Right now I'm taking two sociology classes: Group Psychology and Social Deviance and Control. The Group Psychology class is not very interesting to me, mostly because its a lot of material I've already studied. But the Deviance class is very interesting to me. Right now I'm learning all the causes of deviance, but it really all seems pointless because the point of the class seems to be to teach you there is no cause for deviance. The most interesting theory is the Labeling theory to me. Here's a little of what I'm working on:

There are several relativistic theories concerning deviance in society. One of these theories is known as the “labeling perspective”, which “serves to shift attention away from the characteristics of people that break rules toward people who make and apply those rules” (McCaghy et al. 80). This perspective does not seek the reason for deviance in the individual, but instead analyzes society and groups for creating the norms and defining what is deviant for that group. For example, something one society believes to be deviant may may be positive or the norm in another group. Therefore we are no longer looking for something to be “wrong” with the deviant individual, but rather both deviants and nondeviants are essentially the same, and the audience in which they act decides if they are breaking the norms. For a broad example, I myself would consider suicide as a deviant act. But in other religions and groups in the world, suicide may even be considered admirable. The labeling perspective also explains Primary and Secondary forms of deviance, because “labeling not only involves the defining of persons and their behavior, but may also heighten the likelihood that the behavior will continue” (McCaghy et al. 82). Secondary deviance is different from primary deviance in that secondary deviance occurs when the primary act of deviance is reacted to by others in a negative way. This reaction can cause the deviant behavior to no longer be stemming from the original cause but as a response to the negative behaviors that are a consequence of the original act. An example in my own life lies in my homosexual cousin. Growing up in a religious town in Michigan where my family is from, he always kept his homosexuality to himself for many years. Within the confines of my religious and conservative Michigan family, homosexuality would be considered highly deviant. When he announced his orientation, many of the family members disowned him and were extremely upset, including his parents. Even though the family didn't accept it, they went on to “label” him as a homosexual, and he was more identified as a homosexual, resulting in the secondary deviance. However, when my cousin graduated high school, he went to college and now has a group of homosexual and liberal friends, and associates himself with that group. This is interesting because it definitely displays the labeling theory in that his behavior was seen as very deviant within my family, but as normal within his group in college.

I guess I just think that this is interesting because I see it everywhere. Groups and cliques of friends always look at another group negatively because they aren't just like them. So who says what is right? I guess its just all in the group you pick to be a part of.. I've been in so many extremely different groups and cliques through my life, from the punky anime/manga obsession to a track and cross country athlete, to a competitive figure skater, to a professional ballet dancer, to a sorority college girl. I don't know who I am. In each of those groups I've never found myself looking at someone else as deviant though. At least not in a negative way. I feel like I myself am always the outsider seeking acceptance.. and I've done it with so many different people so many times, that I really don't know who to conform to anymore.