SOC 224 Final Exam Notes PDF

Textbook notes: Chapter 8: Mental Illness Imagery: Often associated with alienation and difference. People with mental illness are seen as less competent, human, or safe. Dimensions of Mental Illness: Experience of the disorder: Specific symptoms of mental illness. Social dimension:...

Textbook notes: Chapter 8: Mental Illness Imagery: Often associated with alienation and difference. People with mental illness are seen as less competent, human, or safe. Dimensions of Mental Illness: Experience of the disorder: Specific symptoms of mental illness. Social dimension: How others perceive and treat those with mental disorders. ○ Society plays a key role in shaping people's experiences of illness. Research on Mental Illness: Focuses on both objective and subjective aspects: ○ Objective: Prevalence, treatment costs, patterns, etc. ○ Subjective: Stigmatization, personal experiences, social construction of mental illness. Sociological research often focuses on the subjective side, with an emphasis on stigma and social interaction. Definition of Mental Disorder: Psychological, biological, or behavioral dysfunctions that disrupt daily life. Involves altered thinking, mood, or behavior with significant distress and impaired functioning. Not just a bad day or bad week—needs to be persistent and severe enough to affect daily functioning. Diagnostic Criteria: Defined by DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) and ICD (International Classification of Diseases). They outline which behaviors, thoughts, and moods qualify as a mental disorder. Mental Illness vs. Mental Health: Mental illness and mental disorder are not always interchangeable with poor mental health. One can experience psychological distress without a disorder. Mental disorders can be managed, leading to good mental health even with an illness. Notes on Mental Illness: 1. Prevalence of Mental Illness: ○ Affects many Canadians either directly (experiencing a mental disorder) or indirectly (family, friends, co-workers). ○ 20% of people will experience mental illness annually. ○ 50% will experience a mental disorder by age 40. ○ Global increase of 13% in mental illness between 2007 and 2017 (World Health Organization). 2. Social Groups at Greater Risk: ○ Higher risk groups: LGBTQ2IA+ individuals, immigrants, refugees, ethnocultural minorities, racialized groups, and certain occupations (e.g., first responders). ○ Mental illness influenced by both social and biological factors. 3. Etiology of Mental Illness: ○ Genetic, biological, psychological factors contribute. ○ Social factors: Exposure to childhood adversity (abuse, neglect, substance abuse) increases risk in adulthood. 4. Social Determinants: ○ Mental illness influenced by: Social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental factors. Includes national policies, living standards, working conditions, and community support (World Health Organization).  5. Socioeconomic Status & Mental Illness: ○ Socioeconomic status is the greatest predictor of mental illness. ○ Link between low income, financial insecurity, poverty, and mental illness. 6. Causation vs. Selection: ○ Social Causation Hypothesis: Life stresses and fewer resources in lower socioeconomic classes lead to mental illness (Robert Merton’s strain theory). ○ Social Selection Hypothesis: People with mental disorders may fall into lower economic strata due to impaired daily functioning. 7. Interaction of Socioeconomic Status and Mental Illness: ○ The relationship between socioeconomic status and mental illness may vary: Childhood to adulthood: Both causation and selection play roles. Early adulthood to old age: Social causation appears more prominent. Specific disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, ADHD) are more likely to result in lower socioeconomic status, supporting the selection hypothesis. 8. Economic Factors: ○ Economic recessions lead to an increase in mental health issues (e.g., suicide, mood disorders). ○ Global economic trends (e.g., the Greek recession) can significantly impact mental health, increasing suicide rates and mental disorders. 9. Mental Illness During Economic Recessions: ○ During the 2009-2015 Greek recession: Suicide rates increased by 33%, with two-thirds related to unemployment and recession impacts Workers in some occupations are at greater risk of psychological distress, such as health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notes on Mental Illness and COVID-19: 1. Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health: ○ The pandemic has had a profound short- and long-term effect on mental health (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2020b). ○ Social Change & Anomie: Durkheim’s concept of anomie applies to the pandemic, where rapid social change disrupted traditional behaviors and social controls, leading to increased deviance and mental health challenges. ○ Job loss, stress from continued work, social isolation, and disrupted routines contributed to increased psychological distress. 2. Psychological Impact of the Pandemic: ○ Global Increase in mental health issues: Reports of up to 300% increases in depression, anxiety, and distress (World Health Organization, 2020b). ○ In Canada, 1/3 of people felt stress regularly, and 13% felt it constantly (Flanagan, 2020). ○ Surge in mental health helplines: Calls increased dramatically in places like Alberta (4x) and Nova Scotia (from 25 to 700/day). 3. Increased Alcohol Consumption: ○ Alcohol sales in Canada increased by 76% as people turned to alcohol to cope with stress (Evans, 2020). 4. Groups at Greater Risk of Psychological Distress: ○ Youth and seniors (especially in long-term care) were at higher risk (Flint et al., 2020). ○ Health care workers faced immense stress, with nearly half reporting needing psychological support (World Health Organization, 2020b). 5. Positive Responses: 1  ○ Many individuals sought mental health support proactively. ○ Governments and organizations provided mental health resources, and new norms (e.g., social distancing, mask-wearing) were established to manage stress. 6. Socioeconomic Status and Age Correlation: ○ Socioeconomic status is the greatest predictor of mental illness, but age also plays a role. ○ Mental illness is more prevalent in young adults, and most adult mental disorders start in childhood (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2016). 7. Youth and Mental Health: ○ 39% of high school students in Ontario reported moderate to severe distress, with 31% wanting to talk about it but not knowing where to turn (Boak et al., 2018). ○ Social media use was correlated with higher anxiety and depression in adolescents. 8. Challenges for Post-Secondary Students: ○ Over 60% of students report above-average stress, mainly from academic pressures. ○ Common disorders: Anxiety (18%) and depression (15%) among Canadian post-secondary students (Linden et al., 2018). ○ Canada launched a national strategy in 2018 to address the well-being of post-secondary students. 9. Youth at Greater Risk: ○ Youth from low-income families, refugees, and those identifying as LGBTQ2IA+ are more vulnerable to mental illness (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2019). ○ Indigenous youth face higher suicide rates, with the crisis particularly severe in remote communities (House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, 2017). 10. Gender and Mental Illness: ○ Mood and anxiety disorders are more common in women. ○ Antisocial and conduct disorders are more prevalent in men. ○ PTSD is more common in refugees and certain occupations (e.g., emergency responders). 11. Costs of Mental Illness: ○ Mental illness imposes significant societal and personal costs, including financial burdens and diminished quality of life. Notes on the Impact of Mental Disorders: 1. Impact on Individuals and Society: ○ Mental disorders significantly affect both the individual and society (see Figure 8.1). ○ Research from the objective end of the continuum shows that mental disorders contribute to various negative life outcomes. 2. Negative Life Outcomes: ○ Teen Pregnancy: Mental disorders are associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy. ○ Parental Impact: For parents, mental illness is linked to: Perinatal obstetric complications. Impaired infant and child development. Poorer parent-infant bonding (Catalao et al., 2020; Spry et al., 2019). 3. Academic and Employment Challenges: ○ Lower academic performance and educational attainment are common for those with mental illness. ○ Lower employment rates and incomes are also linked to mental disorders (Linden et al., 2018; Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2019, 2020a). 4. Financial Burden: 2  ○ Individuals with mental illnesses and their families face both direct and indirect financial costs: Direct costs: Healthcare expenses. Indirect costs: Unemployment and loss of income. Figure 8.1: The Costs of Ineffectively Treated Mental Illness Notes on the Impact of Mental Illness on Health, Society, and the Economy: 1. Correlation with Physical Health: ○ Mental disorders, such as anxiety, are linked to other physical health issues (e.g., chronic pain) (Rogers et al., 2020; Thorsteinsson & Brown, 2020). ○ People with mental disorders are more likely to engage in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors (e.g., smoking) and less likely to follow medical instructions for physical ailments (e.g., high blood pressure, diabetes). ○ This leads to poorer overall health and increased risk of complications. ○ Severe mental illness has been shown to increase the risk of being disproportionately affected by conditions like COVID-19 (Druss, 2020). 2. Challenges to Daily Life: ○ The emotional burden of living with a mental disorder impacts daily life and quality of life. 3. Societal Impact: ○ Mental illness contributes significantly to national economic costs: Premature deaths from suicide. Lower productivity at work and absenteeism. Family members missing work to provide care. Increased treatment costs. Lost tax revenue. ○ Conservative estimates suggest that the global economic cost of depression and anxiety alone is US$1 trillion annually (World Health Organization, 2020a). ○ In Canada: Mental illnesses are the second-highest hospital expenditure. One-third of disability claims (short- and long-term) are due to mental illness (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2020a; Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2020a). 4. Barriers to Treatment: ○ Despite the high cost, many individuals with mental disorders do not receive treatment: Globally, 80% of people with mental health conditions lack access to high-quality, affordable treatment (World Health Organization, 2019b). 3  In high-income countries like Canada, about 50% of people with mental disorders receive treatment (Canadian Mental Health Association, 2020a). ○ Barriers to treatment include: Lack of services (e.g., long waiting times). Financial inability to afford treatment. Perceptions of inadequate treatment. Stigmatization and discomfort with self-disclosure. Neglect by families or communities. 