Question: 1. Sex and Deviance

Consider the information in the lecture, text, and PBS/Film information regarding the evolution of attitudes regarding sex. The work by Kinsey, and Masters and Johnson have all helped to inform our attitudes regarding sex. One only needs to stand in the check-out line at the grocery store for a few minutes, listen to popular music, or watch television or films to be aware of the powerful role that sex and all things sexual play in our society.

How would the positivist approach help us to understand the attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms that are associated with sex in our current society? How would the constructionist approach contribute to this discussion? (You do NOT need to address both approaches in your post; you can pick one or the other.)

What do you think explains the "power" of sex? There are any number of examples you can use to explain the role of sex in our culture - including same sex marriage, LGBT, film and video game rating systems, fashion, the rising incidence of sexual assaults on college campuses and the military, pornography, prostitution - the list could go on for days! Also, consider what theory or theories might help explain sex as a form of deviance.

Question: 2 Mental Disorders, Sanity, and Stigma

There are several intersecting parts to this question.

First, we have fundamental questions about the nature of mental disorders. For most mental disorders there is no clear etiology, or set of causes. Psychological and psychiatric diagnoses of mental disorders are based on symptoms; in this sense, both the general public and the professionals rely on socially constructed definitions of behaviors and their social context. If any of us were to read the list of symptoms associated with one or more mental disorders in the DSM-IV, we are likely to find several that apply. This does not mean that mental disorders do not exist (or does it?), but it requires us to consider time, place, severity, overall context, and perhaps some grey areas.

Second, our text describes an experiment by Rosenhan referred as "Being Sane in Insane Places." This research has both its supporters and detractors - no real surprise there - but does raise important distinctions between psychological/psychiatric definitions and legal definitions. One place where Rosenhan's research has shown good explanatory value is in prison. In order to be "successful" in prison, inmates must learn to adapt to the norms and values of this "total institutions" - that is, how to stay "sane" in an "insane" place. Unfortunately, the adaptations that one must make to be successful in prison are almost in direct opposition to those that allow one to be successful once released.

Third, a critical element in understanding deviance is the role of stigma - how those who exhibit non-normative behavior are labeled and responded to by an audience. Stigmas can be conferred formally (e.g. a judge or jury finding a person guilty of a crime, labeling them a felon, and imposing a sanction) or informally (e.g. shunning).

Even if you tried, it would be unlikely that you could reconcile all of these different parts in one answer, so don't try! But throughout this discussion, please consider whether there is ambiguity in definitions of mental disorders, whether those definitions are useful in explaining the distinction between sane and insane, whether those definitions and distinctions apply in a place like a prison, and the role that stigma plays in identifying those who are considered either mentally disordered or insane. Also consider whether stigma can be transferred from one person to another, even if the transfer shifts from a person with a stigmatizing condition or mark to a person with no such stigma or mark (a "guilt by association" type of argument)?