THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCE OF LABELING DEVIANT IN NIGERIA
Abstract
The aim of the article is to provide a theoretical nexus between social values, deviance and security in Nigeria. In Nigeria today, society at large is threatened by deviance, crime, conflict and violence which are violations of societal values and norms of security and welfare of the citizenry. People now show an increased interest in personal well-being and a decreased interest in the welfare of others. Citizens are not safe and secure on the streets, in their homes and offices. The paper posits
that there should be a renewed awareness regarding social values and norms of security and welfare of the citizenry
as taking precedence over all other subjects. Societal values and norms, and security and welfare of all citizens must
be articulated. The paper challenges the collective lethargy of the state and the citizenry about societal values, norms
and security, and effective measures to protect the rights to living and well being of all members of society, and so maintain a safe and secure environment for all citizens.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title page
Approval page
Dedication
Acknowledgment
Abstract
Table of content
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
1.2 Statement of problem
1.3 Objective of the study
1.4 Research Hypotheses
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 Scope and limitation of the study
1.7 Definition of terms
1.8 Organization of the study
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Research methodology
3.1 sources of data collection
3.3 Population of the study
3.4 Sampling and sampling distribution
3.5 Validation of research instrument
3.6 Method of data analysis
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Introductions
4.2 Data analysis
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Summary
5.3 Conclusion
5.4 Recommendation
Appendix
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of Government (Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999). But in Nigeria today the state and citizens are subjected to violations of core values and norms, and exposed
to danger even by the very governments that are maintained with their taxes. The problem of security is more
disturbing because government functions have been personalized by the ruling class, and national interest and
security of the nation have been equated with interest of the privileged class and elites. It is common knowledge that
the security organizations have distorted views of their constitutional roles, their commitment to the people of this
nation, and their tendencies to be part and parcel of different regimes’ illegalities, oppression, exploitation and
extortion of the common citizens (Imobighe, 2003). Deviance or crime is concerned with the process whereby values,
beliefs, norms, actions or conditions come to be viewed as deviant or criminal by others. Deviance and crime can be
observed by the negative, stigmatizing social reaction of others towards these violations. Criminality, corruption,
conflict, cultism, violence and terrorism, and all illegalities, oppression, exploitation and extortion of the common man,
can be deviant behaviours. The issue of power cannot be divorced from a definition of deviance or crime because
some groups in society can deviantize or criminalize the actions of another group by using their influence on
legislations (Goode, 2004). Psychopaths and sociopaths are some of the favourite “deviants” in contemporary popular
culture. From Patrick Bateman in American Psycho, to Dr. Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, to Dexter
Morgan in Dexter, to Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock and Elementary, the figure of the dangerous individual who lives
among us provides a fascinating fictional figure. Psychopathy and sociopathy both refer to personality disorders that
involve anti-social behaviour, diminished empathy, and lack of inhibitions. In clinical analysis, these analytical
categories should be distinguished from psychosis, which is a condition involving a debilitating break with reality.
Psychopaths and sociopaths are often able to manage their condition and pass as “normal” citizens, although their
capacity for manipulation and cruelty can have devastating consequences for people around them. The
term psychopathy is often used to emphasize that the source of the disorder is internal, based on psychological,
biological, or genetic factors, whereas sociopathy is used to emphasize predominant social factors in the disorder: the
social or familial sources of its development and the inability to be social or abide by societal rules (Hare 1999). In this
sense sociopathy would be the sociological disease par excellence. It entails an incapacity for companionship
(socius), yet many accounts of sociopaths describe them as being charming, attractively confident, and outgoing
(Hare 1999).
Society is made up of individuals who share common culture, and occupy a particular geographical area, (Zanden,
1996). Notwithstanding the fact that, socialization process is a powerful mechanism, that shapes the behavior of
people of, and living in the same society, the distinctive, and unique nature of human personality, make individuals
from the same society to behave differently. As a result, some members of one, and the same society conform to the
expected patterns of behavior, as dictated by culture of that society whereas, others deviate. Deviation from norms,
and rules is what is referred to as deviance, and crime respectively. Conventionally, societies do not allow deviation,
and crime unchecked. They do reward comformity for re- enforcement purposes, and condemn deviation for
deterrence, and corrective reasons. According to Clinard and Meier, (1998), The notion of deviance is connected to
that of social control, possibly because an act that violates a group’s norm is usually followed by the group’s reaction
or sanction in a negative form.Chukwukere, (undated), argued that, as long as human society comprises individuals,
and the relationship between these individuals components is generally guided by cultural norms and rules of
behavior, and as long as the cultural norms are never observed by all the people involved in the society, culture must
take deep interest in the diverse processes of social control. Chukwukere’s argument is cogent, taking into
cognizance the constituted interplay between society and culture and the influence of the culture via socialization
especially, culture’s tendency to impose social sanctions, by rewarding conformity, and punishing deviance. Tanimu,
(2003),maintained the ubiquitous nature of deviance. Thus, it becomes an illusion to anticipate comformity by all
members of the society. Having such a conception renders the universal nature of deviance questionable. Decades
ago, Durkheim, acknowledged the impossibility of deviance or crime free society, especially in periods of rapid social
change, or in his jargon, anomie. Consequently, he suggested a collective response to deviance – social control–
toensure moral bound to boundless desires of individuals. Absence of crime or deviance, implies social solidarity, as
there is complete consensus over norms and values. For Durkheim, though, this situation is not only impossible to
achieve, but the very idea is not congruent with the values placed on individualism in a modern society.Thus,
Durk heimasserted that the existence of crime is unavoidable, and as Roshier, pointed out, responses to it must be
collective. In the specific case discussed by Erikson, it could be asserted that the deviance of the dissenting group
was not a necessary precondition for the acceptance of the new moral boundaries. If no split had occurred, then
expectedly,the moral boundaries would have been universally agreed upon, anyway.It should be noted that, deviance,
crime, and social control or social sanctions are key areas of criminological enterprise.As Jock Young [1998:451] aptly
opined, criminology in general has much to offer to social science: Many of us were attracted to the discipline
[criminology] because of its theoretical verve, because of the centrality of the study of disorder to understanding
society, because of the flair of its practitioners and the tremendous human interest of the subject. many of the major
debates in the social sciences in the 1960s and 1970s focused quite naturally around deviance and social control
(quoted in Bell, 2010:157). Similarly, Tierney (2010:1) shared the same view with Young by opening his introductory
remark with the following argument: Since the late 1960s the area of study broadly described as criminology
has expanded enormously in Britain. Nowadays all sorts of writers, researchers and teachers make many and varied
contributions to issues of crime and social control,and represent various political and theoretical positions. This
paper discusses social control, its genesis, typology, and some of its theoretical explanations. Much of the work has
been adapted from Clinard and Meier’s, (1998), Sociology of Deviant Behavior, but other literature has been reviewed
to enrich the paper with adequate insight into the subject of social control, and related concepts.
THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCE OF LABELING DEVIANT IN NIGERIA