Cohen vs Hall Study of Disorderly Behavior - Essay Example

? Compare and contrast Cohen’s study of disorderly behavior with that of hall et all Task: Compare and Contrast Cohen’s Studyof Disorderly Behavior with that of Hall et all Human behavior is a predominant factor in the contemporary society. It is in this light that various theories have been brought up to explain the disorderly behavior of human beings. Some theorists attribute human behavior to genetically affiliations while others relate it to influence from their surroundings (Williams 1999, pp. 89). Human behavior remains a determinant of various factors in the society. The authoritative and discourse knowledge dominates the world of human behavior where people react in diverse ways. These include authorities, scholars and experts who determine diverse decisions in the society. In as much as various theories explain human behavior, the paper attempts to compare and contrast two theories. Disorderly behavior is the act of interrupting, molesting, agitating arousing or hindering and depriving inhabitants of their natural peace or quietness. Stanley Cohen and Stuart Hall are two theories who majored on the response of human behavior to various reactions. Various terminologies are erupting to describe the society in the present world. These include broken society, antisocial behavior as well as social disorder. These are some of the factors that raise questions, as to where the world heads, causing omnipresent fear within people. Consequently, behavior disorders pose the society to negative consequences leading to the development of diverse bodies to address the concern. Both Cohen and Hall gives a well round explanation of disorderly behavior (Macdonald 2006, pp. 184). Both have a baseline that the society changes as time changes. Thus, it is in the same time that human disorder develops and gets remade to match the changing society. More distinctively, various groups pass diverse characteristics to other generations to compete with the management of the society. According to Cohen, disorderly behavior, for instance, is a social disorder subjected of many factors. On the other hand, Hall limits disorders to given occurrences, which cause change or influence on the human behavior. Following media coverage and public complains in the British seaside, Cohen made a study of the rowdy gangs mainly composed of young people. As they call themselves, mods and rockers, the two groups engaged in non-peaceful engagements, which cause harm to many people calling for revenge from every group. It is from this perspective that Cohen attributes the problem to social evils. Consequently, he refers to the groups as distinct deviant to societal expectations in the descriptive media causing folk evils to outrage public (Williams 1999, pp. 89). It is in this light that Cohen separates from other theories by suggesting that instead of the media helping in highlighting various issues in the society, they cause havoc in the society raising various antisocial outrages. Consequently, according to him the media initiate moral panic among people where by people get charged to react to various activities (Macdonald 2006, pp. 184). Therefore, the irrational and outrageous explosion of the actual incident by the media, incite other social reactions in the process and hence leading to a terrified and outraged society. In addition, it fosters deep lying anxieties within individuals in the society, which when erupted get described as human disorder. Therefore, according to Cohen disorders in human behavior is an incitement by the surrounding atmosphere (Hinchliffe Clarke & Taylor 2009, pp. 68). The question of who decides on what is in order and what is not in order remains a concern of many theorists; however, the fact remains that disorders disorient the society. According to hall, people are accustomed to unilateral ways of handling various activities in the society. They follow things in a certain direction and powers of discourses in a way that any stray behavior leads to disorders. According to him, an explanation for any disorder does not exist as everybody is entitled to conduct activities in its own way. Therefore, it is erroneous for the culture discourse to determine and guide what one intends to do to the extent that any deviation leads to a disorder (Hinchliffe Clarke & Taylor 2009, pp. 81). In order to prove his study, Hall relates his explanations to the reaction of adults after watching television advertisements. He connects the aggressive behavior to a longitudinal study, which cause a direct correlation incited with repeated exposure to advertisements. The antisocial behavior through the media, therefore, does not result from any internal affiliations, but from the environment according to Hall. In as much as both theories tries to explain the secret behind behavior disorders, a clear distinction appears to portray a difference of the two. Cohen theory, for example, concentrates on identifying the underlying factors beneath behavior disorders. He tries to determine the main force behind disorders while at the same time focusing on knowing who owns and posses the power to declare behavior a disorder (Macdonald 2006, pp. 185). On the other hand, Hall tries to explain the causes of human disruptive behavior using