Ethical Dimension of Crisis Intervention

The end of the Cold War has marked the beginning of a period that has seen an exponential rise of humanitarian intervention. This context gives rise to the problematic question whether foreign. Policymakers have responsibility towards citizens of other states. This essay will argue that in order to address this question. It is important to point to two set of implications related to the use of the word responsibility. On one hand, it implies a moral commitment of foreign policymakers to help. Those in needs; on the other hand, it implies. An empirical commitment benchmarked against a proofed track record demonstrating the validity of humanitarian intervention abroad. This essay will contend. That foreign policymakers do have responsibility on.

A normative level towards citizens of other states because of the importance of human rights. Alleviation of human suffering, inalienable rights of individuals. And notions relate to humanity and cosmopolitanism. However, the empirical track record of humanitarian intervention shows. That under the current institutional arrangements, as the cases of non- intervention in Rwanda and the intervention in Iraq an Afghanistan demonstrate. Humanitarian intervention is not effective and very often masks realist assumptions. As a consequence. From an empirical level of analysis foreign policymakers do not have. Responsibility towards citizens of other states, because they only run the risk of worsening the status quo of affairs.

In order to demonstrate this thesis this essay has been structured as follows: Firstly. It will offer an overview of the concept of responsibility both from a normative. And empirical perspective and it will define the concept of responsibility. As commitment to the pursuit of duties beyond borders. Secondly, this essay will highlight the perspectives of different school of thoughts. About the responsibility of foreign policymakers towards citizens of other states. And it will argue that liberal and constructivist arguments are important. Because they demonstrate that states have normative responsibilities towards citizens of other states.

Yet realist assumptions end up prevailing on an empirical level. Thus, the statement that foreign policy makers have responsibility. Towards citizens of other states cannot be justified on empirical grounds. Thirdly, this essay will demonstrate with reference to the case study of Rwanda. That there are disastrous consequences when there is a lack of normative responsibility. Thus it is confirmed that states must have normative responsibility towards citizens of other states. Fourthly, this paper will problematize this statement and it will argue that even when there is a normative conception of responsibility it is hard to translate it into foreign policy outcomes on an empirical level, as the examples of the case studies of the intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate.

In order to address the question whether foreign policy-makers have responsibility. Towards citizens of other states it is important to provide a definition of responsibility. This essay will argue that a definition of responsibility is twofold as it implied a normative and an empirical dimension. From a normative perspective it implies that foreign policy-makers ought to intervene. Towards citizens of other states when those are under threat because of ethical concerns. From an empirical perspective, this implies. That foreign policy makers have responsibility to intervene.

Towards citizens of other states because the reality of humanitarian intervention has demonstrated. That this is an effective way to protect citizens of other state. From this perspective, it is important to note that there are negative consequences both when policymakers decided to intervene, such as in the case of Rwanda, and when they intervened, such as the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq will demonstrate. That is to say, that even if from a normative perspective policy-makers have the ethical responsibility to protect citizens of other states, the empirical evidence demonstrates that it is difficult to apply ethical assumptions in reality because of limited resources and the close connection between states’ interests and the willingness to commit resources and intervene.

Thus, unless reforms are undertaken in the institutional design to ensure legitimacy of international actions and to protect people against mass violence policymakers should not intervene; however, once these reforms would have been taken, it would be possible to reconcile the normative and empirical level underpinning the concept of responsibility and it will be possible for policy makers to have responsibility towards citizens of other states.

After clarifying the two main aspects underpinning the concept of responsibility it is necessary to point to what this essay mean by responsibility in general. This essay by the term responsibility this essay will mean responsibility intended as duties beyond borders. By this it is meant that states sovereignty should not be a barrier to duty beyond borders, because policy makers in the formulation of their foreign policy can follow ethics and principles, thus promoting human rights, taking part in development missions and assistance in delivering relief when needed (Pictet 1979).

According to this definition, from a normative perspective, the concept of humanity is seen as more important than the concept of sovereignty. This is based on a moral belief that individuals possess inalienable rights and that humanitarianism plays a pivotal role. Thus, this concept of responsibility links the concept of humanity to the principle of cosmopolitanism. According to this notion, moral worth applies equally to all the individuals and they are all subject to moral values (Brock and Brighouse, 2005: 4). Moreover, it is important to note that humanitarianism is considered as increasingly important because of the interdependence experienced in the age of globalisation with transnational connections and information flows, owing partly to the role of the media in Foreign Policy, that increase the awareness of the desperate circumstances of millions of people.

