Reintgrative shaming Flashcards
Disintegrative VS. Reintegrative
John Braithwaite explores the nature and impact of shaming from the extension of labelling theory.
He distinguishes two types of shaming:
disintegrative shaming and reintegrative shaming.
Braithwaite offers a thoughtful reformulation of the labelling perspectives. His central proposition is that reintegrative shaming will reduce future offending, whereas disintegrative shaming will increase the possibility of future delinquency.
Disintegrative shaming
Disintegrative shaming is
a form of negative labelling
by the criminal justice system that is
consistent with traditional labelling notions
and that tends to stigmatise and exclude
targeted individuals,
thereby tossing them into a class of outcasts.
As a result, individuals will likely turn to others who are similarly situated, and collectively those people will develop a criminal subculture or gang.
Reintegrative shaming
Reintegrative shaming by contrast,
involves expression of community disapproval,
followed by indications of
forgiveness and reacceptance into the community
of responsible law abiders.
In this type of shaming, the emphasis is upon a condemnation of the act rather than the actor.
Best place to see reintegrative shaming
The best place to see reintegrative shaming
at work is in loving families,
as Griffiths has described
a ‘family model’ of the criminal process.
Offenses, in a family, are normal, expected ocurrences.
When a parent punishes his child,
both parent and child know that
afterward they will go on living together as before.
Family life teaches us that
shaming and punishment are possible
while maintaining bonds of respects.
Social approval
Trasler says ‘the constrast between the ordinary enjoyment of approval and the distress of being temporarily out of favour is essential,’
(Trasler, 1972: 144)
as it represents the effectiveness of shaming
depends on continued social integration
in a relationship sustained by
social approval.
Social Context
The modalities of shaming are
often culturally specific
The notion of high interdependency and highly communitarianism,
these two characteristics fostering a shaming of offenders which is reintegrative.
(*When an individuals is shamed, the shame is often born by the collectivity to which the individual belongs as well.)
Consider this further conclusion from Bayley:
The feeling that security consists in acceptance is transferred from the family to other groups, allowing them to discipline members therough the fear of exclusion.
In psychologicla terms, the system relies on positive rather than negative reinforcement, emphasizing loving acceptance in exchange for genuine repentance.
(Bayley, 1976: 156)
Cultural assumption
Distincive pattern:
The cultural assumption of
basic goodness and belief
in each individual’s capcity
for eventual self-correction
means that ‘nurturant acceptance’
is the appropriate repsonse to deviance
once shame has been projected to
and accepted by the deviance.
How does it work?
Shame is only a useful means of social control when there is a core consensus that the behaviour in question is wrong.
The key principle of Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming is that the sequential process includes initial disapproval of the offending act (shaming) and subsequent reacceptance of the offender back into the law-abiding society (reintegration).
Braithwaite argues that **“cultural commitments to shaming are the key to controlling all types of crime.” **
How does it present?
Culturally, specific, shaming can be expressed through nonverbal, verbal, subtle, and direct gestures, as well as through gossip, the mass media, popular culture, and official pronouncements.
Why it is better?
Braithwaite would argee with labelling theorists that shaming can have negative consequences; however, he provides a viable solution to this problem.
To reduce an offender’s risk of seeking out a criminal subculture to begin with and committing any subsequent delinquent acts, Braithwaite argues that it is essential to make informal or formal gestures that reintegrate the offender into the law-abiding community after the shaming ceremony. A ceremony that decertifies, or removes, the offender’s master status of “delinquent,” coupled with gestures from the community that express their genuine forgiveness and reacceptance of the offender, are the key principles of the “reintegration” in reintegrative shaming.
Braithwaite argues strongly that internal crime controls are more effective in the long run than external crime controls. Therefore, the most effective to reduce the risk of secondary delinquency is to rebuild the offender’s moral conscience that abhors crime and to sustain the bonds of attachment between offenders and their law-abiding parents through reintegrative shaming.
What possibility to failure?
Braithwaite also predicts that as the urbanisation and residential mobility of a community increase, reintegrative shaming will not be as effective and delinquency rates will increase. This is largely due to the lack of interpersonal bonds and sense of duty established among citizens.
HK
The work of Vagg (1998) writes although Hong Kong’s Chinese culture has a predisposition to interdependency and communitarianism that should work in favour of reintegrative shaming. Vagg finds that Hong Kong’s culture, uses shaming to label and exclude individuals who do not conform to expectations, rather than to disapprove of the offender before reintegrating him or her into society.
Moreover, it is a “cultural expectation”, Vagg argues, that offenders receive harsh punishments (Vagg 1998: 259). He writes, “young people are likely to be prosecuted rather than cautioned even for minor first offences; charged with offence types that are prone to exaggerating the gravity of their acts; and the courts are over-ready to give custodial sentences” (ibid.: 259).
Critical of the potential impact of this process, Vagg suggests that it is offenders’ integrity (or ”face”) that is the primary target for punishment, but that this form of shaming is more likely disintegrative than reintegrative.
