Tarde's contribution to crowd psychology involved a theory of communication in mass culture. Crowds, he declared, cannot do without a master. Effective leaders create the mass in their own image; they have authentic and strong convictions; they are intransigent and monomaniacal; and they are motivated by a desire to achieve prestige, the will to be famous. Because they are mentally impoverished and physically enfeebled, the crowd looks to the leader as a savior. In describing the dynamics of initation between leader and followers, Tarde was actually sketching out a theory of narcissism, in which the leader is idealized. The crowd's admiration for the leader is actually only a split-off way of admiring itself, for they attribute their most precious and highly valued characteristics, ambitions, and ideals to the leader, including a view of their pure or grandiose self. Mass society accelerates the development of the individual's need to love, obey, imitate, and admire a superior being. This makes collectivities receptive to suggestion. Tarde astutely understood that submission is first learned and experienced in early family life, where the father and parents serve as prefigurations of the leader.
Tarde also depicted the ways in which mass communication serves to discipline the masses. The reader of a newspaper, he observed, becomes an excited or obedient automaton. Mass communication rarely attempts to educate or inform, but rather constitutes a subtle form of mental domination. For tarde, this form of manipulation resembled drug dependency. Modern man is not only prey to passing fashions, but he is easily fascinated by the large-scale, intensified, emotional effects of sophisticated techniques of communication.Today's media, whether the press, television, video, or radio, dangerously threaten to incite and pacify the population, making serious contestation and political opposition extremely difficult. By inference, those who control the means of communication can exercise a hegemonic influence over how contemporary man thinks, feels, and acts. Tarde wrote that industrial man was social in his readiness to suggestion, conformity, and somnambulistic states; modern crowds live as if suspended in a waking dream.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Durkheim's Analysis of the Division of Labor (2)
Psychological Isolation.
Durkheim went on to show how the growth of the division of labor increases the dependence of each specialized person on the rest, but this does not mean that such increasing heterogeneity leads to consensus of thought. On the contrary:"Each individual is more and more aquiring his own way of thinking and acting, and submits less completely to the common corporate union." Thus, while in one sense highly specialized persons are locked into a web of functiona dependency upon others, they are at the same time isolated in a psychological sense as soeciaizations lead them to develop greater and greater individuality.
Durkheim also noted that the evolution of society to a more complex form leads to an increase in social relationships of much the same type that Tonnies called Gesellschaft:"It is quite true that contractual reations, which were originally rare or conpletely absent, multiply as social labor becomes divided." Thus, an increase in the division of labor has the result not only of increasing individual heterogeneity, but of introducing an increasing number of more formal and segmental relationships between people.
Anomie
Finally, Durkheim saw that under some circumstances, the division of labor could result in what he called "pathological forms." "Though normally," he said, "the division of labor produces social solidarity, it sometimes happens that ithas different, and even contrary results." If social function, that is, parts of the organic solodarity can break down. Commercial crises, depressions, strife between labor and management, civil upheavles, riots, demonstrations, and protests by subgroups offer various examples.
Thus, the very division of labor that produces harmony up to a point contains the seeds of social disharmony if pushed beyond a certain point. This, of course, was the thesis of Auguste Comte. Such a state of disharmony Durkheim called anomie. This is a pathology of the social organism that results when the division of labor becomes elaborated to a point where individuals are not capable of effectively relating themselves to others.
In short, as society becomes more and more complex-as the memebrs of the society become more and more preoccupied with their own individual pursuits and development-they lose ability to identify with and feel themselves in community with others. Eventually they become a collectivity of psychologically isolated individuals, interacting with one another but oriented inward, and bound together primarily through contractual ties.
------Chapter "Mass Society and The Magic Bullet Theory" from "The Effect of Mass Communication"
Durkheim went on to show how the growth of the division of labor increases the dependence of each specialized person on the rest, but this does not mean that such increasing heterogeneity leads to consensus of thought. On the contrary:"Each individual is more and more aquiring his own way of thinking and acting, and submits less completely to the common corporate union." Thus, while in one sense highly specialized persons are locked into a web of functiona dependency upon others, they are at the same time isolated in a psychological sense as soeciaizations lead them to develop greater and greater individuality.
Durkheim also noted that the evolution of society to a more complex form leads to an increase in social relationships of much the same type that Tonnies called Gesellschaft:"It is quite true that contractual reations, which were originally rare or conpletely absent, multiply as social labor becomes divided." Thus, an increase in the division of labor has the result not only of increasing individual heterogeneity, but of introducing an increasing number of more formal and segmental relationships between people.
Anomie
Finally, Durkheim saw that under some circumstances, the division of labor could result in what he called "pathological forms." "Though normally," he said, "the division of labor produces social solidarity, it sometimes happens that ithas different, and even contrary results." If social function, that is, parts of the organic solodarity can break down. Commercial crises, depressions, strife between labor and management, civil upheavles, riots, demonstrations, and protests by subgroups offer various examples.
Thus, the very division of labor that produces harmony up to a point contains the seeds of social disharmony if pushed beyond a certain point. This, of course, was the thesis of Auguste Comte. Such a state of disharmony Durkheim called anomie. This is a pathology of the social organism that results when the division of labor becomes elaborated to a point where individuals are not capable of effectively relating themselves to others.
In short, as society becomes more and more complex-as the memebrs of the society become more and more preoccupied with their own individual pursuits and development-they lose ability to identify with and feel themselves in community with others. Eventually they become a collectivity of psychologically isolated individuals, interacting with one another but oriented inward, and bound together primarily through contractual ties.
------Chapter "Mass Society and The Magic Bullet Theory" from "The Effect of Mass Communication"
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Tarde and the Imitation of Deviance
Gabriel Tarde and the Imitation of Deviance
By Gwen Williams
One of the earliest formulations of a learning perspective on deviance is discovered in the writings of the French social theorist Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904). Tarde’s theory of imitation is a 19th century social learning theory; he was the forerunner of modern-day learning theorists. We will discuss Tarde’s belief that people learn from one another through the process of imitation. Attempting to bring up to date this 19th century theory by discussing contemporary issues, we will look at how the three laws of imitation might explain drug/alcohol use and gang behavior as imitated phenomena. We will also look at how one of the leaders of social learning theory and imitation, Albert Bandura, takes Tarde’s basic principles and uses them to make a contemporary argument on imitation and modeling that is very much in use today.
Jean-Gabriel Tarde was born in the small town of Sarlat, about one hundred miles east of Bordeaux, in 1843. He wrote several short volumes on his family and the town in which he lived, as well as editing and republishing the papers of outstanding family members. While in school, Tarde retained a permanent distaste for socially imposed discipline whenever it limited individual freedom. The success of racial and geographic theories which Lombroso, Garofalo, Ferri and others had developed led Tarde to publish a series of articles criticizing the "new Italian school" and emphasizing the preponderance of social factors—especially the socialization and imitation—behind crime. (Tarde, 1969a: 2-5)
Tarde directed attention to the social processes whereby forms of behavior and ways of thinking and feeling are passed on from group to group and person to person. His was a theory of "imitation and suggestion." The origins of deviance were pictured as very similar to the origins of fads and fashions. Each was a socially learned acquisition, governed by what Tarde referred to as the "three laws of imitation." These included (1) the law of close contact, (2) the law of imitation of superiors by inferiors, and (3) the law of insertion.
These three laws of imitation describe why people engage in crime. First, individuals in close intimate contact with one another imitate each other’s behavior (Tarde, 1969b: 30). By the law of close contact, Tarde meant simply that people have a greater tendency to imitate the fashions and customs of those with whom they have the most contact. If someone were regularly surrounded by people involved in a world of deviant behavior or lifestyles, they would be more likely to imitate these people than they would others with whom they had little association. Direct contact with deviance was believed to foster more deviance. Tarde theorized that there was short-term behavior (fashion) and long-term behavior (custom). He suggested that, as population became denser, behavior would be oriented more toward fashion than toward custom. (Williams & McShane 1988: 27)
The functions of the higher senses are more transmissible through imitation than those of the lower. We are much more likely to copy someone who is looking at or listening to something than someone who is smelling a flower or tasting a dish (Tarde, 1903a: 195). Imitation, contrary to what we might infer from certain appearances, proceeds from the inner to the outer man (Tarde, 1903b: 199).
