I was not accepted into the the MSW program at the U. Yes, I cried. Don't judge me.
I am a mess of emotions.
I feel like a failure... and I'm pissed off because they don't know how awesome I am.
I feel completely lost... and I am totally determined to pick a new plan, a BETTER plan, dang it!
I want to sleep for a week... and I want to run and run until it's all behind me.
All at the same time.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
I am a deviant
Sociology 101 asked me to find someone who deviated, and analyze them.. I picked myself. For your consideration.. my paper.
Deviance, as the violation of our society’s norms, is something we all engage in to some degree. As I worked to analyze my own deviant acts through a sociological lens, I was often reminded of the relative nature of deviance. It was enlightening to realize that it is the reaction, not the act itself that defines what is deviant.
In most American societies, drinking tea, watching R rated movies and going out to eat on a Sunday would not qualify me as a deviant. However, in the culture of the LDS church, those acts are seen as quite unorthodox. Some deviant behaviors are as inconsequential as my disinclination to sew, knit or scrapbook. Others are not as minor, but not strictly against the rules either. For instance, I only have 2 children, and that is all I plan to have. I am also pursuing higher education and a career while they are still young. Other acts considered to be quite serious, are my lack of church attendance, my failure to wear significant items of religious clothing, and my involvement in political actions within and against the church organization.
What caused me to deviate in such a manner? Sociology has provided a number of theories that attempt to explain my deviance. Differential association theory says that it is those with whom we associate that teach us to either conform to or deviate from society’s norms. Our family members, friends and even neighbors influence us. I was born into a family with conflicting positions in regards to the church. Although I had a conforming mother who brought me to church each week, and attempted to ingrain in me all that she believed, my father was not a believing, participating member. It was a strain in their marriage, and always a subtext of our lives. Eventually, two of my three siblings would make the decision to leave the church upon entering adulthood, increasing the number of my deviating associates.
When we discuss influences, we cannot leave out friends. Throughout my teenage years in Texas I had a close-knit group of friends from my church, however I only saw them once or twice a week. The people we lived close to and those I spent time with every day were not LDS. After high school I made the decision to attend college in Utah hoping for the conforming influences of new associations. However, living with a larger concentration of LDS people also meant that I was exposed to a much greater variation between conformity and deviance than I had previously experienced. Sutherland believed that primary groups also teach us how and why to deviate, and in this period of my life that is clearly evident. I witnessed my peers make many decisions that did not strictly follow the norms of our church. I discovered a diversity of ideas surrounding what it meant to be LDS, and spent hours discussing the reasoning behind the choices people were making. It caused me to question which norms I followed, and why.
An alternative to differential association theory in explaining deviance is control theory. The idea that the desire to deviate is common and that there are two control systems, inner and outer, which work against our tendencies to do so. Inner controls are internalized morality, like a conscience, the idea of what is right and wrong, as well as the fear of punishment and the desire to be a “good person”. Outer controls are people who influence us not to deviate, such as friends, family and authority figures like the police.
I believe that many of my inner controls were not effective in preventing my deviations because my internalized morality did not have a strong grasp of the norms as ‘right’ and the deviations as ‘wrong’. When I was shown another way of looking at things, putting the norms in the ‘wrong’ and the deviations as ‘right’, it frequently made much more sense to me, and so was easier to let go of. As an example, the LDS church strongly believes that homosexuality is a sin, and is against legalizing same-sex marriages. After researching the matter and getting to know people it directly affects, I now believe marriage equality to be a human rights issue, and see lobbying against it to be discrimination. My inner controls, my feelings of integrity, now do not allow me to conform, despite my fears. I did experience fear of punishment from church leaders and peers, and my desire to be perceived as a "good person" by fellow church members exerted control in regards to my behavior much longer than any others.
Which leads us to the outer controls. Once aware of deviations, my church leaders had the power to take actions that would impact me negatively. These sanctions could be minor, disapproving looks to a chastising talk or it could be more severe, such as revoking privileges and even my membership. Beyond the church leadership, our neighbors could decide our family was no longer a good influence and refrain from including us in activities, even forbidding our children to play together. Friends and family could exhibit disappointment, disapproval, or even choose to end our relationships. It must also be mentioned that the LDS church creates a strong sense of community within its members, with emotional, physical and financial support. The loss of that community can have great consequences.
