-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Misery White on Real Life Superheroes
- ylukovsky on Crying Wolf – False Rape Accusations
- ylukovsky on Crying Wolf – False Rape Accusations
- proffessor on Crying Wolf – False Rape Accusations
- Rob McGoldrick on SEC reviewing S&P handling on downgrade
Frequent Topics
- ADHD
- Becker
- Britain
- Broken Windows Theory
- Conrad and Schneider
- control
- crime
- criminals
- criminal surveillance
- criminal youth
- delinquency
- Depression
- Deviance
- deviant behavior
- Deviants
- DNA profiling
- escape
- FBI
- female murderer
- film
- flash mobs
- Graffiti
- justice
- Lombroso
- medicalization of deviance
- Moral Panic
- Outsiders
- Philadelphis
- police
- Poweres that be
- prison
- privacy
- profiling
- racism
- riots
- serial killer
- social construction of illness
- social network
- society
- Stereotyping
- Stigma
- tattoos
- traceable
- Typecasting
- Women
Archives
Categories
Meta
Author Archives: LISA CHRISTENSEN
Posts: 4 (archived below)
Comments: 0
Sidewalk Rage is real!
Hey guys. After we left class on monday I was thinking deeper into the social construction of illnesses and the first connection I made was to something I remembered seeing on the news a couple weeks ago. Well with alittle online-searching I found an article (actually a few!) reporting it.
I chose this article out of all the others mainly because it appeared on The Wall Street Journal, a pretty reputable, popular and wide spread publication that reaches millions of people. To summarize, the important parts of the article pretty much say that we now have developed the concept of “sidewalk rage” and defined it as something that, in extreme cases, can signal a psychiatric condition known as “intermittent explosive disorder”. Sidewalk rage is “real” and one scientist has even gone to the extent to develop a “Pedestrian Aggressiveness Syndrome Scale” to help classify the levels of rage people experience. The article mentions how scientists are trying to figure out what it is that really makes people angry so that when it becomes a personal problem it can be helped. “When your emotionally upset, your impared,” says Dr. Leon James from the article (which is perhaps why scientists and doctors are exploring this concept more). The article then goes on to give symptoms, scenarios, and suggestive tips for you to keep your cool on the sidewalk and help prevent sidewalk rage.
OK, to me, this is ridiculous. This is New York City, the streets are crowded, its summertime and hot out, if your in a rush and getting slowed down by a mob of tourists I’m sure EVERYONE has felt frustrated! I believe these are normal, natural feelings given our location and lifestyle! For society to minimize something all the way down to “sidewalk rage” and even associate it at all with a medical condition really seems stupid. Millions of men and women are getting brainwashed with this and can then perhaps use it as an excuse to justify their behavior they do something rash; especially if their reasoning has medical associations! Dont get me wrong if someone is getting mad at people on the sidewalk non stop/everyday I definitely think it could be abnormal (because honestly, its not THAT big of a deal!) but to me, “sidewalk rage” is fake and if its that much of an issue its just plain old rage and will most likely be exhibited in other scenarios throughout life and should be treated for those reasons of its own.
Refusing to Hire
Hi guys, I responded to a post on stigma and unemployment and found it interesting so I decided to look alittle further into it. The first thing that came to my mind when trying to relate it to our crime/punishment class was the obvious stigma that comes with being a criminal or ex-criminal. If you think about it, most of the major social-institutions people encounter want to know if you’ve committed a crime. Schools, work, the army, all have typical applications asking you if you have every been convicted of a crime and some even ask if you have ever been arrested! Because once you have, you are labeled. With this label can come an unavoidable stigma; or as Goffman would say, “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” and restricting.
I found this article that I thought was interesting and relevant. The article is pretty recent, and it talks about a request made to outlaw criminal background checks as a tool to screen job applicants because it presents a hiring barrier for minorities. The articles talks about that because hispanics and african americans have higher rates of crime involvement they subsequently suffer an unfair rate of discrimination and it presents a hiring barrier for them.
To me, this is obviously raciest but looking beyond race and more closely at the criminal part of it all I can understand why a potential employer would want to know if they are hiring a criminal or someone who has been involved with crime, but I’m not sure how I really feel about it. Having something on your record pretty much ‘defines you’ to someone who is just looking at you and your credentials on paper. There is the stigma that if you messed up once, your likely to mess up again. However, this isnt always true. I know someone I went to highschool with has a felony on his record from when he was 18 years old and was basically just at the wrong place at the wrong time and he will forever carry the stigma of being a criminal with him. Its hard for him to find a job, many of which are not even available to him anymore even if he wanted (the army, teacher, police officer, etc). I guess thats life but holding that stigma is definitely deeply discrediting and restricting.
Outsiders & Deviance
After reading Outsiders by Becker what I got from it was that Becker defined a deviant as someone who strays away from the rules and norms of some social group, so subsequently they then become an outside of that group. Also, that the deviant behavior is more of a certain group having a question of judgement about ones behavior or norms rather than just one person having a set of characteristics that makes them “deviant”. So ultimately, in order to label someone deviant, really means that you are accepting the norms and values of that social group who had the question the judgement about the person in the first place. Since we all don’t accept and practice the same values and norms, whether or not certain behavior is deviant really becomes reliant upon who your asking.
To find something that would better represent this, I googled “Deviant Article” – pretty basic right? Well I found an interesting and relevant article to help us consider and understand this theory. The article is called “Deviant Chrismas” by Su Epstein and basically it just supports what Becker is saying. To someone who celebrates Christmas, its the norm to be happy and joyful during this time of year. Becker uses the example of the reaction people get who celebrate Christmas and don’t partially like this time of year – they get called Scrooge or Grinch. These terms dont exactly hold the best associations attached to them, and these people can be considered deviant by others who celebrate and fit into the norm of having a joyful spirit around Christmas. However, if you ask someone who isn’t part of that group and doesn’t share those same values they could care less! Your not deviant to them! So again, when defining behavior as deviant, it really depends on WHO your asking.
Could Lombroso be right? Do looks matter?
Hi Guys.. I found this article when reading alittle bit about Lombroso and I think it may have some kind of merrit, although it may be kind of minimum. The article is called Criminal Facial Features. It talks about Lombroso and his beliefs that criminals share similar physical attributes, (those of which resemble the more primitive stages of human development) and whether or not something like this is worth considering.
Living in 2011, we are taught that it is wrong to “judge a book by its cover” and that its discriminatory, but lets explore if there is even a reason why we even do it in the first place… In the article there is a short passage discussing that in 2005, there was data that suggests that “better looking people” are less likely to be involved in crime. Well, if “better looking people” are the lesser of the criminal population, then is it wrong imagine that the greater may all share similar attributes that society may recognize & consider “ugly”? I know in life I’ve noticed the popular crowd in school, all who which seem to be good-looking, and seem to have become successful over the years. But what about those who were considered “ugly”? For example, imagine a group of kids in school who may have not been born with ideal genes, who dont have many friends, who lack confidence and who subsequently may lack ambition to go out and work hard. It may be easier for people of this nature who lack self confidence to fall into a life of crime, to do things that others may regard as anti-social. It would be foolish and naive to say that ones looks are sheerly a determinant of whether or not they will be a criminal in life, but hey who says we cant explore if there may be a correlation between the two?
Posted in Uncategorized
3 Comments
