My hidden deviance

I am deviant; in fact I am part of the least trusted group in American society. Unlike most deviant subgroups, my deviance is easily hidden, partially by own doing (by not talking about my deviance with most people), and partially because my deviance is attitudinal, and not behavioral. What I mean to say is, my deviance has to do with something I believe, and has very little effect on how I act, what I wear, or anything else that would easily distinguish myself as an outsider. We can blend in with society covertly, and depending on how strong our connection is with this deviant group, we can sometimes maintain relationships for years without someone knowing. Have you guessed what it is yet? I’m an atheist.

Why are atheists considered deviant? We’re going to look at two theories that may help shed light on why atheists are not just a deviant group in American society, but why we are one of the most maligned and mistrusted of all subgroups. According to a poll conducted by University of Minnesota researchers in 2006, 47% of respondents said they would disapprove of their children marrying an atheist (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.Ty9NlsXwuHg) which was 14% higher than any other ‘religious preference’ group. Conflict theory, which was made famous by Karl Marx, is one such theory that may shed light on why atheists are considered deviant. According to conflict theory, what is considered deviant is decided upon by the dominant societal class. Deviant behavior is “is relative to the behavior and patterns of the class that formulates and applies definitions.” (Quinney, 1975), which means ‘normal behavior’ is typically behavior which the dominant class is more inclined to do. In terms of religion, you cannot be much more of an outsider then if you denounce the institution as a whole. While religious acceptance has certainly been increasingly progressive, seven US states still require their officials to take a religious test that would all but disqualify an atheist, and some states even require jury members to be religious (although this is largely outdated and not enforced)(West, 2006). Until 2009, not a single member of US congress in our entire history had come out as nonreligious (Peter Stark, D-California was the first). It is unsurprising, not because there had been no atheists elected to congress (there undoubtedly have been a number of them) but because coming out is essentially political suicide in America. Conflict theorists would point my previous examples as reason to believe that the dominant class in society (which consists of religious people) are able to manipulate laws, and definitions, in such a way as to force the nonreligious subgroup to either change our behavior (which is typically as simple as never saying anything to the effect that would out one self) or suffer the consequences of being labeled deviant.

The second theory we’re going to look at is labeling theory. Labeling theory is very relevant to atheism because it points out that deviance exists only when society notices, and then labels the behavior as deviant. Unlike most types of deviance, atheists and other nonreligious people can coexist within society without shedding light on their deviance. This is one reason why atheists are typically not discriminated against with the same frequency that other deviant groups are, it is after all, not easy to tell us apart from our religious counterparts. Furthermore, being atheist typically results in behaviors that exclude us from social settings(like not going to church), rather than inclusion in social settings that would shed light on our deviance (which most other deviant groups partake of). In labeling theory, deviance is a transaction between the rule-breaker and the social group (Becker, 1963). But when the social group is unaware, then the behavior cannot be labeled deviant. Which is highly convenient; I can easily hide my deviance from most social settings, thereby avoiding the label when I feel it would produce negative consequences. However, there are times when I unknowingly out myself, which can then lead me to being cut off from participation in some social groups, “even though the specific consequences of the particular deviant activity might never of themselves have caused the isolation had there not also been the public knowledge and reaction to it” (Becker, 1963). While I personally have not experienced anything other than minor inconveniences, I have friends who have been kicked out of their homes for outing themselves as atheist, despite the fact their behavior before coming out was consistent with them being an atheist the entire time (which drives home the main point of labeling theory: the behavior need not be inherently or obviously deviant, it only must be labeled as such).

When I considered what deviant behavior I should do, I came to one logical and obvious conclusion: I’ll let people know I’m deviant. I figured something as simple as wearing a T-Shirt that said, “I’m an atheist” would suffice. In the past I’ve worn my Darwin T-Shirt, and haven’t experienced anything too hostile, but that is probably too main-stream, especially on a college campus. For this study, I decided I would walk around the mall for an hour in a t-shirt that labeled me as an atheist. Getting up the courage to come clean about my deviance to a lot of people I don’t know was not very easy. After all, I was self-conscious about the Darwin T-shirt, this one was more direct and less ambiguous. The first thing I noticed about being outwardly deviant is that I started to analyze and question why people were looking at me. The odd thing about this is that people probably look at me all the time, but I’ve never really paid much attention to it before. It’s different when you know that there is something inherently flawed about yourself (at least in the eyes of the people judging you), and this led me to be overly critical of even slight glances. Is that a look of condemnation? Are they labeling me deviant the moment they read my T-Shirt? Or perhaps their eyes are just wandering like they do in everyday life, but only now am I’m conscientiously noticing it. I was surprised at myself with the level of embarrassment I displayed, because usually I’m very comfortable with my lack of belief (atheism). It was as if I wanted to tell each person that looked at me queerly, “I’m sorry you think I’m different, but I’m not!” I think for deviant groups that are unable to hide their identity, disparaging looks are eventually relegated back into the subconscious, and I would guess that the more I displayed my deviance, the more confident I would become. As it was, I was relieved that nothing too exciting happened. Other than looks of disapproval from a few select people, I didn’t feel entirely unwelcome during my hour stay. I’m positive that at some social settings this outcome would be unlikely (like going to church with the same t-shirt), but I’m not exactly rushing to up the ante.

When you can avoid being deviant I think most people would choose avoidance over the alternative. As Merton said in his writings on strain theory, society exerts a pressure upon people to engage in conforming conduct (Merton 1957), and for most of us that regulates how we behave. In my case, taking the path of least resistance is typically the choice I tend to make. There is little reason to wear my deviance on my sleeve if it means I will face unnecessary social conflict, and therefore I typically choose not to engage in behavior that would ‘out’ myself with most of my casual acquaintances. However, I believe that people should be true to themselves, and proud of what they do or do not believe. After all, choosing to be an atheist was not a decision I came to lightly. It was a decision I was proud I was able to make, since it required myself to take the more difficult path when there was nothing forcing me to do so. If that makes me deviant, then so be it.

WC: 1,350

West, Ellis M. "Religious Tests of Office-Holding". In Finkelman, Paul. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. (2006) pp. 1314–5

Merton, Robert “Social Theory and Social Structure”. (The Free Press, 1957)

Becker, Howard S. “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”. (The Free Press, 1963)

Quinney, Richard, Criminology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 37-41