In the following Monty Python clip from the “Holy Grail” movie, a wandering King Arthur encounters two peasants and discusses the nature of their political system. The peasant intellectually outmuscles and corrects the King over and over until the King exhibits “violence that is inherent in the system”.
The joke is clear here: no one would expect the peasant to be so knowledgable on political science, philosophy and political systems. But he is, which is what catches the king off guard.
In a broader sense, this peasant is a deviant. He is unlike his fellow peasants in that he is well read, articulate, politically aware and has the will power to stand up for his own unorthodox views. This reminds of me Conrads article “From Badness to Sickness”, where he argues that some definitions of criminals and deviants enjoy a hegemony over others. By this, Conrad meant that some definitions are more favorable than others in a given context, and this hierarchy of ways to explain deviance leads to a certain criteria being established to categorize criminals, which may not necessarily be the best or most accurate.
So going back to the video, the the peasant would be defined as a deviant (and I mean deviant in the most literal sense as someone/something that is “going against the grain”). The hegemonic definition that leads one to this label is one that is based upon the idea that most peasants in that era never question authority, are not well read or well educated, and are therefore never individually a threat to supreme power. This peasant was different, and is thus a deviant (which is the basis for the joke!)
Clearly, our view of deviants in different social classes has changed. It is not as uncommon now that a peasant (or to be more PC, someone from the lower strata of our economy) would be well read and well educated. In fact, America prides itself on the image of a working, raise-yourself-by-the-bootstraps citizen (even though this may not be an accurate reflection of reality). The deviant definition that was shown in the video was one of class-stagnation: if you were born a peasant, you would remain a peasant. Now our definitions for deviants are much more complex and fluid, so its not like we would expect the richest people to be the smartest and the poorest to be the most intellectually inept.
Conrad discusses how our definitions of criminals are evolving and are relying more on medical definitions. I agree that this shift is occurring. The only thing I can hope for is that in this shift of definition, we never stop scrutinizing our approach and our criteria for what a deviant is. In the same way the peasant in the video was challenging the hegemonic assumption of the King, we should go about doing the same. We can not accept any practice, system or ideology as a superior fact just because it exists.
Additionally, it helps to understand why someone acts in the way they do from many perspectives. The King approaches this problem by only analyzing the peasant based on his social class. This one tracked approach was clearly faulty. Instead, we much analyze deviants psychologically, politically, sociologically, philosophically, scientifically and medically if we are to get the best possible explanation and understanding of their behavior and nature. We can not accept hegemonic definitions as an end all be all.
As the peasant tells the king: “Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. ”
-Nikhil
