A short piece about representations of non-church based spiritualities, focused on Druidic beliefs but could easily be applied to any form of new spirituality.
It has been uploaded mostly as somewhere to keep the work safe and has little to do with the usual subject matter on this blog, but if you are a student, and find something useful in my waffling, then you're welcome to use it as a guide.
**************************************
This essay will examine the cultural and historical context that has paved the way for the re-emergence of pagan beliefs in the UK, focusing on the growing popularity of Druidry. Firstly, this essay will focus on the mass media and its interpretation of druidic spirituality. This is essential to fully understand the way in which representations of pagan beliefs have been shaped in both the journalistic areas of the mass media and how pagan beliefs are presented to a cinematic audience. Next this essay will look at arguments from academic sources explaining druidic beliefs and the cultural influences that have encouraged a resurgence in this form of spirituality. To do this the essay will look at the representations of Druid beliefs in academic literature, their practises, and the way that their rituals are conducted in order for Druids to feel a connection to the natural world they inhabit alongside the historical context which has aided the growth in popularity of nature religions like Druidry. Finally, the focus will be turned onto Druid representations of themselves in publications, such as blogs and books. This will allow for a greater understanding of how those practising Druidry see their rituals, ceremonies and place within the natural and social world, revealing their reasoning behind their choice to become druids.
The media often react negatively to pagan beliefs through fear of the erosion of established faiths, and often point to pagan practises as being dangerous to communities, individuals or societies values. Recently Druidism has become a registered charity within the UK, with this it is now recognised as an official religion and the rights of those practising the religion are now protected by law. An article on the Mail Online written by Melanie Philips explores concerns about what this recognition of Druidry means to the UK. Within this article she writes that this is an “attack upon the very concept of religion itself” (Philips, 2010). She describes the belief system as having no religious substance as “none of these beliefs involves a 'supreme' being that exists beyond the earth and universe”. Within this article the Druids, and Druidry itself, are mocked as being an irrelevant religion from a long forgotten past, and something that attracts eccentrics, referring to Druids as belonging to a cult. The article reacts negatively towards practitioners who work within the armed forces or police forces seemingly questioning their ability to perform their duties adequately, because they do not adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian belief structure of the UK. The article echoes fears within the country of a devaluation of traditional values held within society and accuses Druids of being “tied up with both Communism and Fascism” (Philips, 2010). This can be seen as a reaction to the increased secularisation of the UK and fears portrayed in the media of a society growing more dangerous without a strong dogmatic belief system to help morally guide individuals actions on a day to day basis. This fear of the growing belief in pagan spiritualities and Druidry is not limited to the print media, cinema has also echoed these concerns. The Wicker Man, filmed in 1973, can be seen as “a warning against the dangers of reviving paganism in a modern context” (Hutton, 2007; 121). The villains of this film are the pagan inhabitants of an island. In the climax of the film the hero suffers at the hands of these pagans by being burnt alive in an effigy associated with Druid sacrificial rituals. This can be seen as echoing fears within society of Druids being dangerous and unstable individuals who partake in ritualistic behaviours and sacrifices. This is an excellent example of the portrayal of druids within the media and the sensationalism that can accompany it, as Hutton writes “when presenting Iron Age Britain to an audience, to bring in some evil Druids is a sure way of spicing up the material and one which is, arguably, justified by the evidence” (Hutton, 2007; 207). The evidence Hutton is using as an example to justify the media’s portrayal of Druids is based upon historical records and archaeological data, this information provides a basis for the representation of druids in contemporary society and influences the extent that the media stereotypes practises, rituals, and those who hold druidic beliefs. This essay will now examine the representations of Druidry amongst practitioners.
Within the modern UK there has been a successful revival of older pagan belief systems that pre-dated Christianity in Britain. This rise in pagan beliefs has drawn a significant amount of attention from academics studying religion within society. When discussing the creation of a Nemeton, a shrine used by Druids, at a festival for pagans Pike states that “the nemeton is a collective creation that brings together festival goers with mushrooms and moss, reminding them of the fluid boundaries between human and nature” (Pike, 2001; 64). Harvey notes that “people who join Druid groups want to understand the way the world works, how it came to be as it is, how it might be possible to prevent ecological disaster” (Harvey, 1997; 30). Both of these statements suggest that the rise of Druid beliefs and practises can be seen as being linked to a rise in the societal assumption of personal responsibility over the impact of an individual on their local ecology and the environment of the world as a whole, and as a romanticised desire to feel part of the natural world that has been largely forgotten in industrial and post-industrial societies. This connection with the natural world is encouraged by those within Druidic groups, as Crowley states “pilgrimages to sacred sites and spending time outside communing with Nature are encouraged as a way of contacting the spirit of the land and learning to live in harmony with it” (Crowley, 1994; 71). This suggests that to modern druids the world around them needs to be connected with, allowing them to feel a part of the natural order of things. In addition to this connection to the natural world Harvey suggests an openness to promote the individuality of those participating in the Druidic belief system, suggesting that believers find their own meaning in the world around them without a guiding doctrine. Harvey expands upon this by noting that although Druid groups use the same materials to guide their beliefs they “express their understandings in different ways” (Harvey, 1997; 31), they can do this through ceremonies, political activism or through teachings and passing on knowledge to others. This view is echoed by Crowley who writes that “some teach a wide curriculum of esoteric lore. Others encourage the development of spiritual understanding through the creative arts such as music and poetry.” This suggests that alongside the connection to nature Druid orders place a strong emphasis on the individual's personal spiritual journey, and the development of their spiritual self can be seen as an extension of the wider cultural emphasis within society that emphasises the autonomous individual as something akin to being sacred. Academics have argued that the rise of Druidic beliefs in the UK has been linked to the emergence of the importance of the individual in society and as a reaction to environmental concerns commonplace in modern society, the following paragraph will explore these themes through the representations of druidry by the practitioners of the druidic belief system.
