in a universal definition pertains to a person who diverges from usual or accepted social standards or who violates the accepted norms of a society. It can be analyzed that this meaning of deviance persisted in almost everyone’s vocabulary that it will be difficult for one to examine further what lies beneath that so called “label”. However, there can be another way to look at the word’s definition and not merely confine it to the common statement: deviance as seen from a Cultural Relativist perspective.
According to Cultural Relativism, there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics because there are only various cultural codes; it challenges the belief in objectivity and universality (Rachels J. & Rachels R., 2010). The following claims, according to Rachels J. & Rachels R., 2010, have all been made by cultural relativists: (1)Different societies have different moral codes (2) The moral code of society determines what is right within that society; that is if moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right at least within that society (3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. (4) The moral code of one’s own society has no special status; it is but one among many. Lastly; (5) It is mere arrogance to judge the conduct of other people and everyone should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards other cultures.
From these arguments three main points can be interpreted—societies have varying cultures, a particular society judges what is wrong or right at least in that society only, and cultural differences must be tolerated. Nevertheless, if these claims indeed persist, how can then deviance be defined in such perspective?
In defining deviance, considering these main points, it is, as well, relative. There is such a thing as deviance and exists within a particular subgroup—that is to say the connotation of deviance varies from a group to another which also have dissimilar cultures. The view of what is wrong and right depends in the society having a common belief and the opinion of other groups is not deemed significant in judging a deviant in their society. Therefore only that society in which a violation is observed can have the power to label its member/s as deviant/s. For example, in cultural relativity, the point of view of Callatians must be tolerated by the Greeks and not judge it by any means as inferior or superior. This is respect for other culture, also when it comes to the idea of deviance, it is but similar. Greeks cannot have the command to give the idea of what is wrong or right for the Callatians and can never therefore brand a member of it as conforming or non-conforming because only a Callatian distinguishes the violation of his fellowmen in their accepted social norms. Considering the belief that no universal moral codes exists, a Callatian deviant is for Callatian society and a Greek deviant is for the Greeks.
A person only becomes a deviant when he disobeys the norms in the society he belongs to, however, that violator is not necessarily a deviant for other cultures. This is possible when a person belongs to not only a single group, but in two or more. For example, a homosexual man in the world of normal genders sets a trend in fashion that is uniquely his own or in specific term “cross dress”. Identifying first the homosexual man’s groups, it is apparent that he as well belongs to the world of normal genders simply because he has a gender. He is a male. However, since he also belongs to another type of group (being homosexual) which is different from his group (being a male), he may commit a deviant act by being a cross dresser for the first group he belongs to but for the latter, it is at all, normal. A male will look at him as a violator of their gender’s fashion, but for fellow homosexuals it is accepted.
Now, a possible question may arise from this claim: Where is now the tolerance of other society’s culture? Recalling the second argument of Rachels J. & Rachels R., it states that the moral code of society determines what is right within that society; that is if moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right at least within that society. Cultural relativism claims that the moral codes of a society determines what is right and ,therefore, what is wrong at least within that society. The second claim does not underline that if the perspective determines what is right it also concludes what is wrong for a society. Although cultural relativism teaches respect of other’s culture, it does not necessarily tolerate negating behavior of a person belonging in a society—that is to say his member’s do not necessarily accept it. This is because they belong in a common group which is binded by common beliefs. As a “member” a person should conform within his society just like with his co-members in the group. If the person does not follow their social norms, his fellow men can label him as a deviant but at the same time presents no culture intolerance because the person he views as violator is a member of “their group” and not of the other. Hence he is not necessarily negating a Cultural Relativist belief because the violation happened within the group itself, having a common moral code, and not a deviant in basis from culture to culture.
Culture varies in different social groups and should be tolerated. However this does not mean that deviance cannot materialize in a society. This happens when a person has a number of groups in which he belongs to and the norms of each overlap. Also, when the judgment comes from the members of his society and not from the other, these members have the rights to label the person as deviant for they belong in the same group having common moral code, not from a completely different society having dissimilar moral codes. The deviant commits what is conceived to be wrong in that one society he appropriates himself but for his another society it is completely natural. There is no cultural intolerance since the deviant violated the social norms of his society in which he is a ‘member’ as compared to a Callatian whom is not a member of the Greeks but for the latter he is a deviant. Then here comes intolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment