Film Review: "Live Nude Girls Unite"

The film “Live Nude Girls Unite” written and directed by Julia Query and Vicky Funari, documents the process that a group of exotic dancers and staff workers went through to fight for fair wages and working conditions by unionizing. Their message was that sex workers were being stigmatized as inferior, submissive people, not worthy of humane treatment. They rejected the notion that their line of work wasn’t “real” work. The women in the film demonstrated through their determination and ability to organize that they were in fact smart, hard-working individuals deserving of the same protection from abusive labor markets as any other occupation.

The workers were employees of a peep show theater called “The Lusty Lady” in San Francisco which fought their efforts with one of the city’s most notorious law firms. The dancers argued that they were victims of racial discrimination, unfair pay, and were being subjected to an invasion of their privacy by customers using video cameras. They sought help from the Service Employees International Union to navigate them through the complex system of bargaining and negotiating a contractual agreement with the employer. In the end, not all their demands were met, but their actions paved the way for other exotic dancers to unionize as well.

The thesis of this film relates to the course in that it demonstrates the idea that society is unjust in how it treats those labeled as deviant. Author Jennifer L. Dunn of “Everyone Knows Who the Sluts Are: How Young Women Get Around the Stigma”, explains the negative impacts of stigmatization. She states, “Not only do we demean such persons, but we treat them as unworthy of our respect and regard, and in this way, Goffman said, “we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce [their] life chances.” (Calhoun, Conyers & Thio,Readings in Deviant Behavior,p.207). This rationale resonates in Jennifer K. Wesely’s “Exotic Dancers: Where am I Going to Stop?” where she writes about the sexual objectification of women’s bodies and how this line of work may relate to identity conflict. The individual and the behavior become one and the same; her master status in the eyes of society and sometimes, her own self-image becomes what she does, not who she is. The dancer is no longer regarded and respected as a mother, daughter, student, or even wife; she becomes merely a sexual object. While society, in general, may not respect sex work (although the demand would suggest otherwise!) or regard it as a noble profession, those who work in the industry do not deserve the stigma associated with it. It’s that stigma that can cause a self-fulfilling prophecy (Becker, Howard S.; Calhoun, Conyers & Thio, Readings in Deviant Behavior). Their life chances become limited because of their inability to remove the label that both society assigns and they themselves have relegated to.

One argument that the film addressed was the various reasons why the women chose to be a part of the sex industry. Some of the women were struggling single moms, many held college degrees, and others could not find work in their original professions. I got the feeling that the majority did not particularly enjoy the work, felt pressured to perform more intrusive sexual acts, and seemed to do it as a sort of last resort because of limited alternative options. If I were to design a study, it would be similar to Wesely’s in that I would conduct interviews with women who engaged in sex work of varying degrees. I would try to find correlations between motives for entering the industry, past sexual histories, the range of work they performed, and how they transitioned into other professions in order to determine if inequalities that women face to meet their basic needs are a significant factor in this industry. My hypothesis is that Merton’s Strain Theory (Calhoun, Conyers & Thio, Readings in Deviant Behavior, Ch3) will be demonstrated in the outcome; women with more strain will resort to working in the sex industry (innovative means) to attain the goals shared by society.

Story of an Illness

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, commonly known as ADHD, is defined by many as a psychiatric disorder. It was voted into existence in 1987 by a committee of the American Psychiatric Association (1). ADHD is characterized by an extended history of inattention, impulsiveness and often times, variable amounts of hyperactivity (5). ADHD is suspected in children when these otherwise normal characteristics begin to affect performance in school, social relationships or behavior. Dr. Paul H. Wender, M.D. claims that currently, “ADHD is the most common chronic psychiatric disorder of childhood” (5). According to a booklet on ADHD published by the National Institute of Mental Health, “It is estimated that between three and five percent of children have ADHD, or approximately two million children in the United States” (8). Even though there is no evidence to support the claim that ADHD is a brain disease, a biochemical imbalance, or even a medical condition at all, it is treated as such with dangerous, mind altering, stimulant drugs.

