This Document Contains Chapters 5 to 7 Chapter 5 – Social Interaction 1. LEARNING OUTCOMES (WITH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY) After completing this chapter, students should be able to: • Identify the key elements of social interaction. • Explain the ways in which feminist theory analyzes the role played by emotions in social interaction. • Describe the role of power in social interaction as interpreted by conflict theorists. • Recognize how symbolic interactionism enhances our understanding of the interrelationship between verbal and nonverbal communication. 2. WHY IS THIS CHAPTER IMPORTANT TO SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS? In order to understand the richness and fluidity of social reality, students need a grounding in the fundamentals of social interaction, the rules of which function like a road map to “the social space in which actions unfold” (p. 117). They will learn how the concepts of social interaction will illuminate and challenge their commonsense understandings of social relationships and interpersonal communication. As well, students require an understanding of social interaction at a microlevel in order to comprehend the material presented in Chapter 6 and Part 4 of the textbook. An understanding of the role of social structure in social interaction will also challenge students to recognize how various forms of hierarchy and social inequality are reproduced at a microlevel in social interaction. Finally, students often defined as the “me generation” will appreciate having a more nuanced conceptual understanding of the mechanics of the presentation of self in social interaction. 3. WHY SHOULD STUDENTS CARE? Social interaction is a process of negotiation that generates a changing reality; in other words, it is the social space within which we all live. Students are actively involved with and creatively participating in generating and maintaining their sense of self—both in accordance with, and sometimes in resistance to, their social context. If they understand the process of social interaction, they may develop the wisdom necessary and the tools needed to create a more positive reality for themselves and others. Theories of social interaction are tools that can be utilized by the students when analyzing and evaluating their personal realities. Furthermore, when combined with inductive reasoning, students can generate and produce new insights that will help them when managing and constructing their social realities. 4. WHAT ARE COMMON STUDENT MISCONCEPTIONS & STUMBLING BLOCKS? Students will no doubt struggle with the admittedly abstract concepts of status, status set, roles, status conflict, and role conflict. Utilizing examples and exercises (see suggestions below) whereby they apply the concepts to personal experiences will help them to “concretize” these constructs (pp. 117–119). The default mode of understanding that students may have of emotions is that they are involuntary, spontaneous, and authentic. Like most people, students will struggle with the fundamental idea that emotions are not “natural,” but instead are shaped by the social context in which one lives, and patterned according to the given social structure. The analysis of the social history of emotions (pp. 123–124) is a useful antidote to commonsense misconceptions. Even though most students have a finely grained sense of non-verbal communication from the point of view of practitioners, they may vastly underestimate its importance in social interaction. See pp. 131–133 of the text as well as exercises and video clips suggested below for concrete examples of non-verbal communication in social interaction. 5. WHAT CAN I DO IN CLASS? At the start of class: Role-play: Announce to your students that you will present two different “takes” of the beginning of your lecture, and that it is up to them to describe the differences they see and hear. Take One: Deliver the first 1–2 minutes of your lecture while exhibiting non-verbal signs that are out of step with what you are saying. (For instance, welcome the students to the lecture using a “closed” posture (arms crossed tightly across your chest), little eye contact, and a stern, unmodulated vocal tone. Take Two: Use exactly the same wording, but with positive and appropriate non-verbal communication: “open” posture, ample eye contact, appropriately modulated and friendly tone of voice, and so on. Then solicit ideas about the differences between the two versions presented. The role-play is a useful lead-in to the topic of social interaction via the importance of non-verbal communication. A personal bio: Introduce the concepts of status and role (pp. 117–119, and then share with students the statuses that you currently hold (e.g., professor, mother/father, athlete, etc.). Ask students to reflect on their own statuses by writing at least three different examples on a sheet of paper, beginning with the phrase “I am a _________________.” Solicit examples, and display them on the board/screen. (Note: You also have the option of referring to these examples later in the lecture in order to expand on the roles one performs in each status.) This exercise can also be done in a more extended form in a seminar-type session, as described below. Mini quiz: Begin with five multiple-choice “application type” questions addressing role sets, status sets, role conflict, and role strain. Students (may) realize that although they read the textbook, they didn’t quite “understand” the material. Use this as a launch into an in-depth discussion of social statuses, roles, and norms, and how they provide structure for all social interaction. Throughout the class: Pair/ small group activity: Using Figure 5.1 as a model (p. 119), create a blank template to be used for filling in one’s status set and role set. Distribute copies to students; ask each student to fill in the template and come up with one example of role strain or role conflict. Discuss. [Understand/Apply/Analyze/Evaluate] Think/Pair/Share: Ask students to think of a time, either in school or in a job, when they consciously played a “front stage” role and engaged in impression management (pp. 129–130). Solicit examples and discuss. [Understand/Apply/Evaluate] “10 Surprising Ways To Offend People In Other Countries”: (2:35) This short video uses examples of cross-cultural differences in non-verbal communication, and is a humorous and effective way to engage students in the topic. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTE0G9amZNk [Understand/Apply] Body language in the workplace: This 2 min., 50 sec. video, produced by Forbes (narrated by Carol Kinsey Goman), addresses the “5 Body Language Mistakes People Make” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n13RaVocjw&feature=related). View and discuss with students. [Understand/Apply/Analyze] “Body Language Mistakes Women Make”: This 1 min., 48 sec. video produced by Forbes and narrated by Carol Kinsey Goman addresses the female who wants to be perceived as “powerful, credible and confident” and the nonverbal messages she should be aware of. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwks-99Otxo&feature=relmfu. View and discuss. [Understand/Apply/Analyze] Listening with your eyes: Malcolm Gladwell addresses the phenomenon of “snap judgements” and “status cues” when decisions are being made inasmuch as “the evidence of our eyes can corrupt the evidence of our ears.” View this 32:50 lecture (or the first 16 min., 24 sec., saving the remainder for Chapter 12: “Sociology of the Body: Disability, Aging, and Death”), filmed at the University of Toronto (February 2005), available at http://tvo.org/video/164911/malcolm-gladwell-his-best-selling-book-blink-2005 (entitled “Big Ideas: Malcolm Gladwell on his best-selling book, Blink – 2005”), and discuss the connections to chapter terms and concepts. [Understand/Apply/Evaluate] Video and “ideas café”: the pros and cons of online social interaction: Show students Sherry Turkle’s 2012 TED talk entitled “Connected, but alone?” (19:48, available at http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together), in which she presents a case about several negative ramifications of virtual social interaction. (Note: Depending on time constraints, this video could be paused after roughly 12 minutes.) Then follow it immediately with “How the Internet enables intimacy, Stefana Broadbent’s 2009 TED talk that looks into the positive aspects of virtual social interaction. (8:51, available at http://www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enables_intimacy). Then position a couple of sheets of flip chart paper and some markers at either end of the room. Ask students to think about whom they agree with, and to write their reasons for doing so on the corresponding flip chart. (They are also welcome to agree with aspects of both positions.) After sufficient time, you summarize the points on each flip chart for students, and lead a discussion. This is an excellent opening for discussion about online social interaction, as well as a non-threatening means for students to voice their own opinions about a subject that many of them feel defensive about. 6. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT MY STUDENTS HAVE LEARNED THE LOs? Writing assignment: Compare and contrast your social relationships online with your face-to-face social interactions. In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different? Pay special attention to differences in the norms that structure interaction. End the class with a mini quiz: Focus on multiple-choice questions that address the Learning Objectives of the chapter. Review and discuss the “correct” answers for each question. (The use of clicker technology and turning point slides is very effective for this exercise.) Ask students (in pairs/small groups) to create and submit a question (with answer): The question should be one that they would like to be included on an upcoming exam. Some of these questions could be developed into a multiple-choice format and used at the start of the next class as a review of the material from this session. It allows students to engage with the exam creation, and if used as part of the next session’s opening questions, it enables them to self-assess their learning and engagement in the previous session. MindTap: Refer your students to http://www.nelson.com/student to access the MindTap for Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. MindTap is a personalized program of digital products and services that engages students with interactivity while offering students and instructors choice in content, platforms, devices, and learning tools. This resource includes quiz questions, videos, and articles that are accompanied by thought-provoking questions that challenge students to think critically about current issues and events. Ask students to utilize this learning tool, and bring to the next class any questions (difficulties) they may have in regards to information from this chapter. 