CA2 Answer Key

Hey kids,

Here's the answer key, for those of you who couldn't catch it at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon (and who would blame you?). Let me know if there are any marks adjustments that need to be made. All the best for your exams. Be brilliant :)

1. Using material from paragraphs 1 to 3

Summarise in no more than 120 words excluding the opening words, society’s general definition of deviance and the writer’s notions of deviance and conformity. Use your own words as far as possible. (7 marks)

Society usually defines deviants as…

	LIFTS			SUGGESTED ANSWER		NOTE
Society’s view
1		… individuals who refuse to live by the rules that the (line 2) OR … non-conformity (line 6)	those who reject/snub/rebuff/repudiate/do not adhere to/ are unwilling to follow/completely ignore a life led according to conventions/guidelines Notes: 1. Do not allow lift for ‘conform’. 2. NOT ‘people who are abnormal’			Must have BOTH the idea of ‘refusal’ and ‘rules’
2		majority of us follow (line 2) OR accepted by a significant number of people (lines 6-7)	which the bulk/large sections of society/the masses subscribe to/obeys/abide by/comply with.			Must have BOTH the idea of a ‘majority’ and ‘follows’
3		They are violent criminals, drug addicts or down-and-outs’, (lines 2-3) (INFER + GENERALISE from examples)	They are a very small minority who live at the moral, social or economic extremes of a community/outcasts/margins			Must get idea of deviants as those at the edge of society we cannot imagine to be ourselves
4		who do not fit in with (line 3) OR … non-conformity (line 6)	who cannot assimilate well into/are unable to integrate well with/are not welcomed Note: 1. NOT match/satisfy/fulfil			Must get the idea of being ‘unable to be a part of’
5		what most people would define as normal standards of acceptability (lines 3-4) OR …given set of norms… (line 6)	what are regarded/perceived/ as the natural/commonsense/assumed/agreed upon criteria/set of principles/benchmarks of desirable values/ appropriateness. Notes: 1. ‘Appropriate’ is repeated in line 11 but this is not affected by the proximity rule. 2. Accept the point if candidate gets 2 out of 3 parts of the idea correct.			Must get the key idea criteria
Author’s view
6		Our activities would collapse into chaos if we did not stick to rules that (line 9-10)			Our daily lives/routines would enter anarchy/madness/confusion without structure/arrangements that/ Or Our routines would maintain peace and stability if we have guidelines which Notes: 1. NOT orderliness/disorder (proximity) 2. NOT ‘disaster’/ ‘catastrophe 3. Accept the point if candidate gets 2 out of 3 parts of the idea correct