ADHD was first depicted by Dr. Heinrich Hoffman in 1845 who wrote books on medicine and psychiatry. Some say his famous poem titled, The Story of Fidgety Philip, was an accurate description of a little boy who had ADHD (8). In 1902, Sir George F. Still published a series of lectures to the Royal College of Physicians in England in which he described a group of impulsive children with significant behavioral problems (8). He reasoned they were due to a genetic dysfunction, and not poor child rearing (8). He also concluded that children who demonstrated rebellious and unacceptable conduct could have suffered some sort of trauma to the brain to cause such behaviors (1). The term minimal brain dysfunction, or MBD, was created by Still shortly thereafter. In 1979, the Food and Drug Administration ordered that MBD be eliminated as a diagnostic term and replaced it with Attention Deficit Disorder in 1980. In 1989, the term ADHD was chosen by psychiatric experts, and its symptoms have been published by the American Psychiatric Association in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Stimulant drugs became an FDA approved treatment for people with ADHD during the mid-1950’s. This class of drugs today includes methylphenidate (now sold as Ritalin, Concerta, Methylin, and Metadate CD), methamphetamines (Desoxyn and Gradumet) and amphetamines (including Dexedrine and Adderall). The Drug Enforcement Agency classifies these as Schedule II drugs, a classification reserved for the most dangerous and addictive drugs that can be legally prescribed (1). On September 29, 1970, the first Congressional hearing s were held into the concerns of over 3 million dollars in federal grant money given to the National Institute of Mental Health for the study of learning disabilities, each funded study included the use of drugs on children who were identified as being afflicted with MBD (1). At that time, between 100,000 and 200,000 American children were taking stimulants to control their behavior (4). The chairman, Representative Cornelius Gallagher, voiced his concerns about what he saw as an epidemic in the making. He states, “I am well aware of the occasional frustrations which come from the fact that children do not simply sit quietly and perform assigned tasks” “…I fear that there is a very great temptation to diagnose the bored but bright child as hyperactive, prescribe drugs, and thus deny him full learning during the most creative years” (1). Another concern raised by Gallagher as well as DR. David Healy, a chemist who testified at the hearing, was the lack of scientific objectivity found in the studies. Healy stated, “A critical search through the literature will very likely reveal that 90% or more of the research, evaluation, and presentation of these drugs was conducted by the drug companies or through investigations underwritten by the companies” (3). In discussing the objectivity of the people responsible for updating the new DSM-V, Professor Williams poses the question, “should this conflict of interest, which impacts up to 70% of the panel members, be allowed?” (11). The trend for pharmaceutical companies influencing the policy outcomes, through controlling what doctors learn from journals by funding continuing education and hiring research teams that implicitly guarantee the results that will benefit them the most is of alarming concern.

Diagnostic criteria for ADHD are controversial to say the least. In cases of many neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, laboratory tests such as brain scans are performed, as well as blood, urine and spinal fluid samples are taken to aid in the diagnosis. Since the invention of MBD and ADHD, not a single psychological or laboratory test has been discovered to be useful in determining if a child in fact has the disorder (10). The standard evaluation forms and rating scales for ADHD are designed to compare the child’s behavior to those of other children the same age and are commonly completed by the child’s teachers (8). The diagnosis is then made by trained professionals such as clinical social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, pediatricians, or family physicians (8). Some experts argue these evaluations may lead to cases of misdiagnosis because they are extremely subjective and numerous ADHD symptoms are often found in many other disorders such as learning disabilities, anxiety and depression (8).

