Soci 325 Notes Midterm

WEEK 1 LECTURE 1-2

• What is deviance

  • violation of norms

• What are norms

  • Principles or rules people are expected to observe. The do’s and don’t of society

• What do the violation of forms result in?

  • Sanctions by sources of social control. basically a reaction to norm violation. can be formal or informal (imprisonment or socially ostracized)

• What did Sumner ( crucial researcher in deviance) say were the 3 types of norms

  • folkways, mores, and laws

• What is a folkway and examples? Sanction for it?

  • Simple everyday norms based on customs, traditions, and etiquette.

    ex norms surrounding dress standards, someone spitting food at u is outside the norm, talking too close to someone

    sanction: not seen as serious but ppl will think u r odd or avoid u

• What is a mores and examples? Sanctions?

  • norms based on moral values. second strongest norm

    ex: drug addiction, cheating. violations threat to society and offenders are seen as bad and harmful to society

    Sanctions? Social condemnation

• What is law and what are examples and sanctions?

  • Certain norms upheld by codified social sanctions. strongest type of norms

    examples: murder, rape, child porn, treason, assault. all major threat to society

    sanction: imprisonment or even death sentence

• Do deviance and crime always overlap? Give an example of each case

  • No they don’t always. Violence is an example of when it does

    Deviant but not crime ex: physical disability,

    Crime but not deviant: White collar crime/tax evasion cause its the upper class.

    Not deviant or crime even tho violence: Wars. loved by rich and governments

• What are the ABC’s of deviance and describe and examples

  • Attitudes- deviant for extreme belief like cults or political extremists or mental illness

    behaviors- norm violating acts. ex: drugs, violent acts, swearing, lisps, violating dress conventions

  • conditions-deviant due to personal characteristics or traits. Ex: extreme wealth, under/overweight, self-harm, extreme tattoos

• What does it means that the ABC’s can be achieved or ascribed?

  • Achieved means developed over time. You can go back to normal. ex-extreme wealth, political extremists, kinky sex

    Ascribed: born with. can’t go back to normal easily. ex-congenital mental illness or lisp or disability

• 3 S’s of deviance

  • Sin- deviance or sins were satanic and exorcisms occurred in middle ages

    Sick- 19th-20th century. medical treatment used to respond to deviance like LGBTQI, mental illness, drug addiction

    Selected- Deviance that is voluntarily selected like gambling, eating disorders, self harm. happy or choose to do it.
    

• Traditionally there have been 2 perspectives on deviance. Describe each. What is each relationship with time/space

  • Normative perspective (Merton 1966): deviance is objective study of people’s violation of social norms ( based on the expectations of non-conformity or under conformity with societal norms). tldr: its subjective what’s deviant

    Reactivist (relativist) perspective) ( Becker 1963) : deviance is subjective reaction of social audience ( focuses on how an audience’s negative reactions or evaluations creates what becomes a norm and what does not). tldr: look at the audiences reaction to understand deviance. Their reaction creates deviance.

  • Across time and space Becker is right. Across one time/one area Merton is right and u can create a typology

• positive deviance (extreme selflessness)

  • over-conformity with societal norms can generate negative evaluations from society

  • ex nerds, they over-conform to study and they often get negatively evaluated for it

• can negative deviance receive positive evaluations from society

  • yes. ex admiration for certain outlaws/revolutionaries like John Gotti.

    He murdered ppl but ppl love him. Jeffery Dhamer’s murdered ppl similarly too but ppl hates him

WEEK 2 LECTURE 4-5 Power, typology, Heckert , warlords vs middle class, Elias, civilizing process, nation states, kings, knights, enablers, state formation

• Problem with trying to create a list/typology of deviant behaviors

  • Deviance varies across time, place, and groups. Deviance is culturally, socioeconomically, geographically, and temporally relative. Norms differ by these too

• An example of what is deviant changing throughout time

  •  Urinating in public, killing random people. Being naked in public would all be deviant. Generally most ppl around u can agree about what is deviant. The issue is what is deviant and what isn't changes. Ex urinating in public was normal decades ago in Europe. Cannibalism was normal at some point in new Zealand. 

