Social Class in Terms of Lawmakers and Lawbreakers - Essay Example

? A social in relation to lawmakers and lawbreakers Introduction What a social is and how is it related to lawmakers and lawbreakers. This relation is considered in the research paper further on. In the modern sociologic paradigm, it is very important to trace the features of the ordinary representatives of lawmakers and lawbreakers. A social class usually refers to “a group of individuals who occupy a similar position in the economic system of production. Within that system occupation is very important because it provides financial rewards, stability and different benefits” (Andersen&Collins, 1998). There are four main a social classes, such as “upper class, middle class, working class and the lower class” (Murray, 1995). In order to discuss relation of a social class to lawbreakers, it is relevant to consider a a social class of Britain as the biggest class of lawbreakers. Law breakers in Britain are often accused of avoidance of tax payment, are undercharged in shops etc. A dishonest behavior was admitted by more than 50% of Great Britain inhabitants. A paradoxical behavior of British society is defined in the following terms: “While nine out of 10 people demand action against those committing these offences, the majority actually admit to committing one of them” (Carrabine&South, 2000). In America there is no strict and intense relation between representatives of different classes. Nevertheless, American constitution was developed in the eighteenth century, but in the modern time there is a lack of special social and economic rights (Carrabine&South, 2000). A social class is more objective entity in relation to the society than race. A social class has been shaped under the influence of economic relations, symbolic systems and other external factors. Therefore, it is relevant to claim that representatives of a social class are shaped under the influence of education, surrounding people, family traditions, income rates and many other factors. As a result, representatives of lower class have fewer possibilities to realize themselves as successful politicians. It can be supposed that they will become criminals or lawbreakers sooner than lawmakers. Lawmakers/breakers and social class Symbolic context of a social class has been influenced by politics freight. The western considerations about the nature and the culture and thus further considerations about what class is, is usually conducted in terms of “binary oppositions”. In the theory of criminology, social class considerations in terms of “binary oppositions” have remained relevant to the modern society. On the one hand, in accordance with criminologists, it is impossible to differ between “criminals” and “non-criminals”. Nevertheless, starting from the XXI century it has been claimed that nature of criminals is related to gender, race and class. More often criminals are accounted for representatives of an underclass, i.e. the most disadvantageous people who are unemployed or neglected by the society (Andersen and Collins, 1998). It is relevant to trace these interrelations in terms of four main sociological approaches: “quantitative studies; time and place studies; ethnographic studies, and social construction studies” (Andersen and Collins, 1998). In quantitative studies individuals’ misbehavior leads to a crime. A representation of certain socio-economic groups is usually questioned in this approach, because very often data collection for such kind of researches limits background data of criminals. Some analysts claim that “The lack of both significant class effects and any race effects in our general crime scale may suggest a possible interaction effect between a social class and race” (Ibid, p. 607). Therefore, in making their judgments lawmakers often take into account an interrelation between a social class and a crime or between who may be potential lawbreakers or lawmakers. Gender, age and family income are often influential factors of crime’s predictors. In order to discuss background peculiarities of a social class, Murray (1995) claims that there are certain conditions of criminogenic nature of a social class. The same can be assigned to potential lawmakers. These people usually have a wider access to education and financial wealth of their families is a determinant fact of their further prosperity and success. Different authors follow the considerations suggested by Carabbine (2000) when the author talked about the relation between a social class and potential criminals. The author claims that the effect of a social class on crime is mediated by cultural and contextual factors and thus, a direct influence of a social class on potential criminals can be questioned. In accordance with Murray (1995): "the actual direction of class effects may be dependent on an array of social psychological factors. Thus, the class/crime relationship may be masked by interactive effects” (Murray 1995, p. 43). The same claim is relevant to potential lawmakers: they should have special psychological skills and abilities in order to facilitate destructive factors of the micro society with non-conforming behavior and intensify a positive influence of accessible resources. As far as we can see, in what way a social class really related to law breakers is remains to be an open question for further discussion. In the wide range of time and space studies, another perspective on relation between a social class and crime is provided. This kind of studies is not focused on the exact determination of relation between crime and a social class. They are more focused on varying degrees of crime punishment. An interesting approach and vision is suggested in these