The question whether or not the criteria listed in the DSM codes are truly abnormalities is one that has not been clearly answered. Dr. Baughman, a neurologist with over thirty five years of experience and author of ASHD Fraud states, “Medical diagnoses cannot be made by opinion, suspicion, or committee; there must be proven facts; a demonstrable abnormality. If there are no abnormalities, the result is exactly what we have now, a perversion of language and ethics so twisted that any normal person can be labeled as suffering from a disease” (1). Howard S. Becker explains the complexities with labeling stating, “Deviance is not a quality that lies in the behavior itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it” (2). Some of the symptoms listed include forgetfulness, excessive talking and fidgeting, running and climbing excessively, not sitting still or standing in a line for a lengthy period of time, difficulty sustaining attention on unappealing tasks, often loses things necessary for tasks, often interrupts or intrudes on others, fails to finish schoolwork, chores or duties and has difficulty taking turns (8). While some children may indeed suffer from extreme ADHD-like symptoms and require treatment so that they can live productive lives, the symptoms listed in the DSM codes can also easily describe a normal, active child that may just require extra attention and a different approach to discipline and teaching from parents and teachers.

Children with ADHD have also been described by experts as creative, bright, energetic and often have the ability to think of more than one thing at a time (9). In fact, the diagnostic checklist for ADHD and the one used to identify children as gifted and talented is practically indistinguishable. Several famous people such as Winston Churchill, Robin Williams, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Vincent Van Gough, Albert Einstein, Magic Johnson, Alexander Graham Bell, and Bill Cosby all have been labeled as possible candidates for an ADHD diagnosis (6). Obviously, these people are all highly capable, intelligent individuals who may not have accomplished the feats they had, had they surrendered to drug therapy. The common side effects associated with ADHD drugs have been known to suppress the personality traits and motivation that gifted people frequently possess (4).  According to Robert K. Merton’s Typology of Modes of Individual Adaptation, these unconventional individuals would be classified as rebels; people who go outside the social structure to accomplish their own idea of success (7). Who’s to say that one particular way is better than another?  The criteria used in determining if a person has ADHD could be merely a list of creative, yet intense qualities used to describe a genius. Sadly, ADHD labeled children are often times misunderstood. They simply don’t fit into society’s definition of normal and are thus drugged into submission. People with ADHD are different than most, but that is what makes them truly unique.

Word Count: 1,353

Works Cited

(1) Baughman Jr., M.D., Fred A. ADHD Fraud. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing. 2006.

(2) Becker, Howard S. Labeling Theory. Ch 7 of Readings in Deviant Behavior. Calhoun, Conyers and Thio. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA. 2010.

(3) Breggin, M.D., Peter R.. Medication Madness. First. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 2008.

(4) Glasser, M.A., Howard N. 101 Reasons to Avoid Ritalin like the Plague. Tuscon: Nurtured Heart Publications. 2005.

(5) Mandlekorn, M.D., Theodore. A Physician’s Perspective. 2007 7 Nov, 2008 Puget Sound Behavioral Medicine. http://www.psbmed.com/resources.php4 Retrieved on February 21,2012.

(6) Martin, M.D., Victoria. ADHD: Fact, Fiction, and Beyond. A Comprehensive Study of ADHD. 12 Dec 2008. http://www.adhdtexas.com. Retrieved on February 21,2012.

(7) Merton, Robert K., Ch. 3 of Readings in Deviant Behavior by Calhoun, Thomas C., Conyers, Addrain, and Thio, Alex. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, MA.2010.

(8) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). ADHD Booklet. 26 June 2008. Retrieved on February 29,2012.

(9) Peacock, Judith. ADD and ADHD. Mankato: Capstone Press. 2002.

(10) Wender, M.D., Paul H. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adults. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000.

(11) Williams, Meredith. Social Deviance: Sociology 360 Blog. Blog Post 4: Story of an Illness. 27 Feb 2012. https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content. Retrieved on 28 Feb 2012.  

Film Review: Generation RX

The film Generation RX discloses the shocking realities of psychiatric drugs and their use in children. The film’s main thesis is that there is a gross negligence occurring in our country; dangerous stimulant and anti-depressant drugs used to treat mental disorders are actually causing the biochemical imbalance that they are meant to alleviate. These drugs pose a threat to the health and livelihood of numerous people, including many misdiagnosed children. Film creator Kevin P. Miller questions the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry pushing the fallacious diagnoses, and the lethal drugs that ensure their profits.

