Unit 11 Summary.docx

Unit 11 Summary Defining Deviance and Social Control This unit focuses on social control, deviance, and crime. Social control is the process by which society regulates people’s thoughts and behaviors. This process is facilitated by various institutions and agents, including parents, employers, teachers, religious leaders, mental hospitals, judicial systems, and the military. The unit emphasizes that social control is not an institution itself, but a process housed within institutions. It makes behavior predictable and is most evident in physical forms, such as sidewalks and highways, which guide our behaviors. The unit uses the metaphor of “staying in your lane” to illustrate the concept of social control. The unit also discusses the ultimate form of social control, where thoughts are regulated to ultimately control behaviors. This is exemplified by the situation in Ukraine post-communism, where the presence of soldiers was not needed on the streets because control was exercised internally, within people’s minds. During the communist era, approximately one in every five people was a KGB agent tasked with reporting any disagreement or complaint against the government, leading to potential arrest. This highlights the extent to which social control can be exerted in a society. If one in every five people in your reference groups (friends, family, colleagues, etc.) could report on you and potentially land you in prison, it would significantly change your life. The fear and uncertainty of not knowing who a KGB agent might be, even among close family members, is a profound form of social control that continues to affect people’s thoughts and behaviors long after the end of communism. Social control is usually, but not always, successful. People tend to follow rules and norms because they have internalized them, even when there are no immediate consequences for breaking them. However, people also violate social norms at times, indicating that social control is not always successful. The text further discusses the high degree of social control experienced during the COVID pandemic, which kept people from being with their dying loved ones and separated families. This level of social control is now part of the Canadian and, in many cases, the global experience. This underscores the power of social control in shaping behaviors and the complexity of its impact on individuals and societies. The text introduces the concept of deviance, which is defined as engaging in activity that is abnormal and elicits a societal reaction. Deviance is more than just non-conformity; it involves a negative social reaction to something. For an act to be considered deviant, it must break social control and elicit a negative societal reaction. The text uses the metaphor of a yellow ladybug among red ladybugs to illustrate this concept. If the yellow ladybug’s color doesn’t elicit any reaction from the red ladybugs, it’s not considered deviant. But if the red ladybugs start excluding the yellow one and gossiping, that’s a societal reaction, making the yellow ladybug’s color a deviant trait. Deviance usually involves a public effort to change the deviant behavior and punish the individual if they don’t conform. The text emphasizes that deviance is pejorative and requires a negative societal reaction. It also clarifies that being different or disreputable doesn’t necessarily make someone deviant unless their difference elicits a negative societal reaction. For instance, a woman with many piercings is different, but whether this qualifies as deviance depends on the societal reaction to her choice. If she faces negative reactions that significantly affect her social world, her choice could be considered deviant. However, if there are groups of people who don’t care about her piercings, then it wouldn’t be deviance. While deviance involves a departure from societal norms, it doesn’t automatically equate to being perverse or degenerate. It’s more about societal reactions to non-conformity than about the moral implications of the behavior itself. This distinction is crucial in understanding the concept of deviance from a sociological perspective. The perception of deviance is influenced by various factors. The level of disapproval attached to deviance depends on its harmfulness or danger, intent, persistence, and the individual’s competence. For instance, running across a busy highway is seen as deviant due to its danger. However, if it’s done to save a child, the act is viewed less negatively. Persistent deviance deepens disapproval, such as a person continuously running across highways for no reason. The competence of the individual can also affect whether their actions are seen as deviant. Competence in relation to deviance refers to an individual’s ability to understand and adhere to societal norms and expectations. If a person lacks the competence to understand these norms due to factors such as neurodiversity or mental illness, their non-conforming behavior might not be classified as deviant. This is because their actions may not be a conscious or intentional decision to violate societal norms, but rather a result of their different cognitive processing or understanding. Arguably, then, these individuals are not in a position to make better decisions. On the other hand, for an action to be considered deviant, it usually needs to be a conscious or intentional violation of societal norms. This means that the individual is aware of the norm and makes a deliberate choice to go against it. For example, if someone intentionally runs across a busy highway for the thrill of it, knowing that it’s dangerous and against societal