University of Phoenix Is Crime A Problem On Your Campus Essay
Write a 700-word response to one bullet at the end of the chapter.
You prob cant access the link I copy and paste the chapter:96Chapter 4Deviance and Social Control Social ControlWhat Is Deviance?Sociological Perspectives on DevianceCrime: A Sociological ApproachCrime StatisticsRachel came from a happy family. She began wounding herself with a coat hanger when her friends turned against her. She stayed home from school for a week, couldn’t stop crying, after they began spreading malicious rumors about her. Natalie, a college student, started injuring herself in eighth grade. She was hanging around the bridge with a group of stoners and punks, smoking and taking drugs, when she began imitating the ones who cut themselves.These descriptions of the covert practice of self-injury are taken from Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler’s extensive research on the little-known behavior and its social underpinnings. Over a six-year period, the Adlers conducted lengthy, emotionally intense interviews with self-injurers, becoming friends with many. They met others in virtual space, through Internet-based support groups and Web postings. “Rather than remaining strictly detached from our subjects, we became involved in their lives, helping them and giving voice to their experiences and beliefs,” the Adlers admit (2007:542).The Adlers’ work on self-injury reflects all three major sociological approaches. For self-injurers, who rarely come into contact with others97like themselves, the Internet functions as a meeting place, a refuge from their self-imposed social isolation. As conflict theorists would point out, their unconventional behavior marginalizes them, preventing them from receiving assistance even when they would welcome it. Interactionists would recognize the critical nature of self-injurers’ interpersonal contacts, in person and often online.Though many people would like to ignore the phenomenon of self-injury, believing that those who practice it will eventually “grow out of it,” the Adlers’ research allows us to consider it intelligently and scientifically, within the social context. Self-injurers, the Adlers found, are a diverse group, most of whom have never been treated for psychological problems. They include older adults, who communicate with one another online, as well as teens and young adults. Far from being impulsive or pathological, self-injury is a carefully planned and considered behavior. Surprisingly, members often begin to injure themselves in the company of others rather than in secret. They have recently begun to coalesce as a subculture.Who decides what is and is not normal behavior, and how does society attempt to control what people say and do? In this chapter we will study various mechanisms of social control, both formal and informal. We will examine several theoretical explanations for deviance from social norms. And we will discuss one form of deviance that is subject to strict formal controls: crime.Social ControlAs we saw in Chapter 2, each culture, subculture, and group has distinctive norms governing what is deemed appropriate behavior. Laws, dress codes, organizational bylaws, course requirements, and the rules of sports and games all express social norms.How does a society bring about acceptance of basic norms? The term social control refers to the techniques and strategies for preventing deviant behavior in any society. Social control occurs on all levels of society. In the family, we are socialized to obey our parents simply because they are our parents. Peer groups introduce us to informal norms, such as dress codes, that govern the behavior of members. Colleges establish standards they expect their students to meet. In bureaucratic organizations, workers encounter a formal system of rules and regulations. Finally, the government of every society legislates and enforces social norms.Most of us respect and accept basic social norms and assume that others will do the same. Even without thinking, we obey the instructions of police officers, follow the day-to-day rules at our jobs, and move to the rear of elevators when people enter. Such behavior reflects an effective process of socialization to the dominant standards of a culture. At the same time, we are well aware that individuals, groups, and institutions98 Figure 4–1Executions by State Since 1976NOTES: Number of executions carried out from January 17, 1977, to November 9, 2017, not including three federal executions. Illinois carried out 12 executions before abolishing the death penalty. Nebraska, which abolished the death penalty in 2015, had executed 3 people. The U.S. government has 62 people on death row; the military has 5.SOURCE: Death Penalty Information Center, 2017.Think About ItWhy is there so much variation in the number of executions from one state to the next? What might cause that variation?expect us to act “properly.” This expectation carries with it sanctions, penalties and rewards for conduct concerning a social norm. If we fail to live up to the norm, we may face punishment through informal sanctions such as fear and ridicule or formal sanctions such as jail sentences or fines.The ultimate formal sanction is the death penalty, which has been the subject of much controversy recently. Figure 4–1 shows the number of executions carried out in the United States from 1976 through February 2017. Is this sanction an effective form of social control? Other than eliminating the person who is executed, what does the death penalty accomplish? Does it actually control others’ behavior by deterring them from committing a capital offense? To answer these questions, researchers must consider the motivation behind capital crimes as well as the criminal’s understanding of the resulting penalties. Taking these factors into consideration, researchers have found little evidence that execution is any more a deterrent to capital crimes than an extended prison term (Nagen and Pepper 2012).99The challenge to effective social control is that people often receive competing messages about how to behave. While the state or government may clearly define acceptable behavior, friends or fellow employees may encourage quite different behavior patterns. Historically, legal measures aimed at blocking discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age, and sexual orientation have been difficult to implement because many people tacitly encourage the violation of such measures.As with other topics, sociologists who study social control tend to speak from one of the major theoretical