As we look at indirect contact, we think of a world in which much of our contact with people, their actions, and their beliefs are mediated by mass communications. Tarde’s writing anticipated such a world of indirect imitation. He believed that the media played a central role in the proliferation of such nineteenth-century "epidemics of deviance" as the rise in mutilations of women, the practice of women disfiguring the faces of male lovers, and the rash of "Jack the Ripper"-type murders became evident. In Tarde’s own words, "infectious epidemics spread with air or wind; epidemics of crime follow the telegraph." If only Tarde had known of the coming of television, surely his law of close contact is relevant to the current debate over whether violence and other forms of deviance are learned from models displayed by the mass media (Pfohl, 1994a: 299). This will be discussed in more detail as we examine Albert Bandura’s modeling theory.
Tarde’s second law of imitation spreads from the top down; consequently, youngsters imitate older individuals, paupers imitate the rich, peasants imitate royalty, and so on. Crime among young, poor or low-status people is really their effort to imitate wealthy, older, high-status people. This law suggests perhaps people follow the model of high-status in hopes their imitative behavior will procure some of the rewards associated with being of a "superior" class. In any event, Tarde’s ideas have a particular relevance in our own age of visibly "high-class" deviance. Does post-Watergate knowledge of the deviance of "superior" persons, such as high governmental officials and corporate executives, increase the likelihood of deviance by us all?" Tarde’s law of imitation of superiors suggests that possibility. (Pfohl, 1994b: 299)
Tarde’s third law is the law of insertion: new acts and behaviors are superimposed on old ones and subsequently either reinforce or discourage previous customs. This law refers to the power inherent in newness or novelty; new fashions were said to replace old "customs." For example, drug taking may be a popular fad among college students who previously used alcohol. However, students may find that a combination of both substances provides even greater stimulation, causing the use of both drugs and alcohol to increase. Another example would be a new criminal custom developing that eliminates an older one – truck hijacking replacing train robbing. When two mutually exclusive ways of doing something come into conflict, Tarde believed the newer one would ordinarily win out. The replacement of the knife by the gun as a weapon of deviant destruction was also cited as an example of this process. (Pfohl, 1994c: 299)
From its early inception in Tarde’s three laws of imitation, the learning perspective, has exerted an enormous impact on the study of deviance and social control. It is the product of learning in the world in a particular way, learning with and from others about how to define, feel, and act within a world which we create together.
As we examine social learning more, we see a lot of theories integrated, which originated to some extent from Tarde’s imitation theory. Social psychologists suggest that drug abuse patterns may result from the observation of parental drug use. Parental drug abuse begins to have a damaging effect on children as young as two years old, especially when parents manifest drug-related personality problems, children imitate their behavior. Children whose parents abuse drugs are more likely to have persistent abuse problems than the children of nonabusers, because one is more exposed intimately than the other. (Ashby, Vaccaro, McNamara, and Hirky, 1996:166-180)
A study was conducted that tested the validity of social learning theory for juveniles’ use of alcohol and marijuana. The data were collected by questionnaires given to 3,065 male and female adolescents, grades 7-12. The study measured the main concept of the social learning theories: imitation, differential association, etc. There was strong support for the social learning theory of adolescent drug and alcohol behavior. 55 percent of the variance in drinking behavior and 68 percent of the variance in marijuana behavior was explained by the model. The analyses showed that some subsets of variables specified by the theory are more important than others and the peer variable was the most important single variable; the most influential of why the adolescents used alcohol and drugs. In a study done on adolescent alcohol use, a number of students described more generally definitive reasons likely applied to many potential alcohol situations, e.g., "I’m worried that I can become addicted": "I’m worried that using alcohol will wreck my future"; I want to be careful with alcohol and not be an alcoholic like my uncle." (Forgays, 1998:11)
Adolescents respond to peer group influences more readily than adults because of the crucial role peer relationships play in identity formation. Youth’s greater desire for acceptance and approval renders them more susceptible to peer influences as they adjust their behavior and attitudes to conform to those of their contemporaries. Significantly, young people "commit crimes, as they live their lives, in groups." (Morse, 1997a: 108). It is widely assumed that peer influence plays an important role in adolescent crime, and evidence supports the claim that teens are more subject to this influence than are adults. Peer influence seems to operate through two means: social comparison and conformity. Through social comparison, adolescents measure their own behavior by comparing it to others. Social conformity to peers, which peaks at about age fourteen, influence adolescents to adapt their behavior and attitudes to that of their peers. Peer influence could affect adolescent decision-making in several ways. In some contexts, adolescents might make choices in response to direct peer pressure. More indirectly, adolescent desire for peer approval could affect the choices made, without any direct coercion. Peers may provide models for behavior that adolescents believe will assist them in accomplishing their own ends. (Morse, 1997b: 162) We are led to copy from others everything that seems to us a new means for attaining our old ends, or satisfying our old wants, or a new expression of our old ideas; and we do this at the same time that we begin to adopt innovations which awaken new ideas and new ends in us. (Clark, 1969:186)
Social learning is the branch of behavior theory most relevant to criminology. Social learning theorists view violence as something learned through a process called behavior modeling. In modern society, aggressive acts are usually modeled after three principle sources. The most prominent models are family members. Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist, reports that studies of family life show that children who use aggressive tactics have parents who use similar behaviors when dealing with others. A second influence on the social learning of violence is provided by environmental experiences. People who reside in areas in which violence is a daily occurrence are more likely to act violently than those who dwell in low-crime areas where norms stress conventional behavior. A third source of behavior modeling is provided by the mass media. Films and television shows commonly depict violence graphically. Moreover, violence is often portrayed as an acceptable behavior, especially for heroes who never have to face legal consequences for their actions; for example, Batman and the Power Rangers. (Siegal, 1998a: 145).
Bandura first presented the principles of social learning theory in 1963. The study demonstrated that modeling is one of the most effective ways to teach children ways of behaving and their consequences. These theories are relevant to studies that have shown a link between movie portrayals of behavior and the behavior of juvenile viewers. A recent study found that adolescent subjects accepted the behavior of movie characters as moral even if it was violent or antisocial as long as they could identify with the character. In addition, it was easier for the more aggressive viewer to accept the violence of the film actor. Some said the effects of media violence on children only exists in a small amount that is still up for debate. Studies of the effects of media violence on behavior generally caution that variables such as belief in the reality of the media presentation, predisposition toward violence, an aggressive family environment, identification with aggressive media characters, and how the consequences of aggressive behavior are portrayed may all affect the relationship between media and violence.
Social learning theorists argue that people are not actually born with the ability to act violently but that they learn to be aggressive through their life experiences. These experiences include personally observing others acting aggressively to achieve some goal or watching people being rewarded for violent acts on television or in movies. People learn to act aggressively when, as children, they model their behavior after the violent acts of adults. Later in life, these violent behavior patterns persist in social relationships. The boy who sees his father repeatedly strike his mother with impunity is the one most likely to grow up to become a battering parent and husband (Siegal, 1998b: 145). Bandura’s social learning theory when applied to effects of mass media, is an important concept. It was the "backbone" of subsequent research, studying the impact of television violence on children. This is a contemporary look at what Tarde spoke about, but because this technology was not available during his lifetime, he spoke mainly of verbal communication via telegraphs and newspapers. The conclusion from Bandura’s observational learning research relates to mass communication, particularly the "effects" of film and television on youth. Bandura spoke about modeling, or observational learning when he performed the Bobo Doll Experiment. He made a film of a young woman, beating up a Bobo Doll, and showed it to kindergartners. The kids imitated the young woman’s actions. The research proves children will imitate and learn behavior performed by symbolic models on television. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html
Another viewpoint is that men learn to commit rapes much as they learn any other behavior. Many rapists were sexually victimized as adolescents. A growing body of literature links personal sexual trauma with the desire to inflict sexual trauma on others. Tarde’s ideas are quite similar to those of modern social learning theorists, who believe that both interpersonal and observed behavior, such as watching a movie or television can influence criminality. Evidence is mounting that some men are influenced by observing films and books with both violent and sexual content. Watching violent or pornographic films featuring women who are beaten, raped, or tortured has been linked to sexually aggressive behavior in men. In one startling case, a 12-year-old Providence, Rhode Island, boy sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl on a pool table after watching TV coverage of a case in which a woman was similarly raped (the incident was made into a film, The Accused, starring actress Jodie Foster). (Omaha World Herald, 1984:50).
