What are the Social Reactions to Crime and Deviance

What are the Social Reactions to Crime and Deviance? Interactionists believe the social reaction to crime and deviance to be a central element in the study of criminology. For example the social reaction to the introduction of the poll tax, led to serious conflicts between protesters and the police and ultimately led to it’s scrapping and the demise of Mrs Thatcher. In a different case, it can be argued the reaction of the public to the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne, led to the introduction of the sex offender’s register. Sociologists are keen to theorise the causes of social reactions and many attribute a close connection between the extent and nature of media coverage of particular criminal or deviant acts and the social reaction to them. They argue that most people’s perceptions of crime are actually created, or at least informed by, the media Crime, Labelling and the Media What labelling theory alerts us to is the way in which the whole area of crime is dependent upon social constructions of reality, law creation, law enforcement and the identities of rule breakers are all thrown into question. A key element of all three of these processes is composed by the media. Labelling theory has contributed two particularly important concepts to our understanding of the relationship between the media and crime. Deviancy amplification Moral panics Deviancy amplification A number of sociologists who do not share the same theoretical perspective as the interactionists have also focused on societal reaction. For example a study on the societal reaction to mods and rockers in the mid-1960s. Mods and rockers Mods and rockers are youth groups who differed from each other in terms of dress, musical tastes and modes of transport (mods rode scooters, rockers rode motor bikes). Stanley Cohen's (1987) study looked at societal reaction to disturbances involving mods and rockers, which took place in Clacton over the Easter bank holiday in 1964. The mass media represented these disturbances as a confrontation between rival gangs 'hell bent on destruction'. On inspection, however, Cohen discovered that the amount of serious violence and vandalism was not great and that most young people who'd gone to the seaside that weekend did not identify with either the mods or the rockers. The mass media had produced a distorted picture of what went on. Deviancy amplification spiral, Media coverage led to considerable public concern with mods and rockers. And this set in motion a deviancy amplification spiral. Sensitised to the 'problem', the police made more arrests, the media reported more deviance, and young people were more likely to identify with either mods or rockers. Further disturbances followed on subsequent bank holidays, attracting more police attention, more arrests, increased media interest and more young people reacting to what they saw as heavy-handed and unjustified treatment from the police. The reaction to the initial disturbances over the Easter bank holiday not only exaggerated the amount of deviance; it also generated more deviance. 1 Moral panics Stanley Cohen claimed that the reaction of the media to events in Clacton generated a moral panic. A moral panic occurs when 'a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests'. In the above case, mods and rockers were singled out as 'folk devils' whose behaviour constituted a threat to the social order. The mods and rockers served as symbols of what was wrong with society. In subsequent decades, young people continued to be the focus of moral panics. The media's reaction to deviance may lead to a deviancy amplification spiral, a moral panic and more authoritarian forms of control. This process is illustrated below Evauatin There is evidence that societal reaction can amplify deviance. And there is evidence that this reaction can reach the level of a moral panic. When it reaches this level, it is out of proportion to the situation - it is 'over the top'. But who's to say that a so-called moral panic is unreasonable? Jock Young (1986) criticises the concept of a moral panic because it implies that crime is, in large part, constructed by the media. Young accepts that the media may exaggerate the 'crime problem', but it does not create it. He argues that the reality of crime, and the human suffering it produces, must be taken seriously and not reduced to a media construction. Moral panics: an outdated idea? Critics of moral panic theory argue that due to the differentiated nature of the modern media and the media savvy nature of people today means it can no longer explain societal reactions to crime and deviance. McRobbie and Thornton say because moral panics are so frequent they are losing their impact. They also argue that in an ever more pluralistic and complex society, it is less easy to create agreement over who are “folk devils”. Folk devils are therefore “ contested”. They also suggest that pressure groups and institutions such as the police who aim to generate moral panics for their own ends are less successful now in convincing media editors to launch them. The media they say will no longer uncritically and reflexively. Finally they argue that fewer individuals and groups are keen to stimulate moral panics because of the threat of rebound. For example John Major’s back to basics campaign, which accused the nation of moral decline, rebounded spectacularly. Several senior Government figures who promoted back to basics were highlighted in the media for falling foul of the principles they were espousing. This led among other things to the imprisonment of Johnathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer Labelling has been very important in helping to understand the role of the media in generating social reactions to crime and deviance. However, if what McRobbie and Thornton say is true, then the very success of sociological concepts such as moral panic is that they have sensitised journalists, politicians 2 and the public. If moral panics are less likely to occur, it’s partly because of sociological warnings about how they can bring institutions and individuals into disrepute. 3