In explanation, subjectivism argues “humans feel and reflect, and are thus distinguishable from animals, plants, things, and forces in nature, which cannot” (2012, p. 8). Another dimension of subjectivism states that the reason people engage in “deviant” behaviors is due to their personal experiences, the environment that surrounds them, and their status. Finally, the subjectivism dynamic in the constructionist perspective emphasizes that instead of looking on the surfaces, judging, and distancing ourselves from “deviants,” we should form a bond and understand the “deviant” (2012). What this means is that, for example, a man stole money from a bank. Instead of hearing the news, and right off the bat you have negative feelings about the person who robbed the bank, try understanding why he/she robbed the bank in the first place. The person may have robbed a bank to help out someone in need - the intention is good, but the means is bad. In such an instance, some may argue: it’s the intention that matters, while others may argue he/she harmed others and therefore it doesn’t matter what the intention …show more content…
Deviance is in most cases a complex situation that cannot be defined without further investigation in the experiences of the “deviant” individual. However, there are some behaviors that are outright deviant, such as the elite pedophile ring that recently was exposed. Behaviors that are extreme and impose great harm are more consistent with the positivist perspective, however, behaviors that are less harmful and less seriously comply better with the constructionist behavior, for example, theft. A person might engage in theft to live a life of luxury, the consensus of people would consider such theft as deviant. Alternatively, a person may engage in theft to help gather money for a surgery that is essential to one’s survival, perhaps his or her friend. The second scenario may not be labeled as deviant by all human beings as the intention was not deviant. In this scenario, deviance truly is in the eye of the beholder. In the latter scenario, the act is deviant, yet most would come to the conclusion the person who committed the act is not