Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Defining Deviancy Down"

[The Annoyed Man]

An interesting article by the late Senator: http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/ ... viancy.pdf

It's a 15 page PDF, but it makes for interesting reading.....at least I think so. To generalize Moynihan's point (as I understand it) is that:

A) "Deviancy" for the purposes of this discussion includes ALL behaviors which depart from the social norm, and so it would include both religious issues, moral issues (same-sex attractions, etc.), and criminal issues. It is NOT being applied as a term of judgement here, but merely a word to describe behaviors which deviate from the norm.

B) The rate of overall deviance in most cultures throughout history is more or less fixed with occasional variations up or down, but overall remaining constant.

C) The historical amount of infrastructure a society needs to maintain for the control of its deviant population tends to remain fixed, as that percentage of the population remains fixed, and only grows as the overall population grows.....so the ratio of population to infrastructure remains more or less unchanged.

D) When the percentage of deviancy increases to unsustainable levels, society can do one of two things: build more infrastructure (prisons) to control it, or it can redefine deviancy according to a looser standard, allowing behaviors for which it would have formerly punished people.

Charles Krauthammer expounded on it further to say that when (D) happens, formerly mainstream ideas become reclassified as deviant (the tyranny of political correctness, etc.): http://spectator.org/articles/37376/def ... iancy-down.

I haven't finished the original Moynihan article, but I was wondering what you all thought of this idea? Personally, I'm torn. The libertarian side of me says, so what? The part of me that cares about the world my granddaughter will grow up in says we are reaping what we sewed.

[VMI77]

There's one thing for sure.....Moynihan was a traditional liberal and he'd be pilloried and run out of the Democratic party by today's deviant progressives. I think libertarianism is confused with libertine-ism by a lot of so called libertarians today. The old philosophers like Mills didn't indulge in the "deviancy" they argued should be tolerated. It's not a society killing problem when the deviancy is confined to a minority of the population (unless that minority is the majority of the ruling class).

The problem today is that deviancy has expanded to the majority of the population and without a push back it's going to kill this country and destroy any possibility of a rationally organized and peaceful society under the rule-of-law. Just take one example....marriage. Easy divorce laws and female promiscuity are destroying marriage and family. Studies indicate that the more sexual partners a female has the greater the certainty a marriage will end in divorce. For example, when the prospective wife has slept with one or no men before marriage divorce rates are in the 10% to 20% range. Increase the number of partners to two or more and divorce rates jump to 50%. Go beyond about 5 partners and the chance of a successful marriage drops to about 20%.

The situation for young men who want to get married and have a family today is bleak. Feminism and the larger culture, especially in the urban areas, is making it increasingly difficult for young men to enter into stable relationships with young women. My youngest son is saying he's not going to get married because he meets so many women that have been corrupted by dodgy feminist nonsense. The ones that have been "educated" in liberal arts colleges are especially nutty. For a large number of young men the situation is already too crazy for any responsible person to introduce children into such a potentially unstable environment. The woman can "frivoce" and take his children and his money at anytime, just because she's "bored" or met a new hottie.

In my day the phase went, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free." Now of course, that bit of common sense would be called sexist but it doesn't change the basic truth of it. For young men today there is little upside to marriage and a lot of downside risk. Homosexual marriage probably wouldn't be an issue for marriage and family in general if the actual objective was just to institutionalize a homosexual partnership. I don't believe homosexuality will ever affect more than a small minority of the population. However, I believe the larger objective of the progressives is to further undermine the sanctity of marriage by importing homosexual values of promiscuity into heterosexual marriage.

Personally, if I was a young man today I think the chances of meeting a woman like my wife would be very small. The change in social values over my now 32 year marriage has been dramatic. Not all of it has been bad, but enough has been so bad that it is ripping the fabric of western society apart. To be honest, I didn't understand a lot of these things when I was younger. I was brought up in the first wave of feminism and society hadn't yet changed enough to expose it's flaws. Still, first wave feminism was mostly about equal rights and that is not true of modern feminism. And back then, liberals were people like Hubert Humphrey, DP Moynihan, and Gore Vidal, not the raving lunatic cultural Marxist "progressives" that hide under the liberal umbrella today.