expectations, this act is considered deviant. Deviance is also highly dependent on societal agreement. The stronger the group consensus on a norm violation, the higher the level of disapproval for the deviant behavior. The text emphasizes that deviance is a relative social construct and can vary in different contexts. It uses the example of fighters in Afghanistan, who were labeled as freedom fighters in 1985 during the Soviet invasion but were labeled as terrorists in 2015 during a U.S. invasion. This illustrates how the same behavior can be labeled differently depending on the context, highlighting the relative nature of deviance. Deviance is not inherent to human behavior or an act itself but is defined by the social context and norms of a particular group, society, or culture. Deviance is relative and can serve a useful purpose, especially when rules are seen as oppressive or harmful. Notable figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman, and Nellie McClung were considered deviants because they challenged oppressive systems, but over time, many people increasingly approved of their actions. This illustrates that deviance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and depends on collective societal perceptions and values. Sociology is less interested in what is being defined as deviance and more focused on understanding how and why something is defined as deviant, and the consequences of this label. It examines the process and impact of defining deviance, both for those doing the defining and those being defined as deviant. This highlights the complex and contextual nature of deviance in sociological studies. Structural-Functionalism and Deviance The text discusses the structural functionalist perspective on deviance, comparing it to the human body where every part has a role to play for the system to function. This perspective suggests that even negative aspects, like deviance, have a role in society. The structural functionalist perspective begins with the structure of social control, which includes societal values and norms. For example, Canadians value equality, achievement, and self-fulfillment, which translate into norms such as non-discrimination in hiring and not stealing from employers. The text acknowledges that while discrimination does exist, societal pressure generally discourages such behavior. Individuals internalize these values and norms, leading to conformity. This internalization means that societal values and norms are carried within individuals, influencing their behavior. The text uses the examples of child labor and treatment of the elderly to illustrate cultural differences in values, norms, and perceptions of deviance. In some cultures, child labor and separate housing for the elderly are normal, while in others, these practices are viewed with horror. The video concludes by highlighting how societal values and norms shape our reactions to social issues, such as homelessness and elder care, and how these reactions can vary significantly across different cultures. The structural functionalist perspective shows that society uses positive and negative sanctions to achieve social control. Positive sanctions are rewards for compliant behavior, such as receiving a degree for successfully completing a course of study. Negative sanctions are coercive methods that force compliance, such as not receiving a degree for failing to complete coursework. Sanctions, both positive and negative, aim to encourage compliant behavior and prevent deviance. They can be formal or informal and are one of the ways society achieves social control. Formal sanctions are codified, organized, regulated, and given by officially designated persons, such as a police officer arresting someone. They can range from public humiliation to severe punishments like the guillotine in the French Revolution. These sanctions are designed to prevent deviance by deterring individuals from repeating deviant behavior and discouraging others from engaging in similar behavior. They may also aim to reform or re-socialize the deviant. Sanctions, both formal and informal, are mechanisms of social control. Informal sanctions are unwritten, casual, unorganized, and spontaneously given by everyone to each other. Examples include admiration from friends for a skill or contribution, which serves as a positive informal sanction that encourages the behavior. Formal sanctions can be positive or negative. Positive formal sanctions include privileges, promotions, payments, and ceremonial awards, such as an honorary doctorate awarded by a university. Negative formal sanctions range from satire, fines, demotions, and firings to more severe punishments like imprisonment and execution. The text discusses informal sanctions, both positive and negative, as mechanisms of social control. Positive informal sanctions include expressions of gratitude, praise, gifts, casual honors, and private admiration between colleagues. These actions make individuals feel appreciated and encourage them to repeat the behavior. Negative informal sanctions can range from office gossip and scolding to ostracism, beatings, or even murder. These actions are intended to discourage the behavior and enforce social control. There are situations where both formal and informal sanctions can apply. For example, a person who drives drunk and causes harm may face formal negative sanctions like fines or imprisonment, and informal negative sanctions like gossip, ostracism, or damage to their public reputation. Sometimes, negative, and positive sanctions can be combined. For instance, a high school student might receive positive informal sanctions from