  • It was normal at some point to kill someone who insulted you

• More powerful group decide who’s deviant and what goes in each quadrant of Heckerts table

  • a shooting would be seen as + by gang members but to community its -. the community holds more power so shooting is negative deviance

  • trump is deviant but seen as = by his communities of wealthy ppl, racists, tech bros. so because they have power trump has appeal to lots of ppl

• Why do norms and deviance (norm-violation) change over time, place, and group?

  • ppl in power changing can change norms/deviance over time

• Norms of warlords vs middle class

  • medieval warlords were in power and the norm was to react in violence and now violence is not the priority in middle class. peace important

• The civilizing process is not about why Europeans are better than others but why they THINK they are better

• Elias was a historical sociologist. believed u have to look @ history to answer q’s

• Homicide rates were so high in medieval ages and have decreased now. Elias was the only thinker that could explain this according to pinker

• Enablers caused homicide rates to decline. middle class norms became more common.

• Enablers are state formation, manners, money, and division of labor and they generate the pacified space (lower homicide rates) & allow for new ss norms to emerge

• 1st enabler=state formation, contributed to pacification of warrior class:

• In feudal times no middle class. just very wealthy warlords and poor ppl.

  • Warlords would take their neighbors property by killing their neighbors  and just kill who they wanted to get what they wanted. more land=more wealth

  • How nation state in Europe started.

  • kings= powerful warlords

• Control problem for kings arose

  • monitoring a big land base alone=hard. new strategies needed

  • court societies important now. smartest kings understood 2 brains is better than 1

  • kings hired knights (ppl who failed to get own land) as courtiers (advisors, army leaders, vassals)

• Knights were used to being violent and took whatever and such quick temper was a threat to the King.

  • Knights needed to learn to control emotions in a court society for the first time to be successful. brains were better than brawn

  • New norm emerging throughout elite society relating to being peaceful/reflective. decline of homicide happens

  • via state formation the gradual pacification of upper class warrior/court society took place and later peasants coerced into less violence

• Another way state formation promoted pacification: 2 threats to king to rule nation state was internal attack (revolt, treason, assassination, revolution) and external (attack from other nations states; war)

  • Result was violence the king did not agree with with criminalized; illegitimate force

  • legitimate force: police violence, marital law, capital punishment ( internal) and warfare (external)

• Punishment for a civilian who did illegitimate homicide was death. more brutal death if tried to kill upper class/king

  • Capital punishment/executions did not reestablish justice. it reactivated power/discourages public from illegitimate violence (Foucault)

    • Caused on pacification of society and declining homicide rates

  • Kings used military to defend or expel threats via acts of war, expand state boundaries and expand wealth.

• Homicide in western Europe declined since 13th century.

WEEK 3 LECTURE 6-9 : 2,3,4th enabler, manners, division of labour, nouveau rich, middle class emergence/take over, money, residential schools, safer, ss power (Quinney), socially constructed, powerless vs powerful, social construction of crime, crime definitions

• 2nd enabler: manners

  • advisors had to think about kings feelings (1st time thinking about others’ feelings) and show respect

  • Restraint explained by trying to do what a “noble person” do and showing courteously towards superiors

  • Preoccupation with “others”, Elias called mutual identification

• 3rd enabler: money based economy & 4th enabler: division of labour

  • lower homicide = businesses thrive and good for expansion of business

• A more pacified population- better enabled successful introduction of money-based economy (3rd enabler)

• coined money better enabled specialists to join together: division of labour.

  • you could pay someone

  • emergence of the middle class when peasants starting using their expertise and selling goods and services for money

• relationship where peasants/middle class need king for protection. the king takes taxes and money to increase economic prosperity.

  • interdependence on one another for economic prosperity. ppl had to be nicer, more restrained, less violent

• Because of change in manners over years, increase in sensitivity and increase squishiness occurred.

• Nouveau rich (portion of middle class able to gain economic prosperity)

  • became as rich as rich as upper-class/nobility

    • this upset upper class cause upper class believed they were different/better/superior and wanted to show that they are better than someone who came from peasantry

  • upper class sought other ways to distinguish themselves from rich ex peasants by engaging in manners since they couldn’t be separated by wealth/prosperity

  • nouveau rich copied these new upper class behaviours. groups indistinguishable again

  • upper class kept changing mannerisms (kept moving goal posts) to maintain class distinction

  • women in nobility class were mostly the ones to start the change for the nobility class

• mannerisms tended to move in a direction away from animalistic behaviours.

