1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
# Consequences of Deviance
_Published 2025-03-18_
Wikipedia has a comprehensive [definition of deviance][1]:
>Deviance or the sociology of deviance explores the actions or behaviors that
>violate social norms across formally enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as
>informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores).
There's a _lot_ of that happening, all the time, across the world.
Everything, from something as small as someone being "rude" in a social
situation, to someone violating the constitution of a country, counts as
"deviance."
Where we have our key differences is in how we respond to it:
>Although deviance may have a negative connotation, the violation of
>social norms is not always a negative action; positive deviation exists
>in some situations. Although a norm is violated, a behavior can still
>be classified as positive or acceptable.
Deviance is foundational to a good, well-functioning society. As Rise
Against put it in their song lyrics, "You have to cross the line just to
remember where it lays." If a law is written, or a rule proclaimed, and
no one violates it, is the rule good? Does it _do_ anything worthwhile
for the society? If no one challenges a rule, does that make it a good
rule? Is it useful?
No, any rule defined but unchallenged is an inconsequential rule. We
_need_ deviance at various levels to trigger our social immune-response
to a violation. That response to violation of a rule is what defines the
_consequences_ of the rule and without consequences the rule doesn't
_matter_. This is why people get upset when others hold them to account
for their behavior - it's not the *behavior* that holds power, it's the
response it elicits.
Similarly, if someone breaks a rule, and everyone says "yeah, good
job" or just doesn't react to it... the rule is also inconsequential.
The action-without-consequences means the norm doesn't apply any more.
## So what?
Why does this matter? It's key to literally everything we've seen in the
news, politics, and your local school/coffee/corporate-office
discussions for the last forty years.
When people collectively decide "doing X is wrong" or "doing X is
uncool" or "doing X _isn't_ wrong any more", you're talking about
modifying the social contract and moving the "bright lines" on what is
considered "good behavior." This is completely normal and regular
feedback mechanisms (reactions, opposition, enforcement, etc) are all
signs of a well-oiled society.
Where it goes wrong is when a group (or even an individual) deviates
from "normal" behavior and gets _no feedback_. As stated above, "no
feedback" is "approval" when it comes to deviance. Or, in a more pithy
way "silence is consent."
## Again, so _what_?
One cannot ever be silent to deviations from norms. Reactions to such
deviance depend on the severity of the violation.
1. Polite verbal response: "You probably shouldn't do that", "That's not
polite."
2. Direct verbal response: "That is unacceptable", "Cut that out", "Have
you no decency?"
3. Polite physical response: slapping someone, shoving them, as an
attempt to "disrupt" their actions.
4. Direct physical responses: unambiguous violence, beatings, murder.
When people do not respond to the first or second level of "correction,"
violence _is_ the only acceptable solution to violation of norms. We see
this constantly in cases where the Talking Heads do and say things that
are continuously violating norms, and yet, no one is able to give them
corrections in real time. This is inherently degrading to our society
and removes foundational social feedback from where it is most needed.
Conversely, when people *do* have the opportunity to give feedback and
corrections in real time, you get [situations like this][2] ([archive
link][3]). You can hear the cheers and boos as challenges are leveled at
the representative. The representative also says "can you give me a
chance to answer the question?" -- a clear call for the audience to
adhere to Question-and-Answer norms, allowing the respondent to speak.
In other parts of [the meeting][4] ([archive link][5]), you can see
attendees that "violate" the norms of behavior are being escorted out by
law enforcement.
The problem with this situation is the power imbalance: attendees are
indviduals (just like the representative) and yet their behavior is
policed with force (i.e., physical removal) without actually reaching
level 3/4 of "corrective action" toward the representative. The
representative could have given a verbal response, but we never see
whether that was effective. And, if the representative is _wrong_,
they're still in a position to enforce their position against the
corrective actions of an attendee.
## Why We Fight
This is why real world, physical fighting is so effective. We can call
physical-corrective-actions "riots" or other names to try and
delegitimize the action, but ultimately it is the _strongest_
**legitimate** corrective action available to a people when norms and
rules are being violated.
So, when people tell you "violence is never the answer"? They haven't
ever been punched in the face.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_%28sociology%29
[2]:https://youtube.com/shorts/Piidt2JEHO8
[3]:https://gluecode.net/videos/GOPTownHall_Feedback_2025.mp4
[4]:https://youtu.be/lUtySVmgb2E
[5]:https://gluecode.net/videos/GOPTownHallNorthCarolina_2025.mp4
|
