аЯрЁБс>ўџ NPўџџџMџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС[@ №ПБ:bjbj44 (RViViБ2џџџџџџˆђђђђђђђ Lяіjjjjjjjjnpppppp$хR7ж”ђOjjOO”ђђjjЉeeeOђjђjneOne,e‘,ђђBj^ а™…QяТmr2nП0я: пp Bђђђђ ђB,jє^Ўe Œ˜Зjjj””O Conflict Theory (D8; T&L 7) When: l960's- l970's Circumstances: Social conflict; crises of credibility of authority Where: Large university campuses, sociology departments Who: Vold, Turk, Gusfield, Liazos Broadview: Stratification theory; conflict theory Attitude: Deviants are victims of power, status systems Approach: Structural-functional, macro sociology Role: Critics (restrained) within system; intellectuals; sociologists Metaphor: Status politics Root cause: struggle for collective power and status --> use of institutions of social control --> making "losers" deviants Concepts: Group conflict, criminalization, police and criminal justice apparatus, status politics, class bias, caste systems, realistic conflict, group norms. Variables: Conflict, class, interests. Assertions: Stigmatization and criminalization are to a substantial degree group conflict carried out in alternative form. Works: Gusfield--Symbolic Crusade; Liazos--"The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and 'Perverts'" Data: Historical analysis, secondary analysis, Product: Sociology of Conflict, Sociology of Knowledge, Professional Criticism Policy: More attention ought to be paid to powerful, high status forms of offenses Stance: Critical of the standard fare of deviance topics and their analysis. Vold, George B. 1958. _Theoretical Criminology_. NY: Oxford. (See Traub and Little, 1985, pp. 336-347.) Individuals belong to groups. Groups are engaged in continuous competition and conflict. Societies are comprised of groups. Society, in fact, is dependent on group conflict for its essential existence and processes. The principal goal of one group in contact with another is to keep from being replaced or displaced. The loyalty of the group member is one of the most profoundly significant facts of social psychology. Nothing promotes harmony and self-sacrifice within the group quite as effectively as a serious struggle with another group for survival. Politics is primarily a matter of arrangements between antagonistic groups. The whole political process of law making, law breaking, and law enforcement becomes a direct reflection of deep-seated and fundamental conflict between interest groups and their more general struggles for the control of the police power of the state. As noted by Shaw & McKay and the Gluecks, juvenile delinquents engage in delinquent acts in groups. The delinquent boy's gang is clearly a 'minority group' in the sense that it cannot achieve its objectives through regular channels, making use of, and relying for protection on, the police powers of the state. The minority group orientation is illustrated by conscientious objectors who viewed their becoming convicts as wholly and completely honorable. Behind many kinds of criminal acts which appear to be the acts of individuals lie groups struggling for power. Thus, (1) Numerous crimes result from the direct political reform type of protest movement --as in revolutions; (2) Many crimes result directly from the clash of interests of company management and labor unions in that form of industrial conflict that we call strikes or lockouts; (3) Silmilar in nature but with a different focus for the conflict, numerous crimes result as incidental episodes in the jurisdictional disputes between different labor unions; (4) Numerous kinds of crimes result from the clashes incidental to attempts to change, or to upset the caste system of racial segregation in various parts of the world, notably in the United States and in the Union of South Africa. In situations such as these, the criminal acts of individuals are normal. Criminological theory, in this type of situation, becomes a specialized application of the more general theory of the sociology of conflict. By contrast, however, conflict theory probably does not serve as well to explain implusive and irrational acts.... Turk, Austin T. 1966. "Conflict and Criminality." _American Sociological Review 31:_ 338-352. (See Traub & Little, 1985!, pp. 348-364) Relations between conflict and crime have been conceptualized in four basic ways: (1) criminal behavior as an indicator of conflict within the person, (2) Criminal behavior as the expression of participation in a criminogenic subculture, (3) Criminal behavior resulting from socialization in a different culture and either ignorance or rejection of legal norms, (4) The violation of laws by essentially normal persons in the course of realistic conflicts of interest. The most critical problem in criminological theory today is to determine whether and how the two orientations--which may be called the "deviance-pathology" and the "social conflict-political"--can be integrated. Stigmatization and Criminalization: Sizable differences in convictions rates among racial and socioeconomic classes in the Unites States suggest that criminalization is not solely a function of the legally relevant facts. The experiences of ex-convicts and persons who have been accused but found legally innocent of certain types of offense, indicate that criminal status does not necessarily conform to legal definitions. Similar findings from other countries support the same conclusion: criminalization is not bound