Barber-ism1 - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

Examine yourself closely. Are you one of the "Great Unwashed." Are you part of a society that doesn't think for itself, has no personal values, and looks to the media for understanding as you try to make sense out of life? As you watched the 2016 presidential campaign, do you assume the talking heads [regardless of party] tell the absolute, unvarnished truth about the candidates? Will you vote for who they tell you to because they tell you to? If the media runs a bunch of stories involving violent crime and implies its a national crime wave do you accept it at face value even though violent crime is down across the board? There will always be some folks that are overly susceptible to suggestion; people who are either to lazy to ferret out truth, to thick to understand truth, or to disinterested to care about truth. As such, they believe what they are told. When society as a whole is that way, however, you have mass society theory. According to Jewkes, mass society theory occurs when communities fragment and societal ties break down [Sounds a lot like anomie]. It says that media influence is strong enough to lead the people en mass to where it wants to take them. There can even be a "perfect storm" scenario when societal, economic, and political factors combine causing the masses to follow media even when media isn't trying to push an agenda. Read about the 1938 version of The War of the Worlds in the text. Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto and tallied a high score by stealing cars, shooting cops, and the like? If you did, did it make you want to go out and enact it in real life? When you see carnage on the evening news like Columbine, Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or even San Bernadino and Orlando does it make you want to go out and do the same? Theories on behaviorism would link your bad behavior [assuming you shot a bunch of cops after playing Grand Theft Auto] to a cause and effect relationship. In the most simplistic terms, you acted out [the effect] because you played the game [the cause]. The text gives some other examples. Did kids sock Bobo dolls in an experiment because they watched a violent act depicted in a film or cartoon? Did Child's Play 3 influence the murders of James Bulger or was the idea simply an invention of the media? Is there any merit to behaviorism? I'm certainly no expert but I find it interesting that Thierry Jaradan a 24 year old Belgium man stabbed a 15 year old neighbor girl 30 times because she refused his advances. Pertinent to this discussion is the fact that Jaradan dressed up like Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream." In fact,Jaradan claims he was inspired by the movie. I also find it interesting that 30 years after the fact, Eddie Seda took on the persona of the Zodiac killer from the 1960s and shot three people dead and attempted to kill five others before his capture. At the very least, there appears to be anecdotal evidence that behaviorism cause and effect can generate copycat killers. Maybe there is some merit to the theory after all. In Wimmer's essay we'll look at social learning. Behaviorism and social learning are very similar but not quite the same. Make sure you don't get them mixed up. What about positivism? The positive approach in its most simplistic form is attached to behaviorism in that an outside stimuli may be the cause, but the response, or effect is not the product of the responders free will. In other words, characteristics in the responder cause that person to respond to the stimuli in a certain way. Those characteristics may be genetic or environmental Bottom line, positivism, like so many theories of criminology mitigates blame. I wouldn't have abused that child if I hadn't been abused myself. How about this one. I wouldn't have choked the life out of her if I wasn't genetically predisposed to violent behavior. After all, just look at me! Cesare Lomroso is mentioned in the text but it doesn't say a lot about him. His work is based upon the examination of executed criminals from which he developed the theory of biological determinism. In short, he concluded that criminals have certain physical

characteristics in common that indicate a predisposition to crime. Anything to it? Open this link. http://pennsylvania.arrests.org/Arrests/Brandon_Diffenderfer_13739911/ Do you know this guy? Probably not. His name is Brandon Wilson Deffenderfer and he's a convicted criminal. Now open this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Frankenstein%27s_monster_ %28Boris_Karloff%29.jpg/200px-Frankenstein%27s_monster_%28Boris_Karloff%29.jpg Do you recognize him? Bet you do. Notice any physical similarities such as the heavy protruding brow, hooded eyes, and prominent jaw. Why, they both even have have scars on their necks! Obviously, this is a rather absurd comparison but it makes a point. Lombroso held that what could be termed somewhat Neanderthal features in a person were reliable indicators of criminal potential. Maybe he's on to something but consider the ramifications of his theory if it really gained prominence. At the least, a persons appearance could be