Notions of deviance and conformity	Relevant (to a large extent)	Irrelevant (to a large extent)
Society’s notions
From Paragraph 1: The concept of deviance Deviants are those individuals who refuse to live by the rules that the majority of us follow […] who do not fit in with what most people would define as normal standards of acceptability (lines 1-4).	Such a notion of deviance is likely to resonate with many Singaporeans. Most Singaporeans are socialised into valuing and pursuing economic aspirations affectionately known as the 5 Cs – Cash, Car, Condominium, Credit Card and Country Club. Underlying all this is the norm of material pursuits that most Singaporeans accept, even if they do not fully agree. Thus, those who reject them may be perceived as deviant. While flouting such a rule may not result in formal punishments (e.g. jail terms), they are certainly met with much disapproval. Some may argue that such rules do not hold for all societies. For instance, in the Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan, reputedly the “happiest nation in the world” that values “Gross National Happiness” over Gross National Product”, it would be deviant behaviour if one worships material pursuits or external indicators of success like the 5 Cs mentioned above. Nevertheless, regardless of the differences between what Bhutan and Singapore consider deviant, each society does have its own set of norms and rules held by the majority, and the failure to conform to such rules results in one being labelled as a deviant. Conformance to the rules held by the majority is what defines membership for each society.	While it is true that normative standards of deviance exist in Singapore, it is not always perceived by society as simple or homogenous as the author seems to suggest. For many modern Singaporeans who have grown up in the context of globalisation, we recognise that we live in times of socio-cultural change. Much of what we used to regard as clearly deviant have been brought under serious interrogation. So while it has to be admitted that Singapore remains a largely conservative society that supports ‘Asian values’, such rules are no longer so clearly defined. Indeed, in recent years, there has been a surge in public debate on gender and sexuality norms. For instance, the gay community’s annual Pink Dot event at Hong Lim Park – sponsored by Google in 2011, was a widely popular event that received positive media coverage locally and globally. The widespread social support that these movements have received seems to suggest that there is some degree of diversity in our society’s notions of where the lines of normality and acceptability lie.
Author’s notions
From Paragraph 2: The value of non-deviance (conformity) We have observed that human social life is governed by rules or norms. Our activities would collapse into chaos if we did not stick to rules that define some kinds of behaviour as proper in particular contexts and others as inappropriate. (lines 8-11)	Such a notion bears great relevance to the lives of Singaporeans. Rules and norms perform a social function, and ensure the organic health of the system that is Singapore. Singaporeans have a reputation for being law-abiding citizens who contribute to Singapore’s low crime rates. In fact, we have carried our zealousness for rules so far that we have even garnered an international reputation for being somewhat draconian (e.g. cases of caning for anything from vandalism to rape), especially with regard to the western community. In the case of the Michael Fay incident in 1994*, even the pleading of the then US president Bill Clinton and the international media’s outcry could not change the verdict of jail time, a fine and four strokes of the cane. Indeed, we are a community dedicated to the preservation of structure and order. *Students can also discuss the more recent incident involving the Swiss national Oliver Frieker who vandalised the MRT trains with Graffiti.	Giddens’ notion is not entirely relevant to my society because his understanding of these norms fails to acknowledge that it is sometime desirable to challenge rules, which in term may in turn create chaos in society. Singapore used to be a more conservative society where women were expected to be silent and submissive. If the ‘deviant’ women who founded AWARE stuck to the rules of society, we would never have feminist activists like the ex-NMP and ex-President of AWARE Dr Kanwaljit Soin who pushed for the introduction of Personal Protection Orders for victims of domestic abuse amongst various other women’s rights. Without challenging the order of society, we may never have had social change. History also contains countless other examples such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks who were deviant in their time. Thus, in my society, I can see that sometimes going against social norms and creating some chaos is necessary in promoting a more humanitarian, inclusive, and orderly society.
From Paragraph 3: The pervasiveness of deviance Most drivers are not just deviants but in fact criminals, for they regularly drive at well above the legal speed limits – assuming there is no police car in sight (lines 14-16). Most of us on some occasions transgress generally accepted rules of behaviour (lines 19-20)	Such a view holds great relevance for my society. While most people regard the roads in Singapore as orderly, especially when compared to the chaos of other international cities like Mumbai and Bangkok, many Singaporeans do transgress generally accepted rules on a daily basis. While the speed limit for lane 1 on the PIE and ECP is 90 km/h, most cars in Singapore regularly break this rule and driver way over 90 km/h. On the KPE, cars in Singapore obediently drive at 70km/h or below no doubt due to the record number of speed cameras installed along this underground expressway.	Such a view is not entirely relevant to Singapore. It may be true that some Singaporeans may transgress rules on a regular basis if no immediate punitive measures are in place but one has to note that compared to the infamous traffic conditions in Mumbai, Jakarta and Bangkok, Singaporeans are comparatively conformist though this should probably be considered desirable. While Singaporeans may be deviant in some ways, I think the degree of criminal deviance does differ between cultures and societies.
From Paragraph 3: The pervasiveness of rule creation We are all also rule creators. Drivers may break the law on the expressways, but in fact they have evolved informal rules that are superimposed on the legal rules (lines 23-25)	Such a notion bears great relevance to my society which has recognised the role of such informal rules to the extent we have coined a colloquialism ‘by right’ and ‘by left’ to capture the cultural significance of such rules. Even in Singapore, a society famous for rules and fines, it is understood that informal adaptations of rules – and hence the creation of new rules – are necessary depending on particular contexts and situations e.g. Lane 1 drivers regularly driver at 100 km/h (instead of 90km/h which is the speed limit). Driving below 100 km/h and below, or well above 100km/h ironically breaks the rules and is likely to caused some confusion even accidents. In a sense, a failure to break the law and conform to informal rules causes greater chaos.	Such a notion bears little relevance to my society because while it is true informal rules have evolved, it is observed or practiced to a limited degree. There are strict sanctions against the breaking of official rules (and the penalisation of following informal rules) through an abundance of sophisticated technology e.g. speed cameras, speed guns, red-light cameras – to curtail any informal rules. In contrast, in cities like Bangkok where informal rules triumph over official ones and the chaos of illegal U-turns and lane changes are a common sight – though ironically, it has a comparable accident rate with rule-obsessed Singapore. What is clear is that while people generally have a tendency for the formation of informal rules (imposed over legal ones), the degree of space they are allowed to manoeuvre and create new rules varies from society to society.
From Paragraph 4 and 5: Diverse manifestations of deviance The scope of deviant behaviour is very wide (line 29) E.g. 1 Howard Hughes His (Howard Hughes) activities conformed to some of the key values in western societies…his behaviour deviated sharply from orthodox norms (lines 31-34) E.g. 2 Ted Bundy (Ted Bundy) conformed to the norms of behaviour of a good citizen. He led what seemed not only a normal life, but a most worthy one […] Yet Bundy also carried out a series of horrific murders (line 40-44)	Such a notion bears relevance to my society. Generally in Singapore, capitalist ideals of wealth creation and productive labour are highly values so being a monk for instance might be regarded at some level as deviant since it involves a rejection of mainstream believes and ideals. Reverend Ming Yi, the former head of the Ren Ci Foundation, was one such example. On the other hand, the public remained rather intrigued by his private behaviour that was unusually conformist. For instance, he lived in a luxury condominium, drove a luxury car and had a personal assistant a la the Chief Executive Officers of big companies – no doubt in some ways a capitalist ideal/goal. In contrast, the former US President Bill Clinton used to live what would have been regarded as the life of a “good citizen” who served his country with honour, and lived a decent and respectable married life. He was also very well regarded for his spotless moral image and humanitarian work. However, in the confines of the oval office, he committed deviants acts with Monica Lewinsky which he even tried to deny when the news when public and international. What shocked most people was simple how someone who conformed so much to the norms of society could turn out to be a moral deviant.	Such a notion bears little relevance to Singapore. There actually exists very little room to be different in terms of behaviour, unlike Howard Hughes. For instance, in the area of dressing of the common man on the street, Singaporeans’ reputation for bland clothing pales in comparison to the more outlandish and experimental dressing of people in the western countries. Even what are other Asian societies like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan give more room to deviant dressing than Singapore. Some might argue that there is a rising trend of deviant dressing – e.g. the rising popularity of CosPlay where youths dress in outlandish costumes to mimic Manga comic characters. However, unlike in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, CosPlay enthusiasts in Singapore have very limited spaces and opportunities to be deviant. Unlike other Asian countries, deviant dressing in Singapore is carefully contained and managed in clearly marked out spaces. In ordinary life, there is less room for deviant behaviour.
From Paragraph 6: Conformity in deviant groups Even individuals who might seem wholly outside the pale of respectable society, […] likely to be following rules of the groups of which they are members (lines 52-54) Those who deviate from (norms) them are either punished or expelled. (line 56)	Such a notion is indeed relevant to our society. Following the recent spate of youth gang activities – Bukit Panjang/Downtown East slashing incidents – revived the moral panic society had towards such deviants. Like their earlier counterparts throughout Singapore’s history –the McDonald Kids (early 1980s), the Marina Square kids (early 1990s), the Far East Plaza Kids (1980-3 and re-lapse again in mid 1990s) and Daimaru Kids (1983-6), they were regarded as deviants during their time. Yet, while they must have appeared ‘outside the pale of respectable society, they were phenomenally conformist within their tight communities e.g. sporting the same outlandish hairstyles or colours, or behaviours such as smoking or glue sniffing. In the South Bronx of New York, as much as the street gangs of New York were regarded as deviant, they had strict hierarchies within themselves, determined by rapping or dance – all of which eventually contributed to the rise of hip hop culture. Ironically, this deviant culture has now become mainstream.	Such a view is not entirely relevant because in fact, some forms of deviance are not only not rejected but also marketed and celebrated in the media. This is the case even while ironically, social disapproval is still evident in our conservative Asian society. For instance, western icons like Lady Gaga or local icons like Kumar are very much celebrated even in Singapore. These deviant media icons may have transgressed many out-of-bounds markers in Singapore like race, religion, gender and sexuality, yet they still enjoy much popularity. While some might argue the these forms deviance are limited and contained within the safe confines of the entertainment industry, the fact that such forms of deviance are popular suggests that our society still allows us the space to toy with forms of deviant behaviour.

