by DK
Controlling people
In his best-known work Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault highlights how, as modern society developed and people moved from countryside to towns, large communities in small urban centres soon became unruly populations. This threatened social order, and the use of physical control was ineffective.
To address the problem, 18th-century English social reformer Jeremy Bentham developed his theories on how to regulate society by controlling people’s minds, rather than their behaviour.
On screen The CCTV camera watches, but who, if anyone, is looking at the images it captures?
The Panopticon
Bentham’s most influential idea was his design for a prison he called the Panopticon (from the Greek words pan, meaning “all”, and opticon, meaning “to observe”). This is a ring-shaped prison, in the middle of which is a central watchtower. In the circular outer walls are numerous cells, each containing a prisoner. The prisoners cannot see whether or not there is a watchman inside the tower, so they never know when they are being observed. The constant uncertainty puts pressure on them to behave well at all times.
Power over the mind
Foucault sees Bentham’s prison (which was never built) as a model for understanding the power of surveillance in today’s society. The CCTV camera is the modern technological version of the Panopticon. Being under its eye creates uncertainty, and the vast majority of people react by assuming that they are permanently on camera and that someone is watching.
The more people become used to surveillance the less they tend to take notice of it. But, often unconsciously, they are still conditioned to regulate their behaviour. For Foucault, this is a good illustration of real power. It works by influencing people in ways they are not aware of. As a result, claims Foucault, people become less resistant to the effects of such power, because for much of the time they do not realize that they are being controlled.
It is now possible to buy tiny spy cameras, which are small enough to hide in a shirt button.
See also: Who holds the POWER?
Crime both horrifies us and grips our imagination. sometimes, the way offenders are caught through a tiny scrap of evidence seems more like crime fiction than fact. but Modern law enforcemenT agencies have developed some highly sophisticated investigative tools, one of which is criminal profiling.
Not just crime fiction
From Sherlock Holmes, super-sleuth of Victorian London, through to 21st-century popular television crime series, stories and films have planted the idea in our minds that by examining the nature of crimes, investigators can build up a profile of the criminal. While Holmes and television’s crime scene teams are fictional, their methods are rooted in reality.
Serial offenders
Investigators first used criminal profiling to try to catch serial offenders, picking up the behavioural clues they left at the scenes of their crimes. Law enforcement agencies are most likely to seek the help of profilers in cases that are seemingly motiveless or when few clues are left at the scene of the crime. Similarly, when high-profile cases, such as a possible kidnapping, cause public alarm, police and profilers collaborate until the suspect is found. Profiling tends not to be used for more “everyday” types of crime, such as burglary.
In pursuing criminals, law enforcement agencies use profiling techniques developed in line with a range of studies, including sociology, psychology, and criminology (the scientific study of crime). The theory behind profiling is that, whether they know it or not, all offenders are shaped by certain social and psychological factors, which criminal investigators use to construct the offender’s identity.
Creating a profile
Social structures such as gender, ethnicity, and social class are what shape people’s patterns of acting and thinking. For example, class strongly influences the type of work people do. Gender and ethnicity contribute to the way a person lives and socially interacts. The job of criminal profilers is to identify the patterns in an offender’s behaviour. Drawing on sociological and psychological thinking and methodology, profilers make a key distinction when trying to catch serial offenders: is the suspect “organized” or “disorganized”? Organized offenders tend to lead well-regulated lives, a fact reflected in the relatively ordered and planned nature of their crimes. They are often of average to high intelligence, in a professional occupation, socially adept, and possibly married or in a relationship. Generally, organized serial killers commit murder in the period following a sudden destabilizing event, such as job loss, a relationship breakdown, or the death of a loved one. Because of their social status and capabilities, these offenders are likely to use their interpersonal skills to entrap their victim.
By contrast, disorganized offenders are often opportunists and their crimes are less likely to be premeditated. Many are unemployed, unsettled, socially inadequate, and unable to maintain personal relationships. They are also more likely to offend when under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Disorganized offenders tend to live relatively close to where they commit their crimes. The lack of planning characteristic of the wider life of a disorganized offender is mirrored in the signs of spur-of-the-moment chaos found at the crime scene.
catching the “Unabomber”
Between 1969 to 1995, Theodore Kaczynski, known as the “Unabomber”, escaped detection by the US police for making and planting bombs. FBI profiler John Douglas deduced that the bomber was white, highly intelligent but underachieving, and either living alone or with someone who would not question his whereabouts. When Kaczynski was arrested in 1995, police discovered he had been a university professor who quit his career early and eventually lived as a recluse in a remote cabin in Montana, USA.
As well as having police experience, criminal profilers are usually trained in psychology and forensic science.
See also: Are we all MIDDLE CLASS now? | Why do people commit CRIMES? | HOWARD BECKER | Not FITTING in
Howard Becker was born in Chicago in the USA. After studying sociology at the University of Chicago, he moved to Northwestern University, where he became a professor of sociology. He is best known for his “labelling theory”, which questions why some types of behaviour and individuals are regarded as “deviant”, meaning outside the normal rules of society. A talented musician and jazz pianist, he is particularly interested in the role of art and artists in modern society.
the LABELLING theory
In his book The Outsiders (1963), Becker examines why certain individuals and actions come to be labelled as criminal or “deviant”. In Becker’s view, there is no such thing as “deviant” behaviour. An act only becomes deviant if powerful people in society, such as judges or politicians, label it as such. Becker argues that, as those in power tend to be from the middle or upper classes, they are more likely to give negative labels to people from a lower social class.
on the OUTSIDE
Becker was interested in the effects of labelling people as “outsiders”. He believed that people who are labelled as deviant are more likely to behave in a deviant way in the future. For example, teenagers, who live in inner-city areas ruled by gangs, might be labelled as “gang members” even though they are not. Being labelled this way for long enough, however, may increase the chances of teenagers behaving like gang members to live up to the label.
solitary ARTISTS
Becker disagreed with the view that artists – such as musicians, playwrights, and painters – work in isolation, outside “normal” society. In his book Art Worlds (1982), he points out that many specialists are needed to produce works of art. Artists rely on a wide network of people – including other artists, suppliers of materials, distributors, critics, gallery owners, and audiences – who together make up the art world.
making it CLEAR
Throughout his teaching career, Becker encouraged his students to explain their ideas in a clear and concise way. He was critical of the way some sociologists used complicated language to present their research. In his 1986 book
Writing for Social Scientists, Becker offered students and academics practical advice on writing about sociology in a readable and engaging way.
By the age of 15, Becker was working as a pianist in clubs in Chicago, where he witnessed first-hand how musicians came to be labelled as “outsiders” in society.
we usually think of health in terms of what we do with our bodies: how often we exercise, what we eat, and how much we smoke or drink. but the social group to which we belong and the degree of control we have over our lives affect our wellbeing, too.
Patterns of health
Food, drink, and exercise are definitely key parts of the health story but they do not make up the whole of it. The reasons for good or poor health are much more complex than that. The main part of the story lies with the kind of society in which we live and our place within it. If we examine health data, looking for patterns and trends, what we will find are differences between societies and between different groups of people within the same society. Typically, in countries with greater social equality people tend to enjoy better health than those in countries with less equality. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland) almost without exception have the longest life expectancies in the world, longer than in the US or the United Kingdom. We can find the reason for such differences by looking at what it is like to live in those countries. In Nordic societies, with their greater emphasis on equality, there is a spirit of co-operation and looking out for each other. In the English-speaking countries, societies put the emphasis on competitive individualism, where the winners take all and the losers take, or are offered, very little.
Health and social status
There are also differences within a society, where life expectancy and illness rates are determined by social groupings. People lower down the social scale and those who belong to ethnic minorities tend to have poorer health. It is not simply the case that some people choose, or cannot afford, to eat healthily or that they take less exercise than they should. The crucial issue is having the power and control to make life worthwhile.
Nearly everyone has choices of some kind, but we do not all have access to the same resources that allow us to decide what we want to do or be. Again, this depends on the society in which we live. If you are to be poor it is better to be poor in Norway than to be poor in Britain. Why? Because in Norway you will have more resources – not just money but also in terms of not being seen negatively, as poor people can be seen in Britain. You will therefore have enough financial security and emotional strength to lead a purposeful life.
Research into the health of people of Black-Caribbean heritage in the United States and in England provides another example of why national context matters. Although these people share a common ancestry and culture, they experience life quite differently. In England, Black-Caribbeans face more negative racist stereotyping than Black-Caribbeans in the US. The result? The health of Black-Caribbeans in England is worse than their US counterparts.
Set apart Being seen negatively because of social group or ethnic origins can have a damaging effect on someone's health.
Equality is good for health
So, while eating sensibly and taking regular exercise are important, the more fundamental influence on our health is our society. If everyone lived on equal terms, enjoying equal opportunities for shaping meaningful lives, then the overall health of our societies would improve more than if we all started jogging.