5. Critiques of Cost-of-Illness Estimates: ○ Wolff (2007) suggests caution in viewing cost-of-illness estimates: These estimates are influenced by biochemistry, economics, and social norms. Lower drug costs could reduce the overall economic burden of mental disorders. Contributions to society: People with mental disorders, even severe ones, contribute in ways beyond the labor force (e.g., as parents, neighbors, volunteers). These cost estimates may reflect negative societal attitudes toward mental illness and overlook the full contributions of individuals with mental disorders. Cost-of-illness estimates take on meaning based on how society views and treats people with mental illness. The Role of Social Reactions and Stigma in Mental Illness 1. Stigma and Mental Illness: ○ Stigmatization is one of the major barriers to seeking help for mental health issues. Many individuals with mental disorders avoid seeking professional assistance due to the fear of negative judgment from others. ○ The reactions of others play a significant role in shaping the experience of having a mental illness. Fear of stigmatization leads many to conceal their condition or avoid treatment altogether. 2. Social Control and Stigma: ○ Stigmatization of mental illness is an important dimension of social control. It reinforces social norms by marginalizing those who deviate from the accepted standards of mental health. ○ The social consequences of stigma can include exclusion from certain social groups, reduced opportunities in education or employment, and discrimination. 3. Social Control Mechanisms: ○ The stigmatization of mental illness operates as a form of informal social control. This means that it is not enforced by formal institutions (e.g., legal systems) but rather through social interactions and the collective attitudes within a community. ○ This stigmatization discourages individuals from openly discussing or seeking help for their mental health, thereby reinforcing the social boundaries around mental illness. 4. Future Exploration of Social Control: ○ Later in the chapter, the focus will shift to another dimension of social control: the medicalization of mental illness. This refers to the way in which mental disorders are defined, managed, and treated through medical frameworks and professional interventions. The Stigmatization of Mental Illness 1. Personal Experience of Stigmatization: ○ For individuals with mental disorders, the experience of stigmatization can feel like being marked by society, as described by one individual who felt as though they had “crazy bitch” stamped on their forehead, leading to being treated differently (Bassett et al., 1999). This highlights how social perceptions of mental illness can deeply affect those who suffer from it. 4  2. Media's Role in Stigmatizing Mental Illness: ○ The media plays a significant role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of people with mental illnesses. Both fictional and nonfictional media often portray individuals with mental health issues as unpredictable, violent, dangerous, and criminal (Atanasova et al., 2019; Carmichael et al., 2019; Scarf et al., 2020). Visual representations in the media further reinforce these ideas, often depicting people with mental illnesses as disheveled and unkempt (Sathyara & Sweetha, 2019). ○ These portrayals influence public attitudes. For example, research by Scarf et al. (2020) showed that watching a movie like Joker (2019), which features a protagonist with a mental illness who transforms into a violent character, significantly increased prejudice toward people with mental health disorders. In contrast, those who watched an unrelated action movie like Terminator: Dark Fate exhibited no significant change in their attitudes. 3. Negative Public Attitudes and Dehumanization: ○ Public attitudes toward mental illness can be dehumanizing. Boysen et al. (2020) found that in an evolutionary scale, people with mental illnesses were ranked just above violent criminals as the least evolved group. This stark dehumanization reflects the extent to which mental illness is viewed as a negative characteristic by society. ○ In addition, people with mental disorders are often viewed as making excuses or being weak-minded. They may be accused of avoiding responsibilities or having a weak character, with others suggesting that they should simply “man up” or “suck it up” (DeLenardo & Terrion, 2014). These attitudes can hinder understanding and support from family, peers, or colleagues. 4. Self-Stigma and Its Impact: ○ Stigmatization not only comes from others but also affects how individuals view themselves. This is called self-stigma, where individuals internalize societal prejudice and begin to feel shame or guilt about their condition (Tanriverdi et al., 2020). Self-stigma is widespread, with a study finding that all participants with various mental disorders reported high levels of self-stigmatization (Tanriverdi et al., 2020). ○ The impact of self-stigma is profound. It can lead to lower self-esteem, demoralization, and a worsening of symptoms. This emotional toll can hinder recovery, decrease the effectiveness of treatments, and contribute to a vicious cycle of worsening mental health and diminished quality of life (Boysen et al., 2020; Tanriverdi et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2019a). Summary The medicalization of mental disorders has evolved significantly over time, and it plays a central role in how society defines and treats mental illness today. Historically, mental illness was often understood through religious or supernatural frameworks, with people exhibiting deviant behaviors being seen as possessed by demons or in league with the devil. These individuals were subjected to harsh punishments, including torture and execution. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, non-conformity to societal norms was a sign of allegiance to the devil, and as a result, people with mental health issues were labeled as "witches" or "heretics" and often killed (e.g., by burning at the stake). With the advancement of scientific thought, these religious explanations gave way to medical interpretations, and people with mental illnesses were no longer seen as possessed, but rather as individuals needing care and treatment. In the 18th century, "madhouses" were built to house people with mental disorders. These institutions were primarily used for segregation, not treatment, allowing the "normal" citizens of society to feel safe and secure. In the late 19th century, these madhouses evolved into "asylums," with some doctors believing that people with mental illnesses could be trained to conform to societal norms through appropriate treatment. This marked the beginning of the medicalization of mental illness in Western societies. Throughout the early to mid-20th century, psychiatric institutions grew in number, but the treatments employed were often brutal and ineffective. Practices like lobotomies and fever therapies were common, and many 5 people now view these treatments as barbaric. Concerns over their effectiveness, alongside growing awareness of the dehumanizing conditions in these institutions, led to the abandonment of such therapies. By the 1950s, with the advent of more effective drug therapies to control mental disorders, questions arose about the value of institutionalization. It was recognized that isolating individuals from their homes, families, and communities—places where they could receive support—was not conducive to recovery. This sparked the deinstitutionalization movement in the 1960s, where care shifted toward community-based programs rather than long-term institutionalization. Today, the medicalization of mental illness includes a wide range of treatments such as psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, medication, occupational therapy, and social support systems. These treatments have been shown to significantly improve functioning and the quality of life for individuals with mental disorders, including those with severe conditions. The combination of medical and psychosocial support is particularly effective for treating severe mental illnesses, as it addresses both the biological and social aspects of these conditions. Preventive measures are also key in modern mental health care. Prevention strategies, such as promoting overall mental well-being, are encouraged in both individuals and workplaces. Specific support systems are provided for those facing adverse experiences like trauma, abuse, or living in high-stress environments (e.g., conflict zones). These preventative efforts aim to reduce the incidence of mental illness and ensure early intervention. The legacy of deinstitutionalization is complex. While the movement was seen as a step toward more humane treatment, offering people with mental disorders the opportunity to receive care in their own communities, it has had its drawbacks. The transition from institutionalized care to community-based programs has not always been smooth, and there are ongoing challenges in ensuring adequate resources and support for those with mental health issues living in the community. This shift has, in some cases, led to gaps in care and support for individuals who may require more intensive services. In sum, the medicalization of mental disorders has moved from a focus on institutionalization and punishment to a more nuanced approach that incorporates both medical and social treatments. However, this evolution has been far from perfect, and ongoing challenges remain in providing equitable, effective care for those with mental health disorders in society. In order for people with mental illnesses to successfully recover in the community rather than in institutions, a variety of resources are essential. These resources not only address the clinical needs of individuals but also the social and structural challenges they face. Key areas of support include: 1. Social Support Networks: One critical resource is the availability of strong family and friendship networks. These relationships can provide emotional support, practical assistance, and encouragement in daily activities. However, it’s important to recognize that not everyone has access to such supportive relationships. Many individuals may experience family dysfunction, lack of social connections, or isolation, which makes the assumption that people with mental illness will have these networks problematic. Therefore, building community support systems, including peer support groups or social services, is vital to assist those who lack close family or friends. 