friends for a behavior that is cool, but negative informal sanctions from parents who disapprove of the same behavior. The structural functionalist perspective shows the positive functions of deviance. Deviance can facilitate productivity by cutting through bureaucratic red tape. For instance, an administrative assistant might forge their boss’s signature on paperwork to keep things moving efficiently, which is technically deviant but serves a practical purpose. Deviance can also act as a safety valve, relieving pressure in strict environments. For example, workers might extend their coffee breaks beyond the officially allowed time when their supervisor is not around. This minor deviance can alleviate the strain of a rigid work environment. Furthermore, deviance can clarify rules by testing their boundaries and revealing the consequences of violation. For instance, a teenager might stay out past their midnight curfew to determine if their parents enforce it strictly or with some flexibility. This act of deviance helps clarify the exact expectations around the rule. These examples illustrate how deviance, from a structural functionalist perspective, can serve positive functions in society by enhancing efficiency, relieving social pressure, and clarifying norms. The video discusses the positive functions of deviance from a structural functionalist perspective. Deviance can serve to unite a group, creating increased social solidarity. This can occur when a group bands together to oppose a deviant member, or when they work together to help a deviant member make better decisions. Deviance can also unite a group when a member defies norms in a way that the group appreciates. Another positive function of deviance is that it reinforces conformity. By criticizing a deviant, group members indirectly praise and reward each other for their conformity, thereby deepening the degree of social control they’re willing to accept. Deviance can also act as a warning signal that something is wrong with the system. The video uses the example of the suffragettes in the early 1900s, who started protests and gatherings to draw attention to women’s lack of rights. Their deviant actions served as a warning signal that the system needed to change. These examples illustrate how deviance, while often seen as negative, can have positive functions in society by enhancing group cohesion, reinforcing conformity, and signaling the need for systemic change. Conflict Theory and Deviance The video discusses the conflict perspective on deviance, which views social control as a problem. According to this perspective, those with disproportionate power define what is deviant, often labeling those who obstruct their interests as deviant. This labeling process can marginalize and discredit individuals, removing them as obstacles. The video uses the example of laws around theft and bankruptcy to illustrate this point. While it’s illegal for one person to rob another, it’s not illegal to declare bankruptcy and avoid paying debts. This discrepancy raises the question of whose interests such laws protect, suggesting that those in power can manipulate definitions of deviance to their advantage. The conflict perspective asserts that winning groups can advance their interests, gain resources and authority, and establish what is considered deviant. This is likened to the idea that history is written by the winners. In this view, deviance is defined by those in power, highlighting the role of power dynamics in shaping societal norms and perceptions of deviance. For instance, a group of youth damaging property might be labeled as a ‘gang’ or a ‘clique’ depending on their socioeconomic status. The video also discusses the ‘medicalization of deviance’, where behaviors are redefined as medical conditions. This process transforms moral and legal issues into medical matters, changing how deviant behavior is characterized and responded to. When deviant behavior is medicalized, it is redefined as a medical condition rather than a moral failing or criminal act. This can significantly affect a person’s master status. Before medicalization, a person’s deviant behavior might have been their master status. For example, someone who drinks excessively might have been labeled an “derelict” in a derogatory sense, with the label defining their identity and overshadowing all other aspects of their character. However, when the behavior is medicalized, the label changes from a moral judgment to a medical diagnosis. The person is no longer an “derelict” but a “alcoholic”. This shift can help to reduce stigma and change perceptions, as the behavior is now seen as a health issue rather than a character flaw. This shift in perspective can significantly influence how we perceive the individual’s competence, or their ability to understand and adhere to societal norms. This doesn’t necessarily remove the behavior as a master status, but it changes the nature of that status. The person is now defined by a medical condition rather than a moral failing. This can open new avenues for treatment and support and can also change how the person is perceived by others and how they perceive themselves. If a person is labeled a “derelict”, this term often carries negative connotations and societal judgments. It suggests a person who is neglectful, irresponsible, or failing to meet societal norms. The response to such a label might come from law enforcement, social services, or community organizations aimed at addressing issues like homelessness or unemployment. The focus is often on managing the perceived problem behavior, rather than addressing underlying issues. On the other hand, if a person