Use marijuana as an example to discuss the differences between explanatory and constructionist theories in understanding deviant behavior. How would these two approaches to studying deviance look at changes to marijuana’s deviant status differently?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

but should explain that explanatory theories of deviance are concerned with explaining why deviance does and does not occur. They are positivists and try to explain deviant behavior objectively, focusing on those who do the deviant behavior. They assume deviant behavior is caused by many factors. They also rely on genetic or biological bases for deviant behavior that can be adjusted by changing factors of the environment. So with marijuana, they might suggest that people are biologically predisposed to like marijuana and be more likely to use it even if it is illegal. They might want to know why people differ—why some people use it and why some people don’t—between two groups that are predisposed to it. Constructionist theories of deviance are more concerned with the process by which people define and classify some behaviors as normal and others as deviant. They concentrate more on those in power who set the rules that define deviance in the first place. For marijuana, constructionists might focus on how we came to treat marijuana as deviant, while smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol was not treated that way or subject to the same laws and punishments.