The main thesis of the film “Generation Rx” was that psychotropic drugs such as methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, are being extremely over prescribed and used in the United States due to an overbearing pharmaceutical industry, despite dangerous side effects. According to the film a “fraud” has been perpetrated on the American public. Despite the obvious risks of suicide in pre-trials the FDA allowed these drugs to be sold to consumers. “Generation Rx” claims this is due to panel member’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Apparently, 100% of the members on the panel’s that make decisions about mood and psychotropic drugs have investments in the pharmaceutical industry. Which would appear to be a significant conflict of interest. The concept or line from the film that hit home most for me was a fairly simple point. That is the idea that some “double digit” percentage of kids in America have a “mental defect” like ADD or ADHD is like “spitting in Mother Nature’s face.” The film points to the pharmaceutical industry giving incentives to doctors to prescribe certain medications and the heavy advertising campaign like the Zoloft “happy rock” commercial as causes for the wanton abuse of mind altering drugs in the U.S. And to me it would seem that the idea that all of the sudden starting in the 1990’s children are too out of control and have to be sedated with drugs like Ritalin and Prozac does seem incredulous. One Rx proponent equivocated this extreme rise in psychotropic drug use in children to a successful add campaign like that of the Coca Cola polar bears. The RSA animate clip we watched featuring Sir Ken Robinson had some good points to support this idea. Specifically that modern times are the most stimulating in world history, there are simply so many things vying for kid’s interests, like video games, social media, the internet etc. we should be surprised that children don’t want to pay attention in school and medicating them is hardly a solution.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
"Tough Guise" Film Review
On February 28th I watched part one of the film “Tough Guise.” The primary idea, or thesis of this film is that many men are forced to put up a front of extreme masculinity, or a “tough guise,” do to the societal construction of a hegemonic masculinity and its portrayal in the media. According to the film there is an obvious correlation between masculinity and violence. The concept of masculinity and violence is strongly supported my Kimmel and Mahler in their article “What Triggers School Shootings?” They clearly illustrate to relationship between masculinity, or perceived threats to a young boys masculinity, and school violence.1 All men are expected to be strong, respected, independent and above all tough and there are sever repercussions for not fitting into this narrow hegemonic masculinity. Deviation from this narrow model is constantly policed by other men or boys, usually through insults such as “fag,” “wuss,” “wimp,” etc, all of which are intended to debase a mans masculinity. It would seem then that there is a constant societal pressure for men to adopt this “tough guise” and to defend their masculinity at any cost, especially through violence. In the context of strain theory, this constant pressure can provide an explanation for men’s overwhelming participation in violent crimes. This social structure of hegemonic masculinity “exerts a definite pressure” on men to engage in violent behavior through the conformity adaptation.2
As a result of this social construction of masculinity, violence is largely gendered towards men and is accepted as a part of masculinity. According to Jackson Katz, this concept is perpetuated by the media. Katz claims that there has been a consistent escalation of what it takes to be tough or manly in movies. To support this point the film points to various movie characters such as Sylvester Stallone as Rambo and Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator vice the Batman character from the sixties. Although it is true that this film is slightly dated, and the “Terminator” may not be the current epitome masculinity portrayed in the media today, there is still a significant connection of violence to masculinity. For example, consider the character Jason Bourne played by Matt Damon.
The evidence used to support this concept was statistical data of violent crimes which were decidedly committed most often by men, most of the statistics claimed that 95% of violent crime was committed by men. This was used to support the concept that violence is gendered to men. Additionally, interviews of young males were conducted to illustrate how the current construction of masculinity is known and accepted across all cultures, race, and socioeconomic groups. This evidence for me was the most convincing. The personal interviews clearly showed how deeply this concept of masculinity has permeated all levels of society. Although initially staggering, the statistical data was least convincing of violence being gendered toward men. That’s not to say it was unconvincing, but from a devil’s advocate perspective one could perhaps provide alternate explanations for the statistical gap. For example, the data mostly relied on conviction data of violent crimes, which could be skewed by our construction of gendered violence. Specifically that due to our general construction of the female gender to be non-violent, many claims of women’s violence might not be taken seriously and thus a conviction could be more difficult to obtain for women.
The point from the film that grabbed my attention most was the concept that the current model of masculinity is in no way a natural construct. This correlation between violence and masculinity is produced by society and is not necessarily inherent in men, but rather a performance of this “tough guise” for society and is often learned from other men. An interesting to test this idea would be to examine the societal constructions of other cultures model of masculinity. Specifically, one could interview young males from other countries to gather their ideal of masculinity and then further examine their proportion of male/female violent crime rates. This film relates to Social Deviance as its clearly shows yet another social construction, a reoccurring theme in the field of sociology.