within the narrow limits imposed by the structures for the administration of justice. The central point, nonetheless, still stands: the pathology or normality of behavior is not identical with the unrealism and realism of moves in a conflict situation. (Deviant behavior may or may not be realistic in the service of the conflict interests of the persons involved.) Legality of Norms: To summarize, a legal norm is defined here as a cultural norm officially announced by the political authorities in a collectivity. Although some legal norms approximate the social norms of the collectivity, most legal norms will be seen by members of the collectivity as "legal" only to the extent that the norm of deference to authority has been established. Propositions for a theory of criminalization: (1) In general, the greater the cultural difference--between authority and subjects-- the greater the probability of conflict. (2) When normative conflict has been interpreted by authorities in legal terms, the probability that members of the opposition will be officially dealt with as criminals will depend upon (a) the status of the legal norm in the culture of the authorities, (b) the status of the opposing norm or illegal attribute in the culture of the opposition, (c) the congruence of the legal norm with the cultural and social norms of those specifically charged with enforcement, (d) the relative power of enforcers and resisters, and (e) the realism of moves made by the conflict parties. Gusfield, Joseph R. 1963. _Symbolic Crusade_. Urbana-Champagne: University of Illinois. (See Traub & Little, 1994, pp. 353-362) The Temperance movement in the United States is interesting because of its persistence and power. It provides a focus for the study of divergent subcultures in American society. Abstinence was a significant distinguishing mark of rural Protests of Northern European extraction whose families had emigrated to the United States prior to the Civil War. What made the drinking of other groups (Catholics, Southern and Eastern European, immigrant) particularly galling to the abstainers was the historical trend toward loss of group status and the implied loss of prestige associates with what they viewed as their superior lifestyle (culture, religion). Action was called for and it did not matter that prohibition as a law might not be enforceable. The objective was to enhance the status of abstaining groups and demonstrate symbolically that they still had the political clout to impose a degrading legal proscription on the offensive drinking populations. During the 1820's the men who founded the Temperance Movement had in mind a model of moral behavior fashioned in the view of New England Federalism. This was upper class leadership. But during the 1830's and 1840's the Temperance movement became democratized and dominated by the middle class. Its political power became a weapon against immigrant, working class, Catholics. The strategy was directed at coercive rather than assimilative reform. This was particularly true in the last quarter of the nineteenth century in the Populist wing of the Temperance movement. This group was particularly offended by what they perceived to be the evils of cities (as compared with their rural values) and the political defeat of likeminded persons at the hands of immigrant dominated political machines. Coercive reform became the dominating theme of the Temperance movement which culminated in the passage of the 18th Amendment. By 1933 and the Great Depression both the old order of ninteenth century economics and the culture of the Temperance ethic were cruelly discredited. In subsequent decades: Veblen's "conspicuous consumption" replaced the traditional values of hard work and frugality, Riesman's "other directed man" displaced the rugged individualism and character of the "inner directed man", and the PLAYBOY philosophy replaced the heroism of Horatio Alger characters. In contemporary struggles, one may observe other "doomed classes" searching for some way to restore a sense of lost respect and prestige in such rearguard actions as those against floridation, sex education in the schools, and the United Nations. Liazos, Alexander. 1972. "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and 'Preverts." _Social Problems 20:_ 103-120. (Traub & Little, 1994, pp. 372-395.) Like C. Wright Mills, Liazos bases his observations on a study of textbooks. Most that he reviewed took the labeling approach. Despite the claim by the writers of this school that they intend to humanize or normalize the deviant they fail to do so as indicated in their persistent use of the term "deviance." In focusing on the standard list of deviants: prostitutes, addicts, homosexuals, etc., these authors tend to neglect institutionalized violence--especially that of the covert variety. Despite their claim that they study the importance of power, they fail to do so. The continued use of the word "deviance" (and its variants), despite its invidious distinctions and connotations, also belies explicit statements on the equality of the people under consideration. In fact, the emphasis is more on the subculture and identities of the "deviants" themselves rather than on their oppressors and persecutors. Only now are we beginning to realize that most prisoners are political prisoners. (This realizations is in substantial part due to the writings of political