Author: Karl Thompson

Anthony Giddens on Late Modernism – Introductory Questions

A few ‘pop’ questions to introduce students to some of Giddens’ core concepts in an easy and accessible manner…

  1. Think about Globalisation – is there a ‘political, economic and/ or social structure at the global level, or is the world just characterised by random, chaotic flows?

  2. Think of the UK government – does it try to ‘steer’ global events, does it try to control people’s lives in the UK?

  3. Are there any ‘objective’ really existing global problems that the whole of humanity are threated by?

  4. Could you live without any of the following – Money, Clock Time, Experts (scientists/ technologists)?

  5. Do you have any social media profile(s) which tells your ‘life story’ up until this point in time? If so, do you intend to carry on updating this as your life ‘profresses’?

  6. How many times a day do you ‘reflect on’ your social identitiy – how many times do you think about how you come across to other people?

  7. Two parts – a. How much time and money do you spend shopping each week? b. How much time and money do you spend on modifying your appearance?

  8. What proportion of your ‘banter’ with your friends is about having fun and what propertion is about asking moral and existential questions about the nature of existence?

Tombs and Whyte: The Cost of Health and Safety Infringements

Marxist Criminologists argue that the costs of elite crime are greater than the costs of street-crime, yet the elite are more likely to get away with their crimes. The piece of research below strongly supports this view (refs to follow!)

In the UK Safety Crime has been studied extensively by Professor Tombs, and Dr Whyte (2008). To look at just one example from recent press releases of the Health and Safety Executive: 2.2 million people work in Britain’s construction industry, making it the country’s biggest industry. It is also one of the most dangerous. In the last 25 years, over 2,800 people have died from injuries they received as a result of construction work. There were 77 fatalities last year; many more were injured or made ill.

In March 2008 the HSE reported that over one in three construction sites visited put the lives of workers at risk and operated so far below the acceptable standard that inspectors served 395 enforcement notices and stopped work on 30% of the sites. That followed the report of the HSE on over 1000 spot checks of refurbishment sites across Great Britain during February this year as part of its rolling inspection programme. Work was stopped on site immediately during approximately 300 inspections because inspectors felt there was a real possibility that life would be lost or ruined through serious injury. The inspectors were appalled at the blatant disregard for basic health and safety precautions on refurbishment sites across Great Britain. Basic safety precautions were being flouted. Last year over half of the workers who died on construction sites worked in refurbishment, and the number of deaths rose by 61 per cent.

Tombs and Whyte analyse the causes of such high rates of death and injury in the construction industry: the casualised, sub-contracted and increasingly migrant workforce; the long and complex supply chains; aggressive management; market pressures; industry norms; and problems in regulatory processes.

Weak or non-existent trade unions add to the dangers. An instructive example is a comparison between Norwegian and UK offshore oil industries. The North Sea, while an inhospitable environment, is not inherently dangerous in the sense that it necessarily produces high numbers of worker deaths and injuries. Research has shown that the improved offshore safety in Norway compared to the UK is due to rights for union representatives to stop work when they think that safety is jeopardised, as well as “the maintenance of strong offshore unions with a comprehensive network of trade union-appointed safety representatives; this is in marked contrast to the strident anti-trades unionism of the UK sector”

Tombs and Whyte also looked at the use made of powers under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify directors for health and safety failures in the management of companies. Despite the HSE’s spot checks revealing that 30% of construction sites did not meet safety standards, they were able to identify just ten directors who had been disqualified for health and safety reasons between the date when the 1986 Act took effect and the end point of their study in 2005.

Union Carbide – The Worst Industrial Accident in History

Possibly the strongest piece of case-study evidence supporting the Marxist view of crime

In December 1984, an explosion at a pesticide plant in Bhopal India, then owned by the American multi-national Union Carbide, lead to deadly gas fumes leaking into the surrounding atmosphere and toxic chemicals into the ground. That was more than 25 years, but, according to the Bhopal Medical Appeal (1), a toxic legacy still remains.  In addition to the 3000 people that died almost immediately, over the last two and a half decades, there have been a further 20,000 deaths and 120 000 cases of people suffering from health problems, including severe deformities and blindness, as a result of the toxic seepage into the surrounding area from the plant (2).

Since the disaster, survivors have been plagued with an epidemic of cancers, menstrual disorders and what one doctor described as “monstrous births” and victims of the gas attack eke out a perilous existence – 50,000 Bhopalis can’t work due to their injuries and some can’t even muster the strength to move. The lucky survivors have relatives to look after them; many survivors have no family left.

The plant had actually ceased producing pesticides by the time of the explosion, because Union Carbide had realised that there was not sufficient demand for this product in India. The apparent root cause of the accident was that the plant had not been properly maintained following the ceasing of production, although tons of toxic chemicals still remained on the site. More details of how the accident happened can be found at (1) below

It wasn’t until 1989 that Union Carbide, in a partial settlement with the Indian government, agreed to pay out some $470 million in compensation. The victims weren’t consulted in the settlement discussions, and many felt cheated by their compensation -$300-$500 – or about five years’ worth of medical expenses. Today, those who were awarded compensation are hardly better off than those who weren’t.

In 1991, the local government in Bhopal charged Warren Anderson, Union Carbide’s CEO at the time of the disaster, with manslaughter. If tried in India and convicted, he faces a maximum of ten years in prison. But neither the American nor the Indian government seem interested in disturbing him with an extradition,

The Union Carbide Corporation itself was charged with culpable homicide, a criminal charge whose penalty has no upper limit. These charges have never been resolved, as Union Carbide, like its former CEO, has refused to appear before an Indian court.

Union Carbide was bought by Dow Chemical in 2001. Dow says the legal case was resolved in 1989 when Union Carbide settled with the Indian government for 470 million dollars, and that all responsibility for the factory now rests with the government of the state of Madhya Pradesh, which now owns the site.

To this day, despite requests to appear in court from the Indian government, and despite the compensation which itself may well be regarded by some as an admittal of guilt, the company and its CEO have not faced criminal charges and the owner continues to be profitable on the stock market.

In a rather strange bizarre turn of events, following a wave of publicity around the 25 year anniversary of the Bhopaln disaster, 7 Indian executives were recently found guilty in an Indian court, however, these are not the CEO, it is 25 years too late, one is dead, and they are presently released on bail.

Analysis – so what does the ‘Bhopal-Dow chemical suggest about corporate ethics? – How harmful is this?

If we look at the raw number of deaths and injuries, this is the worst industrial accident of all time; and in terms of immediate harm and suffering to people it ranks considerably higher than September the 11th – with a death toll of roughly 3000, so in terms of sheer numbers the amount of harm is huge.

What the eight Indian employees were found guilty of, and what the CEO would also have gone on trial for,  is neglect – neglecting to adequately maintain the factory once it was not profitable – and it was this neglect that lead to the explosion that caused the 20 000 deaths and 120 000 illnesses. So the company is directly responsible for immense human suffering because of this neglect.

In addition, Union Carbide also remains liable for the environmental devastation its operations have caused. The contamination that Union Carbide left behind continues to spread. Barrels of toxic chemicals still lie open, and people are still forced to drink poisoned water.

What makes this case worse is the actions of the company after the tragedy, which clearly suggest that the profitability of the company always came before the well being of the individuals harmed – the derisory settlement out of court in 1989 suggesting it was liable, without consulting the victims could be regarded as an effort to put an end to the affair – especially as the company is quoted as having said this is the case.

Then there is the fact that the CEO simply went missing for years afterwards and has failed to stand up for criminal trial.

On final analysis, however, the real problem here is the pursuit of the bottom line – it was increased profit that sent the company to India and it is wishing to avoid compensation for the victims – because they can get away with it in India. This is a classic case of a powerful company shafting the powerless, and it continues to this day.

As a brief aside, However, it is important to note that the company did not set out to kill 20 000 people and one can reasonably assume that Union Carbide did not actually want this to happen. Also, it might be argued that, in terms of motive, Union Carbide are not in the same league as mining companies or damn building companies or even Oil companies who displace people from their land without taking steps to compensate those displaced peoples adequately. One couldn’t have reasonably foretold that this would happen.

(1)  http://bhopal.org/index.php?id=22

(2)  See tropic of cancer…

(3)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ehFcv4ywvA&feature=related – follow the ‘short documentary’ series rather than the other documentary series

(4)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8725140.stm

 

So I feel sympathy for the victims of Bhopal and (maybe?) cold, bitter hatred for Dow Chemicals – but what can I do?

Quite a lot for this one! – here are some ideas…..

Firstly, you can make a donation to the Bhopal Medical Appeal –  https://www.committedgiving.uk.net/bhopal/public/donor.aspx

Secondly, if you know where your nearest Dow offices are, or if you happen to find out when the next event will be that ‘Dow chemicals’ will be sponsoring or appearing at you might like to try something like this  http://www.youtube.com/BhopalMedicalAppeal (and check out the 12 year old – whose made me question my belief to never have children – because if they turn out like him, perhaps reproducing would be worthwhile after all)

Thirdly, you could watch this film and get inspired- http://theyesmenfixtheworld.com/ – which is about two anti-corporate media activists who stick it to immoral corporations with a sense of humour.  This part of their web site http://challenge.theyesmen.org/ gives you some ideas of how you can hold Corporations to account and undermine their power.

Evaluating Marxist Theories of Crime Part 2 – Kweku Adoboli

In 2013 Kweku Adeboli was jailed for 7 years for committing the biggest White Collar fraud in UK history. This case study can be used to selectively criticise aspects of the Marxist theory of crime. 

A City trader recklessly gambled with illicit trades to boost his bonus, and ran up potential losses of more than £7bn at one point, a sum big enough to sink his employer, the global bank UBS, a court has heard.

Kweku Adoboli, a trusted and experienced member of UBS’s exchange traded fund (ETF) desk in London, risked ever-greater sums in an attempt to conceal his losses over two and a half years before he was caught in September 2011, Southwark crown court was told.

Sasha Wass QC, prosecuting, said “Mr Adoboli’s motive was to increase his bonus, his status, his job prospects and his ego. Like most gamblers he believed he had the magic touch. Like most gamblers, when he lost, he caused chaos and disaster to himself and all of those around him.”

The total losses to UBS were eventually calculated at $2.3bn, or just over £1.4bn. Wass told the jury: “This colossal loss rose purely as a result of Mr Adoboli’s fraudulent deal making, which amounted to naked gambling.” However, she added, at one point the scale of Adoboli’s liabilities to the bank through vast trades, reached almost $12bn which risked the very existence of the bank itself.

Adoboli racked up the giant losses undetected through three means. First, he often exceeded the official daily trading limit per employee of $100m. He also failed to hedge trades by making balancing trades to mitigate potential losses, an insurance method that also caps potential profits. Finally, he falsified data so as not to record his trades properly, often inventing false clients and trades for hedges.

But on 14 September, under intense scrutiny and aware a number of trades were “about to hit the buffers”, Adoboli panicked and walked out of the UBS office, saying he had to see a doctor. Using his home email account he sent his bosses a message which, Wass argued, admitted his guilt.

In the email, read to the court, Adoboli said he had tried to suppress losses from “off book” trades, a number of which were, he warned, still “live”. It continued: “I have now left the office for the sake of discretion. I will need to come back in to discuss the positions and explain face to face but for reasons that are obvious I did not think it was wise to stay on the desk this afternoon.”

Adoboli, a former public schoolboy, denies four counts of fraud and false accounting between October 2008 and September 2011.Adoboli became a trader in December 2005, was promoted to associate director in March 2008 and then director in March 2010. His salary rose dramatically as his career progressed. In 2007 he earned £40,000 and a bonus of £55,000; in 2008 he earned £50,000 and a bonus of £15,000. Then in 2009 he earned £100,000 with a £95,000 bonus; and in 2010 his salary was £100 000 and bonus £200 000

What aspects of the Marxist theory of crime does this support or criticise?

Evaluating the Marxist Perspective on Crime (part 1)

All of the material below takes you to evidence that broadly supports two ideas held by Marxists about Crime – you could also use the examples from the ‘data response exercise – no.2 above.

 Are the crimes of the capitalist class more costly than street crime?

To what extent is Capitalism Crimogenic?

The theory of crimogenic capitalism suggests that Capitalism encourages selfishness, materialism and non-caring attitudes, it breeds a dog-eat-dog society. The link below takes you to an example of some of the worst cases of Corporate harms. To what extent do you think Capitalism breeds crime in society?

Is law enforcement selective?

There are quite a few case studies of members of the elite classes seemingly getting away with crime. NB All of the material below is also backs up the Marxist idea that all classes commit crime (part of point 2).

Marxist Theories of Crime – A Summary

Covering crimogenic capitalism, selective law enforcement and the ideological functions of crime control

Marxists argue that capitalism is crimogenic, and that all classes commit crime but the crimes of the elite do more harm. They also argue that law enforcement is selective, working in favour of elites and that crime control and punishment perform ideological functions.

NB this post has been written primarily for students of A-level sociology studying for the second year exam in crime and deviance with theory and methods.

Introduction/ The basics

  • Traditional Marxist theories explain crime in relation to power inequalities created by the capitalist system
  • The inequalities and injustices within Capitalism generate crime.
  • Class based analysis – both classes commit crime, the crimes of the elite are more harmful
  • The Bourgeoisie h- have economic power and because of this control the criminal justice system – they defined their own harmful acts as legal and are less likely to be prosecuted for the crimes they commit.
  • Historical Period (for Marxist Criminology) The 1970s

Crimogenic Capitalism

  • Crime is a consequence of the economic structure of capitalism
  • Capitalism is harsh, exploitative and breeds inequality, materialism and selfishness, which combined make crime in Capitalist societies inevitable. See David Gordon’s work on the ‘Dog eat Dog’ society
  • The Elite Make the Law in Their Own Interests
  • William Chambliss: At the heart of the capitalist system lies the protection of private property
  • Laureen Snider – Many nation states are reluctant to pass laws which restrict the freedom of Transnational Corporations to make profit
  • There is unequal access to the law – the more money you have, the better lawyer you can get
  • Harmful and exploitative acts in capitalist systems are not formally labelled criminal if these harmful activities make a profit – e.g. Colonialism/ Numerous Wars/ Pollution.

All Classes Commit Crime and the Crimes of the Powerful are of particular interest to Marxist Criminologists

  • White Collar Crime = Individual middle class/ elite crime within a company , Corporate = Institutional crime
  • Typical e.g’s include various types of fraud and negligence regarded health and safety at work.
  • The economic costs of Corporate Crime are greater than street crime (Laureen Snider/ Corporate Watch.
  • High profile Corporate Crimes = Bernie Madhoff, the Enron $100bn fraud and the 20 000 dead people as a result of Union Carbide’s corporate negligence in Bhopal, India.
  • Despite being more costly to society, the crimes of the elite tend to go unpunished – As research by Tombs and Whyte suggests

The ideological functions of selective law enforcement

According to Gordon ‘selective law enforcement’ benefits the Capitalist system in three major ways:

  • we ignore the failings of the system that lead to the conditions of inequality which generate crime.
  • The imprisonment of selected members of the lower classes neutralises opposition to the system.
  • sweeps out of sight the ‘worst jetsam of Capitalist society’ such that we cannot see it.

Positive Evaluations of Marxist Theories of Crime

  • Dog eat Dog explains both WC and Elite crime
  • TTIP is good supporting evidence for point 2not lone individuals
  • Lots of case studies and stats support the view that Corporate Crimes are harmful – Bhopal!
  • Tombs and Whyte’s research – strongly supports point 3

Criticisms of Marxist Theories of Crime

  • X – Crime has been decreasing in the UK in the last 20 years, yet we’re increasingly ‘neoliberal’
  • X – Crime existed before Capitalism and in Communist societies
  • X – Consensus theories argue most people today have private property, so most people are protected by the law
  • X – It’s unfair to compare corporate crime such as Fraud to street crime, the later has a more emotional toll.
  • X – Some Corporate Crminals are punished (e.g. Madhoff)

Signposting and Related Posts

These are brief revision notes for A-level sociology, written with the AQA sociology A level paper 2: crime and deviance with theory and methods (7192/3) in mind.