perspectives. Functionalists contend that people must respect social norms if a group or society is to survive. In their view, societies literally could not function if massive numbers of people defied standards of appropriate conduct. By contrast, conflict theorists maintain that “successful functioning” of a society will consistently benefit the powerful and work to the disadvantage of other groups. They point out, for example, that in the United States, widespread resistance to social norms was necessary to overturn the institution of slavery, to win independence from England, to secure civil rights, to allow women to vote, and to force an end to the war in Vietnam.CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCETechniques for social control operate on both the group level and the societal level. People we think of as peers or equals influence us to act in particular ways; the same is true of people who hold authority over us or occupy awe-inspiring positions. Stanley Milgram (1975) made a useful distinction between these two important levels of social control.Milgram defined conformity as going along with peers—individuals of our own status, who have no special right to direct our behavior. By contrast, obedience is defined as compliance with higher authorities in a hierarchical structure. Thus, a recruit entering military service will typically conform to the habits and language of other recruits and will obey the orders of superior officers. Students will conform to the behavior of their peers and will obey the requests of campus security officers.If ordered to do so, would you comply with an experimenter’s instruction to give people increasingly painful electric shocks? Most people would say no, yet the research of social psychologist Stanley Milgram (1963, 1975) suggests that most of us will obey such orders. In Milgram’s words (1975:xi), “Behavior that is unthinkable in an individual … acting on his own may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders.”Milgram placed advertisements in New Haven, Connecticut, newspapers to recruit subjects for what was described as a learning experiment at Yale University. Participants included postal clerks, engineers, high school teachers, and laborers. They were told that the purpose of the research was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning. The experimenter, dressed in a gray technician’s coat, explained that in each100testing, one subject would be randomly selected as the “learner” and another would function as the “teacher.” However, the experiment was rigged so that the “real” subject would always be the teacher, while an associate of Milgram’s served as the learner.At this point, the learner’s hand was strapped to an electric apparatus. The teacher was taken to an electronic “shock generator” with 30 graduated lever switches labeled from 15 to 450 volts. Before beginning the experiment, all subjects were given sample shocks of 45 volts, to convince them of the authenticity of the experiment. The experimenter then instructed the teacher to apply shocks of increasing voltage each time the learner gave an incorrect answer on a memory test. Teachers were told that “although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.” In reality, the learner did not receive any shocks.The learner acted out a prearranged script, deliberately giving incorrect answers and pretending to be in pain. For example, at 150 volts, the learner would cry out, “Get me out of here!” At 270 volts, the learner would scream in agony. When the shock reached 350 volts, the learner would fall silent. If the teacher wanted to stop the experiment, the experimenter would insist that the teacher continue, using such statements as “The experiment requires that you continue” and “You have no other choice; you must go on” (Milgram 1975:19–23).The results of this unusual experiment stunned and dismayed Milgram and other social scientists. Almost two-thirds of participants fell into the category of “obedient subjects.” Why did these subjects obey? Why were they willing to inflict seemingly painful shocks on innocent victims who had never done them any harm? There is no evidence that these subjects were unusually sadistic; few seemed to enjoy administering the shocks. Instead, in Milgram’s view, the key to obedience was the experimenter’s social role as a “scientist” and “seeker of knowledge.”Milgram pointed out that in the modern industrial world, we are accustomed to submitting to impersonal authority figures whose status is indicated by a title (professor, lieutenant, doctor) or a uniform (the technician’s coat). Because we view the authority as larger and more important than the individual, we shift responsibility for our behavior to the authority figure. Milgram’s subjects frequently stated, “If it were up to me, I would not have administered shocks.” They saw themselves as merely doing their duty (Milgram 1975).From a conflict perspective, our obedience may be affected by the value we place on those whom our behavior affects. While Milgram’s experiment shows that in general, people are willing to obey authority figures, other studies show that they are even more willing to obey if they feel the “victim” is deserving of punishment. Sociologist Gary Schulman (1974) re-created Milgram’s experiment and found that White students were significantly more likely to shock Black “learners” than White “learners.” By a margin of 70 percent to 48 percent, they imposed more shocks on the Black learners than on the White learners.If you were a participant in Milgram’s research on obedience, how far do you think you would go in carrying out “orders”? Do you see any ethical problem with the experimenter’s manipulation of the subjects? Explain your answers.101From an interactionist perspective, one important aspect of Milgram’s findings is the fact that in follow-up studies, subjects were less likely to inflict the supposed shocks as they were moved physically closer to their victims. Moreover, interactionists emphasize the effect of incrementally administering additional dosages of 15 volts. In effect, the experimenter gradually persuaded the teacher to continue inflicting higher levels of punishment. It is doubtful that anywhere near the two-thirds rate of obedience would have been reached had the experimenter told the teachers to immediately administer 450 volts to the learners (B. Allen 1978; Katovich 1987).How willing would participants in this experiment be to shock learners today? Although many people may be skeptical of the high levels of conformity Milgram found, recent replications of his