considered evidence of a crime in court [just look at him ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You can tell at a glance that he's a criminal]. At the most, biological determinism could become the basis for deciding who gets weeded out. Thankfully, Jeffrey Dahmer's refined features tend to throw a wet blanket over Lombroso's theory. Google him if you don't know who he is and what he did. Anyway, biological determinism has fallen out of favor for obvious reasons but its still and interesting study. Google criminal anthropology for more information. Lombroso's museum in Turin [as in shroud] is a good place for the curious to start. Media effects may have some influence on crime be it mass society theory, behaviorism, positivism, or even biological determinism, but what about strain theory. Does it interact with crime? Classicstrain theory says that folks share certain values [like thou shalt not steal] and they also share certain desires or goals [goods job, big house, nice car,etc.]. Strain occurs when folks are inhibited by traditional values while unable to realize their goals or desires through legitimate means [like work, save, purchase]. This depiction of strain is stratified by socioeconomic class. In other words, the economically, educationally, and socially oppressed are more apt to suffer strain because they don't have the resources to succeed, at least not legitimately. The variable in strain theory seems to be strong societal norms or values. Where strong norms or values exist, strain has less chance of blossoming into criminal behavior. Strain theory blossoms when society [or an individual for that matter] suffers from anomie. Anomie in the simplest terms means a sense of normlessness. In other words, the traditional values and behaviors deemed acceptable by society break down. What's acceptable, then can become blurred. Its much easier for members of society to engage in criminal activity when they have goals they can't reach through legitimate means and the norms of society that tend to inhibit bad behavior are weakened if not completely broken down. So, is America in or entering an anomic state? What are our national norms? On one hand we hold vigils for death row inmates and protest the death penalty but on the other hand we vote pro-choice on abortion. On one hand we contend the traditional family is the building block of society but on the other hand we legalized same sex marriage. On one hand we applaud sobriety and punish intoxication [especially when driving] and on the other hand we vote to legalize marijuana. Prime time television these days resembles soft porn and sexually, anything goes. But if I tell a woman she looks nice, I set myself up for a sexual harassment allegation. The list could go on but I think the point has been made. The point is not where you as an individual stand on these issues. The point is that the norms, values, traditions, etc. that have governed us for decades are in a state of flux to say the least. Does it arise to societal anomie? I don't know,

you tell me! But here's how it all comes together. If some inner city kid wants a pair of Air Jordan 10 "Chicago" tennies at $270 because he sees them on TV and the ads say he'll score [take that any way you want to], what is he to do. He can't buy them. After all, his mom is unemployed, dad ran off years ago, and he makes minimum wage working part time. Nevertheless, this is America the land where dreams come true. He ought to have those shoes; he can't succeed without them; he has a right to those shoes. At least that's what the TV ad says. In the absence of strong societal norms against theft, he most likely will steal them. Such is the strain / anomie / crime nexus. The last media / crime nexus we'll look at Jewkes calls dominant ideology theory. She ties it to Marxist theory in that the ruling class [political elites] suppress opposing points of view to maintain control. I certainly don't disagree but I'd like to consider dominant ideology from a little different perspective. Dominant ideology as it applies in today's society means those in power use media to criminalize, demonize, marginalize, or otherwise castigate those in opposition. For example, Clinton's email scandal is barely newsworthy to the liberal main stream media. But Trump called Jeb Bush "low energy." Now that's news! The purpose, of course, is to silence the opposition and keep them from becoming the dominate force. In today's political arena, the single most effective tool is to call somebody a racist. Whether its true or not is irrelevant. If the right complains about Obama's policy on whatever its because he's Black and the right can't stand the thought of a Black president because they're racist. Makes you think twice before criticizing a left wing policy if you're a right wing politician. A secondary purpose is to divert attention away from problems the elites are encountering. In America today, the right will claim the main stream media is in bed [figuratively speaking] with the left and will highlight less significant or non political stories and ignore stories or issues that may reflect negatively on the administration. For example, Wikileaks is systematically