Briefly explain how the concept of 'male stream' knowledge referred to in Item A has effected sociological explanations of behaviour with reference to family and households
Crime & Deviance 5
a) Briefly explain how the concept of 'male stream' knowledge referred to in Item A has effected sociological explanations of behaviour with reference to family and households. (8 marks)
One effect of male stream knowledge in sociological explanations of behaviour is that men tend to be very much in favour of positivist methods, like scientific research and proof. Whereas feminists think that the sympathetic approach is better therefore using things like observations, this mainly due to the fact that positivist research has many flaws.
Another effect is that due to the fact that men develop most sociological explanations of crime and therefore they only talk bout men. They exclude the fact the females commit crime which is evident in all of the theories apart from feminism because these ideas are predominantly about women. This means that women are left out of the equation meaning that men place there patriarchal views on the sociology of crime.
b) Briefly evaluate the usefulness of social surveys as a source of information on crime and deviance for sociologists. (12 marks)
Social surveys are a way of finding out information from a large number of people. An example of a social survey is a questionnaire, which is the easiest and quickest way of getting a large amount of information from a population.
Official statistics were primarily used to help sociologists work out who and how much crime exists. These were then criticised saying that they do not show unreported crime, which could be a far greater number than that provided in the official statistics.
Therefore, victimisation studies were formed, which are a form of social survey. They use questionnaires to ask people in a chosen population whether they have been a victim of crime.
One form of this is the British Crime Survey (BCS), this is done yearly and the information is released to the public every two years. The BCS has found that crime varies year on year, which therefore contradicts the official statistics. The BCS also asked the victims why they didn't report the crime committed against them and they found that people either thought to themselves that it was a trivial crime or the police thought that it was trivial.
They found that police only report 50% of crimes that are reported to them, either because of lack of evidence or they don't believe that the crime has happened. Another reason why victims don't report crimes is because of reprisals i.e. that the criminal will come and do it again.
Therefore victimisation studies are very important to sociologists because they give all round knowledge of who commits crime, therefore they can make a better judgement.
Another social survey is Self-report studies, this survey asks people to admit to committing a crime. They ask what type of crime has been committed and how many times they have committed the crime. It is completely confidential therefore meaning more individuals are likely to participate. It also shows us the type of people who are being convicted.
Shak Lady Smith, found that males and females commit the same amount of crime but men are 8 times more likely to be convicted. These studies also show that sociologists can't rely on official statistics because they state that there is little or no female crime and a majority of male crime. Whereas self-report studies state that males and females commit the same amount of crime.
Therefore social surveys are a very important tool for sociologists because they give more insight into crime and deviance than official statistics do.
c) With reference to Item A and elsewhere, analyse and evaluate the contributions to research on crime and deviance from feminist sociologists.
(40 marks)
The probably best way to start is to talk about Otto Pollack, he said that women do commit crime, for example they are renowned for shoplifting and some women illegally abort their children. He also says that women commit domestic crime in that women abuse children whilst in their care and they also poison relatives when preparing food. Pollack said that the reason women manage to not be convicted for these crimes are because women hide things everyday. He believes that women hide menstruation and that they also fake sexual pleasure, this he therefore ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
(40 marks)
The probably best way to start is to talk about Otto Pollack, he said that women do commit crime, for example they are renowned for shoplifting and some women illegally abort their children. He also says that women commit domestic crime in that women abuse children whilst in their care and they also poison relatives when preparing food. Pollack said that the reason women manage to not be convicted for these crimes are because women hide things everyday. He believes that women hide menstruation and that they also fake sexual pleasure, this he therefore says means they are good at hiding things and this leads to them getting away from being convicted. Otto Pollack has been widely criticised by feminists in that he is very sexist.
Francis Heidensohn was a radical feminist writing in the 1990's. She said that men do commit as much shoplifting as females and also that women don't hide menstruation. She also stated that there is no evidence for poisoning and that it is a stupid idea to even think that a majority of women do that to their relatives. Another excuse of under participation of women in the crime statistics is that the criminal justice system is chivalrous, therefore favourable to women because they need to be protected. She also found that females are treated harshly if they deviate from socially expectable sexuality. Young girls who are seen as sexual promiscuous are taken onto care but if boys are seen like that it is perfectly fine. The criminal justice system is reluctant to imprison mothers with young children, basically because they have assumptions about the female role and that mothers are needed to look after the children and if they are imprisoned they will not be able to look after the children meaning they will have to go into care.
