SCHOLAR: THE PAIN OF LABELLING

A theory which attempts to exhort power over another is the concept of, “labelling.”  In this theory I will refer to each as either the labeler or the labeled.  The labeler attempts to gain power over the labeled in the sense that the labeler defines the labeled in such a way that that person is deviant or criminal.  This, “label,” causes the labeled to feel shame therefore inflicting pain or suffering.  The label can change a person’s life path because the labeled will negotiate with one’s self, according to the label.  The formal process by which labelling occurs is as follows, the labeler labels the labeled, the labeled than becomes stigmatized, he or she then negotiates with him/ herself, causing changes to the self-identity, and finally the new identity is then created.  There are two types of labelling that occur one is the informal method which essentially is social stigmatization and the second referred to as formal, which is institutionalized labelling.  In society things are perceived as, “good,” or “bad,” and this is done through a concept referred to as consensus theory.  The consensus theory explains that the majority subscribes to certain actions which can either be deviant or criminal.  Primary deviance is the deviant action whereas secondary deviance is the societal response to the action being considered deviant.  

This response is through deterrence such as but not limited to sanctions or penalties etc.  As mentioned, actions are either, “right,” or “wrong,” this is what is referred to as moral relativism.  Whereas moral absolutism labels things as inherently, “good,” or “bad.”  Furthermore, deontological thinking labels things as inherently, “good,” or “bad.”  Lastly, consequentialism states that a certain action is “good,” or “bad,” because of another action.  Some argue that labelling causes what is referred to as, “net widening.”  This is where the label causes more harm than good.  An example can include the labeling of the labeling of illegalized drugs causes more crime.  Attempts by the society to reduce labelling include decriminalization or deinstitutionalization. I would just like to brief on the concept of shaming as it is very important to the idea of labelling.  There are two types of shamming the first is disintegrative which evidently means stigmatization.  The next is integrative shaming which attempts to rectify the persons circumstance that he or she can become interdependent with the community or experience a sense of communitarianism.  In modern day society this occurs through restorative justice wherein the criminal is rehabilitated with the victim so that they can find a method whereby they both experience resolution.  As you can see labelling causes many implications in our society, it is necessary to be very cautious when even attempting to label another as there are implications which could cause irreputable harm. 

SCHOLAR: CRIME AND DEVIANCE

The social control theory is a theory which attempts to explain how society imposes certain controls in order to discourage certain human behaviors. This is done through deterrence such as sanctions or penalties. It is recognized that human nature is inherently bad, violent, deviant or chaotic. These controls prevent people from becoming deviant. Scholars argue the concept of innatism wherein individuals are born with ideas which then would increase their likelihood of conducting criminal activity. Others subscribe to the concept of tabula rasa wherein they believe humans are born with a clean slate which are then influenced by their associations within the environment. Social control is the same as self control according to Hiroshi. He argues that a lack of self control is the cause of criminal behavior. Furthermore, these individuals anticipate or estimate the benefit or cost of potentially criminal acts. It is argued that the susceptibility to criminal behavior is developed from a child failing to learn self control as they grow up. Also it is theorized that the lack of societal enforcement causes individuals to become criminals. Nevertheless, Hiroshi argues that the bonds that are developed interpersonally can be indicative of a person committing possible deviance or crime. There are four types of bonds and they are as follows, attachment, involvement, belief and commitment. Deviance can be described as nonconformity to societal norms whereas crimes are a violation of the law. It is necessary to understand both concepts as some deviance is not always a crime and crimes are not always deviant.

INQUISITIVE: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

SCHOLAR: THE STUDY OF CRIMINOLOGY

Criminology is the study of the making, breaking and enforcing of law. It identifies crime as any illegal acts. Crimes can be analyzed according to the following criteria the illegal act, the cause, the role/ origin of law and society responses or the displacement of the crime. There are many approaches to crime. I believe that crime represented through the conflict model is very accurate as there is a lack of equity in the penalties. Poor people suffer more than wealthy people therefore; the criminal justice system should consider a more equitable way to be able to deal with penalties. Looking at crime through the consensus model crime is an act that the majority has labelled it as such. I believe in this concept because it is a derived from democratic and utilitarian principles. Lastly, looking at crime from the interactionist model, interest groups advocate for the community through moral entrepreneurs. This in turn falls inline with the social structural theorem in which identifies that society is a system with functions that work together to progress. It is important to understand Emil Durkeim when thinking about society and its function as he pointed out that society cohesion is necessary to be able to progressively deal with crime. The cohesion in our society is the law and this is perhaps maintained via strict liability. Strict liability identifies that certain crimes do not require the burden of proof such as regulatory laws.