Writing about the practise of ceremonial activities in the outdoors, Pauline and Don Campanelli write that “As the sacred nights of the sabbat approach, we are drawn to our rituals out of doors, whenever possible, just so that we can be affected by the elements... While others bow and kneel in temples and cathedrals, insulated from the elements, we who follow the Old Ways choose to worship in green forests or at the ocean's edge” “Campanelli, Campanelli cited in Pike, 2001; 49). They, when writing this, overtly wish distinguish themselves from the practise of worshipping a singular omnipotent god, by mentioning that they are choosing to connect with their beliefs through the practise of 'out of doors' rituals in order to feel closer to the natural world. They are distinguishing themselves from the more mainstream religions that hold only certain places of worship as scared, by stating that they can worship and practise religion in any area, that nature to them is sacred. This sacrilisation of nature is a common theme amongst the assumptions of modern day society with secular groups and movements, such as Greenpeace, leading the fight against the destruction of our natural world making Druidry an attractive spirituality in modern Britain. Practitioners of Druidry often see their spirituality as being a lived spirituality, they see little need for written words or codes of practise telling them that they need to perform a ritual in a specific way, it for them is about the journey of learning and gaining a deeper understanding of their religion through their practises. Cat Treadwell, a practising Druid, comments on this, she writes that some new to the faith “want the books to give them answers, which they can learn and parrot back without true understanding” (Treadwell, 2012). This suggests that the journey for practitioners is more important than the right or wrong way to perform rituals, or to express their spirituality when worshipping. To achieve true understanding of what it is to be a Druid you have to learn through your experiences that lead you to the practise that best suits your needs at the time or the social context that you inhabit. This emphasis on the lived experience as a journey though your spirituality is culturally, within the context of a modern UK, compatible with the assumption of individual autonomy promoted through the values held within modern society.
The response of the media to the rise of pagan beliefs in the UK highlights a large basis of fear and misunderstanding of modern Druidry, with those who practise this belief being labelled as dangerous, eccentric, or somehow incapable of providing a meaningful contribution to wider society. The cinema represents Druids as savage, backwards, people who conduct ritualistic human sacrifices, labelling druids and pagans as a product of a uncivilised historical era, culminating in a fear of a return to pagan beliefs and the brutality associated, historically, with these misunderstood beliefs. Journalists in the media, choose to differentiate those who belief in traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs from those who have chosen to belief in Druidry. Their beliefs have been attacked as being of no value without having a single monotheistic god, promoting the belief that they lack morality without having a doctrine to guide their believers decisions. In contrast to this, both the representations of pagan beliefs by Druids and academics show a concern with the natural world around them. They highlight a belief in the responsibility of the self in protecting and ensuring the environment and natural world is undamaged by human lives, this response highlights the growing concern with the natural world by the wider society. Far from being of no value to anyone in contemporary society, it shows that the beliefs of Druids hold greater value, when compared to the beliefs of the secular masses, than the more 'traditional' belief systems. These representations offer an answer to why Druidry and nature religions are growing in popularity in the UK, and in the USA, as a response to the damage climate change is causing on the earth, and the need to learn an embrace the natural world around the individual. Within both of these representations of Druidry, there is a strong emphasis on the person, and their personal journey through their spirituality. The individual is encourage to learn from their exploration of rituals and worship, and to shape their own understandings of the beliefs to fit their own needs and the social world they inhabit. Academics have noted that the roles of Druids vary based on their interpretations of the beliefs, they may choose to pass on knowledge to others, help guide decisions of those who seek their wisdom, or be largely politicised in their day to day lives. This variation in what paths those who practise Druidry take can often interpreted as a response to the societal assumption of the individual as being sacred and the emphasis placed on individual autonomy in wider society. Both academics and practitioners, therefore, offer the most complete argument to explain the rise in the numbers of people adopting the Druidic spirituality, and the wider cultural causes that have led individuals to see it as an attractive alternative to controlling traditional forms of religion.
References
Crowley, V. (1994) Phoenix From the Flame: Pagan Spirituality in the Western World, London: The Aquarian Press
Harvey, G. (1997) Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism, London: C. Hurst & Co
Hutton, R. (2007) The Druids, London: Hambledon Continuum
Philips, M (2010) Druids as an official religion? Stones of Praise here we come, Mail Online. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1317490/Druids-official-religion-Stones-Praise-come.html [accessed 7th December 2012]
Pike, S. M. (2001) Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community, London: University of California Press
Treadwell, C. (2012) Life – a Tale Told, The Catbox. Available at: http://druidcat.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/life-a-tale-told/ [accessed 7th December 2012]
14 January 2016
Renewing Trident Should Not Be A Decision Made By Parliamentarians... Or The Labour Party Either
With the upcoming referendum on Britain's EU membership and the success of Scotland's referendum on independence I would argue that Britain, in its entirety, has and will continue to show a willingness to engage in the big political questions. We have shown that, as a nation, we have the desire to directly participate in questions that have massive implications on the country in which we reside and its future.
That is why the renewal of Trident, the means by which Britain's political class can commit war crimes through nuclear weapons should they desire, is also an ideal candidate for a referendum and should be decide through directly democratic methods. It is not something which can be taken lightly, or indeed something we can allow only those who may or may not have vested interests in seeing it renewed to decide upon.
Critics of the position I am taking on this could argue that by voting in the general election you have provided your support for the governing party, or supporters of the renewal of Trident on either side of the divide, to make that choice for you. They would argue that we live in a representative democracy and have chosen these people to represent our views. That if we do not like a policy they pass we can always vote them out of power next time around. Unfortunately this is a gross over-simplification at best. At worst it can be a justification of the Plutocracy in which we are currently subjected to.
Trident is an issue of national importance, however, with the exception of the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, no one during the election wanted to make the renewal of Trident a central issue. This included the media who wished to focus their attention on the two issues that formed their ideal narrative, the aforementioned EU membership and the economy. Deliberately making the arguments against the renewal of Trident, outside of the voters of the three main anti-nuclear parties, go largely unnoticed. Thus, many voters in the general election could have supported a pro-renewal party despite having little or no knowledge of the parties stance on nuclear weapons.