Although social learning theorists agree that mental or physical traits may predispose a person toward violence, they believe that the activation of a person’s violent tendencies is achieved by factors in the environment. The specific forms that aggressive behavior takes, the frequency with which it is expressed, the situations in which it is displayed, and the specific targets selected for attack are largely determined by social learning. Their interpretations of behavior outcomes and situations influence the way they learn from experiences.
Ronald Akers (differential reinforcement theory) says people learn to evaluate their own behavior through interaction with significant others and groups in their lives, this parallels Tarde’s close contact law. These groups control sources and patterns of reinforcement, define behavior as right or wrong and provide behaviors for observational learning. The more individuals learn to define their behavior as good or at least as justified, rather than as undesirable, the more likely they are to engage in it. For example, kids who hook up with a drug-abusing peer group whose members value drugs and alcohol, encourage their use, and provide opportunities to observe people abusing substance, will be encouraged through this social learning experience to use drugs themselves.
Akers’ theory posits that the principal influence on behavior is from those groups, which control individuals’ major sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models and normative definitions. The important groups are peer and friendship groups, schools, churches and similar institutions. Within the context of these critical groups, deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that it has been differently reinforced over alternative behavior…it is defined as desirable or justified. The deviant behavior, originated by imitation, is sustained by social support (Siegal, 1998c: 204)
Individuals acquire certain behaviors and attitudes via a process of social learning, let’s take for example gangs. Social learning theory claims that if behavior is rewarded and repeated episodes are met with reinforcement, it continues. Of course, if behavior is punished, the perpetrator is discourages from engaging in the conduct and the behavior decreases. A potential recruit learns through close interactions with the gang members what is "appropriate or inappropriate at least according to their reverse value system. The profile of the youth that joins might include a youth that is friends with gang-members, someone who experiences peer-pressure to join, or intimidated by the gang.
Personal responsibility and family values are now vogue explanations for youth gang activities. (Brown, 1998a: 1) Many scholars agree that the family is probably the most critical factor relating to crime and delinquency (Brown, 1998b: 2). Some gang members live "wherever I can". Often, this means, "today a friend’s house and tomorrow a drug house". All adult family participants in a study expressed concern about their children’s, or grandchildren’s involvement in youth gangs. Most attempted to control their children’s activities. "I tell him all the time to stay away from them kind of kids," says one mother. A father states, "I don’t like him running wild out there, but we (including his wife) both got jobs. We just can’t watch them all the time". (Brown, 1998c: 5). In the study over half of the sample indicated they became involved with gangs through introduction by friends and peers. (Brown, 1998d: 7)
This hypothesis was substantially more supported among whites in urban or rural settings than among blacks. An argument can be made, though, that juveniles who are surrounded by adults, particularly significant others such as parents, who have achieved relatively little in reference to those residing outside of socially disorganized neighborhoods, would perceive their chances for success blocked relative to youth residing elsewhere. Basically, failure, or expectation of failure, provides the motivation for youth to enter gangs. This assertion can be asserted to the study of general delinquency, rather than gang membership per se. That is, youth living in socially disorganized neighborhoods are more likely than other youth to perceive their opportunities blocked and, therefore, engage in delinquency. (Vowel and Howell, 1998: 390). In this way, imitation passes on from one person to another, as well as from one class to another within the same people. Do we ever see one class which is in contact with, but which has never, hypothetically, been subject to the control of another determine to copy its accent, its dress, its furniture, and its buildings, and end by embracing its principles and beliefs? (Tarde, 1903c: 201)
In integrating Tarde’s imitation theory, Edwin Sutherland put forth a few propositions, which just need to be mentioned because of its relevance to imitation. Edwin Sutherland spoke of differential association. He hypothesized that "any person can be trained to adopt and follow". Sutherland, in summation, felt that criminal behavior is learned, and learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. He also proposed that the learning part of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. This parallels Tarde’s second law of imitation, close contact. (Sutherland and Cressey, 1994a: 192). However in this Sutherland felt the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described as imitation. (Sutherland, 1994b: 194).
Sutherland suggested that the distinction between lawbreakers and the law-abiding lies not in their personal fiber but in the content of what they have learned. Those with the good fortune of growing up in a conventional neighborhood will learn to play baseball and to attend church services; those with the misfortune of growing up in a slum will learn to rob drunks and to roam the streets looking to do mischief. (Lilly, Cullen, Ball , 1995:47).
Now, after examining the theory of imitation and its relevant integrated theories, we need to look at some criticisms of these works. Learning theorists fail to account for the origin of criminal definitions; How did the first "teachers" learn criminal techniques and definitions. Learning theories also imply that people systematically learn techniques that allow them to be active and successful criminals, but they fail to adequately explain spontaneous and wanton acts of violence and damage and other expressive crimes that appear to have little utility or purpose, i.e. a random shooting. Little evidence exists that people learn the techniques that enable them to become criminals before they actually commit criminal acts (Siegal, 1998d: 207)
As we look at other criticisms of Tarde’ work, along with others who have brought his theory to the forefront, we see that criticisms of the mass media are based on the assumption that what people see and hear strongly affect their attitudes and behavior. Elitist critics condemn the emphasis on sex and violence and the generally low level of intellectual sophistication of most programming. Critics on the left argue that the masses are lulled into defining public issues as personal problems. Although it is difficult to believe that the media do not have a direct impact on attitudes and actions, the research is unclear. (Hess, Markson, & Stein, 1993:565)
The mass media—primarily radio, film or print at the time most research was conducted—emerged as unlikely to be a major contributor to direct change of individual opinions, attitudes or behavior or to be a direct cause of crime, aggression, or other disapproved social phenomena (Graber, 1990: 22).
Tarde’s three laws are rather loose and have been criticized for being overly simplistic and for neglecting a host of other physical, psychological, social, political, and economic factors related to deviance. Some of the dynamics of these laws were never specifically laid out. Why, for instance, was newness more attractive than established custom? Are we more likely to accept new forms of doing things if they do old things better, for example, alcohol to crack, 45 magnums to machine guns? Tarde was not clear about such issues. Nonetheless, his ideas about the imitative origins of deviance opened the door for an interpretation of deviance as learned behavior. Tarde rejected the biological theories as well as explanations, which viewed society as independent of the activities of its members. He planted the theoretical seeds of a perspective, which later came to fruition in Edwin Sutherland’s theory of a differential association. Note the importance placed upon associative imitation in the following excerpt from Tarde’s Penal Philosophy:
The majority of murderers and notorious thieves (begin) as children who have been abandoned, and the true seminary of crime must be sought for upon each public square and/or each crossroad of our town, whether they be small or large, in those flocks of pillaging street urchins, who like bands of sparrows, associate together, at first for marauding, and then for theft, because of a lack of education and food in their homes. (Pfohl, 1994d: 299-300).
Many have adapted and refined Tarde’s work. His research on deviance and how it is manifested has caused many contemporaries to take notice and embark on new avenues that emit from it. Tarde’s three laws, close contact, superiors and inferiors, and insertion all have been expanded upon in today’s contemporary criminological research.
References
Brown (1998). Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 1,2,5,7.