The headline mentioned in the film: “Attention Deficit Disaster” sums up the opening arguments fairly well. Miller explores the lack of scientific credibility of the ever increasing popular ADHD or ADD diagnosis. He points out there is not a single medical test that is used as a diagnostic tool, symptoms are vague, and studies on the subject are extremely flawed. The film exposes the blatant disregard for the scientific process by a panel of physicians at a 1998 conference on ADHD. Dr. Vonnegut, a pediatrician who was said to have diagnosed and treated hundreds of children with ADHD, could not explain the diagnostic guidelines, or even recite a simple list of symptoms. He openly admitted his ignorance on the subject, and yet he felt comfortable enough prescribing mind-altering drugs to his young patients for the illness he could not describe.

Conflict Theory relates to the ideas expressed in this film in that it explains the discrepancies between the use and distribution of legal vs. illegal drugs. Richard Quinney’s Conflict Theory states “Crime, as officially determined, is a definition of behavior that is conferred on some people by those in power” (Readings in Deviant Behavior, Quinney, pg. 45). Many prescribed medications used to treat children and adults with mental disorders are just as addictive and dangerous as the methamphetamines bought on the street. The difference lies in who makes the profit, and who holds the power. Wealthy pharmaceutical companies have high stakes in the political arena, and thus control the narratives surrounding the legalities of their business. Whereas the shady dealer on the corner (pushing the same hazardous drugs as the pharmaceutical rep. in his polished suit) doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Chapter 22 in our text addresses similar issues with the abuses of psychoactive medications. Authors Peter Conrad and Deborah Potter describe the popularity of Prozac during the 90’s, noting “it became regular parts of physicians’ treatment protocols for various life problems” (Readings in Deviant Behavior, Conrad and Potter, pg. 142). The film also addresses this issue when exposing several outraged patients who were given the dangerous drug simply to help them lose weight, and in the advertising targeted towards children and aimed at convincing them that drug therapy is a necessary tool for coping with sad events that may occur in their lives.

The most convincing, and alarming argument presented in this film was the divergences between the benefits and risks for the use of many psychiatric medications. It’s difficult to understand how a person with a reasonable amount of common sense weighs the risks, including extremes such as suicide, brain atrophy, and diabetes against the possible benefits and concludes that the drugs are harmless enough to administer to children. Miller points out that studies conducted on the effectiveness of psycho-stimulants show no significant improvement in the quality of life of its users. That leads us to ask, then who is really benefiting and from what?

I don’t believe the long-term effects of stimulant and anti-depressant use have been thoroughly conducted. Some studies indicate premature aging of the heart and brain shrinkage, among other possible adverse life-long consequences. If I were to design a study I would try to examine not just the biological repercussions of these medications, but also the impact they have on a person’s ability to cope with stress, integrate into society, have meaningful relationships, and live productive, fulfilled lives.

Film Review: Tough Guise: Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity

The main thesis of the film Tough Guise is that masculinity is a socially constructed notion which can be directly linked to violence. Jackson Katz explains, “There’s nothing natural or inherent about masculinity”. The film explores several issues surrounding masculinity and violence; how our culture amplifies masculine stereotypes through media, how it’s then reinforced through various institutions, the racial constructions of masculinity and the negative consequences that these distorted concepts have on our society.

Katz argues that men will use a masculine front as a survival mechanism; by elaborating their tough-guy persona, they ensure their status as a “real” man, thus dodging any possible scrutiny for not adhering to the standards set by our culture of how a man should look and behave. If they maintain this status quo, they earn the assumption of dominance by others, which Katz explains functions by being un-examined.

The role that the media plays in falsely portraying an idealized form of masculinity is supported in this film by examining how criminality is reported in the media. Katz explains that even though men account for approximately 90% of the violence committed in the U.S., the focus in media reports of violence tends to be on female victims or survivors. If the male perpetrator is focused on, it’s presented in a gender neutral way. Headlines referring to young male offenders are indicated as kids, youth, or children, not specifically boys or men. When female criminals are reported in the news media, her gender is often used as a focal point; a shocking indication of some perverse incident or a trend that women are resorting to unnecessary violence. As opposed to male-involvement in crime which is simply an assumed characterization of criminality.

