Usually when someone uses the word deviant, or the notion of deviance, there is often some kind of (or a version of) morality embedded in their use of it.
But the reality is, there is deviance involved in nearly everything…and it has no moral quality.
Sorry.
Because deviance itself has an antecedent.
In other words, it is an attempt to describe something that is considered abnormal (although, I prefer something closer to non-conforming better). And, though often times this descriptive language is actually used to qualify or impute value, it is much more simply about describing things as they are.
What is normal anyway? Isn’t it primarily a description by the majority of what things look like or should look like? A norm is a common description of what most things look like. And, it is worth noting, the majority are often the ones that are describing that pattern, of what is (or, what should be).
But, by implication, we know that nothing is perfectly conforming. There is variety everywhere. And we know for whatever description the majority describes, there is also deviation from that description — deviation simply exists. It isn’t after all really a question of whether it should exist or not, it just does. Perhaps it would be more helpful to think about it in terms of categories where that deviance is not attached to a moral quality.
Plants might be a good example. Just take a walk and notice how many species of plants there are, how many plants seem to proliferate in any given area, how there are always some plants that don't seem to make it like the same ones right next to it do. Consider how many plants, often referred to by the same name, are not exactly the same when they are grown in another part of the world — how some varieties survive in some areas, and not as well in others, often because of environmental conditions.
Once you introduce this idea in the context of all living things, it’s not hard at all to spot deviance from the norm in almost everything that lives. Yes, there are pervasive patterns, but those patterns are not all inclusive. There are also exceptions, versions, variations of all kinds of things.
So, the question really starts to emerge, when and where do we attach value to the things that are not perfectly conforming?
Finish here…..