2. Community-Based Mental Health Resources: Deinstitutionalization works best when accompanied by an adequate network of community mental health services. These include outpatient therapy, medication management, community mental health centers, and rehabilitation programs. However, the deinstitutionalization movement was not always matched by an increase in funding for these services, and the available resources are often insufficient, especially in rural areas. In some cases, these programs might be underfunded or under-staffed, which can lead to gaps in care. The availability of well-funded and comprehensive mental health care in the community is crucial to supporting individuals transitioning from institutional care. 3. Affordable Housing: Having a stable place to live is a fundamental need for individuals recovering from mental illness. Without stable housing, people may face increased challenges in accessing 6  treatment, maintaining employment, and developing social support networks. Many people with severe mental disorders face difficulty securing housing due to stigma and discrimination, and homelessness is a significant risk. Some communities have adopted the "housing first" model, which prioritizes providing safe and stable housing before addressing mental health or addiction issues. This model has proven effective, with studies showing that individuals in housing-first programs tend to maintain housing longer than those in traditional treatment-first programs. 4. Employment and Financial Support: Employment is another vital resource for individuals recovering from mental illness, as it provides financial stability, social interaction, and a sensde of purpose. However, many individuals with mental disorders may struggle to find or keep a job due to the symptoms of their illness, discrimination, or lack of skills. Employment support programs, such as job training, vocational rehabilitation, and employment readiness programs, can help individuals regain their independence and reintegrate into society. Additionally, financial support, such as social assistance or disability benefits, may be necessary for individuals who are unable to work due to their mental health condition. 5. Combatting Stigmatization: Stigma against people with mental disorders is a significant barrier to successful community integration. Negative stereotypes about mental illness can lead to discrimination in employment, housing, and social interactions. Building a more accepting and supportive community is essential for the success of deinstitutionalization. Public education campaigns, anti-stigma programs, and community outreach are necessary to challenge misconceptions and foster more inclusive attitudes toward people with mental illnesses. 6. Coordinated Care for Co-occurring Disorders: Many people with mental illnesses also face challenges related to substance abuse or other co-occurring disorders. Traditional mental health services and addiction programs often operate separately, but integrated programs that address both mental health and substance use issues simultaneously tend to be more effective. Providing coordinated care for individuals with co-occurring disorders can significantly improve their chances of recovery and reduce the likelihood of homelessness or criminal involvement. 7. Addressing Homelessness and Criminal Involvement: Mental illness is strongly linked with homelessness, and individuals with mental disorders are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. The lack of adequate community-based mental health resources often leads individuals to rely on emergency services, including the criminal justice system. Addressing homelessness and preventing criminal involvement requires a holistic approach that includes mental health treatment, housing solutions, employment support, and community integration. For individuals with both mental illness and criminal records, specialized programs that cater to their unique needs are necessary to break the cycle of incarceration and provide stable, supportive care. 8. Prevention and Early Intervention: To reduce the incidence of mental illness and prevent the escalation of symptoms, preventive measures are crucial. These include public health initiatives that promote mental well-being, early intervention programs for children and adolescents at risk, and workplace mental health strategies. By addressing mental health challenges before they become severe, individuals are more likely to recover successfully in the community. Ultimately, the success of deinstitutionalization relies on comprehensive, well-funded, and accessible community-based resources that provide not only medical care but also the social supports necessary for reintegration. Without these resources, many individuals with mental illnesses may struggle to access the help they need, leading to negative outcomes such as homelessness, criminal justice involvement, or worsening mental health. A coordinated effort to provide stable housing, employment, social support, and mental health services is essential for successful recovery in the community. Mental disorders are often socially typed as deviant, with people diagnosed with mental illnesses frequently perceived as "dangerous," "unpredictable," and "other." These negative stereotypes are perpetuated by the media and contribute to stigmatization in everyday interactions, as well as discrimination in employment, 7 housing, and medical care. Stigmatization and discrimination act as forms of social control, enforcing societal norms by marginalizing those deemed "abnormal." The social regulation of people with mental disorders also extends to medicalization, where individuals are categorized by their diagnoses and treated through a range of available medical interventions. While deinstitutionalization and community-based care have provided greater autonomy and are preferred by many, they also have unintended negative consequences for individuals who fall through the cracks in the mental health system, including substance abuse, homelessness, or criminality. Resistance to Stigmatization People with mental illnesses often engage in various stigma management strategies to cope with the negative social consequences of their condition. Two common strategies are deflecting and challenging: 1. Deflecting involves distancing oneself from the stigmatized identity, often by highlighting how the individual does not fit the common stereotypes associated with mental illness. For example, people may emphasize that their mental disorder is just one part of their life, distinguishing themselves from the image of the "dangerous" or "unpredictable" mentally ill person. Some might even reject the label of mental illness altogether, arguing that they are simply tired or overworked, rather than mentally ill. 2. Challenging is a more active form of resistance. It involves confronting stigmatization directly, either by challenging those who perpetuate negative stereotypes or by educating others about mental illness. In some cases, this can take the form of individuals overcompensating for their illness by demonstrating competence and success, thereby resisting the stereotype of incapacity. Challenging also includes efforts to confront broader societal views on mental illness, advocating for more understanding and support. Factors Influencing Resistance The likelihood of an individual with a mental illness actively resisting stigmatization depends on several factors: Past experience with stigma resistance: Those who have fought against discrimination related to other aspects of their identity (e.g., racial or gender discrimination) may be more likely to resist stigma related to mental illness. Familiarity with mental illness: Individuals who have experience with mental illness in a friend or family member may be more comfortable challenging stigmatization. Coping resources: People with higher self-esteem and stronger support networks tend to engage in more active resistance. Multiple roles: Those who hold multiple roles (e.g., as a parent, employee, or community member) may be more likely to resist the stigmatizing label of "mentally ill." Less severe mental illness: People with less severe or more time-limited mental illnesses may find it easier to resist stigmatization compared to those with chronic, more debilitating disorders. Effects of Stigma Management Different stigma management techniques have different outcomes. Deflection tends to result in higher well-being, particularly among those with less severe mental illnesses. However, this effect diminishes as the severity of the illness increases. On the other hand, challenging stigmatization is associated with better quality of life, fewer symptoms, higher self-esteem, and a greater sense of empowerment. Even individuals with more severe mental disorders can benefit from actively resisting stigma by feeling more empowered and in control of their recovery process. Government and Organizational Responses At the governmental level, many countries have implemented policies aimed at reducing discrimination against people with mental disorders, particularly in housing, employment, and healthcare. For instance, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on mental and physical disabilities, and similar policies exist in many other nations. Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also supports equality for individuals with disabilities. 8 In addition to legal protections, healthcare systems are working to reduce stigma within medical settings. The World Health Organization's Mental Health Global Action Programme (mhGAP) focuses on advocacy, public education, and the protection of patients' rights. Self-help and advocacy groups also play a significant role in reducing stigma. For example, the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) runs Mental Health Week, which aims to dispel myths and reduce stereotypes about mental illness. Moreover, self-help groups and advocacy organizations educate the public, offer support, and address the challenges people with mental illnesses face in accessing healthcare, housing, and employment. These groups often organize campaigns and provide materials to assist individuals in overcoming stigma and navigating the social challenges they encounter. Effective Stigma Management Programs Research shows that stigma management programs are more effective when they are targeted at specific audiences rather than generalized public education campaigns. For instance, programs aimed at new Canadians, healthcare professionals, employers, or youth tend to be more successful. The organization Jack.org, for example, creates programs designed by young people for young people, aiming to reduce mental health stigma within schools and universities. These targeted programs allow for more personalized education and encourage young people to become advocates within their communities. In summary, resistance to stigmatization and inadequate care for individuals with mental disorders is a vital component of the “deviance dance,” where individuals and advocacy groups fight back against the social rejection, discrimination, and medicalization they face. Effective stigma management techniques, combined with supportive policies and targeted programs, can reduce the negative impacts of stigma and help individuals with mental disorders to lead fulfilling and integrated lives. Resisting Inadequate and Insufficient Care In addition to efforts aimed at reducing the stigmatization of mental illness, advocacy groups are also critical players in resisting inadequate and insufficient care for individuals with mental disorders. These groups work on multiple fronts to ensure that people with mental illnesses receive the support and services they need, pushing for better government funding, improved services, and greater access to appropriate treatments. Advocacy and Lobbying for Improved Care