It is of the utmost importance that issues of this magnitude, with serious implications on the countries finances and moral positioning, should be decided by the people. With clear and precise presentation of the facts laid bare before the nation to decide upon.
An article I was reading earlier on the Guardian website alluded to the importance of this issue as a peoples decision and the need to engage people directly in democratic decision processes making more frequently. The Guardian quoted Jeremy Corbyn as saying "my whole election programme was based on the need for ordinary people to be able to participate much more in politics so that leaders don't go away and write policy, that executive groups don't go off and decide what the policy is, that ordinary people do. There is brilliance in everybody who has got some ideas. That is the whole basis. That is why I think our party membership has got so much bigger, because people are enthused by the idea that they can participate."
Whilst this would be a positive move from the leader of the Labour Party, who realises that a matter of this importance requires more than the self-serving career politicians that infest parliament to decide upon, it does not meet the requirements of the nation. He is arguing for the party membership to decide upon the Labour Parties continued support for the renewal of Trident, which in his current position could be argued is the limit of his ability to have an effect what is to come.
There remains the fact that he, the opposition parties, and anyone who believes in maintaining a suggestion of democracy room to breathe in Britain, before the life is completely choked from it by the Conservative Party, could do more. Collectively they must pressure the Government, along with the people, to put it to a national referendum in order to allow the people to decide, for themselves, whether they care more about the potential to end lives, expensively, for the gain of the few at the top than alleviating issues blighting those that the bottom.
Regardless of how the upcoming vote in parliament goes and how many of them support its renewal.
08 January 2016
Important Lesson From The Past: Moral Panics And The Mass Media
I don't know how many people see the constant narrative about the threat posed by young Islamic fundamentalists in the media in the same way as I do, hyperbole, but I do feel that people should be more educated on the techniques many of the less reputable news sources employ in order to sway public opinion in a direction that fits their ideology.
Rather than write something new on the subject, here is an early essay, one which I suspect was more about getting people up to speed than anything else, from my degree studies which highlights some important issues I have with much of the media and its current spotlight on 'radical Islam'. Most, if not all' of what is written below in the essay can easily be observed in the everyday narrative of politicians, the media, and the audience, with regards to this new threat from Islamists.
****************************************************************
The aim of this essay will be to outline and explain what a moral panic is and how it goes from the early incidents that get picked up by the media and its transformation into a national issue. The essay will focus on how the moral panics in the mass media help us make sense of the role that the media plays in the wider society, I will do this by making reference to studies conducted into moral panics and by analysing the effects they had on the society at the time.
A ‘moral panic’ is the creation of a deep concern around a group or practise in the media; this is usually something that has been blown out of proportion by the media after one or two incidents having happened. The term ‘moral panic’ is used to describe the reaction to a particular subculture or group in society by the media; these panics amplify the generally small scale problems that these groups cause. Jenkins as cited in Macionis and Plummer states that “although there is often massive concern over serial killers, they are in fact very rare indeed, and serial killings have remained at roughly the same low rate for 100 years.” (Jenkins cited in Macionis, Plummer: pp. 777) This amplification of the incidents leads to the creation of these groups as ‘folk devils’. These moral panics focus upon groups, or individuals, that are perceived to be against the traditional norms of the society, and serve to amplify the hysteria surrounding them further in the media narrative. The media play the most important role in creating the ‘moral panic’ in this way, by taking the initial small incidents, sensationalising the stories surrounding them, and creating these ‘folk devils’.
In the book ‘folk devils and moral panics’ Cohen observed that societies sometimes undergo periods of time where they are subjected to an increase in moral panics, these can often be brought upon by fears that something is beginning to become a threat to the traditional values of that society. He states that these moral panics are often “associated with the emergence of various forms of youth culture (originally almost exclusively working class, but often recently middle class or student based) whose behaviour is deviant or delinquent.” (Cohen: 9). This study was conducted in the 60’s and was concerned with the media portrayal of a series of events that occurred, over a small number of bank holiday weekends, in some seaside towns around England between two youth subcultures. The study looked at the way that the media was sensationalising the stories and reports of violence between the Mods and the Rockers, in it Cohen explains why the media choose to pick up and distort events in a way that creates a moral panic. Cohen claims that an important measurement to understand how a society (both the public and those in power positions) would react to deviant behaviour is the way in which the information is received about the deviancy taking place. He means by this that differing societies will react to a phenomena in different ways due to the way that each individual will receive that information, Cohen states that in our industrial society the information we receive has usually already been processed by a third party, such as the mass media in the form of newspaper reporters or journalists. This means that the news has been bent and shaped by those individuals or organisations to fit what they define as being ‘news’, this would often lead to the misreporting of the incidents and would shape the public’s opinion in a distorted manner. Erikson states “a considerable portion of what we call “news” is devoted to reports about deviant behaviour and its consequences” (Erikson cited in Cohen, 17). The emphasis on what is considered to be deviant forms of behaviour being reported in the news tells us that society uses the media to reinforce the norms that the society values as being important to the everyday live and the continued harmony of those within the society. In this sense you could see the media as being an agent of tertiary socialisation, and that the society as a whole uses it to be told what are acceptable forms of behaviour, and to show the society what the stereotypical devils look like, who they are, and what behaviour they get up to.
In this paragraph I am going to focus on why the media focuses on particular phenomenons and in the process create ‘moral panics’ and ‘folk devils’. The media often pick up on these stories of crime or delinquency because they are perceived to be newsworthy, this newsworthiness stems from many places, “there are built in factors, ranging from the individual newsman’s intuitive hunch about what constitutes a ‘good story’, through precepts such as ‘give the public what it wants’, to structured ideological biases, which predispose the media to make a certain event into news.” (Cohen: 45) This would suggest that the role the media plays in choosing the events that become moral panics, by reporting on them, is complex, in that a newspaper or news programme may over-hype a certain event as they believe that this dramatic story, is what the public wants to read or hear, or that the media outlet wants to fit a phenomenon or event into a category to reinforce the organisations own interests. In this way the media play a role in shaping attitudes of the public by escalating a fear within the wider society that these events are commonplace or that they will start to become a more frequent occurrence in the landscape of that society. In the article ‘Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse in Families’ it reports that, “Public recognition of sexual abuse in families scarcely existed until the events in Cleveland in the spring and summer of 1987” (La Fontaine 1990; Kitzinger 1996, cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 84). The article explains that the Daily Mail's initial headline for the story. when they first broke the news of child abuse. was ‘Hand Over Your Children, Council Orders Parents Of 200 Youngsters’. This story was picked up upon by other news outlets and as such the story almost immediately became a ‘moral panic’. This coverage of the events in Middlesbrough Franklin and Parton wrote that it was “extensive and without precedent” (Critcher: 86) as the length of the ‘moral panic’ over the child abuse lasted for a year. The reporting of these sexual abuse cases sided largely with those people who held traditional values within the society, these tended to be males, and a female Doctor at the hospital that these cases were being reported from, named Dr. Higgs, was presented to the public by the media as a ‘scapegoat’. This highlighting of Dr. Higgs, who was reported as a feminist, an Australian and therefore holding different values to British society, and for having a househusband, (Critcher 2003) as being the guilty person in this ‘moral panic’ gave the public a group which went against the norms of society. This meant that “the spectre of feminism becomes the folk devils” (Nava 1998:105 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 87) ultimately fitting the Daily Mail's ideology. The media, therefore, seems to use these stories in this way to reinforce the values that the individual, society, or organisation holds, or is perceived to hold. It attempts to shape public opinion on these ‘moral panics’ in order to fit the consensus of what should be expected of individuals in relation to the values held within the media source.
This purpose of this paragraph will be to explain how the ‘moral panics’ reported in the media can shape social policy making. When a story is picked up upon by the media, and hyped to the extent that the public become fearful of similar incidences happening more frequently, often the media can launch a campaign to make the politicians or policy makers take action to prevent more cases of the offending phenomenon reoccurring. Although this is not always the case, as sometimes the media may simply report on the incidences and create the ‘moral panic’, which may instead spawn a dedicated organisation that would protest or put pressure on the policy makers to take action from the audience. The ‘Audience’, at which the reports of the phenomenon are aimed at in the ‘moral panic’, often respond to these cases in an equally disproportionate way in relation to the way that reports of these cases are significantly elevated in severity or frequency. In the case of the child abuse in Middlesbrough the most receptive audiences were “influential policy makers, ministers and civil servants within the DHSS” (Critcher: 93) this ‘moral panic’ over child abuse led to this ‘audience’ pressuring for change and culminating in the Children’s Act of 1989 (Hill 1990 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 93). This was not the only ‘audience’ that was receptive to the ‘moral panic’ surrounding these child abuse allegations, the Social work profession began to actively seek out abuse in children, as the Critcher article explains, “The profession as a whole seemed highly susceptible to new definitions of dangers to children and remarkably unwilling to question the evidence on which they were based” (Critcher: 94). This suggests that the ‘moral panic’ had been sensationalised to such an extent that the ‘audiences’ at which the media was aiming were so fearful of the breakdown in morality in regards to these issues that they needed little or no evidence of the behaviour to believe that it was commonplace in society amongst these ‘folk devils’. In the study of the Mods and Rockers by Cohen the most receptive audience to the perceived threat in this ‘moral panic’ was the police. This can be seen by the way that local police forces paid for extra man hours from neighbouring forces and paid overtime to the police force in that area, Cohen states that “The simplest response of the police to their definition of the situation and the pressures placed on them, was to implement the ‘show of force’ principle and to increase the sheer number of officers on duty.” (Cohen: 92). This is evidenced by the fact that in Whitsun 1964, the amount the police paid in overtime was £2000, around four times the cost of damage due to vandalism from the original incident. The following bank holiday weekend Brighton police brought in the Metropolitan police as reinforcements at the cost of £3000 (Cohen: 92).
The media, in conclusion, use ‘moral panics’ to shape attitudes to events, by reinforcing or creating stereotypes of the groups or individuals in a society that are perceived to be of a big enough threat to the norms and values upheld within that society. The media do this by taking a phenomena that has occurred once or twice that it considers to be ‘newsworthy’ enough based on individual bias of the society, the organisation, or individual that deemed it to be ‘newsworthy’, and sensationalising the facts and events that surrounded the incident or incidents. In doing so they create a ‘folk devil’, whom the large proportion of the audience of the media source reporting the events consider to be an outsider and become fearful of what that group stands for. The media's relationship with society also helps shape policy making, and the way in which those in power react to events, by building up a big enough fear of these ‘folk devils’ in the media to the extent where groups or organisations take disproportionate measures to counteract these perceived threats to society or to individuals.
Macionis, J, J and Plummer, K. (2012) Sociology: A Global Introduction, 5th Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils And Moral Panics The Creation Of The Mods And Rockers, Suffolk: Granada.
Critcher, C. (2003) Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse In Families, In Moral Panics And The Media, Ed. Critcher, C. Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 81-98.
Rather than write something new on the subject, here is an early essay, one which I suspect was more about getting people up to speed than anything else, from my degree studies which highlights some important issues I have with much of the media and its current spotlight on 'radical Islam'. Most, if not all' of what is written below in the essay can easily be observed in the everyday narrative of politicians, the media, and the audience, with regards to this new threat from Islamists.
****************************************************************
The aim of this essay will be to outline and explain what a moral panic is and how it goes from the early incidents that get picked up by the media and its transformation into a national issue. The essay will focus on how the moral panics in the mass media help us make sense of the role that the media plays in the wider society, I will do this by making reference to studies conducted into moral panics and by analysing the effects they had on the society at the time.