1 Kimmel, Michael and Mathew Mahler. “What Triggers School Shootings?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 76-81. Print.
2 Merton, Robert. “Strain Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 21-26. Print.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
GAY!
“Gay.” I said evenly, having been slightly disappointed upon viewing my initial hand draw in a game of Magic the Gathering. In this instance I was referring to my drawn cards as being worthless, stupid and rather unlucky. To use modern slang, it “sucked.” Some people may be outraged by my use of the word, but unfortunately many will not, and in this case did not, even notice its use in a room of about fifteen people. “Gay” did not always carry these connotations. In fact, it was originally used to indicate something was joyful, happy, or merry and Merriam-Webster’s first listed definition of the word even today is “happily excited: Merry.” According to the Online Etymology Dictionary its first use was in the 14th century as “full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree” and by the 1890’s it had a sense of promiscuity but uses of it indicating immorality date back to the 1630’s. It was not until the 1940’s that it came to reference homosexuality (Merriam-Webster’s 4b definition is “of, relating to, or used by homosexuals”). Today more and more people seem to be using the word to indicate that something is stupid, disliked or somehow negative(despite this definition not being in any dictionary), commonly used in the phrase “that’s so gay.” I have personally overheard the phrase in casual conversation used to indicate that something was stupid, or less than expected and the phrase “that’s so gay” is the “single most common put-down” heard in middle and high schools.1
How did it become, relatively recently, that gay is equated to negative, or stupid things. I hold the belief that sexuality is a matter of arbitrary preference and I honestly do not care about the sexual choices of other people (the choice versus genetics debate is beyond the scope of this post but I would point out that even if sexuality is a conscious choice, that choice is simply a preference of homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything in between). One could never prove one type of sexuality to be superior, you could rationalize and give reasons for your choice, but at heart it would be a matter of opinion. I do not consciously think of gay people as being stupid, less than, or somehow negative. The truth is until recent revelations in a certain Sociology course I had never given any thought to my use of the word, it was just a casual remark. Even now, being acutely aware of its implications, I still catch myself using the word, it’s almost reflexive. If I harbor no belief that gay people are stupid, less than or any other prejudice why did I choose “gay” to express my discontent knowing it really means something different. Some would say I used the word because I am inarticulate and/or stupid, or maybe I really am just a closet bigot? Instead, I would argue that it is due to the underlying social constructions of society. That is the mainstream belief that homosexuality is somehow inferior to heterosexuality, or that there is something inherently or morally wrong about homosexuality. This all stems from the social adherence to a hegemonic masculinity, or the belief that there is a singular and superior way of being a man, and this is the model against all men are measured.2 Characteristics of this “man” include assertiveness, unemotional, rationale, white and straight.3 According to Kimmel and Maher there is a “central connection between gender nonconformity and homosexuality.”4 That is to be gay is to remove your manhood. This results in not the fear of gay people, but the fear heterosexuals have of being misperceived as gay, and by the standard of hegemonic masculinity, an inadequate man. Unfortunately then, many boys and men distance themselves from this perception through gay bullying, a mild form of which is saying “that’s so gay.”5 By associating things you deem stupid, or lesser with “gay” you indicate to others that you do not like anything “gay” and are therefore surely not gay yourself. After used enough times the word in its new context takes on a new meaning.
This word or phrase is mostly used by young heterosexual males, which is also who the phrase is often directed at and damaging. The phrase usually isn’t directed at people who actually are known to be gay, but it hurts them as well. The consistent use of “gay” in a negative manner debases them as a human being and can make them feel less than a legitimate person. As such there seems to be a campaign to reclaim the word “gay,” or at least to stop using the word in its negative connotations. This can be seen in the commercial circulated by GLSEN and Ad Council a while ago featuring Wanda Sykes.
