The function of deviance in society has been a topic viewed in different light from one sociological perspective to the next. It is agreed upon, though, that deviance does play an integral part in a societies formation of moral standing to define the appropriate behaviors of a people. Erikson and Hendershott are two Sociologists that share different perspectives of deviance. Erikson focuses more on the functionalist side, while Hendershott is an absolutist. However, within their two opposing perspectives are some similarities considering boundaries and technology, as well as thoughts on the problematic ways that society handles deviance.
Erikson’s article on deviance is an exploration of the interaction that communities have with one another …show more content…
She states the work of Senator Moynihan and his concern over people having children without being married and it’s affects on the black population. When challenging this issue he was perceived as deviant himself for judging others, as have been many others throughout history. Changing pace she uses T.S Elliot’s play The Cocktail Party to move in to the discussion of moral panics. Hendershott explains how we except and conform to norms because we attach to one another, but when “these same people are unsure about the norms, or when the norms are changing rapidly,” (Adler 49) she finds people are not as likely to judge one another. This can be of consequence to society because without a clear and focused moral boundary moral panic ensues. They are meant to redefine the lost moral boundary and find a place of standing. Hendershott mentions a study of attitudes conducted by Alan Wolfe who found that an increasing number of people were unwilling to judge one another. Hendershott stresses that this is not a good thing, as we would like it to be. Without a certain amount of judgment and the determination of deviance and morals no fabrication of a boundary can be made. This in turn leads to moral panics and a negative result of boundary maintenance as seen with Senator Moynihan. At the end of the article she re-states that as a society that we need to learn to stop categorizing deviance as “evil” or “disease” and “acknowledge and negatively sanction” it for what it
Erikson’s article on deviance is an exploration of the interaction that communities have with one another …show more content…
She states the work of Senator Moynihan and his concern over people having children without being married and it’s affects on the black population. When challenging this issue he was perceived as deviant himself for judging others, as have been many others throughout history. Changing pace she uses T.S Elliot’s play The Cocktail Party to move in to the discussion of moral panics. Hendershott explains how we except and conform to norms because we attach to one another, but when “these same people are unsure about the norms, or when the norms are changing rapidly,” (Adler 49) she finds people are not as likely to judge one another. This can be of consequence to society because without a clear and focused moral boundary moral panic ensues. They are meant to redefine the lost moral boundary and find a place of standing. Hendershott mentions a study of attitudes conducted by Alan Wolfe who found that an increasing number of people were unwilling to judge one another. Hendershott stresses that this is not a good thing, as we would like it to be. Without a certain amount of judgment and the determination of deviance and morals no fabrication of a boundary can be made. This in turn leads to moral panics and a negative result of boundary maintenance as seen with Senator Moynihan. At the end of the article she re-states that as a society that we need to learn to stop categorizing deviance as “evil” or “disease” and “acknowledge and negatively sanction” it for what it