Read more

The Use of the Newspeak Language to Control and Manipulate in 1984, a Novel by George Orwell

According to S.I. Hayakawa in his book, Language in Thought and Action, “when a nation’s traditions permit a political party to feel that it is so good for the country that no other party has any right to exist… the party declares its philosophy to be the official philosophy of the nation and its interests to be the interests of the people as a whole”. In the futuristic, dystopian novel, 1984, by George Orwell, the ruling party silences all opposition by unleashing the capability of language as a means of control and manipulation. This ruling group, referred to as “the Party,” heavily controls and monitors the citizens of Oceania, one of three super states. The Party distorts language to control the citizens’ behavior and to limit their thoughts. By creating a new language called Newspeak, altering the past, promoting intimacy as solely a “duty to The Party,” and utilizing pre-symbolic language, the Party successfully keeps the population of Oceania in ignorant submission. Newspeak is one of the of the most prominent uses of language as a means of control and submission in 1984. As explained by Syme, who is an expert on Newspeak, “the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined”. The Party’s main goal is to lessen the citizens’ need for thinking. For example, if an egregious event occurs, an Oceanian does not have to waste time choosing from an array of words to describe it; they can describe it as ungood, plusungood, or doubleplusungood. Contrastingly, those who speak standard English are burdened with a verbal variety, and each word does not hold the same meaning to each person.

In Newspeak, every word has only one definition so that there is no confusion or question. For example, “if you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not”. Aside from ridding the citizens of Oceania of confusion, the Party has an ulterior motive for implementing Newspeak. In the eyes of the Party, everything they say is good, and everything and everyone that opposes their ideals is bad. Hayakawa explains that, “under the one-party system, the two-valued orientation becomes the official national outlook”. The Party controls the people by promoting a two valued orientation of orthodoxy; if one is in the party, he must be orthodox, but if he does something unorthodox, he must be a thoughtcriminal. Newspeak is so specific in its definitions that, when completed, it will give the citizens of Oceania very little room to interpret anything the Party does as being negative. In order to ensure the loyalty of the people, the Party destroys records of the past that do not coincide with their ideals and expects the citizens to act as though the events never happened. The Party’s actions live up to one of their guiding precepts: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” As expressed by Hayakawa, “ in any literate culture of a few centuries standing, human beings accumulate vast stores of knowledge far more than any individual in that culture can read in his lifetime, let alone remember. These stores of knowledge, which are being added to constantly, are made widely available to all”. However, in 1984, records of the past are not made widely available. Instead, they are destroyed or altered. Within the Ministry of Truth, “almost minute by minute the past is brought up to date”. Winston’s job is to edit records of the past so that they concur with what the Party is currently claiming as true “currently” being the key term, for what the Party claims to be true can change at a moment’s notice. The best example of this fickleness is Oceania’s alleged war with Eurasia Or East Asia.

For instance, during the much anticipated Hate Week, Oceania is at war with Eurasia and allied with East Asia. All of the angst, hostility, and hatred imbued in Hate Week is cast upon the enemy: Eurasia. However “ after six days of this, when the great orgasm is quivering to its climax… it is announced that Oceania is not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania is at war with East Asia”. This sudden change of allegiance puts the Ministry of Truth into a frenzy because “a large part of the political literature of five years is now completely obsolete”. The Minitrue employees have to quickly rectify all past records that even hint that Oceania has ever been affiliated with East Asia, for the Party now claims that they have always been the enemy. As for the citizens who do not directly work for the Party, they absorb the change without question or hesitation. The people have become so dependant on the Party for information that they do not bother to rely on their own memory; it is much easier for them to be told what to do rather than to think independently. By disregarding their capability of common sense, the people pledge their loyalty to the Party and believe whatever the Party proclaims. In addition to creating Newspeak and altering records of the past, The Party manipulates the citizens of Oceania by portraying any sort of intimate relationship as solely a “duty to the party.” The citizens are conditioned to act impartially towards each other, for the only love they should have is love for the Party. For instance, the relationship between parents and their children is cold and unintimate; in fact, many parents fear their children. Winston’s neighbors, the Parsons, are the parents of two young children.