It is true that, lessening the use of such phrases will weaken stereo types and the prejudice associated with them as it forces people to think about what they are saying, and then hopefully realize it’s wrong6. This concept helps, but it is not enough. The negative use of the word “gay” is a symptom, not the source of the problem. The problem is the current paradigm of hegemonic masculinity. This singular view of how to be accepted as a man, and belief that other ways are less adequate, reinforces and recreates such language and stereotypes. As long as people subscribe to the idea that masculinity is exclusive to homosexuality, and more importantly the extreme value we as society place in masculinity, social pressure will create new words and new harassments. If you want to stop prejudice you have to change the paradigm, not just change semantics. Word Count:940
It is true that, lessening the use of such phrases will weaken stereo types and the prejudice associated with them as it forces people to think about what they are saying, and then hopefully realize it’s wrong6. This concept helps, but it is not enough. The negative use of the word “gay” is a symptom, not the source of the problem. The problem is the current paradigm of hegemonic masculinity. This singular view of how to be accepted as a man, and belief that other ways are less adequate, reinforces and recreates such language and stereotypes. As long as people subscribe to the idea that masculinity is exclusive to homosexuality, and more importantly the extreme value we as society place in masculinity, social pressure will create new words and new harassments. If you want to stop prejudice you have to change the paradigm, not just change semantics. Word Count:940
1,4, 5. Kimmel, Michael and Mathew Mahler. “What Triggers School Shootings?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 76-81. Print.
2,3. Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 23 Feb 2012. Lecture.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The film “Middle Sexes” was about the intersex individuals and their different roles and perceptions in societies across the globe, from the United States, to India, Thailand and Africa. As a whole the film argued that the sexes of individuals are far more diverse than the western societal construct of a male and female binary. The fact is that due the complicated natural development of sex organs a person may develop both male and female attributes. This is supported by Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes” which states that people may have one testes and one ovary, testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries or ovaries and some aspects of the male genitalia but no testes1. The movie focused heavily on the science of sexual development, particularly that due to various hormones and events during early developmental stages the brain and genitalia may develop naturally in different directions. According to the film about one percent of births are intersex and the Fausto-Sterling article suggests that as many as four percent of births are intersex2. The film also illustrates that the male/female binary of gender is merely a social construct, and one that is impractical when considering the diversity in nature3. It is this social construct that creates the stigmatization of intersex people and creates the need to “fix” them. This social binary exists only because we as a society have created it and allowed it to persist. A strong argument that demonstrates this is the existence and roles of intersex people or “Katoy” in Thailand. Katoy’s are widely accepted in Thailand, and even embraced, as was seen in the film “Middle Sexes.” As a result they have a much larger population in Thailand. Christianity had little impact sexual roles in the society and Buddhism actually respects the intersex gender. Thus the lack a necessity for a clear male/female binary many of the Katoy live happy and full lives. It would seem that the western stigmatization of intersex based on our rigid male/female binary s the root cause of fear, violence, and shame towards intersex. The point that stands out the most for me is the fact that it is our own societal constructs (a common theme in social deviance) that permeates the hate for and misery of people, in this case intersex people, in our society. This could be easily assessed by comparing groups of intersex individuals and their persecutors in American Society to those in Thailand. I believe that a comparative analysis of mental health and value questionnaires of these groups would yield astonishing insight to the root cause of gender stigmatization.
1,2 Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print
3 Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Dir. Antony Thomas. Deep Stealth Productions, 2005. DVD
Works Cited
1,2 Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print
3 Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Dir. Antony Thomas. Deep Stealth Productions, 2005. DVD
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Why I am Deviant
To say whether I am deviant or not deviant is akin to declaring whether a zebra is black or white. That is to say, the two are hardly mutually exclusive, at least as far as deviance pertains to me. Instead I prefer to think of deviance as more of a continuum of deviant to not deviant, of which I would place myself more towards the former end of the spectrum, although to what degree is hard to be certain. To help articulate my place along this “deviance continuum,” I will appeal to two theories, “Control Theory” and “Strain Theory.” Briefly, Control Theory assumes “that delinquent [deviant] acts result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken,” and uses elements such as attachment, commitment, Involvement and belief to explain the bond, or lack there of.1” Strain Theory holds that society exacts pressure upon individuals via a heavy emphasis on specific cultural goals and a lack of “corresponding emphasis” on institutionalized or accepted means of attaining those goals. Essentially, achieving the goal becomes more important than conforming to the mores of society and individuals without available institutionally accepted methods are forced to deviate. Either one deviates by not ascribing to this culturally affirmed goal or by deviating in order to attain it. Strain Theory provides five types of adaptation individuals may use within the society, conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.2
