- Unit 3.1 DB: Communities and PoliceChoose a recent event that involves the community and police and describe how it has impacted the relationship between the two. This could be an issue involving the use of force, community policing, recruitment, diversity, or other related concern that has recently been debated in our society. Please remember to not simply post opinions. Posts must be factual based and have sources to support one’s submissions.
You must support your response with scholarly sources in APA format. Simply stating your opinion is not enough, back up your opinion with citations. Refer to the DB Grading Rubric for more details. - Unit 3.2 DB: Deviance and SocietyDiscuss how deviance plays a role in everyday life and apply the various theories in this chapter to your thoughts. Can deviance be good? Do social movements start out as deviant behavior and then develop into societal change? Try and use a current event to explain how a certain level of deviance in society can bring about change.
You must support your response with scholarly sources in APA format. Simply stating your opinion is not enough, back up your opinion with citations. Refer to the DB Grading Rubric for more details.
Groups and Organizations Chapter 6.
6-1Social Groups
LO 1
Explain what constitutes a social group as opposed to an aggregate or a category.
If you see three strangers standing at a street corner waiting for a traffic light to change, do they constitute a group? Five hundred women and men are first-year graduate students at a university. Do they constitute a group? In everyday usage, we use the word group to mean any collection of people. According to sociologists, however, the answer to these questions is no; individuals who happen to share a common feature or to be in the same place at the same time do not constitute6-1aGroups, Aggregates, and Categories
As you will recall from
Chapter 5
, a social group is a collection of two or more people who interact frequently with one another, share a sense of belonging, and have a feeling of interdependence. Several people waiting for a traffic light to change constitute an
aggregate
—a collection of people who happen to be in the same place at the same time but share little else in common. Shoppers in a department store and passengers on an airplane flight are also examples of aggregates. People in aggregates share a common purpose (such as purchasing items or arriving at their destination) but generally do not interact with one another, except perhaps briefly. The first-year graduate students, at least initially, constitute a
category
—a number of people who may never have met one another but share a similar characteristic, such as education level, age, race, or gender. Men and women make up categories, as do Native Americans and Latinos/as, and victims of sexual or racial harassment. Categories are not social groups because the people in them do not usually create a social structure or have anything in common other than a particular trait.
Occasionally, people in aggregates and categories form social groups. For instance, people within the category known as “graduate students” may become an aggregate when they get together for an orientation to graduate school. Some of them may form social groups as they interact with one another in classes and seminars, find that they have mutual interests and concerns, and develop a sense of belonging to the group. Information technology raises new and interesting questions about what constitutes a group.
Where do our social media “friends” fit into these categories? Some social scientists believe that virtual communities established on the Internet constitute true communities (see Wellman, 2001), but others do not. According to sociologists Robyn Bateman Driskell and Larry Lyon, although the Internet provides us with the opportunity to share interests with others whom we have not met and to communicate with people whom we already know, the original concept of community, which “emphasized local place, common ties, and social interaction that is intimate, holistic, and all-encompassing,” is lacking in social media (Driskell and Lyon, 2002: 6). Why? Because virtual communities on the Internet do not have geographic and social boundaries, are limited in their scope to specific areas of interest, are psychologically detached from close interpersonal ties, and have only limited concern for their members. In fact, people who spend hours in isolation on social media may reduce community rather than enhance it, or there is a chance that they will create a weak replacement for people based on specialized ties they develop through extended, remote interaction with others (Driskell and Lyon, 2002). What do you think?
Types of Groups
LO 2
Distinguish among ingroups, outgroups, and reference groups, and give an example of each.
As you will recall from Chapter 5, groups have varying degrees of social solidarity and structure. This structure is flexible in some groups and more rigid in others. Some groups are small and personal; others are large and impersonal. We more closely identify with the members of some groups than we do with others.
Cooley’s Primary and Secondary Groups
Sociologist Charles H. Cooley (1963/1909) used the term primary group to describe a small, less specialized group in which members engage in face-to-face, emotion-based interactions over an extended period of time. We have primary relationships with other individuals in our primary groups—that is, with our significant others, who frequently serve as role models.
In contrast, as you will recall, a secondary group is a larger, more specialized group in which the members engage in more-impersonal, goal-oriented relationships for a limited period of time. The size of a secondary group may vary. Twelve students in a graduate seminar may start out as a secondary group but eventually become a primary group as they get to know one another and communicate on a more personal basis.
Formal organization
s are secondary groups, but they also contain many primary groups within them. For example, how many primary groups do you think there are within the secondary-group setting of your college?
Sumner’s
Ingroup
s and
Outgroup
s
All groups set boundaries by distinguishing between insiders who are members and outsiders who are not members (
Figure 6.1
). Sociologist William Graham Sumner (1959/1906) coined the terms ingroup and outgroup to describe people’s feelings toward members of their own and other groups. An
ingroup
is a group to which a person belongs and with which the person feels a sense of identity. An
outgroup
is a group to which a person does not belong and toward which the person may feel a sense of competitiveness or hostility. Distinguishing between our ingroups and our outgroups helps us establish our individual identity and self-worth. Likewise, groups are solidified by ingroup and outgroup distinctions; the presence of an enemy or a hostile group binds members more closely together (Coser, 1956).
Figure 6.1
Sometimes, the distinction between what constitutes an ingroup and an outgroup is subtle. Other times, it is not subtle at all. Would you feel comfortable entering or joining this club?
Jeff Greenberg/Alamy;
Jim West/Alamy
Group boundaries may be formal, with clearly defined criteria for membership. For example, a private city club or country club that requires an applicant for membership to be recommended by four current members and to pay a $100,000 initiation fee has clearly set requirements for its members and established “ingroup” and “outgroup” distinctions. Formal group boundaries are reinforced by “invitation-only” policies for membership and the privacy and exclusivity of life inside the club. Many clubs have “Members Only” signs to indicate that the organization does not welcome outsiders within club walls. As a result, club members develop a consciousness of kind—the awareness that individuals have when they believe that they share important commonalities with certain other people. Consciousness of kind is strengthened by membership in clubs ranging from country clubs to college sororities, fraternities, and other by-invitation-only college or university social clubs (Kendall, 2008).
In our own lives, most of us are aware that our ingroups provide us with a unique sense of identity. But sometimes we are less aware that they also give us the ability to exclude individuals whom we do not want to be in our inner circle of friends. The early sociologist Max Weber captured this idea in his description of the closed relationship—a setting in which the “participation of certain persons is excluded, limited, or subjected to conditions” (Gerth and Mills, 1946: 139). Ingroup and outgroup distinctions may encourage social cohesion among members, but they may also promote classism, racism, sexism, and ageism. Ingroup members typically view themselves positively and members of outgroups negatively. These feelings of group superiority, or ethnocentrism, are somewhat inevitable. Some group members may never act on these beliefs of superiority and inferiority because the larger organization of which they are a part actively discourages ethnocentric beliefs and discriminatory actions. However, other organizations may covertly foster ethnocentrism and negative ingroup/outgroup distinctions by denying that these beliefs exist among group members or by failing to take action when misconduct occurs that is rooted in racism, sexism, and/or ageism. An example is a college Greek letter organization in which the fraternity’s or sorority’s national leadership strongly opposes theme parties with racist or sexist overtones sponsored on local campuses, but its affiliates continue to hold social gatherings with decorations, clothing, music, and slogans that ridicule subordinate-group members such as persons of color, older individuals, persons with a disability, or women who have been turned into sex objects. Although campus social organizations often promote social cohesion among members by making them feel like they are the “in group” and everyone else is the “out group,” such beliefs and practices may also promote classism, racism, sexism, and/or ageism.
Reference Groups
Ingroups provide us not only with a source of identity but also with a point of reference. A
reference group
is a group that strongly influences a person’s behavior and social attitudes, regardless of whether that individual is an actual member. When we attempt to evaluate our appearance, ideas, or goals, we automatically refer to the standards of some group. Sometimes, we will refer to our membership groups, such as family or friends. Other times, we will rely on groups to which we do not currently belong but that we might wish to join in the future, such as a social club or a profession.
Reference group
s help explain why our behavior and attitudes sometimes differ from those of our membership groups. We may accept the values and norms of a group with which we identify rather than one to which we belong. We may also act more like members of a group that we want to join than members of groups to which we already belong. In this case, reference groups are a source of anticipatory socialization. For most of us, our reference-group attachments change many times during our life course, especially when we acquire a new status in a formal organization.
Networks
A
network
is a web of social relationships that links one person with other people and, through them, with other people they know. Frequently, networks connect people who share common interests but who otherwise might not identify and interact with one another. For example, if A is tied to B, and B is tied to C, then a network is more likely to be formed among individuals A, B, and C. Today, the term networking is widely used to describe the contacts that people make to find jobs or other opportunities; however, sociologists have studied social networks for many years in an effort to learn more about the linkages between individuals and their group memberships.
What are your networks? For a start, your networks consist of all the people linked to you by primary ties, including your relatives and close friends. Your networks also include your secondary ties, such as acquaintances, classmates, professors, and—if you are employed—your supervisor and coworkers. However, your networks actually extend far beyond these ties to include not only the people that you know but also the people that you know of—and who know of you—through your primary and secondary ties. In fact, your networks potentially include a pool of between 500 and 2,500 acquaintances if you count the connections of everyone in your networks (Milgram, 1967).
The Purpose of Groups: Multiple Perspectives
What purpose do groups serve? Why are individuals willing to relinquish some of their freedom to participate in groups? According to functionalists, people form groups to meet instrumental and expressive needs. Instrumental, or task-oriented, needs cannot always be met by one person, so the group works cooperatively to fulfill a specific goal. Groups help members do jobs that are impossible to do alone or that would be very difficult and time-consuming at best. For example, think of how hard it would be to function as a one-person football team or to single-handedly build a skyscraper. In addition to instrumental needs, groups also help people meet their expressive, or emotional, needs, especially those involving self-expression and support from family, friends, and peers.
Although not disputing that groups ideally perform such functions, conflict theorists suggest that groups also involve a series of power relationships whereby the needs of individual members may not be equally served. Symbolic interactionists focus on how the size of a group influences the kind of interaction that takes place among members. To many postmodernists, groups and organizations—like other aspects of postmodern societies—are generally characterized by superficiality and depthlessness in social relationships. For example, fast-food restaurant employees and customers interact in extremely superficial ways that are largely scripted: The employees follow scripts in taking and filling customers’ orders (“Would you like fries and a drink with that?”), and the customers respond with their own “recipied” action. According to the sociologist George Ritzer (1997: 226), “[C]ustomers are mindlessly following what they consider tried-and-true social recipes, either learned or created by them previously, on how to deal with restaurant employees and, more generally, how to work their way through the system associated with the fast-food restaurant.” What examples can you think of that fit this description?
Group Characteristics and Dynamics
LO 3
Discuss how a group’s size shapes members’ communication, leadership styles, and pressures to conform.
We will now look at certain characteristics of groups, such as how size affects group dynamics.
6-2aGroup Size
The size of a group is one of its most important features. Interactions are more personal and intense in a
small group
, a collectivity small enough for all members to be acquainted with one another and to interact simultaneously.
Sociologist Georg Simmel (1950/1902–1917) suggested that small groups have distinctive interaction patterns that do not exist in larger groups. According to Simmel, in a
dyad
—a group composed of two members—the active participation of both members is crucial to the group’s survival. If one member withdraws from interaction or “quits,” the group ceases to exist. Examples of dyads include two people who are best friends, married couples, and domestic partnerships.
Dyad
s provide members with an intense bond and a sense of unity not found in most larger groups.
When a third person is added to a dyad, a
triad
, a group composed of three members, is formed. The nature of the relationship and interaction patterns changes with the addition of the third person (
Figure 6.2
). In a triad, even if one member ignores another or declines to participate, the group can still function. In addition, two members may unite to create a coalition that can subject the third member to pressure to conform. A coalition is an alliance created in an attempt to reach a shared objective or goal. If two members form a coalition, the other member may be seen as an outsider or intruder.
Figure 6.2
According to the sociologist Georg Simmel, interaction patterns change when a third person joins a dyad—a group composed of two members. How might the conversation between these two women change when another person arrives to talk to them?
© Samo Trebizan/ Shutterstock.com
As the size of a group increases beyond three people, members tend to specialize in different tasks, and everyday communication patterns change. For instance, in groups of more than six or seven people, it becomes increasingly difficult for everyone to take part in the same conversation; therefore, several conversations will probably take place simultaneously. Members are also likely to take sides on issues and form a number of coalitions. In groups of more than ten or twelve people, it becomes virtually impossible for all members to participate in a single conversation unless one person serves as moderator and guides the discussion. As shown in
Figure 6.3
, when the size of the group increases, the number of possible social interactions also increases.
Figure 6.3Growth of Possible Social Interaction Based on Group Size
Although large groups typically have less social solidarity than small ones, they may have more power. However, the relationship between size and power is more complicated than it might initially seem. The power relationship depends on both a group’s absolute size and its relative size (Simmel, 1950/1902–1917; Merton, 1968). The absolute size is the number of members the group actually has; the relative size is the number of potential members. For example, suppose that 300 people band together to “march on Washington” and demand enactment of a law on some issue that they strongly believe to be important. Although 300 people is a large number in some contexts, opponents of this group would argue that the low turnout (compared with the number of people in this country) demonstrates that most people don’t believe the issue is important. At the same time, the power of a small group to demand change may be based on a “strength in numbers” factor if the group is seen as speaking on behalf of a large number of other people (who are also voters).
Larger groups typically have more-formalized leadership structures, and their leaders are expected to perform a variety of roles, some related to the internal workings of the group and others related to external relationships with other groups.
6-2bGroup Leadership
What role do leaders play in groups?
Leadership
refers to the ability to influence what goes on in a group or social system. Leaders are responsible for directing plans and activities so that the group completes its task or fulfills its goals.
Primary group
s generally have informal leadership. For example, most of us do not elect or appoint leaders in our own families. Various family members may assume a leadership role at various times or act as leaders for specific tasks. In traditional families, the father or eldest male is usually the leader. However, in today’s more-diverse families, leadership and power are frequently in question, and power relationships may be quite different, as discussed later in this text. By comparison, larger groups typically have more-formalized leadership structures. For example, leadership in secondary groups (such as colleges, governmental agencies, and corporations) involves a clearly defined chain of command, with written responsibilities assigned to each position in the organizational structure.
Leadership Functions
Both primary and secondary groups have some type of leadership or positions that enable certain people to be leaders, or at least to wield power over others. From a functionalist perspective, if groups exist to meet the instrumental and expressive needs of their members, then leaders are responsible for helping the group meet those needs.
Instrumental leadership
is goal or task oriented; this type of leadership is most appropriate when the group’s purpose is to complete a task or reach a particular goal.
Expressive leadership
provides emotional support for members; this type of leadership is most appropriate when the group is dealing with emotional issues, and harmony, solidarity, and high morale are needed. Both kinds of leadership are needed for groups to work effectively.
Leadership Styles
Three major styles of leadership exist in groups: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Authoritarian leaders
make all major group decisions and assign tasks to members. These leaders focus on the instrumental tasks of the group and demand compliance from others (
Figure 6.4
). In times of crisis, such as a war or natural disaster, authoritarian leaders may be commended for their decisive actions. In other situations, however, they may be criticized for being dictatorial and for fostering intergroup hostility. By contrast,
democratic leaders
encourage group discussion and decision making through consensus building. These leaders may be praised for their expressive, supportive behavior toward group members, but they may also be blamed for being indecisive in times of crisis.
Figure 6.4
Organizations have different leadership styles based on the purpose of the group. How do leadership styles in the military differ from those on college and university campuses and in office workplaces, for example?
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
Laissez-faire literally means “to leave alone.”
Laissez-faire leaders
are only minimally involved in decision making and encourage group members to make their own decisions. On the one hand, laissez-faire leaders may be viewed positively by group members because they do not flaunt their power or position. On the other hand, a group that needs active leadership is not likely to find it with this style of leadership, which does not work vigorously to promote group goals.
Studies of kinds of leadership and decision-making styles have certain inherent limitations. They tend to focus on leadership that is imposed externally on a group (such as bosses or political leaders) rather than leadership that arises within a group. Different decision-making styles may be more effective in one setting than another. For example, imagine attending a college class in which the professor asked the students to determine what should be covered in the course, what the course requirements should be, and how students should be graded. It would be a difficult and cumbersome way to start the semester; students might spend the entire term negotiating these matters and never actually learn anything.
6-2cGroup
Conformity
To what extent do groups exert a powerful influence on our lives? Groups have a significant amount of influence on our values, attitudes, and behavior. In order to gain and then retain our membership in groups, most of us are willing to exhibit a high level of conformity to the wishes of other group members.
is the process of maintaining or changing behavior to comply with the norms established by a society, subculture, or other group. We often experience powerful pressure from other group members to conform. In some situations, this pressure may be almost overwhelming.
Researchers have found that the pressure to conform may cause group members to say they see something that is contradictory to what they are actually seeing or to do something that they would otherwise be unwilling to do. Conforming to group pressure begins as early as preschool age (Haun and Tomasello, 2011). As we look at two classic studies on group conformity (which would be impossible to conduct today for ethical reasons), ask yourself what you might have done if you had been involved in this research.
Asch’s Research
Pressure to conform is especially strong in small groups in which members want to fit in with the group. In a series of experiments conducted by Solomon Asch (1955, 1956), the pressure toward group conformity was so great that participants were willing to contradict their own best judgment if the rest of the group disagreed with them.
One of Asch’s experiments involved groups of undergraduate men (seven in each group) who were allegedly recruited for a study of visual perception. All the men were seated in chairs. However, the person in the sixth chair did not know that he was the only actual subject; all the others were assisting the researcher. The participants were first shown a large card with a vertical line on it and then a second card with three vertical lines (see
Figure 6.5
). Each of the seven participants was asked to indicate which of the three lines on the second card was identical in length to the “standard line” on the first card.
Figure 6.5Asch’s Cards
Although Line 2 is clearly the same length as the line in the lower card, Solomon Asch’s research assistants tried to influence “actual” participants by deliberately picking Line 1 or Line 3 as the correct match. Many of the participants went along rather than risking the opposition of the “group.”
Source: Asch, 1955.
In the first test with each group, all seven men selected the correct matching line. In the second trial, all seven still answered correctly. In the third trial, however, the actual subject became very uncomfortable when all the others selected the incorrect line. The subject could not understand what was happening and became even more confused as the others continued to give incorrect responses on eleven out of the next fifteen trials.
Asch (1955) found that about one-third of all subjects chose to conform by giving the same (incorrect) responses as Asch’s assistants. In discussing the experiment afterward, most of the subjects who gave incorrect responses indicated that they had known the answers were wrong but decided to go along with the group in order to avoid ridicule or ostracism.
Asch concluded that the size of the group and the degree of social cohesion felt by participants were important influences on the extent to which individuals respond to group pressure. If you had been in the position of the subject, how would you have responded? Would you have continued to give the correct answer, or would you have been swayed by the others?
