Compare_and_Contrast_Any_Two_Theories_of_Social_Disorder_in_Contemporary_Uk_Society

What is social disorder in the UK' Like many other modern democratic countries, life in the UK is ordered in such a way that day to day mundane things in general life are ordered and structured. The people living in these types of society their description of the way of life can be said by the majority of people as being activities or ideas not regarded as being correct or proper for the time or place and when there is disorder this appears to be more directed at the youth in today’s society. Who or what has defined social order and who gets to decide what is order and what is disorder in, and in this essay I am going to try and show two theories or ideas of social disorder in the contemporary UK society of today and compare them to each other. But firstly I will look at in brief the ideas of where social order is derived from through the workings and ideas of Goffman and Foucault. Goffman’s studies were concerned with the idea if ritualistic ideals and workings in daily life and showed ways in which societies are ordered throughout many performances in specific contexts. Goffman’s ideas in studying social life hinged on the concept that social life and interaction is predicated and pre ordered, and the ideas are already in place. He deems that society is not separate but it is a construction made by the acts of many individuals. Therefore social order is brought about from the actions put together by certain individuals from the main group. Order is therefore achieved through the actions of repetitive practices, although they are not the same every time and thus social change occurs as actions always being built and rebuilt. People in today’s society are aware of the invisible rules within society of how things work and people get used to these rules and ideals. In contrast to Goffman’s theory of order the social scientist Michael Foucault’s work looks at how social order is derived from authoritative knowledge and order in society is made and remade through the power of discourses and authoritative knowledge. In other words, those who appear to have dominant ways of thinking, for example those in authority, like professionals and experts that are placed in positions of authority, likes of schools, workplace and the welfare system. Foucault says that “in any given historical period, ways of thinking and talking are organised in systems of discourses”. (Foucalt cited in Da Silva, Ch 7, p322) Young people hanging around is not a new thing and has been seen throughout the ages, the earliest being noted historically in Athens by Aristotle, he noted at that time that the young people even then had bad manners, scoffed at authority and showed lack of respect for their elders (Brake cited in Kelly, Toynbee Ch8, p362). This suggests that older and perhaps wiser people have a key role to implement social order and decide what is socially acceptable and flag up points which they deem as being anti social in nature, this having been seen as far back as 350 BCE and compares to the ideals of Foucalt. In our modern society the media portrays and feeds the general population many episodes of occurrences happening throughout the UK on a daily basis. They appear to seize upon issues of the moment and highlight things continuously. For example dangerous dogs within society; these were highlighted in the press and media to such an extent that Politicians took up issues and brought in new laws to control this act of social disorder, this being after the tabloid press had exposed many incidences of attacks which led to widespread public concern. Secondly one other aspect of social disorder which appears to have come or evolved from deprived areas is gang and youth culture. This is where large groups of youths tend to hang around street corners, mainly due to the fact that they have nothing to do in the areas in which they live which are usually the large housing estates within our towns and inner cities. Cohen ‘s approach to social science has intimated that this onslaught from the media showing aspects of social disorder creates “folk devils”( Kelly, Toynbee per Cohen 1973 p370), the definition of this being people who are portrayed as being deviant and are blamed or more likely to be blamed for crimes and other social problems. Cohen felt that the Media played a major role in triggering the highly irrational fears of the public about what was considered as being anti social behaviour and termed the process a moral panic which relates to a period which identifies groups of people who appear to threaten the way of life or order at that moment in time. One example of this which Cohen investigated was taken from a period during the era of the 1960’s where there were two distinct groups of youths who appeared to be at loggerheads with each other, these being the “Mods” and “Rockers”, their story being re-told in the movie Quadrophenia. The two groups/gangs were young people who did not appear to like their own way of life, like what they were doing in their everyday life and sought to achieve a more exciting life and not be like their parents whom they deemed as boring and not understanding. This they did by hanging around in groups of their own kind and becoming involved with the taking of drugs to escape reality, and under the influence when coming together with opposition this led to mass fights and hooliganism in the south coastal towns causing anxiety to the residents of these areas. The media added to the angst of the people who were both terrified and outraged by the acts of these two conflicting groups. The way these “folk devils” were represented in the media was as being evil and completely immoral. Cohen did not go as far to suggest that the media reflects the cultural anxieties of society and does not explain why the media should create these “folk devils” to start the moral panic. Similarly cultural studies scholar Stuart Hall and others argue in Policing the Crisis (1978) that the media coverage in the early 1970’s added to the belief that there was an increased crisis within society and in particular a rise in street crimes like mugging. Therefore Cohen and Hall et al, suggest that the media construction of this violent disorder and breakdown lies within social conflict. During the 1970’s people movement was on the rise, there was much dissent in the ranks of the workforce with strikes and industrial unrest throughout the UK and political and military conflict within Northern Ireland and it was becoming clear that with the emergence of the new social movements that they were trying to promote and or provoke change in society. At that time the British state/government, noted by Hall et al as being the most powerful group cracked down on the rising crime in the country thus becoming the primary definer of disorder. Following on the back of this crackdown the media seized the initiative and extended the primary definitions laid down by the state and in this view and obscuring the main cause of social conflict and disorder which is the inequality in UK. The media turned the issues towards the mindless violence and for Hall et al; this created the “Law & Order Society.” Both Cohen and Hall et al acknowledged that the violence on the streets did exist but turned their attention to how it has become defined and amplified through the media. On the other hand Huesmann et al, 2003 set about to undertake what is known as a longitudinal study, this takes a group of people who have been initially studied and then some time later are re-studied to assess any changes in their behaviour which has occurred in the interim period. Huesmann et al studied a group of 577 children in 1977, and from them took information on what TV they were watching, the follow up took place in 1991 and 338 of the original group were interviewed further to ascertain whether any violent and aggressive behaviour they had showed in their lives could be related to the fact of them watching a lot of violence on TV. They concluded that there was a link between what the subjects had watched on TV and their violence. The evidence however is not wholly conclusive as it may have been the case that these adults were already aggressive and violent as children, before they had subjected themselves to the TV and media programmes. Having looked at the theories of Cohen and Huesmann they are in essence fairly similar. Cohen noted social factors involved in social disorder based on inequality and class system, the creation of folk devils which in turn brought about the population in a surge of mass moral panic with the fighting causing the anti social behaviour creating social disorder. Huesmann on the other hand by passes any social factors but the media representation depicting violence causing further violence and social disorder.