Conflict theory can explain as a deviance that is motivated by the desire to succeed in

competition or by the deprivation of actually losing or of being taking advantage by those who
are winning. This theory supplies ample information as to the reasons that is concealed a vast
amount of deviance. An excellent example that the book gives is that of a college student (such
as me) who is faced with failing grades that option not to cheat given the opportunity to. What
differentiates us as individuals from the other who does? Why do not all so call inferior students
choose the alternative of cheating to that of receiving poor grades? I cannot explain this type of
conflict theory for deviance. We often time merely overlook individuals level variables such as
the upbringing or disposition of a person. Other additional parts of deviance, which is excluded,
are that of social control or laws within the community. Therefore, it is imperative to look at the
powers that would cause an individual to abide by the rules or not. I think a major factor of
deviance is defined by the behaviors, which are acceptable, or what a person can or cannot do.
The Rational Choice theory mainly focuses on immediate situations. It is useful at times
where the individual involved is given time to think about the deviance before acting it out. It is
also very useful as a tool by which to judge or interpret the influences leading up to the moment
of deviance. Although, I am considered young, however, in my younger school days, I never
really conformed to social groups and cliques. Also, I never rebelled either. There were times
when I held myself in check from influences, such as other people that I would see or meet,
would act unbelievable rude.
I am in my early twenties, I often reflected on these moments, and realize that I am
somewhat a deviant. Not so much as to I want to be destructive, but the realization that I have
not tried amounting to anything and my nonconformist ways. I have had a realization in my life,
as to who I was surrounding myself with people were trying dragging me down. This realization

has led me to realize that I have chosen a path of not enough critical thinking of myself, what I
do and of others. This could lead me to far fewer friends, but those few friends could lead to a
higher quality of friendship.
I now have goals which could lead to me doing great things in the future. Even though I
am young, that sounds somewhat egotistical. My plans are not to let and anyone that tells me "I
don't think you can do it" or "you aren't ready" or anything along those lines, shouldn't be talking
to me. I have learned that to change, it's about changing my surroundings, my goals and my
habits. Reading more and playing less, working harder and learning through experience. One of
my major weaknesses is giving up too easily because of frustration and I'm working on changing
that.
Once I have my business operation, will conform to business standards, attire and
anything that is attached to it. Other than that, conforming to groups to which I have not been
personal friends with everybody, would lead to mediocre, if not laughable quality experience. I
may be too quick to judge and my opinion may be flawed, it's even possible that I could get to
know everyone personally at that group. I just think it's better to get to know someone better, one
on one.
The Rational Choice theory suggests that costs and benefits are continually evaluated in
the current situation as to the question of whats in it for me?. Sadly, like many of its fellow
theories, it too has its flaws. First, it addresses the person involving themselves in the deviant act
as if they were simply a computer, walking around in the world with a constant yes/no device
attached to their brain that decides the action based on a weighted scale. Where this theory might
be true most of the time, there are always goings to be situations in which the given individual is
simply carried away by the moment and does not even give a second of thought to his or her

actions in the moment. Second, often times the deviant act is simply out of habit without any
thought to it at all anymore. The original situation that presented itself in order to weigh the costs
and benefits of the action is not longer relevant. The final flaw with this theory is that it is bad at
predicting when an individual will misperceive the costs and benefits of deviance, and then its
just screwed.
The social control theory states that the explanation of deviance is in the history of the
interaction, which is never completely predictable, similar to the domino effect. Katz expands on
this idea and creates an illustration for the fundamental principle of interaction between
individuals and their environment or another person. He concludes that deviance is the
situational progression of interaction and in that sense is unique to every individual act of
deviance. According to renowned Sigmund Freud, all human behavior spawns from responses to
the pushes of both instinctual and adaptations to the various psychic and social conflicts that
instinctual drives bring out. Some traits of deviance can be traced back to some prior learning
situation, but for those that do not fit neatly into the profile; they are considered to be more of an
instinctual or unconscious act. Conflicts between natural impulses and demands of what the
outside world wants or will permit help to develop an internal psyche that then become sources
of more conflict. During these behaviors, often times the individual does not even know the
rationale behind his or her deviance. Often times, lack of appropriate inner controls or patterned
ways of adapting psychically will result in deviance from someone feeling guilty and not
wanting to be punished or from regressing to an earlier stage of life in their unconscious. This
theory also suggests four managements for conflict: identification, displacement, using defense
mechanisms (ego defense), and transformation (repression). Overall, I really have no clue why so
many scientists have tried to define and restrict the different forms of deviance and its causes

because it is impossible to clarify an activity which varies so greatly from culture to culture,
group to group, even family member to family member.
Differential association theory is particular associated with sociological contribution to
criminology. These theories all explain deviance in terms of the individuals social relationships.
Criminal behavior is learnable and learned through interaction with other deviant persons.
Through this association, they learn not only techniques of certain crimes, but also specific
rationale, motives and so on. These associations vary in frequency, duration, etc. Differential
association theory explains why any individual forwards toward deviant behavior. His assertion
is most useful when explaining peer influences among deviant youths or special mechanism of
becoming certain criminal.
One major tenet of differential association asserts that a person becomes delinquent (gang
related) because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions
unfavorable to violation of law. In other words, criminal behavior emerges when one is exposed
to more social messages favoring criminal. This means that criminal behavior is not inherited, as
such; also the person who is not already trained in crime does not invent criminal behavior.
Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
Negatively, this means that impersonal communication, such as movies or newspapers, plays a
relatively unimportant part in committing criminal behavior.
When someone becomes a criminal, he/she do so not only because of contacts with
criminal patterns but also because of isolation from anti-criminal patterns.

Cognitive deviance is understood as holding a belief that is not accepted by another social
group other than your own. One example would be the Native American Genocide, recognized
by the Native America as a systematic design to terminate their race during the early years of this
country. It has two sides those who agree it was genocide and those who don't. A gentleman
name Waber stated a similar situation by saying that its an elective affinity and how they were
brought up that assists in their beliefs. Native American, are brought up and taught at a young
age that there was Genocide. Therefore each group will have their own belief of the situation.
Religion and deviance does coexist with each other, for example "deviance according to
religion" is when a man of cloth act wrong according to other church officials. One group
recognizes the act as something that is deviant. Another example of religion and deviance is
when there are theological disputes between parties of religious organizations. In the secular
worlds, groups that branch off from mainstream religious, however they are not considered
completely deviant. On the other hand, a cult however, views the mainstream body in a
completely different standpoint. And respectively, it has beliefs so different from the mainstream
body that it is considered deviant.
The labeling theory of deviance can be viewed as a brief attention focused on alternative
formulations as these have influenced the labeling conception. Rules tend to be applied more too
some persons than others. Some studies of juvenile delinquency make that point clear. Young
man from middle-class areas do not get as far in the legal process when they are apprehended as
do young man from slum/ghetto areas. The middleclass young man is less likely, when picked up
by the police, to be taken to the station; less likely when taken to the station to be booked; and it
is extremely unlikely that he will be convicted. This variation occurs even though the original
infraction of the rule is the same in the two cases. However, the laws are differentially applied to

African American (Negro) and Caucasian (whites) prior to the 1970s. It is well known that a
African American believed to have attacked a Caucasia woman is much more likely to be
punished than a Caucasia man who commits the same offense; it is only slightly less well known
that a African American who murders another African American is much less likely to be
punished than a Caucasia man who commits murder.