Milgram’s Research
How willing are we to do something because someone in a position of authority has told us to do it? How far are we willing to go to follow the demands of that individual? Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) conducted a series of controversial experiments to find answers to these questions about people’s obedience to authority. Obedience is a form of compliance in which people follow direct orders from someone in a position of authority.
Milgram’s subjects were men who had responded to an advertisement seeking individuals to participate in an experiment. When the first (actual) subject arrived, he was told that the study concerned the effects of punishment on learning. After the second subject (an assistant of Milgram’s) arrived, the two men were instructed to draw slips of paper from a hat to get their assignments as either the “teacher” or the “learner.” Because the drawing was rigged, the actual subject always became the teacher, and the assistant the learner. Next, the learner was strapped into a chair with protruding electrodes that looked something like an electric chair. The teacher was placed in an adjoining room and given a realistic-looking but nonoperative shock generator. The “generator’s” control panel showed levels that went from “Slight shock” (15 volts) on the left, to “Intense shock” (255 volts) in the middle, to “Danger: severe shock” (375 volts), and finally “XXX” (450 volts) on the right.
The teacher was instructed to read aloud a pair of words and then repeat the first of the two words. At that time, the learner was supposed to respond with the second of the two words. If the learner could not provide the second word, the teacher was instructed to press the lever on the shock generator so that the learner would be punished for forgetting the word. Each time the learner gave an incorrect response, the teacher was supposed to increase the shock level by 15 volts. The alleged purpose of the shock was to determine whether punishment improves a person’s memory.
What was the maximum level of shock that a “teacher” was willing to inflict on a “learner”? The learner had been instructed (in advance) to beat on the wall between him and the teacher as the experiment continued, pretending that he was in intense pain. The teacher was told that the shocks might be “extremely painful” but that they would cause no permanent damage. At about 300 volts, when the learner quit responding at all to questions, the teacher often turned to the experimenter to see what he should do next. When the experimenter indicated that the teacher should give increasingly painful shocks, 65 percent of the teachers administered shocks all the way up to the “XXX” (450-volt) level (see
Figure 6.6
). By this point in the process, the teachers were frequently sweating, stuttering, or biting on their lip. According to Milgram, the teachers (who were free to leave whenever they wanted to) continued in the experiment because they were being given directions by a person in a position of authority (a university scientist wearing a white coat).
Figure 6.6Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment
Even Milgram was surprised by subjects’ willingness to administer what they thought were severely painful and even dangerous shocks to a helpless “learner.”
Source: Milgram, 1963.
What can we learn from Milgram’s study? The study provides evidence that obedience to authority may be more common than most of us would like to believe.
No
ne of the “teachers” challenged the process before they had applied 300 volts. Almost two-thirds went all the way to what could have been a deadly jolt of electricity if the shock generator had been real. For many years, Milgram’s findings were found to be consistent in a number of different settings and with variations in the research design (Miller, 1986).
This research once again raises some questions concerning research ethics. As was true of Asch’s research, Milgram’s subjects were deceived about the nature of the study in which they were asked to participate. Many of them found the experiment extremely stressful. Such conditions cannot be ignored by social scientists because subjects may receive lasting emotional scars from this kind of research. Today, it would be virtually impossible to obtain permission to replicate this experiment in a university setting.
6-2dGroupthink
LO 4
Applying the concept of groupthink, describe how people often respond differently in a group context than they might if they were alone.
As we have seen, individuals often respond differently in a group context than they might if they were alone. Social psychologist Irving Janis (1972, 1989) examined group decision making among political experts and found that major blunders in U.S. history can be attributed to pressure toward group conformity. To describe this phenomenon, he coined the term
groupthink
—the process by which members of a cohesive group arrive at a decision that many individual members privately believe is unwise. Why not speak up at the time? Members usually want to be “team players.” They may not want to be the ones who undermine the group’s consensus or who challenge the group’s leaders. Consequently, members often limit or withhold their opinions and focus on consensus rather than on exploring all of the options and determining the best course of action.
Figure 6.7
summarizes the dynamics and results of groupthink.
Figure 6.7Janis’s Description of Groupthink
In Janis’s model, prior conditions such as a highly homogeneous group with committed leadership can lead to potentially disastrous “groupthink,” which short-circuits careful and impartial deliberation. Events leading up to the tragic 2010 explosion of the BP oil rig have been cited as an example of this process.
Source: Mackin, 2010. AP Images/Anonymous/US Coast Guard
The tragic 2010 explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by British Petroleum and located in the Gulf of Mexico, is an example of this process. Errors in decision making contributed to one of the worst oil spills and marine and wildlife disasters in U.S. history. Eleven people were killed and seventeen were injured in the rig explosion, and it is impossible to estimate the full extent of the damage done to the Gulf Coast and the fishing and tourism industries because of this massive accident. Why is this disaster an example of groupthink? Because officials for BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, the major transnational corporations responsible for this error in decision making, closed off their discussions about safety and hid bad news from one another and public officials; because they began to think alike in their assumption about safety, namely that a blow-out preventer would keep such a massive disaster from occurring; and because their companies were already behind schedule, had put millions of dollars into production, and did not want to stop to check out reports that a rubber safety seal was broken.
6-3Formal Organizations in Global Perspective
LO 5
Identify the three categories of formal organizations and state how they differ in membership.
Over the past century, the number of formal organizations has increased dramatically in the United States and other industrialized nations. Previously, everyday life was centered in small, informal, primary groups, such as the family and the village. With the advent of industrialization and urbanization (as discussed in
Chapter 1
), people’s lives became increasingly dominated by large, formal, secondary organizations. A formal organization, you will recall, is a highly structured secondary group formed for the purpose of achieving specific goals in the most efficient manner. Formal organizations (such as corporations, schools, and government agencies) usually keep their basic structure for many years in order to meet their specific goals.
6-3aTypes of Formal Organizations
We join some organizations voluntarily and others out of necessity. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni (1975) classified formal organizations into three categories—normative, coercive, and utilitarian—based on the nature of membership in each.
Normative
Organizations
We voluntarily join normative organizations when we want to pursue some common interest or gain personal satisfaction or prestige from being a member (
Figure 6.8
). Political parties, ecological activist groups, religious organizations, parent–teacher associations, and college sororities and fraternities are examples of normative, or voluntary, associations.
Figure 6.8
Normative organizations such as the Red Cross rely on volunteers to fulfill their goals.
Jim West/Alamy
Class, gender, and race are important determinants of a person’s participation in a normative association. Class (socioeconomic status based on a person’s education, occupation, and income) is the most significant predictor of whether a person will participate in mainstream normative organizations; membership costs may exclude some from joining. Those with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to be not only members but also active participants in these groups. Gender is also an important determinant. Historically, all-male voluntary organizations have had a higher level of prestige than many women’s organizations. In the twenty-first century, some of these patterns have changed.
Throughout history, people of all racial–ethnic categories have participated in voluntary organizations to bring about racial equality and social justice. Women have often taken leadership roles in these movements. African American women were actively involved in antislavery societies in the nineteenth century and in the civil rights movement in the twentieth century. Similarly, Native American women participated in the American Indian Movement, a group organized to fight problems ranging from police brutality to housing and employment discrimination. Mexican American women have held a wide range of leadership positions in La Raza Unida Party and the League of United Latin American Citizens, organizations oriented toward civic activities and protests against injustices.
Coercive
Organizations
People do not voluntarily become members of coercive organizations—associations that people are forced to join. Total institutions, such as boot camps, prisons, and some mental hospitals, are examples of coercive organizations. As discussed in
Chapter 4
, the assumed goal of total institutions is to resocialize people through incarceration. These environments are characterized by restrictive barriers (such as locks, bars, and security guards) that make it impossible for people to leave freely. When people leave without being officially dismissed, their exit is referred to as an “escape.”
Utilitarian
Organizations
We voluntarily join utilitarian organizations when they can provide us with a material reward that we seek. To make a living or earn a college degree, we must participate in organizations that can provide us these opportunities. Although we have some choice regarding where we work or attend school, utilitarian organizations are not always completely voluntary. For example, most people must continue to work even if the conditions of their employment are less than ideal. (This chapter’s
Concept Quick Review
summarizes the types of groups, sizes of groups, and types of formal organizations.)
Concept Quick Review
Characteristics of Groups and Organizations
|
Types of Social Groups |
Primary group |
Small, less specialized group in which members engage in face-to-face, emotion-based interaction over an extended period of time |
|
Secondary group |
Larger, more specialized group in which members engage in more-impersonal, goal-oriented relationships for a limited period of time |
|
| Ingroup |
A group to which a person belongs and with which the person feels a sense of identity |
|
| Outgroup |
A group to which a person does not belong and toward which the person may feel a sense of competitiveness or hostility |
|
| Reference group |
A group that strongly influences a person’s behavior and social attitudes, regardless of whether the person is actually a member |
|
|
Group Size |
Dyad |
A group composed of two members |
|
Triad |
A group composed of three members |
|
| Formal organization |
A highly structured secondary group formed for the purpose of achieving specific goals |
|
|
Types of Formal Organizations |
Normative |
Organizations that we join voluntarily to pursue some common interest or gain personal satisfaction or prestige by joining |
| Coercive |
Associations that people are forced to join (total institutions such as boot camps and prisons are examples) |
|
| Utilitarian |
Organizations that we join voluntarily when they can provide us with a material reward that we seek |
6-3bBureaucracies
LO 6
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of bureaucracies in contemporary nations such as the United States.
The bureaucratic model of organization remains the most universal organizational form in government, business, education, and religion. A
bureaucracy
is an organizational model characterized by a hierarchy of authority, a clear division of labor, explicit rules and procedures, and impersonality in personnel matters.
Sociologist Max Weber (1968/1922) was interested in the historical trend toward bureaucratization that accelerated during the Industrial Revolution. To Weber, bureaucracy was the most “rational” and efficient means of attaining organizational goals because it contributed to coordination and control. According to Weber,
rationality
is the process by which traditional methods of social organization, characterized by informality and spontaneity, are gradually replaced by efficiently administered formal rules and procedures. Bureaucracy can be seen in all aspects of our lives, from small colleges with perhaps a thousand students to multinational corporations employing many thousands of workers worldwide.
In his study of bureaucracies, Weber relied on an ideal-type analysis, which he adapted from the field of economics. An
ideal type
is an abstract model that describes the recurring characteristics of some phenomenon (such as bureaucracy). To develop this ideal type, Weber abstracted the most characteristic bureaucratic aspects of religious, educational, political, and business organizations. Weber acknowledged that no existing organization would exactly fit his ideal type of bureaucracy.
Ideal Characteristics of Bureaucracy
Weber set forth several ideal-type characteristics of bureaucratic organizations. His model (see
Figure 6.9
) highlights the organizational efficiency and productivity that bureaucracies strive for in these five central elements of the ideal organization:
·
Division of labor. Bureaucratic organizations are characterized by specialization, and each member has highly specialized tasks to fulfill.
· Hierarchy of authority
. In a bureaucracy, each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one. Those few individuals at the top of the hierarchy have more power and exercise more control than do the many at the lower levels. Those who are lower in the hierarchy report to (and often take orders from) those above them in the organizational pyramid. Persons at the upper levels are responsible not only for their own actions but also for those of the individuals they supervise.
· Rules and regulations
. Rules and regulations establish authority within an organization. These rules are typically standardized and provided to members in a written format. In theory, written rules and regulations offer clear-cut standards for determining satisfactory performance so that each new member does not have to reinvent the rules (
Figure 6.10
).
· Qualification-based employment
. Bureaucracies require competence and hire staff members and professional employees based on specific qualifications. Individual performance is evaluated against specific standards, and promotions are based on merit as spelled out in personnel policies.
·
Impersonality. Bureaucracies require that everyone must play by the same rules and be treated the same. Personal feelings should not interfere with organizational decisions.
Figure 6.9
Characteristics and Effects of Bureaucracy
The very characteristics that define Weber’s idealized bureaucracy can create or exacerbate the problems that many people associate with this type of organization. Can you apply this model to an organization with which you are familiar?
John Atkins/Spirit/Corbis
Characteristics
· Division of labor
· Hierarchy of authority
· Rules and regulations
· Qualification-based employment
· Impersonality
© Pavel LPhoto and Video/ Shutterstock.com
Effects
· Inefficiency and rigidity
· Resistance to change
· Perpetuation of race, class, and gender inequalities
Figure 6.10
Colleges and universities rely a great deal on the use of standardized tests to evaluate students. How do such tests relate to Weber’s model of bureaucracy?
Andy Nelson/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty Images
Contemporary Applications of Weber’s Theory
How well do Weber’s theory of rationality and his ideal-type characteristics of bureaucracy withstand the test of time? More than 100 years later, many organizational theorists still apply Weber’s perspective. For example, the sociologist George Ritzer used Weber’s theories to examine fast-food restaurants such as McDonald’s. According to Ritzer, the process of “McDonaldization” has become a global phenomenon that can be seen in fast-food restaurants and other “speedy” or “jiffy” businesses (such as Sir Speedy Printing and Jiffy Lube). McDonaldization is the term coined by Ritzer to describe the process of rationalization, which takes a task and breaks it down into smaller tasks. This process is repeated until all tasks have been broken down into the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then rationalized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. The result is an efficient, logical sequence of methods that can be completed the same way every time to produce the desired outcome. Ritzer (2014) identifies four dimensions of formal rationality (McDonaldization) found in fast-food restaurants:
· Efficiency means the search for the best means to the end; the drive-through window is a good example of heightening the efficiency of obtaining a meal.
· Predictability means a world of no surprises; the Big Mac in Los Angeles is indistinguishable from the one in New York. Similarly, the one we consume tomorrow or next year will be just like the one we eat today.
· Emphasis on quantity rather than quality. The Big Mac is a good example of this emphasis on quantity rather than quality.
· Control through nonhuman technologies such as unskilled cooks following detailed directions and assembly-line methods applied to the cooking and serving of food.
Finally, such a formally rational system brings with it various irrationalities, most notably the dehumanization of the dining experience. For example, people in a McDonaldized world may become more enthusiastic about quickly purchasing extremely large portions of relatively inexpensive foods than with having a “slow” dining experience where people bond over the experience of cooking and eating a more nutritious (not mass-produced) meal with their friends or family. How applicable are some of Weber’s ideas today? While still useful, Weber’s ideal type largely failed to take into account the informal side of bureaucracy.
The Informal Side of Bureaucracy
When we look at an organizational chart, the official, formal structure of a bureaucracy is readily apparent. In practice, however, a bureaucracy has patterns of activities and interactions that cannot be accounted for by its organizational chart. These have been referred to as bureaucracy’s other face (Page, 1946).
The
informal side of a bureaucracy
is composed of those aspects of participants’ day-to-day activities and interactions that ignore, bypass, or do not correspond with the official rules and procedures of the bureaucracy. An example is an informal “grapevine” that spreads information (with varying degrees of accuracy) much faster than do official channels of communication, which tend to be slow and unresponsive (
Figure 6.11
). The informal structure has also been referred to as work culture because it includes the ideology and practices of workers on the job. Workers create this work culture in order to confront, resist, or adapt to the constraints of their jobs, as well as to guide and interpret social relations on the job. Today, computers, smartphones, and tablets offer additional opportunities for workers to enhance or degrade their work culture. Some organizations have sought to control offensive communications so that workers will not be exposed to a hostile work environment brought about by colleagues, but such control has raised significant privacy issues (see “
Sociology and Social Policy
”).
Figure 6.11
How do people use this informal “grapevine” to spread information? Is it faster than the organization’s official channels of communication? Is it more or less accurate than official channels?
© iStockphoto.com/Milenko Bokan
Is the informal side of bureaucracy good or bad? Should it be controlled or encouraged? Two schools of thought have emerged with regard to these questions. One approach emphasizes control of informal groups in order to ensure greater worker productivity. By contrast, the other school of thought asserts that informal groups should be nurtured because such networks may serve as a means of communication and cohesion among individuals. Large organizations would be unable to function without strong informal norms and relations among participants.
Informal networks thrive in contemporary organizations because people can communicate with one another continually without ever having to engage in face-to-face interaction. The need to meet at the water fountain or the copy machine in order to exchange information is long gone: Workers now have an opportunity to tell one another—and higher-ups, as well—what they think.
6-3cProblems of Bureaucracies
The characteristics that make up Weber’s “rational” model of bureaucracy have a dark side that has frequently given this type of organization a bad name. Three of the major problems of bureaucracies are
· (1)
inefficiency and rigidity,
· (2)
resistance to change, and
· (3)
perpetuation of race, class, and gender inequalities.
Inefficiency and Rigidity
Bureaucracies experience inefficiency and rigidity at both the upper and lower levels of the organization. The self-protective behavior of officials at the top may render the organization inefficient. One type of self-protective behavior is the monopolization of information in order to maintain control over subordinates and outsiders. Information is a valuable commodity in organizations, and those persons in positions of authority guard information because it is a source of power for them—others cannot “second-guess” their decisions without access to relevant (and often “confidential”) information.
When those at the top tend to use their power and authority to monopolize information, they also fail to communicate with workers at the lower levels. As a result, they are often unaware of potential problems facing the organization and of high levels of worker frustration. Bureaucratic regulations are written in far greater detail than is necessary in order to ensure that almost all conceivable situations are covered.
Goal displacement
occurs when the rules become an end in themselves rather than a means to an end, and organizational survival becomes more important than achievement of goals (Merton, 1968).
Inefficiency and rigidity occur at the lower levels of the organization as well. Workers often engage in ritualism; that is, they become most concerned with “going through the motions” and “following the rules.” According to
Robert Merton
(1968), the term
bureaucratic personality
describes those workers who are more concerned with following correct procedures than they are with getting the job done correctly. Such workers are usually able to handle routine situations effectively but are frequently incapable of handling a unique problem or an emergency. Thorstein Veblen (1967/1899) used the term trained incapacity to characterize situations in which workers have become so highly specialized or have been given such fragmented jobs to do that they are unable to come up with creative solutions to problems. Workers who have reached this point also tend to experience bureaucratic alienation—they really do not care what is happening around them.
Resistance to Change
Once bureaucratic organizations are created, they tend to resist change. This resistance not only makes bureaucracies virtually impossible to eliminate but also contributes to bureaucratic enlargement. Because of the assumed relationship between size and importance, officials tend to press for larger budgets and more staff and office space. To justify growth, administrators and managers must come up with more tasks for workers to perform.
Resistance to change may also lead to incompetence. Based on organizational policy, bureaucracies tend to promote people from within the organization. As a consequence, a person who performs satisfactorily in one position is promoted to a higher level in the organization. Eventually, people reach a level that is beyond their knowledge, experience, and capabilities.