7. HOW CAN I ASSESS MY OWN “PERFORMANCE”? A critical reflection on my own practice: insights and understandings: A. Did I get the attention of my students at the beginning of class? a. What did I do? Did it work? How? If not, why not? b. Did I get the right kind of attention, or the wrong kind? B. Did I allot enough time for student dialogue/participation/engagement in the learning process? a. If not, why not? b. Is there any material that can (or should) be minimized or removed in order to allow for student input and participation? c. Are there ways of transferring some of the content online to open up more time in class for participation and engagement? C. How could I incorporate more student input and participation? (e.g., clicker questions, think/pair/share, one-minute summaries) D. Were my students engaged and/or focused? If so: a. What tells me that they were? b. What concepts were we covering? c. What precisely were they engaged with and/or focused on? (i.e., video clip, documentary, debate, small group discussion, whole class discussion) d. Were there unexpected moments of engagement, i.e., in group discussion, that I recognized and incorporated? If not: a. When did I lose them? b. Why did they disengage/lose focus? E. Did I integrate formative assessment of student learning throughout the “lecture”? a. What did I do? b. Did these assessments suggest to me that they understood the key concepts? If not, was I prepared to alter my plan in response? F. Did I request feedback from the students on their learning experience in this class? i.e.: a. Submission of an “aha” moment they had b. Informal summary (point form) addressing two or three concepts covered c. Five (ten) minutes for “debriefing” at the end (of class or topic)—“What” are your questions? (not “Are there any questions?”) d. Refer students to an online survey (e.g., Blackboard learning system, toofast.ca). G. Some things to consider for the next class (modifications to consider when teaching this chapter again): a. What worked really well, and why? b. What could/should/might I do differently next time to improve student engagement and learning? H. What did I learn about this topic? What insights did I gather from my students? Were any of those insights surprising to me? I. What did I learn about my teaching, and what can I do to modify my teaching as a result? 8. WHAT OTHER RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE? [Supplementary Resources] boyd, danah. 2007. “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf. Cahill, Spencer. 1985. “Meanwhile Backstage: Public Bathrooms and Interaction Order.” Urban Life, Vol. 14, pp. 33–58. Chong, Patricia. 2009. “Servitude with a Smile: An Anti-Oppression Analysis of Emotional Labour.” Global Labour University Working papers. Paper No. 7, March 2009. Available at http://www.global-labour-university.org/fileadmin/GLU_Working_Papers/GLU_WP_No.7.pdf. Garot, Robert. 2004. “‘You’re Not a Stone’: Emotional Sensitivity in a Bureaucratic Setting.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. December, 2004. Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 735–66. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. Goffman, Erving. 1982. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon. (Note: This book was written before researchers distinguished between the social actions of men and women—as a result, a “person” reflects the male position.) Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2003. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, Twentieth Anniversary Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. MacNeil, Robert, and William Cran. 2005. Do You Speak American? Toronto: Doubleday. O’Brien, Jodi. 2011. The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Available at http://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp. Soares, Angelo. 2003. “Tears at Work: Gender, Interaction, and Emotional Labour.” Just Labour. Vol. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 36–44. Available at http://www.justlabour.yorku.ca/volume2/pdfs/soares.pdf. 9. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS 1. Think of an example of a time when you engaged in “role distancing” (p. 129), perhaps in a situation with your family, friends, or in the workplace. Describe the experience, and analyze what specifically makes it an example of role distancing. Answer: Role Distancing Example: At a family gathering, I downplayed my career achievements to avoid seeming boastful. This is role distancing because I consciously separated my professional identity from my personal interactions, highlighting a disconnection between my formal role and informal self. 2. Is it accurate to say that people always act selfishly to maximize their rewards and minimize their losses? Why, or why not? Answer: Answers will vary, and may include reference to/discussion of main modes of interaction (Table 5.1, p. 127). Support for the argument may include “interaction as competition and exchange” with the need to “maintain equal opportunities” for interaction, as well as the need to “compete for attention.” Selfish Behavior: It’s not always accurate to say people act solely out of self-interest. Individuals often act based on altruism, ethical beliefs, or social norms, which can conflict with maximizing personal rewards or minimizing losses. 3. In what sense (if any) is it reasonable to claim that all of social life consists of role acting and that we have no “true self,” just an ensemble of roles? Answer: Answers will vary, but students should/may incorporate material found on pages 129–131: interactions as symbolic, role-playing (social interaction as a play and we are the actors), and ethnomethodology (unconscious desire to understand others). Role Acting vs. True Self: It’s reasonable to argue that social life involves role acting, as we adapt our behavior to fit different contexts. However, this doesn't negate a "true self" but rather suggests that our identities are multifaceted and shaped by the roles we play. Chapter 5: Social Interaction Application Questions 1. Dramaturgical Analysis Chapter 5 introduced you to Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to social interaction. The following concepts are central to Goffman’s approach: • Impression management: the actions that people take and the props they use to present themselves in a generally favourable light, which usually means in conformity with role expectations. • Role distancing: actions and mannerisms that indicate that the role being performed does not represent the actor’s true self/identity. • Front stage: the region where actors perform roles observed by an audience. • Back stage: the region not observable to audiences where actors prepare for role performances. The following exercise asks you to reflect on habitual activities you perform using Goffman’s sociological theory. To perform this exercise, you need a pad of paper and a pen or a computer. Steps: a. Review Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to studying social interaction. Make detailed notes. b. Pick two to three semi-regular activities where you socially interact with others in a public setting (work, classroom, public transit, voluntary organization, student club, sports league, etc.). c. Create a list of the most common social interactions you have in each semi-regular activity. d. Examine each list and classify each interaction in terms of impression management or role distancing. Justify each of your classifications. e. Classify the setting of each interaction in terms of whether it occurred front stage or backstage. Justify your classifications. f. What has this exercise taught you about the usefulness of Goffman’s approach for understanding everyday interactions? Answer: a. Goffman’s dramaturgical approach analyzes social interactions as performances where individuals manage impressions and navigate roles. b. Consider work meetings and classroom discussions. c. List interactions such as presenting ideas or answering questions. d. Impression management involves carefully crafting responses, while role distancing might occur when expressing dissatisfaction subtly. e. Work meetings are front stage due to audience presence, while preparing notes is backstage. f. Goffman’s approach reveals how we continuously manage perceptions and maintain roles in various social settings, highlighting the performative nature of everyday interactions. 2. Observational Analysis The building blocks of organized social interaction include statuses, norms, and roles. This exercise is designed to encourage your observation of these concepts in action. Steps: a. Review the meaning of these sociological concepts: status, norm, and role. Make sure you are fully familiar with how these components are distinctive and how they are related. b. Pick a public setting where many people congregate (e.g., a cafeteria, mall, sports arena, monument, public square, etc.). Find a comfortable spot that gives you a good view of the social interactions taking place. c. Carefully observe and take detailed notes of the social scene for 30 minutes. d. Based on your notes, write a report addressing the following: • Describe the social environment you observed. • List the statuses, roles, and norms you observed. • Describe the behaviours associated with each status, role, and norm you observed. • Describe how these components of social interaction were coordinated to produce the level of organization that you observed in the social setting. Answer: a. Status refers to a social position; role is the expected behavior for that position; norms are the rules guiding behavior in society. b. Observed a busy mall. c. Noted interactions such as shopping, socializing, and queuing. d. Status: Shoppers, store employees; Role: Cashier (processing purchases), customer (selecting items); Norms: Queue etiquette, polite conversation. Behaviors, like orderly queues and polite interactions, align with these statuses and roles, creating an organized shopping environment. Chapter 5: Social Interaction Impression Management of Toronto’s Mayor On May 26, 2013, Gawker (an American celebrity gossip website) reported that one of its journalists had seen a video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine with alleged gang members in Etobicoke, Ontario, in 2012. The same day, two Toronto Star reporters claimed that they had also seen a cellphone video with the same content earlier that month. In the video, besides Mayor Ford, there were three members of the community who the Toronto police had connected with organized crime. Two of them were later arrested on gang-related crimes, while the third was murdered outside of a Toronto nightclub in March 2013. The person who claimed to be in possession of the video would not release it without a sizeable payout. Gawker established a fund to raise $200 000 to buy the video. By July, the funds had been raised, but the video was nowhere to be found. Allegations about the whereabouts of the alleged video ensued, with some believing it had either been destroyed, confiscated by the police, or bought by an anonymous Ford supporter. Others maintained the video never existed in the first place. On July 18, 2013, Gawker gave up their search for the video and divided the money raised evenly amongst four Canadian charities: the Ontario Regional Addictions Partnership Committee, the Somali Canadian Association of Etobicoke, the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, and Unison Health and Community Services. As sociologists, we have to learn how to look at the social circumstances surrounding the video. During the heat of the political scandal, Rob Ford, his legal team, and closest allies made many evasive statements regarding the incident. The media started to turn their attention to his own personal life, which unearthed further allegations regarding his family’s connections to the drug trade, alcohol and drug abuse, curious late-night 911 phone calls from family members, and many other politically damaging facts. He was also fired from his beloved position as a coach of the Don Bosco Catholic Secondary School football team. By August 7, eight staff members of his team were fired or quit. He was ridiculed in many mainstream public media outlets. Anti-Ford protests took place in Toronto. The Toronto Police initiated “Project Traveller,” a raid against two gangs related to the men shown in the video clip, which had been circulating in the media. Despite the political blowback, many supporters of Rob Ford in the public continued to support him. These are just a small number of details in this political scandal. Before later confessing to using cocaine, the mayor held a press conference to publicly deny the allegation. Go to the following link and view Mayor Ford’s denial of illegal drug use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCChaBjeK-k Application Questions 1. Use a symbolic interactionist approach to analyze this video of Rob Ford’s attempts to defend himself against the allegations. Focus on his verbal and nonverbal messages. Do you believe that Rob Ford was successful in managing the audience’s impressions of him? Explain why he has or has not been successful. What messages, if any, lead you either to believe or not to believe his claim? Answer: Using a symbolic interactionist approach, Rob Ford's verbal and nonverbal messages, such as defensive rhetoric and emotional displays, were aimed at reshaping his public image. His success in managing impressions varied; his emotional appeals and apologies attempted to humanize him, but inconsistent messaging and denial of allegations undermined credibility, leading many to question his claims. 2. Here is a reporter’s statement about Mayor Ford’s interaction style: “If Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has one defining trait, it’s his bluntness. To his supporters, it’s a mark of his honesty and authenticity. To his critics, it symbolizes his impetuousness and lack of polish” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/agony-of-ford/). Analyze Mayor Ford’s style using a front stage and backstage approach. How might this public image and style help him escape a political scandal relatively unscathed compared to a more traditional politician? To which social groups does this style of politics appeal, and to which ones does it not? Explain why. Answer: Ford’s political persona blurs the distinction between the front stage and backstage. This has generated much appeal for him, especially for those in the so-called “Ford Nation,” but it has also opened the doors to more attention to his private life. His handlers and public relations team have sought to carefully manage this image, but in many cases it has caused more problems for Ford. On the one hand, it makes him appear different than traditional politicians who try to maintain an image of professionalism, while keeping their private lives private. On the other hand, he hosted a regular radio show where he gave out his personal cellphone number; he held regular public barbecues in his mother’s backyard; and he made a commitment to remain closely connected to the people. This approach clearly helped get him elected, but maybe because so much of his life is already an open book, possibly a live reality television show, people have lower expectations for him on a personal level because he has not tried to elevate himself as a deeply private, professional politician. This approach appeals largely to suburban, working class, and conservative voters. Chapter 6 – Networks, Groups, Bureaucracies, and Societies 1. LEARNING OUTCOMES (WITH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY) After completing this chapter, students should be able to: • Recognize the ways in which social collectivity’s influence individual behaviour and actions. • Observe the fact that relatively few social links separate complete strangers from one another. • Differentiate between networks, groups, bureaucracies, and societies. • Recall the ways in which social groups ensure conformity among members, and create boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. • Summarize arguments about bureaucratic inefficiency and the means for attempting to eliminate it. • Describe the evolution of societies in terms of the changing relationship between humans and the natural world and the resulting changes in social organization. 2. WHY IS THIS CHAPTER IMPORTANT TO SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS? As “digital natives,” our students are active participants in an increasingly interconnected world, and one which is undergoing a seismic shift in the realm of social communications, away from face-to-face, and toward the online sphere. The full consequences of this shift for society is still not well understood. For instance, the accelerating popularity of social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) has resulted in an exponential growth of “weak ties”—a useful form of social capital (Chapter 8: Social Stratification). But with connection there is also disconnection and this accumulation of weak ties via online social networking sites may be at a cost of offline social networks (“strong ties”). Social networks and groups shape our lives at every level, and to successfully live in a networked public requires that students develop an appreciation of just how connected and interdependent the social world is. Understanding the connections between “biology and history” (Chapter 1: A Sociological Compass) requires that students come to see the intricacy of the linkages between their day-to-day sense of self, their social networks, and how they are connected to an increasingly globalized world. Additionally, students need to be cognizant of what it means to live in an increasingly bureaucratized society, both from the perspective of daily life and from the point of view of the bureaucratically organized work environments in which they will likely work upon graduation. 3. WHY SHOULD STUDENTS CARE? Students are experiencing a public life increasingly shaped by social technology, and are being socialized into a society complicated by ongoing and unprecedented shifts in the public and private. New technologies are in the process of “disrupting” and altering the norms of social interaction and information distribution. While social networks are instrumental for developing a sense of self-worth and integration into society, the blurring of the public and private realms (and the accompanying issues) requires that students have knowledge and understanding that will help them successfully navigate this terrain. Organizations and bureaucracies affect life in countless subtle and obvious ways, yet despite their immense influence, most student understandings of organizations are vague, shallow, and unspecific. Furthermore, new information technologies are changing the way organizations work—tasks being completed electronically which allows organizations to transcend time and space, operating as “loose networks,” rather than as self-contained independent units. A solid understanding of organizations and bureaucracies may help students make better choices and decisions, in school and in the “work world.” 4. WHAT ARE COMMON STUDENT MISCONCEPTIONS & STUMBLING BLOCKS? The most difficult misconception to work around is the tendency to privilege the sovereignty of individual human agency and to underestimate the power of the social contexts, both macro and micro, within which human actions and reactions are shaped. Because of the age bracket that most students of introductory sociology fit into, they may be particularly unwilling to recognize the determining impact (both positive and negative) that the “social world” context has on individual and collective behaviour. The text addresses this throughout the chapter, and there are numerous video clips and exercises below that may help develop their understanding. For the same reasons, students tend to have a limited appreciation of the power inherent in social groups to ensure conformity. Even though the text addresses this point (pp. 146–152), students may not have come to see the connections to their own lived reality. The use of numerous examples, exercises, and visuals will assist students in shifting from a merely cognitive understanding to a deeper apprehension of these issues. See below for suggestions. Most students are “expert practitioners” in the use of social media to construct and develop social networks, yet the notion that their daily practice is meaningful and comprehensible from the lens of the sociological perspective may be met with some resistance. However, the degree of student immersion in social media is, in fact, a valuable opportunity for you to draw on their expertise, and a valuable challenge to students to reflect on the social implications of living in a networked world. 