A ‘moral panic’ is the creation of a deep concern around a group or practise in the media; this is usually something that has been blown out of proportion by the media after one or two incidents having happened. The term ‘moral panic’ is used to describe the reaction to a particular subculture or group in society by the media; these panics amplify the generally small scale problems that these groups cause. Jenkins as cited in Macionis and Plummer states that “although there is often massive concern over serial killers, they are in fact very rare indeed, and serial killings have remained at roughly the same low rate for 100 years.” (Jenkins cited in Macionis, Plummer: pp. 777) This amplification of the incidents leads to the creation of these groups as ‘folk devils’. These moral panics focus upon groups, or individuals, that are perceived to be against the traditional norms of the society, and serve to amplify the hysteria surrounding them further in the media narrative. The media play the most important role in creating the ‘moral panic’ in this way, by taking the initial small incidents, sensationalising the stories surrounding them, and creating these ‘folk devils’.
In the book ‘folk devils and moral panics’ Cohen observed that societies sometimes undergo periods of time where they are subjected to an increase in moral panics, these can often be brought upon by fears that something is beginning to become a threat to the traditional values of that society. He states that these moral panics are often “associated with the emergence of various forms of youth culture (originally almost exclusively working class, but often recently middle class or student based) whose behaviour is deviant or delinquent.” (Cohen: 9). This study was conducted in the 60’s and was concerned with the media portrayal of a series of events that occurred, over a small number of bank holiday weekends, in some seaside towns around England between two youth subcultures. The study looked at the way that the media was sensationalising the stories and reports of violence between the Mods and the Rockers, in it Cohen explains why the media choose to pick up and distort events in a way that creates a moral panic. Cohen claims that an important measurement to understand how a society (both the public and those in power positions) would react to deviant behaviour is the way in which the information is received about the deviancy taking place. He means by this that differing societies will react to a phenomena in different ways due to the way that each individual will receive that information, Cohen states that in our industrial society the information we receive has usually already been processed by a third party, such as the mass media in the form of newspaper reporters or journalists. This means that the news has been bent and shaped by those individuals or organisations to fit what they define as being ‘news’, this would often lead to the misreporting of the incidents and would shape the public’s opinion in a distorted manner. Erikson states “a considerable portion of what we call “news” is devoted to reports about deviant behaviour and its consequences” (Erikson cited in Cohen, 17). The emphasis on what is considered to be deviant forms of behaviour being reported in the news tells us that society uses the media to reinforce the norms that the society values as being important to the everyday live and the continued harmony of those within the society. In this sense you could see the media as being an agent of tertiary socialisation, and that the society as a whole uses it to be told what are acceptable forms of behaviour, and to show the society what the stereotypical devils look like, who they are, and what behaviour they get up to.
In this paragraph I am going to focus on why the media focuses on particular phenomenons and in the process create ‘moral panics’ and ‘folk devils’. The media often pick up on these stories of crime or delinquency because they are perceived to be newsworthy, this newsworthiness stems from many places, “there are built in factors, ranging from the individual newsman’s intuitive hunch about what constitutes a ‘good story’, through precepts such as ‘give the public what it wants’, to structured ideological biases, which predispose the media to make a certain event into news.” (Cohen: 45) This would suggest that the role the media plays in choosing the events that become moral panics, by reporting on them, is complex, in that a newspaper or news programme may over-hype a certain event as they believe that this dramatic story, is what the public wants to read or hear, or that the media outlet wants to fit a phenomenon or event into a category to reinforce the organisations own interests. In this way the media play a role in shaping attitudes of the public by escalating a fear within the wider society that these events are commonplace or that they will start to become a more frequent occurrence in the landscape of that society. In the article ‘Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse in Families’ it reports that, “Public recognition of sexual abuse in families scarcely existed until the events in Cleveland in the spring and summer of 1987” (La Fontaine 1990; Kitzinger 1996, cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 84). The article explains that the Daily Mail's initial headline for the story. when they first broke the news of child abuse. was ‘Hand Over Your Children, Council Orders Parents Of 200 Youngsters’. This story was picked up upon by other news outlets and as such the story almost immediately became a ‘moral panic’. This coverage of the events in Middlesbrough Franklin and Parton wrote that it was “extensive and without precedent” (Critcher: 86) as the length of the ‘moral panic’ over the child abuse lasted for a year. The reporting of these sexual abuse cases sided largely with those people who held traditional values within the society, these tended to be males, and a female Doctor at the hospital that these cases were being reported from, named Dr. Higgs, was presented to the public by the media as a ‘scapegoat’. This highlighting of Dr. Higgs, who was reported as a feminist, an Australian and therefore holding different values to British society, and for having a househusband, (Critcher 2003) as being the guilty person in this ‘moral panic’ gave the public a group which went against the norms of society. This meant that “the spectre of feminism becomes the folk devils” (Nava 1998:105 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 87) ultimately fitting the Daily Mail's ideology. The media, therefore, seems to use these stories in this way to reinforce the values that the individual, society, or organisation holds, or is perceived to hold. It attempts to shape public opinion on these ‘moral panics’ in order to fit the consensus of what should be expected of individuals in relation to the values held within the media source.
This purpose of this paragraph will be to explain how the ‘moral panics’ reported in the media can shape social policy making. When a story is picked up upon by the media, and hyped to the extent that the public become fearful of similar incidences happening more frequently, often the media can launch a campaign to make the politicians or policy makers take action to prevent more cases of the offending phenomenon reoccurring. Although this is not always the case, as sometimes the media may simply report on the incidences and create the ‘moral panic’, which may instead spawn a dedicated organisation that would protest or put pressure on the policy makers to take action from the audience. The ‘Audience’, at which the reports of the phenomenon are aimed at in the ‘moral panic’, often respond to these cases in an equally disproportionate way in relation to the way that reports of these cases are significantly elevated in severity or frequency. In the case of the child abuse in Middlesbrough the most receptive audiences were “influential policy makers, ministers and civil servants within the DHSS” (Critcher: 93) this ‘moral panic’ over child abuse led to this ‘audience’ pressuring for change and culminating in the Children’s Act of 1989 (Hill 1990 cited in Critcher 2003 pp. 93). This was not the only ‘audience’ that was receptive to the ‘moral panic’ surrounding these child abuse allegations, the Social work profession began to actively seek out abuse in children, as the Critcher article explains, “The profession as a whole seemed highly susceptible to new definitions of dangers to children and remarkably unwilling to question the evidence on which they were based” (Critcher: 94). This suggests that the ‘moral panic’ had been sensationalised to such an extent that the ‘audiences’ at which the media was aiming were so fearful of the breakdown in morality in regards to these issues that they needed little or no evidence of the behaviour to believe that it was commonplace in society amongst these ‘folk devils’. In the study of the Mods and Rockers by Cohen the most receptive audience to the perceived threat in this ‘moral panic’ was the police. This can be seen by the way that local police forces paid for extra man hours from neighbouring forces and paid overtime to the police force in that area, Cohen states that “The simplest response of the police to their definition of the situation and the pressures placed on them, was to implement the ‘show of force’ principle and to increase the sheer number of officers on duty.” (Cohen: 92). This is evidenced by the fact that in Whitsun 1964, the amount the police paid in overtime was £2000, around four times the cost of damage due to vandalism from the original incident. The following bank holiday weekend Brighton police brought in the Metropolitan police as reinforcements at the cost of £3000 (Cohen: 92).