Perpetuation of Race, Class, and Gender Inequalities
Some bureaucracies perpetuate inequalities of race, class, and gender because this form of organizational structure creates a specific type of work or learning environment. This structure was typically created for middle-class and upper-middle-class white men, who for many years were the predominant organizational participants.
For people of color, entry into a dominant white bureaucratic organization does not equal actual integration. Instead, many have experienced an internal conflict between the bureaucratic ideals of equal opportunity and fairness and the prevailing norms of discrimination and hostility that exist in some organizations. Research has found that people of color are more adversely affected than dominant-group members by hierarchical bureaucratic structures and exclusion from informal networks.
Like racial inequality, social-class divisions may be perpetuated in bureaucracies. The theory of a “dual labor market” has been developed to explain how social-class distinctions are perpetuated through different types of employment. Middle- and upper-middle-class employees are more likely to have careers characterized by higher wages, more job security, and opportunities for advancement. By contrast, poor and working-class employees work in occupations characterized by low wages, lack of job security, and few opportunities for promotion. The “dual economy” not only reflects but may also perpetuate people’s current class position. Conflict theorists point out that persons in the lowest-wage and highest-potential-for-injury jobs, such as agricultural harvesters and other seasonal laborers, are among the workers most harmed by the presence of a dual economy and its role in perpetuating race-, gender-, and class-based inequalities in the United States and other nations (
Figure 6.12
).
Figure 6.12
According to conflict theorists, members of the capitalist class benefit from the work of laborers such as the people shown here, who are harvesting onions on a farm in the Texas Rio Grande Valley. How do low wages and lack of job security contribute to class-based inequalities in the United States?
Jack Kurtz/The Image Works
Sociology & Social Policy
Technological and Social Change in the Workplace: BYOD?
What if I take my own smartphone or tablet to the office so that I can do both company and personal work on it? Can my employer demand to see what’s on my mobile device? Can the IT people wipe it clean or take the device from me if I am no longer employed there?
—frequently asked questions by persons who are employed at companies with BYOD (“bring your own device”) policies
Do employers really have the right to monitor everything that their employees do at work? Are company-owned computers different from worker-owned digital devices that employees bring to work and use for business and personal activities? Generally speaking, the majority of U.S. companies monitor employee use of company-owned computers and other electronic devices. These employers assert that they have the right to engage in surveillance because it may be necessary for their own protection. Employers state that they own the computer network and the monitors, pay for the Internet service, and pay the employee to spend time on company business. Unchecked Internet activity can expose a company’s network and systems to malware and other intrusions that the company otherwise might not encounter. As a result, many employers take the position that First Amendment (privacy) rights are left at the office door when a person agrees to work for a private employer. In most instances, courts have upheld monitoring of employees by employers (see, for example, Bourke v. Nissan, Smyth v. Pillsbury, and Shoars v. Epson).
Do you think that employers should have the right to monitor everything that their employees do on company-owned computers?
© bikeriderlondon/ Shutterstock.com
But what about situations in which employees bring their own mobile devices so that they can work virtually anywhere? What if employees use these devices for both personal and work purposes? Loss of the devices or loss of information stored on the devices may pose a significant security risk for the organization, and more companies have established policies that provide them with access to employees’ mobile devices if they are used at work. New laws are emerging as more employees use their own mobile devices; however, laws typically vary from state to state and are not necessarily the same for all employers. Rules for government employees may differ from those for private companies, and highly regulated industries such as health care and finance may have more-stringent rules. As well, employees are encouraged to think about whether they actually want to use their own personal electronic devices at work if doing so would grant other people access to their personal lives through their e-mail, photos, social media sites, and other “private” information posted online.
Sociologically speaking, what is the bottom line here? New technologies necessitate change in social policy and law to address issues such as the meaning of privacy in the workplace. There are valid arguments for surveillance to create adequate security, but there are also valid arguments against invasion of privacy. Employees should have a reasonable expectation of privacy—a reasonable belief that neither fellow workers nor employers are prying into their private lives. Organizations should make employees and others aware of surveillance policies, and this is what endpoint security in businesses suggests: Be forthright with people, and let everyone know what is being tracked and why. Use the employee handbook or an orientation session to inform employees that their behavior may be monitored under certain circumstances, and let them know what those circumstances are. (For additional information, visit the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse website.) What do you think about this? Would you prefer to keep your own mobile devices separate from the workplace, or do you think it would be more convenient to have everything available on one portable device?
Reflect & Analyze
1. Are you concerned about privacy in your own life? Should businesses and colleges have the right to monitor our digital communications? If so, how should they go about this process?
Gender inequalities are also perpetuated in bureaucracies. Women in traditionally male organizations may feel more visible and experience greater performance pressure. They may also find it harder to gain credibility in management positions.
Inequality in organizations has many consequences. People who lack opportunities for integration and advancement tend to be pessimistic and to have lower self-esteem. Believing that they have few opportunities, they may resign themselves to staying put and surviving at that level. By contrast, those who enjoy full access to organizational opportunities tend to have high aspirations and high self-esteem. They often feel loyalty to the organization and typically see their job as a means for mobility and growth.
6-3dBureaucracy and Oligarchy
LO 7
Define the iron law of oligarchy and apply the concept to a brief analysis of the U.S. government.
Why do a small number of leaders at the top make all the important organizational decisions? According to the German political sociologist Robert Michels (1949/1911), all organizations encounter the
iron law of oligarchy
—the tendency to become a bureaucracy ruled by the few. His central idea was that those who control bureaucracies not only wield power but also have an interest in retaining their power. For example, formal and informal political party leaders often do not want to relinquish their control over the party because they are able to influence who runs for public office and how campaigns are conducted. Officials elected to Congress frequently choose to serve multiple terms in office because it provides them with the opportunity to become more involved not only in service to their country but also in bureaucratic power. Some members of Congress have served more than half a century as elected officials (Manning, 2011).
Michels found that the hierarchical structures of bureaucracies and oligarchies go hand in hand. On the one hand, power may be concentrated in a few people because rank-and-file members must inevitably delegate a certain amount of decision-making authority to their leaders. Leaders have access to information that other members do not have, and they have “clout,” which they may use to protect their own interests. On the other hand, oligarchy may result when individuals have certain outstanding qualities that make it possible for them to manage, if not control, others. The members choose to look to their leaders for direction; the leaders are strongly motivated to maintain the power and privileges that go with their leadership positions.
Are there limits to the iron law of oligarchy? The leaders in most organizations do not have unlimited power. Divergent groups within a large-scale organization often compete for power, and informal networks can be used to “go behind the backs” of leaders. In addition, members routinely challenge leaders’ decisions, and sometimes they (or the organization’s governing board) can remove leaders when they are not pleased with the leaders’ actions.
6-4Alternative Forms of Organization
LO 8
Identify alternative forms of organization that exist today in nations such as Japan.
Many organizations have sought new and innovative ways to organize work more efficiently than the traditional hierarchical model.
6-4aHumanizing Bureaucracy
In the early 1980s there was a movement in the United States to humanize bureaucracy—to establish an organizational environment that develops rather than impedes human resources. More-humane bureaucracies are characterized by
· (1)
less rigid hierarchical structures and greater sharing of power and responsibility by all participants,
· (2)
encouragement of participants to share their ideas and try new approaches to problem solving, and
· (3)
efforts to reduce the number of people in dead-end jobs, train people in needed skills and competencies, and help people meet outside family responsibilities while still receiving equal treatment inside the organization (Kanter, 1983, 1985, 1993/1977).
However, this movement has been overshadowed by globalization and the perceived strengths of systems of organizing work in other nations, such as Japan.
6-4bOrganizational Structure in Japan, Russia, and India
For several decades the Japanese model of organization was widely praised for its innovative structure because it focused on lifetime employment and company loyalty. Although the practice of lifetime employment has largely been replaced by the concept of long-term employment, many workers in Japan have higher levels of job security than do U.S. workers. According to advocates of the Japanese system, this model encourages worker loyalty and a high level of productivity. Managers move through various parts of the organization and acquire technical knowledge about the workings of many aspects of the corporation, unlike their U.S. counterparts, who tend to become highly specialized. Unlike top managers in the United States who have given themselves pay raises and bonuses even when their companies were financially strapped, many Japanese managers have taken pay cuts under similar circumstances. Japanese management is characterized as being people oriented, taking a long-term view, and having a culture that focuses on how work gets done rather than on the result alone.
In the twenty-first century the Japanese organization is often based on a management style where information flows from the bottom to the top. As a result, senior managers serve in a supervisory capacity, rather than taking a “hands-on” approach, and policies usually originate at middle organizational levels and then are passed upward for senior managers’ approval. According to analysts, this approach is beneficial because the same persons responsible for implementing policies are the ones who have an active role in initially shaping the rules, policies, and procedures (Bizshifts-Trends, 2011).
In the Japanese organization, managers are expected to be “father figures” and create an environment in which groups can succeed and goals can be met (
Figure 6.13
). Effective leadership is not based on individual personality or a dictatorial manner, and there is disapproval for those who appear to be overly ambitious.
Figure 6.13
The Japanese model of organization—including planned group-exercise sessions for employees—has become a part of the workplace in many nations. Would it be a positive change if more workplace settings, such as the one shown here, were viewed as an extension of the family? Why or why not?
TWPhoto/Corbis News/Corbis
Unlike Japanese organizational structure and management style, organizations in Russia and India are more likely to be hierarchical, centralized, and highly directive. Most organizations also have a “top-down” approach in which chief executives or the highest leaders issue orders for subordinates to follow, and very little consultation takes place with persons in the lower sectors. Leaders who allow too much participation in organizational decision making are often viewed as weak and indecisive. However, middle managers who have privileged access to top elites often become more powerful managers than managers who lack such access. Looking specifically at India, many organizations are family-owned businesses that are tightly controlled across generations; however, there are indications that Western management styles have become more prevalent in that nation as the children and grandchildren of company founders increasingly have been educated in universities in the United States or other high-income nations.
What can we learn by examining alternative organizational structures in other countries? We can see that all organizations are not established on the same premises about how leadership should operate and how decisions should be made. We can also see that different types of leadership affect how organizations will go about their tasks. Some leadership styles are more democratic (managers delegate authority to subordinates in the decision-making process), others are more autocratic (decisions are made solely by those at the top of the hierarchy), and others are more participatory. Finally, we can see that cultural differences do have an important effect on how organizations operate and how leaders think and act (Bizshift-Trends, 2011).
6-5Looking Ahead: Social Change and Organizations in the Future
What is the best organizational structure for the future? Of course, this question is difficult to answer because it requires the ability to predict economic, political, and social conditions. Nevertheless, we can make several observations.
6-5aSocially Sustainable Organizations
First, organizations have been affected by growing social inequality in the United States and other nations because of heightening differences between high- and low-income segments of populations. Having socially sustainable organizations is of increasing importance because television, the Internet, and international travel have made people more aware of the wide disparities in the resources and power of “haves” and “have-nots” both within a single country and across nations.
The term
socially sustainable organizations is used here to refer to those organizations that take into account the social effects of organizational activities on workers and other persons in the community, the nation, and sometimes the world. Researchers have shown how organizations interact with their physical environments and may produce problems such as pollution and environmental degradation. But the focus of the socially sustainable organizational approach is more on the human and social environment and what organizations can do to sustain and sometimes enhance those aspects of the environment that are not strictly physical or biological. As a result of emphasizing the social sustainability factor, organizations must be developed that are both economically efficient and as equitable as possible.
Some organizational and management analysts suggest that more attention must be paid to the “stakeholders” of an organization. Stakeholder theory is based on the assumption that organizations and their managers must focus on morals and values in goal-setting and decision-making processes. For example, at a college or university, stakeholders would include (but not be limited to) students, faculty and staff, administrators, alumni, major contributors, boards of regents, suppliers, the community where the school is located, and the society as a whole. The management structure and the morals and values of the institution should reflect the interests of those constituent groups. The goals of the organization should be based on taking into account the interests of these various stakeholders and working toward organizational goals and outcomes that will not only ensure organizational success but also provide the greatest good for the greatest number of stakeholders. Although academic success, winning sports teams, and college financial stability are important in higher education, other criteria should also be used in assessing the effectiveness and overall output of the college community. In other types of organizations, similar stakeholders can be identified and goals established to meet the needs of various constituencies.
6-5bGlobalization, Technology, and “Smart Working”
Second, globalization is the key word for management and change in many organizations, and the use of technology is intricately linked with performing flexible, mobile work anywhere in the world. Based on the assumption that organizations must respond to a rapidly changing environment or they will not thrive, several twenty-first-century organizational models are based on the need to relegate traditional organizational structure to dinosaur status and to move ahead with structures that fully use technology and focus on the need to communicate more effectively. As the pace of communication has increased dramatically and information overload has become prevalent, the leaders of organizations are seeking new ways in which to more efficiently manage their organizations and to be ahead of change, rather than merely adapting to change after it occurs.
One recent approach is referred to as “smart working,” which is based on the assumption that innovation is crucial and that organizational leaders must be able to use the talents and energies of the people who work with them. At one level, “smart working” refers to “anytime, anywhere” ways of work that have become prevalent because of communications technologies such as smartphones and computers. However, another level focuses on the ways in which smart working makes it possible for people to have flexibility and autonomy in where, when, and how they work (chiefexecutive.com, 2010). According to one management specialist,
It turns out that the sort of collaborative, challenging work with potential for learning and personal development that people find satisfying is exactly the sort of work needed to adapt to current turbulent global operating conditions. Smart working is an outcome of designing organizational systems that are good for business and good for people. (chiefexecutive.com, 2010)
From this perspective, organizations must adapt to change; empower all organizational participants to become involved in collaboration, problem solving, and innovation; and create a work environment that people find engaging and that inspires them to give their best to the organization (
Figure 6.14
).
Figure 6.14
“Smart working” is based on the assumption that innovation is crucial and that people should have flexibility in where, when, and how they work. How do nontraditional office spaces such as this one reflect the idea of “smart working”?
William Perlman/Star Ledger/Corbis
Exactly how these organizations might look is not fully clear, although some analysts suggest that corporations such as Google, Microsoft, and other high-tech companies have actively sought to redefine organizational culture and environment by being responsive to employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Although management continues to exist, the distinction between managers and the managed becomes less prevalent, and the idea that management knowledge will be everyone’s responsibility becomes more predominant. Emphasis is also placed on the importance of improving communication and on acquiring the latest technologies to make this process even faster, more secure, and more efficient. Overall, there is a focus on change and the assumption that people in an organization should be change agents, not individuals who merely respond to change after it occurs.
Ultimately, everyone has a stake in seeing that organizations operate in an effective, humane manner and that opportunities are widely available to all people regardless of race, gender, class, or age. Workers and students alike can benefit from organizational environments that make it possible for people to explore their joint interests without fear of losing their privacy or being pitted against one another in a competitive struggle for advantage. (For an example of students working together on a meaningful activity that benefits others, see “
You Can Make a Difference
.”)
You Can Make a Difference
Can Facebook, Twitter, and Other Social Media Make You a Better, More Helpful Person?
“We are the service generation!!!” @BEXwithanX tweeted. And @sjtetreault picked this quote from the first lady to share: “‘You didn’t think I’d show up here without another challenge, did you? Be yourself, just take it global.’ Michelle Obama.”
—reactions from two students who (along with about 25,000 other people) listened to First Lady Michelle Obama’s commencement address at George Washington University (Johnson, 2010)
Although it is not unusual for political leaders and their spouses to be keynote speakers at university commencements, Michelle Obama’s address at George Washington University (GWU) was unique in that it was her payoff in a bet in which she challenged students to do 100,000 hours of community service in exchange for a graduation speech. GWU students easily met the deadline because of social networking and students, such as Christine French, who were highly motivated not only to reach but also to surpass the goal. According to VolunteerMatch.org (2010), a website that links volunteers with community service opportunities, “You can’t really major in volunteering, but if you could your schedule might look a lot like Christine French’s.” In addition to leading the charge to complete the 100,000 service hours by graduation day, Christine was president of the Human Service Student Organization and the Teach for America chapter at GWU.
What unique factors contribute to the success of college volunteers as they make a difference in people’s lives? Christine French believes that this is the secret: “I think it’s that I listen to people. Often, all people really need is someone to listen to them and validate their feelings. We all just want human connection and to know that we are loved and valuable. This is what I can do for others, and it’s more important than the fact that I am a hard worker or a critical thinker.”
Given this model for making a difference, how might we connect with individuals and organizations that are in need of our assistance? Online social networks connect people together: people with similar interests, people who may come to know one another. Volunteer organizations use online networks as one way to find a new generation of supporters and activists.
Can Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites successfully inspire us to get active in the real world? It seems that the answer is a resounding “
Yes
!” Worldwide, a new generation of volunteers is being recruited through the power of the media and social networking. Why not explore your favorite social networking site and your school’s volunteer information system to learn more about available opportunities where you might share your time and resources with other people in your community and around the world?
Chapter Review
Chapter Review Q & A
· LO1How do sociologists distinguish among social groups, aggregates, and categories?
Sociologists define a social group as a collection of two or more people who interact frequently, share a sense of belonging, and depend on one another. People who happen to be in the same place at the same time are considered an aggregate. Those who share a similar characteristic are considered a category. Neither aggregates nor categories are considered social groups.
· LO2How do sociologists distinguish among ingroups, outgroups, and reference groups?
Sociologists distinguish between primary groups and secondary groups. Primary groups are small and personal, and members engage in emotion-based interactions over an extended period. Secondary groups are larger and more specialized, and members have less personal and more-formal, goal-oriented relationships. Sociologists also divide groups into ingroups, outgroups, and reference groups. Ingroups are groups to which we belong and with which we identify. Outgroups are groups we do not belong to or perhaps feel hostile toward. Reference groups are groups that strongly influence people’s behavior whether or not they are actually members.
· LO3How does the size of a group shape its members’ communication, leadership styles, and pressures to conform?
In small groups, all members know one another and interact simultaneously. In groups with more than three members, communication dynamics change, and members tend to assume specialized tasks. Leadership may be authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. Authoritarian leaders make major decisions and assign tasks to individual members. Democratic leaders encourage discussion and collaborative decision making. Laissez-faire leaders are minimally involved and encourage members to make their own decisions. Groups may have significant influence on members’ values, attitudes, and behaviors.
·
LO4Applying the concept of groupthink, how do people often respond differently in a group context than they might if they were alone?
Groupthink is the process by which members of a cohesive group arrive at a decision that many individual members privately believe is unwise. In order to maintain ties with a group, many members are willing to conform to norms established and reinforced by group members.
· LO5What are the three types of formal organizations, and how do they differ in membership?
Normative, coercive, and utilitarian organizations are formal organizations. We voluntarily join normative organizations when we want to pursue some common interest or gain personal satisfaction or prestige from being a member. People do not voluntarily become members of coercive organizations—associations that people are forced to join. We voluntarily join utilitarian organizations when they can provide us with a material reward that we seek.
· LO6What are the strengths and weaknesses of bureaucracies in contemporary nations such as the United States?