Clark, Terry. (1969). On Communication and Social Influence, 30, 186
Forgays, Deborah Kirby. (1998): Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 7(4), 11.
Graber, Doris A. (1990). Media Power in Politics 2nd Edition. 22
Hess, Beth, Markson, Elizabeth, and Stein, Peter. (1993). Sociology, Fourth Edition. 565
(http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html)
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1997). 88(1), 108, 162
Lilly, Cullen, Ball. (1995). Criminological Theory. 47
Pfohl, Stephen, Images of Deviance and Social Control, Second Edition, 1994
Rojeck, Dean, G., and Jensen, F. Gary. (1996). Social Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory, 120-127
Siegal, Larry J. (1998), Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies, Sixth Edition. 145
Sutherland, Edwin H., and Cressey, Donald R. (1994). Theories of Deviance. 192
Tarde, Gabriel. (1903). The Laws of Imitation, 195,199
Tarde, Gabriel (1969). On Communication & Social Influence. 2-5,30
Vowel & Howell, (1998, Oct-Dec). Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 19(4), 390.
Williams, Frank P. III, McShane, Marilyn D. (1988) Criminological Theory. 27
Wills, Thomas Ashby, Vaccaro, Donato, McNamara, Grace, and Hirky, A. Elizabeth Hirky. (1996) "Escalated Substance Use: A Longitudinal Grouping Analysis from Early to Middle Adolescence, " Journal of Abnormal Psychology 166-180
Associated Press, "Trial on TV May Have Influenced Boy Facing Sexual-Assault Count," Omaha World Herald, 18 April 1984, p50.
By Gwen Williams
One of the earliest formulations of a learning perspective on deviance is discovered in the writings of the French social theorist Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904). Tarde’s theory of imitation is a 19th century social learning theory; he was the forerunner of modern-day learning theorists. We will discuss Tarde’s belief that people learn from one another through the process of imitation. Attempting to bring up to date this 19th century theory by discussing contemporary issues, we will look at how the three laws of imitation might explain drug/alcohol use and gang behavior as imitated phenomena. We will also look at how one of the leaders of social learning theory and imitation, Albert Bandura, takes Tarde’s basic principles and uses them to make a contemporary argument on imitation and modeling that is very much in use today.
Jean-Gabriel Tarde was born in the small town of Sarlat, about one hundred miles east of Bordeaux, in 1843. He wrote several short volumes on his family and the town in which he lived, as well as editing and republishing the papers of outstanding family members. While in school, Tarde retained a permanent distaste for socially imposed discipline whenever it limited individual freedom. The success of racial and geographic theories which Lombroso, Garofalo, Ferri and others had developed led Tarde to publish a series of articles criticizing the "new Italian school" and emphasizing the preponderance of social factors—especially the socialization and imitation—behind crime. (Tarde, 1969a: 2-5)
Tarde directed attention to the social processes whereby forms of behavior and ways of thinking and feeling are passed on from group to group and person to person. His was a theory of "imitation and suggestion." The origins of deviance were pictured as very similar to the origins of fads and fashions. Each was a socially learned acquisition, governed by what Tarde referred to as the "three laws of imitation." These included (1) the law of close contact, (2) the law of imitation of superiors by inferiors, and (3) the law of insertion.
These three laws of imitation describe why people engage in crime. First, individuals in close intimate contact with one another imitate each other’s behavior (Tarde, 1969b: 30). By the law of close contact, Tarde meant simply that people have a greater tendency to imitate the fashions and customs of those with whom they have the most contact. If someone were regularly surrounded by people involved in a world of deviant behavior or lifestyles, they would be more likely to imitate these people than they would others with whom they had little association. Direct contact with deviance was believed to foster more deviance. Tarde theorized that there was short-term behavior (fashion) and long-term behavior (custom). He suggested that, as population became denser, behavior would be oriented more toward fashion than toward custom. (Williams & McShane 1988: 27)
The functions of the higher senses are more transmissible through imitation than those of the lower. We are much more likely to copy someone who is looking at or listening to something than someone who is smelling a flower or tasting a dish (Tarde, 1903a: 195). Imitation, contrary to what we might infer from certain appearances, proceeds from the inner to the outer man (Tarde, 1903b: 199).
As we look at indirect contact, we think of a world in which much of our contact with people, their actions, and their beliefs are mediated by mass communications. Tarde’s writing anticipated such a world of indirect imitation. He believed that the media played a central role in the proliferation of such nineteenth-century "epidemics of deviance" as the rise in mutilations of women, the practice of women disfiguring the faces of male lovers, and the rash of "Jack the Ripper"-type murders became evident. In Tarde’s own words, "infectious epidemics spread with air or wind; epidemics of crime follow the telegraph." If only Tarde had known of the coming of television, surely his law of close contact is relevant to the current debate over whether violence and other forms of deviance are learned from models displayed by the mass media (Pfohl, 1994a: 299). This will be discussed in more detail as we examine Albert Bandura’s modeling theory.
Tarde’s second law of imitation spreads from the top down; consequently, youngsters imitate older individuals, paupers imitate the rich, peasants imitate royalty, and so on. Crime among young, poor or low-status people is really their effort to imitate wealthy, older, high-status people. This law suggests perhaps people follow the model of high-status in hopes their imitative behavior will procure some of the rewards associated with being of a "superior" class. In any event, Tarde’s ideas have a particular relevance in our own age of visibly "high-class" deviance. Does post-Watergate knowledge of the deviance of "superior" persons, such as high governmental officials and corporate executives, increase the likelihood of deviance by us all?" Tarde’s law of imitation of superiors suggests that possibility. (Pfohl, 1994b: 299)
Tarde’s third law is the law of insertion: new acts and behaviors are superimposed on old ones and subsequently either reinforce or discourage previous customs. This law refers to the power inherent in newness or novelty; new fashions were said to replace old "customs." For example, drug taking may be a popular fad among college students who previously used alcohol. However, students may find that a combination of both substances provides even greater stimulation, causing the use of both drugs and alcohol to increase. Another example would be a new criminal custom developing that eliminates an older one – truck hijacking replacing train robbing. When two mutually exclusive ways of doing something come into conflict, Tarde believed the newer one would ordinarily win out. The replacement of the knife by the gun as a weapon of deviant destruction was also cited as an example of this process. (Pfohl, 1994c: 299)
From its early inception in Tarde’s three laws of imitation, the learning perspective, has exerted an enormous impact on the study of deviance and social control. It is the product of learning in the world in a particular way, learning with and from others about how to define, feel, and act within a world which we create together.
