Deviance, Relationship Effects

Deviant Relationships

Perhaps surprisingly, there is little consensus among the public and scientific communities about how to define deviance, thereby affecting how certain relationships may be considered deviant, what constitutes deviant behavior, and who would be considered a deviant individual. One way researchers define deviance is by marking any behavior that violates an established social rule or convention as deviant. Thus, certain types of relationships might be considered deviant because they are based upon behavior that violates social norms. For example, because mainstream society believes that intimate relationships should be between two adults, romantic relationships between adults and minors, such as between teachers and students or those advocated by the North American Man/Boy Love Association, would be considered a violation of social norms and thereby deviant.

Another fundamental assumption of romantic relationships is that the relationship is consensual, meaning that both parties consent to being involved. Therefore, any relationships involving minors, bondage, long-term abduction, and/or psychological entrapment would be considered deviant. For instance, relationships built by individuals who kidnap and imprison another person, often for the former's sexual gratification, would be considered deviant because they involve a nonconsenting party. Additionally, relationships characterized by [Page 416]instances of date or marital rape or long-term psychological maltreatment would also qualify as deviant because they violate the consensual norm. Relationships between prisoners and guards or abductees and captors (such as prisoners of war) might also be considered deviant because of the limited degree of autonomy and the power distance influencing the degree of consensuality between the parties. Violations of such standardized relational assumptions can have serious long-term implications for the individuals involved—especially those persons who are in the less powerful position. Being in such a position could leave the less powerful feeling victimized and traumatized, leading to psychological scarring that could affect the person's ability to function and form healthy bonds in the future.

Most would agree that many of the above-noted examples are clear violations of social norms. However, there are also examples that, in the purest sense of the word, violate social norms but would not be considered deviant by all. For instance, homosexual relationships might be considered deviant by some individuals because they violate the privileged heterosexual norm of American society. Moreover, some might view arranged marriages as deviant in U.S. culture because they do not involve two fully consenting adults. These examples highlight the importance of the fact that because norms are socially constructed, fluid, and dynamic, so too is society's definition of what constitutes normal and thereby, nonnormal or deviant. As such, what is considered socially deviant is not fixed but rather constantly changing. Understanding the fluidity and dynamism inherent in the social construction of deviance is important because it highlights how standards for what is considered normal are developed by those in dominant power positions and how others, because of their subordinate social positions, are marginalized and deemed deviant because they do not live up to the standards and norms established by the powerful.

...