  • elites thought anyone not them behaved like animals.

  • to maintain class distinction from nouveau rich, elites stopped engaging in animalistic like behaviors

  • problem: some of them were bio needs. or well liked like sex, peeing, or farting. they did it privately instead

    • ppl peed/pooped (bio need) in private and not publicly anymore. eating at the dinner table (liked)- ppl used to eat w hands but then had table manners

• hygiene was NOT the cause of manners

• rules on manners spread from French court (most influential court) across Europe

• After noble class and middle class followed a rule, imitators of these manners passed them to their children (animalistic urges thwarted)

• Institutions like schools, prisons civilize those who refuse to be

• middle earned way to top, decline of monarchies cause of French revolution

  • middle class took over cause they were like why r we listening to these idiots

    • spread to eastern Europe and civilizing “savages” in the colonies cuz white thought they knew what was best

    • colonized world. residential schools

    • process happens with any civilization when they think they’re better ex Chinese

• In 1700s England courts prosecuted any violent conduct and sensitivity to violence grew. violence not tolerated anymore

• war/warfare and capital punishment- went behind the scenes so rise or prisons. capital punishments still used when absolutely necessary

• As life become safer/calmer, even sports became safer

• Social conflict theory of crime by Quinney

  • society is in a constant state of conflict (due to incompatible interests of diverse groups). conflict=structural (above and beyond individuals)

    • For example there aren't a lot of laws protecting consumer. But business people can legally steal off you. There are lots of laws protecting businesses

  • winners of conflict dominate the creation of what is/isn’t defined as criminal/deviant

  • what become criminal=behaviours that conflict with interests of dominant group

  • prof: his theory makes it sound like there is a conference rich ppl go to maintain power

    

• Modern overview of Quinney’s Social Power Theory

  • Laws=aimed at the behaviour of the most powerless groups in society (thru CJS) ex rich vs poor

  • capture of criminals reinforces that powerless r dangerous and deserve to be punished

  • CJS not based on justice/infliction of harm. e.g. nothing seriously is done about global warming (code just concerns the powerful)

  • THUS CRIME IS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED

• Mandela imprisoned for 27 yrs. you’d he did something wrong but he just was a threat to the regime in power in south Africa and stood up for commoners.

• Male, young, and poc get more criminal convictions but that doesn’t mean they commit more crime. get harder punishments in CJS

  • Box argued this is intended to deflect our attention from more serious crimes like wars, environmental damage, or corporate harm

    • wars kills sm more ppl than serial killers

    • companies kill ppl chasing profits and not caring about consumers

  • Media, gov, victim rights groups focus on “typical offender” and promote idea that young ethnic males are crime problem and white males don’t commit crime

    • or powerless=criminals and powerful=not

• Graffiti is seen as a poor person crime but rich do graffiti all the time but its seen more positively like CHALK

• TLDR: Powerful engage in the same illegal activities as powerless but they it is not perceived to most ppl to be criminal.

  • thus powerful don’t see their illegal activities as criminal. ex trump

• Social construction of crime (SCC)= crime is brought into existence by powerful sectors of society who define certain behaviours as criminal

  • crime=what powerful decide is criminal

• What is crime?

  • Legal definition: any behaviour prohibited by the Criminal Code of Canada (weakness: it neglects “the basic issue of why and how some acts are legislated as criminal, while others remain subject only to informal controls” (Muncie, 2002).

  • Social Norms definition: is any behaviour that violates social norms (Sutherland, 1949). Everyone agrees murder should and, as a result, is a crime

  • Social Constructionist definition: “Crime” is that behaviour that so defined by those who have the power to do so (Walklate, 2005; Criminology: The Basics). This definition explains exactly why and how some acts are legislated as criminal, while others remain subject only to informal controls.

WEEK 4 LEC 10-12 bio/psych theories, positivists, structural theories, Durkheim, Merton, strain theory, structural functionalism, differential opportunity theory (Cloward/Ohlin), Quinney’s Social Power Conflict theory, feminist theory

• Biological theories attributed deviant behaviour to biological abnormalities and predispositions (order from oldest to youngest)

  • Lombroso-criminals r like primitive beings that resemble their ape like ancestors; women are inferior to men; deviant behaviour is innate-thus the born criminal

    • If the case what do we do with those born a deviant.