Human life expectancy varies enormously, from around 50 years in the poorer parts of the world to well over 80 years in more affluent nations.
See also: Does RACE matter? | Are we all MIDDLE CLASS now? | Not FITTING in | Super-RICH!
Problems with mental health are increasingly common in our busy, stressful world. In the UK, one in four people will have some sort of mental health problem during their life, and among 5–16 year olds, 10 per cent have a mental health issue. sociologists believe the most common mental health problems, depression and anxiety, are responses to living in our complex and demanding society.
Getting a diagnosis
British sociologist Joan Busfield has identified a number of ways in which sociology can help us understand aspects of mental illness. She believes that a wider range of behaviour has come to be considered “abnormal” when it could be an understandable reaction to life’s difficulties. She also claims that doctors often prescribe medication because they lack specific training in dealing with mental health problems.
Unlike a physical illness, such as a tumour, you cannot use an X-ray to identify problems with someone’s mental health. When someone is given a diagnosis of a mental illness by a health professional, there is a possibility that social prejudices and stereotypes around gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and class may have affected what the patient said and how that was received by the health professional. For example, someone may describe their feelings by saying “I have a pain in my heart” or “I am feeling blue” but both of these phrases are metaphors and are open to different interpretations. It can be very hard to describe emotional difficulties and the words used will vary depending on the culture and social group to which the person belongs.
The effects of inequality
What sociological research reveals is that there are a number of social causes of mental illness in society. British researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who specialize in the connections between society and health, discuss in their 2009 book The Spirit Level that mental health can be affected by income inequalities in a society. By this they mean that the greater the income inequality (the gap between the richest and the poorest in society) then the higher the level of mental illness. In societies where income is highly unequal, such as the UK and the US, there is a tendency for individuals to be over-competitive and dismissive of people who are struggling and appear not to have succeeded in life. These societies make impossible demands on people to show that they have a perfect life – one filled with the most sought-after consumer goods (such as smart phones, the right clothes, and so on), with the perfect, happy family and social life too. This can feel like a lot of pressure.
The effects of stigma
Another problem faced by people with emotional distress is stigma, US sociologist Erving Goffman in his book Stigma (1963) talks about how people work hard to maintain a front of normality, and avoid encountering negative reactions, if they have something they want to keep hidden, such as a mental illness. This requires exhaustive planning and leads to more psychological stress.
More recently, in 2014, US sociologists Bruce Link and Jo Phelan also looked at research on mental illness and stigma. What they found is that people with a mental illness are discriminated against, and the realities of mental illness are poorly understood, which affects people’s recovery. People with a mental illness may be seen as lazy, weak, or dangerous. They may be isolated from their friends and family, who are important forms of social support, and they may feel ashamed of their illness. All these negative attitudes create a false idea of what it is to be someone with a mental health issue.
Falling ill When people fall ill with depression or anxiety they can feel very isolated and sigmatized. Few people understand what having a mental illness is really like.
health warning
In his 2007 book Affluenza (a mix of the words affluence and influenza), British psychiatrist Oliver James found that the social pressure to acquire wealth is bad for mental health. He writes about Sam who is a thirty-five-year-old New York stockbroker. Sam has a designer apartment and a personal chef. But wealth does not make him happy; he leads an isolated life and finds it hard to form deep relationships.
As many as 11% of people in the US take a daily antidepressant.
Sometimes things go wrong in our society: people may behave in ways that seem to be out of step with the rest of society and be labelled deviant or a criminal. What sociology shows is that it is not always the individual who has a problem, sometimes society itself needs to change and see th
ings differently.
ANOMIE
An important concept in sociology is associated with French sociologist Émile Durkheim and his 1897 book Suicide. Anomie is the idea that some people are adrift from the rest of society or alienated from it. The way work, in particular, is organized means that individuals struggle to find meaning in what they do.
DEVIANCE
In 1895, Émile Durkheim introduced the idea of deviance to sociology. His observation was that deviance is relative and relies on context. For example, until the 1960s same-sex relationships were illegal and considered deviant in the US and UK, while some South American countries had legalized homosexuality in 1831 (Brazil) and 1887 (Argentina).
MENTAL HEALTH
As far back as the Ancient Greeks (around 480 BCE) there was an awareness of depression, which they called melancholia. In the 10th century, Persian scholar Al-Akhawayn Bukhari described a variety of mental health issues. He advocated the eating of certain foods and produced his own recipes, using plants and herbs, to help sufferers.