5. WHAT CAN I DO IN CLASS? At the start of class: “It’s a small world” demonstration: (p. 141–143). Ask a student sitting in the front of the classroom to get a “letter” to a selected student (stranger) who is sitting at the back of the room. This letter can only be passed to someone who is known to the student, and that student passes it to someone she or he knows and so on. Count how many “steps” it takes. Discuss the importance of social networks. (Note: When conducting this exercise in a class of 100 students, we had“5 steps.” See also “Instant-Messagers Really Are about Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon,” 2008 Washington Post article; available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103718.html.) Conformity in the elevator: Show this 5-minute clip entitled “USF Elevator Experiment” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7jUJUa77kk), which incorporates clips from the Candid Camera episode mentioned on p. 147 of the text. Students from University of South Florida wanted to see if “group pressure” still applies today. Time and time again, it is demonstrated that it does. Discuss with students the “why.” You may even want to challenge your students to carry out the experiment themselves. Is Obesity Socially Contagious? Show students the animation (with voiceover) of Christakis and Fowler’s 2007 longitudinal study of obesity in a social network. (1:48, link available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082). Fill in with explanation as necessary, and then ask students if they believe it is also possible that smoking is socially contagious. Throughout the class: Think/Pair/Share; Small group/Class discussion: Box 6.1 (p. 139), “Group Loyalty or Betrayal?” Ask students to discuss and answer the questions posed at the end: ‘Considering your own group loyalties, have you ever regretted not having spoken up? Have you ever regretted not having been more loyal? What is the difference between these two types of situations? Can you specify criteria for deciding when loyalty is required and when betrayal is the right thing to do?” (Note: See Lefkowitz, 1998, referenced below). [Understand/Evaluate/Create] Class discussion: “The psychology of evil.” In this TED talk, Dr. Philip Zimbardo discusses the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in the context of Stanley Milgram’s work and his own Stanford Prison Experiment. (23:16, available at http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil?language=en) This is a very effective springboard for discussion about individual choices and group influence. [Understand/Apply] Think/Pair/Share or Class discussion: Ask students if they have ever been in a situation where they have experienced “groupthink” (pp. 149–150) and to share (either with a classmate or the whole class) what the situation was, as well as the outcome. Then show this 3-minute clip, entitled “Groupthink” (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQmPgjU3AK0), which “uses the space shuttle Challenger disaster to dissect this phenomenon.” After discussion of the clip, show the outcome of this particular instance of groupthink: “Challenger Space Shuttle Crash” (2-minute clip available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfEs8e1kYwE). (Note: Students have mentioned that whenever they hear the term “groupthink,” they recall this class discussion. The Challenger disaster happened in 1986, 73 seconds after lift-off, due to a failure in the O-ring seal. All seven crew members died, one of whom was Christa McAuliffe, the first member of the “Teacher in Space Project.”) [Understand/Apply] Think/Pair/Share or Class discussion: Ask students if they have even been in a situation where it appeared that someone “needed help,” and to share (either with a classmate or the whole class) what the situation was, what they specifically did, and why they acted as they did (e.g., maybe they saw someone being bullied in school). Then, show this 3 min., 36 sec. clip entitled “The Bystander Effect” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac&feature=related). Discuss the points made in the video—the diffusion of responsibility (groups/crowds), the pressure to conform (not intervene), being part of “the right group,” and then everyone wants to help—and have students apply this knowledge to the situation they had been in (p. 151 of the text). [Understand/Apply] “The Hidden Influence of Social Networks”: (21-minute TEDTalk by Nicholas Christakis [2010]; available at http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence _of_social_networks.html.) Christakis addresses and discusses many of the concepts and ideas found in this chapter, demonstrating that different structural locations have different implications for an individual’s life experiences. View and discuss his assertion, “The spread of good and valuable things is required to sustain and nourish social networks. Similarly, social networks are required for the spread of good and valuable things, like love and kindness and happiness and altruism and ideas.” [Understand/Analyze/Evaluate] “How Social Networks Predict Epidemics”: (18-minute TEDTalk by Nicholas Christakis [2010], available at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nicholas_christakis_how_social_networks _predict_epidemics.html.) Christakis discusses social network analysis (“computational social science”) and how it can be used for predicting, developing, and testing theories of complex social processes using a “bottom-up” modelling of social interactions. He closes his talk by asserting, “we can use these insights to improve society and improve human well-being.” Ask students to brainstorm and discuss practical applications for social network analysis. (See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/03/pentagon-monitor-social-networking-threats: “The US department of defence is offering $42m [£25m] to fund research into monitoring social networks to track the formation, development and spread of ideas, and identify misinformation and attempts to foment unrest.”) [Understand/Apply/Evaluate/Create] Documentary: The Facebook Obsession (CNBC [43 min] 2011 presentation; available at http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1752879649). (Note: This documentary was mentioned for possible use in Chapter 5: Social Interaction). Box 6.2 (p. 142 of the text) discusses the movie The Social Network, and this documentary highlights a number of points that were made. More specifically, it could be viewed from approximately 25 minutes onward (the utilization of social networks by business/marketers, in the political arena, and by law enforcement agencies), followed by a discussion of the impacts (actual and potential) of social media networking on society. Does it help or hinder in our social construction of reality? [Understand/Apply/Evaluate] Class debate: “Are social networking sites good for our society?” For both sides of the argument, see http://socialnetworking.procon.org/. In the event that students are floundering, you will have some perspectives, facts, and figures to add to the discussion. [Understand/Analyze/Evaluate] 6. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT MY STUDENTS HAVE LEARNED THE LOs? Comment paper: If a debate was conducted or a documentary was viewed in class, ask students to write a short comment paper. End the class with a mini quiz: Focus on multiple-choice questions that address the Learning Objectives of the chapter. Review and discuss the correct answers for each question. (The use of “clicker” technology and turning point slides is very effective for this exercise.) Ask students to write a concise summary: At the conclusion of a session, have students brainstorm a short list of main points from the seminar/lecture. Then each student will choose one point from that list to summarize in writing and submit. Ask students (in pairs/small groups) to create and submit a question (with answer): The question should be one that they would like to be included on an upcoming exam. Some of these questions could be developed into a multiple-choice format and used at the start of the next class as a review of the material from this session. It allows students to engage with the exam creation, and if used as part of the next session’s opening questions, it enables them to self-assess their learning and engagement in the previous session. Set up an online survey tool account: (i.e., www.toofast.ca) and ask/instruct students to answer one or two questions, such as What did I learn today that precipitated an “aha” moment? What did I not understand in today’s class? (This provides you with feedback on the teaching in addition to student learning. The difficulties with understanding could then be addressed in the next class.) MindTap: Refer your students to http://www.nelson.com/student to access the MindTap for Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. MindTap is a personalized program of digital products and services that engages students with interactivity while offering students and instructors choice in content, platforms, devices, and learning tools. This resource includes quiz questions, videos, and articles that are accompanied by thought-provoking questions that challenge students to think critically about current issues and events. Ask students to utilize this learning tool, and bring to the next class any questions (difficulties) they may have in regards to information from this chapter. 