experiment confirm his findings. In 2006, using additional safeguards to protect participants’ welfare, psychologist Jerry Burger (2009) repeated part of Milgram’s experiment with college undergraduates. To avoid biasing the participants, Burger was careful to screen out students who had heard of Milgram’s study. The results of the replication were startlingly similar to Milgram’s: participants showed a high level of willingness to shock the learner, just as the participants in Milgram’s experiment had almost half a century earlier. At the most comparable point in the two studies, Burger measured a rate of 70 percent full obedience—lower, but not significantly so, than the rate of 82.5 percent measured two generations earlier.INFORMAL AND FORMAL SOCIAL CONTROLThe sanctions used to encourage conformity and obedience—and to discourage violation of social norms—are carried out through both informal and formal social control. As the term implies, people use informal social control casually to enforce norms. Examples include smiles, laughter, a raised eyebrow, and ridicule.In the United States and many other cultures, adults often view spanking, slapping, or kicking children as a proper and necessary means of informal social control. Child development specialists counter that such corporal punishment is inappropriate because it teaches children to solve problems through violence. They warn that slapping and spanking can escalate into more serious forms of abuse. Yet, despite a 1998 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics that corporal punishment is not effective and can indeed be harmful, 59 percent of pediatricians support the use of corporal punishment, at least in certain situations. Our culture widely accepts this form of informal social control (Chung et al. 2009).Formal social control is carried out by authorized agents, such as police officers, physicians, school administrators, employers, military officers, and managers of movie theaters. It can serve as a last resort when socialization and informal sanctions do not bring about desired behavior. An increasingly significant means of formal social control in the United States is to imprison people. During the course of a year, over 7 million adults undergo102some form of correctional supervision—jail, prison, probation, or parole. Put another way, almost 1 out of every 30 adult Americans is subject to this very formal type of social control every year (Sabol et al. 2009).LAW AND SOCIETYSome norms are so important to a society that they are formalized into laws controlling people’s behavior. Law may be defined as governmental social control (Black 1995). Some laws, such as the prohibition against murder, are directed at all members of society. Others, such as fishing and hunting regulations, affect particular categories of people. Still others govern the behavior of social institutions (corporate law and laws regarding the taxation of nonprofit enterprises).Sociologists see the creation of laws as a social process. Laws are created in response to a perceived need for formal social control. Sociologists have sought to explain how and why such perceptions arise. In their view, law is not merely a static body of rules handed down from generation to generation. Rather, it reflects continually changing standards of what is right and wrong, how violations are to be determined, and what sanctions are to be applied (Schur 1968).Sociologists representing varying theoretical perspectives agree that the legal order reflects the values of those in a position to exercise authority. Therefore, the creation of criminal law can be a most controversial matter. Should it be against the law to employ illegal immigrants in a factory or to have an abortion? Such issues have been bitterly debated because they require a choice among competing values. Not surprisingly, laws that are unpopular—such as the prohibition of alcohol under the 18th Amendment in 1919 and the widespread establishment of a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on the highway—become difficult to enforce when there is no consensus supporting the underlying norms.Socialization is actually the primary source of conforming and obedient behavior, including obedience to law. Generally, it is not external pressure from a peer group or authority figure that makes us go along with social norms. Rather, we have internalized such norms as valid and desirable and are committed to observing them. In a profound sense, we want to see ourselves (and to be seen) as loyal, cooperative, responsible, and respectful of others. In the United States and other societies around the world, people are socialized both to want to belong and to fear being viewed as different or deviant.What Is Deviance?For sociologists, the term deviance does not mean perversion or depravity. Rather, deviance is behavior that violates the standards of conduct or expectations of a group or society. In the United States, persons103who abuse alcohol or who are compulsive gamblers, and those with mental illness would all be classified as deviant. Being late for class is a deviant act; the same is true of wearing jeans to a formal wedding. On the basis of the sociological definition, we are all deviant from time to time. Each of us violates common social norms in certain situations (Best 2004).Is being overweight an example of deviance? In the United States and many other cultures, unrealistic standards of appearance and body image place a huge strain on people, especially women and girls. Journalist Naomi Wolf (1992) has used the term beauty myth to refer to an exaggerated ideal of beauty, beyond the reach of all but a few females. The beauty myth can have unfortunate consequences. In order to shed their “deviant” image and conform to (unrealistic) societal norms, many women and girls become consumed with adjusting their appearance. Yet what is deviant in one culture may be celebrated in another.Deviance involves the violation of group norms, which may or may not be formalized into law. It is a comprehensive concept that includes not only criminal behavior but also many actions not subject to prosecution. The public official who takes a bribe has defied social norms, but so has the high school student who refuses to sit in an assigned seat or cuts class. Of course, deviation from norms is not always negative, let alone criminal. A member of an exclusive social club who speaks out against a traditional policy of excluding women, Blacks, and Jews from admittance is deviating from the club’s norms. So is a police officer who blows the whistle on police