    • To eliminate them: They rounded these born deviant people up and put them ships and shipped them away to the U.S and then Australia

      • Why didn’t Australia become a criminal nation if these ppl were actually born deviant. Why didn’t the UK become crime free

    • What happens if you can't relocate these born criminals ? Then they killed them like in the Holocaust

  • Goring and Hooton- Physical inferiorities are indicative of criminal types

  • Sheldon- criminals are more active, muscular, and aggressive than non criminals

  • More recently: genetic predisposition to crime- XYY syndrome creates a double male or super male w an apparent predisposition for violence

  • Psychological: attempts to link certain personalities to deviant acts (e.g. Freud)

• Problems with bio/psych explanations of deviance

  • many muscular men who look like criminals DO NOT do criminal activity

  • not all people w an extra Y chromosome are criminals

  • they ignore environmental and social forces and only focus on individuals

• Bio/Psych theories are positivist, suggesting scientific methods are needed to deal with social problems like deviance

• Positivists assume

  • deviance/crime= sign of something wrong in individual

  • scientific methods reveal truths about criminals and deviants

    • Associated with medicalization of deviance too.

    • Appealing to logic

  • empirical research should diagnose the cause of crime and then make recs for its treatment and eventual eradication

• 1st structural theory: structural functionalism: Durkheim

  • shifted attention on crime/deviance from the individual to social (thus structural) forces

  • advanced the view that society is a moral phenomenon

    • morality (norms,vals,laws) acquired in childhood.

    • conform through adulthood and pass it on

    • high social integration(close ties w all = tighter communities w low deviance; highly conformist)

  • modern society distanced people; ss disintegration, more anomie. ill defined norms promotes crime/deviance

  • also says deviance is functional (healthy) for society. deviants have functional role

    • violation of norms=rise of ss response (public outrage) rooted in collective conscience or moral belief

    • public response=reminds ppl what is acceptable/isn’t just like Erikson’s boundary maintenance

  • says a society exempt from crime is impossible cuz new sources of criminality would pop up & we’d be intolerant of more stuff

  • for crime to be totally eliminated, collective values would have to be so rigid and universally adhered that they would impede on innovation; society becomes static

    

• Merton’s typology: 5 quadrants 2nd structural theory is Strain Theory

  • Accept institutionalized means+ accept cultural goals= conformity- believes way to be successful, accept institutionalized means to achieving cultural goal ex middle class going to uni to get a job

  • Rejects institutionalized means +accept cultural goals to be successful =innovation-

    

    Lack of structurally generated opportunities is the reason we have crime he argues

  • Accept institution, reject cultural= ritualism. ex They think going to uni is silly but still goes but has no ambition to climb the ladder

  • reject institution and reject cultural= retreatism ex: outcasts, addicted homeless

  • new goals + new means= rebellion. accept and reject institution and cultural

• Summarizing above strain theory

  • located crime/deviance in structure of society. culture dictates certain goals for all like being successful ex American dream

  • but legitimate access to success limited by roadblocks

    • poor housing, education, stigma, stereotypes, political power

  • Those excluded from legitimate opportunities—lower class—retaliate by pursuing illegitimate ‘deviant’ alternative means to success (they engage in “innovation” to get around the roadblocks), like crime

    • The structural inequality between the upper and lower class hints at a cultural contradiction

    • lack of structural opportunities and structural roadblocks generates crime/deviance in the lower class

• 3rd Structural Theory: Differential Opportunity theory - Cloward and Ohlin

  • Merton was correct in saying some groups have fewer opportunities to become legitimately successful but WRONG cause he assumed all members of excluded groups could choose illegal opportunities

    • not all disadvantaged persons have the same opportunity for participating in illegitimate activities

  • 3 types of deviant opportunities

    • criminal- rise from a persons access to deviant subculture (Merton)

    • conflict- attract a person w a propensity for violence

    • retreatist- persons (drug users) who week to withdraw from society

• 4th Structural Theory: Quinney’s Social Power Conflict theory

  • Society is pluralistic, heterogenous, and conflictual-many groups w many interests

