Disorderly_Behaviour

Compare and contrast two accounts of disorderly behaviour  Disorderly behaviour refers to individuals who are deemed to not be following the rules of society, the rules of society proves a difficult question to fully get hold of, where do rules and regulations come from and who decides what is order and what is disorder' These questions are interesting to social scientists in their quest to discover the how, what and why about people and society. In this assignment we will firstly compare and contrast the theories from Erving Goffman and Michael Foucault  to devour understanding of how social order is created, Secondly we will compare and contrast Stanley Cohen and Stuart Hall’s theories which discuss what social order is and who is in control of making and keeping social order.  Firstly to understand disorderly behaviour we must understand what social order is. Social order gives us a sense of the way society is shaped and “how individuals all fit together in shared space” (Silva 2009, P. 308) In everyday life we all follow a set of “norms” (Silva 2009, P. 307) a range of expectations shared by individuals based on how society should behave this maintains social order, when these “norms” (Silva 2009, P. 307) are not adhered to they can lead to disorderly behaviour. To help clarify this we will use the following example, a UK driver follows rules about “speed limit, traffic lights, (and which) side of the road to drive on”. (Silva 2009, P. 307) If we do not follow “the rules of the road” (Silva 2009, P. 308) a number of things can occur such as traffic accidents and traffic violations, these breaches can prove threatening to others in society and be deemed as disorderly behaviour.  Sociologist Erving Goffman focuses on the “social patterns of everyday life interactions” (Silva 2009, P. 309) whilst on the other hand Michael Foucault focuses on the “power of knowledge and discourse”. (Silva 2009, P. 309) These two scientists had different approaches to discovering social patterns. Goffman’s investigations involved interactions between people in social science terms “micro-social phenomena” (Silva 2009, P. 309) on the other hand Foucault investigated the “patterns, systems and structures of social life”. (Silva 2009, P. 309) otherwise know as “macro”. (Silva 2009, P. 309) Goffman’s way of thinking was simply put “society is nothing other than people living their lives” (Silva 2009, P. 316).Through living life rules and routines are made and implemented creating “repetitive practices” (Silva 2009, P. 317) Whilst we follow routines some things stay the same others change. Goffman’s study took him to work “in establishments like restaurants, hotels and hospitals” (Silva 2009, P. 317) he discovered a number of differences in people dealing with interactions, an example of the complex nature of interactions is “restaurant waiters” (Silva 2009, P. 317) they put on a performance when they serve customers but when in the presence of fellow workers they are much more real in portraying themselves. This can be transferred onto the street an example of this is when two strangers catch each others eye, they share a gaze on most occasions it is a civil experience however if someone reads the facial gesture or body language in a threatening way disorder can break out leading to street fights leading to punishment “when codes are misinterpreted or violated.” (Silva 2009, P. 318) This tells us “first impressions” (Silva 2009, P. 318) are clearly important in maintaining social order and if taken out of context they can lead to various disorders. Goffman’s view disregards history as taking any part in the social order, instead placing the responsibility on “individual action, interaction or joint action”. (Silva 2009, P. 318) Whilst for Michael Foucault his focus is on history and the discourses reveled along the way, his work examines the way social order is “shaped and organised by authoritative knowledge” (Silva 2009, P. 319), unlike Goffman’s approach of “society is nothing other than people living their lives” (Silva 2009, P. 316)  Foucault thoughts are that “social institutions, such as family, school, workplace, the neighbours, (and the) welfare system” all hold varying amounts of power to oversee social order.  Foucault’s views reveals power is acquired to those deemed as the higher authorities, including “parents, doctors, teachers, priests and policemen” (Silva 2009, P. 319) this power is used to “discipline human behaviour and produce ordered or orderly behaviour” (Silva 2009, P. 319).  An example of this could be the power exercised by a policeman telling drunks to move on, he has the authority to do this and is deemed in society as a higher ranked individual compared to the rest of society.  A key point of Foucault’s theory rely’s on the portrayal of certain issues by the various media sources, he explains “discourse can be talked about - to shape popular attitudes.” (Silva 2009, P. 319) His studies focused more broadly on history and how knowledge had been received and used to shape and reshape society. Unlike Goffman Foucault see’s “individuals as having very little control over their own destinies”. (Silva 2009, P. 321) This leads onto our second point, It was sociologist Stanley Cohen who described the media input as producing “moral panic” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 363) this can be seen with the recent passing of the dangerous dog act 1991, at this time there was a media frenzy in printing stories about aggressive dogs and children being injured, this press lead to the government passing an act to protect children by banning 4 notoriously aggressive breeds of dog. This didn’t all go as smoothly as one would of thought as many dog owners found loopholes by saying there dog was mixed breed or was simply the family pet and hadn’t hurt anyone so the act could be seen as unfair.  Cohen addressed gang fighting in the 1960’s using a term called “folk devils” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 370) by this he meant the way in which certain people are portrayed as anti social and deviants of society leading to them being judged and blamed for societies crimes and problems. For Cohen “the media play a major role in fostering irrational fears about anti-social behaviour.” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 370) leading to these “folk devils” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 370)  a recent example of this is the “introduction of Anti-Social behaviour order’s” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 364) the media’s portrayal of teens can certain be considered to have encouraged the order, at the time there was a lot of press about teenagers not allowed to wear hooded tops in shopping malls. The anti-social behaviour of a few certain encouraged the media to create stories that give an air of panic to the local communities and thus lead to the government scrutinizing the problem and passing a law. The problem with Cohen’s theory is he does not explain why society reads and watches what it does, without address this can the media really be blamed or is it simply down to individual choice' Stuart Hall and co-writers (1978) similarly to Cohen argue that the media plays an important part in spreading crisis in our society, in the 1970’s he researched the sudden craze that was mugging, his research focused heavily on “the British State” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 371) and the way certain “powerful groups” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 371) aimed at combating crime mostly against “young black men” (Kelly and Toynbee 2009, P. 371) For Hall et el the media and government work together. The government labeling something and the media making it popular. An example of this could be the recent student loans riots, the government wanted to increase the student loan amounts, without the media’s input it would not have escalated to the point of creating riots and other ‘anti social behaviour’. The problem with Hall et el theory is it focuses on powerful members of society and mainly black men, thus alienating a number of members of society.  In conclusion to this assignment it is clear that the media and society co-mingle and create various social panic. The media’s input has lead society to think and feel a certain way about disorderly behaviour, yet the media can not be held accountable for personal choice into what we choose to watch and read and then how we decide to act with/on the information received.