Michael Cohen 12c3772 Sociology 1 Deviance Tutor: J Kajese 8.40 2012/10/19. PLAGIARISM DECLARATION 1.

I know that plagiarism means taking and using the ideas, writings, works or inventions of another as if they were ones own. I know that plagiarism not only includes verbatim copying, but also the extensive use of another persons ideas without proper acknowledgement (which includes the proper use of quotation marks). I know that plagiarism covers this sort of use of material found in textual sources and from the Internet. 2. I acknowledge and understand that plagiarism is wrong. 3. I understand that my research must be accurately referenced. I have followed the rules and conventions concerning referencing, citation and the use of quotations as set out in the Departmental Guide. 4. This assignment is my own work, or my groups own unique group assignment. I acknowledge that copying someone elses assignment, or part of it, is wrong, and that submitting identical work to others constitutes a form of plagiarism. 5. I have not allowed, nor will I in the future allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as their own work. Signature.. Date

Amanda du Toit was convicted in 1994 for the murder of her younger sister, Cisca, who was 13 at the time, Amanda was 15. According to her mother, Amanda is a viewed as a deviant by society whereas her mother does not see her as one (Weekend Post, 2009). Deviance is considered a social construction of society used to describe acts in human society that challenge or are not considered to fall under regular norms of behaviour (Erikson, 1962). Due to the social construct of deviance one group or person might view a form of behaviour as being deviant whilst another group or person would not; this is why some would view Amanda du Toit as a deviant whilst others would not. Sociologists have developed various theories and definitions of deviance. This essay handles the social construct of deviance, various definitions of deviance and the theories of deviance in relation to the case of Amanda du Toit. There are different definitions of deviance and it is important for sociologists to define deviance in a way that it can be used generally (Orcutt, 2004). Clinard and Meier (2008: 4-6) define various definitions of deviance; normative, relativistic, statistical and absolute. Orcutt (2004: 3) describes the two definitions of deviance that are considered as the main definitions study; the normative and relativistic definitions. The normative definition of deviance handles deviance as any behaviour that is the violation of social norms and values (Orcutt, 2004: 6). The relativistic definition of deviance says that deviant behaviour is whatever behaviour is defined as deviant by a social audience (Orcutt, 2004: 17). This definition states that there are no set definitions as to what is construed as deviant and what is not or rather that deviance cannot be defined in particular actions (Clinard and Meier, 2008: 4). This presents two different spheres in the way that sociologists can view the study of deviance. Clinard and Meier (2008: 5) argue that the normative definition of deviant behaviour is best used as it answers questions as to how people recognize deviant behaviour; through norms people are able to make judgement on what is deviant. However, Clinard and Meier do mention that the definitions are able to complement each other. In order for us to define something as deviant it must not meet norms and values already in place in society however to some extent the context of the situation may change the way see the behaviour leading us to judge as not deviant.

In the case of Amanda du Toit there lies an example where both normative and relativistic definitions of deviance can be applied. Amanda du Toits mother is an example where a relativistic definition of deviance can be applied. Du Toits mother believes that what her daughter did was not deviant in the context of the situation arguing that Amanda was young at the time and the death of her younger sister, Cisca, was the result of an accident (Weekend Post, 2009). However, the reaction of the public to Ciscas murder was different. The public viewed du Toits actions as deviant labelling her as a monster (Weekend Post, 2009). du Toits mother defines deviance in her own perspective of the situation taking into account the factors surrounding the murder citing du Toits youth as one of the reasons for not considering the behaviour as deviant. On the other hand society only sees the surface of the situation using the violation of social norms, murder, as a way of labelling du Toit as a monster whilst not taking into account other factors surrounding the situation. This presents an example of why there is an argument surrounding the definition of deviance. The two definitions of deviance highlight that deviance is a social construction. The normative definition of deviance uses norms and values as a reference point to define what is constituted as deviant behaviour; norms and values are a social construction on the behalf of society there for under the normative definition it is accepted to view deviance as a social construct. Because the relativistic definition relies on the bias of the social audience it can also be seen as a social construct as deviance does not occur outside of what society perceives. Under both main definitions of deviance, deviance can be seen as a social construct. This essay has thus far presented the how the social construction and various definitions of deviance relate to the case of Amanda du Toit, it now moves onto the various theories used to explain deviance. Clinard and Meier highlight five major theories of deviance; Anomie theory, Conflict theories, Labelling theories, control and learning/socialization theory. Anomie is used to describe the situation that occurs when there are conflicting or nonexistent norms within a society (Clinard and Meier, 2008: 76). Clinard and Meier (75-78) use the example of the norm in America of working hard towards achieving social status through economic power and material possession. Lower class people are not exposed to