[Jim Beaux]

Family deviancy

Years ago I read an eye opening article. It discussed the one invention that has had the most effect on our current world.

This invention diminished the traditional family's nurturing anchor - is the primary reason for higher divorce rates, enabled more opportunities for advanced education among women - it improved women's viability as potential employees - it gave women options to seek careers while leaving their children to be raised in loveless facilities.

It's impact is way too vast to list.

So, what is this invention that crumbled traditional values, eroded & morality while giving parents the independence to do what they wanted, rather then they should do? The birth control pill.

Note: As I try to write this I am be distracted by a crumb crusher who wants me to blow raspberries on his belly. Sorry if this post doesnt make sense.

[VMI77]

Family deviancy

Years ago I read an eye opening article. It discussed the one invention that has had the most effect on our current world.

This invention diminished the traditional family's nurturing anchor - is the primary reason for higher divorce rates, enabled more opportunities for advanced education among women - it improved women's viability as potential employees - it gave women options to seek careers while leaving their children to be raised in loveless facilities.

It's impact is way too vast to list.

So, what is this invention that crumbled traditional values, eroded & morality while giving parents the independence to do what they wanted, rather then they should do? The birth control pill.

Note: As I try to write this I am be distracted by a crumb crusher who wants me to blow raspberries on his belly. Sorry if this post doesnt make sense.

While I agree that the pill's social effect has been dramatic, I don't think the pill was necessary for women to have opportunities for advanced education, employment viability, or leaving children to be raised by others.

In the first two cases, in order for the pill to be a factor, you have to assume women would be just as promiscuous with or without the pill, and it seems rather that the pill is what freed women to be promiscuous in the first place. Working mothers are more of a symptom of economic necessity than anything to do with the pill. Leaving children to be raised by strangers is also the product of the economic depredation of the middle class, the need for two incomes coming in concert with the dissolution of family, not only as a result of increasing promiscuity, but also economics, the need for two incomes to maintain a middle class life, and forcing people to move for employment and the resulting increased estrangement from family.

I think the pill is one of three factors in our social deviancy and dissolution: 1) the pill; 2) television; and 3) debt --both public and private.

[Abraham]

But, but, splutter, I LOVE television. And yes, there IS quality television to be enjoyed, not just dreck.

I'm also an avid reader.

I read books and magazines - not internet blogs.

I'm never without a book.

Magazines I consume quickly, rather like eating M&M's.

Once I post this and complete my various chores, I'm going to enjoy reading a book I'm 150 pages into...

I'm guessing deviancy has always been with us, but now it's out in the open. Celebrated even.

Oh well, Rome didn't last forever either...

[MechAg94]

I think the pill is one of three factors in our social deviancy and dissolution: 1) the pill; 2) television; and 3) debt --both public and private.

I think you are leaving out the "War on Poverty" which has expanded far beyond what anyone thought it would. The other items are vices, but when the govt subsidizes irresponsible behavior, we get more of it.

[VMI77]

I think the pill is one of three factors in our social deviancy and dissolution: 1) the pill; 2) television; and 3) debt --both public and private.

I think you are leaving out the "War on Poverty" which has expanded far beyond what anyone thought it would. The other items are vices, but when the govt subsidizes irresponsible behavior, we get more of it.

I didn't get specific on #3....debt....but without taking on debt as we have been the "War on Poverty" couldn't have been financed. Debt spending rather than tax spending creates the illusion of a free ride.

[VMI77]

But, but, splutter, I LOVE television. And yes, there IS quality television to be enjoyed, not just dreck.

I'm also an avid reader.

I read books and magazines - not internet blogs.

I'm never without a book.

Magazines I consume quickly, rather like eating M&M's.

Once I post this and complete my various chores, I'm going to enjoy reading a book I'm 150 pages into...

I'm guessing deviancy has always been with us, but now it's out in the open. Celebrated even.

Oh well, Rome didn't last forever either...

I love me some television too. If everyone was like you, selective in what they watch, attentive to quality, and reading too, television might not be a problem. The fact is that most successful people, including television executives, don't watch much television. When my kids were young we recorded programs the family was interested in during the week (mostly sci-fi back then) and watched them together as a family on Friday night. The rest of the week the television was off and my kids were reading. The problem is in the 80-90% of the population that doesn't have your discretion and judgement.