prisoners themselves.) The bias of contemporary deviance text authors is apparent in their acceptance of the current popular definitions of deviance and in the concentration of their attention on those who have been socially labeled as deviant. Violence is characteristically portrayed by these authors as the exclusive offense of the poor, the minorities, the gangs. Covert institutional violence is much more destructive than overt individual violence. An important example is intuitional racism (Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967). Violence is committed daily by the government--especially in its system and pattern of appropriations. Attention to white collar crime is limited and that given suffers from the bias against examining the social conditions behind it. The obvious explanation for this oversight is that white collar criminals are not "deviants." Only Szaz has shown consistently the role of power in one area of "deviance"--i.e., "mental illness." According to his view, the mentally ill have always been the powerless; the purpose of manufacturing mental illness is to discredit, persecute, and eliminate opponents. The analysis of our texts has focused on agents of social control but has not extended to those who control the agencies of social control. Becker's attention to those behind the agents of social control is limited to the moral crusaders (like the Temperance movement). The sociology of deviance should pay more attention to what Domhoff (1967) called "the ruling class" and its role in relation to "deviance." When the police force was created in England in the early 1800's it was meant to defend the propertied class. The purpose of _schlock sociology is to obscure the role of power in the creation and labeling of "deviance." It is given to the "plausible passive" (in which things appear to occur with no identifiable agency) and "Rampant Reification" (in which the villains of modern social problems are impersonal forces or abstractions without human complicity). We should abandon the word "deviance" and use the more appropriate rhetoric of "oppression", "conflict", "persecution", and "suffering." (Excerpts, paraphrase, and summaries by D.H.B.)   $ œЅОЦѓ.§.H/\/”2Ÿ2љ3466Б:яояояояояояояояоя hwPžhwPžCJOJQJ^JaJ hwPžhц6CJOJQJ^JaJ56KŽЦшщ S „ Ъ Ы х % d š ж 0 h Ј Б № ' ( W  Љ о њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮБ:§о ў ; M N O “ М Н § DŒ—˜р(lЊэю2xЗћ78~ФPњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮP’гZЂъ(pЗ§@ˆЩ $%gЌѓ6qrЏѕHењњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮе\Єщ0wЋЌѓ5zПHЯ  L’й&'jЏј:€њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮ€ЃЄц, r З ќ D!Š!б!"_"’"“"д"##`#Ё#щ#/$t$Й$%G%†%Ъ% &F&њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮF&‹&Ы&и&й&'b'Њ'ђ'8((С(џ(F)ˆ)Я)*W*v*w*И*џ*G++г+,],Є,ъ,,-њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮ,-5-6-{-Т-у-ф-&.l.Д.ѓ.;/„/Щ/0$0%0j0Ќ0є0<1x1y1Р12G2Œ2Ю23X3њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮX3ž3ф3&4k4•4–4н4%5k5В5љ556|6‡6ˆ6Ю67X7œ7у7+8n8­8є8<9ƒ9Ъ9:S:њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgd(SЮS:š:Џ:Б:њњњgd(SЮ&1h:p(SЮАа/ Ар=!А'"А'# $ %АœH@ёџH Normal CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontViѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (kєџС(No List <ўOђ< g2ЋTest A  & F CJOJQJ69@6 g2Ћ List Bullet 5<Z@< (SЮ Plain Text CJ^JaJ›3RџџџџБ:о Pе€F&,-X3S:Б:!"#$%&'(Б: џџZ+ФЙT[+DАT\+,МT]+\v^+T­T_+ џP`+ю#a+œўTb+œ§Pc+g)d+ŒќTe+мŽOf+TЋ"g+\НTh+ŒОTi+Ќ5Tj+$5)……є є ззх88SSVK0K0Г2     ‹‹""сээEE``aR0R0Г2 B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€= *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€  ЫЯзпсчИРдкOS–›Y ` Ž – OXкпзу“›ѕњЎ"З"$#,#ђ$§$6%<%%˜%М%С%њ%&}--д/л/Г2(4ЅйоkvЋЏрф=Bf€§DFŒ•рх(+ltЊЕ28x{ЗТћ ~ € Х Э   P S ’  г л   Z d { ƒ Ђ Ћ ъ № ( 2 p t З М § џ ˆ Š Щ а #gmЌЗѓћ6;ю№HMеж"\^ЄІщ№03wzѓј5<z‚ПУ HS—ЯжLU’”йт#jrЏЛјћ:F€‚цэ,3rvЗОќDOŠŒбе"_bзю`cЁЊщї/4GI†Ъа FQ‹‘Ыж"bmђј8 ?  ƒ С Ш џ !F!O!ˆ!Ž!Я!и!""W"^"И"П"џ" #G#O#Ž#“#г#е#$$]$`$Є$Љ$ъ$ё$,%4%Х%т%&&/&l&o&Д&Н&ѓ&§&;'='„'†'Щ'а'((j(m(Ќ(Ж(є(ї(<)F)Р)Щ)* *G*O*Œ*“*Ю*з*++X+_+ž+І+ф+э++,6,k,n,н,р,%-0-l-t-В-Ж-љ-4.5.B.|.….Ю.б.X/_/œ/Ѕ/у/щ/+0.0n0s0­0Ж0є0і0<1B1„1†1Ъ1Ь122T2\2š2Ѓ2Г23333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333$œЅОЦѓ&§&H'\'”*Ÿ*љ+,..А2Г2..Г2џџLinda A. Arnemann€џџџфgиЁ„„˜ўЦ ^„`„˜ўCJOJQJaJo(‡hˆH)€џџџ€џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџхц6wPžg2Ћ(SЮ’oьџ@€л.л.И#\\л.л.Б20@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial?5 ‡z €џCourier New"qˆ№аhкЄs†мЄs†Гш+]Гш+]!№' ДД24333ƒ№мH(№џ?џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџg2Ћџџ4 Conflict Theory (D8; T&L 7)Linda A. ArnemannLinda A. Arnemann ўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Д˜иф , HT p | ˆ”œЄЌф5 Conflict Theory (D8; T&L 7)c Linda A. Arnemann indind Normal.dotnLinda A. Arnemann 3ndMicrosoft Word 10.0@Œ†G@l+6QяТ@јБ}QяТГш+ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0  hp€ˆ˜  ЈАИ Р фPerigee]3{ 5 Conflict Theory (D8; T&L 7) Title  !"#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ3456789:;<ўџџџ>?@ABCDўџџџFGHIJKLўџџџ§џџџOўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFPщ'…QяТQ€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ*1Tableџџџџ2WordDocumentџџџџ(RSummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ=DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџECompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџjџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq