Marxism and Interactionism Flashcards
According to classical marxists what is the term used to describe the relationship between capitalism and crime?
How does capitalism prevent revolution?
What is the purpose of laws?
-Classical Marxists argue that capitalism is criminogenic. (causes crime)
-Capitalism uses social control agencies to prevent revolution and control the proletariat.
-Laws exist to serve the interests of the rich and law enforcement exists to protect the bourgeoisie and control the proletariat.
What three sociologists studies proved classical marxist ideas? (1976)
-Chambliss- Ruling class(including bosses and politicians) ran crime in Seattle and bribed police to go unpunished. The law was there to control the working class, not prevent crime.
-Graham- The US gov’t “War on drugs” ignored those drugs made by big companies. It was a war on those drugs that did not bring in a profit for US corporations.
-Pearce- Even laws that appear to help workers really help bosses. e.g. health and safety laws ensure a healthy and productive workforce.
Is crime only in capitalist countries?
How does the right to vote affect marxist arguments?
How do classical-Marxists present working class criminals?
-NO. crime existed in non capitalist countries(Soviet Union)
-Lawmakers are elected by everyone aged over 18 and reflect a range of views; they are not just controlled by the bourgeoisie.
-Marxism presents working-class criminals as passive rather agents who make a choice about how to behave.
Instead of presenting criminals as passive what do Neo-marxists argue?
-Neo-marxists argue criminals make an active choice to commit crime; sometimes this can be positive political choice.
What 6 things do criticial criminoligists argue sociolgoists should consider when reviewing criminal acts?
What did Stuart Hall argue a crisis of capitalism lead to? Who did this affect the most? How did the ruling class use this to divide working class groups and avoid radical change?
-The structure of society; who holds power
-The structural ‘macro’ background to the deviant act.
-The immediate cause of the act itself
-The impact of the act(both immediate and long term)
-The societal reaction to the act.
-The impact of that reaction (on the individual and society).
-Stuart Hall argued that a crisis of capitalism led to unemployment which disproportionately affected black men(doing white men’s shit work).
-The ruling class used this to divide the working class, causing a moral panic about black muggers to divert attention from the flaws of capitalism. Avoiding radical political change.
Who came up with the labelling theory?
What is deviant behaviour according to him? How does this depend on the context?
What is he interested in?
What impact can a deviant label have on a individual?
-Howard Becker.
-Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people label.
-Depends on the context e.g. murder is normal if done by soldiers in war.
-Becker is interested in social reaction to deviant behaviour rather than the behaviour itself.
-Deviant labels impacts how individuals view themselves and this impacts their future behaviour (e.g. self fulfilling prophecy)
How did Lemert expand on Becker’s labelling theory?
What is primary and secondary deviance?
-Lemert wrote about primary deviance(the original act.
-Secondary deviance(further acts caused by the reaction to the original act).
Who’s concept is the negotiation of Justice?
What did he conclude after reviewing delinquency in two Californian cities?
What was the process that meant young wealthy people were dealt differently from poor?
What are the two processes in the negotiation process?
What does the negotiation process tell us about crime statistics?
-Aaron Cicourel
-He concluded that the difference was down to the way that labels were applied not in the nature of deviant acts themselves.
-He identified a negotiation process that meant the wealty were treated differently.
-Stage one- The police interpretation of behaviour(influenced by stereotypes and context)
-Stage two- Further intepretations by authorities and courts (based on whether someone is a ‘typical delinquent’.)
-Crime statistics that show patterns of offending may be useless: they just show where and to whom labels have been applied. They are a social construct.
Who came up with the terms folk devils and moral panics?
What are Folk devils? What are Moral panics
-Cohen
-Folk devils: villains, constructed by media for their narrative of any ‘deviance’. In this case it was the mods and rockers & youth culture. It is easier to tell the story with clear baddies.
-Moral panics: Any ‘over the top’ or sensationalist reaction to an issue that relates to morality/right and wrong. The implication is that the reaction is out of proportion to the issue itself and indeed may serve to create the phenomenon it is reacting to.
-There was scuffles between rival youth subcultures, but the reaction by media and police turned it into a phenomenon. Bringing more people to beaches etc to act deviantly.
How does the interactionist approach criticise positivist approaches?
-It shows that patters of crime cannot be taken as reflections of the truth becasue so much does depend on labels, reactions and priorities. I.e. a ‘crackdown on a particular crime can cause a fantasy crime wave(seems more people are committing the offence as more are being arrested.)
How do realists criticise the interactionist approach? Marxists? Is it just poor people who are severely punished?
-Realists point out that none of this does much to solve the real problem of crime. The act does matter, not just the reaction to it.
-Marxists criticise interactionists for not focussing more on the social class of those who are negatively labelled, although neo-Marxists have found these ideas useful.
-NO. There are high-profile cases of wealthy people getting caught and severely punished(A millionaire’s daughter in the 2011 London riots.)