Winston contemplates that “with those children that wretched woman must lead a life of terror. Another year, two years, and they will be watching her night and day for symptoms of unorthodoxy”. Due to their continued exposure to Party propaganda, children are so imbued with the Party’s precepts that they often report their parents to the “thought police” if they sense even the slightest deviation from orthodoxy. Relatedly, the Party also removes intimacy from the relationship between husband and wife by referring to sexual relations as only a “duty to the Party.” All marriages have to be approved by the Party, and if the man and woman in question appear to have genuine feelings for each other, the marriage will not be allowed. The reason for this being that “the only recognized purpose of marriage is to beget children for the service of the party”. As explained by Hayakawa, “ directives about matters which society as a whole regards as essential to its own safety are made especially powerful, so that no individual in that society will fail to be impressed with a sense of obligation”. This “sense of obligation” is especially instilled in Winston’s former wife, Katharine. Winston’s marriage fit the Party’s mold perfectly, for there was no love or enjoyment in it. Before they separated, Winston dreaded having intimate relations with his wife. Katherine was no more enthusiastic, but she insisted on performing “their duty to the party”.

By promoting the sex as a “duty” rather than a pleasurable act, the Party influences citizens such as Winston to see “sexual intercourse… as a slightly disgusting minor operation”. Lastly, The Party controls the people of Oceania by utilizing pre-symbolic language. The Party imposes various slogans and propaganda among the citizens. Hayakawa states that “ it is the function of propaganda to enable people to do in cold blood things that they could otherwise do only in the heat of passion”. This is the intent of the “Two Minutes Hate;” to instill people with a deep seated anger that they would not feel otherwise. This daily program acts as catharsis for the Oceanians; The Party suppresses many of the people’s emotions and natural instincts, so, to ensure that the population is not set into a rebellious frenzy, the Party requires a daily release of emotions. In this therapeutic session, “a hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill seems to flow through the whole group like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a lunatic”.

In addition, the Two Minutes Hate doubles as propaganda for the Party; the subject of the hate is always the Party’s number one enemy, Emmanuel Goldstein. The Party blames all of the wars, famine, shortages, etc. on Goldstein and The Brotherhood, when in reality it is their own doing. Goldstein has become a figurehead for unorthodoxy, so by making people hate him, the Party is in turn advertising their orthodox teachings and making themselves more appealing to the people of Oceania. By doing this, the Party’s goal is to make all of the citizens “goodthinkful,” which means to be orthodox and incapable of having a bad thought. In order to achieve “goodthinkful-ness,” the citizens have to be capable of comprehending and relaying “duckspeak.” Duckspeak means “ to quack like a duck,” or to repeat Party propaganda without necessarily understanding it. Hayakawa explains that, “we are taught to repeat such sets of words before we can understand them”. Under the Party’s rule, “the eyeless creature with the quacking voice will never be vaporized.” That is to say, those who ignorantly and loyally repeat Party precepts are safe from harm, for they are not thinking for themselves and therefore pose no threat. The people are conditioned to believe anything that the Party states, but what about when the Party claims that something absolutely absurd is true?

Do the citizens of Oceania actually believe it? This is where “doublethink” becomes a necessity. Doublethink is the ability to know and not to know to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them”. For example, the laws of mathematics have proven for centuries that two plus two equals four. Relatedly, Hayakawa comments that of such a statement such as ‘Two plus two equals four, a two valued question may be asked. Is it or is it not consistent with the rest of our system? If we accept it, shall we be able to talk consistently without eventually contradicting ourselves?. In Oceania, the question of whether one factual statement will concur with another is irrelevant; whatever the Party says is true, is true, regardless of how absurd it may be. Under the Party, it is as though some huge force is pressing down upon you frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses the Party announces that two plus two makes five, and you have to believe it. Whether or not the citizens truly believe that two and two makes five is unknown, but it does not matter, for they concur with whatever the Party says out of fear. This fear stems from the possibility of being labelled as a “thoughtcriminal” and being punished accordingly. With such a tyrannical, ruthless government in place, it is not surprising that the Oceanians remain ignorant for their own safety. In conclusion, in his dystopian novel, 1984, George Orwell portrays how affective language is as a means of control and manipulation. In the superstate of Oceania, the ruling party, referred to as “the Party,” deploys several tactics to manipulate language as a means to control the citizens.

