Скачать презентацию Deviance Alternatives to Social Control Some Conclusions Скачать презентацию Deviance Alternatives to Social Control Some Conclusions

bebb951d10eb686a7f7f5af98490bcf6.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 24

Deviance: Alternatives to Social Control Some Conclusions Deviance: Alternatives to Social Control Some Conclusions

Types of theories of Deviance Cohen (1966) Actor a) kinds of people (bio/psych (temperament)) Types of theories of Deviance Cohen (1966) Actor a) kinds of people (bio/psych (temperament)) b) developmental background (personality development, learning, parental upbringing) Situational c) kinds of situations “in the moment”“normal” person responds in a deviant way cause of extreme stress, provocation, temptation, opportunity. Actor & d) conjunctive (a certain combination of factors Situation together produces deviance, e. g. weak character coupled with opportunity) e) interactive process- a series of interactions over time may eventually lead to a deviant outcome…a feeling out process, never fully developed by the past alone but always capable of changing its course in response to changes in the current scene.

Motivation To Deviate Deviance Generalization Activation of motivation: Of motivation: 1) Opportunity 1) Socialization Motivation To Deviate Deviance Generalization Activation of motivation: Of motivation: 1) Opportunity 1) Socialization 2) Social control (external) a)inadequate-didn’t or couldn’t learn appropriate ways of behavoring-bio/ Psychological defects b)inappropriate-learned the wrong ways(differential Assn) 2) Strain (Structural, Psychological, social) Stephenson 1978 Deviant Assignment of deviant status: 1) Visibility 2) Responses, accept deviant label, i. e. secondary deviance

Social Control Is a set of means of ensuring that people generally behave in Social Control Is a set of means of ensuring that people generally behave in expected and approved ways. ü Customs ü Moral code ü Law

Types of social control • Informal and formal • Positive (i. e. reward for Types of social control • Informal and formal • Positive (i. e. reward for appropriate behavior) and negative sanctions (i. e. punishment for bad inappropriate behavior) Capital punishment=formal negative sanction Ostracism=informal negative sanction Pat on the back=informal positive sanction Law and Social Control

Social Control Process • • • Deviance is not a property inherent in certain Social Control Process • • • Deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behavior/belief system/physical characteristic; it is a attribute that is conferred upon these forms by an audience. It involves an intricate process of selection/screening. A miscreant conforms in most of his/her daily behavior (e. g. may take good care of their mother, obey traffic regulations). It is when he/she acts offensively that society reacts with sanctions. A few scattered moments of deviance can get a person defined as a “full-time” deviant. A social norm is rarely expressed as a firm rule or official code. It is an abstract synthesis of societal sentiment. It retains its validity only if it enforced on a regular basis. Deviance in controlled quantities is important for preserving the stability of society. The social control institutions must constantly get their “message” broadcast. (e. g. in medieval times-public executions, today it is a media blitz). Status Degradation Ceremonials (Garfinkel, 1956)-change status from normal to deviant. 3 phases: confrontation, judgment , and placement (assigning the deviant role).

Banning Process • Perceived threat-indentify problematic behavior/group • Create a shared sense of dangerous Banning Process • Perceived threat-indentify problematic behavior/group • Create a shared sense of dangerous • Problematic behavior/group will spiral out of control, it will spread and infect the whole society • Create a “moral panic” (Stanley Cohen, 1972), use experts, statistics, media campaign • Identify “folk devils” (us vs them mentality) • Institute a ban or make a rule/law to crackdown on behavior

Aims of punishment (is based on a social control model) Deterrence 1) specific (stops Aims of punishment (is based on a social control model) Deterrence 1) specific (stops an individual committing a deviant act) ultimate specific deterrence is capital punishment 2) general (convinces those who have not violated a norm to forego the temptation to do so). Incapacitation/Isolation-prevent individual from committing deviance, remove them from society. Rehab/reform- based on the notion of a sick individual; involves the transformation of individual, alter their deviant impulses, change them into acceptable members of society. Retribution-revenge, lex talionis ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth")