is labeled an “alcoholic”, this is seen as a medical condition. The term “alcoholic” implies a health issue that requires treatment. Therefore, the response is more likely to come from healthcare professionals, such as doctors, therapists, or support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. The focus here is on providing help and treatment for the individual to overcome their addiction. In both cases, the label can shape the individual’s interactions with society and influence their access to resources and support. However, it’s important to remember that these labels can also carry stigma and can oversimplify complex individual experiences. Each person’s situation is unique and should be approached with empathy and understanding. Medicalization of Deviance can be used negatively to dismiss or control people, such as labeling someone’s ideas as “whacked out” due to a supposed personality disorder. The text humorously illustrates this with the example of a road-rage incident being referred to as an “intermittent explosive disorder”. The challenge is to find the balance between useful medical labels and over-medicalization that serves those in power. The text highlights that knowing the rules isn’t enough; one must also understand how and when they’re enforced. It cites the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. and the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada as examples of selective law enforcement. These cases raise questions about who the law serves, and the harm caused by its unequal application. The text suggests that societal status can influence the attention and protection one receives from law enforcement. A Theory of Social Control The text presents a theoretical perspective on social control, focusing on why people conform rather than deviate. The theory suggests that the challenge for society is to make conformity more rewarding than deviance. It proposes that social bonds are the primary causes of conformity. The goal is not to eliminate deviance, but to understand why most people choose to adhere to social control despite the short-term rewards of deviance. It suggests that people are not inherently tempted to do the right thing, but rather talk themselves into it because they want to be seen as good or reliable. The theory seeks to explore how society successfully encourages most people to conform. The theory identifies four main types of social bonds: Attachments: These are stable patterns of interaction between individuals and their significant groups, such as family or coworkers. People care about these groups and what they think of them, which discourages them from breaking norms, especially when they are likely to be caught. The theory suggests that people without significant attachments have less to lose and are therefore more likely to deviate. It also notes that deviance tends to decline with age as people form more attachments over time and become less willing to risk them. Investments: These are the costs already expended in building a satisfactory life. People with more to lose, such as those who are well-established socially, are less likely to risk their investments by deviating. Involvements: The more involved and busier one is in life, the less time and energy they have to deviate. Even when deviance might serve a positive function, such as standing up against injustice, it requires significant energy and motivation that may be hard to muster for those who are already very busy. Beliefs: Deeply held beliefs about how the world should work can also deter deviance. People often suppress their own desires that might lead them to deviate, adhering instead to their convictions about what is morally right. The theory suggests that these social bonds of attachments, investments, involvements, and beliefs make conformity more rewarding than deviance, explaining why most people choose not to deviate. It’s a smaller, more contained theory compared to larger perspectives like structural functionalism and conflict theory, but it provides useful insights into the causes of conformity. Types of Crime The text discusses the complexities of understanding and measuring crime rates. Here are the key points: Definition of Crime: Crime is defined as a violation of a law, which can vary from one country, society, or culture to the next. Measurement of Crime Rates: The measurement of crime rates is more complex than simply counting the number of offenses recorded by the police. The text uses a hypothetical funnel to illustrate this complexity. The “crime funnel” is a concept used to illustrate how the number of crimes committed is much larger than the number of crimes that are reported, prosecuted, and result in a conviction. Out of 1000 crimes, only about 500 might get reported. Of those reported, only 100 might result in an arrest. Of those arrested, only 50 might have enough evidence to be charged. Of those charged, 45 might plead guilty, and 5 might go to trial. Of those that go to trial, 2 might be acquitted. Of the guilty pleas, 32 might go to community corrections, and 16 might result in a prison term. This funnel illustrates how the number of crimes dwindles at each stage of the criminal justice process, leading to a much smaller number of convictions than the total number of crimes committed. Inaccuracy of Crime Rates: Crime rates can change significantly based on the point of measurement (reported crimes, prosecutions, convictions), making them notoriously inaccurate. When hearing about crime rates, it’s important to ask how the rates were collected and at what point in the process they were measured. Alternative Ways to Measure Crime: Crime