The media, in conclusion, use ‘moral panics’ to shape attitudes to events, by reinforcing or creating stereotypes of the groups or individuals in a society that are perceived to be of a big enough threat to the norms and values upheld within that society. The media do this by taking a phenomena that has occurred once or twice that it considers to be ‘newsworthy’ enough based on individual bias of the society, the organisation, or individual that deemed it to be ‘newsworthy’, and sensationalising the facts and events that surrounded the incident or incidents. In doing so they create a ‘folk devil’, whom the large proportion of the audience of the media source reporting the events consider to be an outsider and become fearful of what that group stands for. The media's relationship with society also helps shape policy making, and the way in which those in power react to events, by building up a big enough fear of these ‘folk devils’ in the media to the extent where groups or organisations take disproportionate measures to counteract these perceived threats to society or to individuals.
Macionis, J, J and Plummer, K. (2012) Sociology: A Global Introduction, 5th Edition, Harlow: Pearson.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils And Moral Panics The Creation Of The Mods And Rockers, Suffolk: Granada.
Critcher, C. (2003) Suffer Little Children: Child Abuse In Families, In Moral Panics And The Media, Ed. Critcher, C. Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 81-98.
04 January 2016
The Impact Of Stuctures On An Individual - Social Theory (First Year Essay)
This first year essay dealt with the impact of societal control structures on the ability of an individual to act freely. It earned, what I feel was, a rather generous A- grade.
***********************************************************************
How do ideas of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ enable us to understand the degree of freedom people enjoy in our society?
The aim of this essay will be to explain how ‘structure’ within society inhibits a person’s ability to exercise their own free will or ‘agency’ before moving on to explain ‘agency’ and its role in the process individual’s decision making and actions. Firstly this essay will explain what is meant by ‘structures’ and what role they play in shaping the action of an individual and how this limits their choices. After this the essay will explain how people’s perceptions of what is acceptable can shape the choices he or she makes throughout their life and how they may be guided by societal values. The next paragraph will then put focus upon how an individual’s choices may be determined not only by themselves, but also by a privileged few whom hold power, and how the individual’s freedom is limited by the decisions of those with power and influence. Following on this the essay will explain how some sociologists believe ‘agency’ shapes the way society is structured though the actions of the people within it. The final paragraph will highlight how ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ can both be seen to play a role in shaping the actions and lives of individuals in society and how freedom is achieved within these parameters.
To understand how ‘structure’ impacts upon a person’s freedom and autonomy first you must understand what is meant by the term structure. The term structure, within the field of sociology, refers to outside influences or perceptions of a person or group of people that live within the sphere of any particular society, these can be institutions to which the person belongs, stereotypical views based on appearance or background that the person has come from, their respective place within the societal hierarchy or methods used to control the population.
Within society there are many key structures that influence the perception of the person and therefore inhibit their freedom to exercise their ‘agency’. Parsons referred to this as “a system of patterned expectations of individuals who occupy particular statuses in the social system” (Parsons cited in May, 1996; 50), by this Parsons is explaining that an individual’s freedom can be limited by widely held notions about how he or she should act in certain circumstances, influenced by the perception others have of this individual for example, the ethnicity or gender they belong to. These ‘structures’ in society can also be held by the individual and help shape their own actions within particular contexts, whereby beliefs can influence the decisions the person takes, or the direction they choose to take, during the course of their life. Durkheim referred to these ‘structures’ as social facts, when writing about society’s influence on the individual, Durkheim referred to these social facts as having “an objective reality beyond the life’s and perceptions of individuals. Cultural norms, values, religious beliefs - all endure as social facts.” (Macionis and Plummer; 125) When referring to these social facts within society Durkheim is explaining that the power that these ‘structures’ has over the individual is due largely to the way that society itself is structured, because these influences are beliefs or norms and values held by the majority of people in society, it makes it harder for the individual to choose whether or not to exercise their free will and do what they wish to do rather than what is expected of them. To do so is to risk being ostracised, vilified, or at the least seen as a deviant and an outsider.
Some structures that have an effect on a person’s ability to act independently and influence their behaviour may not be imposed upon the individual by society itself, but by a privileged few who hold some power and influence within it. These structures can serve to control the ability of a person to exercise their freedom in the choices that they can make, one such example can be laws that are made by those whom are considered qualified or have been chosen to make these decisions on behalf of the entire population. Laws within a society serve the purpose of a deterrent and guide the actions of an individual, in most cases to stick within the boundaries of that societies accept behaviours as stated in Thinking Sociologically “if we break the rules that are meant to guide people’s conduct, then we may be punished. The act of punishment is intended as a confirmation that we are responsible for our actions.” (Bauman and May 2001; 18) Although usually intended to provide a level of happiness and safety for everyone in society and are beneficial to the majority of the population these laws, however, are a form of structure and therefore impede an individual’s ability to act with complete freedom.