A bureaucracy is a formal organization characterized by hierarchical authority, division of labor, explicit procedures, and impersonality. According to Max Weber, bureaucracy supplies a rational means of attaining organizational goals because it contributes to coordination and control. A bureaucracy also has an informal structure, which includes the daily activities and interactions that bypass the official rules and procedures. The informal structure may enhance productivity or may be counterproductive to the organization. A bureaucracy may be inefficient, resistant to change, and a vehicle for perpetuating class, race, and gender inequalities.
· LO7What is the iron law of oligarchy, and how does the concept apply to the U.S. government?
The iron law of oligarchy is the tendency to become a bureaucracy ruled by the few. Those who control bureaucracies not only wield power but also have an interest in retaining their power. For example, officials elected to the U.S. Congress frequently choose to serve multiple terms in office because it provides them with the opportunity to become more involved not only in service to their country but also in bureaucratic power.
· LO8What alternative forms of organization exist today in nations such as Japan?
Some organizations have adopted Japanese management techniques based on long-term employment and company loyalty as alternative forms of bureaucratic structures. Unlike Japanese organizational structure and management style, organizations in Russia and India are more likely to be hierarchical, centralized, and highly directive. More recently, having socially sustainable organizations is becoming increasingly important.
Deviance and Crime Unit 3.2 Chapter 7.
7-1What Is Deviance?
LO 1
Define deviance and explain when deviant behavior is considered a crime.
Deviance
is any behavior, belief, or condition that violates significant social norms in the society or group in which it occurs. We are most familiar with behavioral deviance, based on a person’s intentional or inadvertent actions. For example, a person may engage in intentional deviance by drinking too much or comimtting a bank robbery, or participate in inadvertent deviance by losing money in a casino or laughing at a funeral.
Although we usually think of deviance as a type of behavior, people may be regarded as deviant if they express a radical or unusual belief system. Members of far-right-wing or far-left-wing political groups may be considered deviant when their religious or political beliefs become known to people with more-conventional cultural beliefs. However, individuals who are considered to be “deviant” by one category of people may be seen as conformists by another group. For example, when people who believe in Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) are surrounded by other like-minded individuals, they think of their beliefs as normal and gain a personal sense of belonging to the group (
Figure 7.1
). Sociologist Carson Mencken observed a group of Bigfoot hunters and concluded that they did not see themselves as deviant at all but actually treated one another with the kind of respect that they did not receive from nonbelievers. Instead of seeing themselves as deviant, searching for Bigfoot was akin to a religion for them.
Figure 7.1
Searching for Bigfoot—allegedly a large, hairy, bipedal humanoid—is a hobby for some people. Others believe that these hunters are deviant persons deluded by a myth. Some sociological studies have found that Bigfoot seekers do not perceive themselves as deviant at all. What do you think?
William Brooks/Alamy
In addition to behaving in a specific way and holding certain beliefs, individuals may be regarded as deviant if they possess a specific condition or characteristic. A wide range of conditions and characteristics have been identified by others as “deviant,” including being obese, having excessive tattoos or body piercings, or being diagnosed with certain kinds of illnesses or diseases (
Figure 7.2
). A stigma is often attached to a condition, such as obesity, in which blame may be placed on the patient because some people believe that the problem was caused by the individual’s behavior. Chapter 5 defines a stigma as any physical or social attribute or sign that so devalues a person’s social identity that it disqualifies the person from full social acceptance (Goffman, 1963b). Based on this definition, the stigmatized person has a “spoiled identity” as a result of being negatively evaluated by others (Goffman, 1963b). To avoid or reduce stigma, many people seek to conceal the characteristic or condition that might lead to stigmatization.
Figure 7.2
Do you consider this man’s appearance to be deviant? In what types of groups might he be considered a conformist?
© Andrey Arkusha/ Shutterstock.com
7-1aWho Defines Deviance?
Are some behaviors, beliefs, and conditions inherently deviant? In commonsense thinking, deviance is often viewed as inherent in certain kinds of behavior or people. For sociologists, however, deviance is related to social situations and social structures rather than to the behavior of individual actors. As the sociologist Kai T. Erikson (1964: 11) explains,
Deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behavior; it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them. The critical variable in the study of deviance, then, is the social audience rather than the individual actor, since it is the audience which eventually determines whether or not any episode of behavior or any class of episodes is labeled deviant. [emphasis added]
Based on this statement, we can conclude that deviance is relative—that is, an act becomes deviant when it is socially defined as such. Definitions of deviance vary widely from place to place, from time to time, and from group to group, as we have seen in the case of Bigfoot hunters. Clothing styles are another example: What some people wear in public today might have landed them in jail in their grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ day.
Deviant behavior also varies in degree of seriousness, ranging from mild transgressions of folkways to more-serious infringements of mores to quite serious violations of the law. Have you skipped class or pretended that you were sick so that you would have more time to complete a homework assignment or study for an exam? If so, you have violated a folkway. Others probably view your infraction as relatively minor; at most, you might receive a lower grade. Violations of mores—such as falsifying a college application or cheating on an examination—are viewed as more-serious infractions and are punishable by stronger sanctions, such as academic probation or expulsion. Some forms of deviant behavior violate the criminal law, which defines the behaviors that society labels as criminal. A
crime
is behavior that violates criminal law and is punishable with fines, jail terms, and/or other negative sanctions. Crimes range from minor offenses (such as traffic violations) to major offenses (such as murder). A subcategory,
juvenile delinquency
, refers to a violation of law or the commission of a status offense by young people. Note that the legal concept of juvenile delinquency includes not only crimes but also status offenses, which are illegal only when committed by younger people (such as cutting school or running away from home).
7-1bWhat Is Social Control?
Societies not only have norms and laws that govern acceptable behavior; they also have various mechanisms to control people’s behavior.
Social control
refers to the systematic practices that social groups develop in order to encourage conformity to norms, rules, and laws and to discourage deviance. Social control mechanisms may be either internal or external. Internal social control takes place through the socialization process: Individuals internalize societal norms and values that prescribe how people should behave and then follow those norms and values in their everyday lives. By contrast, external social control involves the use of negative sanctions that proscribe certain behaviors and set forth the punishments for rule breakers and nonconformists. In contemporary societies the criminal justice system, which includes the police, the courts, and the prisons, is the primary mechanism of external social control.
If most actions deemed deviant do little or no direct harm to society or its members, why is social control so important to groups and societies? Why is the same belief or action punished in one group or society and not in another? These questions pose interesting theoretical concerns and research topics for sociologists and criminologists who examine issues pertaining to law, social control, and the criminal justice system.
Criminology
is the systematic study of crime and the criminal justice system, including the police, courts, and prisons.
The primary interest of sociologists and criminologists is not questions of how crime and criminals can best be controlled but rather social control as a social product. Sociologists do not judge certain kinds of behavior or people as being “good” or “bad.” Instead, they attempt to determine what types of behavior are defined as deviant, who does the defining, how and why people become deviants, and how society deals with deviants. Although sociologists have developed a number of theories to explain deviance and crime, no one perspective is a comprehensive explanation of all deviance. Each theory provides a different lens through which we can examine aspects of deviant behavior.
7-2Functionalist Perspectives on Deviance
LO 2
Identify and compare the key functionalist perspectives on deviance.
As we have seen in previous chapters, functionalists focus on societal stability and the ways in which various parts of society contribute to the whole. According to functionalists, a certain amount of deviance contributes to the smooth functioning of society.
7-2aWhat Causes Deviance, and Why Is It Functional for Society?
Sociologist Emile Durkheim believed that deviance is rooted in societal factors such as rapid social change and lack of social integration among people. As you will recall, Durkheim attributed the social upheaval he saw at the end of the nineteenth century to the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity, which was brought about by rapid industrialization and urbanization. Although many people continued to follow the dominant morals (norms, values, and laws) as best they could, rapid social change contributed to anomie—a social condition in which people experience a sense of futility because social norms are weak, absent, or conflicting. According to Durkheim, as social integration (bonding and community involvement) decreased, deviance and crime increased. However, from his perspective, this was not altogether bad because he believed that deviance has positive social functions in terms of its consequences. For Durkheim (1964a/1895), deviance is a natural and inevitable part of all societies. Likewise, contemporary functionalist theorists suggest that deviance is universal because it serves three important functions:
1. Deviance clarifies rules. By punishing deviant behavior, society reaffirms its commitment to the rules and clarifies their meaning.
2. Deviance unites a group. When deviant behavior is seen as a threat to group solidarity and people unite in opposition to that behavior, their loyalties to society are reinforced.
3. Deviance promotes social change. Deviants may violate norms in order to get them changed. For example, acts of civil disobedience—including lunch counter sit-ins and bus boycotts—were used to protest and eventually correct injustices such as segregated buses and lunch counters in the South. More recently, this is what organizers of groups such as Occupy Wall Street hoped to accomplish, but their objective of redistribution of some wealth from the richest 1 percent to the bottom 99 percent constituted a very complex issue.
Functionalists acknowledge that deviance may also be dysfunctional for society. If too many people violate the norms, everyday existence may become unpredictable, chaotic, and even violent. If even a few people commit acts that are so violent that they threaten the survival of a society, then deviant acts move into the realm of the criminal and even the unthinkable. One example that stands out in everyone’s mind is terrorist attacks around the world and the fear that remains constantly present as a result.
Although there is a wide array of contemporary functionalist theories regarding deviance and crime, many of these theories focus on social structure. For this reason, the first theory we will discuss is referred to as a structural functionalist approach. It describes the relationship between the society’s economic structure and why people might engage in various forms of deviant behavior.
7-2bStrain Theory: Goals and Means to Achieve Them
Modifying Durkheim’s (1964a/1895) concept of anomie, the sociologist Robert Merton (1938, 1968) developed strain theory. According to
strain theory
, people feel strain when they are exposed to cultural goals that they are unable to obtain because they do not have access to culturally approved means of achieving those goals. The goals may be material possessions and money; the approved means may include an education and jobs. When denied legitimate access to these goals, some people seek access through deviant means.
Merton identified five ways in which people adapt to cultural goals and approved ways of achieving them: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion (see
Table 7.1
). According to Merton, conformity occurs when people accept culturally approved goals and pursue them through approved means. Persons who want to achieve success through conformity work hard, save their money, and so on. Even people who find that they are blocked from achieving a high level of education or a lucrative career may take a lower-paying job and attend school part time, join the military, or seek alternative (but legal) avenues, such as playing the lottery to “strike it rich.”
Table 7.1
Merton’s Strain Theory of Deviance
|
Mode of Adaptation |
Method of Adaptation |
Seeks Culture’s Goals |
Follows Culture’s Approved Ways |
||
|
Accepts culturally approved goals; pursues them through culturally approved means |
Yes | ||||
|
Innovation |
Accepts culturally approved goals; adopts disapproved means of achieving them |
No | |||
|
Ritualism |
Abandons society’s goals but continues to conform to approved means |
||||
|
Retreatism |
Abandons both approved goals and the approved means to achieve them |
||||
|
Rebellion |
Challenges both the approved goals and the approved means to achieve them |
No—seeks to replace |
Merton classified the remaining four types of adaptation as deviance:
· Innovation occurs when people accept society’s goals but adopt disapproved means of achieving them. Innovations for acquiring material possessions or money cover a wide variety of illegal activities, including theft and drug dealing.
· Ritualism occurs when people give up on societal goals but still adhere to the socially approved means of achieving them. Ritualism is the opposite of innovation; persons who cannot obtain expensive material possessions or wealth may nevertheless seek to maintain the respect of others by being a “hard worker” or “good citizen.”
· Retreatism occurs when people abandon both the approved goals and the approved means of achieving them. Merton included persons such as skid-row alcoholics and drug addicts in this category; however, not all retreatists are destitute. Some may be middle- or upper-income individuals who see themselves as rejecting the conventional trappings of success or the means necessary to acquire them.
· Rebellion occurs when people challenge both the approved goals and the approved means for achieving them and advocate an alternative set of goals or means. To achieve their alternative goals, rebels may use violence (such as rioting) or may register their displeasure with society through acts of vandalism or graffiti.
7-2cOpportunity Theory: Access to Illegitimate Opportunities
Expanding on Merton’s strain theory, sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) suggested that for deviance to occur, people must have access to
illegitimate opportunity structures
—circumstances that provide an opportunity for people to acquire through illegitimate activities what they cannot achieve through legitimate channels. For example, in studies of juvenile gangs, researchers have found that gang members may have insufficient legitimate means to achieve conventional goals of status and wealth but have illegitimate opportunity structures—such as theft, drug dealing, or robbery—through which they can achieve these goals (
Figure 7.3
). In his classic sociological study of the “Diamonds,” a Chicago street gang whose members are second-generation Puerto Rican youths, sociologist Felix M. Padilla (1993) found that gang membership was linked to the members’ belief that they might reach their aspirations by transforming the gang into a business enterprise. Coco, one of the Diamonds, explains the importance of sticking together in the gang’s income-generating business organization:
We are a group, a community, a family—we have to learn to live together. If we separate, we will never have a chance. We need each other even to make sure that we have a spot for selling our supply [of drugs]. You know, there is people around here, like some opposition, that want to take over your negocio [business]. And they think that they can do this very easy. So we stick together, and that makes other people think twice about trying to take over what is yours. In our case, the opposition has never tried messing with our hood, and that’s because they know it’s protected real good by us fellas. (qtd. in Padilla, 1993: 104)
Figure 7.3
Members of the California group known as the Culver City Boyz typify how gang members use items of clothing and gang signs made with their hands to assert their membership in the group and solidarity with one another. Researchers have found that some gang members may have insufficient legitimate means to achieve conventional goals of status and wealth but have illegitimate opportunity structures through which they can achieve these goals.
A. Ramey/PhotoEdit
Although Padilla’s study is more than two decades old, his findings continue to be supported by research, popular culture, and media accounts of how gangs stick together in income-generating business organizations. In the latest available study of national youth gangs, law enforcement agencies estimate that 29,400 gangs operate across the United States and that about 756,000 individuals are gang members. Some gangs are believed to be involved in criminal activities such as drug trafficking, weapon smuggling, and extortion (Egley and Howell, 2012).
Other early research by Cloward and Ohlin (1960) identified three basic gang types—criminal, conflict, and retreatist—that emerge on the basis of what type of illegitimate opportunity structure is available in a specific area. The criminal gang is devoted to theft, extortion, and other illegal means of securing an income. For young men who grow up in a criminal gang, running drug houses and selling drugs on street corners make it possible for them to support themselves and their families as well as purchase material possessions to impress others. By contrast, conflict gangs emerge in communities that do not provide either legitimate or illegitimate opportunities. Members of conflict gangs seek to acquire a “rep” (reputation) by fighting over “turf” (territory) and adopting a value system of toughness, courage, and similar qualities. On some Native American reservations, for example, homegrown gangs routinely fight their rivals, often over a minor incident or slight, and engage in thefts, assaults, and property crimes in some of the nation’s poorest, most neglected places, including the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (Eckholm, 2009). Unlike criminal and conflict gangs, members of retreatist gangs are unable to gain success through legitimate means and are unwilling to do so through illegal ones. As a result, the consumption of drugs is stressed, and addiction is prevalent.
How useful are social structural approaches such as opportunity theory and strain theory in explaining deviant behavior? Although there are weaknesses in these approaches, they focus our attention on one crucial issue: the close association between certain forms of deviance and social class position. If we view gangs as a microcosm of the larger society, we can see connections between poverty and inequality and larger patterns of crime not only in the United States but throughout the world (see “
Sociology in Global Perspective
”).
Sociology in Global Perspective
A Wider Perspective on Gangs: Look and Listen Around the World!
· What are gangs like throughout the world?
· What messages are sent through gang music?
Why is an understanding of the music of gangs important for addressing the “gang problem”? For many of us, gangs are most closely associated with urban slums and drug-dealing outlaws in U.S. border towns. However, this perspective provides too limited a view of what actually constitutes gangs today, and it provides little or no explanation of why they exist. According to research by criminologist John M. Hagedorn (2009), gangs are a universal feature of daily life in cities throughout the world. In his study of gang formation in Chicago, Illinois; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Cape Town, South Africa, Hagedorn concluded that gang formation is a strategy employed by people who believe that they have no other way to deal with poverty, injustice, and racial and ethnic oppression. In sum, demoralized people come to view gangs as a replacement for the government in providing security, needed services, and economic viability. When some people feel demoralized and believe that official channels are doing little or nothing for them, they may create alternative organizational structures—in this case, gangs—to help them adapt to their environment.
What does music have to do with this? Hagedorn argues that rap and hip-hop music provide an outlet for gang members to express their anger and show defiance toward political leaders and their country’s oppressive system. With music, gang members develop a culture of rebellion and gain a resistance identity based on their street experiences. Using the “power of negativity” as expressed in music, gang members describe problematic community conditions that are unlikely to change and try to find a way to adapt to the conditions in which they live. In the process, gang members hope to gain a sense of power and identity apart from standardized, acceptable means. Based on this idea, Hagedorn suggests that policies should be implemented that incorporate gang members into social movements and help them work for the betterment of their community and their own self-empowerment.
Studies like this are important for our understanding of deviance and crime because they point out global commonalities across a variety of urban areas around the world. They also point out ways in which we could build off of earlier theories to understand contemporary issues such as gang behavior worldwide.
Reflect & Analyze
1. Which theoretical perspectives do you find most useful for explaining why people create or join gangs? What theory can you develop about the importance of music in encouraging conformity or deviance in a society?
7-3Conflict Perspectives on Deviance
LO 3
State the key ideas of conflict explanations of deviance and crime that focus on power relations, capitalism, feminism, and the intersection of race, class, and gender.
Who determines what kinds of behavior are deviant or criminal? Different branches of conflict theory offer somewhat divergent answers to this question. One branch emphasizes power as the central factor in defining deviance and crime: People in positions of power maintain their advantage by using the law to protect their interests. Another branch emphasizes the relationship between deviance and capitalism, whereas a third focuses on feminist perspectives and the confluence of race, class, and gender issues in regard to deviance and crime.
7-3aDeviance and Power Relations
Conflict theorists who focus on power relations in society suggest that the lifestyles considered deviant by political and economic elites are often defined as illegal. According to this approach, norms and laws are established for the benefit of those in power and do not reflect any absolute standard of right and wrong. As a result, the activities of poor and lower-income individuals are more likely to be defined as criminal than those of persons from middle- and upper-income backgrounds. The media often contribute to this perception by frequent reporting of African American perpetrators that portrays them as criminal through both the context of the story and through the social structural context in which the news stories are reported (Bjornstrom et al., 2010).