7	define some kinds of behaviour as (line 10)	delineate/outline/demarcate/mark out/distinguish a conduct/behaviour
8	proper in particular contexts and others as inappropriate (line 11)	as right/correct/acceptable depending on the environment/situation/surrounding/setting/circumstances or wrong/incorrect/unacceptable (OPTIONAL)	Must get ‘correct’ in relation to context.
9	Most drivers are not just deviants but criminals, for they regularly drive at well above the legal speed limits (lines 14-15)	Nearly all drivers regularly contravene/offend/violate the rule of law	The idea of breaking the law is not necessary here.
10	– assuming there is no police car in sight. (line 16)	so long as the outcome of punitive measures/being caught/being penalised is not apparent Or getting off scott-free is apparent/the offence is not discovered/nobody notices
11	No society can be divided up in a simple way between those who deviate from norms and those who conform to them. (line 18)	No community can be clearly/easily/plainly/neatly/without difficulty separated/segregated according to criminals versus law abiders.	Must have the BOTH ideas of ‘simply’ and ‘divided’
12	Most of us on some occasions transgress generally accepted rules of behaviour (line 16) OR We are all rule breakers (line 19)	We are all guilty of violating/disobeying/offending/flouting widely-held conventions/regulations at certain points/areas/aspects of out lives. Notes: 1. The idea of flouting rules of conduct is repeated several times. Award either idea 9 or 12 but NOT both. 2. NOT ‘break rules’ 3. NOT ‘we are all deviants’	Must have the idea that no one escapes being deviant at some point in their lives. Must get ‘most of us’
13	as well as conformists. (line 23)	We also tend to comply with/abide by/submit to established practices/ standards	Not necessary to include ‘as well as’ although that is more accurate.
14	We are all also rule creators (line 23)	We also tend to come up with/ /establish/generate/innovate/invent new conventions
15	…they have evolved informal rules that are superimposed on the legal rules. (lines 23-24)	or developed unofficial/unwritten rules overlay/work alongside official ones Note: the idea of ‘superimposing’ does not mean the legal rules were rejected or ignored. Instead, they work alongside or together with official ones.	Must have the idea of ‘alongside’ or ‘together’