The stronger the bonds with a society, the more effective are the controls. These bonds are based on: attachment, feeling affection and respect for those who conform; commitments, having a stake in the society you don’t want to risk; involvements, participating in approved activities; and beliefs, convictions that certain actions are wrong. This was certainly true for me. I found it easier to deviate the more I got to know and like people outside of the LDS culture. The less I participated in the community’s activities, the less I needed it to fill those needs. The more I questioned my beliefs, the less I was convinced that those actions were wrong. And the less important I felt my membership in this group was, the less power it’s loss held over me.
The third method is strain theory, which discusses how societies socialize their members into desiring culturally selected goals, and set out the ways in which you should work to obtain them. The problem with this is that many people are unable to achieve these goals through the socially acceptable ways. This inability causes them to experience a strain, or anomie, the feeling of being adrift in society without clear, secure moorings, and to become detached from the norms that usually guide behavior. As I evaluated my deviance from this point of view, I had to consider what had been the cultural goals held out as desirable in the LDS culture, what was considered the appropriate way of achieving them, and where had this become a problem for me. I believe the most significant ones to be feeling fulfilled as a stay at home mother, and being able to believe in the church’s truth claims without questioning. Robert Merton discussed differing ways people reacted within strain theory, and I believe I followed two of the paths. For many years I chose ritualism, the definition of which is to reject cultural goals, but to accept the institutional means. For me that meant that I gave up on being fulfilled, but continued to fill the role of a stay at home motherhood. I also resigned myself to never being a believer, someone who felt ‘the spirit’ and knew of the truthfulness; and yet I continued to attend church meetings and speak the words I knew were expected. This was a hard road for me, and I definitely felt the strain of anomie. Eventually, depression overwhelmed me to such a point that it was necessary for me to receive help. It was through this process that I changed paths. I gave up ritualism and headed towards rebellion instead. Rebellion is to not only reject the approved culture goals and the means of achieving them, but to replace them as well. I rejected the idea that I should be an unquestioning believer in the LDS doctrine, and instead replaced that with the idea that I should be constantly searching for a belief system that I could believe in. I rejected the idea that I should be a happy stay at home mother who finds fulfillment in home cooked meals and a clean house, and replaced it with the idea that I could be a good mom and have a career, and went back to school.
The final theory is labeling. This theory focuses on the significance of reputations, claiming that the labels people are given affect their own and others perceptions of them. This channels their behavior into either deviance or conformity. This theory would assume that I was pushed towards deviance by means of labels I received earlier in life. I do not feel as though this theory has as much to say on my deviance. In college and later in my married life I do not feel that I was labeled as very different. Especially in my married life I spent most of my time working to fit in. However, if I examine my childhood I can see that having a father that was not a member of the society did mark me as different. The stigma of not having ‘the priesthood’ in my home made me an object of pity, worry and mistrust. My father was not seen as equal to the other fathers. We also moved around a lot, and so I was continually seen as the new kid, an outsider. I can see how these labels affected the way I was treated and the way I would act.
I found each theory illuminated different aspects, and helped to create a more complete picture. Strain theory appeared to highlight the most direct causes for deviation in my case. However, much of what is discussed in the other theories adds depth and understanding. Would I have had such a hard time accepting and achieving the cultural goals as an adult if I had had different associations earlier in life? Would the inner controls have had more effect if I had grown up with parents united in the message of what was right and what was wrong? Would I have sought out the association of deviants in later years if the labels I had been given earlier hadn’t built up barriers that prevented stronger bonds with conformers?
I greatly appreciated that the discussion of Differential Association Theory included the idea that it is not claiming that we are destined to think or act like the groups in which we find ourselves placed. Instead, that by choosing what groups to join, or what associations to deepen, we help to shape who we will become. I do not see my journey as falling prey to a series of bad influences, but as a conscientious and mindful search that led to an awakening. I specifically sought out differing groups, and chose to make friends with those who violated certain norms. Those people spoke to me, and what they said rang true. I made those choices, and they would guide other choices. I understand that much of my self is determined by the circumstances I was born into, but it is gratifying to acknowledge that I also have choice in my circumstances.