corruption or brutality.A person can acquire a deviant identity in many ways. Because of physical or behavioral characteristics, some people are unwillingly cast in negative social roles. Once they have been assigned a deviant role, they have trouble presenting a positive image to others and may even experience lowered self-esteem. Whole groups of people—for instance, “short people” or “redheads”—may be labeled in this way. The interactionist Erving Goffman coined the term stigma to describe the labels society uses to devalue members of certain social groups (Goffman 1963; Heckert and Best 1997).Prevailing expectations about beauty and body shape may prevent people who are regarded as ugly or obese from advancing as rapidly as their abilities permit. Both overweight and anorexic people are assumed to be weak in character, slaves to their appetites or to media images. Because they do not conform to the beauty myth, these people may be viewed as “disfigured” or “strange” in appearance, bearers of what Goffman calls a “spoiled identity.” However, what constitutes disfigurement is a matter of interpretation. Of the millions of cosmetic procedures done every year in the United States alone, many are performed on women who would be objectively defined as having a normal appearance. And while feminist sociologists have accurately noted that the beauty myth makes many104women feel uncomfortable with themselves, men too lack confidence in their appearance. The number of males who choose to undergo cosmetic procedures has risen sharply in recent years.Often people are stigmatized for deviant behaviors they may no longer engage in. The labels “compulsive gambler,” “ex-convict,” “recovering alcoholic,” and “ex–mental patient” can stick to a person for life. Goffman draws a useful distinction between a prestige symbol that calls attention to a positive aspect of one’s identity, such as a wedding band or a badge, and a stigma symbol that discredits or debases one’s identity, such as a conviction for child molestation. While stigma symbols may not always be obvious, they can become a matter of public knowledge. Since 1994, many states have required convicted sex offenders to register with local police departments. Some communities publish the names and addresses, and in some instances even the pictures, of convicted sex offenders on the Web.From a sociological perspective, deviance is hardly objective or set in stone. Rather, it is subject to social definition within a particular society and at a particular time. For that reason, what is considered deviant can shift from one social era to another. In most instances, those individuals and groups with the greatest status and power define what is acceptable and what is deviant.You are a reporter who is investigating gambling activities in your community. How do people react to those who engage in highly stigmatized forms of gambling? How do they encourage other forms of gambling?Sociological Perspectives on DevianceWhy do people violate social norms? We have seen that deviant acts are subject to both informal and formal sanctions. The nonconforming or disobedient person may face disapproval, loss of friends, fines, or even imprisonment. Why, then, does deviance occur?Early explanations for deviance blamed supernatural causes or genetic factors (such as “bad blood” or evolutionary throwbacks to primitive ancestors). In the 1800s, substantial efforts were made to identify biological factors that lead to deviance and especially to criminal activity. Although such research was discredited in the 20th century, contemporary researchers, primarily biochemists, have sought to isolate genetic factors connected to certain personality traits. Although criminality (much less deviance) is hardly a personality characteristic, researchers have focused on traits that might lead to crime, such as aggression. Of course, aggression can also lead to success in the corporate world, professional sports, and other pursuits.The contemporary search for biological roots of criminality is but one aspect of the larger sociobiology debate. In general, sociologists reject any emphasis on genetic roots of crime and deviance. The limitations of current knowledge, the possibility of reinforcing racist and sexist assumptions, and the disturbing implications for the rehabilitation of criminals105have led sociologists to draw largely on other approaches to explain deviance (Walsh 2000).FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVEAccording to functionalists, deviance is a common part of human existence, with positive (as well as negative) consequences for social stability. Deviance helps to define the limits of proper behavior. Children who see one parent scold the other for belching at the dinner table learn about approved conduct. The same is true of the driver who receives a speeding ticket, the department store cashier who is fired for yelling at a customer, and the college student who is penalized for handing in papers weeks overdue.Durkheim’s Legacy Émile Durkheim ([1895] 1964) focused his sociological investigations mainly on criminal acts, yet his conclusions have implications for all types of deviant behavior. In Durkheim’s view, the punishments established within a culture (including both formal and informal mechanisms of social control) help to define acceptable behavior and thus contribute to social stability. If improper acts were not sanctioned, people might stretch their standards of what constitutes appropriate conduct.Durkheim ([1897] 1951) introduced the term anomie into sociological literature to describe the loss of direction felt in a society when social control of individual behavior has become ineffective. Anomie is a state of normlessness that typically occurs during a period of profound social change and disorder, such as a time of economic collapse. People become more aggressive or depressed, which results in higher rates of violent crime and suicide. Since there is much less agreement on what constitutes proper behavior during times of revolution, sudden prosperity, or economic depression, conformity and obedience become less significant as social forces. Stating exactly what constitutes deviance also becomes much more difficult.Merton’s Theory of Deviance What do a mugger and a teacher have in common? Each is “working” to obtain money that can be exchanged for desired goods. As this example illustrates, behavior that violates accepted norms (such as mugging) may be based on the same objectives as the behavior of people who pursue conventional lifestyles.Using this kind of analysis, sociologist Robert