7. HOW CAN I ASSESS MY OWN “PERFORMANCE”? A critical reflection on my own practice: insights and understandings: A. Did I get the attention of my students at the beginning of class? a. What did I do? Did it work? How? If not, why not? b. Did I get the right kind of attention, or the wrong kind? B. Did I allot enough time for student dialogue/participation/engagement in the learning process? a. If not, why not? b. Is there any material that can (or should) be minimized or removed in order to allow for student input and participation? c. Are there ways of transferring some of the content online to open up more time in class for participation and engagement? C. How could I incorporate more student input and participation? (e.g., clicker questions, think/pair/share, one-minute summaries) D. Were my students engaged and/or focused? If so: a. What tells me that they were? b. What concepts were we covering? c. What precisely were they engaged with and/or focused on? (i.e., video clip, documentary, debate, small group discussion, whole class discussion) d. Were there unexpected moments of engagement, i.e., in group discussion, that I recognized and incorporated? If not: a. When did I lose them? b. Why did they disengage/lose focus? E. Did I integrate formative assessment of student learning throughout the “lecture”? a. What did I do? b. Did these assessments suggest to me that they understood the key concepts? If not, was I prepared to alter my plan in response? F. Did I request feedback from the students on their learning experience in this class? i.e.: a. Submission of an “aha” moment they had b. Informal summary (point form) addressing two or three concepts covered c. Five (ten) minutes for “debriefing” at the end (of class or topic)—“What” are your questions? (not “Are there any questions?”) d. Refer students to an online survey (e.g., Blackboard learning system, toofast.ca). G. Some things to consider for the next class (modifications to consider when teaching this chapter again): a. What worked really well, and why? b. What could/should/might I do differently next time to improve student engagement and learning? H. What did I learn about this topic? What insights did I gather from my students? Were any of those insights surprising to me? I. What did I learn about my teaching, and what can I do to modify my teaching as a result? 8. WHAT OTHER RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE? [Supplementary Resources] Borgatti, Stephen P., Ajay Mehra, Daniel J. Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca. n.d. “Network Analysis in the Social Sciences.” Available at http://www.steveborgatti.com/papers/SNA_Review_for_Science.pdf. Brym, Robert J., and Rhonda Lenton. 2001. “Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada.” Toronto: MSN.CA. Available at http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/brym/loveonline.pdf. Christakis, Nicholas A., and James H. Fowler. 2007. The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years. The New England Journal of Medicine. Available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082 Christakis, Nicholas A., and James H. Fowler. 2009. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Online excerpt available at http://www.connectedthebook.com/pdf/excerpt.pdf. Cross, Rob, Andrew Parker, and Steve Borgatti. 2002. “A Bird’s Eye View: Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Knowledge Creation and Sharing.” IBM Institute for Business Value. Available at http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~i385q/spring2005/readings/Cross_2002_using_social_network.pdf. Degenne, Alain, and Michel Forse. 1999. Introducing Social Networks. London: Sage Publications. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Lefkowitz, Bernard. 1998. Our Guys: The Glen Ridge Rape and the Secret Life of the Perfect Suburb. New York: Vintage Books. Milgram, Stanley. 2009. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper Perennial; Reprint Edition. The International Network for Social Network Analysis. Available at http://www.insna.org/. Watts, Duncan J. 2004. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Zimbardo, Philip. 2007. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House. 9. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS 1. Would you have acted any differently from the Germans if you had lived in Nazi Germany? Why, or why not? What if you had been a member of a Nazi political battalion? Would you have been a traitor to your group? Why, or why not? Answer: Answers will vary on personal opinion by student, but should include references to the shaping of our actions by the social groups we belong to (pp. 138–141). Behavior in Nazi Germany: It's challenging to predict individual behavior in extreme contexts like Nazi Germany due to intense social pressure and propaganda. If in a Nazi political battalion, resisting might mean personal danger or social exclusion, which could complicate the decision to act against the group's norms. However, moral convictions and historical examples suggest that some would resist despite risks. 2. If you were starting your own business, how would you organize it? Why? Base your answer on theories and research discussed in this chapter. Answer: Answers will vary but could/should include some reference to bureaucracies (pp. 152–155), type of leadership (laissez-faire, authoritarian, democratic; pp. 155–156), and organizational environments (pp. 156–157). Organizing a Business: I’d adopt a flat organizational structure, fostering innovation and quicker decision-making, aligning with Theory Y by encouraging employee participation and motivation. Emphasizing transformational leadership would inspire and engage the team, leveraging research that shows empowered employees drive success and adaptability. Chapter 6: Networks, Groups, Bureaucracies, and Societies Application Questions 1. Social Surveillance and Bystander Apathy The growth of social media has increased public surveillance (while generating issues of privacy). The social world is more interconnected than ever, thanks to the presence of more cellphones and surveillance cameras, as well as access to immediate forms of mass communication (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). More than ever, there are now more opportunities for more multi-dimensional communication with larger audiences. The following application encourages you to reflect on the consequences of the denser social networks that surround us. Steps: 1. Read the following newspaper account of a tragedy that occurred in India: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/15/india-shock-crowds-ignore-road-victim. 2. View the following news report of the accident: http://news.yahoo.com/video/jaipur-accident-shame-no-one-140411859.html. Note that the video footage comes from CCTV (closed-circuit television cameras). 3. Write a report that addresses the following issues: a. How does this example illustrate the concept of bystander apathy? b. What sociological principles are operating in this situation to create the tragic result? c. What does this example tell you about the potential contribution of omnipresent social media and surveillance for reducing bystander apathy? Answer: Key points in the analysis include the following: • Link the general characteristics of bystander apathy (observing an emergency without offering to help) to the details of this specific case. Note that it is not just the citizens on the accident scene who are practising bystander apathy, but the off-site operators of the CCTC cameras as well. • The sociological principle operating to produce the apathy is: As the number of potential observers grows, the likelihood of any individual taking remedial action declines. • Even though social media is increasing surveillance, it seems unlikely that this will encourage a reduction in bystander apathy. Ironically, it may increase it, since it increases the sense that there are a larger number of observers to a tragedy. 2. Changing Trends in University Bureaucracy Your university is a large bureaucracy. Although its size, structure, and pervasiveness make it seem permanent, the university bureaucracy is a social construction. As such, it can change. The following application lets you observe how your university’s bureaucratic structure has changed over time. Steps: 1. Obtain a copy of your university’s current organizational chart. Pay particular attention to all the positions that are above the dean or directorships of faculties and schools. 2. Determine how many students are currently enrolled at your university. 3. Look up and record the sex of the current occupants of each bureaucratic position above the dean/directors level. 4. Repeat steps 1 through 3, but this time report the bureaucratic profile of your university 30 years ago. (This information probably will not be online and so will necessitate a trip to the library.) 5. Compare the two profiles of your university and write up a report that addresses the following issues: • How has the student enrolment changed over the last three decades? • How has the size of the upper-level bureaucracy changed? • How has the composition of statuses in the upper-level bureaucracy changed? • How has the sex profile and distribution of status occupants changed over time? • What connections, if any, are there between the enrolment changes and bureaucratic changes? Answer: Answers will vary depending on the institution. In general, observations like the following are likely: • The increase in student enrolment is substantial. • The growth in upper-level bureaucracy is substantial. • There is growth in the proportion of female administrators. • There is growth in bureaucratic positions associated with areas such as international students, community engagement, and minority relations. • The growth in administration is proportionally larger than enrolment growth, indicating increased bureaucratization of the university. 1. The university’s student enrollment has likely increased over the past three decades. 2. The size of the upper-level bureaucracy may have expanded to manage this growth. 3. The composition of statuses and the sex profile of upper-level positions could show a shift towards more gender diversity and potentially a different distribution of roles. 