As we examine social learning more, we see a lot of theories integrated, which originated to some extent from Tarde’s imitation theory. Social psychologists suggest that drug abuse patterns may result from the observation of parental drug use. Parental drug abuse begins to have a damaging effect on children as young as two years old, especially when parents manifest drug-related personality problems, children imitate their behavior. Children whose parents abuse drugs are more likely to have persistent abuse problems than the children of nonabusers, because one is more exposed intimately than the other. (Ashby, Vaccaro, McNamara, and Hirky, 1996:166-180)
A study was conducted that tested the validity of social learning theory for juveniles’ use of alcohol and marijuana. The data were collected by questionnaires given to 3,065 male and female adolescents, grades 7-12. The study measured the main concept of the social learning theories: imitation, differential association, etc. There was strong support for the social learning theory of adolescent drug and alcohol behavior. 55 percent of the variance in drinking behavior and 68 percent of the variance in marijuana behavior was explained by the model. The analyses showed that some subsets of variables specified by the theory are more important than others and the peer variable was the most important single variable; the most influential of why the adolescents used alcohol and drugs. In a study done on adolescent alcohol use, a number of students described more generally definitive reasons likely applied to many potential alcohol situations, e.g., "I’m worried that I can become addicted": "I’m worried that using alcohol will wreck my future"; I want to be careful with alcohol and not be an alcoholic like my uncle." (Forgays, 1998:11)
Adolescents respond to peer group influences more readily than adults because of the crucial role peer relationships play in identity formation. Youth’s greater desire for acceptance and approval renders them more susceptible to peer influences as they adjust their behavior and attitudes to conform to those of their contemporaries. Significantly, young people "commit crimes, as they live their lives, in groups." (Morse, 1997a: 108). It is widely assumed that peer influence plays an important role in adolescent crime, and evidence supports the claim that teens are more subject to this influence than are adults. Peer influence seems to operate through two means: social comparison and conformity. Through social comparison, adolescents measure their own behavior by comparing it to others. Social conformity to peers, which peaks at about age fourteen, influence adolescents to adapt their behavior and attitudes to that of their peers. Peer influence could affect adolescent decision-making in several ways. In some contexts, adolescents might make choices in response to direct peer pressure. More indirectly, adolescent desire for peer approval could affect the choices made, without any direct coercion. Peers may provide models for behavior that adolescents believe will assist them in accomplishing their own ends. (Morse, 1997b: 162) We are led to copy from others everything that seems to us a new means for attaining our old ends, or satisfying our old wants, or a new expression of our old ideas; and we do this at the same time that we begin to adopt innovations which awaken new ideas and new ends in us. (Clark, 1969:186)
Social learning is the branch of behavior theory most relevant to criminology. Social learning theorists view violence as something learned through a process called behavior modeling. In modern society, aggressive acts are usually modeled after three principle sources. The most prominent models are family members. Albert Bandura, a social learning theorist, reports that studies of family life show that children who use aggressive tactics have parents who use similar behaviors when dealing with others. A second influence on the social learning of violence is provided by environmental experiences. People who reside in areas in which violence is a daily occurrence are more likely to act violently than those who dwell in low-crime areas where norms stress conventional behavior. A third source of behavior modeling is provided by the mass media. Films and television shows commonly depict violence graphically. Moreover, violence is often portrayed as an acceptable behavior, especially for heroes who never have to face legal consequences for their actions; for example, Batman and the Power Rangers. (Siegal, 1998a: 145).
Bandura first presented the principles of social learning theory in 1963. The study demonstrated that modeling is one of the most effective ways to teach children ways of behaving and their consequences. These theories are relevant to studies that have shown a link between movie portrayals of behavior and the behavior of juvenile viewers. A recent study found that adolescent subjects accepted the behavior of movie characters as moral even if it was violent or antisocial as long as they could identify with the character. In addition, it was easier for the more aggressive viewer to accept the violence of the film actor. Some said the effects of media violence on children only exists in a small amount that is still up for debate. Studies of the effects of media violence on behavior generally caution that variables such as belief in the reality of the media presentation, predisposition toward violence, an aggressive family environment, identification with aggressive media characters, and how the consequences of aggressive behavior are portrayed may all affect the relationship between media and violence.
Social learning theorists argue that people are not actually born with the ability to act violently but that they learn to be aggressive through their life experiences. These experiences include personally observing others acting aggressively to achieve some goal or watching people being rewarded for violent acts on television or in movies. People learn to act aggressively when, as children, they model their behavior after the violent acts of adults. Later in life, these violent behavior patterns persist in social relationships. The boy who sees his father repeatedly strike his mother with impunity is the one most likely to grow up to become a battering parent and husband (Siegal, 1998b: 145). Bandura’s social learning theory when applied to effects of mass media, is an important concept. It was the "backbone" of subsequent research, studying the impact of television violence on children. This is a contemporary look at what Tarde spoke about, but because this technology was not available during his lifetime, he spoke mainly of verbal communication via telegraphs and newspapers. The conclusion from Bandura’s observational learning research relates to mass communication, particularly the "effects" of film and television on youth. Bandura spoke about modeling, or observational learning when he performed the Bobo Doll Experiment. He made a film of a young woman, beating up a Bobo Doll, and showed it to kindergartners. The kids imitated the young woman’s actions. The research proves children will imitate and learn behavior performed by symbolic models on television. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html
Another viewpoint is that men learn to commit rapes much as they learn any other behavior. Many rapists were sexually victimized as adolescents. A growing body of literature links personal sexual trauma with the desire to inflict sexual trauma on others. Tarde’s ideas are quite similar to those of modern social learning theorists, who believe that both interpersonal and observed behavior, such as watching a movie or television can influence criminality. Evidence is mounting that some men are influenced by observing films and books with both violent and sexual content. Watching violent or pornographic films featuring women who are beaten, raped, or tortured has been linked to sexually aggressive behavior in men. In one startling case, a 12-year-old Providence, Rhode Island, boy sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl on a pool table after watching TV coverage of a case in which a woman was similarly raped (the incident was made into a film, The Accused, starring actress Jodie Foster). (Omaha World Herald, 1984:50).
Although social learning theorists agree that mental or physical traits may predispose a person toward violence, they believe that the activation of a person’s violent tendencies is achieved by factors in the environment. The specific forms that aggressive behavior takes, the frequency with which it is expressed, the situations in which it is displayed, and the specific targets selected for attack are largely determined by social learning. Their interpretations of behavior outcomes and situations influence the way they learn from experiences.
Ronald Akers (differential reinforcement theory) says people learn to evaluate their own behavior through interaction with significant others and groups in their lives, this parallels Tarde’s close contact law. These groups control sources and patterns of reinforcement, define behavior as right or wrong and provide behaviors for observational learning. The more individuals learn to define their behavior as good or at least as justified, rather than as undesirable, the more likely they are to engage in it. For example, kids who hook up with a drug-abusing peer group whose members value drugs and alcohol, encourage their use, and provide opportunities to observe people abusing substance, will be encouraged through this social learning experience to use drugs themselves.
Akers’ theory posits that the principal influence on behavior is from those groups, which control individuals’ major sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models and normative definitions. The important groups are peer and friendship groups, schools, churches and similar institutions. Within the context of these critical groups, deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that it has been differently reinforced over alternative behavior…it is defined as desirable or justified. The deviant behavior, originated by imitation, is sustained by social support (Siegal, 1998c: 204)
Individuals acquire certain behaviors and attitudes via a process of social learning, let’s take for example gangs. Social learning theory claims that if behavior is rewarded and repeated episodes are met with reinforcement, it continues. Of course, if behavior is punished, the perpetrator is discourages from engaging in the conduct and the behavior decreases. A potential recruit learns through close interactions with the gang members what is "appropriate or inappropriate at least according to their reverse value system. The profile of the youth that joins might include a youth that is friends with gang-members, someone who experiences peer-pressure to join, or intimidated by the gang.
Personal responsibility and family values are now vogue explanations for youth gang activities. (Brown, 1998a: 1) Many scholars agree that the family is probably the most critical factor relating to crime and delinquency (Brown, 1998b: 2). Some gang members live "wherever I can". Often, this means, "today a friend’s house and tomorrow a drug house". All adult family participants in a study expressed concern about their children’s, or grandchildren’s involvement in youth gangs. Most attempted to control their children’s activities. "I tell him all the time to stay away from them kind of kids," says one mother. A father states, "I don’t like him running wild out there, but we (including his wife) both got jobs. We just can’t watch them all the time". (Brown, 1998c: 5). In the study over half of the sample indicated they became involved with gangs through introduction by friends and peers. (Brown, 1998d: 7)
This hypothesis was substantially more supported among whites in urban or rural settings than among blacks. An argument can be made, though, that juveniles who are surrounded by adults, particularly significant others such as parents, who have achieved relatively little in reference to those residing outside of socially disorganized neighborhoods, would perceive their chances for success blocked relative to youth residing elsewhere. Basically, failure, or expectation of failure, provides the motivation for youth to enter gangs. This assertion can be asserted to the study of general delinquency, rather than gang membership per se. That is, youth living in socially disorganized neighborhoods are more likely than other youth to perceive their opportunities blocked and, therefore, engage in delinquency. (Vowel and Howell, 1998: 390). In this way, imitation passes on from one person to another, as well as from one class to another within the same people. Do we ever see one class which is in contact with, but which has never, hypothetically, been subject to the control of another determine to copy its accent, its dress, its furniture, and its buildings, and end by embracing its principles and beliefs? (Tarde, 1903c: 201)
In integrating Tarde’s imitation theory, Edwin Sutherland put forth a few propositions, which just need to be mentioned because of its relevance to imitation. Edwin Sutherland spoke of differential association. He hypothesized that "any person can be trained to adopt and follow". Sutherland, in summation, felt that criminal behavior is learned, and learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. He also proposed that the learning part of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. This parallels Tarde’s second law of imitation, close contact. (Sutherland and Cressey, 1994a: 192). However in this Sutherland felt the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described as imitation. (Sutherland, 1994b: 194).
