According to Hills (1980), the differences between the absolutist and the relativist views of deviance are vast with very few points in agreement. The absolutist perspective, shared by the majority, suggests deviance is a black-or-white, cut-and-dried definition which permeates the entire being of a person and allows for no mobility out of the deviant status; whereas, the relativist perspective, shared by many sociologists, communicates a shades-of-grey, humanity exposing explanation of deviance and allows for a multi-faceted look at individual categories of deviance in relation to personality (Hills, 1980). Deviance by definition is behavior based on a specific set of values; however, the difference in perspectives reveals the heart of the subject. Basically, the absolutist argues deviance is a part of the person; conversely, the relativist assumes deviance is taught via the culture, society, or group they belong. …show more content…
From a legal-social standpoint, a person who commits a crime has a hard time becoming a productive member of society after paying his/her debt to society because of this overwhelming idea that he/she will always be a criminal. Society classifies lower socioeconomic status as a breeding ground for criminal activity, but the absolutist ideals perpetuate the idea that it is impossible to climb out of that economic situation. The absolutist ideal is most obvious in the religious arena where the ideals, values, customs, and beliefs promote deviance as anything that is not what they believe, and they couldn’t fathom anyone choosing to act in a fashion that goes against those beliefs. While religion is losing the power and prestige it once had, the existing laws and culture in most of the United States have roots in