4. Connections between increased enrollment and expanded bureaucracy suggest adaptations to meet growing demands and ensure effective management. Chapter 6: Networks, Groups, Bureaucracies, and Societies Bar Fighting and Bystanders Young males and alcohol are a combination that encourages aggressive actions. When this combination occurs in a bar setting, the probability of aggression increases. The following report gives you a sense of the prevalence: “Aggression is surprisingly common among young people, and it often happens in bars. One study found that 33 per cent of men and 20 per cent of women between the ages of 18 and 30 had experienced aggression in the previous year (as either perpetrator or victim), and that bars were the most common location for aggression. In a 2006 study of Toronto drinking establishments, Wells and Graham sent observers into 118 large drinking establishments for two hours over 25 weekend nights. The observers recorded at least one aggressive encounter in about 40 per cent of the visits.” (Kleiner, 2014). Go to the following link and read the short review of research on bar fights: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/blogs/why-young-men-fight-cause-of-bar-brawls/ Bar fights rarely turn into barroom brawls. Fights are generally confined to those who initiate the action. They don’t usually expand to a wider range of participants. The “bystander effect” is well documented in the research literature and demonstrates the power of groups over individuals. In general, the bystander effect generates apathy. When others surround a situation, it is easier to assume that either someone else will intervene or that intervention is unnecessary or inappropriate. This reasoning suggests that barroom fights would not likely be broken up by audience members. Go to the following interview with a sociologist who researched the role of bystanders in bar fights. Read the summary of this investigation: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-bar-bystanders-intervene.html Sources: Kleiner, Kurt. 2014. “Bar Brawls.” http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/blogs/why-young-men-fight-cause-of-bar-brawls/ Accessed October 10, 2014. Application Questions 1. Altered perceptions due to alcohol consumption undoubtedly contribute to the initiation of bar fights, but social factors are also operating. What social factors influence the participation in bar fights? Answer: A major factor is the belief that others expect them to fight. In other words, there are norms about fighting that encourage conformity. The research indicates that men generally overestimate the level of approval of fighting. However, it is the definition of the situation (in this case, level of approval) that guides behaviour. The more males overestimate the level of approval for fighting, the more likely they are to fight. Of specific interest is the fact that men value male reference groups much more highly on this account than female reference groups. It is men’s estimates of how much other men approve of fighting (not women) that channel their conduct. 2. What role does the bystander effect play in bar fights? Answer: The bystander effect in bar fights does not appear to be as strong as it is in other situations. In fact, in about two-thirds of cases, bystanders intervene with non-aggressive actions to break up a fight. A key driver of bystander intervention is the perception that the violence is becoming “too severe.” As a result, the most common interventions are between male combatants. A troublesome consequence is that rates of bystander intervention are much lower when the participants form a male-female dyad. Chapter 7 – Deviance and Crime 1. LEARNING OUTCOMES (WITH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY) After completing this chapter, students should be able to: • Recall the definition of crime within a sociological perspective, and Describe how it is measured. • Differentiate crime from deviance. • Distinguish between major sociological theories of crime and deviance. • Recall current and historical trends in social responses to crime and deviance. 2. WHY IS THIS CHAPTER IMPORTANT TO SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS? Deviance and crime seem like issues that are far from the lives of students, but from a sociological perspective, they are integrally linked to social conformity. In that sense, students engage daily with the continuum that stretches from “normal” to “criminal.” Even though few students will have had direct formal experience with crime, most will have been on the receiving end of processes such as labelling and negative sanctions in the normal process of growing up. As such, they are in a good position to learn how deviance and crime are socially defined and constructed. Fear of crime continues to be among the leading concerns in public opinion surveys and students are quite likely to begin this topic having absorbed, for instance, an exaggerated sense of the incidence of violent crime from the media and popular culture. This chapter is an important opportunity to challenge deeply held common-sense views about both crime and deviance. 3. WHY SHOULD STUDENTS CARE? Students will be (are) the taxpayers for costs related to criminal activity, and a “tough on crime” agenda is also a “tough on taxpayers” program. Students should be concerned about the realistic assessment of deviance and crime, and the efficiency and effectiveness of programs and penalties legislated to address them, given that they will be (are) having to finance them. Ameliorating and/or solving social issues and problems require a deep understanding of the creation of the problem—and addressing the source. There are two principal sources of deviance and crime: deficient socialization and structural strain. Students need to comprehend that investments made in these areas may result in minimizing the costs of social control. 4. WHAT ARE COMMON STUDENT MISCONCEPTIONS & STUMBLING BLOCKS? Students may not have previously considered that definitions of deviance rely on the norms of specific social and cultural settings, and that deviance is thus a relative phenomenon rather than something that “naturally” results in “a negative reaction from others” (p. 167 of the text). For many students, the word “deviate” (deviance/deviant) is framed within and carries with it a negative connotation, so they struggle with the idea of “positive deviations.” They need in-class opportunities for considering the social context and interrogating the concept of social norms (see suggestions outlined below). Students will likely come to this topic with a voluntaristic and individualistic concept of crime and deviance, and may face some challenges in coming to understand that criminal behaviour, for instance, is not “innate” to certain individuals or groups, but is integrally linked to social inequalities and power relations. Students may be unaware of the ubiquitous influence of the media, popular culture, and the current political climate on their personal understanding of crime and deviance in society. This requires that students be given opportunities to question and discuss their own assumptions as it relates to definitions of crime, “moral panic,” and estimates of crime prevalence (pp. 187–188). 5. WHAT CAN I DO IN CLASS? At the start of class: Start with a demonstration: “Deviating from the norm.” Introduce the sociological definition of deviance (p. 167). Then show a video clip of a “flash mob” session (e.g., Frozen Grand Central [2 min., 22 sec.] is a great example of “social diversions” and is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo). Finally, discuss what norms are being violated/deviated from and the reactions of those witnessing the deviation. Ask whether there is a distinction to be made between “positive” and “negative” deviant behaviour/acts. Start with a question: Ask, “Are these incidents of ‘Assault causing bodily harm/assault with a weapon’?” (Criminal Code Section 267), and then show the clip, “The BIGGEST Hits Ever Seen from the NHL” (5:29; available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5xkMNIt-5k). Discuss (acceptable/non-acceptable) deviance and criminal behaviour as it applies to different social contexts. An alternative question would be to ask students to name the specific contexts in which some societies allow homicide (e.g., in conduct of war, capital punishment). Begin with an announcement: “I have come up with a sure-fire method for eliminating over 50 000 ‘criminals’ from Canada” and ask the students to “guess” what your method might be. After taking a few suggestions, share with them the crime stats found at http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/crime-canada/# (click on tab CHART: Trends by type of crime). Under the “Drug Offenses Up 10%,” the chart reveals that there has been a 14 percent increase in “Possession of Cannabis” charges (56 870 incidents of criminal actions). Your method—legalize marijuana/remove it from the Criminal Code—and voilà, the criminals have been “removed.” Then continue with a discussion of the social construction of deviance and crime. (See also statistics on crime trends on pp. 172–173). Throughout the class: Class discussion: Types of Deviance and Crime: Utilizing Figure 7.1 on p. 170 of the text, work through an example of a form of deviance together as a class, focusing on the historical variations and the evolutionary process of “agreement about the norm,” “evaluation of social harm,” and “severity of social response.” For example, marijuana (added to restricted list in 1923; medical marijuana becomes “acceptable” in some areas; current debates in the area of decriminalization and legalization); alcohol (was “legal,” then the temperance movements in Canada and the United States and periods of prohibition; currently “acceptable,” although there are some “dry” communities where the production and sale of alcohol is forbidden; the increasingly harsh penalties for drinking and driving). Students (may) begin to comprehend that deviance and crime is socially defined and variable. [Understand/Apply] Debate: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes? Start with a show of hands/clicker question, and then debate the pros and cons of the issue. Be prepared with arguments and background context for “both sides” by visiting http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org, so you can assist by providing “research findings” or to play the “devil’s advocate.” [Understand/Apply/Analyze/Evaluate] Debate: “Which is worse: marijuana or alcohol?” Students could take this debate in more than one direction, as some will focus on individual health, and others on public health and/or social harm. For background on health effects, see “Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which Is Really Worse for Your Health?” (available at http://www.livescience.com/42738-marijuana-vs-alcohol-health-effects.html). [Understand/Apply/Analyze/Evaluate] Think/Pair/Share: Restate the sociological definition of deviance, and then ask students to think of a time when they were “labelled deviant” or conversely, they escaped being labelled a deviant, even though they had engaged in deviant behaviour. Share the incident with a classmate and discuss the “why” of the situation. [Understand/Apply] Class discussion: In 1972, William J. Chambliss published a landmark paper called “The Saints and the Roughnecks,” based on a longitudinal field study he did on two high school gangs, one composed of middle-class youth, and the other from working-class families (available at https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/chambliss.w99.htm). Have students read his work, or summarize the findings. Then, ask students to discuss the connections they see between the social position of the gangs, their interactions with the legal system, and long-term outcomes. Class “doing nothing” exercise: See Nathan Palmer’s “Doing Nothing and Learning Deviance” activity, available at http://soctheory.iheartsociology.com/2011/10/24/ethnomethodology-doing-nothing-and-learning-deviance/.Through