Advocacy groups and mental health organizations actively lobby governments for better funding and improved mental health services. These groups seek to secure more resources for the mental health sector, addressing the disparities that exist between mental health care and care for other health conditions. They push for comprehensive and accessible care, which includes affordable treatment options, better integration of mental health services into the broader healthcare system, and the reduction of gaps in the services offered. One of the major concerns of advocacy groups is the insufficient public funding for mental health services, which often results in long waiting times for care, under-resourced treatment facilities, and inadequate mental health training for healthcare providers. Advocates work to increase funding allocations to mental health care, pressing governments to prioritize mental health as part of the overall healthcare agenda. Providing Information to Mental Health Consumers In addition to lobbying for systemic changes, advocacy groups provide individuals with mental health conditions the necessary information to help them navigate their treatment options. This includes: Details on new medications: Support groups and organizations keep consumers informed about the latest treatments and medications, as well as any potential side effects or interactions. Effectiveness of treatments: They provide insights into the effectiveness of various treatments for specific disorders, allowing individuals to make more informed decisions about their care. Research on treatments: Advocacy groups often disseminate research findings on the best practices for managing mental illness and offer guidance on therapy options and the benefits of different treatment strategies. 9 This type of information is crucial for empowering individuals with mental health issues to become active participants in their own care and to make choices that align with their needs and preferences. It can also help prevent harmful treatments and side effects that may arise from inadequate or outdated care practices. Monitoring Professional Behavior The healthcare community is continuously engaged in research aimed at improving treatments for mental disorders. This includes the development of new medications, therapeutic approaches, and diagnostic tools. However, beyond research, healthcare professionals themselves are also held accountable for their actions. The professional behavior of mental health providers is closely monitored to ensure that individuals receive appropriate and effective care. If healthcare providers fail to adhere to ethical standards or engage in incompetent or harmful practices, they can be subject to negative sanctions, such as reprimands, revocation of licenses, or other professional penalties. Monitoring and maintaining professional standards is an important part of improving mental health care, ensuring that individuals with mental health issues are treated with the care and respect they deserve. Global Efforts to Improve Mental Health Care On the global level, organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) are playing an integral role in efforts to improve mental health care. The WHO Mental Health Global Action Programme supports member states in addressing the risks, stigma, and burden of mental disorders. This program seeks to enhance the capacity of countries to reduce the impact of mental illness on their populations, with an emphasis on both mental health promotion and improving mental healthcare services. The WHO’s Special Initiative for Mental Health (2019-2023) aims to improve mental health care by focusing on Universal Health Coverage for Mental Health. This initiative highlights the significant disparities in mental health care access, with 80% of people with mental health conditions around the world lacking access to quality and affordable care. The initiative prioritizes support for 12 countries experiencing extreme conditions such as poverty, conflict, and social instability—factors that exacerbate mental health issues and hinder access to care. The WHO initiative also emphasizes the need for sustained funding for mental health programs and services in countries with the greatest need, while aiming to build local mental health capacity through training, education, and support for mental health professionals. Figure 8.3: Strategies of the World Health Organization’s Mental Health Global Action Programme 10 This passage highlights multiple aspects of the ongoing "deviance dance" in the realm of mental health, including efforts to reduce stigma, improve care, and the criticisms of the medicalization of mental health disorders. It addresses the challenges faced by individuals and groups working to improve the mental health system and the stigmatization of mental illness. Key Aspects: 1. Stigmatization and Advocacy: ○ Efforts to reduce stigmatization focus on changing societal views that label individuals with mental disorders as "crazy" or "dangerous." Advocacy groups strive to reduce social rejection, discrimination, and marginalization. They also push for better mental health services and more funding, particularly in countries like Canada. This is highlighted by the establishment of the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) and its initiatives like suicide prevention, co-occurrence of mental health challenges and substance use, and targeted services for specific groups (e.g., LGBTQ+, immigrant, refugee, racialized groups, Indigenous communities). ○ Indigenous Communities: Indigenous youth, in particular, face a high risk of suicide, with the situation being particularly dire in some communities. Programs addressing self-determination and cultural continuity, alongside organizations like We Matter, have been shown to reduce risks and promote resiliency. 2. Resistance to Medicalization: ○ Criticism of Diagnostic Manuals (DSM): The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has faced criticism for pathologizing certain conditions. Homosexuality, for example, was listed as a disorder until 1973. The criticisms of the DSM also extend to its power and influence in shaping diagnoses, influenced by factors such as the pharmaceutical industry. ○ Rosenhan's Study: The passage also references the famous Being Sane in Insane Places study by David Rosenhan, which revealed significant issues in psychiatric diagnosis. Rosenhan's team of "pseudo-patients" were admitted to psychiatric hospitals after feigning auditory hallucinations, yet their true identity as sane individuals was not detected. The study demonstrated how diagnostic labels such as "schizophrenia" led to biased interpretations of normal behavior, and how the environment—rather than inherent illness—shaped the diagnosis. The research suggested that mental health diagnoses can be influenced by social factors, and that individuals labeled as mentally ill can face dehumanizing treatment within psychiatric institutions. 3. Social Biases in Diagnosis: ○ The passage mentions how social factors like race and ethnicity can influence diagnoses and treatments. For instance, Black youth are more likely to be diagnosed with conduct disorders, while white youth are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. Racialized youth are often criminalized, while white youth tend to be medicalized. This demonstrates the ongoing influence of social factors on mental health diagnoses and treatment, particularly when clinicians are not attuned to the experiences of marginalized groups. 4. The Role of Labels: ○ Labeling Theory: Rosenhan’s work and the discussions that followed raised questions about the impact of labels on people's lives. Labels can have both positive and negative effects. On one hand, labels can provide validation for an individual's experiences, opening the door to treatment and support. On the other hand, negative labels can lead to stigma and devaluation, particularly in cases where the label is associated with disorders viewed unfavorably in society. 5. Racial and Ethnic Bias in Mental Health: ○ Studies show that social factors like race, ethnicity, and social class still influence diagnoses. For example, youth from marginalized racial or ethnic backgrounds may be misdiagnosed or criminalized in ways that affect their treatment. The disparity between how Black and white 11  youth are diagnosed with different disorders (e.g., ADHD or conduct disorders) continues to be a critical issue. The final form of resistance to the medicalization of mental illness critiques the very concept of "mental illness" itself, questioning whether the label is valid or simply a tool used to control behavior. Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist, argues that while there are physical diseases of the brain, most mental disorders listed in diagnostic manuals like the DSM do not qualify as such. He suggests that the concept of mental illness is often used to involuntarily treat individuals who do not seek help, and to allow others to avoid responsibility for their actions, particularly criminal ones. This view has been controversial since Szasz first proposed it in the 1950s, and it continues to generate debate today. However, the majority of people, including many mental health professionals, agree that mental disorders do exist in some form and that individuals with these disorders face significant challenges in their daily lives. These challenges are often compounded by stigma, which remains one of the major barriers to recovery and effective functioning. In addition, stigma can influence the development of policies and the allocation of resources for mental health care. Governments, advocacy groups, and the medical community continue to focus on reducing this stigma and improving the support systems available for people with mental disorders. At the same time, there is an increasing awareness of the political dimensions involved in the creation of diagnostic categories. The process by which certain behaviors or conditions are classified as "disorders" is not always objective. Social factors, including power dynamics and cultural norms, can play a significant role in shaping these categories. In some cases, biases in diagnosis and treatment practices—such as racial or gender-based disparities—have been observed. This highlights the need for more inclusive, culturally sensitive approaches to mental health care. In summary, the resistance to the medicalization of mental illness spans multiple levels. It includes critiques of how normal behaviors are pathologized, concerns about the political and economic influences behind diagnostic categories, and the impact of social biases on diagnosis and treatment. Despite this resistance, most people acknowledge the reality of mental disorders and the need for effective, compassionate care. The ongoing efforts to reduce stigma, challenge biases, and improve mental health resources are essential for fostering recovery and improving the lives of those affected by mental illness. Chapter Summary Mental illness refers to thoughts, moods, and behaviours that cause significant distress or impaired functioning for individuals. The nature of these impairments is further