Firstly, the Party constructs a new language called “Newspeak.” The purpose of this new language is to narrow the citizen’s range of thought so that it is harder for them to rebel against the Party. Secondly, the Party destroys or alters all records of the past that do not coincide with their current ideals current being the key term because the Party is very fickle. The third manipulation tactic is the Party’s portrayal of intimacy as solely a “duty to the Party.” In this society, love is not the norm; husbands are impartial towards their wives and vice versa, and parents fear their children. By removing the intimacy among the citizens, the Party has ensured that all of the people’s passion will be directed towards their causes. Lastly, the Party utilizes pre-symbolic language to gain loyalty and support from the Oceanians. With programs such as the Two Minutes Hate, the Party feeds countless pieces of information to citizens, who then have to repeat it to prove their loyalty. By having the ruling party in 1984 employ these tactics, George Orwell reveals the capability of language as a means of control and manipulation.

Read more

Social Control Theory vs. Conflict Theory

The Social Bond theory was written and proposed by Travis Hirschi in 1969. Social Bond theory, that later developed into Social Control Theory, has historically been an interesting way of approaching social problems and how we in turn explain them. Before one can apply the Social Bond theory, they must first have a firm understanding […]

Read more

Other Forms Of Social Control

All societies impose social control on their citizens to some degree. This type of control allows them to monitor and regulate behavior formally and informally. Key’s to understanding a culture’s system of social control is having a better understanding of the social norms. In large scale society they maintain social control within the legal institutions.

There are also two other major controls that exist that many are unaware of. Religion is known to have control over the population, the public and the behavior of all. Whenever a person claims to be a dedicated Christian they must follow certain types of moral codes in order to uphold the personality in the public.

Television is another form of social control. This control was noted that television was blocking mostly those individuals from enjoying the life on the outside of their doors. Social control is even in our households. A person wants their household a certain type of way has somewhat of a social control.

I am under the impression that when a child is growing up they are taught wrong from right, what is good and what is bad. This however is only to prepare them for the real world.

The subconscious mind is an outstanding and powerful information processor that can record and replay events that happened in the past. However many individuals become aware of their own subconscious mind when they realize they’re engaged in an undesirable behavior only as a result of someone who has pushed the wrong buttons.

Read more

Deviance and Social Control

Reflective Summary In may own thinking, I found out that human beings are social individuals and therefore, more often than not, their behaviour raises certain critical concerns. These issues need to be handled with utmost care in order to achieve social harmony. Social harmony implies healthy relationships and to a great extent, it is essential for any productive society. However, issues of deviance are a common feature that the society has grappled with since time immemorial. In this regard, I deduced that there is a relationship between society and deviance.

Becker (1991), states that deviance is such activities or mannerisms that contravene the societal norms and customs. These norms include both formally established rules as well as informal rules that are socially respected. The formal rules are recognized on a wider scale and are usually referred to as law. They are also more elaborate and known to different communities. In addition, they are usually enforced by a governing body that has some level of authority over the rest. Hence, contravening those amounts to a crime (Anderson, 1997).

Informal norms on the other hand are recognized by specific parts of the society and are more localized. Basically, each community has its established customs that act as checks to the behaviour of its individuals. They are adhered to by the members of the specific community that has its own way of punishing the people breaking them. These norms, both formal and informal are very dynamic and contextual in nature. To this effect, they are defined by the society that an individual belongs. Hence, Eugene and Muncie (2003) explain that some actions can be perceived deviant in some communities and not deviant in others.

However, irrespective of the context, the societal customs are fundamental in enhancing social cohesion. This formed the basis of my thinking on the subject and developed an argument that deviance is socially constructed and correlates to the kind of adopted social control mechanism. In this regard, sociological theorizing has helped understand well the concept of how is deviance socially constructed and how to control it based on sociological perspective. Therefore, the identified literature and the foundation of my thoughts shall closely examine social construction of deviance and social control in line with criminological theorizing.

Social Construction of Deviance Anderson (1997) indicates that deviance is a relative component of societies that largely manifests itself through behaviour. According to him, it is a normal aspect of any social relationships and it comes about as a result of the different relationships that human beings enjoy. Behaviour is a vital element of relationships that largely contributes to the manifestation of deviance in the society. According to Eugene and Muncie (2003), it entirely influences the health of relationships because if unsound, it leads to incidences of conflict.

Conflicts, being a healthy aspect of social relationships help the manifestation of deviance to come to the fore, either as causative agents or as measures used to solve them (Downes and Rock 2003:78). Notably, deviance creates disorder in a given society by affecting in many ways the functions of the same. It is known to have an impact on the existing societal principles. However, Anderson (1997) explains that not all deviant behaviour has negative implications on the existing norms. According to him, some deviance can bring about positive change in the society and help the society adapt to modernization.