Another form of control that is imposed upon the majority of the population is through capitalism; Marx called this a ‘superstructure’. Within capitalism individuals are subject to the control of a privileged few who control the means of production, the political sphere, and the ideological power within society. Marxist theory states that the bourgeoisie control society, by holding the power to influence and control the proletariat financially and ideologically. This ‘superstructure’, Capitalism, serves their purpose and limits the freedom of the individual within the proletariat, this is explained in Capitalism and Modern Social Theory as “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Marx cited in Giddens 1994; 41) With this Marx was explaining how an individual’s place within the hierarchy of society has an effect on the way that the individual chooses to act. This can be either through choices available to them or through how they are expected to act in the capitalist society, always based upon their social class they were born into or are a member of.
Although the structures in place can inhibit a person’s ability to freely make decisions that would allow them to do, or achieve, what they wish, an individual’s ‘agency’ has a significant impact on the choices that they make every day. A person has free will; they have a mind capable of making decisions based upon their own circumstances and their own goals in life. To say ‘structure’ shapes every person’s choices in life would be to assume that every individual within a society is merely a programmable machine. It does not wholly take into consideration the differences in behaviour between people whom may have come from a similar economic background, ethnicity, or belong to a particular institution that expects its members to act in a certain manner. Individuals within these groups, although sharing many common sets of beliefs, may make choices radically different from the next person within the same group. Some sociologists would argue that societal structures do not exist as a unifying overpowering element in the lives of those within a society, but that instead society is made of individuals, and that their choices and actions shape the society around them. This view was discussed by Becker in which it states that “social reality is made up of actors’ point of views” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 138). An argument which claims that an individual’s actions are controlled only by his or her perceptions, and as such society is shaped by the actions of every individual, stating that individuals have complete control of their actions and their own ‘agency’.
Actions are unlikely to be shaped simply by only ‘agency’ or ‘structure’, but are most likely a combination of both being resolved in way that is most suitable for the individual making the choices. There is no denying that every person within society, capable of enacting their free will and choosing to make decisions for themselves based upon what would most likely bring them the greatest level of happiness, would do so, however, these choices would have been made on informed decisions or moral grounds by the ‘structures’ they encounter every day. Most people would choose to act within the set, acceptable, behaviours within their respective society. They would do so because of the structures in place. Structures they are taught, through socialisation, to adhere as the normative structure of their society, or indeed are bound to comply with due to restrictions on their behaviour by the laws in place. This process of guiding an individual’s actions by the societal structures does allow for the individual to still make some choice and exercise their freedom, there may be, for example, more than one option to choose from after the unacceptable options, according to the structure of society, have been eliminated from the decision making process. This is highlighted within ethnomethodology in which they see the action of an individual as being simply guided, but not limited, by social ‘structures’. Sharrock and Button explained this, they see “‘social structure’ as a casual force which might pre-empt agency” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 163). If social ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ do play a role in shaping an individual’s actions, firstly by the ‘structure’ pre-empting any decision making process, it shows that an individual does get, an albeit limited, say in the choices available to him or her. This although inhibiting the freedom of the person making the choice of action, does not mean that that person has no ability to act in a free manner, therefore allowing for some room for the individuals ‘agency’.
To conclude this essay I believe that the amount of freedom that an individual has is limited by the ‘structures’ in place within society, they play a key role in guiding people’s behaviour in to actions deemed acceptable by the majority of societies individual’s, their culture, or the institutions they belong to. These ‘structures’ control the choices made to various levels of extremes from very little influence, although enough to still be present, for example whether a female makes a decision on working in a traditionally male-domination sector of work, to the choices made on behalf of an individual by those in a position of power that can affect their course of actions. However, I do not believe these to be the only influence over a person’s actions, I believe that every individual, even when the choices they make are guided by the structures in place, still has the ability to act freely to an extent, as such I cannot say that freedom is wholly inhibited by the ‘structures’ people encounter everyday within life. Whilst they are guided by these into what is deemed acceptable, people retain an ability to refuse and rebel against the structures of society.
References
Bauman, Z and May, T. (2001) Thinking Sociologically. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Giddens, A. (1994) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Macionis, J and Plummer, K. (2011) Sociology: A Global Introduction. 5th Ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall
May, T. (1996) Situating Social Theory. Buckingham: Open University Press
Sharrock, W and Button, G. The Social Actor: Social Action in Real Time. In: Button, G. ed. (1993) Ethnomothodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
***********************************************************************
How do ideas of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ enable us to understand the degree of freedom people enjoy in our society?
The aim of this essay will be to explain how ‘structure’ within society inhibits a person’s ability to exercise their own free will or ‘agency’ before moving on to explain ‘agency’ and its role in the process individual’s decision making and actions. Firstly this essay will explain what is meant by ‘structures’ and what role they play in shaping the action of an individual and how this limits their choices. After this the essay will explain how people’s perceptions of what is acceptable can shape the choices he or she makes throughout their life and how they may be guided by societal values. The next paragraph will then put focus upon how an individual’s choices may be determined not only by themselves, but also by a privileged few whom hold power, and how the individual’s freedom is limited by the decisions of those with power and influence. Following on this the essay will explain how some sociologists believe ‘agency’ shapes the way society is structured though the actions of the people within it. The final paragraph will highlight how ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ can both be seen to play a role in shaping the actions and lives of individuals in society and how freedom is achieved within these parameters.
To understand how ‘structure’ impacts upon a person’s freedom and autonomy first you must understand what is meant by the term structure. The term structure, within the field of sociology, refers to outside influences or perceptions of a person or group of people that live within the sphere of any particular society, these can be institutions to which the person belongs, stereotypical views based on appearance or background that the person has come from, their respective place within the societal hierarchy or methods used to control the population.