Moreover, the criminal justice system is more focused on, and is less forgiving of, deviant and criminal behavior engaged in by people in specific categories. For example, research shows that young, single, urban males are more likely to be perceived as criminals and receive stricter sentences in courts (Rehavi and Starr, 2012). One study of racial disparity in federal criminal sentencing found that African Americans receive almost 10-percent longer sentences than comparable white Americans arrested for the same offenses (Rehavi and Starr, 2012). This finding may partly be attributed to the fact that prosecutors are almost twice as likely to file charges against African Americans that carry a mandatory minimum sentence. This is especially true in drug-offense cases. By contrast, another study found that black–white disparity in sentencing of offenders is less frequent in courts in those counties where more African American lawyers practice, suggesting that having representation by a person from one’s own racial or ethnic category may bring greater scrutiny to criminal proceedings (King, Johnson, and McGeever, 2010).
7-3bDeviance and Capitalism
A second branch of conflict theory—Marxist/critical theory—views deviance and crime as a function of the capitalist economic system. Although the early economist and social thinker Karl Marx wrote very little about deviance and crime, many of his ideas are found in a critical approach that has emerged from earlier Marxist and radical perspectives on criminology. The critical approach is based on the assumption that the laws and the criminal justice system protect the power and privilege of the capitalist class. As you may recall from
Chapter 1, Marx based his critique of capitalism on the inherent conflict that he believed existed between the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). In a capitalist society, social institutions (such as law, politics, and education, which make up the superstructure) legitimize existing class inequalities and maintain the capitalists’ superior position in the class structure. According to Marx, capitalism produces haves and have-nots, who engage in different forms of deviance and crime.
According to sociologist Richard Quinney (2001/1974), people with economic and political power define as criminal any behavior that threatens their own interests. The powerful use laws to control those who are without power. For example, drug laws enacted early in the twentieth century were actively enforced in an effort to control immigrant workers, especially the Chinese, who were being exploited by the railroads and other industries (Tracy, 1980). By contrast, antitrust legislation passed at about the same time was seldom enforced against large corporations owned by prominent families such as the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Mellons. Having antitrust laws on the books merely shored up the government’s legitimacy by making it appear responsive to public concerns about big business.
In sum, the Marxist/critical approach argues that criminal law protects the interests of the affluent and powerful. The way that laws are written and enforced benefits the capitalist class by ensuring that individuals at the bottom of the social class structure do not infringe on the property or threaten the safety of those at the top (Reiman and Leighton, 2010). However, others assert that critical theorists have not shown that powerful economic and political elites actually manipulate lawmaking and law enforcement for their own benefit. Rather, people of all classes share a consensus about the criminality of certain acts. For example, laws that prohibit murder, rape, and armed robbery protect not only middle- and upper-income people but also low-income people, who are frequently the victims of such violent crimes.
7-3cFeminist Approaches
Do you think that theories developed to explain male behavior can be used to understand female deviance and crime? According to feminist scholars, the answer is no. An interest in women and deviance developed in 1975 when two books—Freda Adler’s Sisters in Crime and Rita James Simons’s Women and Crime—declared that women’s crime rates were going to increase significantly as a result of the women’s liberation movement. Although this so-called emancipation theory of female crime has been refuted by subsequent analysts, Adler’s and Simons’s works encouraged feminist scholars (both women and men) to examine more closely the relationship among gender, deviance, and crime. More recently, feminist scholars have developed theories and conducted research to fill the void in our knowledge about gender and crime. For example, in a study by Janet Davidson and Meda Chesney-Lind (2009), the authors conclude that sociobiographical variables such as a history of physical and sexual abuse are more predictive of female criminality than of male criminality. Although there is no single feminist perspective on deviance and crime, three schools of thought have emerged.
Why do women engage in deviant behavior and commit crimes? According to the liberal feminist approach, women’s deviance and crime are a rational response to the gender discrimination that women experience in families and the workplace. From this view, lower-income and minority women typically have fewer opportunities not only for education and good jobs but also for “high-end” criminal endeavors.
By contrast, the radical feminist approach views the cause of women’s crime as originating in patriarchy (male domination over females). From this view, arrests and prosecution for crimes such as prostitution reflect our society’s sexual double standard whereby it is acceptable for a man to pay for sex but unacceptable for a woman to accept money for such services. Although state laws usually view both the female prostitute and the male customer as violating the law, in most states the woman is far more likely than the man to be arrested, brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced.
The third school of feminist thought, the Marxist (socialist) feminist approach, is based on the assumption that women are exploited by both capitalism and patriarchy. Because many females have relatively low-wage jobs (if any) and few economic resources, crimes such as prostitution and shoplifting become a means to earn money or acquire consumer goods. However, instead of freeing women from their problems, prostitution institutionalizes women’s dependence on men and makes women more vulnerable to criminal prosecution. Lower-income women are further victimized by the fact that they are often the targets of violent acts by lower-class males, who perceive themselves as being powerless in the capitalist economic system.
These approaches make a contribution to our understanding of deviance and crime by focusing on gender as a central concern; however, some theories neglect the centrality of race, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation in deviance, crime, and the criminal justice system (
Figure 7.4
).
Figure 7.4
This young woman is being arrested after a local prostitution ring was broken up by Dallas police officers. Which feminist theory of women’s crime might best explain the offenses of women like the one pictured here?
AP Images/LM Otero
7-3dApproaches Focusing on the Interaction of Race, Class, and Gender
Some studies have focused on the simultaneous effects of race, class, and gender on deviant behavior and crime. Multiracial feminist approaches have examined how the intersecting systems of race, class, and gender act as “structuring forces” that affect how people act, what opportunities they have available, and how their behavior is socially defined. Examples include how the legal system responds to individual offenders based on their social location in hierarchies based on race, class, and/or gender. Some studies have found, for instance, that young unemployed African American (black) and Hispanic men are treated differentially in sentencing decisions by judges and juries based on their location at the margins of race, age, and gender systems (see Burgess Proctor, 2006). Other work has also been conducted using an intersectional approach to learn more about domestic violence and other crimes in society.
7-4Symbolic Interactionist Perspectives on Deviance
LO 4
Explain these symbolic interactionist perspectives on deviance: differential association theory, social bond theory, and labeling theory.
Symbolic interactionists focus on social processes, such as how people develop a self-concept and learn conforming behavior through socialization. According to this approach, deviance is learned in the same way as conformity—through interaction with others. Although there are a number of symbolic interactionist perspectives on deviance, we will examine three major approaches—differential association and differential reinforcement theories, control theory, and labeling theory.
7-4aDifferential Association Theory and Differential Reinforcement Theory
How do people learn deviant behavior through their interactions with others? According to the sociologist
Edwin Sutherland
(1939), people learn the necessary techniques and the motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes of deviant behavior from people with whom they associate.
Differential association
theory
states that people have a greater tendency to deviate from societal norms when they frequently associate with individuals who are more favorable toward deviance than conformity. From this approach, criminal behavior is learned within intimate personal groups such as one’s family and peer groups.
Differential association theory contributes to our knowledge of how deviant behavior reflects the individual’s learned techniques, values, attitudes, motives, and rationalizations. It calls attention to the fact that criminal activity is more likely to occur when a person has frequent, intense, and long-lasting interactions with others who violate the law. However, it does not explain why many individuals who have been heavily exposed to people who violate the law still engage in conventional behavior most of the time.
Criminologist Ronald Akers (1998) has combined differential association theory with elements of psychological learning theory to create differential reinforcement theory, which suggests that both deviant behavior and conventional behavior are learned through the same social processes. Akers starts with the fact that people learn to evaluate their own behavior through interactions with significant others. If the persons and groups that a particular individual considers most significant in his or her life define deviant behavior as being “right,” the individual is more likely to engage in deviant behavior; likewise, if the person’s most significant friends and groups define deviant behavior as “wrong,” the person is less likely to engage in that behavior. This approach helps explain not only juvenile gang behavior but also how peer cliques on high school campuses have such a powerful influence on people’s behavior.
7-4bRational Choice Theory
Another approach to studying deviance is rational choice theory, which suggests that people weigh the rewards and risks involved in certain types of behavior and then decide which course of action to follow. Rational choice theory is based on the assumption that when people are faced with several courses of action, they will usually do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome (Elster, 1989). The
rational choice theory of deviance
states that deviant behavior occurs when a person weighs the costs and benefits of nonconventional or criminal behavior and determines that the benefits will outweigh the risks involved in such actions. Rational choice approaches suggest that most people who commit crimes do not engage in random acts of antisocial behavior. Instead, they make careful decisions based on weighing the available information regarding situational factors, such as the place of the crime, suitable targets, and the availability of people to deter the behavior, and personal factors, such as what rewards they may gain from their criminal behavior (
Figure 7.5
).
Figure 7.5
Is this example of graffiti likely to be the work of isolated artists or of gang members? In what ways do gangs reinforce such behavior?
Richard Wong/Alamy
How useful is rational choice theory in explaining deviance and crime? A major strength of this theory is that it explains why high-risk youths do not constantly engage in delinquent acts: They have learned to balance risk against the potential for criminal gain in each situation. Moreover, rational choice theory is not limited by the underlying assumption of most social structural theories, which is that the primary participants in deviant and criminal behaviors are people in the lower classes. Rational choice theory also has important policy implications regarding crime reduction or prevention, suggesting that people must be taught that the risks of engaging in criminal behavior far outweigh any benefits they may gain from their actions. Thus, people should be taught not to engage in crime.
7-4cControl Theory: Social Bonding
Another approach to studying deviance is control theory, which suggests that conformity is often associated with a person’s bonds to other people. According to the sociologist Walter Reckless (1967), society produces pushes and pulls that move people toward criminal behavior; however, some people “insulate” themselves from such pressures by having positive self-esteem and good group cohesion. Reckless suggests that many people do not resort to deviance because of inner containments—such as self-control, a sense of responsibility, and resistance to diversions—and outer containments—such as supportive family and friends, reasonable social expectations, and supervision by others (
Figure 7.6
). Those with the strongest containment mechanisms are able to withstand external pressures that might cause them to participate in deviant behavior. As you can see, control/social bonding theories have elements of functionalist and symbolic interactionist perspectives embedded within them because they focus on both social control and on the bonds that tie people together.
Figure 7.6
According to control theory, strong bonds—including close family ties—are a factor in explaining why many people do not engage in deviant behavior. Why do some sociologists believe that quality family time is more important in discouraging delinquent behavior than is time spent with other young people?
HBSS/Fancy/Corbis; Paul Baldesare/Photofusion Picture Library/Alamy
Extending Reckless’s containment theory, sociologist
Travis Hirschi
’s (1969) social control theory is based on the assumption that deviant behavior is minimized when people have strong bonds that bind them to families, schools, peers, churches, and other social institutions.
Social bond theory
holds that the probability of deviant behavior increases when a person’s ties to society are weakened or broken. According to Hirschi, social bonding consists of
· (1)
attachment to other people,
· (2)
commitment to conformity,
· (3)
involvement in conventional activities, and
· (4)
belief in the legitimacy of conventional values and norms.
Later, Michael R. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) modified the earlier theory that strong social bonds minimize criminal conduct and focused instead on the importance of self-control as a determinant of who will be likely to commit crime. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), high self-control is related to an individual’s likelihood of conforming to norms and laws; low self-control can help explain a person’s propensity to commit or refrain from committing crimes. From this perspective, young children who are adequately socialized and have behavioral problems are more likely to grow into delinquents and then into adult offenders. Social bond and social control theory are both rooted in a functionalist assumption about the division of labor in families between men and women, with women being primarily responsible for how children are socialized and whether they become conformists or deviants in their behavior.
7-4dLabeling Theory
Labeling theory
states that deviance is a socially constructed process in which social control agencies designate certain people as deviants and they, in turn, come to accept the label placed upon them and begin to act accordingly. Based on the symbolic interactionist theory of Charles H. Cooley and George H. Mead, labeling theory focuses on the variety of symbolic labels that people are given in their interactions with others.
How does the process of labeling occur? The act of fixing a person with a negative identity, such as “criminal” or “mentally ill,” is directly related to the power and status of those persons who do the labeling and those who are being labeled. Behavior, then, is not deviant in and of itself; it is defined as such by a social audience (Erikson, 1962). According to the sociologist
Howard Becker
(1963), moral entrepreneurs are often the ones who create the rules about what constitutes deviant or conventional behavior. Becker believes that moral entrepreneurs use their own perspectives on “right” and “wrong” to establish the rules by which they expect other people to live. They also label others as deviant. Often these rules are enforced on persons with less power than the moral entrepreneurs. Becker (1963: 9) concludes that the deviant is “one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.”
As the definition of labeling theory suggests, several stages may occur in the labeling process (see
Figure 7.7
).
Primary deviance
refers to the initial act of rule breaking (Lemert, 1951). However, if individuals accept the negative label that has been applied to them as a result of the primary deviance, they are more likely to continue to participate in the type of behavior that the label was initially meant to control.
Secondary deviance
occurs when a person who has been labeled a deviant accepts that new identity and continues the deviant behavior. For example, a person may shoplift an item of clothing from a department store but not be apprehended or labeled as a deviant. The person may subsequently decide to forgo such behavior in the future. However, if the person shoplifts the item, is apprehended, is labeled as a “thief,” and subsequently accepts that label, then the person may shoplift items from stores on numerous occasions. A few people engage in
tertiary deviance
, which occurs when a person who has been labeled a deviant seeks to normalize the behavior by relabeling it as nondeviant (Kitsuse, 1980). An example would be drug users who believe that using marijuana or other illegal drugs is no more deviant than drinking alcoholic beverages and therefore should not be stigmatized.
Figure 7.7A Closer Look at Labeling Theory
How can labeling theory be used in research on deviance? In a now-classic study that continues to show how labeling theory works, the sociologist William Chambliss (1973) studied two groups of adolescent boys in a high school: the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks.” Members of both groups were constantly involved in acts of truancy, drinking, wild parties, petty theft, and vandalism. Although the Saints committed more offenses than the Roughnecks, the Roughnecks were the ones who were labeled as “troublemakers” and arrested by law enforcement officials. By contrast, the Saints were described as being the “most likely to succeed,” and none of the Saints were ever arrested. According to Chambliss (1973), the Roughnecks were more likely to be labeled as deviants because they came from lower-income families, did poorly in school, and were generally viewed negatively, whereas the Saints came from “good families,” did well in school, and were generally viewed positively. Although both groups engaged in similar behavior, only the Roughnecks were stigmatized by a deviant label. Findings by William Chambliss about the significance of labeling theory in explaining deviance, particularly in regard to juvenile offenses, have been reaffirmed by numerous other studies over the past four decades (see, for example, Ascani, 2012; Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006).
What are the specific contributions of labeling theory to explaining deviance and social control? One contribution of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the way in which social control and personal identity are intertwined: Labeling may contribute to the acceptance of deviant roles and self-images. What are the limitations of labeling theory? Although it has a number of shortcomings, the most obvious weaknesses of labeling theory is that it does not explain what caused the original acts that constituted primary deviance. Labeling theory also does not provide insight into why some people accept deviant labels that are put upon them but other individuals do not.
7-5Postmodernist Perspectives on Deviance
LO 5
Describe how postmodern perspectives on deviance differ from other theoretical approaches, specifically identifying
Michel Foucault
’s contributions to the study of deviance and social control.
Departing from other theoretical perspectives on deviance, some postmodern theorists emphasize that the study of deviance reveals how the powerful exert control over the powerless by taking away their free will to think and act as they might choose. From this approach, institutions such as schools, prisons, and mental hospitals use knowledge, norms, and values to categorize people into “deviant” subgroups such as slow learners, convicted felons, or criminally insane individuals, and then to control them through specific patterns of discipline.
An example of this idea is found in social theorist Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1979), in which Foucault examines the intertwining nature of power, knowledge, and social control. In this study of prisons from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, Foucault found that many penal institutions ceased torturing prisoners who disobeyed the rules and began using new surveillance techniques to maintain social control. Although the prisons appeared to be more humane in the post-torture era, Foucault contends that the new means of surveillance impinged more on prisoners and brought greater power to prison officials. To explain, he described the panopticon—a structure that gives prison officials the possibility of complete observation of criminals at all times. Typically, the panopticon was a tower located in the center of a circular prison from which guards could see all the cells (
Figure 7.8
). Although the prisoners knew they could be observed at any time, they did not actually know when their behavior was being scrutinized. As a result, prison officials were able to use their knowledge as a form of power over the inmates. Eventually, the guards did not even have to be present all the time because prisoners believed that they were under constant scrutiny by officials in the observation post. If we think of this in contemporary terms, we can see how cameras, computers, and other devices have made continual surveillance quite easy in virtually all institutions. In such cases, social control and discipline are based on the use of knowledge, power, and technology.
Figure 7.8
Michael Foucault contended that new means of surveillance would make it possible for prison officials to use their knowledge of prisoners’ activities as a form of power over the inmates. These guards are able to monitor the activities of many prisoners without ever leaving their station.
AP Images/Brett Coomer
Foucault’s view on deviance and social control has influenced other social analysts, including researchers who have looked at a variety of social issues, ranging from workplace surveillance to squelching music pirating on the Internet. These analyses typically see the world as a modern panopticon that gives supervisors and law enforcement officials virtually unlimited capabilities for surveillance. Today, smartphones and social media outlets provide new opportunities for surveillance by government officials, corporate supervisors, and others who are not visible to the individuals being watched.
We have examined functionalist, conflict, symbolic interactionist, and postmodernist perspectives on social control, deviance, and crime (see the Concept Quick Review). All of these explanations contribute to our understanding of the causes and consequences of deviant behavior; however, we now turn to the subject of crime itself.
Concept Quick Review
Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance
|
Theory |
Key Elements |
|
|
Functionalist Perspectives |
||
| Robert Merton |
Strain theory |
Deviance occurs when access to the approved means of reaching culturally approved goals is blocked. Innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion may result. |
|
Richard Cloward/Lloyd Ohlin |
Opportunity theory |
Lower-class delinquents subscribe to middle-class values but cannot attain them. As a result, they form gangs to gain social status and may achieve their goals through illegitimate means. |
|
Conflict Perspectives |
||
|
Karl Marx and Richard Quinney |
Critical approach |
The powerful use law and the criminal justice system to protect their own class interests. |
|
Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind |
Feminist approach |
Historically, women have been ignored in research on crime. Liberal feminism views women’s deviance as arising from gender discrimination, radical feminism focuses on patriarchy, and socialist feminism emphasizes the effects of capitalism and patriarchy on women’s deviance. |
|
Symbolic Interactionist Perspectives |
||
| Edwin Sutherland | Differential association |
Deviant behavior is learned in interaction with others. A person becomes delinquent when exposure to law-breaking attitudes is more extensive than exposure to law-abiding attitudes. |
| Travis Hirschi |
Social control/social bonding |
Social bonds keep people from becoming criminals. When ties to family, friends, and others become weak, an individual is most likely to engage in criminal behavior. |
| Howard Becker | Labeling theory |
Acts are deviant or criminal because they have been labeled as such. Powerful groups often label less powerful individuals. |
|
Edwin Lemert |
Primary/secondary deviance |
Primary deviance is the initial act. Secondary deviance occurs when a person accepts the label of “deviant” and continues to engage in the behavior that initially produced the label. |
|
Postmodernist Perspective |
||
| Michel Foucault |
Knowledge as power |
Power, knowledge, and social control are intertwined. In prisons, for example, new means of surveillance that make prisoners think they are being watched all the time give officials knowledge that inmates do not have. Thus, the officials have a form of power over the inmates. |
7-6Crime Classifications and Statistics
LO 6
Define the following types of crime: violent crime, property crime, public order crime, occupational crime, corporate crime, organized crime, and political crime.
