Question

determine and discuss one strength and one weakness of best constructionist perspective on the fdeviance using examples from both western and non-western cultures

Answer 1

Before we dive into the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a constructionist perspective on deviant behavior, let's first understand deviance and what is the meaning of the constructionist perspective on the same. Accordingly, I will incorporate the examples while mentioning the details of the perspective.

Some sociologists acclaim that "deviance" is a violation of any social rule, while others present the argument that deviance includes more than violation of rules, claiming that it also has the qualities of provoking anger, disapproval, or resentment. Some also support a broader definition, claiming that a person can be deviant without violating any rule, like people with mental or physical disabilities. According to such sociologists, these people can be considered deviant in this view as they are often disvalued by society. While there are others who contend that deviance need not only be conceived as negative but could also be positive instead, such as people who are considered as genius, saint, creative artist or a celebrity.

From this confusion of conflicting opinions, we can derive the influence of two opposing perspectives: positivism and social obstructionism. While the positivist is associated with the sciences, the constructionist is rooted in the humanities.

We may choose to say that deviant behavior is any behavior considered deviant by public condenses, which might range from the maximum to the minimum.

The Constructionist Perspective

Come 1960, the predominant positive perspective in the sociology of deviance started to be challenged by the emergence of the constructionist perspective. Let's analyze the assumptions of the constructionist perspective below.

Relativism - Deviance as a Label

The constructionist perspective has the relativist view that there are no intrinsic characteristics to deviant behavior unless it is thought to have so. To simplify it, an act appears deviant only because some claim it to be. Deviance then becomes a mental construct - an idea, thought or perception, expressed in the form of a label defined as such by society.

Subjectivism Deviance as a Subjective Experience

Constructionists assume the deviant behavior to be a subjective personal experience and the supposedly deviant person is a conscious, thinking and reflective subject. They proclaim the idea in comparison with natural scientists who assume nature as an object to produce objective knowledge for controlling the normal world. It can hence also be useful for social scientists to assume and then study humans as objects to produce objective knowledge for controlling humans, but this does violate the constructionist's humanist values.

For example, to take control of its black citizens, the former white racist regime in South Africa needed just a superficial understanding that they were recognizably separable from whites. However, to achieve the humanist goal of protecting and expanding certain people's human worth, there is a need for a much deeper understanding. This understanding requires appreciation and empathy with each individual/group experiencing and seeing the world from their perspective.

Voluntarism - Deviance as a Voluntary Act

The constructionist perspective also claims that supposedly deviant behavior is a voluntary act of expressing human volition, will, or choice. This is derived by the objection to the positivist view that implies humans are like robots, senseless and purposeless machines that react to everything in its environment. However, constructionist perceive humans to possess free will and ability to make own choices determining their own behavior.

For example, in constructionist Jack Katz's analysis, murderers perceive themselves as morally superior to their victims. The act of killing is said to give the murderers a self-righteous emotion of defending their dignity and respectability because their victims, in some way, have unjustly humiliated them.

The main weakness of the constructionist perspective to deviance is that there is a relative lack of consensus, in our society, pertaining to whether less serious forms of deviant behavior can even be considered deviant. Constructionist perspective is more pertinent to the less serious kinds of deviance and hence they would have to resort to lay emphasis on their theory of deviant behavior being a matter of labeling.

The greatest advantage of the constructionist perspective to deviance, however, is the act of empathizing with their "subjects" as it is their strong belief that the putative deviant's experience is an act of voluntarism.