Underserving Poor" by Herbert Gans

In the Article "Positive Functions of the Undeserving Poor" by sociologist Herbert J. Gans discusses the strange alliance between the poor and the wealthy in American society. He states that the underprivileged in essence have kept several vocations in existence such as social work, criminology, and journalism. These vocations serve the double pretense of aiding the less fortunate and protecting society from these same individuals. He compares his analogy with that of Richard K. Merton, who applied the functional analysis theology to explain the prolonged existence of the political machine in urban areas.

Mr. Merton's reasoning was that the political machine continued to exist because it served several positive functions in society. Mr. Gans applies this same logic to the existence of poverty in a society that had so much material wealth and concluded that poverty had 13 functions in society that was beneficial to non-poor members. They include: making sure that the menial work tasks of society will be taken care of, the creation of jobs that provide aid for the poor, and the existence of the poor keeps the aristocracy busy with charitable works, thus demonstrating charity to the less fortunate and superiority over the elites who chose to spend their free time making more money. He also give several alternatives to poverty such as redistribution of the wealth in society, putting everyone on a more even playing field, but ultimately concluded that poverty will continue to exist because disturbing the unequal balance between the poor and the wealthy in society would prove to be dysfunctional for the affluent and that will not happen.

 

Deviance:

Deviant Behavior

Sociologically, deviance requires a norm or rule, a norm or rule violator, an audience, and a likelihood that the violation will elicit a negative response. Sound simple enough? Maybe if you take the easy way out in saying that deviance is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. However deviance is not an absolute verdict for the right and wrong. Sociologists have two perspectives about deviance and they are the positivist and constructionist perspectives. Positivists believe in three elements and they are absolutism meaning deviance is absolutely intrinsically real, objective: deviance is an observable object and determinism: deviance is a determined behavior; it is a product of cause and effect. Constructionist object to the three elements of the positivist perspective and I have come up with their own; relativism: deviance is a label, defined as such at a given time and place, subjective: deviance is a subjective experience and voluntarism: deviance is a voluntary act; it is non-causal. Most people have a hard time trying to figure out which perspective is right and which one is wrong, when in all actuality, neither one is right or wrong.
We have already discussed this topic during class which explains deviance and crime. This section talks more about deviance being a learned behavior. Deviance is any behavior that violates cultural norms. Deviance is often divided into two types of deviant activities. The first, crime is the violation of formally enacted laws and is referred to as formal deviance. Examples of formal deviance would include: robbery, theft, rape, murder, and assault, just to name a few. The second type of deviant behavior refers to violations of informal social norms, norms that have not been codified into law, and is referred to as informal deviance. Examples of informal deviance might include: picking one's nose, belching loudly (in some cultures), or standing too close to another unnecessarily (again, in some cultures).