Sutherland suggested that the distinction between lawbreakers and the law-abiding lies not in their personal fiber but in the content of what they have learned. Those with the good fortune of growing up in a conventional neighborhood will learn to play baseball and to attend church services; those with the misfortune of growing up in a slum will learn to rob drunks and to roam the streets looking to do mischief. (Lilly, Cullen, Ball , 1995:47).
Now, after examining the theory of imitation and its relevant integrated theories, we need to look at some criticisms of these works. Learning theorists fail to account for the origin of criminal definitions; How did the first "teachers" learn criminal techniques and definitions. Learning theories also imply that people systematically learn techniques that allow them to be active and successful criminals, but they fail to adequately explain spontaneous and wanton acts of violence and damage and other expressive crimes that appear to have little utility or purpose, i.e. a random shooting. Little evidence exists that people learn the techniques that enable them to become criminals before they actually commit criminal acts (Siegal, 1998d: 207)
As we look at other criticisms of Tarde’ work, along with others who have brought his theory to the forefront, we see that criticisms of the mass media are based on the assumption that what people see and hear strongly affect their attitudes and behavior. Elitist critics condemn the emphasis on sex and violence and the generally low level of intellectual sophistication of most programming. Critics on the left argue that the masses are lulled into defining public issues as personal problems. Although it is difficult to believe that the media do not have a direct impact on attitudes and actions, the research is unclear. (Hess, Markson, & Stein, 1993:565)
The mass media—primarily radio, film or print at the time most research was conducted—emerged as unlikely to be a major contributor to direct change of individual opinions, attitudes or behavior or to be a direct cause of crime, aggression, or other disapproved social phenomena (Graber, 1990: 22).
Tarde’s three laws are rather loose and have been criticized for being overly simplistic and for neglecting a host of other physical, psychological, social, political, and economic factors related to deviance. Some of the dynamics of these laws were never specifically laid out. Why, for instance, was newness more attractive than established custom? Are we more likely to accept new forms of doing things if they do old things better, for example, alcohol to crack, 45 magnums to machine guns? Tarde was not clear about such issues. Nonetheless, his ideas about the imitative origins of deviance opened the door for an interpretation of deviance as learned behavior. Tarde rejected the biological theories as well as explanations, which viewed society as independent of the activities of its members. He planted the theoretical seeds of a perspective, which later came to fruition in Edwin Sutherland’s theory of a differential association. Note the importance placed upon associative imitation in the following excerpt from Tarde’s Penal Philosophy:
The majority of murderers and notorious thieves (begin) as children who have been abandoned, and the true seminary of crime must be sought for upon each public square and/or each crossroad of our town, whether they be small or large, in those flocks of pillaging street urchins, who like bands of sparrows, associate together, at first for marauding, and then for theft, because of a lack of education and food in their homes. (Pfohl, 1994d: 299-300).
Many have adapted and refined Tarde’s work. His research on deviance and how it is manifested has caused many contemporaries to take notice and embark on new avenues that emit from it. Tarde’s three laws, close contact, superiors and inferiors, and insertion all have been expanded upon in today’s contemporary criminological research.
References
Brown (1998). Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 1,2,5,7.
Clark, Terry. (1969). On Communication and Social Influence, 30, 186
Forgays, Deborah Kirby. (1998): Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 7(4), 11.
Graber, Doris A. (1990). Media Power in Politics 2nd Edition. 22
Hess, Beth, Markson, Elizabeth, and Stein, Peter. (1993). Sociology, Fourth Edition. 565
(http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html)
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1997). 88(1), 108, 162
Lilly, Cullen, Ball. (1995). Criminological Theory. 47
Pfohl, Stephen, Images of Deviance and Social Control, Second Edition, 1994
Rojeck, Dean, G., and Jensen, F. Gary. (1996). Social Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory, 120-127
Siegal, Larry J. (1998), Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies, Sixth Edition. 145
Sutherland, Edwin H., and Cressey, Donald R. (1994). Theories of Deviance. 192
Tarde, Gabriel. (1903). The Laws of Imitation, 195,199
Tarde, Gabriel (1969). On Communication & Social Influence. 2-5,30
Vowel & Howell, (1998, Oct-Dec). Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 19(4), 390.
Williams, Frank P. III, McShane, Marilyn D. (1988) Criminological Theory. 27
Wills, Thomas Ashby, Vaccaro, Donato, McNamara, Grace, and Hirky, A. Elizabeth Hirky. (1996) "Escalated Substance Use: A Longitudinal Grouping Analysis from Early to Middle Adolescence, " Journal of Abnormal Psychology 166-180
Associated Press, "Trial on TV May Have Influenced Boy Facing Sexual-Assault Count," Omaha World Herald, 18 April 1984, p50.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Durkheim's Analysis of the Division of Labor (1)
Mechanical versus Organic Solidarity. The overall purpose of Durkheim's extended analysis was to show how the division of labor of a society was the principal source of social solidarity in that society, and that as the division of labor was altered (as, for example, through social evolution), the unifying forces of the society underwent corresponding change. Solidarity refers to the kinds of social psychological bongd that unite the members, and although Durkeim used a very different terminology, he was addressing himself roughly to the same general problem as did Tonnies. By division of labor Durkheim meant more than simply the degree of specialization in the economic institution.
To show the social implications of the division of labor, Durkheim contrasted mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechenical solidarity is that which unites a people who are essentially alike. Through their common life, and in the presence only a rudimentary division of labot, the members of a given population work out a set of beliefs, values and other orientations to which they are deeply , commonly, and uniformly committed. To the extent that these orientations are truly characteristic of every member, there is little basis for the development of extensive individuality. Where there is little or no division of labor, people not only act in like ways, Durkheim suggested, but also think and feel in like ways. In this kind of society, "solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to personality," because personality is what distinguishes one person from another. "If we have a strong and lively desire to think and act as others do." I n the extreme case, all individuality would be submerged, and the members of the society would be completely homogeneous in their personal psychic organization. In such an admittedly theoretical case, the members of the society would be completely uniform in their action.
It is perfectly obvious that no society was ever characterized completely by this kind of social organization. The idea of mechanical solidarity as a basis for binding members of a colllectivity to the whole is posted in this way as an abstract construct rather than a description that is supposed to portray reality with complete accuracy. The same can be said of Durkheim's second major concept, organic solidarity. The two taken together, however, offer a third useful interpretive framework in understanding the mergence of modern society.
If mechanical solidarity is based upon homogeneity, then organic solidarity is based on heterogentity. In a society with a well-develped division of labor, all persons performing specialized tasks are dependent on others whose activities are coordinated with theirs. Spencer had elaborated in extraordinary detail the parallels between organisms and society as unified systems of reciprocally functioning parts. Durkheim saw the mutual dependency that specialization produced, and he recognized this as a kind of social force that bound the members of a society together to form a more or less harmonious of functioning whole. But the important factor is that the division of labor, which produces organic solidarity, also greatly increases the degree of individuality and social differentiation within the society.