Crime in the United States can be divided into different categories. We will look first at the legal classifications of crime and then at categories typically used by sociologists and criminologists.
7-6aHow the Law Classifies Crime
Crimes are divided into felonies and misdemeanors. The distinction between the two is based on the seriousness of the crime. A felony is a serious crime such as rape, homicide, or aggravated assault, for which punishment typically ranges from more than a year’s imprisonment to death. A misdemeanor is a minor crime that is typically punished by less than one year in jail. In either event, a fine may be part of the sanction as well. Actions that constitute felonies and misdemeanors are determined by the legislatures in the various states; thus, their definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
7-6bOther Crime Categories
The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) is the major source of information on crimes reported in the United States. The UCR has been compiled since 1930 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation based on information filed by law enforcement agencies throughout the country. This report is available online at the Federal Bureau of Investigation website and is listed as “Crime in the United States” (showing the latest year available). The UCR focuses on violent crime and property crime (which, prior to 2004, were jointly referred to in that report as “index crimes”) but also contains data on other types of crime (see
Figure 7.9
). In 2015 an estimated 10.8 million arrests were made for all criminal infractions (excluding traffic violations) in the United States. This number was down from 2012, when an estimated 12,196,959 arrests were made. Although the UCR gives some indication of crime, the figures do not reflect the actual number and kinds of crimes, as will be discussed later.
Figure 7.9Distribution of Arrests by Type of Offense, 2015
Source: FBI, 2016.
Note: Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.
Violent Crime
Violent crime
consists of actions—murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—involving force or the threat of force against others. Although only 4.6 percent of all arrests in the United States in 2015 were for violent crimes, this category is probably the most anxiety-provoking of all criminal behavior: Most of us know someone who has been a victim of violent crime, or we have been so ourselves. Victims are often physically injured or even lose their lives; the psychological trauma can last for years after the event.
Violent crime also receives the most sustained attention from the media. In the aftermath of every U.S. mass shooting in recent years, communities have been overrun with worldwide media outlets bringing in broadcasting trucks, bright lights, cameras, and hundreds of reporters and commentators to continually describe, analyze, and reanalyze what might have happened to cause such a tragic event. Some information provided by the media later proves to be accurate; however, other statements are found to be flawed or completely inaccurate. On the one hand, people learn details about crime and violence that they otherwise might not know about or experience firsthand. This information may help them form an opinion on issues such as school safety, gun control, and the nature and extent of violence in the United States. On the other hand, continual media reports about a tragedy provide us with endless details about the crime and the fear that it has produced in survivors, families, neighbors, and others in the community. Many media presentations of crime prey on fear, disbelief, and distrust. For people who are already fearful of violent crime, media representations confirm these concerns and make individuals more afraid to leave home and interact with others. Violence leaves millions worrying about their safety and that of their children and other family members, even if the statistical odds of a similar occurrence in their own community are small.
Property Crime
Property crimes
include burglary (breaking into private property to commit a serious crime), motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft (theft of property worth $50 or more), and arson. In the United States a property crime occurs, on average, once every 3.9 seconds; a violent crime occurs, on average, once every 6.3 seconds (see
Figure 7.10
). In most property crimes the primary motive is to obtain money or some other desired valuable.
Figure 7.10The FBI Crime Clock, 2015
Source: FBI, 2016.
Public Order Crime
Public order crimes (sometimes referred to as “morals” crimes) involve an illegal action voluntarily engaged in by the participants, such as prostitution, illegal gambling, the private use of illegal drugs, and illegal pornography. Many people assert that such conduct should not be labeled as a crime; these offenses are often referred to as
victimless crimes
because they involve a willing exchange of illegal goods or services among adults. However, public order crimes can include children and adolescents as well as adults. Young children and adolescents may unwillingly become child pornography “stars” or prostitutes.
Occupational and Corporate Crime
Although the sociologist Edwin Sutherland (1949) developed the theory of white-collar crime more than sixty years ago, it was not until the 1980s that the public became fully aware of its nature.
Occupational (white-collar) crime
comprises illegal activities committed by people in the course of their employment or financial affairs (
Figure 7.11
).
Figure 7.11
Persons who are accused of occupational and corporate crimes may be treated differently by law enforcement officials and the criminal justice system than individuals accused of certain violent crimes. What reasons can you give for possible disparities in treatment and sentencing based on the types of crime committed?
Rich Legg/the Agency Collection/Getty Images.
In addition to acting for their own financial benefit, some white-collar offenders become involved in criminal conspiracies designed to improve the market share or profitability of their companies. This is known as
corporate crime
—illegal acts committed by corporate employees on behalf of the corporation and with its support. Examples include antitrust violations; tax evasion; misrepresentations in advertising; infringements on patents, copyrights, and trademarks; price fixing; and financial fraud. These crimes are a result of deliberate decisions made by corporate personnel to enhance resources or profits at the expense of competitors, consumers, and the general public.
Although people who commit occupational and corporate crimes can be arrested, fined, and sent to prison, some people are less likely to regard such behavior as “criminal.” In many cases, punishment for such offenses has been a fine and a relatively brief prison sentence in settings sometimes referred to as “country club prisons” because of their amenities.
For many years, public concern and media attention focused primarily on the street crimes disproportionately committed by persons who were poor, powerless, and nonwhite. Today, however, part of our focus has shifted to crimes committed by top banking officials in corporate suites, such as fraud, tax evasion, and insider trading by executives at large and well-known corporations. For example, in 2015, a leak of 11.5 million files from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth largest offshore law firm, revealed ways in which large corporations and wealthy individuals use offshore tax polices to hide their money and assets to avoid taxes and conceal profits made from questionable, often illegal, practices; this leak became known as the Panama Papers. In this case, the money “hidden“ by the firm came from suspicious circumstances including bribes and illegal activities. Ten months after the papers were released, the founders of Mossack Fonseca were arrested and are facing trial. The documents revealed presidents and large corporations were using these accounts to hide money made from bribes for awarding large contracts. The media played a key role in this case as more than ten organizations came together to sift through the millions of documents released (Fiztzgibbon, Diaz-Struck, and Hudson, 2017).
How can labeling theory be used in research on deviance? In a now-classic study that continues to show how labeling theory works, the sociologist William Chambliss (1973) studied two groups of adolescent boys in a high school: the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks.” Members of both groups were constantly involved in acts of truancy, drinking, wild parties, petty theft, and vandalism. Although the Saints committed more offenses than the Roughnecks, the Roughnecks were the ones who were labeled as “troublemakers” and arrested by law enforcement officials. By contrast, the Saints were described as being the “most likely to succeed,” and none of the Saints were ever arrested. According to Chambliss (1973), the Roughnecks were more likely to be labeled as deviants because they came from lower-income families, did poorly in school, and were generally viewed negatively, whereas the Saints came from “good families,” did well in school, and were generally viewed positively. Although both groups engaged in similar behavior, only the Roughnecks were stigmatized by a deviant label. Findings by William Chambliss about the significance of labeling theory in explaining deviance, particularly in regard to juvenile offenses, have been reaffirmed by numerous other studies over the past four decades (see, for example, Ascani, 2012; Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006).
How damaging to the public are corporate crimes? Some corporate crimes are more costly in terms of money and lives lost than street crimes. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars have been lost annually as a result of corporate crime (Reiman and Leighton, 2010). Deaths resulting from corporate crimes such as polluting the air and water, manufacturing defective products, and selling unsafe foods and drugs far exceed the number of deaths caused by homicide each year. Other costs include the effect on the moral climate of society (Simon, 2012). Throughout the United States the confidence of everyday people in the nation’s economy has been shaken badly by the greedy and illegal behavior of corporate insiders.
Internet Crime
Internet crime
consists of FBI-related scams, identity theft, advance fee fraud, nonauction/nondelivery of merchandise, and overpayment fraud. The proliferation of computers and Internet access worldwide has contributed to the growth of lucrative crimes in which the victim never meets the perpetrator. Auto fraud is one of the most frequently reported Internet crimes, in which perpetrators attempt to sell vehicles they do not own. Typically, they advertise vehicles for sale on the Internet at prices well below market value and claim that they must sell the vehicles quickly because of personal issues, such as relocation for work, deployment by the military, or a family crisis. Victims are instructed to wire full or partial payment to a third-party agent without meeting the seller or inspecting the vehicle prior to purchase. Because victims think they are getting a good deal, they contact their bank for a wire transfer of the money. After the third-party agent receives the victim’s money, the perpetrator pockets the cash but does not deliver the vehicle.
Another frequently reported Internet crime is the FBI-related scam, in which a perpetrator poses as a high-ranking government official or as the FBI to defraud victims (see
Figure 7.12
). The perpetrator sends an e-mail that looks legitimate because it contains an “official” government letterhead or the FBI seal, and the message contains information about money or property that the recipient allegedly inherited, bogus lottery-winning notifications, or occasionally extortion threats. However, the recipient must contribute a specific amount of money to gain the inheritance, lottery, or other prize. Although no monetary losses are incurred in some cases, public trust is still undermined, and these scams pose a viable threat to national security (Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2014).
Figure 7.12Top Reported Internet Crime Types
Source: Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2015.
Real estate fraud occurs when perpetrators find websites that list homes for sale and take legitimate information and misuse it with their own e-mail addresses on Craigslist (without consent) under the housing rental category. Victims are instructed to send money for the first and last month’s rent via a wire transfer to an overseas account. By the time they find out that this is a scam, their money is long gone, and they have no legitimate claim on the house that they hoped to occupy for a below-market rental rate. Other forms of real estate fraud include time-share marketing schemes and loan-modification scams in which a bogus loan company contacts a homeowner who is having financial problems and offers a loan-modification plan in which the homeowner stops making mortgage payments and starts sending the money, along with additional fees, to the bogus loan company instead.
Other frequently reported Internet crimes include the intimidation/extortion scam, such as payday loans or grandparent scams, in which older individuals are targeted by fraudsters who claim to be a relative in a legal or financial crisis and make an urgent plea for money to be sent to help them. Using another twist, romance scams are perpetrated by individuals who promise love and romance to online victims they meet in chat rooms, dating sites, and social media networks. Romance scams have grown in popularity because it is relatively easy to target individuals who seek companionship or romance online. The victim believes that he or she is becoming acquainted with, or dating, a real person online because scammers sometimes write poetry or send flowers and gifts to victims until they persuade them to part with their money. Romance scams alone accounted for $65.6 million lost in 2013.
Scareware and ransomware schemes are hoaxes pulled on computer users through pop-up messages which alert individuals that their computers are infected with viruses and bait them into purchasing nonexistent or useless software that allegedly will remove the viruses from their computer. One of the most frightening of the Internet schemes is the Hit Man Scam, in which scammers send an e-mail claiming to be a hit man hired to kill the victim. Recipients must pay money to make sure that the hit man does not carry out the death contract. More recently, scammers using this approach have gained personal information about the alleged victim based on what he or she has posted on social media sites, giving more credibility to their threat.
Internet crime continues to grow because perpetrators can so easily change their tactics. According to the FBI, the total loss involving known Internet crimes is over 1 billion annually (Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2015).
Organized Crime
Organized crime
is a business operation that supplies illegal goods and services for profit. Premeditated, continuous illegal activities of organized crime include drug trafficking, prostitution, loan-sharking, money laundering, and large-scale theft such as truck hijackings (Simon, 2012). No single organization controls all organized crime; rather, many groups operate at all levels of society. In recent decades, organized crime in the United States has become increasingly transnational in nature. Globalization of the economy and the introduction of better communications technology have made it possible for groups around the world to operate in the United States and other nations. The FBI has identified a number of major categories of organized crime threats in the United States, as shown in
Figure 7.13
.
Figure 7.13Organized Crime Threats in the United States
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime, 2015.
Organized crime thrives because there is great demand for illegal goods and services. Criminal organizations initially gain control of illegal activities by combining threats and promises. For example, small-time operators running drug or prostitution rings may be threatened with violence if they compete with organized crime or fail to make required payoffs.
Apart from their illegal enterprises, organized crime groups have infiltrated the world of legitimate business. Known linkages between legitimate businesses and organized crime exist in banking, hotels and motels, real estate, garbage collection, vending machines, construction, delivery and long-distance hauling, garment manufacturing insurance, stocks and bonds, vacation resorts, and funeral homes. In addition, some law enforcement and government officials are corrupted through bribery, campaign contributions, and favors intended to buy them off.
In the future, organized crime groups may further intensify their illegal activities in global drug and sex trafficking, identity theft, Internet scams, and other forms of cybercrime that are even more difficult to detect and can produce millions of dollars in a short period of time.
Political Crime
The term
political crime
refers to illegal or unethical acts involving the usurpation of power by government officials or illegal/unethical acts perpetrated against the government by outsiders seeking to make a political statement, undermine the government, or overthrow it. Government officials may use their authority unethically or illegally for the purpose of material gain or political power (Simon, 2012). They may engage in graft (taking advantage of political position to gain money or property) through bribery, kickbacks, or “insider” deals that financially benefit them.
Some acts committed by agents of the government against persons and groups believed to be threats to national security are also classified as political crimes. Four types of political deviance have been attributed to some officials:
· (1)
secrecy and deception designed to manipulate public opinion,
· (2)
abuse of power,
· (3)
prosecution of individuals because of their political activities, and
· (4)
official violence, such as police brutality against people of color or the use of citizens as unwilling guinea pigs in scientific research (Simon, 2012).
Outsiders may also engage in political crime. For example, Edward Snowden, formerly a U.S. computer professional, has been charged with theft of government property and unauthorized communication of national defense information. Snowden’s alleged crime was leaking classified data from the National Security Agency to various media outlets that proceeded to make formerly confidential government information available to a worldwide audience. Some documents revealed the presence of global surveillance programs implemented by the U.S. government and raised concerns about the balance between national security and individual privacy. At the time of this writing, Snowden remains in Russia while seeking asylum in Switzerland. He continues to be a fugitive being sought by the U.S. government.
This type of political crime was possible because newer technologies made it easy for information to be gathered and stored beyond the reach of any one government and for large amounts of data to be released instantaneously and globally without going through processes such as the “declassification” of information, which typically takes months or years to accomplish.
7-6cCrime Statistics
LO 7
Explain why official statistics may not be a good indicator of how many crimes are committed, particularly in regard to factors such as age, race, gender, and class.
How useful are crime statistics as a source of information about crime? As mentioned previously, official crime statistics provide important information on crime; however, the data reflect only those crimes that have been reported to the police.
Why are some crimes not reported? People are more likely to report crime when they believe that something can be done about it (apprehension of the perpetrator or retrieval of their property, for example). About half of all assault and robbery victims do not report the crime because they may be embarrassed or fear reprisal by the perpetrator. Thus, the number of crimes reported to police represents only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” when compared with all offenses actually committed. Official statistics are problematic in social science research because of these limitations.
The National Crime Victimization Survey was developed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as an alternative means of collecting crime statistics. Known as the NCVS, this annual survey collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. In 2015 members of 90,000 households were interviewed in person to determine if they had been the victims of crimes even if they had not reported the crime to law enforcement officials. Between 2014 and 2015, the number of violent crimes, known and unknown to the police, reported in the NCVS decreased slightly from 20.1 per 1,000 persons in 2014 to 18.6 per 1,000 persons in 2015. Similarly, the rate of property crime reported in the NCVS decreased from 118.1 per 1,000 persons in 2014 to 110.7 per 1,000 in 2015.
Figure 7.14
Edward Snowden, referred to by some media analysts as an NSA whistleblower, is shown here being interviewed about allegations of U.S. spying in Germany. How have newer technologies changed the nature of political crime?
Sunshinepress/Getty Images
Studies based on anonymous self-reports of criminal behavior often reveal much higher rates of crime than those found in official statistics. For example, self-reports tend to indicate that adolescents of all classes violate criminal laws. However, not all children who commit juvenile offenses are apprehended and referred to court. Some children from white, affluent families have their cases handled outside the juvenile justice system (for example, a youth may be sent to a private school or hospital rather than to a juvenile court and a public correctional facility).
Some crimes committed by persons of higher socioeconomic status in the course of business are handled by an administrative or quasi-judicial body, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, or by civil courts. As a result, many elite crimes are never classified as “crimes,” nor are the businesspeople who commit them labeled as “criminals.”
7-6dTerrorism and Crime
In the twenty-first century, the United States and other nations are confronted with a difficult prospect: how to deal with terrorism.
Terrorism
is the calculated, unlawful use of physical force or threats of violence against persons or property in order to intimidate or coerce a government, organization, or individual for the purpose of gaining some political, religious, economic, or social objective. At the time that I am writing this, the most recent act of massive terrorism took place in July 2016 when a 20-ton truck was driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day, France’s key national holiday, in an ISIS-inspired attack. Eighty-six people were killed, including 10 children, and 303 people were taken to the hospital. The attack was said to be carried out in response to the targeting of members of the Islamic State (
Figure 7.15
).
Figure 7.15
Terrorism remains a major worldwide concern in the twenty-first century. This site is a tribute to the people injured or killed in the attack that took place July, 2016, on Bastille Day in France. Eighty-six people were killed, including 10 children, while another 303 people were taken to the hospital after a 20-ton truck drove into the crowd of celebrants.
VALERY HACHE/AFP/Getty Images
The United States has not been immune to terrorism either. The 2013 bombings at the Boston Marathon targeted innocent civilians who were participants in, and spectators at, a 26-mile runners’ marathon. Of course, the most devastating act of terrorism in the United States took place on September 11, 2001 (the “9/11 attacks”), when nearly 3,000 people, including 19 airplane hijackers, lost their lives in attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. In the aftermath of this tragic event, national security in the United States was revamped and intensified in an effort to prevent a recurrence of these tragedies.
How are sociologists and criminologists to explain world terrorism, which may have its origins in more than one nation and include diverse “cells” of terrorists who operate in a somewhat gang-like manner but are believed to be following directives from leaders elsewhere? In order to deal with the aftermath of terrorist attacks, government officials typically focus on “known enemies” such as Osama bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. military forces in 2011. The nebulous nature of the “enemy” and the problems faced by any one government trying to identify and apprehend the perpetrators of acts of terrorism have resulted in a global “war on terror.”
