an article by Rebecca Askew and Mike Salinas (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK) published in Criminology & Criminal Justice Volume 19 Issue 3 (July 2019)
Abstract
A minority of those who consume or supply illegal drugs are detected and subsequently punished for breaching these laws. Thus, only a minority of active ‘drug offenders’ are ever formally subjected to criminal sanctioning, the criminal label, its stigmatizing effects and the resultant collateral consequences.
The current article analyses data from two studies on drug offenders – a sample of 26 users and a sample of 25 suppliers – who form part of the ‘silent majority’ of drug offenders whose offending behaviour goes largely unnoticed and unpunished. Both sets of actors are what we consider ‘law-abiding’ criminals insofar as their regular criminal transgressions are not reflected in the ways broader society, their immediate networks, nor they, view themselves.
We argue that the perceived risks posed to their conventional commitments and roles ensure their careful management and subversion of behaviour and information that might otherwise be indicative of their drug offending. Yet, at the same time, we argue that these conventional roles provide sufficient protection that their crimes go unnoticed or, if detected, unpunished.
Our conclusions support Mohammed and Fritsvold’s notion of the ‘silent majority’ that only a minority of those that use and supply illicit substances drug offenders are subject to the law, and the collateral consequences of a criminal and deviant label. We argue more research needs to be conducted with these hidden groups to help reduce the inequities, stigmas and stereotypes that befall the subsection of those who are routinely policed, sanctioned and studied.
Showing posts with label status. Show all posts
Showing posts with label status. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 July 2019
Monday, 20 February 2017
Status insecurity and temporality in world politics
an article by Joshua Freedman (Northwestern University, USA) published in European Journal of International Relations Volume 22 Number 4 (December 2016)
Abstract
International Relations scholars concerned with explaining status-seeking behaviour in the international system draw heavily from social comparison theory and its observations that individuals judge their worth, and accordingly derive self-esteem, through social comparisons with others. According to this logic, states become status seekers because, like individuals, they have an innate desire for favourable social status comparisons relative to their peers.
Thus, the great power status literature is often framed in the language of accommodation, and adjustment, which presupposes that status insecurities develop from unfavourable social comparisons and can be resolved through relative social improvements. This article challenges these assumptions by noting, as psychology has acknowledged for some time, that individuals use both social and temporal forms of comparison when engaging in self-evaluation.
Where social comparisons cause actors to ask “How do I rank relative to my peers?” temporal comparisons cause actors to evaluate how they have improved or declined over time. This article advances a temporal comparison theory of status-seeking behaviour, suggesting that many of the signalling problems associated with status insecurity emerge from basic differences in how states evaluate their status, and whether they privilege temporal over social comparisons.
The implications are explored through China’s contemporary struggle for status recognition, situating this struggle within the context of China’s civilisational past and ongoing dispute over Taiwan.
Full text (PDF)
Abstract
International Relations scholars concerned with explaining status-seeking behaviour in the international system draw heavily from social comparison theory and its observations that individuals judge their worth, and accordingly derive self-esteem, through social comparisons with others. According to this logic, states become status seekers because, like individuals, they have an innate desire for favourable social status comparisons relative to their peers.
Thus, the great power status literature is often framed in the language of accommodation, and adjustment, which presupposes that status insecurities develop from unfavourable social comparisons and can be resolved through relative social improvements. This article challenges these assumptions by noting, as psychology has acknowledged for some time, that individuals use both social and temporal forms of comparison when engaging in self-evaluation.
Where social comparisons cause actors to ask “How do I rank relative to my peers?” temporal comparisons cause actors to evaluate how they have improved or declined over time. This article advances a temporal comparison theory of status-seeking behaviour, suggesting that many of the signalling problems associated with status insecurity emerge from basic differences in how states evaluate their status, and whether they privilege temporal over social comparisons.
The implications are explored through China’s contemporary struggle for status recognition, situating this struggle within the context of China’s civilisational past and ongoing dispute over Taiwan.
Full text (PDF)
Friday, 31 July 2015
My Name Is Sue. How Do You Do! (Names and Identity)
an article by Irina Perianova (University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria) published in Issues in Social Sciences Volume 3 Number 1 (2015)
Abstract
The paper aims to give an overview of the functions of proper names as a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon. While implying certain conceptual characteristics proper names reflect the way people see themselves, or what others might infer about them, and thus shapŠµ their attitude.
As part of the cultural discourse they serve as determinants of social identity. An important feature of personal names is their potential to be used metaphorically – as characterizers and signifiers. Naming conventions depend on culture, generation, status and existing linguistic forms. Avoiding a name as a form of address is culture-based, or expresses attitude and affect. Furthermore, names are an instrument of control, submission and otherisaton.
They are also a marker of memory and trust as well as a signifier of status. The disparity of addressing when, for example, one of the speakers uses the first name and the other one the surname, always implies some kind of inequality.
The drift of the current changes in naming/addressing in the West is egalitarian and characterized by greater informality and reciprocity.
Full Text: PDF
Abstract
The paper aims to give an overview of the functions of proper names as a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon. While implying certain conceptual characteristics proper names reflect the way people see themselves, or what others might infer about them, and thus shapŠµ their attitude.
As part of the cultural discourse they serve as determinants of social identity. An important feature of personal names is their potential to be used metaphorically – as characterizers and signifiers. Naming conventions depend on culture, generation, status and existing linguistic forms. Avoiding a name as a form of address is culture-based, or expresses attitude and affect. Furthermore, names are an instrument of control, submission and otherisaton.
They are also a marker of memory and trust as well as a signifier of status. The disparity of addressing when, for example, one of the speakers uses the first name and the other one the surname, always implies some kind of inequality.
The drift of the current changes in naming/addressing in the West is egalitarian and characterized by greater informality and reciprocity.
Full Text: PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