Alternatives to Punishment • Radical non-intervention- Do nothing since labeling may increase deviance • Alternatives to Punishment • Radical non-intervention- Do nothing since labeling may increase deviance • Judicious intervention-Do only what is needed • Decriminalize drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes. • Redefinition-define deviance away • Diversion • Deinstitutionalization • Harm reduction-addicts cannot control their behavior overnight, reduce social harm to them and to society • Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice (Braithwaite, 1996) • Restorative justice means restoring victims, a more victim-centered criminal Restorative Justice (Braithwaite, 1996) • Restorative justice means restoring victims, a more victim-centered criminal justice system, as well as restoring offenders and restoring community. First, what does restoring victims mean? It means restoring the property loss or the personal injury, repairing the broken window or the broken teeth …It means restoring a sense of security. Even victims of property crimes such as burglary often suffer a loss of security when the private space of their home is violated. When the criminal justice system fails to leave women secure about walking alone at night, half the population is left unfree in a rather fundamental sense. • Victims suffer loss of dignity when someone violates their bodies or shows them the disrespect of taking things which are precious to them. Sometimes this disrespectful treatment engenders victim shame: "He abused me rather than some other woman because I am trash", "She stole my dad's car because I was irresponsible to park it in such a risky place". Victim shame often triggers a shame-rage spiral wherein victims reciprocate indignity with indignity through vengeance or by their own criminal acts.

RESTORING VICTIMS * Restore property loss * Restore injury * Restore sense of security RESTORING VICTIMS * Restore property loss * Restore injury * Restore sense of security * Restore dignity * Restore sense of empowerment * Restore deliberative democracy * Restore harmony based on a feeling that justice has been done * Restore social support

Social Exclusion vs Inclusion • Deviance is about social exclusion. • Certain powerful/influence groups Social Exclusion vs Inclusion • Deviance is about social exclusion. • Certain powerful/influence groups have the power to tag/label and ultimately exclude those who appear to be different (in terms of their appearance, actions or beliefs). • Society must strive to social include the marginalized and stigmatized

Braithwaite • While initially forwarded by Braithwaite in 1989, theory has since been operationalised Braithwaite • While initially forwarded by Braithwaite in 1989, theory has since been operationalised by Makkai and Braithwaite (1994) as involving four main facets. These contend that an intervention embraces reintegrative shaming when it involves: • 1. Disapproval of the offence while sustaining a relationship of respect; • 2. Ceremonies to certify deviance terminated by ceremonies to decertify deviance; • 3. Disapproval of the evil of the deed without labelling the person as evil; and • 4. Not allowing deviance to become a master status trait • (Makkai and Braithwaite 1994).

Reintegrative Shaming vs Stigmatization (Braithwaite) Reintegrative shaming - communicates disapproval within a continuum of Reintegrative Shaming vs Stigmatization (Braithwaite) Reintegrative shaming - communicates disapproval within a continuum of respect for the offender; the offender is treated as a good person who has done a bad deed. Stigmatization is disrespectful shaming; the offender is treated as a bad person. Stigmatization is unforgiving— the offender is left with the stigma permanently, whereas reintegrative shaming is forgiving—ceremonies to certify deviance are terminated by ceremonies to decertify deviance. Put another way, societies that are forgiving and respectful while taking crime seriously have low crime rates; societies that degrade and humiliate criminals have higher crime rates.

 • Braithwaite’s model of Reintegrative Shaming is borrowed from indigenous societies of Asia • Braithwaite’s model of Reintegrative Shaming is borrowed from indigenous societies of Asia and Africa. • The evidence is strong that North American families that confront wrongdoing while sustaining relationships of love and respect for their children are the families most likely to raise law-abiding citizens (see Braithwaite, 1989: 71 -83). Laissez-faire families that fail to confront or that just “natter” at misbehavior (Patterson, 1982) and stigmatizing families that reject and degrade both experience a lot of misbehavior(Baumrind, 1971, 1978).

Braithwaite employs the following theories in his model of reintegrative shaming • Delinquent subcultures Braithwaite employs the following theories in his model of reintegrative shaming • Delinquent subcultures reinforce and support deviance. • Social control theory-helps in reclaiming deviants • Labeling Theory-he says that receive undue “bad rep” and unfair criticisms in the 80’s, it is a powerful lens to study deviance and for reversing stigma • Differential Association-can be used to explain adoption of deviant motivations but also to reverse unfavorable definitions of the law

Why Should Stigmatization Make Things Worse? When there is stigmatization, we have just seen Why Should Stigmatization Make Things Worse? When there is stigmatization, we have just seen that the propositions of subcultural theory are more likely to come true. In contrast, when people shame us in a degrading way, this poses a threat to our identity. One way we can deal with threat is to reject our rejectors. Once I have labeled them as dirt, does it matter that they regard me as dirt? There is a profound connection here between theory of reintegrative shaming and subcultural theory in criminology. When respectable society rejects me, I have a status problem; I am in the market for a solution to this status problem. Criminal subcultures can supply that solution. Albert Cohen (1955), for example, speaks of a child who does poorly at school as rejected in the status system of a school that values respect for property and control of aggression. A delinquent subculture of children who have been similarly rejected by the status system of the school can proffer a collective solution to that status problem. • Stigmatization therefore increases the attractiveness of criminal subcultures. Disrespect begets disrespect. Because you don’t respect me, I won’t respect you or the rules you value. I have no hope of eeking out a respected identity under your values; delinquent subcultures look more promising to me as a basis for respect. Criminal subcultures neutralize the shame that would otherwise be experienced as a result of lawbreaking.

When shaming is reintegrative, the propositions of control theory are more likely to be When shaming is reintegrative, the propositions of control theory are more likely to be true. By this I mean that attachment to parents and other agents of conventional morality is more likely to reduce crime. Young people are more likely to continue to believe in the rules those agents of conventional morality uphold and to be influenced by them. Labeling theory is obviously the other mainstream theory that has the conditions of its validity specified by theory of reintegrative shaming. Labelling, according to theory, will actually reduce crime when it is respectful, focused on the act rather than the person and where disapproval is terminated by ceremonies of forgiveness and apology. It will only make things worse when it is stigmatizing. Differential Assn. _ Reintegrative shaming is the key process for communicating definitions unfavourable to crime. Stigmatization pushes the stigmatized away from those definitions and into the clutches of criminal subcultures that communicate definitions favourable to crime—e. g. “rich people can afford to be robbed and they themselves rob people like me all the time by their rip-offs”.

Key sites for Reintegration • Families-It is family, friends that we love that have Key sites for Reintegration • Families-It is family, friends that we love that have the most influence over us. This squares with Social Control theory. Families/close friends can be extremely important in reintegrating and de-labeling an individual. • Schools/Church • Indigenous communities Lars and the Real Girl

Coping with Deviance/Stigma • Become an over-achiever, try to appear as normal • Conceal, Coping with Deviance/Stigma • Become an over-achiever, try to appear as normal • Conceal, try to pass as “normal’ • Deny or ignore the label • Appeal for special accomodation • Scapegoating other deviants • Redefine their deviance as a positive attribute • Use of mutual aid or self-help groups • Organize politically (i. e. use identity politics)-call for acceptance or redefinition

Stickiness and persistent of a label • At the same time, a hundred non-deviant Stickiness and persistent of a label • At the same time, a hundred non-deviant acts may not be enough to earn someone the recognition of non-deviance. As Lofland (1969, p. 210) writes, ‘‘Long years of truly exemplary conformity or even hyperconformity and stellar service to society may be required’’ before the stigma of having been an ‘‘offender’’ can be lifted.

Reverse Labeling • Not only must a person accept conventional society in order to Reverse Labeling • Not only must a person accept conventional society in order to go straight, but conventional society must accept that person as well. • Desistance or de-labeling needs to occur • Status elevation ceremony • Praising the virtues of the person rather than their acts nourishes a positive identity.

Goals of course • Demystify deviance • Demystify sociology-sociology as a lived in experience Goals of course • Demystify deviance • Demystify sociology-sociology as a lived in experience not just jargon and concepts. • Appreciation of deviance • Tolerance and Understanding • Some Deviants may be social pioneers to a new and better society.

There is always Hope There is always Hope