My view on teenage mothers was one that was slightly biased. Being twenty one, I have many friends a few years older and around the same age as myself who have children that were conceived and/or born whilst the mother was in her teens. After seeing first hand what a great job they do, shaped my opinion that it should not matter what age you are when you have a child as long as that child is loved and cared for. Women should not be stigmatised, defined or judged upon the age they become parents. I do however believe that it is not a wise choice, and do not encourage it, because although teenage mothers may give their children all the love, care and attention they need unfortunately, that child is born at a disadvantage to those children born into a prepared middle aged family with the financial support and life experience that only comes with age such as independence and responsibly. These contributing factors may lead to the child being raised in safer, more positive surroundings (i.e. suburbs rather than council housing) or the possibility of private schooling. But the way in which society looks down upon teenage mothers, the way they are portrayed in the media, and how some teens can find they are pushed out of social groups because other parents do not want their children around sexually promiscuous teens is not something that I agree with at all.
After reading Elizabeth Yardley’s journal, “Teenage Mothers’ experiences of Stigma”. I was able to understand the history behind the labels given to teenage mothers and where the stigma had originated from. I feel the views I had before were too biased, just because I have friends that are doing a great job does not mean that the majority are and those that I do know are all reliant upon benefits. I am almost certain that if they did not have children they would be in full time employment or education and contributing to society instead of taking from it. There are two juxtaposing views to weather or not teenage mothers are classed as deviant, the act of having underage, unprotected sex is what society try’s to control and those that rebel against that face harsh criticism and teenage mothers face the brunt of this condemnation.
I no longer see my view as biased; I have researched the topic and looked at both sides of the spectrum. The only thing that has altered my view on teenage mothers after this module is the large amount of funding they take from the government. It is far too easy for teens in today society to get everything handed to them because of a choice they have made. The majority of the UK’s teenage mothers are reliant solely upon the state for welfare, housing, education and jobs. I believe this is where why society tries to control the way in which we view teenage mothers as it is likely once they a so heavily reliant upon benefits, they will not become independent and cost tax payers a large amount of money each year.
Before attending the lectures I had no knowledge of the term ‘Deviant Bodies’ so all new information I absorbed. My views are now based solely upon the reading I have done and my opinions are in line or contrast with what I have learnt. For example, Eliot Freidson (1966) stated possession of physical deviance or handicap is a form of deviance. Half of this statement relates to a deformity or disability, this type of alteration does deviate from the norm but is not something that has been aesthetically changed with intention. If an individual has a deformity or disability I think it is unethical to use the term deviant or to say they deviant from the norm. In today society it is normal for to walk down the road and notice an individual in a wheelchair, or an individual who is blind or deaf. In the mid 1900’s the families of disabled individuals would not encourage them to socialise or go out in public which may have shaped the views that Friedson writes about.
When Freidson states possession of physical deviance it can relate to anything aesthetically altered such as; tattoo’s and piercings. I have four discreet tattoo’s and a tongue piercing, I think his view that I had aesthetically changed my body and deviated from social norm, would be that I also demonstrated a form of deviance. I think he would have a negative view or judgement of me solely based upon the changes I had chosen to make. The research that was conducted and aired on Boston Live! Radio with regards to the correlation between criminal/socially deviant behaviour and individuals with four or more tattoos’ I found very subjective. I think that this relationship only highlights one correlation between criminal/socially deviant behaviour. There are hundreds of other variables, contributing factors such as the area in which people grow up, their class, what kind of an upbringing they have had, how they were schooled etc this needs to be taken in to account before such a statement can be made. Individuals with tattoo’s may be more likely to commit crime, be sexually promiscuous or take drugs than those with none or less than 4, but it does not go to say that those without are would not commit crime. What would be interesting to find out is how these statistics would differ in today’s current society, now that tattoo’s are somewhat of a growing trend.
Moving on to my next Topic Eugenics, relates to the term ‘Deviant bodies’ which I was previously discussing, Eugenics is a concept that can be approached or explained in more than one way, some parts of which I agree and others totally disagree before, during and since learning about it. The act of encouraging or discouraging individuals to propagate based purely on characteristics mostly out of their own control is unethical and inhumane. But the idea of trying to stamp out diseases or deformities has medical benefits, trying to make the human race stronger and less prone or even to stamp out disease; in an ideal world is a medical breakthrough. But as human beings it is our natural instinct to want to be loved and reproduce. Therefore, who is one individual to tell another that they can not reproduce because of a disease or disability out of their control? It is fair to say that an individual suffering of a life threatening or terminal illnesses that is genetic, such as Huntington’s disease needs to asses the risk of passing that burden on to their child. It is not for someone else to decide.
The experiments that were carried out by Goddard (1912) and Dugdale (1910) were not scientific in origin. They tried to prove that certain characteristics were genetic. But as much as they proved their theory it was highly criticized. The jukes and Edwards family can not be generalised for the entire human race. Criminality is an individual choice and not a character that is biologically inherited. It is to be expected that an already criminal family would have children that become criminal because those criminal views held by the parents are enforced upon the children from birth. If a child from the Jukes family had been taken at birth to live with the Edwards it is very likely that child would not have become a social deviant. My view now on Eugenics still stands that there are medical benefits as far as disease goes although they can not be used, and traits for behaviour can not be scientifically proven to be biological in origin, I believe individuals tend to be a product of their environment rather than a product of their DNA.
After attending the lectures on this topic some of my views have been confirmed but built upon and slightly changed. After reading Presdee 2004: 245, I understand that deviance, crime, criminal are all labels and how those labels have been created by social control and how the both are interlinked. I also now view deviance as something that is based more upon the values and reactions to behaviour by the public, rather than the behaviour itself. This quote affirmed my beliefs (Becker, 1963) ‘Deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’.
My understanding of social control after reading and attending the lectures has been confirmed but again slightly altered after reading the Introduction chapter from Owen Jones' book Chavs. Social control determines and regulates what is deviant behaviour, regardless of whether this is controlled informally or formally. Both inflict negativity attached to deviant behaviour. My opinion of deviant behaviour has also changed when looking at it in relation to social control. Social control determines what is acceptable and unacceptable not just as far a criminal law is concerned, but also within social groups, sub and counter cultures. How we view and judge people is influenced by the opinions of others, our families, friends and also by how people and are portrayed in the media and news. I don’t believe any individual should be judged on appearance, class, the choices they have made, their gender, sexuality or race. But unfortunately it is something we all do, after studying this module I am more open in the way that I view people that are not the same as myself. This is because I am aware how society tries to control what should be seen as normal, but as humans we are all individual and there is no ‘norm’ there is only an ideal self, how society would like everyone to be and conform.
2217 Words
References
Ferrell, J. (2004) ‘Boredom, Crime and Criminology, Theoretical Criminology, 8 (3) pp287-302
Garland, D. (2008) ‘On the Concept of Moral Panic’ in Crime, Media and Culture 4(1) pp.9-30
Hayward, K. and Young, J.(2004) ‘Cultural Criminology: Some notes on the script’ in International Journal of Theoretical Criminology, 8 (3) pp.259-285
Jones, O (2011). : The demonization of the Working Class. London: Verso. p1-10.
Kennedy, Angie, C. (2008) ‘Eugenics, “Degenerate Girls” and Social Workers During the Progressive Era’ Journal of Women and Social Work Vol 23 (1) pp 22-37
Presdee, M (2000). Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. London: Routledge. 245.