delineated in the diagnostic categories listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases(ICD). (1) Although 20 percent of people experience mental illness in any given year, the lifetime incidence of mental illness is much higher. The level and nature of risk varies across social groups and larger societal conditions. People in low socioeconomic status groups show higher rates of mental illness, as do adolescents and young adults. The level of risk in a small proportion of Indigenous communities is extremely high. (1) Considerable costs are associated with mental illness for the individuals experiencing the illness, their families, and society as a whole. (2) The stigmatization of people with mental disorders is evident in media representations, attitudes of the general public, and even attitudes of health professionals. Stigmatization hinders recovery of people with mental disorders, contributes to discrimination in many areas, and results in mental health programs and policies not being seen as priorities. (3) Although mental illness has been treated in various ways throughout history, in the late nineteenth century it became medicalized. Over the past several decades, the deinstitutionalization movement has helped Chapter 9 notes: 12 J.B.S. Haldane's (1927) quotation on the relationship between religion, science, and wisdom highlights an important understanding of how belief systems function in society. According to Haldane, belief systems like religion and science should not be seen as rigid, final truths, but rather as art forms—subjective constructs that shape human behavior and understanding. This perspective aligns with the idea that these belief systems are socially constructed and influence our actions and decisions, much like how art reflects and shapes societal values. The notion that anything you personally believe is true reflects the subjectivity of beliefs. A belief can be personal and unique, or it can be shared by a group, forming part of a larger belief system. These systems—whether they are religious doctrines (such as Christianity or Islam), scientific fields (like sociology or biology), or political ideologies (such as liberalism or conservatism)—shape how groups of people view the world and interact with each other. Belief systems help to organize knowledge and guide behavior, often creating frameworks through which people interpret their actions and the actions of others. When considering the relationship between belief systems and deviance, there are two key dynamics to explore: 1. Belief Systems as Deviance: In some cases, acts of deviance occur within groups that adhere to particular belief systems. For example, a religious group might view certain actions as acceptable within their framework but deviant from the perspective of mainstream society. This shows how what is deemed deviant can vary depending on the belief system in question. In some instances, an entire belief system may itself be considered deviant by the broader society. Historically, movements like early Christianity or certain sects of Buddhism were seen as deviant by the prevailing cultural norms, even though they represented legitimate belief systems to their followers. 2. Belief Systems as Social Typers of Deviance: On the other side, belief systems often serve as the criteria by which deviance is identified. What one culture or belief system defines as deviant behavior, another might view as normal. For example, religious doctrines may define certain actions—such as adultery or blasphemy—as deviant. Similarly, scientific paradigms may deem certain behaviors deviant, such as behaviors that go against established scientific norms or laws. In this way, belief systems act as a standard for judging who or what is considered deviant and what consequences should follow for these deviations. A political ideology might also dictate what types of behaviors or beliefs are considered deviant, based on its interpretation of what is right or just. Both religion and science play dual roles in shaping and defining deviance. They not only represent systems of belief that can be seen as deviant in certain contexts but also function as frameworks for determining what is considered deviant behavior in society. By regulating beliefs and actions, both religious and scientific systems help establish norms, guide social control, and direct societal judgments about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. In summary, the interaction between belief systems and deviance is complex. Belief systems can themselves be seen as deviant by others, and they also dictate the definitions of deviance within society. These belief systems are social constructs that influence not only personal behavior but also the broader societal understanding of what is considered normal or deviant. Sociological analyses of religion delve into the ways religious belief systems are socially embedded, exploring how these systems emerge, how they function in people’s lives, and how they intersect with other societal structures. These analyses move beyond religion as a set of beliefs, focusing on the social organization of religion, its place in the community, and its relationship to broader social dynamics. When thinking about religion, it's crucial to transition from simply viewing it as a belief system to understanding it as a social organization. Religious groups often hold a distinct place within both local communities and larger societies. The first “Ask Yourself” question encourages this shift in perspective, prompting you to consider how religion is embedded in social structures and how it interacts with other elements of society. For example, if you, like many Canadians, have a religious affiliation (as reported by Morency et al., 2017), and you regularly attend a place of worship, you are likely aware of the role that religious institutions play in your 13 community. These places of worship often function as central hubs for social interaction, moral guidance, and community engagement. They shape how individuals within the community perceive each other and how they define norms and values. Your religious affiliation may shape how others view you. It could be admired, respected, or even criticized depending on the broader cultural context. For instance, your belief system may be seen as "deviant" by people outside your religious community. This is particularly true when your beliefs, practices, or values significantly differ from the dominant cultural or societal norms. What’s deemed acceptable or “normal” by the majority can easily marginalize minority religious practices or ideas, labeling them as outside the bounds of societal expectations. Conversely, religious belief systems often provide adherents with a moral framework that helps them define what behaviors are acceptable and which ones are considered deviant. For example, certain religious doctrines may define specific behaviors—such as drug use, sexual practices, or criminal acts—as deviant or immoral. These moral codes help create boundaries within a religious community, distinguishing between what is considered virtuous and what is seen as sinful or transgressive. In turn, religious groups can exert significant influence over the behavior of their members, ensuring conformity to these norms and reinforcing the social cohesion of the group. At a larger societal level, religious institutions can influence the social norms and values of the broader community. They may play a role in shaping policies, guiding social reforms, and even influencing political decisions. For example, religious groups have historically been involved in advocating for social justice, human rights, or educational reforms. However, they can also uphold conservative or exclusionary views, reinforcing the social boundaries that separate the "deviant" from the "normative." In summary, sociological perspectives on religion emphasize its dual role as both a belief system and a social institution. Religion is not just a set of personal convictions; it is a social organization that shapes and is shaped by the larger community. It provides both a sense of identity and belonging for its members and can influence how they interact with others and how society as a whole views deviance. When examining religion in relation to deviance, one might first think of the controversial and harmful behaviors sometimes committed by religious leaders or institutions, such as cases of child sexual abuse within religious organizations. Allegations that churches or religious bodies have prioritized their own interests over the safety of children, for example, have led to widespread criticism of those institutions (Reuters, 2019). Alongside these examples of deviance within religious organizations, another important aspect of religion and deviance involves the labeling of entire religious groups as "deviant." This occurs when certain religious groups are seen as being outside of or even in opposition to mainstream or “normal” societal values. Which religions are seen as deviant? In the past, religious belief systems were often categorized into different typologies that determined whether they were seen as deviant or normative. These typologies served as frameworks for understanding the social status of different religious groups. A group's position in these frameworks could determine how society perceived it — whether as "deviant" or part of the "norm." However, in recent times, some of these traditional typologies have been challenged, and scholars have revised their views on what constitutes a "deviant religion." Traditional Typologies of Religious Groups Early sociologists, like Max Weber, used typologies to categorize religious groups, and four main categories emerged that continue to influence how we think about religion and deviance. In these traditional frameworks, whether a religious group is considered deviant depends on where it fits within the typology. 1. Ecclesia: Ecclesia refers to state religions — those that are officially adopted by the government and are considered the “official” religion of a nation. These religions are integrated into the state's political and social structures. Examples of ecclesia include Islam in Iran, the Anglican Church in England, and Lutheranism in Sweden. The status of other religious practices in these nations can vary: some countries with an ecclesia, such as England, allow for religious freedom, while others, like Europe in the 14  Middle Ages, may have actively banned non-state religions. In this framework, the state-sponsored religion is not seen as deviant because it is the official religion of the country. 2. Churches: Churches are large, well-established religious organizations that are not necessarily the official religion of a state but still hold significant power and influence. These groups are highly bureaucratized, with complex hierarchies of leadership, formal rituals, and millions of adherents worldwide. Religions like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity are typically categorized as churches. These belief systems are typically considered mainstream and not deviant because they are widely practiced and institutionalized in many societies around the world. Within these large religions, there are often numerous denominations, such as Catholicism within Christianity or Sunni Islam, which represent different interpretations or branches of the same religion. In Canada, for example, Catholicism is the largest religious denomination, followed by various Protestant denominations, with a growing number of people adhering to non-Christian religions as well. These large, well-established religious groups are not typically labeled as deviant. 