This film relates to the course in that it explores the concept discussed in class; that our society is highly hegemonic. A primary, ideal form of masculinity is expected of men, is reinforced in our various institutions, and is clearly related to sexism (lecture 2-23-12). Becker explains that “behavior is a consequence of the public reaction to the deviance rather than a consequence of the inherent qualities of the deviant act” (Readings in Deviant Behavior, Becker, p.41). This theory is illustrated in the film with the description of behaviors associated with masculinity (aggressiveness, superiority, athletic agility, slight narcissism, etc.) and the fact that these behaviors are rewarded with dominance, power, and control and then reinforced through institutional means. So, while violent behavior isn’t inherently masculine, acting as such becomes an acceptable expression of masculinity because society deems it so.

One point depicted in the film that I highly agree with is that attacks on feminism by people arguing against the negative consequences of a hegemonic society is simply a means to deflect the issue at hand. Media icons like Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh use a seemingly desperate strategy to depreciate the argument by killing the messenger with personal insults.

An argument brought up in the film that I would find interesting to study further is how women encourage masculine stereotypes through validating their behaviors. I would study this point by designing an experiment that would examine the types of men that women classify as ideal. I would first ask women to rate the level of attractiveness of several different men with different body types. My theory is that women would initially rate men higher based on the ideal appearance (strong jaw lines, broad shoulders, athletic build, etc.). I would then have them listen to a series of question and answers where the more socially defined attractive men answer with arrogance and ignorance, and the less-than ideally attractive men’s answers are more respectable and knowledgeable. I would then ask the women to re-evaluate the men’s attractiveness. My hypothesis is that the second time around, the women would show more value towards intelligence and find the ideally attractive men less attractive after getting a better understanding of their superficial character. I feel this experiment would demonstrate that if media portrayed smart as sexy, more women (and men!) would resonate that value, and thus help re-define masculinity.  

Film Review: Murderball

Murderball is a documentary film which raises public awareness about people with disabilities. It successfully illustrates just how capable they are by revealing the world of Quad Rugby, and divulging into the personal testimonies of the athletes. The aggressive, hard-hitting nature of the game of Quad Rugby contradicts the assumptions society makes about people constrained by a wheelchair. Disabled persons are commonly stigmatized as being frail, sad, and dismal with limited ability, and in need of sympathy. This film challenges those assumptions by proving that people limited to a wheelchair can be strong, happy and confident individuals with limitless opportunities in life. The athletes in Murderball such as Mark Zupan and Andy Cohn demonstrate through their determination and drive for the game and life in general, that when you ignore the opinions or expectations of others, you become free to deviate from the “norm” (Control Theory: Travis Hirschi).

One example the film uses to demonstrate false assumptions about disabled persons is when one of the players explains how Quad Rugby isn’t just a game that they participate in, in order to feel good about themselves; it’s a serious competition with serious athletes. He jokingly recalls how a woman he had met assumed he was taking part in the Special Olympics; implying that quadriplegic people are mentally challenged or physically inferior. His response was “I’m not here for a hug; I’m here for a metal.”

The film does a good job in pointing out our belief that disabled people are saints is a common misconception. Joe Soares, the former coach of Team Canada was depicted as an arrogant traitor, and a terrible father and husband. At his anniversary dinner his wife makes a toast “to you” and he replies “to Team Canada”. It was nice to see Joe make a turn around with his family life after his heart attack. His struggle to balance his passion for the game while having compassion for his family, and to own up to the fact that his insensitivity was borderline abusive, showed he’s human, which contradicts the assumption that disabled persons are somehow less than human. They experience the same ups and downs as people without physical challenges.

The Academy Awards nominated film Murderball dispels the socially constructed fallacy that disabled people are deserving of our patronizing sympathy, or that their status warrants an assumption of their capabilities. The filmmakers Henry Alex Rubin and Dana Adam Shapiro take on these fallacies by displaying the realities of the actors’ lives with the raw emotion and excitement of the game of Quad Rugby.      