Merton (1968) adapted Durkheim’s concept of anomie to explain why people accept or reject the goals of a society, the socially approved means of meeting those goals, or both. Merton maintained that one important cultural goal in the United States is success, measured largely in terms of money. In addition to setting this goal for people, our society offers specific instructions on how to reach it—go to school, work hard, do not quit, take advantage of opportunities, and so forth.106What happens in a society with a heavy emphasis on wealth as a basic symbol of success? Merton reasoned that people adapt in certain ways, by conforming to or deviating from such cultural expectations. In his anomie theory of deviance, he posited five basic forms of adaptation (see Table 4–1).Conformity to social norms, the most common adaptation in Merton’s typology, is the opposite of deviance. It involves acceptance of both the overall societal goal (“become affluent”) and the approved means (“work hard”). In Merton’s view, there must be some consensus regarding accepted cultural goals and legitimate means for attaining them. Without such consensus, societies could exist only as collectives of people rather than as unified cultures, and might experience continual chaos.summing UP SOURCE: Adapted from Merton, Robert K., “Social Structure and Anomie,” American Sociological Review, 1938. Photos: (Moneybag): ©Shutterstock/Billion Photos; (Timeclock): ©Alamy Images.107You are a young person growing up in a poor neighborhood. You yearn for the flashy, expensive lifestyle you see portrayed in the media. How will you get it?Of course, in a varied society such as the United States, conformity is not universal. For example, the means for realizing objectives are not equally distributed. People in the lower social classes often identify with the same goals as those of more powerful and affluent citizens, yet they lack equal access to high-quality education and training for skilled work. Moreover, even within a society, institutionalized means for realizing objectives vary. For instance, it is legal to win money by playing roulette or poker in Nevada, but not in neighboring Utah.The other four types of behavior represented in Table 4–1 all involve some departure from conformity. The “innovator” accepts society’s goals but pursues them with means regarded as improper. For example, a professional thief who specializes in safecracking may steal money to buy consumer goods and expensive vacations.In Merton’s typology, the “ritualist” has abandoned the goal of material success and become compulsively committed to the institutional means. Work becomes simply a way of life rather than a means to achieving success. An example is the bureaucratic official who blindly applies rules and regulations without remembering the larger goals of an organization. Such would be true of a welfare caseworker who refuses to assist a homeless family because their last apartment was in another district.The “retreatist,” as described by Merton, has basically withdrawn (or “retreated”) from both the goals and the means of society. In the United States, drug addicts and vagrants are typically portrayed as retreatists. Some social workers worry that adolescents who are addicted to alcohol will become retreatists at an early age.The final adaptation identified by Merton reflects people’s attempts to create a new social structure. The “rebel” who feels alienated from dominant means and goals may seek a dramatically different social order. Members of a revolutionary political organization, such as a militia group, can be categorized as rebels according to Merton’s model.Although Merton’s theory of deviance is popular, it has not been applied systematically to real-world crime. Nevertheless, Merton made a key contribution to the sociological understanding of deviance by pointing out that deviants (such as innovators and ritualists) share a great deal with conforming people. The convicted felon may hold many of the same aspirations as people with no criminal background. Thus, the theory helps us to understand deviance as socially created behavior, rather than as the result of momentary pathological impulses.INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVEThe functionalist approach to deviance explains why rule violation continues to exist in societies, despite pressure to conform and obey. However, functionalists do not indicate how a given person comes to commit a deviant act, or why on some occasions crimes do or do not occur. The emphasis on everyday behavior that is the focus of the interactionist108perspective provides two such explanations of crime: cultural transmission and social disorganization theory.Cultural Transmission In the course of studying graffiti writing by gangs in Los Angeles, sociologist Susan A. Phillips (1999) discovered that the writers learned from one another. In fact, Phillips was surprised by how stable their focus was over time. She also noted how other ethnic groups built on the models of the African American and Chicano gangs, superimposing Cambodian, Chinese, or Vietnamese symbols.These teenagers demonstrate that humans learn how to behave in social situations, whether properly or improperly. There is no natural, innate manner in which people interact with one another. Though these simple ideas are not disputed today, such was not the case when sociologist Edwin Sutherland (1883–1950) first advanced the argument that an individual undergoes the same basic socialization process whether learning conforming or deviant acts.Sutherland, whose ideas have been the dominating force in criminology, drew on the cultural transmission school, which emphasizes that people learn criminal behavior through their social interactions. Such learning includes not only the techniques of lawbreaking (for example, how to break into a car quickly and quietly) but also the motives, drives, and rationalizations of criminals. The cultural transmission approach can also be used to explain the behavior of those who habitually abuse alcohol or drugs.Sutherland maintained that people acquire their definitions of proper and improper behavior through interactions with a primary group and significant others. He used the term differential association to describe the process through which exposure to attitudes favorable to criminal acts leads to rule violations. Research suggests that this process also applies to such noncriminal deviant acts as smoking, truancy, and early sexual behavior.Sutherland offers the example of a boy who is sociable, outgoing, and athletic and who lives in an area with