------Chapter "Mass Society and The Magic Bullet Theory" from "The Effect of Mass Communication"
To show the social implications of the division of labor, Durkheim contrasted mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechenical solidarity is that which unites a people who are essentially alike. Through their common life, and in the presence only a rudimentary division of labot, the members of a given population work out a set of beliefs, values and other orientations to which they are deeply , commonly, and uniformly committed. To the extent that these orientations are truly characteristic of every member, there is little basis for the development of extensive individuality. Where there is little or no division of labor, people not only act in like ways, Durkheim suggested, but also think and feel in like ways. In this kind of society, "solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to personality," because personality is what distinguishes one person from another. "If we have a strong and lively desire to think and act as others do." I n the extreme case, all individuality would be submerged, and the members of the society would be completely homogeneous in their personal psychic organization. In such an admittedly theoretical case, the members of the society would be completely uniform in their action.
It is perfectly obvious that no society was ever characterized completely by this kind of social organization. The idea of mechanical solidarity as a basis for binding members of a colllectivity to the whole is posted in this way as an abstract construct rather than a description that is supposed to portray reality with complete accuracy. The same can be said of Durkheim's second major concept, organic solidarity. The two taken together, however, offer a third useful interpretive framework in understanding the mergence of modern society.
If mechanical solidarity is based upon homogeneity, then organic solidarity is based on heterogentity. In a society with a well-develped division of labor, all persons performing specialized tasks are dependent on others whose activities are coordinated with theirs. Spencer had elaborated in extraordinary detail the parallels between organisms and society as unified systems of reciprocally functioning parts. Durkheim saw the mutual dependency that specialization produced, and he recognized this as a kind of social force that bound the members of a society together to form a more or less harmonious of functioning whole. But the important factor is that the division of labor, which produces organic solidarity, also greatly increases the degree of individuality and social differentiation within the society.
------
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tarde-The Public and The Crowd
Tarde published a paper in 1898 entitled "The Public and the Crowd". He argued that while the crowd was one of the oldest forms of human association, the public was a product of modern technological developments. Crowd members are copresent; publics are ohysically dispersed, given cohesion only by participant's awareness they share some idea. Since that awareness could not be attributed to proximate social interaction, another source was required. Tarde suggested one such source was the newspaper, itself the nineteenth-century product of the printing press, the railroad, and the telegraph. Thus, the form of social life Tarde called "the public" simply did not exist prior to the nineteenth century.
Tarde further argued that whereas individuals could simultaneously be part of several publics, they could participate in but one crowd at a time. Since crowds are comparatively limited in size, their influence may not extend beyond what participants and onlookers can see and hear. By comparison, publics are virtually unlimited in size and perhaps in the scope of their influence. But Tarde argued that the fundamental distinction between the crowd and the public was that interaction in the latter took the form of critical discussion. The result, Tarde suggested, is that publics yielded heterogeneity whereas crowds tended toward homogeneity.
Tarde further argued that whereas individuals could simultaneously be part of several publics, they could participate in but one crowd at a time. Since crowds are comparatively limited in size, their influence may not extend beyond what participants and onlookers can see and hear. By comparison, publics are virtually unlimited in size and perhaps in the scope of their influence. But Tarde argued that the fundamental distinction between the crowd and the public was that interaction in the latter took the form of critical discussion. The result, Tarde suggested, is that publics yielded heterogeneity whereas crowds tended toward homogeneity.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Forgotten Forefather of the Empirical Study of Public Opinion and Mass Communication
Tarde was well known to turn-of-the-century sociologists in both Europe and the United States and influenced a number of important scholars. However, he dropped out of sight gradually, although not completely. He is best remembered for two things that did him in. One is the famous intellectual duel he lost to Durkheim defending his voluntaristic social psychology of action against Durkheim's exteriorized normative pressures. The other is the unfashionable choice of the concept imitation as the basis for his general theory and especially for his theory of diffusion.
Tarde should be regarded as one of the forefathers of opnion and communication in general. He was all the more deserving for making diffusion so central to his thinking. The diffusion idea can be found in Tarde's better-known book-The Laws of Imitation. Furthermore, there was also a neglected essay-L'opinion et la foule, only parts of which have appeared in English.
The word "imitation" implies the influencee knows he is copying the influential, but the influential may not be aware of his role. If Tarde used the generic word "influence" instead of "imitation", he would be much better remembered. The interpersonal influence was overshadowed by the copycat aspect of imitation and by its proximity to the unthinkingness of suggestion and contagion. Maybe he chose "imitation" because he really believed that interconnected individuals copied each other in a semi-conscious way.
In his later work, as he moved from an interest in crowds to an interest in publics, he made it abundantly clear that conversation—not one-side copying—was the key to imitation, which was closer to the concept of influence. He also saw conversation as a major element in the formation of uniformities of opinion and behavior.
Tarde should be regarded as one of the forefathers of opnion and communication in general. He was all the more deserving for making diffusion so central to his thinking. The diffusion idea can be found in Tarde's better-known book-The Laws of Imitation. Furthermore, there was also a neglected essay-L'opinion et la foule, only parts of which have appeared in English.
The word "imitation" implies the influencee knows he is copying the influential, but the influential may not be aware of his role. If Tarde used the generic word "influence" instead of "imitation", he would be much better remembered. The interpersonal influence was overshadowed by the copycat aspect of imitation and by its proximity to the unthinkingness of suggestion and contagion. Maybe he chose "imitation" because he really believed that interconnected individuals copied each other in a semi-conscious way.
In his later work, as he moved from an interest in crowds to an interest in publics, he made it abundantly clear that conversation—not one-side copying—was the key to imitation, which was closer to the concept of influence. He also saw conversation as a major element in the formation of uniformities of opinion and behavior.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Invention, Imitation, and Opposition in Tarde's thought
Tarde oppsed the dominant sociological model of his time, Durkheim's view of society as a collective unity, and instead regarde society as an aggregate of individuals. Based on his view of importance of the individual, Tarde analyzed human society, particular human progress, to be the result of individuals engaged in relational behaviors according to each individual's characteristics.
According to Tarde, the three basic were interrelated, they were invention, imitation, and opposition. Tarde saw "invention" as the ultimate source of all human innovation and progress. The expansion of a given sector of society - economy, science, literature - is a function of the number and quality of creative ideas developed in that sector. Invention finds its source in creative associations in the minds of gifted individuals. Tarde stressed, however, the social factors leading to invention. A necessary rigidity of class lines insulates an elite from the populace; greater communication among creative individuals leads to mutual stimulation; cultural values, such as the adventurousness of the Spanish explorers in the Golden Age, could bring about discovery.
Many inventions, however, are not immediately accepted, hence the need to analyze the process of "imitation" through which certain creative ideas are diffused throughout a society. Tarde codified his ideas in what he called the laws of imitation. For example, the inventions most easily imitated are similar to those already institutionalized, and imitation tends to descend from social superior to social inferior.
The third process, "opposition" takes place when conflicting inventions encounter one another. These oppositions may be associated with social groups - nations, states, regions, social classes - or they may remain largely inside the minds of individuals. Such oppositions can generate invention in a creative mind, beginning again the threefold processes.
According to Tarde, the three basic were interrelated, they were invention, imitation, and opposition. Tarde saw "invention" as the ultimate source of all human innovation and progress. The expansion of a given sector of society - economy, science, literature - is a function of the number and quality of creative ideas developed in that sector. Invention finds its source in creative associations in the minds of gifted individuals. Tarde stressed, however, the social factors leading to invention. A necessary rigidity of class lines insulates an elite from the populace; greater communication among creative individuals leads to mutual stimulation; cultural values, such as the adventurousness of the Spanish explorers in the Golden Age, could bring about discovery.
Many inventions, however, are not immediately accepted, hence the need to analyze the process of "imitation" through which certain creative ideas are diffused throughout a society. Tarde codified his ideas in what he called the laws of imitation. For example, the inventions most easily imitated are similar to those already institutionalized, and imitation tends to descend from social superior to social inferior.