  • conflict= incompatible interests of the diverse groups

  • behaviours of the powerless that threaten the interests of the power r criminalized/ deemed deviant

  • law=weapon used by powerful for their own interests and is enforced by police

  • poverty pushes the powerless to commit crime

• 5th Structural Theory: Feminist Theory

  • Patriarchal structure of society is responsible for the discrimination and oppression of women

  • Patriarchy pervades culture, social structures, and social institutions—which are inherently sexist

    • This includes the law, family, economy, political system, religion, the media, and education systems

  • As a result, women are systematically disadvantaged and subject to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse rarely experienced by men

  • Feminists maintain theories of society and deviance in general are exclusively male-centered (no/little mention of women)

    WEEK 4 PT 2 LEC 12 Cultural/subcultural theory, reaction theory, delinquent boys, Miller Lower Class Culture Theory, interactionist perspective/theories, Differential Association Theory, drift theory(Matza),Nehemiah Manufacturing , Travis Hirschi’s Control Theory of Delinquency

• Cultural or subcultural theory

  • pointed out that dominant/subordinate groups r not the only ones in conflict

  • argued that there r social, religious, political, and ethnic factions too

  • and each group has its distinct norms and values; its own subculture

  • thus building on conflict theory’s view that multiple groups exist in society, subcultural theorist pointed to factions within and across such groups

• Example of subcultural theory; Albert Cohen’s reaction theory of delinquent boys

  • focuses on young working class males who develop own sub cultural value system within the dominant American culture

  • institutions like schools have some boys trying but failing to fulfil their teachers’ middle class expectations since they r ill-equipped to meet these diff standards

• Consequence of Albert Cohen’s reaction theory of delinquent boys

  • Many fail to meet middle class standards and experience status frustration

  • due to rejection/failure they form own norms/values-their own subculture

  • end result=inversion of middle class norms that r reactive

• Reaction theory parallels civilizing process

• 2nd example of subculture theory: Miller Lower Class Culture Theory

  • Miller agreed tat lower classes r in natural discord w middle class values

  • to attain status among peers, lower class has own subculture

    • includes getting into trouble, being tough, street smarts

    

• Problem w all above theories is that no bridge btw structural/subcultural and the actual deviant acts like individuals. no link btw macro and micro forces

  • siblings can turn out so differently even when raised in some environment

Interactionist Theories

• Interactionist perspective

  • tease out the social psychological forces ( interactions btw peoples)

  • better explains why siblings turn out differently for ex

• 1st Interactionist theory by Sutherland and Cressey; Differential Association Theory

  • Posits that deviant behaviour is socially learned (ex friends/family)

  • the more a persons intimates engages in deviance, the greater the probability they will be too.

  • Every theory before this point assume poor ppl are crime problem but this theory explains why upper class can criminals too. If you work with wealthy crooks you might become one too despite ur upper class background

  • When criminal behaviour is learned the learning process includes

    • the dissemination of certain techniques relating to the committing of particular crime

      • 

    • the acquisition of particular motives and drives as well as attitudes/rationalizations that aid in the justification of ones actions

      • If you come from a family of robbers at some point they'll convince you that their actions are justified and rational and good.

• 2nd Interactionist Theory: Drift Theory Matza

  • movement into deviant subcultures occurs slowly, people drift into deviance

  • initially during process, a person sways between deviance and conformity. dual life maintained but eventually choice is made deviant or conventionality

  • if they choose a deviant lifestyle their old circle of associates is gradually left as one becomes enmeshed into the new group

• 3rd Interactionist Theory: Travis Hirschi’s Control Theory of Delinquency

  • Assumes delinquency occurs when an individuals bond to society is weak or broken; gang members

  • argues that is not necessary to ask WHY people commit deviance (obviously deviance is fun and easy)

  • instead ask why do ppl conform? what holds ppl back from committing deviance (and promotes conformity)

  • Hirschi’s answer: ss control resides in the extent to which ppl develop a stake in conformity and a bond to society

    • Religion, getting people married, teaching to use their skills goodly. You increase their bond to society to get them to conform

  • such persons will be likely to risk loss of job, friends, family, and thus avoid deviance and conform willingly