Deviance, as the violation of our society’s norms, is something we all engage in to some degree. As I worked to analyze my own deviant acts through a sociological lens, I was often reminded of the relative nature of deviance. It was enlightening to realize that it is the reaction, not the act itself that defines what is deviant.
In most American societies, drinking tea, watching R rated movies and going out to eat on a Sunday would not qualify me as a deviant. However, in the culture of the LDS church, those acts are seen as quite unorthodox. Some deviant behaviors are as inconsequential as my disinclination to sew, knit or scrapbook. Others are not as minor, but not strictly against the rules either. For instance, I only have 2 children, and that is all I plan to have. I am also pursuing higher education and a career while they are still young. Other acts considered to be quite serious, are my lack of church attendance, my failure to wear significant items of religious clothing, and my involvement in political actions within and against the church organization.
What caused me to deviate in such a manner? Sociology has provided a number of theories that attempt to explain my deviance. Differential association theory says that it is those with whom we associate that teach us to either conform to or deviate from society’s norms. Our family members, friends and even neighbors influence us. I was born into a family with conflicting positions in regards to the church. Although I had a conforming mother who brought me to church each week, and attempted to ingrain in me all that she believed, my father was not a believing, participating member. It was a strain in their marriage, and always a subtext of our lives. Eventually, two of my three siblings would make the decision to leave the church upon entering adulthood, increasing the number of my deviating associates.
When we discuss influences, we cannot leave out friends. Throughout my teenage years in Texas I had a close-knit group of friends from my church, however I only saw them once or twice a week. The people we lived close to and those I spent time with every day were not LDS. After high school I made the decision to attend college in Utah hoping for the conforming influences of new associations. However, living with a larger concentration of LDS people also meant that I was exposed to a much greater variation between conformity and deviance than I had previously experienced. Sutherland believed that primary groups also teach us how and why to deviate, and in this period of my life that is clearly evident. I witnessed my peers make many decisions that did not strictly follow the norms of our church. I discovered a diversity of ideas surrounding what it meant to be LDS, and spent hours discussing the reasoning behind the choices people were making. It caused me to question which norms I followed, and why.
An alternative to differential association theory in explaining deviance is control theory. The idea that the desire to deviate is common and that there are two control systems, inner and outer, which work against our tendencies to do so. Inner controls are internalized morality, like a conscience, the idea of what is right and wrong, as well as the fear of punishment and the desire to be a “good person”. Outer controls are people who influence us not to deviate, such as friends, family and authority figures like the police.
I believe that many of my inner controls were not effective in preventing my deviations because my internalized morality did not have a strong grasp of the norms as ‘right’ and the deviations as ‘wrong’. When I was shown another way of looking at things, putting the norms in the ‘wrong’ and the deviations as ‘right’, it frequently made much more sense to me, and so was easier to let go of. As an example, the LDS church strongly believes that homosexuality is a sin, and is against legalizing same-sex marriages. After researching the matter and getting to know people it directly affects, I now believe marriage equality to be a human rights issue, and see lobbying against it to be discrimination. My inner controls, my feelings of integrity, now do not allow me to conform, despite my fears. I did experience fear of punishment from church leaders and peers, and my desire to be perceived as a "good person" by fellow church members exerted control in regards to my behavior much longer than any others.
Which leads us to the outer controls. Once aware of deviations, my church leaders had the power to take actions that would impact me negatively. These sanctions could be minor, disapproving looks to a chastising talk or it could be more severe, such as revoking privileges and even my membership. Beyond the church leadership, our neighbors could decide our family was no longer a good influence and refrain from including us in activities, even forbidding our children to play together. Friends and family could exhibit disappointment, disapproval, or even choose to end our relationships. It must also be mentioned that the LDS church creates a strong sense of community within its members, with emotional, physical and financial support. The loss of that community can have great consequences.