the resources needed to work towards a higher status in society (Clinard and Meier, 2008: 77). In reaction to this lower class people may participate in illegal activities, which consequently violate societal norms, thus deviant behaviour in order to gain social status (Clinard and Meier, 2008: 77). Tittle (1983: 336) explains that anomie occurs when goals cannot be met by the means available; resulting from the strain this causes people use means that are not socially accepted to attain goals. Tittle (1983: 339) explains various assumptions that are made within this theory; that the lower class is less moral than the upper, lower class people aspire to be like the upper class, upper class people rarely go beyond their means. This theory is criticized for its generality (in saying that a goal system is present in every society and through its assumptions) however it is strong point lays in that it is able to explain many forms of deviant behaviour (Clinard and Meier, 2008: 79) though it cannot be related to the case of du Toit. The Socialization or psychological theory of deviance has the core idea that the family situation of an individual could be used to explain their propensity to participate in deviant behaviour (Tittle, 1983: 339). Features of a family situation that are resultant in deviant behaviour include instability, absence of a male figure, marital tensions, patterns of immediate need gratification, faulty time orientations, and child rejection (Tittle, 1983: 339). The theory also poses lack of moral guidance as a result of such situations as a strong social force behind the creation of deviance (Tittle, 1983: 339). This theory assumes that lower class families are more likely to produce deviants with the above traits responsible; what the theory fails to explain is the reason behind the possession of these traits within lower class families other than that they are inherited (Tittle, 1983: 340). The differential-association theory or socialization/learning theory proposes that the environment around people determines what deviant behaviour that they participate in or rather which norms they choose to violate (Akers, 1968: 459). Thus people learn deviant behaviour from interactions with various agents, such as teachers, friends or parents, within their environment. The control theory accounts deviant behaviour to the controls that lay within us an outside of us (Reckless, 1961: 45). Controls that are inside of us, inner controls, include: value, integrity and morality (Reckless, 1961: 45). This inner controls form self-control which determines how we react to either with or against social norms (Reckless, 1961: 45).

Outer controls include the environment around a person which enforces ones norms, values, goals and expectations (Reckless, 1961: 45). Reckless argues that if effective outer controls are present the role of inner controls, self-control, is less responsible for an individual not participating in deviant behaviour; however, if outer control is weak the inner controls, self-control, are responsible for preventing deviant behaviour (1961: 46). Reckless describes the role of compulsion in causing deviant behaviour (1961: 46). The labelling theory entails that a reaction by society to a deviant behaviour can result in an increased propensity for an individual to act in deviant behaviour in order to fulfil the label placed upon them by society (Bernburg, Khron and Rivera, 2006: 68). Being labelled as a deviant has far reaching effects for an individual (Bernburg, Khron and Rivera, 2006: 68), such as in du Toits case. She is labelled by society as a deviant which causes her to experience extreme emotional distress. The labelling theory says that labelling encourages deviant behaviour however in du Toits case it is observed that she does not follow to engage in deviant behaviour but the stress causes her to seek to change the way people view her. Above the major explanations of deviance have been given in order to explain the so called deviance of du Toit. None of the theories fit accurately to define the cause of the perceived deviance of du Toit although the control theory presents a strong case. In Reckless control theory he mentions the role of compulsion in internal and external controls of an individual. Perhaps the murder committed by Amanda du Toit was caused by unexplained compulsion within a young mind. Definitions of deviance are important in the case of Amanda du Toit. If the normative definition of deviance is followed, her behaviour directly deviates from social norms and is considered deviant; however, if the relativistic definition of deviance is followed her behaviour can be considered as not deviant due to the context of her behaviour. If her behaviour is viewed as deviant the control theory can be used to explain it.

References: Clinard, B. and Meier, R.F. 2008. Sociology of Deviant Behaviour. New York: Harcourt Brace College. Erikson, Kai T. 1962. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social Problems 9 (1): 30714. Orcutt, J.D. 2004. Analyzing deviance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Stander, Y. A tormented soul: My daughter suffered at hands of unforgiving public. Weekend Post. Port Elizabeth, 10 October 2009. Tittle, C.R. 1983. Social Class and Criminal Behaviour: A Critique of the Theoretical Foundation Social Forces, 62(2): 334-358. Akers, R.L. 1968. Problems in the Sociology of Deviance: Social Definitions and Behaviour Social Forces 46(4): 455-465. Reckless, W. 1961.A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime. 25 FED. PROBATION 42. Bernburg, J,G, Khron, M, D, Rivera, C.J. 2006. Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency : A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 43 (1): 67-88