Much like the concept of deviance itself, the elements and adaptations in these two theories are not necessarily exclusive of one another. In fact, several of these rationales for deviant behavior may apply simultaneously to an individual; this is especially true in my instance. If I were to detail my life and accomplishments on paper, one would likely assume that I was generally not deviant, as my goals and means of achieving those goals fall largely within the “conformity” adaptation, or “conformity to both cultural goals and institutionalized means.”3 That is to say that my goal, to become a lawyer and eventually a judge, is easily associated with wealth and success, which according to strain theory is the affirmed goal of American society.4 Additionally, my method of the achieving the goal, serving in the United States Marine Corps and earning the Post 9/11 GI Bill to pay for college tuition, is an institutionally accepted means. That being said, one would be hard pressed to describe this…
...as the default or not deviant. At a relatively young age I developed a substantial disdain for the value placed upon aesthetics and outward appearance in American Society, believing it to be shallow and lacking substance. More importantly, I felt the privileges granted to “well dressed” individuals unwarranted and entirely arbitrary. It was my intention to extract people’s preconceived notions about and I welcomed unfounded judgments against me based solely on my outward appearance, my personal favorites being that I was a “devil worshiper,” “Druggy,” or a “bad student,” none of which I am. However, I believed those not willing to look past their initial judgments and actually get to know me were not worth my friendship or time. This clearly illustrates the “rebellion” adaptation in the context of strain theory, or the “rejection of prevailing values and the substitution of new values.”5 The key point being that, for me (the individual), these “prevailing” values are arbitrary and thus lack legitimacy. So although my goals and means of achieving them conform to society, I largely reject the arbitrary values of society and substitute my own for a “closer correspondence between merit, effort and reward”, thus I would consider myself more deviant.
When considering control theory, the elements of commitment and involvement serve to explain why, most of the time, I am not deviant. I have always prided myself on being and analytical, pragmatic, rational individual. For me, the reasoning for your actions is as important as the actions you take (if not more). Thus when considering a deviant act, I am essentially left with the question, “is the juice worth the squeeze.” Are the risks and repercussions of illegal or deviant acts worth the benefits? I often find the answer to be no (possibly because I am privileged to have other means available to me). This coincides with the element of commitment within control theory. That is, risking my prior investments in education or “acquiring a reputation for virtue”6 was not worth the risk of stealing a (insert expensive thing here). Put simply, I never stole, used drugs, or skipped class etc. out of fear of reprisal. Secondly, as a youth and an adult I was and am too involved to be deviant most of the time. For example, in my junior and senior of high school I was attending Lower Columbia College full time), co-captain of the Castle Rock wrestling team, and worked full time as an assistant manager at the Burger King. I was “simply too busy doing conventional things to find time to engage in deviant behavior,” which is the principal of commitment within control theory.7 That is until, June 12th, 2007, high school graduation day. On this day I would be arrested, and cited for a gross misdemeanor or as I like to call it, streaking at your high school graduation. The attachment element of control theory helps to explain this particular incident. The attachment element essentially states that people are “moral beings to the extent that we are social beings.”8 In other words we internalize society’s norms from other people sharing them with us, but if one does not share attachment with others they are likely to be insensitive to their opinions and do not feel bound by their norms and is thus free to deviate. Growing up I definitely fell into this category, I never had any significant attachment to my siblings, my parents; and my small group of close friends were mostly deviants themselves. As such I was never very concerned with the values or opinions of others because I rarely had people share them with me. Thus when school faculty told the graduating class of 2007 that we were required to wear dress shoes, and slacks under our robes to present a more “prestigious” appearance (a value I did not ascribe to), I responded by duck taping pant legs to my shins and cutting my shirt in half to wear under my robes. Upon receiving my diploma, I turned, faced the cameras and discarded my gown via a convenient front zipper and proceeded to sprint down the graduation lane, evading police for about 10 minutes. This day I had decided that the Juice was worth the squeeze. Again, although I generally conform to society out of fear and reprisal and lack of time to do otherwise, my lack of attachment to others ultimately resulted in a lack of concern for their values and the deviant behavior of me renouncing them (in my own way) publicly. It would then seem that I would be considered more deviant than not.
