Assess The Difference Between Positivism And Constructionism

Deviance in sociology is defined as behaviour that violates or goes against the cultural norm –being non-normative (Henslin et al., 2013)

Criminological theories have evolved considerably in terms of their interpretations of crime and deviance. Shifting away from the classical and neoclassical schools of criminology, we move towards a scientific approach that explains criminal behaviour as “determined by biological, psychological and social” (William & McShane, 2018: 25) factors. The question of what causes conformity and deviance is one that is asked by all positivist theorists. It is through the various positivist theories that we are able to answer this question and analyze both conforming and deviant behaviour, while simultaneously providing explanations for such behaviour. In the film Boyz N the Hood, we can see that crime is rampant, and through the multiple positivist

The absolutist perspective on deviance is believing in natural law which was given to us before humans were made to understand what needs to be done and what to avoid. some aspects of this definition have relevance as part of this binds certain areas of the community together in the belief that the activities mentioned are of a deviant

A cross-cultural examination of certain deviant acts surface interesting observations of both the root of function of deviance in that given society. This observation will illustrate how the ways in which deviance is viewed in a specific culture is not universal. The author also touches upon how the “concept of normal” is equated with the “concept of good”; therefore, by consequence, anything remotely outside this pre-established box is viewed in a negative manner (Benedict 1934:4). The category of deviance is employed by society as a strategic means of reducing diversity, maintaining order and above else, upholding the social norm. Individuals who threaten this system are immediately labeled as evil wrongdoers who are then treated differently on every level. A further scholar, Erikson, compares the social system to a “nucleus, “which” draws the behavior of actors toward [itself] within range of basic norms,” (Erikson 1962: 309). This analogy provides powerful imagery of how the social system functions and the reason for why deviance is seen as such a threatening act. He further draws a comparison between the law and the norm arguing that both are reinforced by consistently being “used as a basis for judgment,” (Erikson 1962: 310). The entanglement of

People consider an act to be a deviance act because of the three sociological theories: control theory, labeling theory and strain theory. It deeply reflected in the movie called "Menace II Society".

1. Gilead is the authoritarian, theocratic regime that takes over the United States of America in The Handmaid's Tale. The regime can be seen as the overall main antagonist of the novel and the television adaptation. 2. Handmaid is a class of women in Gilead.

There exists conflicting theories among sociologists in the area of determining why a person is considered to be a deviant, and the reasons behind why he or she has committed a deviant act. From a positivistic perspective, deviance is based on biological or social determinism. Alternatively, from a constructionist perspective, deviance is created and assigned by society. Both perspectives seek to give a theory for why a person may become known as deviant. Although they both view similar acts as deviant, the basic differences between positivists and constructionists theories are clear.

Constructionist looks at deviance from a different perspective. It is the "social construction of deviance" that needs to be explained, not the ("wrong") choices of individuals.

Corporations across the globe deal in international business practices every day. When a company must to do business in countries with a high level of corruption, a company should have a plan that helps to maintain control over a key piece of intellectual property or some production process component that allows company to maintain power in the relationship.

In order to critically compare positivism and anti-positivism, firstly the concepts themselves need to be defined. Positivism takes a scientific approach; it is value free, and takes on the idea that the world exists with only natural law, and the methodological approach of society are not taken into account. Positivism follows a structured process; observation, hypothesis, proof and then fact, similar to that seen in scientific or mathematical methods. It takes into account three main aspects. These are empiricism; the idea that all knowledge comes from the senses, naturalism; the idea that everything known comes from the natural world rather than the social realm and scepticism; the ability to disprove the findings. In Social Theory in the Twentieth Century by Patrick Baert, he describes positivism as ‘part of an attempt to sweep away the metaphysical burden of our western philosophical heritage’ going on to say that ‘positivism conceives of sensory observations as a solid foundation (if not the only foundation) for the development of scientific knowledge’ (Baert, 1998, p175). The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

Deviance can be defined as an absence of conformity to the social norm. Not all deviant behavior is necessarily illegal or harmful to individuals, these behaviors can range from standing in another’s personal space to murdering another individual. In some cases, it can be looked upon as a positive change or a unique and favorable act. Although, considered deviant because it is not the social norm, it still can have a very positive social aspect or lead to social change. Culture and the societies within these cultures have a significant impact on what is considered deviant and what is acceptable or even lawful behavior. The degree of deviance is measured by society’s reaction towards the action and the lawful sanctions that may take

Theories of Deviance are limited in their ability to explain deviant acts if one adopts the view that these theories are universal. There is no universal, right or wrong theory, rather each theory provides a different perspective which only "fully makes sense when set within an appropriate societal context and values framework" .

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the two articles that were given to us, in terms of whether or not they are using a scientific method and which of the two paradigms -constructivism/positivism- they are following. The first part of my assignment contains information about what is considered a “scientific method”. Afterwards follows an analysis on whether the two articles (“Criminal Behaviour in users of Psychoactive Substances Who Began Treatment”, “I just have to move on: Women’s coping experiences and reflections following their first year after primary breast cancer surgery”) are scientifically approved. Thence follows an interpretation on what is “constructivism”, “positivism” and in the end, an explanation concerning the two articles and which paradigm each of them follows.

Question 1 – Explain what deviance is socially constructed means. Discuss 2 types of positive deviance and 2 types of negative deviance which are socially constructed in the United States. Provide examples of each.

Author of the 2002 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, Charles R. states that the word deviance is one that “usually refers to some behavior that is inconsistent with the standards of acceptable conduct prevailing in a given social group, although the term has also been used to designate personal conditions, ideas, or statuses that are stigmatized or disreputable” (p. 1). Assuming this ideal as fact, we must consider those who influence the change in behavior that is deemed “disreputable.” In order to understand this, the Nation must be observed in a large scale while searching for the persons that are most influential. In this way, we must designate which behaviors are considered deviant and how those influential people help those behaviors to be deemed so. Anything similar to gang activity, drug use, violence of any