studies: it is relevant to discuss a social class relation concept to the decision made by judicial system on whether to punish or not to punish some men and women for non-conforming behavior (Andersen&Collins, 1998). A social class relation to crime in these studies is considered in broader contexts shaped by structural or institutional relations and not only in terms of individual or interpersonal relations. From this perspective, crime and social control are considered in relation to the prevailing social, political and economic interests of the whole society. In other words: “time and place studies want to know how the changing institutionalized relations of social control in general, and in the administration of criminal justice in particular, have been used by the more powerful groups to maintain privilege and inequality in the context of “social conflict” (Murray, 1995).Thus, there are certain “dangerous groups” that produce certain cultural threats intimidating representatives of macro society in the context of dominant political and economic arrangements. Lawmakers are usually influenced by the social stereotype considerations and can make their decisions and judgments in accordance with them. Sociological approach to the studies on a relation between a social class and crime represents critical considerations about the studies on criminology. Moreover, it should be noted that the relation between a social class and crime should be considered in wider terms than it is done now. For example, it is relevant to look beyond ethnic, race or religious differentiating principles. The deepest considerations about this relation can be given in terms of white and non-white distinctions and group experiences of different ethnic groups should be considered in relation to crime and control over crime during a certain period of time (Middle Classes Are Worst, 2004). In the book by Andersen and Collins (1998) a related approach is also shown. These authors present an interesting approach to the study on a social class relation and crime. They suggest that it is necessary to consider gender, race and class relations in intersection. Furthermore it is relevant to analyze the way these relations build up criminal opportunities and develop criminal behavior. This book presents the main ideas from critical criminology, neo-Marxism, feminism, postmodernism and other studies. A production of crime by individuals is often referred to such factors as “structured choices,” “life histories,” “unequal power,” “fluid social constructs”, “axes of differences” etc (Andersen and Collins, 1998). In the scope of ethnographic studies, it is often discussed how institutional orders of class, race or gender and the influences of community-level effects (e.g. economic factors, political factors etc) are interrelated with development of crime and rational development of criminal justice. These studies are marked by in-depth studies of all parties involved in the process of crime (victims, police and others) (Murray, 1995). In accordance with Zatz and Portillos (2000): “Listening to the multiple voices of community members allows for a multifaceted understanding of the complexities and contradictions of gang life, both for the youths and for the larger community” (cited by Carrabine, 2000). In the studies on sociology of crime an interconnection between race, class and gender and crime is discussed with respect to different nuances. With respect to Carrabine’ ideas, gender factors should be firstly considered in relation between a social class and crime. Life experiences of men and women should be also taken into account. It means that external social factors are determinant ones for a social class relation and crime. Still, it is often argued that there is no special “a social class experience”. It is should noted that in the context of social groupings there are several main factors influencing on formation of social and personal identity (Murray, 1995). Another perspective is given by Darity (1995). The author claims that a social class does not have direct influence on formation of a nature of a potential criminal. In accordance with this study, childhood experience and inter-family relations influence on formation of a potential criminal. Therefore, in accordance with the ethnographic studies the external economic principles of inequality and influence on the establishment of a social class and crime relation. In the paradigm of social construction studies in criminology a social class relations and crime is considered with regard to the influence exerted on it by the mass institutions. A proper analysis in these studies is given in terms of interdisciplinary inquiries, discourse and stereotypes background information etc. In this field of studies, the main scope of works was written by Philip Jenkins (e.g. “Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Britain” (1992); Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide (1994) etc) (referenced to by Andersen&Collins, 1998). Social realities in different countries are supposed to be alternative approaches to the explanation between relations of lawmakers and lawbreakers. Very often criminals are considered to be “products of moral agents, social movements, political interests, and media dissemination” (Darity, 1995). Therefore, social conceptualization of criminals occurs within the society and is regulated by economic, political and social peculiarities. In the book by Hill Collins it is claimed that a role of a social class, race and gender may become very important, but these factors are interrelated and interconnected when they influence on a life experience of a person (Andersen and Hill Collins 1998, p. 3). It can be