the scientific approaches. According to him, his assessment of human disorder revolves around questions such as; Is the behavior intentional harm doing or aggressive behavior Does the reaction occur repeatedly or over time? Does it occur upon provocation, what is the nature of provocation, is it permanent or temporary. Is the reaction due to power imbalance, caused by interpersonal relationship? Are the effects of such negative behavior, related to other media such as cyber bullying? These are some of the factors, which Hall uses to assess the effect, source and extent behavior disorder can reach. The criteria of intentionality become a paramount concern of hall as he uses various environments with diverse specimens to examine and prove his facts. On the other hand, Cohen tries to explain his theories by revolving around varied explanations including Source of harassment, which induce the disorderly behavior, include alarm or stress Does the individual live in a household or stay alone, and what is his relationship with other people Is the intervention of necessary authorities necessary or the problem can be solved at a lower level Is the behavior, subjected to criminal and punishment from the authorities? Finally, what is the real cause is it induced or internally rejuvenated This, therefore, proves that both the theories are geared finding along lasting solution although one starts from the tail while the other from the head. Both theories in explaining the effects of external incitement for instance the media. The linkage of media to emotional distress finds base in foundations of psychology through hereditary influence. This is because behavior genetics conjoins psychology and genetics explaining it using gene influence transmitted from parents to siblings. From this perspective, behavior is a stimulus action that requires stimulation from the central nervous system. Consequently, transmission of genes from parents to siblings determines the mental and physical characteristics from one generation to the next (Macdonald 2006, pp. 185). According to behavior geneticists, there are certain behaviors subjected to alteration by genes during transmission to siblings. From this explanation, behavioral changes get influenced by hormones, which are chemical media in the body. Behavior change and disorder, therefore, gets coordination of various activities in the body, which emanate from various body actions. In as much as it tries to support Cohen theory that Hall’s theory, the explanation gets supported by tissue development morphogenesis. Consequently, discharge of hormones into the blood stream causes a change of motivational and emotional behavior, which is a compliment of the nervous system (Hinchliffe, Clarke & Taylor 2009, pp. 80). The integrating behavior is the resultant effects realized physically as behavior defects. Notably, the actions get tied to autonomic and hypothalamus nervous systems hence making behavior disorders to be linked to mental cases. This, therefore, finds a common ground between the two theories, which tries to establish the source, causes as well as effects of behavior change. Social media becomes a centre stage in both theories with considerable emphasis given to television, radio, internet and newspapers. The media play a significant role in either intriguing or minimizing behavior. This is because they provide a perfect mediating system, which needs control. Without control of the media, they can forward wayward information to the public, which also cause behavior change. Subsequently, information relayed by the media attracts and mediate visions causing influential powers mainly used by opportunists (Macdonald 2006, pp. 190). It is in this regards that attitude change becomes a key concern of Cohen as this aroused the difference between the mods and rockers. Notably, the same factor leads to the development of hoodies and gangs, which resemble folk devils. Hall on the other hand links the social changes to antisocial anxiety that forces people to develop certain mechanisms of survival. It is this regards that Cohen recommends certain punishment mechanisms such as ASBOs, which can tackle the behavior changes. This is despite the fact that some of the behavior changes are gene motivated and cannot be changed using external means. Notably, common fear of breaking disorders relies on the security of reviving the forbear. This therefore, becomes a key factor beneath the two theorists. Consequently, they try to explain causes of, behavioral disorder in as much as their explanations can become a matter of dispute. Cohen for instance does not give the reason why media should avoid creation of folk devils, but only concentrates of mistakes to support his theory. In as much as Hall’s theory proves to be substantive and trusted by many people, he also fails to establish many of his claims, focusing of effects rather than causes. References Macdonald, S 2006, ‘A suicidal woman, roaming pigs and a noisy trampolinist: refining the ASBO’s definition of ‘antisocial behavior’, The Modern Law Review, 69(2): 183–213. Williams, M 1999, Science and Social Science: An Introduction, Routledge, New York. Hinchliffe, S, Clarke, J & Taylor, S 2009, Making Social Lives (DD101: Introducing the Social Sciences, The Open University, Nottingham. Read More