This history of criminology originates from C18. This was a time when the Roman Catholic church was the dominant force. They implemented two models in which crime was punishable. These are the temptation model and the possession model. These two formed the basis of crime and people were tortured if they committed crimes. Some examples of torture were the iron maiden and the thumb screw. These techniques are now considered barbaric and it is shocking that crime has such a varied history. Today crime is dealt with in a way that it fits with equity, democracy, supremacy of law and utilitarianism. Through equity is a concept referred to as, “just deserts,” this means that only those whom are guilty are punishable under law, doing the crime is guilty and that crime must fit the punishment. Under democracy crime is labeled as a deviant act which most in society have a collective belief through culture that it should be illegal. Supremacy of law dictates the rule of law wherein crimes are labeled through the criminal code and are punishable via societal cohesion. Lastly the concept of utilitarianism states that the principles of criminal justice benefits the majority and it does the most good for all.
There are many approaches to crime. What I believe is the concept of positivism. This is what is really the scientific approaches to crime. In modern times, as society grew more advance they are more reliant on science to improve their methodologies. The positivist view to crime looks at biological, psychological and sociological variables to crime. From the biological perspective Lombroso looks at crime through atavism or stigmata. This is the determinist method, stigmata identifies born traits which increase the likely hood that a person will be a criminal. Atavism points out traits which one develops wherein they can be potentially labeled as a criminal. I am not a firm believer of Lombroso’s idea but never the less, it is a good starting point as to how modern crime analysis can take place.

Psychological approaches to crime look at factors such as IQ and behavior which increase the likelihood of criminal activity. Lastly I would like to talk about Robert Merton’s approach to crime. He believes that there is a discrepancy in a persons aspirations and objectives which cause a person to be a criminal. This discrepancy causes an individual to have blocked opportunities wherein they will attempt to justify their crime through rebellion, retreatisim, ritualism, conformity or innovation. In contrast Emil Durkheim points out that it is society cohesion which maintains the social structure in which crime can be alleviated I am a firm believer of Emil Durkheim’s theory about crime.
I would lastly like to briefly describe the correlates of crime as according to modern Criminologist. A correlate is a variable which causes an individual to be more susceptible to crime. They are as follows age, sex, social structure, race, drugs and region. These are the variables which really predisposes one to be a criminal and there are many theories which prove these. The important thing here is that people define crime. In their definition they either react positively, negatively or neutrally in their attempt to justify their own actions. Crime according to the differential association theory, specifies that it is the peer groups that link people to criminal activity. This link is analyzed in such a way that the frequency and intensity create in a person the predisposition to crime.

SCHOLAR: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VALUES

One of the main themes of the video was that the police are representation of society and their values. Therefore, if the police are racist then it is indicative that society is also racist. In Sociology, I believe that racism is a social construct. It is a way to exploit the short comings of various races. I believe that there we as a society should continue to promote zero tolerance on this subject matter as it can be considered hate speech. Although that may be the case I also do consider that freedom of speech is necessary.

 

A social construct is a construction of reality by the society. They make preconceived notions about a certain subject matter and then it is shared with the society wherein that it proliferates popular culture which then results in a social construct. Social constructs are also considered stereotypes. There are many stereotypes in society today and they are a result of social constructionism. With pertinence to the video, I see they mentioned police racism as one of the topics. Police need to be very careful as to not be racist as they are the reflection of society cohesion.

Social constructs are a way for others to destroy the image of another. These people use these social constructs to create in people a self-fulfilling prophecy which evidently alters a person’s path. If one encounters these stereotypes often and they are in an environment which supports this discrimination there is a high likelihood that they will be affected by these negative statements.

I still do believe that society should continue to promote zero tolerance on the subject matter. We as a society should be communicating in a respectful manner. Although I say this, I would like to emphasize that explicit language has been used in the past to proliferate culture, such is the case with Hitler’s regime. We need to be able to find contexts wherein that language can be used in such a way that it does not interfere with the competitiveness of information delivery. In this day and age, we have become a sensitive society, so sensitive in fact that we have been shutting down conversation that possibly promote advancements in our society. In order to have competitive information we must be able to communicate in such ways that it does not shut down our channels of communication. Therefore, I recognize the importance of the concepts of hate speech in our country but I feel we need to be able to develop a method to deal with it which does not shut down communication. The Americans have the first amendment and it is evident that they are the hegemon nation in which all societies base their decision. I feel they are the super power because they have a system which promotes competitive communication through the first amendment. And this competitive information allows their society to continue to progress and maintain their hegemony.  

I feel that one of the ways we can improve upon our sensitivity is through promoting an increase in the confidence of the people. People who shut down communication due to their being offended are really selfish and are victimizing those who actually may have important things to say. This is a two-way problem but really, who is the victim here? Is it the one that is directly offended or is it the one who is indirectly offended? The one who is directly offended is the one who shuts down the communication. The indirect offended is the person being shut down. This really is a matter of confidence. We need to be able to fix the confidence of our people so that they do not get offended and this can be down through the media. Worst case scenario is that there will be a boom in the security industry like the needing of security guards or surveillance.