Experiencing Deviance
To help further my understanding of what it is and feels like to be deviant I decided to dress in Goth, and take my wife shopping at the Westfield Shopping center in Vancouver. This particular wardrobe or style of dress is considered to be deviant by most and is commonly associated with an anti-religious sentiment, overly emotional or whiny “emo” individuals, drugs and, as I learned, apparently poverty. The most common reaction to this behavior or appearance by the mainstream is to ignore it and avoid people who dress like this. After perusing the mall stores for about an hour I had encountered little resistance or confrontation to the way I was dressed, no one had said anything (that I heard) or made noticeable remark about my appearance. It was not until my wife and I entered one of her favorite stores, Fred Meyer Jewelers. This was not the first time I had been in this store, in fact I am repeat customer, having purchased my wife’s engagement ring, wedding band, and anniversary band (among other gifts) there. To date I have actually spent over 5000$ at this franchise and generally speaking their service is fair, honest and polite. This would not be the case on this day however. My wife and I were in the store for over 15 minutes with only 3 other guests present before someone acknowledged us, and when they did the question was put rudely, “Are you going to buy something.” The question when read may seem polite but put into the context of tone. It sounded more like “you obviously broke bastard, buy something or get out of my store before I call security.” It would seem apparent to me that do to my new wardrobe I was no longer considered a serious or able customer, and I was likely there to steal something. Thus, the consequence of having “Goth” as your master status (the initial label by which people judge you and then filter your actions through),9 is not being considered as a legitimate customer or human being. Essentially, because of the way you dress you are disregarded as the “crazy” or ridiculous incredulous “other”
1,6,7. Hirschi, Travis. “Control Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 30-32. Print.
2,3,4,5. Merton, Robert. “Strain Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 21-26. Print.
9. Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 26 Jan 2012. Lecture.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Black Sabbath is a British Heavy Metal band, and arguably the most influential metal act in history. Upon reading “Black Sabbath” what images, thoughts and opinions come to mind? Perhaps your first thoughts are of a day of worship for some evil religion, or maybe you imagine Ozzy Osbourne biting the head off a bat? Both activities are considered “deviant” in their own right to many so is Black Sabbath. Additionally many of the metal acts that followed in the footsteps of Black Sabbath are also considered “deviant.” But what is deviance? The obvious answer is things that deviate from the norm. Deviance is described by Becker as violating rules established by a group. More specifically he states “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance (Becker, 6).” In other words, deviance is essentially a social construction; it is what we, society, say it is. As a society we have an ideal of what people are suppose to look and act like, and anyone who is not this socially constructed ideal is labeled deviant. For example, “Metal Heads,” is a term generally associated with people who have long hair, listen to Metal, drink and party probably more than one should, and some even assume they are satanic worshippers. What is interesting is that these groups of “deviants” have their own rules and ideals of deviance. In fact, it is often the adherence to these rules that make the “members” of said groups social deviants. However, according to the deviant group (i.e “Metal Heads”) it is everyone else who is supposedly deviant. At the core of the issue, the only difference between what mainstream society considers to be deviant and what a smaller group like “Metal Heads” consider to be deviant, is one groups power and privilege to enforce their rules and ideals of deviance on others. All clique’s and groups within society have their own social constructions of what is deviant. Consider metal heads and their preferred genre of music, metal, which is very generally characterized by aggressive guitar riffs, heavy drums and a fast paced intricate music structure and also has many sub-genres. This genre, especially today, is deviant from most social norms. What constructions of deviance can one extract from the lyrics of lead acts in the metal genre? One example of what is considered deviant within the group of “metal heads” is religious beliefs. To illustrate, this I will consider four songs, “After Forever” by Black Sabbath, “Leper Messiah” by Metallica, “Opiate” by Tool and “War” by System of a Down. None of them explicitly say they dislike religion, but religion can be inferred as a theme of deviance in metal.
Consider first “After Forever,” for a better understanding of the context of the song listen to it here. Although the song itself is obviously in favor of a belief in God, its implications are deeper. Specifically the line “Could it be you’re afraid of what your friends might say if they knew you believe in God above?” Consider the primary audience listening to this song, “metal heads” and that many of their friends are also “metal heads.” These lyrics then imply that the majority of metal fans don’t believe and God, making those that do deviants. “Leper Messiah,” is about TV Evangelists, and how they ask for me to prove your faith and its followers are “spineless.” This common theme, that blind followers of faith lack autonomy, is also illustrated by the lyrics in “Opiate.” Lastly there is “War” this song attempts to illustrate the evils of war brought on by religion. Referring to how religion has been used as justification for war, when there were possibly other motivations. I believe the lines “Was it the riches of the land, the powers of bright darkness that, that led the noble, to the east, to fight the heathens.” All four of these songs have negative connotations of religion within their lyrics, implying that this group of deviants considers religion to be deviant. Which in and of itself makes them deviant from the norm, as it is enforced by the people with the power and privilege to do so (Becker, 12.) Word Count: 697.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)