  • the more society is able to foster greater social bonds and a greater stake in conformity, the less deviance there will be

  • 4 elements that strengthen deviants bond to society

    • Attachment-bond to others, family, pro social friends

    • Commitment- investment in pursuit of things important to them like getting an education, starting a family, growing a business

    • involvement- in conventional activities limit time to engage in deviance. like clubs, sports, programs

    • belief- control theory assumes the existence of a common value system within society or group. but greater a persons acceptance of a set of norms the less likely they are to violate them (thus more conformity)

• Nehemiah Manufacturing Co- Company that only hire criminals

  • It is hard to get a job as a felon in the States. It is a big deal when u do get an opportunity and you don't want to lose that. Differential association also shows if you hang around with felons are hard working and changing their life you will too. Drift theory could be applied. They're slowly acclimatizing to the new life style

    Company gives self esteem in felons and gives them the boost to change their life.

LEC 8 Perspectives on deviance, Hendershott’s Absolutist argument, 4th Interactionist theory- Relativist/Reactionist Labelling Theory Becker, differential enforcement , Creating deviants has a 3 steps:

• 4 main perspectives

  • Normative (Merton)- focuses on the deviant act and actor

  • Absolutist-focuses on the deviant act and actor

  • Relativist/Reactionist (Becker)- Ss constructionist approach

  • Social power (Quinney)- Ss constructionist approach

• Ss constructionist approach- focuses on the way norms are created, under what conditions and importantly who-which audience-applies the norms

• Hendershott’s Absolutist argument

  • Rapidly changing society from industrialization stimulated anomie (normlessness). peasants/immigrants coming to big city for work. normlessness stimulated deviance among those immigrants/peasants

  • boundaries needed to be communicated to newcomers to promote stability

  • policy makers were willing to introduce ss policies that communicate do’s/don’t

  • globalization today is like then (19thC) but now middle class don’t criticize newcomers and willingness to assert what is deviant or no has gone

  • for example inability of middle class people to criticize the frequency of out of wedlock marriage in black communities and this cased poverty, crime etc

  • he agrees testing moral boundary can be good like the civil rights movement

  • Individuals need strong moral compass and confusion over norms stimulate moral panics/protests. strong boundaries promote conformity cuz ppl worry about what others think

  • hard principles of moral consensus must be constructed and imposed no matter what

  • says Christianity is the way forward too

  • talks about evil (but evil is relative so a criticism)

• 4th Interactionist theory Relativist/Reactionist Labelling Theory Becker

  • argues the essence of deviance is not in the act but in the response of the audience to these acts

  • deviance is constructed by diverse audiences-lots of different groups with different perspective

  • the same act may be deviant in one place/time but normal during another

    • 9/11 vs Chile 9/11, USA did the same thing to Chile and it wasn’t a big deal but the 9/11 in the states is huge

  • Relativists/Reactionists argue absolutism

    • Assumes deviants are a distinct group based on their behaviour.

    • ignores that the audience generates rules that ends up creating deviants

  • Relativists/Reactionists argue

    • No act has inherent qualities that render something indisputably deviant across all times and all places

    • The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that ppl so label

  • U can’t assume deviants r a distinct homogenous group cause some ppl who have not broken any rules/laws may be labelled deviant; eg innocent black men hounded by police

    • some groups of ppl who engage in deviance mysteriously escape . differential enforcement of certain groups

      • ex rich ppl evade apprehension

    • rules are applied to some ppl more than others; classism, racism, sexism

  • Becker interested in labelling process; who’s in, escapes, why, and consequences, deviance doesn’t exist in the behaviour itself but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it.

  • Negative labels can become a persons master status. if a good dad was a criminal then criminal would become his master status.