3. Sects: Sects are smaller, more recently formed religious groups that arise as a reaction against the perceived flaws or excesses of established religious institutions (such as churches). Sects often reject the formal structure of churches and emphasize a more personal, individualistic approach to religion. Although sects may have fewer followers than churches, they are often perceived as deviant by those in the larger society because they challenge established norms or the authority of major religious organizations. However, over time, some sects can evolve and become more institutionalized, transitioning into churches. 4. Cults: Cults are often considered the most deviant religious groups in traditional typologies. They are typically small, fringe religious movements led by charismatic leaders who claim to have special knowledge or powers. Cults are often viewed with suspicion by mainstream society, largely due to their unorthodox beliefs, secrecy, or the extreme control exerted by their leaders over followers. Cults can be particularly controversial when their beliefs and practices seem to challenge societal norms or when they engage in manipulative, harmful behaviors. Cults are generally seen as the most "deviant" in the sense that they exist on the fringes of mainstream religious life and may not be accepted or tolerated by broader society. Shifting Views on Deviant Religions In recent years, scholars have questioned and critiqued these traditional typologies. The belief that certain religions are inherently deviant has become increasingly problematic, especially in societies that are more diverse and pluralistic. Some argue that labeling non-mainstream religious groups as deviant fails to recognize the complexity and variety of religious practices and beliefs around the world. Others suggest that such categorizations are based on cultural biases and ethnocentric views of what constitutes “normal” or acceptable religious belief. As a result, contemporary sociologists may view religion and deviance more fluidly, focusing less on whether a religious group is “mainstream” or “deviant” and more on how religious groups function within their social contexts. Instead of categorizing religious movements as inherently deviant, researchers might explore how societal structures, cultural dynamics, and power relations influence perceptions of deviance in religious practices. In summary, the traditional categorization of religious groups into ecclesia, churches, sects, and cults provides one lens through which to view deviance, but modern perspectives are moving away from rigid definitions of deviance. While certain groups might still be labeled as deviant by mainstream society, sociological approaches now emphasize the need to understand the broader social context that shapes how religions are perceived and categorized. Figure 9.1: Global Religious Affiliations, 2015 and 2060 15 Sects and cults are both religious groups that deviate from more established religious traditions, but they differ in terms of their size, structure, doctrine, and the level of commitment they demand from their followers. Sects: Sects are smaller religious groups that have usually split off from larger, established religious institutions, such as churches. These groups are often formed in reaction to what their members see as perceived flaws or corruptions within the larger church, which leads them to create more rigid, exclusive beliefs. Sects are generally: Smaller and less established: Sects have fewer members than mainstream churches and are less integrated into the broader society. Reactionary in doctrine: The doctrines or beliefs of sects are often more rigid and exclusive, formed in response to disagreements with the teachings of the parent church. Require higher levels of commitment: Members of sects are often expected to make significant personal sacrifices or adhere to strict codes of behavior, such as specific rules about clothing, diet, and personal conduct. Examples of sects: ○ Amish: A sect that broke away from the larger Christian community (specifically the Mennonites) in the 16th century. The Amish maintain a strict, traditional way of life, rejecting modern technology and living in close-knit, rural communities. ○ Hutterites: Another offshoot of the Anabaptist tradition, like the Amish, the Hutterites are known for their communal lifestyle, strict adherence to religious principles, and rejection of modern technology. ○ The Taliban: Though not traditionally thought of as a religious sect in the same way as the Amish, the Taliban can be considered a sect of Islam due to their more radical and oppositional interpretation of Islam, distinct from mainstream Muslim practices. Cults: Cults, in contrast, are typically much smaller and more isolated than sects, with only a handful of members. They often revolve around a charismatic leader who claims exclusive knowledge or power, which is promised to lead followers to salvation. Key features of cults include: Small size: Cults often have only a small group of followers and are typically not widely known or accepted by the broader society. Highly reactionary and oppositional doctrines: Cults usually have more extreme and unconventional beliefs that challenge or reject mainstream religious ideas, social norms, and values. 16  Extreme commitment: Cults demand intense levels of loyalty and commitment from their followers, often including strict control over members' behavior, finances, and personal lives. Charismatic leadership: The leader of a cult is typically a highly charismatic figure who is viewed as the exclusive source of truth and guidance. This leader is often seen as divinely inspired or possessing unique insights that can lead followers to enlightenment or salvation. Examples of cults: ○ Branch Davidians: A sect led by David Koresh, known for its apocalyptic beliefs and ultimately its violent confrontation with the U.S. government in Waco, Texas in 1993. ○ Nxivm: A group that started as a self-help organization but later gained attention for being a cult-like group accused of manipulation, abuse, and exploiting its followers for personal gain. Its leader, Keith Raniere, was convicted of various crimes. ○ The Family International (formerly The Children of God): A controversial religious group that gained notoriety for its unorthodox teachings, including sexual freedom and extreme practices that often involved exploiting followers, especially minors. Key Differences Between Sects and Cults: Size: Sects are typically larger than cults, which are often very small. Doctrine: Sects tend to have more rigid, exclusive beliefs that are reactionary to larger religious institutions. Cults, however, are often more extreme and oppositional to both mainstream society and established religions. Commitment: While both sects and cults require a significant level of commitment, cults often demand even more intense dedication, including total loyalty to the leader and often severe restrictions on members' personal lives. Leadership: Sects usually have a more collective leadership structure, while cults are centered around a single, charismatic leader who is considered infallible. In summary, while both sects and cults are religious movements that deviate from mainstream religious traditions, cults are generally smaller, more extreme in their beliefs, and more authoritarian in their structure compared to sects. Both types of groups can be perceived as deviant due to their challenge to mainstream norms and values. You can find several documentaries online about the Amish, a Christian sect that avoids using many modern technologies. Notes: Religious Groups and Deviance Ecclesia: Represents a religion that is integrated into society, where all citizens are theoretically members. Not considered deviant in its society, though some groups may attempt to label it as deviant (e.g., criticism of the Anglican Church in England). Churches: Large religious groups with millions of members, highly integrated into society. Generally viewed as normal or conventional. Tension can exist between churches (e.g., Christian vs. Islamic tensions contributing to the Crusades). Sects and Cults: Sects: Smaller, isolated groups with more traditional beliefs. Seen as deviant due to higher tension with society. Cults: Even more isolated, with novel beliefs. Tension with society is greater than with sects. Deviance of Sects vs. Cults Sects: ○ Viewed as "churches of the disinherited" (i.e., attracting marginalized groups). ○ Teach rewards in the afterlife, leading to less alignment with secular society. 17  ○ Higher commitment and control compared to churches but varies by sect. ○ Tension with society depends on: 1. Differences between sect and society 2. Antagonism towards society 3. Separation from society ○ Example: Jehovah’s Witnesses have more tension with society than Seventh-day Adventists, due to less societal integration. Cults: ○ Tend to have more extreme deviance due to novel beliefs. ○ Tension with society is more intense, particularly in public perception. ○ Deviancy amplification: Hostility from society can push cults to become more extreme. Tension Between Sect and Society Tension is bidirectional: Sect may have antagonism toward society, but society may also resist the sect. Hostilities in society can intensify a sect’s beliefs (deviancy amplification). Notes: Media, Cults, and Social Control Media Representation of Cults: Cults are often portrayed in the media due to sensational incidents (e.g., mass suicides, criminal activities). Examples: ○ Order of the Solar Temple (1994 mass suicides) ○ Branch Davidians in Waco (1993 government siege) ○ Nxivm (2019 criminal charges like racketeering and sex trafficking) In the 1950s, new religious groups were seen as exotic but harmless. By the 1960s-70s, they were framed as a "cult menace" due to incidents like the Manson Family murders (1969) and the Jonestown massacre (1978). Media framing often portrays cults as dangerous, fueling moral panics. Real Harm in Some Cults: Some cults cause real harm: violence, suicides, sexual abuse, economic exploitation, and criminal activities. Jonestown Massacre (1978): Over 900 members of the Peoples Temple died from cyanide-laced fruit punch, led by Jim Jones. ○ Initially a movement with humanitarian values, later became abusive under Jones's control. ○ Followers isolated, coerced into signing false confessions, and controlled through fear. ○ In 1978, U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan was killed while investigating the group. Later, the mass suicide/murder took place. Characteristics of Harmful Religious Groups: Religious institutions can foster harmful behaviors due to factors like: ○ Obedience, patriarchy, divine justification, closed communities, and familial language. ○ These factors can lead to sexual abuse in both cults and mainstream religious groups. Diversity Among Cults: Not all cults engage in extreme behaviors like mass suicide or violence. Many cults differ in beliefs and practices, and their level of tension with society can vary. Popular images of cults, shaped by media, often exaggerate the dangers, contributing to negative public attitudes and increasing tensions. Deviance Dance: Cults and sects experience a "deviance dance" where society uses social control mechanisms (e.g., legal actions, media portrayals) to manage these groups, and the groups resist these controls. 