Social scientists who use a rational choice approach suggest that terrorists are rational actors who constantly calculate the gains and losses of participation in violent—and sometimes suicidal—acts against others. For example, terrorists created a climate of fear prior to the 2016 Summer Olympic Games, hosted by Brazil, through a series of deadly terror attacks by suicide bombers in different areas of the world. Major sporting events, including the Boston Marathon, have been the targets of terrorists who act when the whole world is watching and seek to put their beliefs or causes out for everyone to see. Unfortunately, the bombings of buses, schools, and other public accommodations become frequent occurrences and provide a venue for persons to kill or threaten to kill many innocent civilians and to destroy millions of dollars in property. Rational choice seems an odd term for behavior such as this.
7-6eStreet Crimes and Criminals
Given the limitations of official statistics, is it possible to determine who commits crimes? We have much more information available about conventional (street) crime than elite crime; therefore, statistics concerning street crime do not show who commits all types of crime. Gender, age, class, and race are important factors in official statistics pertaining to street crime.
Gender and Crime
There is a gender gap in crime statistics: Males are arrested for significantly more crimes than females (
Figure 7.16
). In 2015 more than 73.1 percent of all persons arrested nationwide were male. Males made up slightly less than 79.7 percent of persons arrested for violent crimes and about 61.7 percent of all persons arrested for property crimes (FBI, 2016). Females have higher arrests rates than males only in the category of prostitution and commercial vice. In all other categories, males have higher arrest rates.
Figure 7.16
Most of the crimes that women commit are nonviolent ones. Nevertheless, many women are incarcerated. What effects might a mother’s imprisonment have on the lives of her children?
Sean Cayton/The Image Works
Before further consideration of differences in crime rates by males and females, three similarities should be noted. First, the most common arrest categories for both men and women are driving under the influence of alcohol, drug abuse violations, larceny, and minor or criminal mischief types of offenses. Second, liquor-law violations (such as underage drinking), simple assault, and disorderly conduct are middle-range offenses for both men and women. Third, the rate of arrests for murder, arson, and embezzlement is relatively low for both men and women.
The most important gender differences in arrest rates are reflected in the proportionately greater involvement of men in major property crimes (such as robbery, fraud, and larceny-theft) and violent crime, as shown in
Figure 7.17
. In 2015 men accounted for about 88.5 percent of murders, 85.6 percent of robberies, and almost 56.8 percent of all larceny-theft arrests in the United States FBI, 2016. Property crimes for which women are most frequently arrested are nonviolent in nature, including shoplifting, theft of services, passing bad checks, credit card fraud, and employee pilferage. In the past, when women were arrested for serious violent and property crimes, they were seen as accomplices of the men who planned the crime and instigated its commission; however, this assumption frequently does not prove true today. Some women play an active role in planning and carrying out robberies and other major crimes.
Figure 7.17Arrest Rates by Gender, 2015 (Selected Offenses)
Source: FBI, 2016.
Age, Class, and Crime
Of all factors associated with crime, the age of the offender is one of the most significant. Arrest rates for violent crime and property crime are highest for people between the ages of 13 and 25, with the peak being between ages 16 and 17. In 2015 individuals under age 18 accounted for about 10.2 percent of all arrests for violent crime and 14.3 percent of all arrests for property crime. Persons between the ages 25 and 29 accounted for 16.6 percent of all arrests in 2015 (FBI, 2016).
The median age of those arrested for aggravated assault and homicide is somewhat older, generally in the late twenties. Typically, white-collar criminals are even older because it takes time to acquire both a high-ranking position and the skills needed to commit this particular type of crime. At every age and for nearly all offenses, rates of arrest remain higher for males than females. This female-to-male ratio remains fairly constant across all age categories.
Individuals from all classes commit crimes; they simply commit different kinds of crimes. Persons from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be arrested for violent and property crimes. By contrast, persons from the upper part of the class structure generally commit white-collar or elite crimes, although only a small proportion of these individuals will be arrested or convicted of a crime.
Race and Crime
Are people from some racial–ethnic categories more likely to be arrested for committing a crime? In 2015 whites (including Hispanics or Latinos/as) accounted for nearly 69 percent of all arrests. When these data were gathered, it was impossible to separate out arrest rates for white (non-Hispanic) offenders and Hispanic (Latino/a) offenders. However, the FBI started collecting nationwide data on ethnicity in 2014 to bring UCR data closer in line with U.S. Census Bureau statistics. In 2015 the total estimated arrest rate for African Americans was slightly over 26.6 percent, as shown in
Figure 7.18
. The total arrest rate for American Indians or Alaskan Natives was 2.1 percent, slightly above the 1.5 percent for Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander. African Americans made up more than 51 percent of all arrests for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. By contrast, arrest rates for whites were higher for nonviolent property crimes, including more than 69 percent of all arrests for larceny-theft and slightly more than 66 percent for fraud (FBI, 2016).
Figure 7.18Arrest by Race, 2015 (Selected Offenses)
Source: FBI, 2016.
Note: Classifications as used in the Uniform Crime Report.
Although official arrest records reveal certain trends, these data tell us very little about the actual dynamics of crime by racial–ethnic category. According to official statistics, African Americans are overrepresented in arrest data. African Americans made up over 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2015 but accounted for nearly 27 percent of all arrests. In some areas, African Americans were the vast majority of those arrested for certain categories of crime. For example, African Americans made up more than 75 percent of arrests for gambling, 54 percent of arrests for robbery, and 40 percent of arrests for prostitution and commercialized vice. Likewise, African Americans are more likely than people in other racial or ethnic classifications to become crime victims (FBI, 2016). What sociological factors might account for this disparity in crime statistics?
In 2015 Native Americans (designated in the UCR as “American Indian” or “Alaskan Native”) accounted for 2.1 percent of all arrests, although the highest-ranking crimes were drunkenness, liquor-law violations, vagrancy, disorderly conduct, and offenses against the family (FBI, 2016). In that same year, 1.5 percent of all arrests were of Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander. Among the higher percentages of arrests for members of this category were prostitution and commercialized vice, gambling, and embezzlement (FBI, 2016).
Are arrest statistics a true reflection of crimes committed? According to criminologists Jeffrey Reiman and Paul Leighton (2010), arrest statistics reflect the UCR’s focus on violent and property crimes, especially property crimes, which are committed primarily by low-income people. This emphasis draws attention away from the white-collar and elite crimes committed by middle- and upper-income people (
Figure 7.19
). Police may also demonstrate bias and racism in their decisions regarding whom to question, detain, or arrest under certain circumstances (Reiman and Leighton, 2010).
Figure 7.19
According to Karl Marx, capitalism produces haves and have-nots, and each group engages in different types of crime. Statistically, the man being arrested here is much more likely to be suspected of a financial crime than a violent crime.
Nick Koudis/Photodisc/Getty Images
Statistics may also show that a disproportionate number of people of color are arrested because law enforcement officials may focus on certain types of crime and direct their attention to specific “high-crime” neighborhoods in which deviance is believed to be more prevalent. As discussed previously, many poor, young, central-city males turn to criminal activity because of lack of education, job skills, and employment opportunities, giving them little or no chance of earning a living wage through legitimate employment. Law enforcement has focused on drug-related offenses, particularly among young people of color, and arrest rates have been high for this type of crime.
Finally, arrests should not be equated with guilt: Being arrested does not necessarily mean that a person is guilty of the crime with which he or she has been charged. In the United States, individuals accused of crimes are, at least theoretically, “innocent until proven guilty.”
7-6fCrime Victims
How can we learn more about crime victims? The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, provides annual data about crimes (reported and not reported to the police) from which we can find out more about who is actually victimized by crime. In 2015 about 160,000 persons age 12 or older from 90,000 U.S. households participated in the NCVS. Based on data from this report (2015), researchers found that residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 5 million violent victimizations and 14.6 million property victimizations. However, the overall victimization rate for violent crime declined slightly, from 20.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2014 to 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2015 (Truman and Morgan, 2016). According to the study, a slight decrease in simple and aggravated assault accounted for the decline in total violence between 2014 and 2015. Property crimes also decreased, from 118.1 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2014 to 110.7 victimizations per 1,000 in 2015. According to the report, most of the decline in property crime can be attributed to a decline in reported theft (Truman and Morgan, 2016).
Victimization studies look at the sex and race of persons being victimized. In 2015, there was a significant difference in male (15.9 per 1,000) and female (21.1 per 1,000) violent crime victimizations. With this decline, the violent victimization rate for males dropped below that for females for the first time in a number of years. By definition, violent victimization includes rape/sexual assault, robbery, total assault, aggravated assault, and simple assault. As might be expected, robbery victimization was higher for males; victimization for rape or sexual assault was higher for females. Race is also an important factor in studying victimization. In 2015 the rates of violent victimization for blacks (22.6 per 1,000) were greater than those of whites (17.4 per 1,000) and Hispanics (16.8 per 1,000). After several years of increases in victimization reporting, the overall violent and property crime rates reported for 2015 decreased. Was this a temporary fluke? Does it represent a trend? Check online for the U.S. Department of Justice’s “Criminal Victimization” report for the latest year available, and compare these statistics (Truman and Morgan, 2016).
What can we learn from victimization studies such as this? Because not all crimes are reported, we can find out more about the nature and extent to which people in specific regions of the country, income categories, racial or ethnic groupings, ages, and other demographic characteristics are victimized by violent and property crimes in the United States. These data can be compared with official crime statistics to see if arrest rates and convictions are an accurate reflection of crime in the United States. The NCVS particularly helps us to learn about the types and number of offenses that go unreported to police or other law enforcement officials who are part of the criminal justice system.
7-7The Criminal Justice System
LO 8
Identify the components of the criminal justice system and list the goals of punishment.
Of all the agencies of social control (including families, schools, and churches) in contemporary societies, only the criminal justice system has the power to control crime and punish those who are convicted of criminal conduct. The
criminal justice system
refers to the local, state, and federal agencies that enforce laws, adjudicate crimes, and treat and rehabilitate criminals. The system includes the police, the courts, the correctional facilities, and the people in myriads of police agencies, courts, prosecutorial agencies, correctional institutions, and probation and parole departments.
The term criminal justice system is somewhat misleading because it implies that law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional facilities constitute one large, integrated system, when, in reality, the criminal justice system is made up of many bureaucracies that have considerable discretion in how decisions are made. Discretion refers to the use of personal judgment by police officers, prosecutors, judges, and other criminal justice system officials regarding whether and how to proceed in a given situation (see
Figure 7.20
). The police are a prime example of discretionary processes because they have the power to selectively enforce the law and have on many occasions been accused of being too harsh or too lenient on alleged offenders.
Figure 7.20Discretionary Powers in Law Enforcement
© Hurst Photo/ Shutterstock.com; Fuse/Getty Images; Image Source/Photodisc/Getty Images
7-7aThe Police
The role of the police in the criminal justice system continues to expand. The police are responsible for crime control and maintenance of order, but local police departments now serve numerous other human-service functions, including improving community relations, resolving family disputes, and helping people during emergencies. Not all “police officers” are employed by local police departments; they are employed in governmental agencies ranging from local jurisdictions to federal levels. However, we will focus primarily on metropolitan police departments because they constitute the vast majority of the law enforcement community.
Metropolitan police departments are made up of a chain of command (similar to the military), with ranks such as officer, sergeant, lieutenant, and captain, and each rank must follow specific rules and procedures. However, individual officers maintain a degree of discretion in the decisions they make as they respond to calls and try to apprehend fleeing or violent offenders. The problem of police discretion is most acute when decisions are made to use force (such as grabbing, pushing, or hitting a suspect) or deadly force (shooting and killing a suspect). Generally, deadly force is allowed only in situations in which a suspect is engaged in a felony, is fleeing the scene of a felony, or is resisting arrest and has endangered someone’s life.
Although many police departments have worked to improve their public image in recent years, the practice of racial profiling—the use of ethnic or racial background as a means of identifying criminal suspects—remains a highly charged issue. Officers in some police departments have singled out for discriminatory treatment African Americans, Latinos/as, and other people of color, treating them more harshly than white (Euro-American) individuals. Racial profiling was recently in the headlines and a hot topic in social media after the police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri. According to records maintained by Missouri officials, 86 percent of the stops and 92 percent of the searches made by the Ferguson Police Department in 2013 were of African Americans, while only 67 percent of the Ferguson population is black. After extensive protests and numerous riots in Ferguson and other cities throughout the nation, federal authorities called for a full investigation. No civil rights violations were brought against the police officer who fired the fatal shot, and the St. Louis County grand jury brought no criminal charges against the white police officer. The Justice Department investigation, however, uncovered a pattern of unlawful conduct by the Ferguson Police Department, and the Justice Department and the city resolved a lawsuit by agreeing to reform the police department and municipal court.
The belief that differential treatment takes place on the basis of race contributes to a negative image of police among many people of color who believe that they have been hassled by police officers, and this assumption is intensified by the fact that police departments have typically been made up of white male personnel at all levels. As many social analysts and media commentators point out, however, this is not a problem unique to Ferguson, Missouri: Nationwide, a massive problem of racial injustice exists in the criminal justice system, and Ferguson is only one of many symbols of this reality.
When situations such as this arise, police-department officials typically contend that race is only one factor in determining why individuals are questioned or detained as they go about everyday activities such as driving a car or walking down the street. By contrast, equal-justice advocacy groups argue that differential treatment of minority-group members amounts to a race-based double standard, which they believe exists not only in police work but also throughout the criminal justice system.
In recent years, this situation has slowly begun to change. More than 27 percent of all sworn officers—those who have taken an oath and been given the powers to make arrests and use necessary force in accordance with their duties are minorities. Women accounted for about 12 percent of all sworn officers in local police departments in 2015. The largest percentage of women and minority police officers are located in cities with a population of 250,000 or more. African Americans make up a larger percentage of the police department in cities with a larger proportion of African American residents (such as Detroit), but Latinos/as constitute a larger percentage in cities such as San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, where Latinos/as make up a larger proportion of the population. Women officers of all races are more likely to be employed in departments in cities of more than 250,000 as compared with smaller communities (cities of fewer than 50,000), where women officers constitute a small percentage of the force.
Police departments now place greater emphasis on community-oriented policing—an approach to law enforcement that focuses on police officers building ties to the community by working closely with other community members. To accomplish this, officers maintain a presence in the community by walking up and down the streets or riding bicycles, getting to know people, and holding public service meetings at schools, churches, and other neighborhood settings. Community-oriented policing is often limited by budget constraints and the lack of available personnel to conduct this type of “hands-on” community involvement. In many jurisdictions, police officers believe that they have only enough time to keep up with reports of serious crime and life-threatening occurrences and that the level of available personnel and resources does not allow officers to take on a greatly expanded role in the community.
7-7bThe Courts
Criminal courts determine the guilt or innocence of those persons accused of committing a crime. In theory, justice is determined in an adversarial process in which the prosecutor (an attorney who represents the state) argues that the accused is guilty, and the defense attorney asserts that the accused is innocent. In reality, judges have considerable discretion but are still constrained in some cases by structured sentencing guidelines. Structured sentencing is also referred to as determinate sentencing or mandatory sentencing. A determinate sentence sets the term of imprisonment at a fixed period of time (such as three years) for a specific offense. Mandatory-sentencing guidelines are established by law and require that a person convicted of a specific offense or series of offenses be given a penalty within a fixed range. Although these practices limit judicial discretion in sentencing, many critics are concerned about other negative effects that these sentencing approaches may have on the accused and the criminal justice system.
Prosecuting attorneys also have considerable leeway in deciding which cases to prosecute and when to negotiate a plea bargain with a defense attorney. As cases are sorted through the legal machinery, a steady attrition occurs. At each stage, various officials determine what alternatives will be available for those cases still remaining in the system.
About 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried in court; instead, they are resolved by plea bargaining, a process in which the prosecution negotiates a reduced sentence for the accused in exchange for a guilty plea. Defendants (especially those who are poor and cannot afford to pay an attorney) may be urged to plead guilty to a lesser crime in return for not being tried for the more serious crime for which they were arrested. Prison sentences given in plea bargains vary widely from one region to another and even from judge to judge within one state.
Those who advocate the practice of plea bargaining believe that it allows for individualized justice for alleged offenders because judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys can agree to a plea and to a punishment that best fits the offense and the offender. They also believe that this process helps reduce the backlog of criminal cases in the court system as well as the lengthy process often involved in a criminal trial. However, those who seek to abolish plea bargaining believe that this practice leads to innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they have not committed or pleading guilty to a crime other than the one they actually committed because they are offered a lesser sentence. More-serious crimes, such as murder, felonious assault, and rape, are more likely to proceed to trial than other forms of criminal conduct; however, many of these cases do not reach the trial stage.
One of the most important activities of the court system is establishing the sentence of the accused after he or she has been found guilty or has pleaded guilty. Typically, sentencing involves the following kinds of sentences or dispositions: fines, probation, alternative or intermediate sanctions (such as house arrest or electronic monitoring), incarceration, and capital punishment. However, adult courts operate differently from those established for juvenile offenders (
Figure 7.21
).
Figure 7.21
Although TV and movie crime dramas often prominently feature a judge and jury in a courtroom, about 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried in court. Nevertheless, jury duty is considered to be an important civic responsibility for citizens to perform, so that those who are accused have their case heard by a jury of their peers.
Image Source/Getty Images
Juvenile Courts
Juvenile courts were established under a different premise than courts for adults. Under the doctrine of parens patriae (the state as parent), the official purpose of juvenile courts has been to care for, rather than punish, youthful offenders. In theory, less weight is given to offenses and more weight to the youth’s physical, mental, or social condition. The juvenile court seeks to change or resocialize offenders through treatment or therapy, not to punish them. Consequently, judges in juvenile courts are given relatively wide latitude, or discretion, in the decisions they mete out regarding young offenders.
Unlike adult offenders, juveniles are not always represented by legal counsel. A juvenile hearing is not a trial but rather an informal private hearing before a judge or probation officer, with only the young person and a parent or guardian present. No jury is convened, and the juvenile offender does not cross-examine his or her accusers. In addition, the offender is not “sentenced”; rather, the case is “adjudicated” or “disposed of.” Finally, the offender is not “punished” but instead may be “remanded to the custody” of a youth authority in order to receive training, treatment, or care.
Because of judicial discretion, courts may treat juveniles differently based on gender. Considerable disparity exists in the disposition of juvenile cases, with much of the variation thought to result from judges’ beliefs rather than objective facts in the case. Female offenders are more likely than males to be institutionalized for committing status offenses such as truancy, running away from home, and other offenses that serve as “buffer charges” for suspected sexual misconduct.
Disparity also exists on the basis of race and class. Judges tend to see youths from white, middle- or upper-class families as being very much like their children and to believe that the families will take care of the problem on their own. They may view juveniles from lower-income families or other racial—ethnic groups as delinquents in need of attention from authorities. Furthermore, some judges view gang members from impoverished central cities as “guilty by association” because of their companions.