The stronger the bonds with a society, the more effective are the controls. These bonds are based on: attachment, feeling affection and respect for those who conform; commitments, having a stake in the society you don’t want to risk; involvements, participating in approved activities; and beliefs, convictions that certain actions are wrong. This was certainly true for me. I found it easier to deviate the more I got to know and like people outside of the LDS culture. The less I participated in the community’s activities, the less I needed it to fill those needs. The more I questioned my beliefs, the less I was convinced that those actions were wrong. And the less important I felt my membership in this group was, the less power it’s loss held over me.
The third method is strain theory, which discusses how societies socialize their members into desiring culturally selected goals, and set out the ways in which you should work to obtain them. The problem with this is that many people are unable to achieve these goals through the socially acceptable ways. This inability causes them to experience a strain, or anomie, the feeling of being adrift in society without clear, secure moorings, and to become detached from the norms that usually guide behavior. As I evaluated my deviance from this point of view, I had to consider what had been the cultural goals held out as desirable in the LDS culture, what was considered the appropriate way of achieving them, and where had this become a problem for me. I believe the most significant ones to be feeling fulfilled as a stay at home mother, and being able to believe in the church’s truth claims without questioning. Robert Merton discussed differing ways people reacted within strain theory, and I believe I followed two of the paths. For many years I chose ritualism, the definition of which is to reject cultural goals, but to accept the institutional means. For me that meant that I gave up on being fulfilled, but continued to fill the role of a stay at home motherhood. I also resigned myself to never being a believer, someone who felt ‘the spirit’ and knew of the truthfulness; and yet I continued to attend church meetings and speak the words I knew were expected. This was a hard road for me, and I definitely felt the strain of anomie. Eventually, depression overwhelmed me to such a point that it was necessary for me to receive help. It was through this process that I changed paths. I gave up ritualism and headed towards rebellion instead. Rebellion is to not only reject the approved culture goals and the means of achieving them, but to replace them as well. I rejected the idea that I should be an unquestioning believer in the LDS doctrine, and instead replaced that with the idea that I should be constantly searching for a belief system that I could believe in. I rejected the idea that I should be a happy stay at home mother who finds fulfillment in home cooked meals and a clean house, and replaced it with the idea that I could be a good mom and have a career, and went back to school.
The final theory is labeling. This theory focuses on the significance of reputations, claiming that the labels people are given affect their own and others perceptions of them. This channels their behavior into either deviance or conformity. This theory would assume that I was pushed towards deviance by means of labels I received earlier in life. I do not feel as though this theory has as much to say on my deviance. In college and later in my married life I do not feel that I was labeled as very different. Especially in my married life I spent most of my time working to fit in. However, if I examine my childhood I can see that having a father that was not a member of the society did mark me as different. The stigma of not having ‘the priesthood’ in my home made me an object of pity, worry and mistrust. My father was not seen as equal to the other fathers. We also moved around a lot, and so I was continually seen as the new kid, an outsider. I can see how these labels affected the way I was treated and the way I would act.
I found each theory illuminated different aspects, and helped to create a more complete picture. Strain theory appeared to highlight the most direct causes for deviation in my case. However, much of what is discussed in the other theories adds depth and understanding. Would I have had such a hard time accepting and achieving the cultural goals as an adult if I had had different associations earlier in life? Would the inner controls have had more effect if I had grown up with parents united in the message of what was right and what was wrong? Would I have sought out the association of deviants in later years if the labels I had been given earlier hadn’t built up barriers that prevented stronger bonds with conformers?
I greatly appreciated that the discussion of Differential Association Theory included the idea that it is not claiming that we are destined to think or act like the groups in which we find ourselves placed. Instead, that by choosing what groups to join, or what associations to deepen, we help to shape who we will become. I do not see my journey as falling prey to a series of bad influences, but as a conscientious and mindful search that led to an awakening. I specifically sought out differing groups, and chose to make friends with those who violated certain norms. Those people spoke to me, and what they said rang true. I made those choices, and they would guide other choices. I understand that much of my self is determined by the circumstances I was born into, but it is gratifying to acknowledge that I also have choice in my circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)