For instance, most traditional communities used to prescribe jobs depending on the sex of an individual. However, deviance to this has seen people take up any type of job and today, qualifications as opposed to sex determines which jobs different people take up. To this respect, it is notable that deviance helps individuals embrace change accordingly by adjusting the present rules to be in line with the societal expectations. Deviance forms a significant part of human behaviour and therefore seemingly, it can not be completely eliminated from the society.

The role it plays in the shaping human behaviour makes it one of the key determinants of the frequency of deviance in the society (Becker 1991:48). It should be appreciated that behaviour is a basic element of social relationships and thus deviance, through its incorporation in behaviour, is largely a component of social relationships. Deviance is a process that takes time to develop as well as manifest basically through acts of opposition (Becker, 1991: 108). As a result, it also takes the authorities’ time to address it accordingly and satisfactorily.

Time is an essential aspect of social events as it is through this that they are manifested. Arguably, deviance, being the sole event here, is a social event. Downes and Rock (2007) acknowledge that deviance is an aspect that undergoes a series of phases before it can have an impact on the given society. They explain that before it begins to develop in the mind of an individual, societies often tend to be in harmony. At this stage, individuals therein have some common knowledge and perception of the norms that govern them.

In addition, the individuals in the society at this level hold ‘their’ norms in high regard (Downes and Rock, 2007: 89). The first trigger of this process is the introduction of an external aspect from elsewhere that initiates differences with regard to perception. However, manifestations of deviance take time and therefore at this level, societal order is still maintained. The second stage is when individuals try to justify whether the aspect should be accepted or not. Usually, this stage attracts a body of knowledge and the aspect is wholly defined, as well as related to the normal life (Becker 1991: 59).

In addition, an effort is made to make the society acknowledge that knowledge is a continuous process that should be mainstreamed in the normal way of life. The next step is the internalization of the aspect. Here, the aspect is learned by the society and entrenched into its system. It is accepted by all stakeholders and institutionalized as a normal aspect of the way of life in that particular society. According to Anderson (1997), both the authorities and the locals uphold the basic elements of the aspect. At this level, social order is still enjoyed because manifestations of deviance are yet to begin.

In addition, on a larger scale, this aspect is considered as a norm upheld by the society. It should be appreciated that despite this, there exists individual perceptions that are varied and that that counter this general view. These varied views are the key aspects of deviance and with time, they manifest. The final step is when the workability of the aspect is disputed by the individuals whose initial perception was contrary to the rest. At this stage, individuals develop opposing opinions and behaviour (Downes and Rock 2007: 84).

This is the final stage of deviance and it is what leads to the disruption of the societal operations. This comes about as a result of the individuals with varied perceptions to the aspect, also referred to as moral entrepreneurs, openly manifesting their views. This then initiates change in the society after a series of consultative and informative sessions by all stakeholders. Social Control Social control as formed by the rich literature refers to the tools that are used to make human behaviour in a given society be consistent to the norms and regulations of the given society (Keel, 2008: 201).

These tools are basically acknowledged and employed by the specific society to enhance social relationships. However, according to Keel (2008), some tools are cross societal and are internationally recognized and appreciated by all cultures and societies. According to Keel (2008), I have identified two dimensions of social control mechanisms: informal and formal. Informal social controls refer to certain principles that are defined by a society and those that check the behaviour of individuals at a personal level (Anderson, 1997: 296).

According to Anderson (1997), they are usually part of a person’s personality and have proven to be more effective in controlling behaviour than the formal ones. These include aspects like religion. Religion usually prescribes some kind of behaviour that is usually socially and morally acceptable. It aims at upholding the values and virtues that are morally upright. By adhering to the propositions of religion, individuals are able to relate well and therefore achieve social cohesion. Those that do not uphold the teachings of religion are looked down upon by the entire society.

This act encourages people to act in accordance to the teachings of religion and thereby enhance socially acceptable relationships. Another most common mechanism that is widely employed across cultures to shun unacceptable behaviour is ridicule. Keel (2008) considers it a shameful act that most individuals can not bear. It is usually unlikely that a person who is ridiculed will at any time repeat the act as this has a negative impact on the guilt of a person. Customs are also often used in regulating deviant behaviour (Anderson 1997).