The political climate may have an effect on how judges dispose of juvenile cases. In the process of dealing with the public perception that the juvenile justice system is too lenient, some judges may have inadvertently contributed to other problems. Many more youths have been remanded to overcrowded juvenile detention facilities that are unable to provide necessary educational, health, and social services. Based on a judge’s discretion, many juvenile offenders are incarcerated under indeterminate sentences and placed in a detention facility that may serve merely as a school for adult criminality.
7-7cPunishment and Corrections
Although the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world’s population, our nation accounts for almost 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Some analysts suggest that our laws prescribe greater punishment for some offenses than those in other nations, resulting in Americans being locked up for crimes that would rarely result in prison sentences in other countries. In 2015 approximately 1.53 million persons were incarcerated in state and federal prisons. When local jail populations of about 646,000 are included, the number rises to over 2.2 million people who are incarcerated at any given time.
It should be noted that jails differ from prisons. Most jails are run by local governments or a sheriff’s department. They are designed to hold people before they make bail, when they are awaiting trial, or when they are serving short sentences for committing a misdemeanor. By contrast, prisons are operated by state governments and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and are designed to hold individuals convicted of felonies. Some prisons are operated by private contractors that build and control the facilities while receiving public monies for their operation. Both jails and prisons are based on the assumption that punishment and/or corrections are necessary to protect the public good and to effectively deal with those who violate laws.
Punishment
is any action designed to deprive a person of things of value (including liberty) because of some offense the person is thought to have committed. Historically, punishment has had four major goals:
1. Retribution is punishment that a person receives for infringing on the rights of others. Retribution imposes a penalty on the offender and is based on the premise that the punishment should fit the crime: The greater the degree of social harm, the more the offender should be punished. For example, an individual who murders should be punished more severely than one who shoplifts.
2. General deterrence seeks to reduce criminal activity by instilling a fear of punishment in the general public. However, we most often focus on specific deterrence, which inflicts punishment on individual criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes. Recently, criminologists have debated whether imprisonment has a deterrent effect, given the fact that high rates (between 30 and 50 percent) of those who are released from prison become recidivists (previous offenders who commit new crimes).
3. Incapacitation is based on the assumption that offenders who are detained in prison or are executed will be unable to commit additional crimes. This approach is often expressed as “lock ‘em up and throw away the key!” In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on selective incapacitation, which means that offenders who repeat certain kinds of crimes are sentenced to long prison terms.
4. Rehabilitation seeks to return offenders to the community as law-abiding citizens by providing therapy or vocational or educational training. Based on this approach, offenders are treated, not punished, so that they will not continue their criminal activity. However, many correctional facilities are seriously understaffed and underfunded in the rehabilitation programs that exist. The job skills (such as agricultural work) that many offenders learn in prison do not transfer to the outside world, nor are offenders given any assistance in finding work that fits their skills once they are released.
Other approaches have also been advocated for dealing with criminal behavior. Key among these is the idea of restoration, which is designed to repair the damage done to the victim and the community by an offender’s criminal act. This approach is based on the restorative justice perspective, which states that the criminal justice system should promote a peaceful and just society; therefore, the system should focus on peacemaking rather than on punishing offenders. Advocates of this approach believe that punishment of offenders actually encourages crime rather than deterring it and are in favor of approaches such as probation with treatment. Opponents of this approach suggest that increased punishment of offenders leads to lower crime rates and that the restorative justice approach amounts to “coddling criminals.” However, numerous restorative justice programs are now in operation, and many have been found to reduce recidivism rates below the ones associated with more-conventional criminal justice sanctions (Barkan, 2012).
Instead of the term punishment, the term corrections is often used. It refers not only to prisons and jails but also to a number of programs and organizations that manage individuals who have been either accused or convicted of crimes. Included in the field of corrections are halfway houses, probation, work release and education programs, parole supervision, counseling, and community service.
7-7dThe Death Penalty
Historically, removal from the group has been considered one of the ultimate forms of punishment. For many years, capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been used in the United States as an appropriate and justifiable response to very serious crimes. In 2015, 28 inmates were executed (as contrasted with 98 in 1999), and 2,905 people awaited execution, having received the death penalty under federal law or the laws of one of the states that have the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center, 2016). By far, the largest numbers of death row inmates are in states such as California, Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Pennsylvania (see
Figure 7.22
).
Figure 7.22Death Row Census, July 1, 2016
Source: Death Penalty Information Center, 2016.
Because of the finality of the death penalty, it has been a subject of much controversy and numerous Supreme Court debates about the decision-making process involved in capital cases. In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in Furman v. Georgia) that arbitrary application of the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution but that the death penalty itself is not unconstitutional. In other words, capital punishment is legal if it is fairly imposed. Although there have been a number of cases involving death penalty issues before the Supreme Court since that time, the Court typically has upheld the constitutionality of this practice. Yet the fact remains that racial disparities are highly evident in the death row census and executions. Over 75 percent of the murder victims in cases that resulted in an execution were white despite the fact that nationally only about 50 percent of murder victims are white. In Louisiana, for example, the odds of a death sentence were 97 percent higher for perpetrators whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black (Death Penalty Information Center, 2015).
People who have lost relatives and friends as a result of criminal activity often see the death penalty as justified. However, capital punishment raises many doubts for those who fear that innocent individuals may be executed for crimes they did not commit. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (2015), more than 140 individuals have been released from death row since 1973 based on evidence that was later presented to demonstrate their innocence. For still others, the problem of racial discrimination in the sentencing process poses troubling questions. Other questions involve the execution of those who are believed to be insane and of those defendants who did not have effective legal counsel during their trial. In 2002, for example, the Supreme Court ruled (in Atkins v. Virginia) that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. In another landmark case (Ring v. Arizona), the Court ruled that juries, not judges, must decide whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty.
Executions resumed in 2008 after a de facto moratorium was lifted by the Supreme Court when it decided to uphold lethal injection as not constituting “cruel and unusual punishment” despite the fact that some scientists disagree. Although only 72 new death sentences were handed down in 2014 (after a high of 328 in 1994), the issue of the death penalty is far from resolved; the debate, which has taken place for more than two centuries, will no doubt continue for many years in the future.
7-8Looking Ahead: Deviance and Crime in the Future
Three pressing questions pertaining to deviance and crime will continue to face us in the future: Is the solution to our “crime problem” more law and order? Is equal justice under the law possible? Is more-stringent gun control the way to reduce violent crime in the United States? (See “
Sociology and Social Policy” for this discussion.)
Sociology & Social Policy
The Long War Over Gun Control
The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.
—Former President Barack Obama’s comments on the urgency of enacting social policies that will deter mass shootings and other gun-related violence (whitehouse.gov, 2012)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
—National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, responding to demands for more-effective gun control in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, Connecticut (qtd. in Gold and Mason, 2012)
Pro-gun-control advocates believe that we need social policies that regulate the gun industry and gun ownership. However, opponents of gun-control measures argue that regulation will not curb random violence perpetrated by a few disturbed or frustrated individuals and that more, rather than fewer, people need to be armed to protect others against future mass violence.
Some people view social policy as a means of “declaring war” on a problem such as school violence (Best, 1999). Social policy discussions on gun-related violence typically focus on how to win the “war” on guns and how to keep violent incidents from happening again. However, a lack of consensus exists on both the causes of gun violence and what should be done about it. Some favor regulation of the gun industry and gun ownership; others believe that additional regulations will not curb random violence perpetrated by individuals.
Underlying the arguments for and against gun control are these words from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those in favor of legislation to regulate the gun industry and gun ownership argue that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual’s right to own guns: The right to keep and bear arms applies only to those citizens who do so as part of an official state militia. However, in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun for personal use. From this perspective, individuals possess a constitutionally protected right to have a loaded gun at home for self-defense. This argument has been made for many years by the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington and in legislatures across the nation. The NRA has stated that gun-control regulations violate the individual’s constitutional right to own a gun. The NRA’s response to recent school violence has been to call for armed guards in all schools.
Those who call for more-stringent gun-control laws in the United States point out, for comparison, that in the horrific attack on twenty-two children and one adult that occurred in the Henan Province of China near the date of the Newtown mass killings in 2012, everyone under attack survived the violence because the perpetrator wielded only a knife, not a semiautomatic assault rifle (Associated Press, 2012; CNN.com, 2012b). The fast and extremely lethal nature of gun attacks became all the more poignant in the contrast between these two events.
What solutions exist for the quandary over gun regulations? Declaring war on gun-related violence is difficult because it is virtually impossible to rally our political leaders and the general public behind a single policy. Instead, time is spent arguing over how to proceed and how to identify the real enemy, and gun violence remains a chronic concern in the United States. Clearly, this is an issue in which we have yet to successfully address a pressing problem that is continuing to take precious lives in this nation.
Reflect & Analyze
1. Do you believe that arming more people would reduce mass shootings in the United States? Should armed guards be placed in all schools? Should college students be allowed to carry guns on campus for their own safety? What do you think?
Although many people in the United States agree that crime is one of the most important problems in this country, they are divided over what to do about it. Some of the frustration about crime might be based on unfounded fears; studies show that the overall crime rate has been decreasing slightly in recent years.
One thing is clear: The existing criminal justice system cannot solve the “crime problem.” If only a small percentage of all crimes result in arrest, and even a smaller percentage of those lead to a conviction in serious cases, and even less than 5 percent of those result in a jail term, the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach has little chance of succeeding. Nor does the high rate of recidivism among those who have been incarcerated speak well for the rehabilitative efforts of our existing correctional facilities. Reducing street crime may hinge on finding ways to short-circuit criminal behavior. Likewise, if corporate elites and wealthy offenders continue to get away with crimes that leave their employees and millions of others without their homes, pensions, and life savings, not only individuals and families but also the entire nation will continue to suffer from the consequences of misplaced priorities and a system that benefits the few at the expense of the law-abiding many who attempt to follow the rules and adhere to the system that they have been socialized to accept.
One of the greatest challenges is juvenile offenders, who may become the adult criminals of tomorrow. However, instead of military-style boot camps or other stopgap measures, structural solutions—such as more and better education and jobs, affordable housing, more equality and less discrimination, and socially productive activities—are needed to reduce street crime. In the past, structural solutions such as these have made it possible for youths who initially committed street crimes to leave the streets, get jobs, and lead productive lives. Ultimately, the best approach for reducing delinquency and crime would be prevention: to work with young people before they become juvenile offenders to help them establish family relationships, build self-esteem, choose a career, and get an education that will help them pursue that career. Criminologist Steven E. Barkan (2012) proposes seven strategies for reducing crime and delinquency that are more structural in nature:
1. Create decent jobs that pay a living wage.
2. Provide economic aid for people who are unemployed or are barely making it.
3. End racial segregation in housing.
4. Strengthen social integration and social institutions in urban neighborhoods.
5. Reduce housing and population density.
6. Change male socialization.
7. Reduce economic inequality.
Many people still ask if equal justice under the law is possible. As long as racism, sexism, classism, and ageism exist in our society, many individuals will see deviant and criminal behavior through a selective lens. To solve the problems addressed in this chapter, we must ask ourselves what we can do to ensure the rights of everyone, including the poor, people of color, and women and men alike. Many of us can counter classism, racism, sexism, and ageism where they occur. Perhaps the only way that the United States can have equal justice under the law (and, perhaps, less crime as a result) in the future is to promote social justice for individuals regardless of their race, class, gender, or age.
7-9The Future of Transnational Crime and the Global Criminal Economy
Transnational crime occurs across multiple national borders. This type of crime not only involves crossing borders between countries but also crimes in which crossing national borders is essential to the criminal activity. Much of transnational crime is conducted by organized criminal groups that use systematic violence and corruption to achieve their goals. Often these criminal networks are able to prey on less-powerful governments that do not have the resources to oppose them. According to the National Institute of Justice (2011), transnational crime should be of concern to people living in the United States because this type of criminal activity has a detrimental effect on everyone, not just the nations that are destabilized by these activities, often through the use of bribery, violence, or terror.
Transnational crime is fueled by globalization, which has brought increased travel, expanded international trade, and advances in telecommunications and computer technology. This type of criminal activity cannot be controlled by one nation alone. How much money and other resources change hands in the global criminal economy? Although the exact amount of profits and financial flows originating in the global criminal economy is impossible to determine, the United Nations Conference on Global Organized Crime estimated that more than $600 billion (in U.S. currency) per year is accrued in the global trade in drugs alone. Profits from all kinds of global criminal activities are estimated to be as high as $5 trillion per year (United Nations Development Programme, 2011). Some analysts believe that even this figure may underestimate the true nature and extent of the global criminal economy. The highest-income-producing activities of global criminal organizations include trafficking in drugs, weapons, and nuclear material; smuggling of things and people (including migrants); trafficking in women and children for the sex industry; and trafficking in body parts such as corneas and major organs for the medical industry. Undergirding the entire criminal system are money laundering and various complex financial schemes and international trade networks that make it possible for people to use the resources they obtain through illegal activity for the purposes of consumption and investment in the formal (“legitimate”) economy. Theft of critical U.S. intellectual property, including intrusions into corporate computer networks, makes this country more vulnerable to significant business losses. Cybercrime poses a threat to banking, stock markets, and credit card services, just as penetration of intelligence services makes nations more vulnerable to terrorism. (
Figure 7.23
).
Figure 7.23
One of a growing number of cyberattacks was reported to the FBI by Anthem, Inc., the second largest U.S. health insurer, when hackers obtained data on tens of millions of current and former customers and employees from Anthem’s IT system.
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Can anything be done about transnational crime? The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (2014) suggests that specific steps must be taken:
· (1)
coordination at the international level for identifying, investigating, and prosecuting the people and groups behind the crimes;
· (2)
education and raising awareness about these kinds of crime and how they affect individuals’ everyday lives;
· (3)
intelligence and technology to help law enforcement officials combat powerful criminal networks; and
· (4)
assistance for developing countries to help them build their capacity for countering terrorist threats.
In the United States, the White House has also developed a strategy to combat transnational organized crime that focuses on stemming the southward flow of guns and money that contributes to an increase in drug violence. From this perspective, the demand for illegal drugs in the United States fuels the global drug trade, which is a key source of funding for transnational organized crime. If this source can be reduced or cut off, this will be a beginning toward reducing problems of terrorism and insurgent networks. Among the policy objectives set forth in the U.S. National Security Strategy are the following:
Protect Americans and our partners from the harm, violence, and exploitation of transnational criminal networks. … We will target the networks that pose the gravest threat to citizen safety and security, including those that traffic illicit drugs, arms, and people—especially women and children; sell and distribute substandard, tainted and counterfeit goods; rob Americans of their prosperity; carry out kidnappings for ransom and extortion; and seek to terrorize and intimidate through acts of torture and murder. (whitehouse.gov, 2011)
Will the United States and other nations be able to curb transnational organized crime? This remains to be seen; however, public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability rely on the ability of the U.S. government and others to combat networks that pose a strategic threat to Americans and U.S. interests. Crime around the world, as well as at home, can be a destabilizing influence on the social order.
Chapter Review Q & A
· LO1What is deviance, and when is deviant behavior considered a crime?
Deviance is any behavior, belief, or condition that violates significant social norms in the society or group in which it occurs. Some forms of deviant behavior violate the criminal law, which defines the behaviors that society labels as criminal. Sociologists are interested in what types of behavior are defined by societies as “deviant,” who does that defining, how individuals become deviant, and how those individuals are dealt with by society.
· LO2What are the key functionalist perspectives on deviance?
Functionalist perspectives on deviance include strain theory and opportunity theory. Strain theory focuses on the idea that when people are denied legitimate access to cultural goals, such as a good job or a nice home, they may engage in illegal behavior to obtain them. Opportunity theory suggests that for deviance to occur, people must have access to illegitimate means to acquire what they want but cannot obtain through legitimate means.
· LO3What are the key ideas of conflict explanations of deviance and crime that focus on power relations, capitalism, feminism, and the intersection of race, class, and gender?
Conflict theorists who focus on power relations in society suggest that the lifestyles considered deviant by political and economic elites are often defined as illegal. Marxist conflict theorists link deviance and crime to the capitalist society, which divides people into haves and have-nots, leaving crime as the only source of support for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Feminist approaches to deviance focus on the relationship between gender and deviance. Multiracial feminist approaches have examined how the intersecting systems of race, class, and gender act as “structuring forces” that affect how people act, what opportunities they have available, and how their behavior is socially defined.
· LO4What are some key symbolic interactionist perspectives on deviance, including differential association theory, social bond theory, and labeling theory?
According to symbolic interactionists, deviance is learned through interaction with others. Differential association theory states that individuals have a greater tendency to deviate from societal norms when they frequently associate with persons who tend toward deviance instead of conformity. According to social control theories, everyone is capable of committing crimes, but social bonding (attachments to family and to other social institutions) keeps many from doing so. According to labeling theory, deviant behavior is that which is labeled deviant by those in powerful positions.
· LO5How do postmodern perspectives on deviance differ from other theoretical approaches?
Postmodernist views on deviance focus on how the powerful control others through discipline and surveillance. This control may be maintained through largely invisible forces such as the Panoptican, as described by Michel Foucault, or by newer technologies that place everyone—not just “deviants”—under constant surveillance by authorities, who use their knowledge as power over others.
· LO6How do sociologists define the following types of crime: violent crime, property crime, public order crime, occupational crime, corporate crime, organized crime, and political crime?
Violent crime consists of actions involving force or the threat of force against others. Property crimes include burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft, and arson. Public order crimes involve an illegal action voluntarily engaged in by the participants, such as prostitution. Occupational crime comprises illegal activities committed by people in the course of their employment or financial affairs. Corporate crime consists of illegal acts committed by corporate employees on behalf of the corporation and with its support. Organized crime is a business operation that supplies illegal goods and services for profit. Political crime refers to illegal or unethical acts involving the usurpation of power by government officials or illegal/unethical acts perpetrated against the government by outsiders seeking to make a political statement, undermine the government, or overthrow it.
· LO7Why may official statistics not be a good indicator of how many crimes are committed, particularly in regard to factors such as age, race, gender, and class?
Official crime statistics are taken from the Uniform Crime Report, which lists crimes reported to the police, and the National Crime Victimization Survey, which interviews households to determine the incidence of crimes, including those not reported to police. Studies show that many more crimes are committed than are officially reported. Age is the key factor in crime statistics. Younger people are more likely to have the highest criminal victimization rates. The elderly tend to be fearful of crime but are the least likely to be victimized. Males are arrested for significantly more crimes than females. Persons from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be arrested for violent and property crimes; white-collar crime is more likely to occur among the upper socioeconomic classes.
· LO8What are the components of the criminal justice system and the goals of punishment?
The criminal justice system refers to the local, state, and federal agencies that enforce laws, adjudicate crimes, and treat and rehabilitate criminals. The system includes the police, the courts, the correctional facilities, and the people in myriads of police agencies, courts, prosecutorial agencies, correctional institutions, and probation and parole departments. Historically, punishment has had four major goals: retribution, general deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