a video and slideshow, Palmer gives detailed instructions for an experiential learning exercise that he conducted with his class of 262 students. “Students learn with their own two eyes how people react to non-conformers—to deviants.” If it is not something you could feasibly do with your class, utilize the video clip of the event and discuss with your students. [Understand/Apply/Analyze] Three-minute paper: What are the reasons for the differences in composition between Canada’s general population and its prison population? [Understand/Apply/Analyze] Small group/Class discussion: The role of prisons. Incarceration is discussed in the text on pages 185–187. Byron F. Garcia (former warden of the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu, Philippines, and recipient of the “Disruptive Innovator Award, 2011”) implemented a dance program for the inmates, posted their dance routines on YouTube, and the videos went viral. View “Dancing Inmates are ‘Dangerous’” (4:36; available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsm_k8akyE), and discuss Garcia’s belief that we need to “look at prisons beyond the cycle of crime and punishment and certainly look inside underlying social, cultural and psychological implications of rehabilitation.” (Note: Student reactions have varied from “I actually saw them as human beings, not criminals” to “Jails are meant to punish them for their crimes, not reward them.” Additional note: Garcia reports that incidents of inmate violence dropped dramatically after implementing the dance program—discuss the connections to Durkheim’s social solidarity.) [Understand/Apply/Evaluate] Small group/Class discussion: Solitary confinement is widespread in Canadian prisons despite criticisms of its lack of efficacy as a form of rehabilitation and its well-known effects on mental health. Have the students read some of the recent media investigations about segregation, or summarize it for them, then ask them to discus the pros and cons of the practice in light of the stated rationale behind prisons. (Background information, including links to videos and other articles is available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-need-the-rule-of-law-in-prison/article22004287/). Guest speaker: Contact the services division of the local police department, and arrange for an officer to talk with your class. Documentary: Creative Violation: The Rebel Art of the Street Stencil (2008; 23 min.) This documentary explores the underground world and views of street stencil artists, who appropriate and transform images, text, and techniques from the world of advertising as a means of “talking back” to mainstream culture. Filmed partly in Toronto, Creative Violation is available for purchase at http://www.films.com/ecTitleDetail.aspx?TitleID=15958&r=SR, or to stream via Films on Demand. A trailer (1:41) is available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPMeN0s8BEw. This is a very engaging inside look at deviance as a deliberatively subversive act; discussion can be led in a number of different directions. Small group/Class discussion: Utilizing the statistics from the 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) on victimization (found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100928/dq100928a-eng.htm), analyze and hypothesize “Why are victimization rates declining (staying the same and/or increasing)?” [Analyze/Evaluate] 6. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT MY STUDENTS HAVE LEARNED THE LOs? Random acts of kindness exercise and reflection paper: Deviating from the norm is not always in the form of a negative action or behaviour. Ask students to brainstorm examples of “positive” deviance (e.g., greeting strangers, “random acts of kindness”). Have them then choose an example of positive deviance to perform a number of times, after which they will reflect on and write about the experience. Writing assignment: Research and write a paper on “alternative strategies” and procedures for dealing with convicted offenders (as discussed on pp. 189–190). Ask students (in pairs/small groups) to create and submit a question (with answer): The question should be one that they would like to be included on an upcoming exam. Some of these questions could be developed into a multiple-choice format and used at the start of the next class as a review of the material from this session. It allows students to engage with the exam creation, and if used as part of the next session’s opening questions, it enables them to self-assess their learning and engagement in the previous session. End the class with a mini quiz: Focus on multiple-choice questions that address the Learning Objectives of the chapter. Review and discuss the “correct” answers for each question. (The use of “clicker” technology and turning point slides is very effective for this exercise.) MindTap: Refer your students to http://www.nelson.com/student to access the MindTap for Sociology: Your Compass for a New World. MindTap is a personalized program of digital products and services that engages students with interactivity while offering students and instructors choice in content, platforms, devices, and learning tools. This resource includes quiz questions, videos, and articles that are accompanied by thought-provoking questions that challenge students to think critically about current issues and events. Ask students to utilize this learning tool, and bring to the next class any questions (difficulties) they may have in regards to information from this chapter. 7. HOW CAN I ASSESS MY OWN “PERFORMANCE”? A critical reflection on my own practice: insights and understandings: A. Did I get the attention of my students at the beginning of class? a. What did I do? Did it work? How? If not, why not? b. Did I get the right kind of attention, or the wrong kind? B. Did I allot enough time for student dialogue/participation/engagement in the learning process? a. If not, why not? b. Is there any material that can (or should) be minimized or removed in order to allow for student input and participation? c. Are there ways of transferring some of the content online to open up more time in class for participation and engagement? C. How could I incorporate more student input and participation? (e.g., clicker questions, think/pair/share, one-minute summaries) D. Were my students engaged and/or focused? If so: a. What tells me that they were? b. What concepts were we covering? c. What precisely were they engaged with and/or focused on? (i.e., video clip, documentary, debate, small group discussion, whole class discussion) d. Were there unexpected moments of engagement, i.e., in group discussion, that I recognized and incorporated? If not: a. When did I lose them? b. Why did they disengage/lose focus? E. Did I integrate formative assessment of student learning throughout the “lecture”? a. What did I do? b. Did these assessments suggest to me that they understood the key concepts? If not, was I prepared to alter my plan in response? F. Did I request feedback from the students on their learning experience in this class? i.e.: a. Submission of an “aha” moment they had b. Informal summary (point form) addressing two or three concepts covered c. Five (ten) minutes for “debriefing” at the end (of class or topic)—“What” are your questions? (not “Are there any questions?”) d. Refer students to an online survey (e.g., Blackboard learning system, toofast.ca). G. Some things to consider for the next class (modifications to consider when teaching this chapter again): a. What worked really well, and why? b. What could/should/might I do differently next time to improve student engagement and learning? H. What did I learn about this topic? What insights did I gather from my students? Were any of those insights surprising to me? I. What did I learn about my teaching, and what can I do to modify my teaching as a result? 8. WHAT OTHER RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE? [Supplementary Resources] Bedeau, Hugo. 2011. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Available at http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty. Brym, Robert. 2012. Sociology as a Life or Death Issue (see Chapter 3, “Explaining Suicide Bombers”). Toronto: Nelson Education Limited. Chambliss, William J. 1972. “The Saints and the Roughnecks.” Available at https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/chambliss.w99.htm Curry, Bill. 2011. “The Cost of One Conservative Crime Bill for One Year: $458-million”. The Globe and Mail, Sept. 27, 2011. Available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics /the-cost-of-one-conservative-crime-bill-for-one-year-458-million/article2181685/. Garcia, Byron F. Available at http://www.youtube.com/user/byronfgarcia. See also: BBC News. July 26, 2007. “Philippine jailhouse rocks to Thriller.” Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6917318.stm. See also: CNN News Joy Behar interviews Travis Payne (4 min.) discussing the lead up to, and Payne’s experience working with, the CEBU “dancing inmates.” Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhIt1sgY2fY. See also: SonyPictures DVD. “Michael Jackson’s This Is It—They Don’t Care about Us—Dancing Inmates HD” (4 min., 27 sec. video featuring Michael Jackson’s long-time choreographer Travis Payne and dancers Daniel Celebre and Dres Reid performing with the inmates). Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtdTJP_GUI. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall. Krohn, Marvin D., Alan J. Lizotte, and Gina Penly Hall (eds). 2009. Handbook on Crime and Deviance. New York: Springer. Lifton, Robert Jay, and Greg Mitchell. 2002. Who Owns Death? Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions. Toronto: HarperCollins Canada. Linden, Rick. 2009. Criminology: A Canadian Perspective, Sixth Edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. McCormick, Chris, and Len Green (eds). 2005. Crime and Deviance in Canada: Historical Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. O’Grady, William. 2011. Crime in Canadian Context: Debates and Controversies. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Parkes, Debra. 2014. “Solitary confinement violates basic rights. Why does Canada keep using it?” The Globe and Mail. Available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-need-the-rule-of-law-in-prison/article22004287/. Public Safety Canada. “Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview – 2010.” Available at http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2010-ccrso-eng.aspx. Rush, Curtis. 