Реферат: Sociological Analysis Of Violence Essay Research Paper

Professor. K. Hatt

05 July, 2000

In our society today, control is maintained by the authorities through regulation. In North America, major regulatory systems comprise two main systems of expertise. One is the criminal justice system, which is concerned with what will we do about crime and deviance. The other is the academic system of expertise, which is concerned with why crime and deviance exists. Academic expertise is the type of discourse deployed in the article by Michael Conlon to show, with ostensible authority, that maternal smoking during pregnancy is ?linked? to adult criminal behaviour.

By using a recently published study, the article sets up the system of expertise to lend credibility to its headline and make a very persuasive (at first glance) claim. Scientists have high credibility and prestige in our society, and the article plays greatly on this assumption.

The key idea of the article is that criminal males are the product of mothers who smoked during pregnancy. The fallacy of affirming the consequent is evidenced in this statement when a closer look at the clarification of the meaning of the premise, and its significance, is made. To seriously answer questions of cause and consequent, the reader must assemble (?accurately?) measured covariables and variables and draw reliable conclusions from them. While the researchers of this data present certain conclusions, these conclusions may not necessarily be reflected in the media report. The media is capable of manipulating the information from the research report in order to support their own biases or beliefs.

In the year 2000, smoking has fallen out of public favour and is seen as an undesirable social and physical health habit; many cities across Canada have banned smoking in all indoor, and in some cases in certain outdoor, areas. This article accurately reflects the general public opinion that smoking is ?bad?, but it does not necessarily accurately reflect the results of the main study it is citing, but rather -2

could be using only parts of the study to support the evil-causes-evil fallacy, i.e., smoking causes criminal behaviour.

There are also some reporting problems in the article regarding the applicability of the the study?s findings. The sample of the study was taken from several small, affluent Western European countries, where poverty is low, compared to many larger industrialised nations such as Canada, and where minorities make up a very small part of the population (i.e., it is mainly a white society) . Another incongruity is evident in the reporter?s assembling of data; the reporter cites a study done in Western Europe, based on western European data, but also quotes North American researchers, who confirm that the link between the independent variable (smoking) and the dependent variable (adult male deviance) exists. Thus the validity of the conclusion the article puts forth is questionable, as it may not be generalizable to all western societies.

The article uses the simplest statistical analysis of acts (of criminal behaviour) isolated in a single types, specifying neither more detailed forms or variations nor phases or sequences through which it might move. The statistics show a relatively small differences between what would appear, to the lay reader, as inconsequential differences regarding the numbers of cigarettes smoked by the pregnant mother linked to the incidence of criminal behaviour by adult males. There is no information about whether control groups were used in the study, or if there was even consideration of control in the research, other than the few social factors mentioned.

The reporter?s stating observations of adult male criminal behaviour (especially persistent behaviour) around maternal smoking during pregnancy serves as a manoeuvre of definition. Defining male criminal behaviour in terms of maternal smoking suggests that maternal smoking must be bad, as we already know -3

that criminal behaviour is ?bad?. The evil-causes-evil fallacy can thus also be explicated through the writer?s operational definitions.

The article is also sensational and controversial because there is presently a back-lash by smokers for their ?rights? in the face of the general anti-smoking sentiment that has risen in recent years in western society. Also implicit in the articles? tone is the stigmatization of smoking, which also serves to reflect the general attitude of anti-smoking that exists today.

The article states that the researcher accounted for other factors, such as SES, parental, psychiatric problems, age, and the father?s criminal history. However, there are many other important factors that could contribute to the cause of male criminal behaviour, such as single parent homes, Child Sexual Abuse, or drug and alcohol use in the home, to name a few. The correction between the variables is also spurious, as it is not mentioned if another important factor, such as if it was a single parent family, could be isolated in the equation.

It is important to realize that the experts, such as the academics, do not allow blame to dominate the structure of their research. Rather, it is the media who is responsible for framing studies as heavily concerned with the idea of blame as explanation.

An overview critique of the article also brings to mind the idea that language, the words we use to convey meaning, is not clear or pure. Words take on different meanings in different cultures, classes, and even for individuals, depending on their background, experience, and training. Linguistic content makes meaning very tenuous, and therefore meaning cannot be as clear as we believed it was. For example. part of the headline of the article states, ?Habit in pregnancy thought to damage fetus?s nervous system, causing long-term misbehaviour.? The sentence is

-4

intended to convey a purported ?fact?, though a close look at the language used (i.e., ?thought?, which does not connote fact) does not agree with this intention.

The construction of the media report on a correlational study between maternal smoking and male criminal behaviour suggests a media bias and framing of information to serve their biases. In a practical sense, the reader should only need the key ?facts? to make a judgment on the reliability and validity of the reported claims. However, language, types of data description, popular fallacies, and spurious correlations deployed by the media can throw the reader off track. These media tactics make a critical analysis of the article?s ?truth? not necessarily easy in assessing the extent of ?blame? for deviance and crime in contemporary society.

349