publishing Clinton emails that cast serious aspersions on the relationship between the Clinton foundation and Hillary when she was secretary of state. They have serious ethical if not criminal implications and question her integrity as it pertains to being Commander In Chief. Fox News is all over it. But you won't see much on mainline network news. The big story there has been Ryan Lochte Why isn't the mainline media covering the Clinton scandal more closely? The answer is obvious. They are in the tank for her and Ryan Lochte is currently a convenient diversion. You can read about the principle from an English perspective from Hall's work in the text. Dominant ideology depends on the concept of hegonomy to establish and maintain control. In other words, it uses its propaganda to influence folks in such a way that they agree that a person or issue is what its depicted to be by political elite regardless of the facts. I'd also like us to consider dominant ideology from the perspective of labeling theory. In short, labeling theory says that if the powers that be hang a label on a person or group with significant intensity, that person or group may become stigmatized, accept the label as truth, and begin to behave in accordance with the label. For example, Little Johnny's 4th grade teacher labels him a trouble maker for a few minor "indiscretions." We all know how kids are. So the rest of the class begins to parrot the teacher's comment. It might not even be that they believe that about Little Johnny, but they're so glad its not them in the spotlight that they're willing to keep it going. If the stigma gets to Little Johnny, he may begin to believe it's true; that he really is a bad kid [actually, he just missed his Ridilin a few times]. Now that Little Johnny has internalized the label, he may begin to start behaving in accordance with it [even when on his meds].

OK, so what's all this have to do with the media crime nexus? Remember Occupy Wall Street? Go to the following link and read the first paragraph. http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/occupy-wall-street-labeled-terrorists-fbi Now, this is a left wing web and is biased, perhaps you share the same bias and agree with the article. That's not the point. The point is, according to the article, a number of those in power [the ruling elite] labeled Occupy Wall Street participants as criminals, to say the least. It's undeniable that much criminal behavior was exhibited by the protesters. Reports of rape, assault, and wide spread drug use were among the crimes documented throughout the movement. Even the left leaning politicians began to back away from the movement as criminal behavior increased. So, is dominant ideology and it's connection to labeling responsible, at least in part, for some of the shenanigans pulled by Occupy Wall Street protesters? In other words, did they begin to believe what the news media was saying about them and act out accordingly? Obviously, there were many factors involved and probably no single reason it got out of hand. Nevertheless, the group was labeled and many lived up to it. So we've looked at three of the mainstream theories used to define the media crime nexus. There are six altogether. We'll look at the last three in next week's lesson as well as get into Shots in the Mirror. Its important to make a point about these theories. We're going to look as some of them and try to ascribe them to certain real life cases over the next few weeks. Remember, none of us are licensed psychiatrists or psychologists [yet], the information we have to go on about these cases is very limited, and these theories aren't always exclusive [they bleed over one another]. As such, our applications won't be exactly carved in stone. My intent is not to prepare you to clinically classify criminal activity. My intention is to make you aware of these things and prompt you to think about them and how the media would use them to further their own agenda. I want to leave you with a closing thought. Did you read the introduction? You should have because its part of the reading assignment. If you did, you read a little about the Tsarnaev brothers. Remember the Boston marathon bombi ng? Well, they were the guys. Anyway, Jewkes comes across as being somewhat sympathetic to the brothers, especially the younger Dzhokhar. Read it again if you didn't catch it the first time. As an American, it kind of ticked me off but then again I'm not much of a terrorist sympathizer and I'm pretty hardcore. But Jewkes has an agenda and will use her platform to influence the masses if they allow her to do so. But don't be to hard on Jewkes. We all do it. I certainly allow my political opinions to come across in my lectures so, like Jewkes, I too have an agenda. And if I can influence you to accept my point of view, I will do just that. Here's the point. Most everybody,but especially the media, have an agenda to push and will push it to the max. If I can get you to look beyond the rhetoric and understand the agenda you will be more able to sift through the innuendo and ferret out the truth. Refuse to be part of the "Great Unwashed" that accepts what others feed them and doesn't think for them self....