a high delinquency rate. The youth is very likely to come into contact with peers who commit acts of vandalism, fail to attend school, and so forth and may come to adopt such behavior. However, an introverted boy living in the same neighborhood may stay away from his peers and avoid delinquency. In another community, an outgoing and athletic boy may join a Little League baseball team or a scout troop because of his interactions with peers. Thus, Sutherland views deviant behavior as the result of the types of groups to which one belongs and the kinds of friendships one has.According to critics, though the cultural transmission approach may explain the deviant behavior of juvenile delinquents or graffiti artists, it fails to explain the conduct of the first-time impulsive shoplifter or the impoverished person who steals out of necessity. While the theory is not a precise statement of the process through which one becomes a criminal, it does stress the paramount role of social interaction in increasing a person’s motivation to engage in deviant behavior (Loughran et al. 2013; Sutherland et al. 1992).109Social Disorganization Theory The social relationships that exist in a community or neighborhood affect people’s behavior. Philip Zimbardo (2007:24–25), author of the mock prison experiment described in Chapter 3, once did an experiment that demonstrated the power of communal relationships. He abandoned a car in each of two different neighborhoods, leaving its hood up and removing its hubcaps. In one neighborhood, people started to strip the car for parts before Zimbardo had finished setting up a remote video camera to record their behavior. In the other neighborhood, weeks passed without the car being touched, except for a pedestrian who stopped to close the hood during a rainstorm.What accounts for the strikingly different outcomes of Zimbardo’s experiment in the two communities? According to social disorganization theory, increases in crime and deviance can be attributed to the absence or breakdown of communal relationships and social institutions, such as the family, school, church, and local government. This theory was developed at the University of Chicago in the early 1900s to describe the apparent disorganization that occurred as cities expanded with rapid immigration and migration from rural areas. Using the latest survey techniques, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay literally mapped the distribution of social problems in Chicago. They found high rates of social problems in neighborhoods where buildings had deteriorated and the population had declined. Interestingly, the patterns persisted over time, despite changes in the neighborhoods’ ethnic and racial composition.This theory is not without its critics. To some, social disorganization theory seems to “blame the victim,” leaving larger societal forces, such as the lack of jobs or high-quality schools, unaccountable. Critics also argue that even troubled neighborhoods have viable, healthy organizations, which persist despite the problems that surround them.More recently, social disorganization theorists have taken to emphasizing the effect of social networks on communal bonds. These researchers acknowledge that communities are not isolated islands. Residents’ bonds may be enhanced or weakened by their ties to groups outside the immediate community (Jensen 2003; Sampson and Groves 1989; Shaw and McKay 1942).LABELING PERSPECTIVEThe Saints and Roughnecks were two groups of high school males continually engaged in excessive drinking, reckless driving, truancy, petty theft, and vandalism. There the similarity ended. None of the Saints was ever arrested, but every Roughneck was frequently in trouble with police and townspeople. Why the disparity in their treatment? On the basis of his observation research in their high school, sociologist William Chambliss (1973) concluded that social class played an important role in the varying fortunes of the two groups.110You are a teacher. What kinds of labels, freely used in education, might be attached to your students?The Saints hid behind a facade of respectability. They came from “good families,” were active in school organizations, planned on attending college, and received good grades. People generally viewed their delinquent acts as isolated cases of “sowing wild oats.” By contrast, the Roughnecks had no such aura of respectability. They drove around town in beat-up cars, were generally unsuccessful in school, and aroused suspicion no matter what they did.We can understand such discrepancies by using an approach to deviance known as labeling theory. Unlike Sutherland’s work, labeling theory does not focus on why some individuals come to commit deviant acts. Instead, it attempts to explain why certain people (such as the Roughnecks) are viewed as deviants, delinquents, “bad kids,” “losers,” and criminals, while others whose behavior is similar (such as the Saints) are not seen in such harsh terms. Reflecting the contribution of interactionist theorists, labeling theory emphasizes how a person comes to be labeled as deviant or to accept that label. Sociologist Howard Becker ([1953] 2015; 1963:9; 1964), who popularized this approach, summed it up with this statement: “Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.”Labeling theory is also called the societal-reaction approach, reminding us that it is the response to an act, not the behavior itself, that determines deviance. For example, studies have shown that some school personnel and therapists expand educational programs designed for students with learning disabilities to include students with behavioral problems. Consequently, a “troublemaker” can be improperly labeled as learning disabled, and vice versa (Grattet 2011).Traditionally, research on deviance has focused on people who violate social norms. In contrast, labeling theory focuses on police, probation officers, psychiatrists, judges, teachers, employers, school officials, and other regulators of social control. These agents, it is argued, play a significant role in creating the deviant identity by designating certain people (and not others) as “deviant.” An important aspect of labeling theory is the recognition that some individuals or groups have the power to define labels and apply them to others. This view ties into the conflict perspective’s emphasis on the social significance of power.In recent years, the practice of racial profiling, in which people are identified as criminal suspects purely on the basis of their race, has come under public scrutiny. Studies confirm the public’s suspicions that in some jurisdictions, police officers are much more likely to stop African American males than White males for routine traffic violations, in the expectation of finding drugs or guns in their cars. Civil rights activists refer to these cases sarcastically as DWB (“Driving While Black”) violations. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, profiling took a new turn as people who appeared to be Arab or Muslim came under special scrutiny.111CONFLICT PERSPECTIVEConflict theorists point out that people with power protect their own interests and define deviance to suit their own needs. Sociologist Richard Quinney (1974, 1979, 1980) is a leading proponent of the view that the criminal justice system serves the interests of the powerful. Crime, according to Quinney (1970), is a definition of conduct created by authorized agents of social control—such as legislators and law enforcement officers—in a politically organized society. Quinney and other conflict theorists argue that lawmaking is often an attempt by the powerful to coerce others into their own morality (see also Spitzer 1975).Conflict theory helps to explain why our society has laws against gambling, drug usage, and prostitution, many of which are violated on a massive scale. (We will examine these “victimless crimes” later in the chapter.) According to the conflict school, criminal law does not represent a consistent application of societal values but instead reflects competing values and interests. Thus, marijuana is outlawed by the federal government because it is alleged to be harmful to users, yet cigarettes and alcohol are sold legally almost everywhere.In fact, conflict theorists contend that the entire criminal justice system in the United States treats suspects differently based on their racial, ethnic, or social-class background. In many cases, officials in the system use their own discretion to make biased decisions about whether to press charges or drop them, whether to set bail and how much, whether to offer parole or deny it. Researchers have found that this kind of differential justice— differences in the way social control is exercised over different groups—puts African Americans and Latinos at a disadvantage in the justice system, both as juveniles and as adults. On average, White offenders receive shorter sentences than comparable Latino and African American offenders, even when prior arrest records and the relative severity of the crime are taken into consideration (Brewer and Heitzeg 2008; Sandefur 2008; Schlesinger 2011).The perspective advanced by labeling and conflict theorists forms quite a contrast to the functionalist approach to deviance. Functionalists view standards of deviant behavior as merely reflecting cultural norms, whereas conflict and labeling theorists point out that the most powerful groups in a society can shape laws and standards and determine who is (or is not) prosecuted as a criminal. Those groups would be unlikely to apply the label “deviant” to the corporate executive whose decisions lead to large-scale environmental pollution. In the opinion of conflict theorists, agents of social control and powerful groups can generally impose their own self-serving definitions of deviance on the general public.FEMINIST PERSPECTIVEFeminist criminologists such as Freda Adler and Meda Chesney-Lind have suggested that many of the existing approaches to deviance and crime were112developed with only men in mind. For example, in the United States, for many years any husband who forced his wife to have sexual intercourse—without her consent and against her will—was not legally considered to have committed rape. The law defined rape as pertaining only to sexual relations between people who were not married to each other, reflecting the overwhelmingly male composition of state legislatures at the time.It took repeated protests by feminist organizations to change the criminal law defining rape. Beginning in 1993, husbands in all 50 states could be prosecuted under most circumstances for the rape of their wives. There remain alarming exceptions in no fewer than eight states, however. For example, the husband is exempt when he does not need to use force because his wife is asleep, unconscious, or mentally or physically impaired. These interpretations rest on the notion that the marriage contract entitles a husband to sex (Allen 2015).In the future, feminist scholarship can be expected to grow dramatically. Particularly on topics such as white-collar crime, drinking behavior, drug abuse, and differential sentencing rates between the genders, as well as on the fundamental question of how to define deviance, feminist scholars will have much to say.Table 4–2 summarizes the various approaches sociologists have used in studying deviance.Tracking PerspectivesTable 4–2 Approaches to DevianceApproachPerspectiveProponentEmphasisAnomieFunctionalistÉmile Durkheim Robert MertonAdaptation to societal normsCultural transmission/differential associationInteractionistEdwin SutherlandPatterns learned through othersSocial disorganizationInteractionistClifford Shaw Henry McKayCommunal relationshipsLabeling/societal reactionInteractionistHoward Becker William ChamblissSocietal response to actsConflictConflictRichard QuinneyDominance by authorized agents Discretionary justiceFeministConflict/feministFreda Adler Meda Chesney-LindRole of gender Women as victims and perpetratorsThink About ItWhich sociological perspective is most useful in analyzing white collar crime? Vandalism? Cocaine use?113Crime: A Sociological ApproachCrime is a violation of criminal law for which some governmental authority applies formal penalties. It represents a deviation from formal social norms administered by the state. Laws divide crimes into various categories, depending on the severity of the offense, the age of the offender, the potential punishment that can be levied, and the court that holds jurisdiction over the case.Rather than relying solely on legal categories, sociologists classify crimes in terms of how they are committed and how society views the offenses. In this section we will examine six types of crime differentiated by sociologists: victimless crimes, professional crime, organized crime, white-collar and technology-based crime, hate crime, and transnational crime.VICTIMLESS CRIMESWhen we think of crime, we tend to think of acts that endanger people’s economic or personal well-being against their will (or without their direct knowledge). By contrast, sociologists use the term victimless crime to describe the willing exchange among adults of widely desired but illegal goods and