claimed that there are four interconnections between class, race, gender, and crime control. These are the following: there are certain social differences that determine a level of punishment or rewards in any society. The second factor is that these systems of rewarding and punishment are rooted in social status of class. Thirdly, there are direct interconnections between social inequalities, differences and privileges influencing on people’s life experiences and development of criminal justice system. The fourth principle is that justice system influencing on development of social norms to different social groups. Still, there is a certain social bias of relation between a social class and lawbreakers. There has always been favoring conditions for favoring wealthy over poor, corporations over individuals etc. In accordance with stereotypes and symbolic considerations of the society “poor persons still have fewer resources or less power working for them in negotiating outcomes within and without the criminal justice system than the affluent or middle classes” (Murray, 1995). Thus, it is predetermined that in case social stereotypes prevent socially potential criminals from being non-criminals and become law-makers. Thus, social regulations should be shaped in accordance with distribution of economic, political, and cultural services (Barak, 1994). With this respect, relation of a social class to lawbreakers and lawmakers should be considered in wider terms. Socially constructed phenomena are shaped under the influence of culture, mass media and other external factors. In other words, there are socially and culturally produced images of criminals created within a certain society and then spread into other cultures and societies. For example, a representative of color race represented as a victimizer is a popularly propagated image of the American criminal. Moreover, crimes committed by representatives of the upper class or so-called white-collar crimes are not punished to such a severe extent as crimes committed by representatives of the underclass. Such kind of crimes is also known as “blue-collar crime”. It is a general term for naming different crimes committed by representatives of lower class or underclass. Such kind of crimes is believed to be committed without a proper deliberation and just for satisfying current needs (material needs in particular). “White-collar crimes” are believed to be properly worked out and developed beforehand. It is unfair to claim that very often different forms of crimes against a person/property/victimless crime are accounted for “blue-collar crimes”. On the one hand, “blue-collar crimes” are damaging and intimidating for the whole society and thus a degree of punishment is higher than in case of “white-collar crimes” (Gans, 1995). For example, punishment for financial fraud or money laundering is lower than for gambling or prostitution, for example. Unfortunately, there is no fair punishment in the modern world of material progress. The principles of morality and mutual respect have vanished into thin air and the idea of morality is propagated in the mass media in many different ways: “Moral principles, still more moral judgments, are thought to be at best an intellectual embarrassment, at worst evidence of an illiberal and repressive disposition” (Barak, 1994). This approach to a symbolic division between representatives of different a social classes influences on a public attitude to criminals and law-makers. In reality it is necessary to think about the relevance of a “a social class” concept and its relation to the modern society in general. Conclusion Currently, world’s citizens are divided in accordance of their “Eurocentric” or “culture-bound” principles. Therefore, it is necessary to differ between criminals and non-criminals by the degree of damage of a crime committed by them (whether “blue-collar crime” or “white-collar crime”) and not by their belonging to a certain a social class. Nevertheless, it can be seen that there is a direct relation between a social class and crime. In social, psychological and criminological studies, the differentiation between criminals and non-criminals has been often made on the basis of social environment of an individual’s development, his life experience, life condition etc. Currently, there is a need to reform stereotypes and images of criminals, which have been shaped under the influence of racial, gender and a social class factors. Though there is a strong trend to relate criminals to an underclass, it is worth remembering that representatives of both upper and underclass may commit crimes and it is necessary to make unprejudiced judgments on the basis of harm caused by these crimes to the society. Works cited 1. Andersen, Margaret L. and Patricia Hill Collins. (1998). Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology, 3rd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. 2. Barak, Gregg. (1994. (ed.) Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime: Studies in Newsmaking Criminology. New York: Garland Publishing. 3. Carrabine, E., Lee, M., & South, N. (2000). Social Wrongs and Human Rights in Late Modern Britain: Social Exclusion, Crime Control, and Prospects for a Public Criminology. Social Justice, 27(2), 193. 4. Darity, W. (1995). The Undesirables, America's Underclass in the Managerial Age: Beyond the Myrdal Theory of Racial Inequality. Daedalus, 124(1), 145+. 5. Gans, H. J. (1995). The War against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy. New York: Basic Books. 6. Middle Classes Are Worst for Dishonesty and Rule-Breaking (June 7, 2004). The Evening Standard. 7. Murray, C. (1995, Wntr). The Next British Revolution. Public Interest 3+. Read More