Deviant Blogging and the Importance of Language

The word emo, which is short for emotional, was once used to describe a person who would use self-mutilation or self-injury in order to release emotional pain, anger, or anxiety. According to the NYU Langone Medical Center’s website, the behavior was often related to a neurological or metabolic disorder such as Autism, Tourette syndrome, or Lesch-Nyhan syndrome (1). Psychiatric disorders such as borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, antisocial personality disorders, substance abuse, and eating disorders have also been linked to this behavior (1). Symptoms may include (1):

• Cutting of skin with a sharp object (most common)
• Skin carving or burning
• Self-punching or scratching
• Needle sticking
• Head banging
• Eye pressing
• Finger, lips, or arm biting
• Pulling out one's hair
• Picking at one's skin

The assumptions made about someone who is emo have evolved over time. Becker's Outsiders describes how people are labeled mentally ill in order to explain certain rule-breaking behavior that society can't categorize (2). For those whose emo status derives from a psychiatric, neurological or metabolic disorder, it is seen as a secretive, shameful, or embarrassing condition. However, there seems to be a bit of exhibitionism about being emo now. Emos are more commonly associated as people who use self-mutilation or self-injury to express their need to rebel against authority, gain attention from peers, flirt with risk-taking, or to feel in control (1).

Emo is also now used to describe (or inaccurately describe) genres of music and literature, styles of clothing, hair and makeup, or general dispositions. The blog called “emo inside” (http://www.emoinside.com) provides photos and links that promote “emo fashion”. Being labeled emo can also be insulting. In an interview with NME, Singer Brendon Urie from the band Panic at the Disco rejects the emo label stating: 

“It’s ignorant! The stereotype is guys that are weak and have failing relationships write about how sad they are. If you listen to our songs, not one of them has that tone," he declared.“Emo is bullshit!" added Urie. "If people want to take it for the literal sense of the word, yes we’re an   emotional band, we put a lot of thought into what we do. People always try to stereotype us, but we don’t fit the emo stereotype”(3).

 The quiet, pale-faced teenage girl with black nail polish, black clothes and black eye makeup who writes “depressing” poetry or listens to “disturbing” music is considered emo, even if she doesn’t inflict pain upon herself on indulge in self-mutilation. So while some people are wrongfully categorized as emo for wearing certain styles of clothing, others purposefully alter their appearance so that they will be categorized as emo.

I believe the term is mostly used among teens as an insult, or as a label by parents and teachers who fear its connotations. This can have dangerous consequences; wrongfully labeled teens may feel ostracized and judged, and may end up developing the behaviors associated with being emo. Becker explains that the isolation or treatment given to a labeled deviant can in turn cause a self-fulfilling prophecy (4).This result has been seen in many news reports of teen suicides where the individual resorted to taking their lives because of the isolation and stress of being labeled, not because they were actually emo to begin with. With suicide listed as the third leading cause of death among young people age 15-24 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (5), one would hope that the threatening use of labels such as emo, either derived from realistic behaviors or perceived assumptions, would be more carefully scrutinized.

Works Cited:

1. NYU Langone Medical Center. Retrieved on February 18,2012 from: http://psych.med.nyu.edu

2. Becker, Howard S. Holstein 1993; www.sscf.ucsb.edu.  Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from: https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp.

3. NME First For Music News. Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from: http://www.nme.com/news/panic-at-the-disco

4. 2. Becker, Howard S. Labeling Theory. Ch 7 of Readings in Deviant Behavior. Calhoun, Conyers and Thio. 2010. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA.

5. American Academy of Pediatrics. Division of Publications PO Box 747 Elk Grove Village, IL 60009-0747. Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from: http://www.aap.org

Becoming Deviant

Part 2

I’d given the deviant act assignment way too much thought over the past couple weeks. I kept coming up with deviant acts that would be entertaining like pushing my teenaged daughter around in a stroller, wearing an outrageous outfit in public, or breaking into song in the middle of the library. But then I began thinking of deviant people throughout history, who, through their actions challenged our assumptions about what makes something right or wrong. People like Rosa Parks and Amelia Earhart came to mind. I knew I couldn’t do something as profound as them by any means, but their ideologies inspired me to go outside of my box and question our society’s beliefs on a larger scale.

