In the United States
It is understood from academic readings that an individual’s definition of deviance is dependent upon the situation in which they find themselves. According to Becker, deviants are “individuals who break a rule agreed on by a group” (Becker, 1). However, Becker also indicates that one’s perception of who is deviant, the rule breaker, or the rule maker, is dependent on the individual’s point of view, illustrating the malleability of the definition of deviance (Becker, 1).
Pfohl illustrates that classifying an act as deviant relies on the context of the situation, and who is in control of the situation. Often, those in control of a particular group or society posses the authority to mark one or one’s acts as deviant or not. Pfohl explains, “labeled deviants are viewed as such because they threaten the control of people who have enough power to shape the way society imagines the boundary between good and bad, normal and pathological, acceptable and deviant” (Thio, Calhoun, Conyers, Pfohl 15). Additionally, Moynihan describes the evolution of deviance stating, “we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by an earlier standard” (Moynihan, 14).
For the purposes of this assignment I chose to study the campaign websites of the remaining four candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States
 |
| www.mittromney.com |
 |
| www.ricksantorum.com |
 |
| http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ |
 |
| http://www.newt.org/ |
When viewing these web-pages there is clear overlap between the candidates on which issues they feel are the most important for the 2012 presidential election. The main issues the candidates address are the U.S.
Most of the candidate’s campaign web pages portray a very stereotypical American conservative, with strong emphasis put on issues such as male and female marriage, defining life at conception, and allowing free markets to create jobs. Ingrained in these messages is suggestive dialogue that an administration or a society who takes positions alternate to those expressed by the candidates is in some ways sacrilegious, unpatriotic, or ignorant to the bounty of free market systems. To illustrate this, I have chosen information from each candidate’s campaign website to show the often subtle and sometimes overt characterizations of deviance in society.
Each of the four candidates openly shows affection and devotion to Christianity, often stating that many of their policy issues stem from their religious views, this alone paints atheists and non-Christians as possible deviants. Contained within in a piece of his campaign website entitled “Statement of Faith”, Congressman Paul describes his disgust with abortion saying, “We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval” (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/). With this statement, Congressman Paul paints a very one-sided view of abortion, and of the women who choose to receive abortions. If this statement were to be taken literally, all women who have chosen to seek abortions have slaughtered their unborn children. Congressman Paul continues to paint these women as deviant, and to downplay the medical viability of abortion in saying, “As I trained to practice medicine, I became convinced without a doubt that life begins at the moment of conception. I never performed and abortion and I have never once found an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother” (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/).
Rick Santorum’s campaign website also contains a large section on social issues important to some conservative voters. In a section entitled “We Hold These Truths”, Santorum addresses his beliefs on the sanctity of marriage. Santorum states, “Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad” (www.ricksantorum.com). Here Santorum makes clear his view that marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman, excluding and therefore de-legitimizing the wants of thousands of same sex couple seeking to be married. In this sense, Santorum suggests same-sex couples may be deviant in his view. Santorum seeks to differentiate himself from President Obama in saying, “A president who, after thousands of years of human history, a Harvard law degree, and four years in the White House, cannot tell us with certainty what he thinks marriage or life is, is not worthy of the trust of the American people or a second term in office” (www.ricksantorum.com). With this statement, Santorum not only minimizes the intellect and education of the president, but also illustrates his belief that individuals who do not agree with his particular stance on marriage or unworthy of trust, or to be president. Santorum also gives hints into his view of non-English speaking immigrants as deviants. When discussing his immigration policies Santorum states one of his policies is to “Make English the official language of government, not to penalize but to promote opportunity and a common culture for new immigrants” (www.ricksantorum.com). Here, Santorum not only dismisses the culture of new immigrants, but also shows his belief that disregarding the native language of new immigrants, those most prone to English deficiency, will not hinder, but provide new opportunity.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney suggest their views on deviance when discussing matters such as religion and the economy. Gingrich states, “The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove ‘our Creator’ – the source of our rights – from public life” (http://www.newt.org/). Mitt Romney shows his belief that those who rely on government assistance are deviant by saying, “We can choose to live in the Entitlement Society that Barack Obama has been constructing, a society built around dependence on government. Or we can return to the merit-based Opportunity Society built by our Founding Fathers” (www.mittromney.com). Romney’s statements essentially tie an individual’s lack of success to their lack of merit for success, and to demonize reliance on government assistance. Gingrich again alienates secular society by demanding a connection between politics and religion.
Commonly, in each of these candidates’ campaign websites, individuals who are non-religious, who challenge the free-market systems, who seek abortion, or support gay marriage, seem to fall under the umbrella of what these candidates deem deviant. These messages are not overt, however they are not clouded either. The individuals not adhering to the candidate’s definition of normal may be seen as deviant because of the individual candidate’s socialization, their religious views, or perhaps their desire to be a viable option to fellow republican voters. In this sense, these candidates benefit from their perceptions of who is deviant because they reflect broader group perceptions of who is deviant, particularly among the voters who can elect them to office. Due to the importance governors and legislators have on the outcomes of citizens' lives, the consequences of individuals with these views of deviance gaining positions of power are great. The views of deviance held by the candidates are likely to be enacted into law should they be elected, and thus the systematic revocation of certain people’s rights may be literally policed and violators sanctioned. However, this act of censoring deviance will no doubt be seen as deviant itself by a large percentage of the population, furthering the legitimacy of Becker’s views on the contextual malleability of deviance.
- Steve
Word Count: 1,481
- Steve
Word Count: 1,481
