Final answer:
An ineffective definition of abnormality related to obedience to public standards of conflict overlooks individual circumstances and systemic inequalities. Sociological theories like social control, Robert Merton's Strain Theory, and the Conflict Perspective offer more nuanced explanations of societal interaction and individual behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
An ineffective definition that explains abnormality in terms of how well one obeys public standards of conflict can be explored through different sociological perspectives. One potential explanation could involve the concept of social control, which is how society enforces norms among its members to maintain social order. When individuals deviate from these norms, various methods of social control are employed to correct or punish that behavior. However, this explanation might be seen as ineffective because it does not account for personal autonomy or the complex reasons behind someone's inability or refusal to adhere to societal standards. For example, Robert Merton's Strain Theory provides a more nuanced understanding by outlining five distinct responses individuals might have when faced with the gap between societal goals and the means to achieve them, including conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.
The Conflict Perspective also offers insight into how imposing standards, particularly in terms of health and welfare, might disadvantage certain groups. For instance, those with weak social ties or low levels of political efficacy may find themselves ostracized or ignored by broader societal structures. Social Disorganization Theory suggests that when shortcomings in a society's ability to enforce norms are collectively prevalent, even those aware of the issues have limited impact. This again ties back to the ineffective means by which abnormality is defined in relation to obeying public standards without considering individual circumstances or systemic inequalities.