18 Notes: Social Control of Cults and Religious Freedom Religious Freedom and Limitations: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religious practice. Limitations: Governments can restrict religious freedom if it threatens public health, order, or infringes on others' rights. Social Control Measures: Measures targeting sects and cults emerge from the anti-cult movement, counter-cult movement, media, and governments. Anti-Cult Movement (1960s-1970s): Originated from concerned parents of children who joined new religious groups, fearing brainwashing and harm. Expanded to include mental health, legal, political professionals, and academic researchers. Focuses on "destructive" cults—those perceived to have dangerous characteristics. Characteristics of Destructive Cults (Box 9.2): Leader places the group above the law. Leader has absolute control over members' personal lives. Use of mind control techniques. Deception in recruitment and fundraising. Apocalyptic beliefs, such as preparing for a battle with the outside world. Counter-Cult Movement: Older than the anti-cult movement, primarily composed of conservative Christians (evangelicals). Opposes religious freedom, viewing any group not aligning with their beliefs as a cult. Targets mainstream Christian religions (e.g., Catholicism) and Eastern religions (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism). Role of Media: Media Framing: Influences public attitudes and constructs societal perceptions of cults. ○ The Jonestown massacre (1978): Defined many people's perception of cults. Key elements: Charismatic leader (Jim Jones), isolation (Peoples Temple in Guyana), and poisoning(mass suicide). ○ The media's portrayal of Jonestown has shaped modern views of cults. Media Impact: ○ Terms like “drinking the Kool-Aid” have entered mainstream language to describe blind loyalty or deception. ○ Cult leaders, like Keith Raniere (Nxivm) or R. Kelly, are framed as having charismatic control over followers. Fictional Media and the Cult Narrative: Fictional portrayals of cults shape public perception by using specific narrative frames: 1. Cult members wear distinctive clothing (e.g., grey uniforms). 2. Cults are isolated (e.g., farms or communes). 3. Cults are portrayed as having delusional beliefs (e.g., extraterrestrial influences). 4. Public displays of group practices (e.g., chanting). These portrayals create symbolic boundaries between acceptable beliefs and “other” beliefs (e.g., in shows like Family Guy, South Park, and The L.A. Complex). Fictional and quasi-fictional cult narratives reinforce the Othering of certain religious practices, further contributing to social control of those groups. Portrayals of cults in entertainment media contribute to their deviantization in society. Notes: Social Control, Resistance, and the Concept of Religious Deviance 19 Government Control and Legislation: Formal social control is exerted by governments through legislation, policies, and programs to manage potentially destructive religious groups. Threats to public health, order, and the rights of others are often the justification for these measures. In Western nations, the challenge lies in balancing religious freedom with control over deviant religious groups, especially in countries that separate church and state. Monitoring and Legal Actions: Governments monitor religious groups, especially those seen as dangerous: ○ Canada’s CSIS monitors doomsday or apocalyptic cults. ○ FBI in the U.S. also monitors such groups. Controversial Measures: Some countries, like Russia, have violated religious freedoms under vague anti-extremism laws. This has led to the persecution of religious minorities (e.g., Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses). ○ Jehovah's Witnesses have faced raids and criminal charges for their religious activities in Russia. Resistance to the Label of Deviance: Religious groups labeled as deviant (e.g., cults, sects) engage in resistance to social control measures in various ways. Legal Resistance: Religious groups may defend themselves in court against accusations (e.g., sexual abuse). Litigious Responses: The Church of Scientology is known for threatening lawsuits and engaging in legal battlesagainst critics, filmmakers, and journalists. Media Resistance: Religious groups use the media for impression management: ○ Example: During the Waco standoff (1993), Seventh-day Adventists used media to distance themselves from the Branch Davidians, clarifying that they were not representative of mainstream Adventism. ○ Muslim groups use media (e.g., “Muslims Are Not Terrorists” Facebook page) to challenge negative portrayals of Islam. ○ Scientology uses celebrities as public faces to promote its image. Academia and Intellectual Resistance: Scholars have increasingly questioned the typology of religious groups, particularly the distinctions between ecclesia, churches, sects, and cults. ○ Ecclesia: State-sanctioned religions. ○ Churches: Established religious groups. ○ Sects and Cults: Groups with deviant beliefs or practices, though these terms have become more contested. Blurring Boundaries Between Religious Types: Historically, all major world religions (now churches) began as cults—small, committed groups with charismatic leaders and doctrines that challenged conventional society. ○ Over time, as these groups grew, integrated into society, and gained power, they transitioned into more acceptable religious forms. The Universality of Religious Deviance: Religious deviance is not confined to new or minority religious groups but has affected all religions at some point: ○ Soviet Union: Religion was prohibited entirely. 20  ○ Crusades, Israel/Palestine conflicts, and Protestant-Catholic wars are historical examples of religious persecution. Contemporary Academic Approaches: Many scholars have abandoned traditional terms like cult and sect, opting for more inclusive terms like ideological groups or new religious movements. ○ New Religious Movements (NRMs) and minority religions are used to describe non-mainstream religious groups without labeling them as deviant. Notes: Religious Belief Systems and the Social Typing of Deviance Religious Belief Systems as Social Typers of Deviance: Religious systems often serve as agents of social control, dictating what is considered moral and immoralbehavior, thus framing societal norms and identifying deviant actions. At the individual level, religious beliefs influence personal behavior, decision-making, and interactions with others. At the societal level, these beliefs may become institutionalized in government policies and laws, influencing how deviance is defined and punished. Historical Example: The Witch Persecutions Context of Witch Hunts: 14th–17th centuries: The Christian Church held significant power, either directly governing or advising governments in Europe. Church doctrine influenced legal systems, leading to widespread witch persecutions. Between 40,000 and 100,000 people, mostly women, were persecuted and executed for witchcraft, accused of being in league with Satan and blamed for misfortunes like plagues, crop failures, and stillbirths. Characteristics of Witch Hunts: The accused were often women, especially those who were financially independent or widows, as well as midwives and healers using herbs or natural remedies. Torture was commonly used to force confessions, often leading to false admissions of guilt. At the peak (1550–1650), almost anyone could be accused, leading to widespread panic and violence. The printing press spread fear through witch-hunting manuals and pamphlets, which exaggerated the problem to gather public support for further persecution. Regional Variations: The Protestant Reformation saw increased witch persecutions in Protestant areas where the Catholic Church had weakened, while Catholic regions (like Italy) experienced fewer trials. Both Catholic and Protestant churches were involved, using trials to assert their religious dominance. Local authorities often conducted witch hunts, with the Church providing the theological justification for persecution. Political and Social Factors: Witch hunts often coincided with peasant rebellions or attempts to distract common people from political struggles. These events were driven by both elite zeal and fear from the public, with accusations frequently based on local grievances and personal conflicts. Modern-Day Witch Persecutions: Despite the historical nature of the witch craze, witchcraft accusations continue in the 21st century in some regions: ○ In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, homeless children are abandoned due to accusations of witchcraft. ○ In Papua New Guinea, women are stoned to death for sorcery. 21  ○ Saudi Arabia has an Anti-Witchcraft Unit, with numerous arrests and executions for suspected sorcery. Vulnerable groups like women, children, and the disabled are most at risk of being accused of witchcraft. Residential Schooling and Religious Control: Assimilation through Religion: As part of colonial policies, European governments sought to erase Indigenous cultures and spiritual beliefs by replacing them with Christian values. Christian missionaries were often the first Europeans to interact with Indigenous peoples, enforcing religious conversion and assimilating Indigenous beliefs. Legal Measures to Eradicate Indigenous Beliefs: In 1885, the Indian Act criminalized ceremonies like potlatches, which were central to Indigenous culture. ○ Potlatches served important social and cultural functions, including the redistribution of wealth, recognition of social status, and the passing down of hereditary rights and names. ○ People could face imprisonment for practicing potlatch ceremonies for over 60 years. Residential School System: Residential schools were established in 1879 by the Canadian government to assimilate Indigenous children into Christianity and mainstream Canadian culture. ○ Indigenous children were removed from their families and placed in Christian-run residential schools, which were government-funded. ○ These schools aimed to sever cultural ties and replace Indigenous spiritual practices with Christian values. Approximately 150,000 children went through these schools, with the last one closing in 1996. Long-Term Impacts: The residential school system caused significant trauma, cultural loss, and generational harm to Indigenous communities. These efforts to erase Indigenous culture through religious and social control were part of broader patterns of colonization and racialization. Across