Someone that relies on empirical evidence is that of Anne Campbell in 1981, she looked at Self Report Studies of 1976 and focused on 16-year-old men and women. She found that for every 1.333 crimes that men commit there is one female crime, which therefore shows that men and women commit the same amount of crime. She also found something even more interesting that, for every 8.95 men that are convicted for crimes there is one female conviction, this therefore shows that women are being 'let off' by the court therefore being chivalrous which means that women still commit the same amount of crime but just don't get convicted.
Roger Hood also believes that the criminal justice system is chivalrous, he conducted a large-scale survey of 2815 men and 480 females. He found that women are 37% less likely to get a custodial sentence. He suggests that this is because there are socially acceptable patriarchal notions of femininity.
Another feminist is Carol Smart she believes that the system is almost definitely patriarchal. She based her theories on rape trials and found that the criminal justice system sees men as having a sexual need and the reason they raped the women is because they are driven by their biology and females are capriciousness therefore they tempt men and manipulate them. When checking the victim's account of events the defence also check the reputation, the background and the sexual history of the female. They don't check the same of the male because they think women are out to have sex with men and are promiscuous. The criminal justice system tends to be more lenient and more likely to believe a wife who is a virgin rather than a whore who is a witch.
This theory is all very well but it doesn't really say why people commit crime it only tries to prove that women commit just about the same amount of crime and that the criminal justice system is chivalrous. This therefore means that to get the whole picture I need to look at other theories as well. All other theories try to work out the causes of crime rather than the effects.
Marxism is probably the best theory to move onto because instead of theorising about patriarchy they theorise about capitalism. The main Marxist is Karl Marx; he says that crime is inevitable and that there are two main causes. The first is poverty; this is due to the fact that there is inequality between the proletariat rebelling and committing crime. The second is greed, which is when the bourgeoisie just want to have as much capital as possible, so they rob the proletariat. One example of this is Robert Maxwell, who stole people's pensions to keep his business going. Marx also said that crime could be a good thing, because it gives people jobs (police) and entertainment (TV). He also says that every criminal act could potentially be revolutionary. An example of this is Nelson Mandela, who committed a crime and was sent to prison but now he is a hero because he formed civil rights.
Another interpretation of Marxism is Crude Marxism; James Graham said that there was collusion over ideas of the Drug Abuse Act in the USA. This was formed of the drug enforcement agency, Nixon administration (who were having trouble with peace protesters) and the chemical corporations, who produced slimming pills, which were basically amphetamines. They decided that drugs like cannabis and heroin should be illegal because otherwise they would be supporting anti-capitalist lifestyles. For example the fact that the bourgeoisie don't control those drugs production therefore they don't get any profit out of it. Another thing that Graham highlights is that the bourgeoisie use this to highlight proletariat crime therefore hiding the corporate crime that they commit.
Chambliss is also a Crude Marxist, he was writing in the 1970's in Seattle. He said that most of police control is on the proletariat, when in fact there is a lot of crime within the bourgeoisie too. He found that the kind of people in criminal syndicates which do things like protection scams are police officers and local politicians. Therefore the whole capitalist class is criminal but is being overshadowed because the people who commit crimes are the people that are trying to stop it, so they focus the attention on the proletariat to make them look good. Chambliss therefore agrees with Marx that crime is found in all social classes. He also noticed that laws are to control the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie because the bourgeoisie are the ones who make the laws.
However, Functionalists believe that crime is only within the working class rather than all social classes. They think Marxists are naïve because they only blame capitalism for crime rather than seeing it as a function.
Emile Durkheim said that you couldn't expect everyone to abide by the collective conscience, which means that crime has a function to stabilise society. He also noted that you couldn't have too much crime because it would cause anomie, but you cant have too little because it will become stagnant and loose its function. The main function of crime is social change, in that today's deviant could become tomorrows normality. Another function is punishment, but not to stop crime but reinforce the collective conscience.
Another Functionalist is Robert Merton, who studied in the USA. He said, that to succeed in society you need to achieve cultural goals. Merton says the only way to achieve these goals is from education or employment because these socialize you into a meritocracy. Merton classifies criminals as black, low paid and working class. He believes this is due to poor education and high unemployment. He believes there is too much emphasis on success, which makes them frustrated, which makes them feel individualised anomie. Merton proposed five responses to this anomie. The first is to conform to mainstream society and to try to get the success they need. The second is ritualist, which means they become obsest with their work and realise they can't achieve anything better for them self. The third is rebellion, which is to form a cult and therefore get away from the mainstream norms and values and conform to the cults norms and values instead. The fourth is retreatest, which is when they give up and decide that there's nothing left so they turn to drink and drugs to 'retreat' from society. The fifth is innovation, which is when you invent a new way of reaching your goals. This includes things like the lottery, fraud and crime. Merton concluded that it's the working class, low paid, black, men who are mostly likely to innovate and the only way to stop them innovating is to reform the cultural goals.