Within society there are many key structures that influence the perception of the person and therefore inhibit their freedom to exercise their ‘agency’. Parsons referred to this as “a system of patterned expectations of individuals who occupy particular statuses in the social system” (Parsons cited in May, 1996; 50), by this Parsons is explaining that an individual’s freedom can be limited by widely held notions about how he or she should act in certain circumstances, influenced by the perception others have of this individual for example, the ethnicity or gender they belong to. These ‘structures’ in society can also be held by the individual and help shape their own actions within particular contexts, whereby beliefs can influence the decisions the person takes, or the direction they choose to take, during the course of their life. Durkheim referred to these ‘structures’ as social facts, when writing about society’s influence on the individual, Durkheim referred to these social facts as having “an objective reality beyond the life’s and perceptions of individuals. Cultural norms, values, religious beliefs - all endure as social facts.” (Macionis and Plummer; 125) When referring to these social facts within society Durkheim is explaining that the power that these ‘structures’ has over the individual is due largely to the way that society itself is structured, because these influences are beliefs or norms and values held by the majority of people in society, it makes it harder for the individual to choose whether or not to exercise their free will and do what they wish to do rather than what is expected of them. To do so is to risk being ostracised, vilified, or at the least seen as a deviant and an outsider.
Some structures that have an effect on a person’s ability to act independently and influence their behaviour may not be imposed upon the individual by society itself, but by a privileged few who hold some power and influence within it. These structures can serve to control the ability of a person to exercise their freedom in the choices that they can make, one such example can be laws that are made by those whom are considered qualified or have been chosen to make these decisions on behalf of the entire population. Laws within a society serve the purpose of a deterrent and guide the actions of an individual, in most cases to stick within the boundaries of that societies accept behaviours as stated in Thinking Sociologically “if we break the rules that are meant to guide people’s conduct, then we may be punished. The act of punishment is intended as a confirmation that we are responsible for our actions.” (Bauman and May 2001; 18) Although usually intended to provide a level of happiness and safety for everyone in society and are beneficial to the majority of the population these laws, however, are a form of structure and therefore impede an individual’s ability to act with complete freedom.
Another form of control that is imposed upon the majority of the population is through capitalism; Marx called this a ‘superstructure’. Within capitalism individuals are subject to the control of a privileged few who control the means of production, the political sphere, and the ideological power within society. Marxist theory states that the bourgeoisie control society, by holding the power to influence and control the proletariat financially and ideologically. This ‘superstructure’, Capitalism, serves their purpose and limits the freedom of the individual within the proletariat, this is explained in Capitalism and Modern Social Theory as “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Marx cited in Giddens 1994; 41) With this Marx was explaining how an individual’s place within the hierarchy of society has an effect on the way that the individual chooses to act. This can be either through choices available to them or through how they are expected to act in the capitalist society, always based upon their social class they were born into or are a member of.
Although the structures in place can inhibit a person’s ability to freely make decisions that would allow them to do, or achieve, what they wish, an individual’s ‘agency’ has a significant impact on the choices that they make every day. A person has free will; they have a mind capable of making decisions based upon their own circumstances and their own goals in life. To say ‘structure’ shapes every person’s choices in life would be to assume that every individual within a society is merely a programmable machine. It does not wholly take into consideration the differences in behaviour between people whom may have come from a similar economic background, ethnicity, or belong to a particular institution that expects its members to act in a certain manner. Individuals within these groups, although sharing many common sets of beliefs, may make choices radically different from the next person within the same group. Some sociologists would argue that societal structures do not exist as a unifying overpowering element in the lives of those within a society, but that instead society is made of individuals, and that their choices and actions shape the society around them. This view was discussed by Becker in which it states that “social reality is made up of actors’ point of views” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 138). An argument which claims that an individual’s actions are controlled only by his or her perceptions, and as such society is shaped by the actions of every individual, stating that individuals have complete control of their actions and their own ‘agency’.
Actions are unlikely to be shaped simply by only ‘agency’ or ‘structure’, but are most likely a combination of both being resolved in way that is most suitable for the individual making the choices. There is no denying that every person within society, capable of enacting their free will and choosing to make decisions for themselves based upon what would most likely bring them the greatest level of happiness, would do so, however, these choices would have been made on informed decisions or moral grounds by the ‘structures’ they encounter every day. Most people would choose to act within the set, acceptable, behaviours within their respective society. They would do so because of the structures in place. Structures they are taught, through socialisation, to adhere as the normative structure of their society, or indeed are bound to comply with due to restrictions on their behaviour by the laws in place. This process of guiding an individual’s actions by the societal structures does allow for the individual to still make some choice and exercise their freedom, there may be, for example, more than one option to choose from after the unacceptable options, according to the structure of society, have been eliminated from the decision making process. This is highlighted within ethnomethodology in which they see the action of an individual as being simply guided, but not limited, by social ‘structures’. Sharrock and Button explained this, they see “‘social structure’ as a casual force which might pre-empt agency” (Sharrock and Button 1993; 163). If social ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ do play a role in shaping an individual’s actions, firstly by the ‘structure’ pre-empting any decision making process, it shows that an individual does get, an albeit limited, say in the choices available to him or her. This although inhibiting the freedom of the person making the choice of action, does not mean that that person has no ability to act in a free manner, therefore allowing for some room for the individuals ‘agency’.
To conclude this essay I believe that the amount of freedom that an individual has is limited by the ‘structures’ in place within society, they play a key role in guiding people’s behaviour in to actions deemed acceptable by the majority of societies individual’s, their culture, or the institutions they belong to. These ‘structures’ control the choices made to various levels of extremes from very little influence, although enough to still be present, for example whether a female makes a decision on working in a traditionally male-domination sector of work, to the choices made on behalf of an individual by those in a position of power that can affect their course of actions. However, I do not believe these to be the only influence over a person’s actions, I believe that every individual, even when the choices they make are guided by the structures in place, still has the ability to act freely to an extent, as such I cannot say that freedom is wholly inhibited by the ‘structures’ people encounter everyday within life. Whilst they are guided by these into what is deemed acceptable, people retain an ability to refuse and rebel against the structures of society.
References
Bauman, Z and May, T. (2001) Thinking Sociologically. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Giddens, A. (1994) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Macionis, J and Plummer, K. (2011) Sociology: A Global Introduction. 5th Ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall
May, T. (1996) Situating Social Theory. Buckingham: Open University Press
Sharrock, W and Button, G. The Social Actor: Social Action in Real Time. In: Button, G. ed. (1993) Ethnomothodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)