The third process, "opposition" takes place when conflicting inventions encounter one another. These oppositions may be associated with social groups - nations, states, regions, social classes - or they may remain largely inside the minds of individuals. Such oppositions can generate invention in a creative mind, beginning again the threefold processes.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Rediscovering Gabriel Tarde
Here is an article written by Elihu Katz. The title is "Rediscovering Gabriel Tarde". Please click each picture to read the JPEG version.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Gabriel Tarde-Biography
AKA Jean-Gabriel de TardeOccupation: Sociologist
Executive summary: Group mind, Theory of Imitation
1843
Gabriel Tarde was born in the small town of Sarlat, about one hundred miles east of Bordeaux. His father’s family own aristocratic particle.
He attened a school operated by Jesuit priests, who offered a rigorous classical training built largely on Latin, Greek, history, and mathematics. While always the first student in his classes, the sensitive young Tarde was pained by the Jesuit discipline, so much so that during his last three years, while a boarder at the school, he once even scaled the wall to escape temporarily. Although Tarde never failed to praise the classical training for binding together the leaders of nation with a common set of values, he retained a permanent distaste for socially imposed discipline whenever it limited individual freedom. The scholastic training also moved him toward a strong emphasis on the role of the intellect as well as an even more hierarchical conception of society than was held by many of his contemporaries.
1860
He left school. He first tried his hand at verse and dramatic pieces and then forsook. He was also fascinated by mathematics and considered attending the Ecole Polytechnique. The applied, ordered training, combined with its regimented social life in Ecole made him shun.
From 1862 to 1868
Tarde suffered from an eye disease which severely limited his reading. Together with the above-mentioned reasons, thus, he settled on the less demanding study of law.
From 1869 to 1894
He held a series of regional court posts in and around Sarlat because his many free hours could be spent at independent study and writing. Tarde developed the habit of walking the banks of the nearby Dordogne river, meditating about the works which he had read and elaborating his own thoughts. By the time of his thirty, he had drafted a series of notes to himself containing the essentials of his “law of imitation” as well as the outlines of the conceptual framework elaborated in his many later works.
1877
He married Mlle Marthe Bardy-Delisle, daughter of a magistrate.
1890
He published his most famous sociological work, The law of imitation.
1893
He became codirector of the Archives d’Anthropologie Criminelle journal, until his death in 1904.
1894
He was named director of criminal statistics at the Ministry of Justice in Paris.
1896
He applied his sociological perspective to political matters.
1898
He published Les lois sociales.
1899
He published Les transformations du pouvoir.
1902-1904
He was in a debate with Durkheim.
1904
He planned to undertake a series of empirical social psychological studies on school children with Alfred Binet, but the eye disease of his youth returned once again. He died in this year.
Social Power
Social power is the basic element in politics, economics, and all other social relationships. Social power is possessed by all individuals and social groups and arises out of their connections to each other.
In Capital, Marx explained social power in a materialistic way. Human labor can impart ‘vital energy’ to nature in creating use-values. Marx said ‘each individual holds social power in his pocket in the form of a thing’ (Marx, 1963, p. 986ff). The specific social character of each producer’s labor can only show itself when producers conduct the act of exchange. And money, a thing acquires social properties and social power. Marx describes this "transcendental" quality of a thing as fetishism. Such fetishism is not merely a delusion, or a sort of "false consciousness." In bourgeois society, money actually does possess the greatest power. However, it only possesses such power due to a specific social relationship which underlies it: atomized commodity owners who can constitute their social relationship to one another only by means of a thing, money. Money only has power because all social actors relate to money as money, that is, as an independent embodiment of Value. But insofar as individuals act as commodity owners exchanging products, they have no other choice but to stand in such a relationship to money. Having said that, fetishism does contain a delusional aspect in that money seems to possess an inherent social power. The fact that this power is the result of an automatically executed social process evades the grasp of everyday cognition. The process vanishes in its own result.
In Capital, Marx explained social power in a materialistic way. Human labor can impart ‘vital energy’ to nature in creating use-values. Marx said ‘each individual holds social power in his pocket in the form of a thing’ (Marx, 1963, p. 986ff). The specific social character of each producer’s labor can only show itself when producers conduct the act of exchange. And money, a thing acquires social properties and social power. Marx describes this "transcendental" quality of a thing as fetishism. Such fetishism is not merely a delusion, or a sort of "false consciousness." In bourgeois society, money actually does possess the greatest power. However, it only possesses such power due to a specific social relationship which underlies it: atomized commodity owners who can constitute their social relationship to one another only by means of a thing, money. Money only has power because all social actors relate to money as money, that is, as an independent embodiment of Value. But insofar as individuals act as commodity owners exchanging products, they have no other choice but to stand in such a relationship to money. Having said that, fetishism does contain a delusional aspect in that money seems to possess an inherent social power. The fact that this power is the result of an automatically executed social process evades the grasp of everyday cognition. The process vanishes in its own result.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Alienance
Frankly speaking, this is my first time to know about Marx's theory of alienation. Even though Marxist Philosophy and Marx's Political Economics are two required courses for all undergraduate students, there is no alienation theory. Of course, for students who major in philosophy and sociology, they have different textbooks.
As a layman, to understand the alienation theory literally, I think it is the state of feeling estranged or separated from one's milieu or self. At an experiential level, I just have felt that the overconsumption of media and overuse of new communication technologies nowadays lead to the phenomenon of interpersonal divide, in other words, isolation and displacement. I guess this is one example of alienation in our daily life. Everyday communication technologies, from cell phone to the Internet, have cumulative impact on the society and ourselves. They blur and blend the real with the virtually real, and then result in a graying of the physical world. Many of us have lost our sense of timing from overexposure to virtual reality. We are used to understanding the reality according to the television reality. Some of us also lost a sense of occasion-when and where to confront an issue or a person-and to end up complicating situations. We are used to deal with problems by email, telephone, even google. In short, I understand alienation from a technological perspective.
According to Marx, alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. This point intrigues me. Marx's alienation theory was based on his observation that with the industrial production emerging, workers inevitably lost control of their lives, work and themselves. Marx depicted four types of alienation in labor under capitalism. Capitalism turned single worker into a machine rather than a human being, turned the relationship between workers into competitive commodities rather than a social relationship, turned the products into being appropriated by capitalist class rather than being controlled by the workers, turned the act of production into a meaningless activity rather than offering intrinsic satisfactions.
This is my first time reading the original work of Marx, and also the first time reading books about Marx in English. And I was taught before Marx's theory is the truth rather than just a theory. Thus, everything has strong and significant impact on me, as well as makes me feel kind of puzzled. I am sorry about that. And this is also part of the reasons why I choose this class. There are a lot of things in this area I need learn.
As a layman, to understand the alienation theory literally, I think it is the state of feeling estranged or separated from one's milieu or self. At an experiential level, I just have felt that the overconsumption of media and overuse of new communication technologies nowadays lead to the phenomenon of interpersonal divide, in other words, isolation and displacement. I guess this is one example of alienation in our daily life. Everyday communication technologies, from cell phone to the Internet, have cumulative impact on the society and ourselves. They blur and blend the real with the virtually real, and then result in a graying of the physical world. Many of us have lost our sense of timing from overexposure to virtual reality. We are used to understanding the reality according to the television reality. Some of us also lost a sense of occasion-when and where to confront an issue or a person-and to end up complicating situations. We are used to deal with problems by email, telephone, even google. In short, I understand alienation from a technological perspective.
According to Marx, alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. This point intrigues me. Marx's alienation theory was based on his observation that with the industrial production emerging, workers inevitably lost control of their lives, work and themselves. Marx depicted four types of alienation in labor under capitalism. Capitalism turned single worker into a machine rather than a human being, turned the relationship between workers into competitive commodities rather than a social relationship, turned the products into being appropriated by capitalist class rather than being controlled by the workers, turned the act of production into a meaningless activity rather than offering intrinsic satisfactions.
This is my first time reading the original work of Marx, and also the first time reading books about Marx in English. And I was taught before Marx's theory is the truth rather than just a theory. Thus, everything has strong and significant impact on me, as well as makes me feel kind of puzzled. I am sorry about that. And this is also part of the reasons why I choose this class. There are a lot of things in this area I need learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
