characteristics that most female strippers share (i.e., a broken home, low self-esteem, etc).
This reading is related to other readings on sexual deviance because a common theme in sociology is the search for a cause: in this case, what causes women to pursue a career in stripping? By examining the strippers’ pasts, and their attitudes towards themselves and their past and present situations, a sociologist can determine the factors that led them to the decision to engage in deviance.
Structural Functionalism satisfactorily explains this reading. Stripping would be a societal structure with the purpose of providing women with low self-esteem fulfillment. Stripping, Functionalism would argue, has a purpose in society in that it provides a service to a demographic.
In chapter 11 of Sexual Deviance: a reader, Exposing the “Pretty Woman” Myth, the authors attempt to convey the complexity of the factors that converge to lead a woman into prostitution. The authors’ main point was that popular perception is that prostitutes are either beautiful women who get “saved” from the street life by a prince or are depressed drug-addicts who define their life by prostitution, and that this perception is incorrect; prostitution is the result of a complex interplay of factors, leading to the decision to engage in a dangerous act for very specific benefits.
I was most struck by the high incidences of abuse represented in the sample. Nearly all of the subjects had been severely abused in one way or another before turning toward prostitution, and nearly all were abused after beginning to prostitute themselves. Also, I was struck by this assertion: “Still, when asked, participants explicitly reported personal responsibility for choices made.”(Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 183) This statement caused me to really think about the mentality of the prostitutes, and how I would deal with personal responsibility in an environment that seemed to force prostitution on me. The realization that accepting personal responsibility for things I would have no control over would be the ONLY control I would have, like when one subject said “I ain’t givin it away…I ain’t no 10, 15$ ho”, really pushed the whole reading into both stark contrast and parallel with my own life.
I did not disagree with any assertions made by the authors in this reading. I do think the evidence overwhelmingly points to external factors strongly influencing women to engage in prostitution, and that personal choice is a meaningless term when questions of survival, drug addiction, and children go unanswered.
Like the other readings in this section, the factors that lead to a life of deviance are of special interest to policy makers and to people who are faced with the same situations as the subjects. If we can understand what influences a person to engage in dangerous activities, it is theoretically possible to decrease, or even eradicate, negative situations for people considering deviance in their lives.
This reading ties in well with other readings on sexual deviance, in that so far they have examined factors that are present in deviants’ histories before they choose to begin deviating from the normal standard of behavior. As in the reading on strippers, the pursuit of socially acceptable goals by unacceptable means has distinct commonalities depending on the demographic and society, regardless of the actual act. Ironically, I think, the actual goal is misunderstood by both blue and white-collar deviants because inherent in the goal is an understanding that it was acquired through socially acceptable means.
I wouldn’t have said this before the reading, but Differential Association theory is very strongly suggested throughout. Many of the subjects reported being coerced into trying drugs or prostitution by their male acquaintances, frequently referred to as husbands or boyfriends or pimps, implying a somewhat intimate relationship. As far as this study is concerned, associating themselves with deviant individuals directly influenced the subjects’ own decisions to engage in deviance.
The authors of the study “Male Street Hustling” attempted to show that a major factor in the choice to engage in hustling was that of peer introduction to it, and also that identification of the hustler as not gay (or, at least, not “slutty”-gay) was very important to the subculture.
I was most struck by this study’s depiction of hustlers vehemently protecting their heterosexual label. It made me think that there are many deviant groups in our society that attempt to rationalize their behavior into the mainstream, instead of remaining outside it. This ties in very well with the reading on NAMBLA, and the universal desire to fit in, despite being different.
I agree with the authors in their assertion that separating the hustlers from the clients is a means to identity. In today’s society, the perception is that having sex with men makes you gay, and having sex with females makes a man straight, where in reality the sexual act is generally a function of sexual attraction, and not the other way around. The hustlers’ uses of words like “queer” and “fag” were indicators of identity declaration, in a situation where they perceived many people would be confused as to the hustler’s sexual orientation.
In their conclusion, the authors stated that failure to avoid arrest would result in stigmatization. I disagree with this, as I believe avoidance of public knowledge of deviant acts is an acknowledgement of a pre-existing stigma, held by the hustlers; if people knowing about your behavior is realized to be a negative thing, then the stigma has already set in a personal sense. I admit that stigmas could easily have little effect on one’s life outside hustling before they are realized in the public sphere, but the shame inherent in avoiding a public stigma goes unmentioned, which I feel is an oversight.
The intentional separation of hustler from client that this study depicted reminded me of the rationalization of NAMBLA’s attitudes towards adult/child sex. In both instances, the deviant group was vehemently attempting to justify its actions: NAMBLA by exclaiming the benefits of adult/child sex and rejecting the claims that it is harmful, and the hustlers by making it very clear to the researchers that their motivation was strictly monetary, whether it was or not.
As in the reading on female street prostitution, male prostitution seemed to strongly suggest Differential Association theory, as “The majority of these hustlers became involved in male prostitution as a result of peer introduction.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) This would indicate that association with deviant individuals positively influenced the subjects’ perceptions towards that deviance. Evidence of this is seen not merely in the general act of male prostitution, but in the specific acts, as inductees were given “…key instructions…[as to]…the type of sexual acts they should engage in with their tricks,” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) which implies a great influence of peers over perception of specific aspects of hustling.
I selected these particular readings because they were the ones that I felt provided a good sample of the readings we did for this unit, and because I thought they all had interlocking themes. Rationalization, and the select deviance being well-described by Differential Association theory, were common themes. However the readings differed from one another in that some attempted to describe why deviance was engaged in (Strippers, Prostitutes), while others only attempted to explain how (Hustlers). The reading on NAMBLA did neither, instead choosing to focus on a characteristic of the deviant’s that occurs after the deviant act becomes a part of their life.
Bibliography:
Sexual Deviance: A Reader (Hensley & Tewksbury, 2003)
posted by evan at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home