This theory isn't much better than Feminism or Marxism because it doesn't talk about female crime in the sense of why they do it. Functionalists don't even take into account that there is female crime let alone why women commit crime. It is obvious that women commit crime as in the recent case of Winona Rider who was publicised for shoplifting which highlights both power and female crime.
Unlike the previous theories that I have mentioned, subculturalism states that it is a collective response rather than an individual response, which turns people to crime, but they do agree with functionalists that it is only a minority that commits crime.
Cohen developed Merton's idea but through a collective response. He said than non-utilitarian crime like joy riding can't help you reach your cultural goals. He said that working class men join subcultures because of status frustration. Which means they have to create their own status. One way is tagging buildings, for example someone has become famous in the southeast because they have used the tag 'Dean' all over the region, which people have noticed, and this makes them well known.
Cloward and owlin, also subculturalist, combined both Merton's and Cohen's ideas. They said that subcultures give a collective response to frustration. They say that there are two types of career structure. The first is legitimate, which the normal cultural goals that mainstream society holds. The second is illegitimate, which is alternative goals of which he says there are three types of subculture. The first is a criminal subculture, which live in an area of a criminal organisation. The second is a conflict subculture like a gang. The third is retreatest subculture where you go into drug and alcohol abuse.
This theory has the same criticisms as functionalism in that it ignores power; it is naïve to say that criminals are a minority and that they are a distinct group. They also don't try to explain female crime, which therefore also doesn't show the whole picture of why males and females commit crime.
A completely different approach is symbolic interactionism. They believe that rather than society causing you to turn to crime, that in fact it is the person themselves that makes them turn to crime. This theory uses the saying 'I am what I think you think I am' in other words, you search for your self-image from the symbols of communication from other people.
Howard Becker is the main writer, he said that no act in itself is deviant but that societal reaction determines an act as deviant i.e. labelling. He says that therefore a person is labelled usually negatively. Becker said that you don't want to get the master status label because this over rides all other characteristics, which are normally positive. These labels can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. turn to a criminal or deviant career.
Stan Cohen also supported symbolic interactionism, he said that the police identify the problem, the media report it, the society reacts and then social control is enforced. This he calls deviance amplification, therefore the media causes a moral panic within society. This then means that individuals are labelled and social control is enforced when normally it would be fine and it is just the media who has blown it out of all proportion. An example is that of mugging that the media said there is an increase in mugging when actually there is no crime of mugging therefore it can't increase. Another example is that of the time about 5 years ago when a story was reported in the media about a dog biting a child, this then triggered off a number of stories and everyone thought that it was on the increase when in fact it stayed at a low level.
Symbolic interactionism is slightly better than Marxism and Functionalism but it is still flaud in that it doesn't talk about female crime and it only talks about the media and how other people tell you how to act, which isn't true in the first place because your experiences and culture add to your self-image.
None of the theories in my opinion give the whole picture about crime; they either talk about the causes of crime but exclude women or talk about why women are misrepresented in the official statistics. None of the theories say why both females and males commit crime, which is why all the theories are flawed.
I believe that feminism is a simplistic way of looking at crime and doesn't outline the causes of female crime, which is the problem with all the theories.
Post modernism is probably the most adequate way of looking at crime. Carol Smart is a post modernist and is very critical of positivism in criminology. She says that all most theories try to do is find the causes of crime and assume that their theories will help to eradicate crime. They also assume that scientific methods for investigating crime is the best which as I previously stated Smart doesn't believe positivism is the best method. She says the claim that we can solve problems is Phallogocentric; therefore they try to provide answers, which she says is a typical male obsession with domination. Carol Smart believes that there are lots of causes and all are different for each crime, therefore she believes that there is no such thing as crime and that it is male criminologists which have decided to put all 'crimes' together an generalise them which she thinks is a typical male view.
Post modernism does have its faults as well, that if you believe this idea then nothing will be done and there is proof that show that people do suffer from crime. You wouldn't be able to prove anything or say anything and nothing will ever be solved.
I don't think there is one good theory, which helps to explain both male and female crime, but at least feminism tries to explain why females are not shown on official crime statistics and the fact that it is the criminal justice systems fault. Therefore Feminism is a very good theory if you put it alongside other theories to create the whole picture of crime therefore Marxism etc explains why men commit crime and feminism adds to that to say why females don't get convicted. Therefore there isn't a perfect theory you need to run theories alongside other theories to provide a rounded explanation of crime.
Christina Denyer Page 1 12/18/2007