services. For example, prostitution is widely regarded as a victimless crime (Schur 1965, 1985).Some activists are working to decriminalize many of these illegal practices. Supporters of decriminalization are troubled by the attempt to legislate a moral code of behavior for adults. In their view, it is impossible to prevent prostitution, drug abuse, gambling, and other victimless crimes. The already overburdened criminal justice system should instead devote its resources to “street crimes” and other offenses with obvious victims.Despite the wide use of the term victimless crime, many people object to the notion that there is no victim other than the offender in such crimes. Excessive drinking, compulsive gambling, and illegal drug use contribute to an enormous amount of personal and property damage. A person with a drinking problem can become abusive to a spouse or children; an individual with a compulsive gambling or drug abuse problem may steal to pursue his obsession. And feminist sociologists contend that prostitution, as well as the more disturbing aspects of pornography, reinforce the misconception that women are “toys” who can be treated as objects rather than people. According to critics of decriminalization, society must not give tacit approval to conduct that has such harmful consequences (Farley and Malarek 2008).The controversy over decriminalization reminds us of the important insights of labeling and conflict theorists presented earlier. Underlying this debate are two interesting questions: Who has the power to define gambling, prostitution, and public drunkenness as “crimes”? And who has the power to label such behaviors as “victimless”? The answer, in both cases, is generally the state legislatures and sometimes the police and the courts.114PROFESSIONAL CRIMEAlthough the adage “crime doesn’t pay” is familiar, many people do make a career of illegal activities. A professional criminal (or career criminal) is a person who pursues crime as a day-to-day occupation, developing skilled techniques and enjoying a certain degree of status among other criminals. Some professional criminals specialize in burglary, safecracking, hijacking of cargo, pickpocketing, and shoplifting. Such people have acquired skills that reduce the likelihood of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment. As a result, they may have long careers in their chosen “professions.”Edwin Sutherland (1937) offered pioneering insights into the behavior of professional criminals by publishing an annotated account written by a professional thief. Unlike the person who engages in crime only once or twice, professional thieves make a business of stealing. They devote their entire working time to planning and executing crimes, and sometimes travel across the nation to pursue their “professional duties.” Like people in regular occupations, professional thieves consult with their colleagues concerning their work, becoming part of a subculture of similarly occupied individuals. They exchange information on good places to burglarize, outlets for stolen goods, and ways of securing bail bonds.ORGANIZED CRIMEA 1976 government report takes three pages to define the term organized crime. For our purposes, we will consider organized crime to be the work of a group that regulates relations between various criminal enterprises involved in various illegal activities, including the smuggling and sale of drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Organized crime dominates the world of illegal business just as large corporations dominate the conventional business world. It allocates territory, sets prices for goods and services, and arbitrates internal disputes. A secret, conspiratorial activity that generally evades law enforcement, it takes over legitimate businesses, gains influence over labor unions, corrupts public officials, intimidates witnesses in criminal trials, and even “taxes” merchants in exchange for “protection” (National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice 1976).Organized crime serves as a means of upward mobility for groups of people struggling to escape poverty. Sociologist Daniel Bell (1953) used the term ethnic succession to describe the sequential passage of leadership from Irish Americans in the early part of the 20th century to Jewish Americans in the 1920s and then to Italian Americans in the early 1930s. Since then ethnic succession has become more complex, reflecting the diversity of the nation’s latest immigrants. Colombian, Mexican, Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, and Nigerian immigrants are among those who have begun to play a significant role in organized crime activities (Chin 1996; Kleinknecht 1996).115WHITE-COLLAR AND TECHNOLOGY-BASED CRIMEIncome tax evasion, stock manipulation, consumer fraud, bribery and extraction of “kickbacks,” embezzlement, and misrepresentation in advertising—these are all examples of white-collar crime, illegal acts committed in the course of business activities, often by affluent, “respectable” people. Edwin Sutherland (1949, 1983) likened these crimes to organized crime because they are often perpetrated through people’s occupational roles.A new type of white-collar crime has emerged in recent decades: cybercrime. Cybercrime is illegal activity primarily conducted through the use of computer hardware or software. Encompassed within cybercrime is cyberespionage and cyberterrorism. Cybercrime is a global problem, but the United States is victim to 80 percent of the data breaches. Because of the high value of U.S. targets, it is estimated that this country accounts for over 90 percent of the global cost of these breaches. By 2019 the annual cost of criminal data breaches in the United States is estimated to reach 2 trillion dollars (Juniper Research 2015).When Charles Horton Cooley spoke of the self and Erving Goffman of impression management, surely neit
These are the bullets to choose 1 to write aboutSociology MattersSociology matters because it explains why you accept certain social norms almost without thinking—and why you pay a price if you break those norms.
What social norms were you expected to conform to when you became a student at your college or university? Are they similar to or different from the norms you grew up with?
What happens to students who do not conform to accepted social norms? Is social control on your campus stricter or more lenient than social control in other parts of society?
Is crime a problem on your campus? If so, what social forces might underlie it?
 Suppose nominal GDP rose from 6250 billion in 1995 to 6630 billiopage0.png)