rates can also be gathered from non-official sources like insurance companies, hospitals, and accounting firms. Other methods include anonymous self-report surveys, victimization surveys, and participant observation. The text emphasizes the need for critical thinking when interpreting crime rates and encourages considering alternative sources and methods of data collection. The text categorizes crimes into three main types: Street Crime: These are traditional illegal behaviors that include violent offenses (like homicide, assault, sexual assault, abduction, robbery) and property offenses (theft without use or threatened use of force). Hate crimes, which are committed against a person based on hate (perhaps due to race, religion, sexual orientation, or political perspective), also fall under this category. Organized Crime: This refers to illegal activities conducted by members of a hierarchically arranged group or structure, primarily for monetary gain. Examples include the Mafia and other gangs involved in illegal activities. Corporate Crime (or Suite Crime): These are crimes committed in the interest of maximizing profit, even if it involves breaking the law. Corporate crime is sometimes called White Collar Crime and often involve large amounts of money or causing significant harm. They can involve: Powerful leaders using their positions to violate laws and norms for personal gain. Businesses engaging in backdoor monopolies or administrative coalitions and compromises. Transnational corporations breaking laws within their complex organizational structures. Failure to provide information, file reports, or obtain appropriate permits. Violation of environmental standards, such as failing to install controls or pumping toxins into rivers. Financial crimes like tax evasion. Labor-related crimes like discriminatory practices, wage exploitation, and failure to protect employee health and safety. Unfair trade practices like false advertising, price fixing, and bid rigging. Using compromised materials in manufacturing, breaking market standards and regulations, and hiding illegal activities Cybercrime: This involves violations of the law where digital devices are the target or means of criminal activity. Examples include hacking, identity theft, virus scams, fraud, pirated software, extortion, and sextortion. Government Crime: These are crimes committed by governments, ranging from indiscriminate mass bombings to genocides. The text cites current conflicts, historical injustices against indigenous populations, and political corruption as examples. Police Crime: This refers to criminal activities committed by police officers; the very people given the power to enforce laws. The text raises the question of who will regulate these regulators, guard the guardians of our law, and control the agents of social control. The text emphasizes the complexity of these issues and the difficulty of finding solutions, highlighting the need for vigilance and accountability at all levels of society. The Criminal Justice System The conversation discusses the criminal justice system, particularly in the Canadian context. It highlights the following points: Injustice in the System: The criminal justice system often reflects societal injustices. In Canada, despite Indigenous people making up about 4% of the population, they constitute 25% of the adult male prison population. This disparity raises questions about selective law enforcement and generational trauma. Rationales for Punishment: The criminal justice system operates on various rationales for punishment: Retribution: This is an act of moral vengeance by society, subjecting an offender to suffering comparable to their crime. It’s the “eye for an eye” approach, often used in justice systems with the death penalty. Deterrence: This approach aims to discourage criminality through punishment. It assumes human behavior is rational and that unpleasant consequences will deter repeat offenses. However, high reoffending rates in Canada suggest deterrence may not be entirely effective. Rehabilitation: This approach focuses on the needs of the offender, aiming to prevent reoffending through education, job training, therapy, and other forms of support. It’s particularly used with youth offenders in Canada. Incapacitation: This involves rendering the offender incapable of committing further offenses, often through incarceration or more severe measures like the death penalty. The goal is to ensure they can no longer commit another crime. Restorative Justice: This is a different approach that focuses on the harm done to individuals and communities, rather than just the violation of state laws. It seeks to foster dialogue between the offender and the victim, considering the needs of both parties and the community. The aim is to restore both the victim and the offender, focusing on their needs rather than simply punishing the offender. This approach asks questions like “Who has been hurt?”, “What are their needs?”, and “Whose obligations are these needs?”. While traditional methods often focus on punishing the offender and deterring future crimes, restorative justice emphasizes healing for the victims, community, and offender, and repairing the harm caused by the crime. Restorative justice is more victim and community-centered compared to traditional methods. It seeks to address the root causes of crime and aims to reintegrate offenders back into society in a constructive manner. The conversation invites reflection on these aspects of the criminal justice system and their effectiveness in addressing crime and societal issues.

Unit 11 Summary.docx

Related

Transcript

Upgrade to continue