Religion is a topic that caught my attention while talking with a friend about how she dealt with some Mormon missionaries that had solicited her recently. We shared a good laugh at their reaction to her being an atheist, and discussed how odd it is that a country founded on the idea of freedom of religion still considers non-Christians as deviants. I told her how we should go door to door soliciting the idea of atheism, evolution, or really just about anything other than Christianity to see people’s reactions. Then, I realized I had found my deviant act. Non-Christians seem to fall into Becker’s simplest definition of deviance; a statistical perception that anything that varies too widely from the average is deviant (1). Even though I couldn’t convince my friend to come along, I went home, dusted off my old anthropology and archaeology textbooks and made up a flyer to distribute, promoting evolution (and in doing so, challenging the creationist theory that Christianity is based upon).

As the Sunday morning church goers were getting primped and prettied for the religious worshiping sessions, I was at home making copies of my flyer and trying not to chicken out. There’s a neighborhood close to where I live with three or four churches within a few blocks of one another. I set out on foot, flyers in hand, ready to spread evolutionary propaganda! The first people I met were an elderly couple getting out of their Lincoln Continental, dressed in their Sunday best. I casually went up to them and asked if I could give them some information that might change their lives. They gave me a skeptical look but took the flyer from my hand. The man looked at it for maybe a second and quickly gave it back, uttering “nonsense” as he shook his head.

Next I handed my flyer to four or five teenaged boys approaching the church. At first they joked around with me asking if I was handing out pizza coupons. Then one of them actually began reading. He said “yeah, they talk about this stuff in my biology class.” I asked him what he thought about it and he replied, “I don’t really know, it sounds like a bunch of bull shit.” I may have crossed a line when I asked, “As opposed to what do they teach you in church?” They all laughed, and I asked if they could recall any of the bible’s teachings that contradict evolution. One kid said, “Well, yeah, dinosaurs”. We discussed the legitimacy of different dating methods, and actually began having a serious conversation before a large, grumpy looking man called them to the church. We said our adieu’s and they went on their way.

I began getting a feel for people’s assumptions of non-Christians. One woman asked me if I was an atheist. When I replied no, she said “I thought you seemed too nice of a girl to be one of them.” She then warned me to be careful of believing everything they teach in “those liberal schools.” In another conversation, a young woman said she thought atheists’ “lacked morals or values.” A man standing next to her nodded in agreement, adding “they will do whatever they want with no remorse because they think there’s no one to answer to.”

I was met with the same indifference or slight annoyance during most of the other exchanges I had that morning. I definitely felt that I was the obvious deviant in a culture consumed with Christianity. I was labeled a deviant because I didn’t conform to societies constructed version of normal, and by speaking out against the norm, I broke the agreed-upon rules (2). I think that most Christians tend to practice reintegrative shaming in order to convert non-believers (3). By imposing guilt, fear, ridicule, and general expressions of disapproval, they can welcome the deviants into the approving arms of religion. My approach to conformity may have included sarcasm and a touch of ridicule, but for the most part, I tried to convey scientific facts to defend my deviance and bring others to my “dark side”. As I walked home today after a long couple hours of dealing with disdain and religious debate, I came to the conclusion that while it’s easier to hide your deviance, the only way to change mainstream societies beliefs about what constitutes deviant, is to outwardly question its legitimacy. 

Word Count: 856

Works Cited

1. Becker, Howard S. Outsiders: Defining Deviance. Konty, Mark A. WSU Soc 360: Social Deviance

2. Becker, Howard S. Labeling Theory. Ch 7 of Readings in Deviant Behavior. Calhoun, Conyers and Thio. 2010. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA.

3. Braithwaite, John. Shaming Theory. Ch. 6 of Readings in Deviant Behavior. Calhoun, Conyers and Thio.2010. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA