Exam #2
How can a functionalist perspective be applied to Erikson's discussion of witchcraft in Puritan New England? Why were Puritans uncertain about the unity of their community?
A functionalist perspective would identify people who are responsible for the perceived social problem (witches). Targeting witches would draw the puritans together in order to fight them. Puritans uncertainty about the unity of their community was a new idea brought among them. Many new things were happening at once, it became difficult. People were trying to gain their religious freedom from England, while people with different social statuses were trying to gain more power. When something uncertain arose, a scapegoat was needed to carry the blame. According to Erikson, the crime wave, witchcraft hysteria, brought on a change or challenged ongoing social norms. Identifying witches as a part of their problem gave them a sense of unity within the Puritan society. Erikson mentions that "boundaries which set the New England way apart as a special kind of ethnic threatened to become more obscure." During this time period, the Puritan community began to shift towards individualism; Erikson notes that there was a "new tendency on the part of the settlers to search inside themselves for the meaningful landmark they needed to identify the boundaries of the New England way." The puritans began to see themselves less as a community, but more as a group of individuals. This individualistic view led them to believe that crime was individual and whoever commits a crime is functionally different than those who do not commit crimes. Puritans were also uncertain of their unity because of the wary political climate that began to take shape and worry societal members; "the [political outline of the commonwealth has been subject to sudden, often violent, shifts and the people of the colony were quite uncertain about their own future." The spirit of brotherhood dropped and people became jealous and greedy of all the political changes that were occurring. Durkheim may have believed that the witchcraft hysteria occurred because social norms were breaking down and society needed a scapegoat.
How does a constructivist perspective on the opioid epidemic differ from an objectivist perspective? What would a constructivist perspective say about the opioid epidemic and the earlier crack cocaine epidemic?
An objectivist perspective would view the opioid epidemic as a widespread problem and attempt to pinpoint the direct cause of the epidemic. This focuses on why the problem exists. A constructivist approach would not deny that opioid addiction is a problem, but they would suggest that its construction as a public health problem rather than a crime problem has significantly influenced the government's response. It comes down to the ways the epidemic has been constricted, labeled, explained, and represented in the media which affects our ability to approach the issue as a society. The opioid epidemic was seen as a public health problem and the crack cocaine epidemic was seen as a crime problem. It analyzes why the epidemic was constructed as a public health issue rather than a crime issue. It focuses on how the opioid epidemic was constructed, why it is seen as a social problem, and why it is explained the way it is. They would say the difference between both epidemics is that crack cocaine was the same social problem of addiction, but it was constructed differently in both epidemics. The opioid epidemic was constructed as a health problem (it was widespread among middle class white Americans) while the crack cocaine epidemic was constructed as a crime problem (it was widespread among minorities).
Why was the fact that children were being physically abused only "discovered" in 1962? Was child abuse not a problem before then? Were there no efforts to combat child abuse before 1962?
Child abuse did exist before 1962, however, it was not seen as abuse or a social problem or properly combatted with government laws. The discipline of children by physical means was seen as appropriate and necessary, thus the few laws against physical abuse within families. By 1962, child abuse was finally recognized properly and handles by the government and authorities. In 1920, the House of Refugee Movement removed children from their corrupt families and relocated them to work houses, with prison-like conditions. They did not do this for the well-being of the children, but instead they were afraid that these children would grow up to be criminals.In 1875, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was focused on neglect and abuse from foster parents, rather than natural-born Americans from their biological parents. This often targeted immigrants and lower class communities.
What does Erikson mean when he argues that crime waves, according to Durkheim, may be useful (functional) for society?
Crime waves may be useful for society because it brings people together against a common enemy. People are drawn together with mutual values and goals to combat the evil in society. After the crime is solved, there will be a stronger bond of unity among the people, leading to strong social integration and a healthier society.
How might Durkheim explain the hysteria surrounding alleged child abuse by daycare workers?
Durkheim might explain this hysteria by suggesting that the children's parents and society joined together and unified to combat the child sexual abuse by daycare workers. They were fighting among common evil, which in turn, unified them as a community. This represents Durkheim's coming together due to the common posture of anger. The discovery of child abuse disrupted American social norms. Many families refused to look within families because it meant that the typical American family is not a "haven in a heartless world". The breakdown of social norms results in a division of society. Finding individuals to blame for the child abuse gave Americans the opportunity to fight a common enemy. Sexual abuse occurs quite often in homes, but people were afraid and wanted to look outside families, thus daycares were targeted. At the time, Americans were struggling with women's roles in society. Women wanted to pursue careers, while others said that women should be confined to homes and take care of their children at home. By blaming daycares, it proves that women should stay home with children because it was unsafe to send children to daycares. As Durkheim suggested, child abuse problems unified people together in a community to fight a stronger cause.
What does it mean to talk about "institutionalized racism" or "racism without racists?"
Institutionalized racism does not rely on current policies, but the lasting effect of past policies, such a redlining. Segregation today is in part the result of racist policies that were enacted generations ago; effects continue even though people are not racist. This type of racism is more subtle. For example, in redlining, policymakers passed laws that made it difficult for African Americans and Latinos to move out of poor neighborhoods, which leads to residential segregation. People of color and the white community do not mix or know each other because they lived so far apart. Racism without racists means that people are not necessarily racist, but they tend to easily perceive people are threats because they do not know them. It is easy to see a group of people as a threat when you do not know them. An example of this in residential segregation is that it made it easy for white people to view the crack epidemic as a lower class problem, causing policymakers to pass punitive laws. Crack cocaine quickly became associated with minorities and residents in low income neighborhoods, while opioid users were not punished because people were familiar with the white community.
How might racial residential segregation have contributed to the crack epidemic and the government's response to the high rates of crack addiction?
People of different color, race, and lower class lived in poorer, less established neighborhoods, while the white upper class community lived in newer and nicer neighborhoods. This influences the construction of the crack, portraying it as a public threat or crime problem, rather than a health problem, leading to punitive punishments with the possession of crack cocaine. Redlining made it near impossible for blacks and whites to live in the same neighborhood. Residential segregations made it easier for whites to see minorities and people of color as threats because they were so distant from these groups that they would see them as a threat. Crack cocaine was seen as a crime because it became so widespread among poorer communities, not the white community. Due to race, crack cocaine was seen as a crime and approached punitively, whereas the opioid epidemic, popular among whites, was approached therapeutically. Policymakers in the 1930s and 1940s passed laws that made it difficult for African Americans and Latinos to move out of the neighborhoods and settle into a white suburban neighborhood. These poor neighborhoods lack resources and access to basic social services, such as public transport or grocery stores. White neighborhoods received better funding in schools. Poorer neighborhoods were frequently located by power plants with toxic fumes detrimental to one's health. Neighborhoods would lack resources and access to social service, while white and professionals would ignore the problem and place the blame on bad neighborhoods.
What was the purpose of the Federal Homeowners Association and the federal mortgage policies that were passed in the 1930s during the Great Depression? What effects do these policies have?
The Federal Homeowners Association and federal mortgage policies, created by FDR, was to stimulate the economy after the declining and disastrous Great Depression. Lower-income families were able to afford houses, however banks wanted to make sure that the mortgages will be repaid. They created categories of groups of people they should hand out loans to and groups of people that were riskier to hand out loans to. Policymakers created redlining, the systematic denial of handing out loans and mortgages if a group or community were deemed at a high risk for not paying back the loans. Under-established neighborhoods were denied homeowner mortgages, resulting in neighborhoods decline in value and denied necessary services.This groups mainly consisted of lower class, minorities, and immigrants, however, low-income whites and minorities with high earnings were also labeled at risk. It became difficult for citizens to gain a financial state based on homeownership and no businesses wanted to move to areas declining in value. This essentially led to residential segregation. These policies created racial disparities between the people of color and whites that remain prevalent today. Those who were redlined continue to live in poorly established neighborhoods with less funding for schools and no near access to necessities, like grocery stores. Upper class neighborhoods paid higher property taxes which led to better funded schools and helped the neighborhood raise in value. Overall, it was difficult for redlined residents to gain a financial status and move out of those neighborhoods.
Which medical professionals "discovered" child abuse? Why this group rather than others, such as emergency room doctors of family physicians?
The field of pediatric radiology, physicians who analyze x-rays and radiology in children, was a new field emerging in the 1950s. This group discovered child abuse in children because they did not have direct contact with the victim and their families, thus making is possible to draw attention to the social problem. Family doctors felt attachment and a sense of loyalty to their patients and their families to bring up such a topic. Additionally, rules required doctors to maintain the confidentiality of patients and were not allowed to record any instance of abuse to authorities. Pediatric radiologists, on the other hand, did ont have any contact with the family, so they did not have any loyalty or legal responsibilities to the parents. ER and family doctors were afraid of breaching confidentiality by getting involved in legal cases. Since pediatric radiology was a new field, a marginalized subdiscipline with no status, claiming this social problem as a syndrome allowed them a higher status and to climb up the social ladder (conflict perspective because pediatric radiologists were motivated by group interest). By labeling child abuse as Batter-Child Syndrome, people were convinced that this field of medicine deserved praise and recognition.
Was the claim that 1.8 million children were kidnapped by strangers each year right? If not, why was it so widely believed? Were there any negative consequences to people believing that millions of children were abducted by strangers every year?
There were not 1.8 million children abducted by strangers every year. In fact, this statistic includes child runaways (about 90%) and parent custody of the child within disputes (about 100,000). The public believed these high numbers because members of government officials referenced these statistics when discussing child abduction. However, social problems claims makers expanded the child abduction problem to bring attention to the problem of runaway children and children taken by one parent in a custodial dispute. It was difficult for American families to accept that people they knew were abusing their children, leading to hysteria. This leads to people looking at the problem from outside American families, rather than insider, which focuses on the threat posed by predators and child abduction, so people can avoid problems that take place in families. The negative consequence of people believing these high numbers is that a whole generation of children were taught to fear strangers around them. Also, policymakers and the public continue to believe that the problem lies outside of American families instead of within them.