If you need to read over this topic in more depth then check out this long form version of the Marxist Theory of Crime here

Subcultural Theories of Deviance – Useful Resources

Useful Sources for learning about Subcultural Theory

In addition to your text book and main in-class hand-out, the following resources are especially useful:

 

Research studies and case studies to evaluate the relevance of Subcultural Theories of Deviance

To my mind – it’s worth focussing on two things to evaluate subcultural theories (I) are subcultures really set apart from the rest of society like subcultural theorists suggest and (II) does membership of subcultures encourage deviance as much as the above theories suggest?

  1. This Official Report by the Home Office suggests there are 4500 gang members in London.
  2. GangsLine argues that there are 15 000 gang members in London and 35 000 across the UK.
  3. There has also been a recent 23% increase in gang related crime in London – suggesting support for the continued relevance of Subcultural Theory.
  4. There are numerous documentaries which suggests gangs globally form distinct subcultures which encourage deviance.
  5. However, back to the UK – This (2016) in-depth ethnographic research in Glasgow suggests that gangs are more fluid and not as violent as you might think (it also criticises David Cameron’s view that the London Riots were mainly caused by gangs.)
  6. This (2015) documentary on Football Hooliganism shows that most hooligans have full-time jobs, and so this isn’t a subculture because it’s embedded in mainstream society.
  7. Documentaries such as Benefits Street suggest that there is a distinct underclass which is more criminal than mainstream society, but…
  8. This research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests the Underclass doesn’t actually exist!

Subcultural Theories of Crime – A Summary

Introduction/ The basics

  • Subcultural Theory explains deviance in terms of a deviant group, split apart from the rest of the society which encourages deviance

  • Historical Period: The 1940s- 60S, Underclass Theory – 1980s

Albert Cohen: Status Frustration

  • working class boys try to gain status within school and fail, thus suffer status frustration

  • Some such boys find each-other and form a subculture

  • status is gained within the subculture by breaking mainstream rules.

Cloward and Ohlin: Illegitimate Opportunity Structure (IOS)

  • A combination of strain theory and subcultural theory

  • The type of subculture an individual joins depends on existing subcultures (which form an IOS)

  • There are three types of subculture: Criminal (working class areas/ organised petit crime), Conflict (less table populations), and Retreatist (e.g. drug subcultures) which C and O saw as being formed by people who lacked the skills to join the former two).

Walter Miller: Focal Concerns

  • Saw the lower working class as a subculture with its own set of unique values

  • Working class culture emphasised six focal concerns (or core values) which encouraged criminal behaviour amongst working class youth.

  • Three examples of these focal concerns where toughness (physical prowess), excitement (risk-taking) and smartness (being street-smart)

Charles Murray: Underclass Theory

By the 1980s an Underclass had emerged in Britain.

  • Key features = long term unemployment, high rates of teen pregnancies and single parent households

  • Means children are not socialised into mainstream norms and values and have become NEETS

  • The underclass is 20 times more criminal than the rest of society.

Overall Evaluations of Subcultural Theories of Crime

Positive Negative
  • Unlike Bonds of Attachment Theory recognises that much crime is done in groups, not lone individuals
  • Unlike Functionalism does not see crime as functional.
X – Contemporary research shows gang (subculture) membership is more fluid than the above research stuggests

X – Recent research shows that the underclass doesn’t really exist and working class culture is more complex

X – There is a much wider variety of subcultures today

X – Ignores the role of agents of social control labelling in subculture formation

X – Underclass Theory is ideological – based on moral panics

X – Marxism: ignores the crimes of the elite.

Consensus Theories of Crime -Functionalist and Strain Theories: Summary Version

Introduction/ The basics

  • Consensus Theory – Social Institutions generally work, social control is good, crime is dysfunctional (bad)
  • Closely related to Subcultural Theories
  • 1890 -1940s

Durkheim’s Functionalist Theory

  • Crime is natural and inevitable, society needs crime.
  • There are three positive functions of crime – social integration/ social regulation/ social change

Hirschi’s Social Control/ Bonds of Attachment Theory

  • Crime is most common amongst individuals who are detached from society
  • Four types of attachment – Commitment, Involvement, Attachment, Belief
  • Correlation between truancy, single parent households, unemployment and crime

Merton’s Strain Theory

  • There is a strain between society’s cultural value system (valuing money) and the social structure which fails to provide opportunities for everyone to achieve these goals legitimately.
  • In times of strain, there are five adaptations
  • Three of these are deviant – innovation, retreatism and rebellion.

Institutional Anomie Theory (IAT)

  • Merton’s Strain Theory on steroids.
  • The cultural value system of achieving monetary success has now the core value taught in every institution – The media, and education especially.

Overall Evaluations of Functionalist and Strain Theories of Crime

Positive Negative
  • Generally – recognise the relationship between social structure and crime
  • Durkheim – Crime does exist in every society
  • Durkheim – Recognises that a crime-free society is an unrealistic goal
  • Hirschi – Official Statistics support
  • Merton – Explains different types of deviance
  • IAT – Recognises recent social changes
X –Can’t explain hidden crimes such as Domestic Violence

X – Durkhiem – Fails to ask ‘Functional for whom’ – ignores victims (Left Realism)

X – Can’t explain elite crimes, elites are attached (Marxism)

X – Ignores Power and Labelling, doesn’t recognise that crime stats are socially constructed and elite crimes happen but generally aren’t recorded. (Interactionism)

X – Can’t explain recent decrease in crime.

Functionalism and Strain Theory – Useful Resources

In addition to your text book and main in-class hand-out, the following resources are especially useful for enhancing your knowledge and understanding of Functionalism and Strain Theory, and for evaluating these theories of crime and deviance. 

Easy research studies and case studies to evaluate the relevance of Functionalism and Strain Theory

Read through/ watch the articles and case studies below – consider the extent to which they either support or criticise the above theories.

  1. September 11th brought us together – but was it unity? – Seems to support Functionalism
  2. London Riots – Hundreds answer the appeal to clean up the streets – Seems to support Functionalism
  3. Stoned Moms – A Vice documentary about the legalisation of Cannabis in Colorado – You could use to criticise Durkheim’s idea that ‘deviance is the morality of the future’ – is this really positive? (of course you might think it is!)
  4. The idea of the American Dream has changed greatly (Young Turks Video) – Criticises Merton’s Strain Theory

How to evaluate the above theories (thoroughly!)

The above examples are just the ones KT thinks are especially applicable to Functionalism and Strain Theory, to further evaluate these theories you need to consider the following:

  1. Supporting Evidence: Crimes this theory can explain – Is there any statistical evidence or case study* evidence which supports this theory?
  2. Criticising evidence: Crimes this theory cannot explain – Is there any statistical evidence or case study evidence which criticises this theory?
  3. Evaluate using other perspectives – What does the theory under investigation ignore according to….
  • Consensus theories
  • Marxism
  • Feminism
  • Interactionism
  • Postmodernism
  • Realist Criminology
  1. Historical evaluation – Has society changed so much that the theory is just no longer relevant?
  2. Evaluate in terms of ideology/ power – Is the theory biased, does it serve the powerful?

Types of crime and evidence you could apply to each perspective when evaluating!

Types of Crime to consider

  • Serious Violent Crime, Terrorism, Anti-Social Behaviour
  • Burglary, Theft, Fraud, Drug possession
  • Hidden crimes: DV, elite crimes
  • Global crimes: cybercrime/ state crime/ green crime
 Evidence to consider

  • Official Stats: Police Recorded Crime / CSEW
  • Specific sociological research studies – e.g. Venkatesh.
  • Any case studies

For example, if you apply hidden crimes like Domestic Violence and Fraud to Functionalism, their existence criticises this theory – if people aren’t being punished for these crimes (which they generally aren’t) then they can’t be performing positive functions!