It is because they prescribe a standard code of conduct that should be followed by the society. Persons who break these rules face various punishments administered by the societal leaders on behalf of the entire society. For instance, in some societies, individuals whose behaviour contravenes the provisions of the customs are usually sent away, given physical punishments or asked to pay fines. Discrimination is also widely employed in regulating conduct. To this effect, most people find it difficult to associate with individuals who have socially unacceptable behaviour (Eugene and Muncie 2003:45).

This is due to the fear of picking up the same or the fear of being caught on the wrong side of the law. Increasingly, social misfits are being isolated and more often, they do not freely interact with the rest of the society. Discrimination makes such individuals feel victimized and as such, they are able to correct their behaviour accordingly (Becker 1991: 69). The society also highly criticizes unacceptable behaviour. Criticism can have a very negative impact on the personality of a person because it highly damages the confidence of a person and not so many people are usually ready to experience this (Keel, 2008).

Therefore, it is a measure that is widely employed by different societies to control the behaviour of their people. In addition, the society can directly disapprove any socially unacceptable behaviour. Persons contravening social norms can be directly forewarned by for instance parents and other relatives. This move makes the people to change accordingly and adapt behaviour that is in line with societal expectations. There are formal measures that are also adopted to check the behaviour of individuals and groups in the society. In states that value social equity, Eugene and Muncie (2003, p.

52) argue that all the individuals of the respective society are given equal chances to contribute to the establishment of the laws. These laws either directly or indirectly reward individuals whose behaviour corresponds with the societal rules and expectations. They also rebuke the kind of behaviour that is not in line with the expectations of the society. These measures are usually created by the law enforcement agencies in consultation with other major stakeholders. They are always in form of laws that are official and legal.

However, Keel (2008) points out that these laws may require a certain kind of force while enforcing them especially in instances where consultation was not done. Individuals who violate these are called criminals and are often punished according to the provisions of the laws (Eugene and Muncie: 2003: 54). Specifically, they are taken to prisons from where they face their punishment. Erich and Angus (2008) explain that the level of punishment depends on the gravity of the crime that the individuals committed. On the contrary, their counterparts are always rewarded by the body that established the rules.

Hence individuals in most instances work towards maintaining socially acceptable relationships and adhere to the rules and laws provided by the governing body. It should be appreciated that not all individuals who break the law are taken to prisons. According to Keel (2008), some are usually punished by making them pay fines to compensate for the damage caused. Further, not all individuals who commit crimes are arrested. At this juncture, it is worth noting that in many ways every individual is deviant. It is just that the level and type of deviance differs and it is this that differentiates crime from other forms of deviance.

Social deviance and social controls have different implications on deviant behaviour. By explicitly exploring the patterns of deviance in the society, Keel (2008) explains that one can be able to understand why some individuals are more deviant than others. The social controls are very important because through them one is able to indentify deviance and its root in a given society (Anderson 1997). This can certainly be achieved because the social controls aim at screening different types of behaviour. Consequently, deviant behaviour can easily be identified and regulated accordingly.

Becker (1991) state that studying the realms of deviance helps one to understand that the behaviour is recurrent. As such, we are able to come up with people friendly measures that can help regulate this conduct as well as ensure that we benefit from it. Conclusion In conclusion, as opposed to my views before the study of perceiving deviance negatively, I realise that social deviance is an aspect that should be appreciated by the society and especially those in authority because of the role it plays in the growth of the society.

In deed, without this, we could still be dwelling in the ancient eras. It is basic in highlighting aspects of change in the society and if well controlled, it should not pose any threats to the wellbeing of the same. Contrary to my knowledge that individuals who constantly experience deviance exhibit anomaly in their behaviour, is not really correct. In fact, I have discovered that social deviance is a very vital aspect of behavioural growth and it should be appreciated.

Read more

Social Control

Social Control 1 Social Control and Behavior Samantha Sipes Criminology 1017-42 1. Cesare Beccaria argued that the threat of punishment controls crime. Do other forms of social control exist? Aside from the threat of legal punishment, what else controls your behavior? In my opinion a lot of factors play a role in social control such […]

Read more

Other Forms Of Social Control

All societies impose social control on their citizens to some degree. This type of control allows them to monitor and regulate behavior formally and informally. Key’s to understanding a culture’s system of social control is having a better understanding of the social norms. In large scale society they maintain social control within the legal institutions. […]

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp