Defining Deviancy Down
Linh Nguyen
Sociology 1st Hour
Let’s begin with deviancy. What exactly is deviancy? Well according to the definition of deviancy, it is one that differs from the norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards. So in the article “Defining Deviancy Down”, written by senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he mentioned some few interesting cases and evidence data from society, comparing the past history to modern social standards. Within the first introduction, the author mentioned one of a quote from the founding texts of sociology, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), where Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, set things down as which “crime is normal”. Furthermore, he wrote, …show more content…
Of course, the general study of Sociology is very intriguing to me. Though, however, there was this mentioning in the article that has caught my attention. Moynihan mentioned the three categories of redefinition: the altruistic, the opportunistic, and the normalizing. In his own ways of defining them, the first category- the altruistic, tend to be illustrated by the deinstitutionalization movement within the mental health profession that appeared in the 1950s. The second category- the opportunistic, is seen in the interest group rewards derived from the the acceptance of “alternative” family structures. And lastly, the third category, the normalizing, is to be observed in the growing acceptance of a never known before levels of violent crime. Another way to easily remember it, an altruistic is the one who shows unselfishness and compassion, and someone who looks at the bigger picture. An opportunistic is one who tries to get an advantage of or something valuable from a situation without thinking about it. And normalizing, one who wants bring things to its original state or condition. The ones, like Moynihan had mentioned, “dealing with the popular psychological notion of ‘denial’”. It’s another easier way for me to remember the three categories. It made me feel uncertain about which category I belong in. In general, I never consider myself to fit into one category, therefore, my decisions and choices can sometimes shift from what comes out of the heart and choosing altruistic or something that has made me decide impulsively, I’d go for opportunistic, and at times, if I’m in denial of the changes and what I thought is “balance”, I’d fit in the normalizing category. So that depends, and I guess you’re not supposed to fit into one category only since of course, ideas and values are always dynamic. So reading the passages that Moynihan each went into further details about the categories, I can’t help
Linh Nguyen
Sociology 1st Hour
Let’s begin with deviancy. What exactly is deviancy? Well according to the definition of deviancy, it is one that differs from the norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards. So in the article “Defining Deviancy Down”, written by senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he mentioned some few interesting cases and evidence data from society, comparing the past history to modern social standards. Within the first introduction, the author mentioned one of a quote from the founding texts of sociology, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), where Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, set things down as which “crime is normal”. Furthermore, he wrote, …show more content…
Of course, the general study of Sociology is very intriguing to me. Though, however, there was this mentioning in the article that has caught my attention. Moynihan mentioned the three categories of redefinition: the altruistic, the opportunistic, and the normalizing. In his own ways of defining them, the first category- the altruistic, tend to be illustrated by the deinstitutionalization movement within the mental health profession that appeared in the 1950s. The second category- the opportunistic, is seen in the interest group rewards derived from the the acceptance of “alternative” family structures. And lastly, the third category, the normalizing, is to be observed in the growing acceptance of a never known before levels of violent crime. Another way to easily remember it, an altruistic is the one who shows unselfishness and compassion, and someone who looks at the bigger picture. An opportunistic is one who tries to get an advantage of or something valuable from a situation without thinking about it. And normalizing, one who wants bring things to its original state or condition. The ones, like Moynihan had mentioned, “dealing with the popular psychological notion of ‘denial’”. It’s another easier way for me to remember the three categories. It made me feel uncertain about which category I belong in. In general, I never consider myself to fit into one category, therefore, my decisions and choices can sometimes shift from what comes out of the heart and choosing altruistic or something that has made me decide impulsively, I’d go for opportunistic, and at times, if I’m in denial of the changes and what I thought is “balance”, I’d fit in the normalizing category. So that depends, and I guess you’re not supposed to fit into one category only since of course, ideas and values are always dynamic. So reading the passages that Moynihan each went into further details about the categories, I can’t help