Canada, residential schools caused intergenerational trauma that lasts into the present day. The passage explores the intersection of religious and political systems through examples of residential schooling, the Victorian child-savers movement, and the witch craze, highlighting how religious beliefs shaped and reinforced political policies, often leading to the devilization (labeling as deviant) of certain cultural practices and individuals. It emphasizes the significant impact of these intertwined belief systems on various groups, particularly marginalized and Indigenous communities. Key Themes and Concepts: Parental Consent and State Control: Indigenous children were wards of the state, making parental consent unnecessary for their removal into residential schools. Threats were made to communities that resisted government control, including loss of resources or arrest. Education in residential schools was secondary to assimilation, with an emphasis on teaching white Settler beliefsand practices. Traditional Indigenous cultural practices were prohibited, and punishments were imposed for those who continued to engage in these practices. Abuse and Trauma: 22  Sexual and physical abuse was rampant in residential schools, with 91,000 out of 150,000 children reporting such abuse. The psychological effects of this abuse are immeasurable, causing intergenerational trauma still felt today. Government acknowledgment of this trauma in the 1990s led to public apologies, restitution, and the creation of initiatives like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which documented survivors' stories. Restitution and Reconciliation: Survivors of residential schools received financial compensation and other forms of restitution, including funding for healing initiatives and wellness programs. In 2019, day school survivors were included in a settlement that offered similar compensation and established a $200 million legacy fund for healing. The TRC held dialogue forums and released a final report with recommendations for reconciliation, focused on areas such as education, child welfare, and justice. Victorian Child-Savers Movement: In parallel to residential schooling, the Victorian child-savers movement aimed to reform child welfare by removing children from what were seen as immoral homes and placing them in more "moral" environments. This movement was influenced by the Social Gospel, a Protestant belief system that saw humanitarian aid as a means of achieving salvation. Child abuse and neglect were seen as deviant, and government policies began to support the removal of childrenfrom lower-class families, assuming these families were inherently immoral due to their poverty. Religious and Political Belief Systems: The intersection of religious and political belief systems led to the social control of marginalized groups. In the case of the witch craze, residential schools, and the child-savers movement, religious beliefs about morality were codified into legislation and policies that criminalized or suppressed certain behaviors, cultural practices, and groups of people. In all these cases, religion helped shape political policies that classified particular groups (such as Indigenous peoples and the poor) as deviant or immoral, reinforcing a cycle of social control through government intervention. Reflection on Social Control: These historical examples illustrate how religious doctrines were used to justify political actions, such as the persecution of witches, the assimilation of Indigenous children, and the removal of children from lower-class homes. As religion and politics overlapped, the definition of deviance shifted to align with religious views on what was considered moral or immoral. The passage highlights the dual role of science as both a social controller and a system that is itself subject to social control. It explores how scientific belief systems consist of two main components: claims about reality and ethical/moral considerations, and how science, like religion, can define and regulate deviance. Below are the key ideas and themes from the passage: Key Themes and Ideas: Definition of Science: Science is broadly defined as a system of knowledge or a body of knowledge about general truths or laws that are obtained and tested through the scientific method (e.g., experimentation, observation, hypothesis testing). Science involves both objective truths about the world (e.g., physical laws, biological processes) and ethical or moral beliefs about how to apply these truths (e.g., in medical or genetic research). Two Categories of Belief in Science: 23  1. Claims about the Nature of Reality: ○ These beliefs pertain to understanding how the world works, such as theories and findings in various scientific fields (e.g., biology, physics, sociology). These claims are often testable and subject to verification or falsification. ○ For example, in gene editing research, there are claims about the biological mechanisms involved in genetic changes and how these mechanisms can be manipulated or controlled. 2. Ethical and Moral Claims: ○ Scientific belief systems also include ethical or moral considerations related to how scientific knowledge is used. This can involve debates over the morality of certain scientific practices, like gene editing or stem cell research. ○ Scientific findings may present new possibilities, but these possibilities raise ethical questions about what should or should not be done with the knowledge, and who decides what is acceptable. Science and Social Control: Science functions as a social control mechanism, much like religion, by providing a framework for determining what is deviant and how to regulate behaviors that fall outside accepted norms. ○ For instance, medical science can define mental illness or substance abuse as deviant, influencing social policies around treatment and criminalization. ○ Genetic research may raise moral concerns about designer babies or eugenics, thus influencing social and legal frameworks surrounding the use of genetic technologies. Science as a Social Control Agent: Just as religion plays a role in defining deviance, science also dictates what is considered deviant in society. It provides frameworks for social control through laws, policies, and the regulation of scientific practices. ○ For example, scientific research may lead to laws about the use of genetic modification, or the regulation of substances based on health risks, shaping society’s responses to what is considered acceptable or deviant behavior. Science as Subject to Social Control: While science has a role in shaping society's norms and regulations, it is also subject to social control itself. The scientific community must navigate ethical guidelines, governmental regulations, and public scrutiny, ensuring that research and discoveries align with societal values and do not overstep moral or ethical boundaries. ○ For example, controversial experiments in genetics or artificial intelligence often face legal restrictions, ethical reviews, and public backlash when perceived to violate moral norms. Distinct Belief Systems Within Science: Different scientific disciplines (e.g., biology, physics, sociology) often have their own distinct truths based on their specific objects of study. Each discipline develops its own methods and standards for what is considered valid scientific knowledge. ○ For example, sociology studies human societies and behavior, often focusing on social structures and cultural norms, while biology focuses on the natural world, organisms, and ecosystems. Overlap Between Religious and Scientific Belief Systems: Both religious and scientific belief systems often play important roles in shaping individual and collective behaviors. While religion defines morality and guides behaviors, science shapes understanding of what is possible or acceptable in society and can dictate responses to deviant behaviors. 24  ○ Religion may influence policies in areas like medicine (e.g., abortion or euthanasia), and science may challenge these religious norms through new discoveries (e.g., stem cell research, genetic modification). The passage outlines the concept of scientific misconduct and the various ways in which scientists, as well as entire disciplines, can be socially typed as deviant. Scientific misconduct refers to unethical behavior that intentionally manipulates research outcomes, such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP). The extent of this issue and the possible explanations for why it happens are also discussed. Below are the key points from the passage: Key Concepts and Ideas: Scientific Misconduct and Deviance: Scientific misconduct refers to intentional acts of deception in research, such as: ○ Fabrication: Making up data or results. ○ Falsification: Manipulating data to produce desired results. ○ Plagiarism: Stealing someone else’s work or ideas. Questionable Research Practices (QRPs): While not necessarily "wrongful," these practices raise ethical concerns, such as poor data management or drawing unsupported conclusions. Examples of Scientific Misconduct: Case of Dr. Diederik Stapel: One of the most notorious cases of scientific misconduct in social psychology. Stapel falsified data for years, presenting fabricated findings to the scientific community. His actions were discovered, leading to the retraction of over 50 of his papers. Biomedical Research: Misconduct is notably detected in biomedical fields due to the large amount of funding and high scrutiny these fields receive. The costs associated with misconduct can be significant, such as the case of a researcher at Duke University, whose misconduct involved over $200 million in federal research grants. Extent of Scientific Misconduct: Prevalence: Scientific misconduct is difficult to quantify. In one of the largest surveys on the topic, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying data, and 14% reported knowledge of misconduct by their colleagues (Fanelli, 2009). Another survey found that over two-thirds of researchers involved in HIV research admitted to misconduct or questionable practices during their careers. Article Retractions: Retracted articles in scientific journals provide another measure of misconduct. A study found that between one-quarter and one-third of biomedical articles retracted from journals between 1970 and 2018 were due to misconduct (Dal-Ré, 2020). Explanations for Scientific Misconduct: 1. Bad Apple Theory: This theory suggests that misconduct is due to individual factors, like personal malice, psychological disturbances, or unethical behavior. It implies that the solution to misconduct is to identify and remove the "bad apples" from the scientific community. ○ This view suggests that misconduct is an anomaly, committed by a few rogue scientists. 2. Iceberg Theory: This theory argues that scientific misconduct is much more widespread than commonly believed, and those cases that are discovered represent only the tip of the iceberg. It points to systemic issues within the scientific environment that foster misconduct. For example, pressures to publish or secure research funding may drive scientists to engage in deviant behaviors. ○ Proponents of the ice