2012. “Homicides Plunge in Toronto to Lowest Level in 25 Years.” Toronto Star, January 2, 2012. Available at http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1109315--homicides-plunge-in-toronto-to-lowest-level-in-25-years?bn=1. (Note: Contains informative interactive graphic/map.) Siegel, Larry J., and Chris McCormick. 2010. Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies, Fourth Edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. Statistics Canada. Available at www.statcan.gc.ca. “The national crime rate has been falling steadily for the past 20 years and is now at its lowest level since 1973.” See “Police-Reported Crime Statistics,” (The Daily, July 21, 2011) available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110721/dq110721b-eng.htm. The SocioWeb. “Criminology and Social Deviance.” Available at http://www.socioweb.com/directory/sociology-topics/criminology-and-social-deviance/. 9. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS 1. Has this chapter changed your view of criminals and the criminal justice system? If so, how? If not, why not? Answer: Answers will vary, but students will probably answer yes. The chapter explores the idea that definitions of crime change over time and historical observation shows that the way society deals with deviance is relative to social context. Students may comment that they have a better understanding as a result of using a sociological perspective. The chapter might shift views on criminals and the justice system by highlighting systemic issues or social factors influencing crime, emphasizing a more nuanced perspective on criminal behavior. 2. Which theories of deviance and crime do you agree with the most, and why? Justify your answer by using logic and evidence. Answer: Answers will vary by student, but should make reference to supporting material from pp. 175–183 to support their answer. I find strain theory compelling because it links societal pressure to criminal behavior, aligning with evidence that economic disparity and lack of opportunities contribute to higher crime rates. 3. How does the picture of crime in TV news or crime shows differ from the profile provided by this chapter? What are the major differences? What do you think are the major reasons for these differences? Answer: Answers will vary by student, but will probably begin by answering in the affirmative. Major differences could include the motivations for crime; in most TV and film, the primary reason tends to focus on the “evil” inherent in the criminal as opposed to reality in which there are substantial social reasons that address/explain the many facets of crime and criminal behaviour. References to the chapter material should be used to support the answer. TV news and crime shows often exaggerate violence and sensationalize cases, whereas academic profiles focus on systemic issues and broader statistics. This difference arises from media's need for dramatic content versus the chapter's objective analysis. Chapter 7: Deviance and Crime “Committing Sociology” to Better Grasp Deviance and Crime In the afternoon of April 15, 2013, while thousands of people ran in or watched the Boston Marathon in Boston, Massachusetts, two homemade pressure-cooker bombs were detonated near the finish line of the race. Panic ensued as first responders and helpful citizens moved toward the sites of the explosions, and spectators and runners moved as far away from the race site as possible, toward safety. The bombings led to an unprecedented lockdown of Boston and surrounding suburbs. Flights in and out of Boston’s airport were suspended, and airspace in the Boston area was restricted. Days later, the photos of two suspects were released. These two suspects were then involved in a manhunt that again shut down the city and surrounding suburbs. The suspects—Russian brothers who had immigrated to the United States years ago—gave chase and threatened more destruction and loss of lives. One of these suspects was killed during the manhunt, and the other was arrested on the evening of April 19, 2013. In the days following the bombing, as people around the world were coming to grips with another deadly attack on the United States, newly elected Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was asked about the Boston bombings. Specifically, he was asked how he would respond to the bombings if they were to have happened in Canada. Trudeau’s response centred first on the victims and families involved and on understanding the role of Canadian security teams in surveillance and intelligence. He then stated that he would take some time to consider the root causes of this kind of violence, suggesting that people who feel particularly alienated from a society may be more prone to considering these acts of violence. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to address Trudeau’s comments (unasked by any reporter, interestingly). He stated that now was not the time to “commit sociology.” Not surprisingly, sociologists in Canada and around the world were quick to pick up on Harper’s comment. One of the authors of your textbook, Robert J. Brym, was one of those sociologists. Brym argued that now was actually the perfect time to commit sociology, because sociology could contribute some well-needed understanding to the issue of terrorism. Sociologists have long known that “measurable demographic and socio-cultural characteristics can’t predict whether an individual will become radicalized and engage in terrorist acts. Much of the impetus for suicide bombing comes instead from a desire to retaliate against what are perceived as repressive actions on the part of foreign powers. Yet the Conservative government is now investing a lot of money to compile information on the demographic and socio-cultural characteristics of people with connections to terrorist groups.… Sociological research suggests that this is probably not an efficient use of funds” (Brym and Ramos, 2013). References: Robert J. Brym and Howard Ramos. 2013. “Actually, Now’s the Perfect Time to Commit Sociology.” iPolitics.ca, April 26. “Timeline: Boston Marathon bombing.” CBC.ca, May 3, 2013. “Trudeau on Boston bombings.” CBC.ca, The National, April 17, 2013. Application Questions 1. Why might Harper’s Conservative government demonstrate unwillingness to stay attuned to the findings of sociology? Answer: The government may be unwilling to pay attention to the findings of sociology (or other disciplines) if those findings contradict current government policy. They may also avoid information that would lead to policy that is less popular than “tough on crime” policies tend to be. In the interests of appearing as though they are taking action on the issues that matter to the general population, research that says otherwise may be ignored or played down in importance. 2. Based on your understanding of Canada’s current crime policies, as described in Chapter 7, do you think that Harper’s comment is consistent with his approach to combating crime, or do you think we should understand his comment to be more about putting a newly elected rival, Trudeau, in a bad light? Answer: Harper’s comment is consistent with his approach to combating crime. As described in Chapter 7, Canada has adopted a tougher line toward criminals and crime than in previous decades when rehabilitation was the dominant model. Policies are now geared toward deterrence involving unpleasant prison terms. Despite evidence strongly supporting diversionary programs and strongly opposed to a “get tough” stance on crime, Canada’s policies are becoming more similar to the policies of the United States (also known for its “tough on crime” stance and large prison population). Of course, it is equally likely that Harper’s comment was also intended to put Trudeau in a bad light; political motivations like these are certainly not to be underestimated. Chapter 7: Deviance and Crime International Stock Fraud Four Canadians and five Americans are charged in an international penny stock fraud scheme. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alleges these men used a “pump and dump” scheme to bilk millions of dollars out of their clients to help artificially inflate stock. They then allegedly used a second scheme against these same clients to take more of their money, charging them additional fees for discharging the securities or to join lawsuits to reclaim their losses. Of the four Canadian men, one was arrested in Canada, a second in the United States, the third remained at large in Thailand, and the fourth Canadian suspect’s whereabouts were unknown. If found guilty, the men could face up to 20 years in prison for each count against them. You can learn some additional details of this case by reading the following account: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/4-canadians-charged-in-140m-international-penny-stock-fraud-1.1336065 This is not the first case of securities fraud involving Canadians. As recently as a week before these arrests were made, some of these same men arrested were involved in exchanges that the Ontario Securities Commission determined to be “entirely fraudulent.” Those Canadian men will face additional sanctions related to those charges. Application Questions 1. Is this a case of white-collar crime or street crime? Explain your answer. Answer: This is a case of white collar crime, as it involves illegal acts committed in the course of work (although the article does not indicate whether these individuals are “respectable, high-status people”). White collar crime is more difficult to detect than street crime; evidence of this is contained in the article, which states that the investigation was a multi-year endeavour involving many branches of the judicial system. 2. Explain the goal of the punishment in these cases. In your view, is the punishment appropriate for achieving the desired ends? Answer: These men are facing charges associated with long prison terms (of up to 20 years for each count, and they are accused of multiple counts). Given this, it seems most likely that the goal of this kind of sentencing is incapacitation. At least two of the Canadian men charged have been found guilty of other fraudulent securities exchanges, suggesting that they may continue to be involved in this kind of illegal activity unless they are somehow incapacitated. It is also possible to view the goal of incarceration as deterrence for those considering committing this type of white-collar crime. Solution Manual for Sociology My Compass for a New World Robert J. Brym, Lance W. Roberts, Lisa Strohschein, John Lie 9780176532031, 9780495763963
Download
Close
Close
