34X25X36

If you haven't seen this as you scroll through the featured section of Youtube you might be interested in this provocative piece on body image and relationship to the arts...

deviance

In my class on Deviance and Social Control we talked about how difficult it is to really nail down a good definition of deviance.

There are a few basic takes on this…

There's the absolutist approach – this defines deviance as something that is somehow intrinsically or inherently wrong. That is, there is something about the action itself that makes it wrong. This definition would, as you can imagine, be pretty rigid and inflexible. You might say that me wearing a speedo is always wrong but you'd be hard pressed to keep that perspective with regards to my personal/romantic dress code in my own home.

There's the Statistical deviation approach – which suggest that behaviours that are statistically rare are deviant. Almost no one holds to this view. There are many things that are statistically rare but are hardly deviant. The fact that I can imitate Nacho Libre's famous love song might be rare but it is hardly deviant.

There's the Harmfulness approach – which suggests that if a certain action is harmful in some way it must be deviant. This seems like a decent approach but we know that there are plenty of things that aren't really harmful that are still considered deviant. The fact that I can regurgitate the meal I just ate and show it to you may be deviant but it isn't especially harmful to me or you. I can pick my nose and it hurts no one unless I have just cut my nails and make my nose bleed…you get the point…

The normative approach suggests that culture sets the guidelines for what is right and wrong. The question is here who controls culture.

This approach is similar to the constructionist approach that says that deviance is a social construction whose purpose is to control society in some significant way. Deviance is defined in a struggle between the powerful and those who comply. This is kind of like when I was a youth pastor on a weekend retreat. When I entered the cabin for night what I said was the law. If someone wanted to fart my recourse was to give them the Human Blanket (deviant in itself from some points of view). If I wanted to fart – I did. I got to say what was what.

The reactive approach is almost opposite of the absolutist approach and prides itself on being the most objective and unbiased. This one basically contends that something is deviant only because and when it elicits a reaction especially a negative one. There is nothing intrinsically deviant in and of itself – just as a result of a negative response to some action or condition. This view would say that there is nothing wrong with me leaving my socks on the floor around the house – it is only my wife's strong and negative reaction that makes it such. Try explaining that to Char…

So then the question comes – how do you define deviance?

Funny thing is that Christianity has been preoccupied with sin for millennia. We have made it a huge part of our theological enterprise. Of course we all are most comfortable with the way we define deviance for ourselves but the Christian perspective suggests that not only can our own ideas not be reliable in determining what is right and wrong but there is something that transcends all these approaches and claims the authority to create standards of deviance. I remember debating at length as a boy whether certain things were wrong in certain situations and not in others or whether there was this absolute standard that made things right or wrong.

what I wish

my wife would have been told when she was a little girl...

...it seems to hardly matter how often I tell her that she is beautiful - somebody else's idea of what she looks like seems even more important!

i think this guy gets it right

ht: ysmarko

fashion

things converge if you keep your eyes (and ears) open.

First: Celia Rivenbark--the columnist and author of Stop Dressing Your Six-Year-Old Like A Skank, interview in Macleans January 1st issue.

Quote:
Macleans: I understand Stop Dressing Your Six-Year-Old Like a Skank began as a newspaper column. What led you to write it in the first place?

Celia: Well, I went shopping with my daughter, and I saw all these tween skank clothes, and one thing led to another. I just went off on the notion that these clothes are inappropriate, these hoochie-mama Las Vegas showgirl clothes marketed to kids who are as young as seven. There were all these sequined, sparkling midriff tops, lots of fishnet, shirts saying things like Jailbait, Made Ya Look or Juicy on the bottoms of the pants. Pretty disgusting.
Macleans: The salesperson seemed to agree with you that these clothes were inappropriate for the age group, but said everyone was buying them anyway.

Celia: Well, yeah, I think that's what's in style. Obviously the stuff sells because the stores are full of it. Parents buy it. They feel a lot of pressure -- particularly parents who work all the time -- to appease the kids by giving them what they want, so I think that's why so many parents just finally give in. They feel like this is a battle they don't want to fight. (Read the rest here...)

Second:

ABC News Article Titled: Some Say It's OK for Girls to Go Wild an article that suggests that sexualized portrayal of teenage girls is a normal part of the individuation of the adolescent process: "Every generation thinks that teenagers are going to hell in a hand basket for a variety of reasons," she said. "There isn't any new problem here."
According to Hancock, by dressing provocatively, dancing seductively and posting salacious photos on social networking sites, young women are trying to accomplish a time-honored goal of adolescence: establishing their independence." (Read the rest here...)

ht: Tim S

Third:

I am sitting behind a group of university students at a Lethbridge Hurricanes game. I usually try to introduce myself and talk to the people around me but this time I decided to mind my own business. So along with overhearing the usual talk about how drunk they got at this or that function and their obsessing over the expectations of their parents over thier marks - or lack thereof, I hear this conversation:

Girl: You know my mom totally loves that song...

Guy: Really?

Girl: Yeah, I heard her humming it around the house the other day.

Guy: Wierd.

Girl: (to other girl) don't you hate that when they get into like modern stuff.

Other Girl: Yeah that just doesn't seem right.

Girl: Yeah it freaked me out and you know what else.

Guy: huh

Girl: the other day she's singing the "buttons' song by the pussycat dolls and I'm like mom don't you know what those lyrics are all about. And she's like, 'Well, I like the beat - it fun."

Other Girl: Omigosh! "Fun" seriously!

So this promiscuity is it worse than ever or just a normal part of teenage cultural rebellion? And what part if any do/can/should/will parents play in it all?

I just have boys - OH DANG!