SCHOLAR: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

One of the main themes of the video, “Zero Tolerance,” was that the police are representation of society and their values. Therefore, if the police are racist then it is indicative that society is also racist. In Sociology, I believe that racism is a social construct. It is a way to exploit the short comings of various races. I believe that we as a society should continue to promote zero tolerance on this subject matter as it can be considered hate speech. Although that may be the case I also do consider that freedom of speech is necessary.

A social construct is a construction of reality by the society. They make preconceived notions about a certain subject matter and then it is shared with the society wherein that it proliferates popular culture which then results in a social construct. Social constructs are also considered stereotypes. There are many stereotypes in society today and they are a result of social constructionism. With pertinence to the video, I see they mentioned police racism as one of the topics. Police need to be very careful as to not be racist as they are the reflection of society cohesion.
Social constructs are a way for others to destroy the image of another. These people use these social constructs to create in people a self-fulfilling prophecy which evidently alters a person’s path. If one encounters these stereotypes often and they are in an environment which supports this discrimination there is a high likelihood that they will be affected by these negative statements.

I still do believe that society should continue to promote zero tolerance on the subject matter. We as a society should be communicating in a respectful manner. Although I say this, I would like to emphasize that explicit language has been used in the past to proliferate culture, such is the case with Hitler’s regime. We need to be able to find contexts wherein that language can be used in such a way that it does not interfere with the competitiveness of information delivery. In this day and age, we have become a sensitive society, so sensitive in fact that we have been shutting down conversation that possibly promote advancements in our society. In order to have competitive information we must be able to communicate in such ways that it does not shut down our channels of communication. Therefore, I recognize the importance of the concepts of hate speech in our country but I feel we need to be able to develop a method to deal with it which does not shut down communication. The Americans have the first amendment and it is evident that they are the hegemon nation in which all societies base their decision. I feel they are the super power because they have a system which promotes competitive communication through the first amendment. And this competitive information allows their society to continue to progress and maintain their hegemony.
I feel that one of the ways we can improve upon our sensitivity is through promoting an increase in the confidence of the people. People who shut down communication due to their being offended are really selfish and are victimizing those who actually may have important things to say. This is a two-way problem but really, who is the victim here? Is it the one that is directly offended or is it the one who is indirectly offended? The one who is directly offended is the one who shuts down the communication. The indirect offended is the person being shut down. This really is a matter of confidence. We need to be able to fix the confidence of our people so that they do not get offended and this can be down through the media. Worst case scenario is that there will be a boom in the security industry like the needing of security guards or surveillance.

SCHOLAR: SEX & GENDER

In my analysis of the documentary, “The Sterilization of Leilani Muir” I feel that the government of Alberta was discriminating on this woman. The rise of the trial provides some clear information with pertinence to the government objectives back then. Leilani Muir was a young girl from Alberta who was abused by her parents and further sent to a sterilization facility. The government was discriminatory and caused genocide of these mentally ill peoples in their attempt to segregate them in facilities. This is a scary situation and I really cannot fathom that this had actually happened in Canada’s past. Eugenics, a biological theory regarding genetic trait discrimination which aim to create a population with those traits that are considered desirable. Through generations this can occur through birth and apparently children inherit these traits. This is one of the main objectives that are depicted in the film. The Canadian government was discriminating against the mentally ill and referring to them as, “mentally defective,” which in my opinion is very harsh. Today, this would be a clear violation to the Constitution and the Canadian Charter.

In contemporary times this is really considered a human rights issue. It is also surprising that Canada, with consideration of this documentary, was one of the main advocates of this legislation in the United Nations. I believe, that in contemporary times Canada has developed into a country that represents equity and fairness. They have really changed their perspective on human rights matters, what with their recent acceptance of refugees. However, there is always the threat that our democracy can be implicated due to the influence of negative forces. Human nature after all, is really compelled by evil. I believe the society has a large role in protecting the disabled.

I personally don’t believe in sterilization. People should have the opportunity to breed with one another. My issue with this society is the fact that they are preventing conversion therapy in their attempt to protect the gays and the transsexuals. There is currently a ban on this type of therapy in British Columbia. I believe that this is the modern method of how Canada with consideration of this documentary, is still enforcing a eugenics agenda. They, in their ban to promote conversion therapy are violating the Canadian Charter. People should be able to legally choose whether to subscribe to conversion therapy. I would like to ask, who is representing and fighting for these people that are getting ignored? Canada is so concerned about these gays and or transsexuals that they are overlooking the choices of those that would like to convert. In some extreme cases Canada is allowing these people to change their gender in their identification. This is a big liability when in consideration of the medical community. Imagine, a person who changed their gender gets into an accident and is unable to communicate or is in a comma. The nurses and the doctors would look at the identification and there is a possibility that they would treat this person based on the gender indicated on their identification. This is an actual problem. There are only two sexes according to science and as for the genders there are 63.