Forms of Norms: How and Why They Change

It’s interesting to observe how the standards of behavior maintained by a society, aka norms, can change either in response to a change in the socio-political atmosphere or simply adapt to the inevitable movement toward progression.

I think it’s generally accepted as common knowledge that the majority of the US political realm is made up of the dichotomy of partisan beliefs and ideals. The media tends to accentuate this flare with shows like Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes”. My dad calls it “the pendulum”, or otherwise, the correlation between party dominance and general norms held by society. I am, by no means, stating that this is the case 100% of the time, and there do exist many exceptions. However, many times our culture’s norms are heavily influenced by whoever is in power. Typically, this generalization takes on a pendulum-like nature as it swings left to right, right to left and so on. I think the norms that are most affected by this effect are those formal norms that are stated in bills, laws, and legislation. For example, passing bills to legalize marijuana may induce the transition of stigma to acceptance. Of course there are those for which something like this would only further perpetuate their fears and concerns about the substance, but perhaps over the course of a decade or two, marijuana could be recognized as a legitimate medical treatment or even day-to-day hobby.

On the other hand, I think those informal norms and folkways are more so a product of society’s progressive movement. Perhaps defining the “cause and effect” differences between changes in formal and informal norms is difficult because it becomes a game of “the chicken or the egg”. Which came first? Despite this dilemma, and for time’s sake I will, for now, conclude that even if these movements are in some way affected by the socio-political climate, they are more a result of social evolution. Take for example the article we read on the tattoo subculture. Even though certain laws regulate who and where people can get tattoos, I think the stigma associated with them are, for the most part, independent of legislation. I know many people who personally think “tamp stamps” are unacceptable and label their wearers as trash.

Although I personally HATE referring to anyone as trash, this learned social behavior is independent of the inking procedure’s current legal status. The article further states “as tattoo artists legitimize their work as art, it seems that they in turn decrease the stigma for the consumer” (Ferguson 73, 2008). Just because it’s legal, doesn’t mean it’s not looked down upon, which is why these artists feel that they must legitimize their work.

Another example of how certain informal norms and folkways shift and change may be the example we read about exotic dancers. First I would like to note how I already possess an innate distance to the word “stripper”, however “exotic” dancer seems, to me at least, somehow more accessible. Exotic could mean a variety of things; while everyone knows what strippers do…they strip off their clothes. To get back on track, I am really drawn to the way Lewis explains “rationalizing participation in a deviant occupation” (Ferguson 134, 2008). Exotic dancing is a legal occupation, however it is viewed as a heretical form of employment. As a

result, most of these dancers justify their actions by listing money, childcare, and a lack of an education as legitimate reasons why they must participate in this setting. Does their job make these women bad people? NO WAY! However, society has placed them, just as they have other occupations, towards the bottom of the hierarchy of employment, and subsequently, despite their high incomes, their titles are tagged with negative connotation. Yet, this negative connotation isn’t permanent and remains subject to change. In fact, just the other day I saw an infomercial soliciting exotic dance workouts. By partnering health and fitness with exotic dancing moves, the stigma associated with their jobs decreases. Changes in definitions like these can and do expand the limitations of socialization described by Lewis (Ferguson 139, 2008).

I want to note that I do not claim politics and law to be the sole attributors to changes in formal norms, and likewise social progression to be the only contributor to alterations in informal norms. In fact, I think sometimes it is some combination of some or all of the above. However, it will be intriguing to note and observe how things such as cultural lag, natural catastrophes, and wars will affect current and future societal norms.