Published 2025-03-18
Wikipedia has a comprehensive definition of deviance:
Deviance or the sociology of deviance explores the actions or behaviors that violate social norms across formally enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores).
There's a lot of that happening, all the time, across the world. Everything, from something as small as someone being "rude" in a social situation, to someone violating the constitution of a country, counts as "deviance."
Where we have our key differences is in how we respond to it:
Although deviance may have a negative connotation, the violation of social norms is not always a negative action; positive deviation exists in some situations. Although a norm is violated, a behavior can still be classified as positive or acceptable.
Deviance is foundational to a good, well-functioning society. As Rise Against put it in their song lyrics, "You have to cross the line just to remember where it lays." If a law is written, or a rule proclaimed, and no one violates it, is the rule good? Does it do anything worthwhile for the society? If no one challenges a rule, does that make it a good rule? Is it useful?
No, any rule defined but unchallenged is an inconsequential rule. We need deviance at various levels to trigger our social immune-response to a violation. That response to violation of a rule is what defines the consequences of the rule and without consequences the rule doesn't matter. This is why people get upset when others hold them to account for their behavior - it's not the behavior that holds power, it's the response it elicits.
Similarly, if someone breaks a rule, and everyone says "yeah, good job" or just doesn't react to it... the rule is also inconsequential. The action-without-consequences means the norm doesn't apply any more.
Why does this matter? It's key to literally everything we've seen in the news, politics, and your local school/coffee/corporate-office discussions for the last forty years.
When people collectively decide "doing X is wrong" or "doing X is uncool" or "doing X isn't wrong any more", you're talking about modifying the social contract and moving the "bright lines" on what is considered "good behavior." This is completely normal and regular feedback mechanisms (reactions, opposition, enforcement, etc) are all signs of a well-oiled society.
Where it goes wrong is when a group (or even an individual) deviates from "normal" behavior and gets no feedback. As stated above, "no feedback" is "approval" when it comes to deviance. Or, in a more pithy way "silence is consent."
One cannot ever be silent to deviations from norms. Reactions to such deviance depend on the severity of the violation.
When people do not respond to the first or second level of "correction," violence is the only acceptable solution to violation of norms. We see this constantly in cases where the Talking Heads do and say things that are continuously violating norms, and yet, no one is able to give them corrections in real time. This is inherently degrading to our society and removes foundational social feedback from where it is most needed.
Conversely, when people do have the opportunity to give feedback and corrections in real time, you get situations like this (archive link). You can hear the cheers and boos as challenges are leveled at the representative. The representative also says "can you give me a chance to answer the question?" -- a clear call for the audience to adhere to Question-and-Answer norms, allowing the respondent to speak.
In other parts of the meeting (archive link), you can see attendees that "violate" the norms of behavior are being escorted out by law enforcement.
The problem with this situation is the power imbalance: attendees are indviduals (just like the representative) and yet their behavior is policed with force (i.e., physical removal) without actually reaching level 3/4 of "corrective action" toward the representative. The representative could have given a verbal response, but we never see whether that was effective. And, if the representative is wrong, they're still in a position to enforce their position against the corrective actions of an attendee.
This is why real world, physical fighting is so effective. We can call physical-corrective-actions "riots" or other names to try and delegitimize the action, but ultimately it is the strongest legitimate corrective action available to a people when norms and rules are being violated.
So, when people tell you "violence is never the answer"? They haven't ever been punched in the face.