  • being deviant can stimulate Erikson’s self fulfilling prophecy

    • its hard to get a job after being a criminal. ppl don’t trust u, pushes them back into community of crime. police look for ppl w a criminal history 1st and this reinforces criminal perception of them

  • Becker’s problem w absolutist: deviance is relative not absolute. deviance and morals change across time and space

  • Problem with Becker: CJS has do something about crime and can’t not label ppl, doesn’t explain why initial crime occurred

  • SOCIETY CREATES CRIME. OTHERS DEFINE BEHVIOUR BEFORE IT CAN TAKE ON A SOCIAL VALUE OR RIGHT OR WRONG

  • Creating deviants has a 3 steps:

    • act must be defined as deviant

    • actor must be defined as a deviant person

    • actor must accept the label of deviant and define themselves as deviant

WEEK 5 LECTURE 5, 13 LABELLING THEORY, Gangster Paradise, Tannenbaum, Lemert Societal Reaction, the fall of labelling theories, constructionist stance and domain

• 

• Gangster Paradise- Youth Gang called killer bees who try and base themselves off the big hardcore gangs they see on tv. They drop out of school and are happy about robbing people, fighting, stealing, and being deviant overall

  • Drift theory-They have no structure in their families and they drift into the gangs cause they nothing else

  • Strain theory-They want to get money don't go thru regular route so do whatever they can to make money

  • Power Conflict theory- People find them intimidating but people also find police intimidating so they (gang) don’t think their wrong.

• Another example of labelling theory

  • When people especially those in authority say nice things about u - leads you to do more positive things and work hard and has a positive effect on ur life and self image.

    If people say nasty things about you you're going to associate that with yourself. Especially when those things embedded in official records that follow u around even when u change. Like criminal record, hospital records. Such labels can scare people and effect their behaviour and the label brings about a self fulfilling prophecy and they end being what ppl see them as

• Lemert Societal Reaction- another labelling theory

  • Primary deviance: a minor norm violation which may not evoke an official response- Just getting up to mischief

  • Secondary deviance: an official response where deviance becomes public knowledge and the person is labelled a criminal/deviant- Getting caught in mischief

  • So what causes the shift from Primary to Secondary deviance? The “reactions of others”

    • Brings back when we talked about normative perspective and how the audience reacts

  • “as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him” a primary deviant may engage in further deviance

• Labelling Theory Criticisms

  • inconsequential in criminogenic conditions

  • criminality emerges before state intervention

  • can’t explain why primary deviance took place

  • policy suggestion: don’t label- what about juveniles who commit murder

  • when they did the don’t policy crime did not go down

• Labelling theories led to diversion policies where u let go after ur first crime to u get diverted away from more crime.

  • Builds on labeling theory and social power theory

  • Constructionism traces back to two developments

    • 1. Berger and Luckmann’s - The Ss construction of reality

      • book shows how ss life shapes everything ppl know

      • introduced ss constructionism term to wide audience

      • ss constructionism suggests that is through ss interaction that problems are assigned particular meaning

• 2. The dominant approach to studying deviance in 1960s

  • Labelling people says audience is the problem. Conflict people says it’s the powerful in the audience that dictate deviance

  • Labelling theory was attacked because:

    • Conflict theorists—like Richard Quinney—pointed the finger at society’s elites (L.T. was ambiguous about the labelers’ identity)...

    • Elites, conflict theorists argued, shaped definitions of deviance

      Feminists charged labeling theory with ignoring the victimization of women by men

    • Gay rights activists and others argued they were political minorities, not deviants

• Consequence of all this?

  • Some labeling-oriented sociologists began to move away from the study of deviance and into the area of how and why particular ‘social issues’ emerged as topics of concern

  • The constructionist approach started to direct attention of researchers to:

    • ‘claims’ about certain social issues—e.g. binge drinking

    • who these ‘claims makers’ were—e.g. powerful political/economic elites or activists (that is, taking a very close look at the powerful ‘audience’)

    • how these issues were ‘constructed’—e.g. by the media/policy makers

  • 

• What constructionist are interested in when studying deviance

  • study social problems; illicit drugs and family violence

  • many constructionist traced the rise of ss problems by claims makers on the larger macro level factors

    • war on drugs or medicalization of deviance for ex

  • Other constructionists looked at social problems on the micro level: the destructive acts of individual police officers, ss works, and other

• Construtionism’’s Domain

  • today this approach is an influential stance in the study of emergence, evolution, and ss control of deviance (both on macro and micro levels)

  • it emphasizes the interpretation of various persons-claims makers or moral entrepreneurs- and how they assign meaning and make sense of certain behaviours as deviant

  • these claims makers’/moral entrepreneurs tend to be powerful people- issue of power is central