Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash

Analytical Book Review
Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry

In this book, author Gus Martin attempts to provide a comprehensive view of terrorism’s effects on modern society, society’s role in affecting terrorism, the many different manifestations of terrorism in the world, and the future of terrorism.

Part I: Overview

Martin split his book into four sections. In the first, a conceptual review, he covers the first two chapters, discussing the various definitions of terrorism as well as a historical overview of the causes of terrorism. He outlines the beginnings of terrorism during Roman times as well as its evolution from a tool of marginalized demographics to that of the state (first evident during and after the French Revolution), and how that has influenced its contemporary utilization.
Martin switches in chapter two from historical data to theory, attempting to formulate his own definition of terrorism and providing a semantic framework from which to view the rest of his book. He provides an ideological matrix of extremist groups, explaining the common motives behind an entire spectrum of ideological precepts, from fringe left to fringe right. Further, he identifies the problems with defining terrorism, and constructs four perspectives with which to view terrorist definitions: that of the interpretations of terrorist acts in a terrorist environment; of the false dichotomy between terrorism and freedom fighting; of whether political violence is an element exclusive to the fringe of society or whether it is viewed as a rational action of the mainstream; and that of the social rationalizations to acts of political violence.
In the second section, he examines the terrorists themselves, and the different qualities terrorists have depending on the form their violence takes. In chapter four, he analyzes state terrorism.
Martin splits state terrorism into two major spheres: international and domestic. He further divides international and domestic terrorism into patronage and assistance terrorism, patronage being direct, government-perpetrated terrorist acts, and assistance being governmental encouragement and support of said violence. He continues dividing, defining the different methods of assistance (ie, ideological, financial, etc) as well as the types (ie, episode-specific, logistically supportive, etc).
In chapter five, he looks at dissident terrorism. In chapter six, he analyzes the terrorist left and in seven, the terrorist right. In chapter eight, he analyzes criminal and religious terrorism. Finally, in chapter nine, he discusses the effects these forms of terrorism have when their actions or structures traverse national boundaries.
In section III, Martin casts away his previous categorizations and attempts to illuminate the universal aspects of terrorism: its objectives, motives, and methods.
In chapter ten, he discusses how terrorists choose their targets, how they impact their targets, and whether or not their methods are effective. He provides yet another matrix, listing the five criteria for effectiveness as media and political attention, impact on an audience, concessions from an enemy interest, disruption of societal routines, and provocation of the state.
In chapter eleven, Martin explores the role of the media in terrorism. He outlines how terrorism relies on the media for the five criteria listed above, and also describes the difficulties inherent in providing comprehensive media coverage while not playing the part of a propaganda relay for terrorists or their opponents, and also the friction between states and their media with regards to terrorism.
In the final section, IV, Martin brings the entire topic home, first discussing the myriad forms of terrorism in and affecting the United States in chapter 12, then outlining the different governmental responses to terrorism in chapter 13, and finally providing a prediction of the features of terrorism in the future: what will likely happen or change, how terrorism can be controlled, and what the United States specifically can expect for the future.

Part II-1: Analysis

I felt that Gus Martin did not attempt to analyze Terrorism sociologically. His language was extremely objective and calm, although I did detect a hint of Social Conflict Theory in his writings, because in many of his matrixes he listed grievances as perceptions grounded in reality, not as ideological goals. The Palestinians are not fighting, according to Martin, for the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state; they are harassing the Israelis to protest years of perceived oppression, and are not exclusively religious (Martin, pp. 122-123).
Because of his objectivity in compiling this book, I had to supplement his reading with my own understanding of sociological theories in order to view terrorism from a more sociological and less political viewpoint.
Many of Martin’s descriptions of dissenting violence (particularly that of the right) echo the sociological theories of Anomie-Strain and Differential Association.
Fringe conservative political dissent is characterized by “…an uncompromising belief in ethno-national or religious superiority, and terrorist violence is justified as a protection of the purity of the group” (Martin, pp. 26). It seems reasonable that, due to these beliefs, the society perpetrating terrorist acts could exert “a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct”, where “conforming” in this case is interpreted as conforming not to their own cultural standards, but to those of the west, or at least the dominant culture in the region. Globalization has intensified many fringe right perspectives, as they view the influx of “Americanization” as threatening to their culture or religion.
Additionally, fringe right dissent seemed to fit Differential Association theory, in that there seems to be a significant cultural bias (in the case of Muslim extremists) against America and Israel, and deviant behavior, such as suicide bombings, are becoming more and more common as more and more young people who have grown up in an atmosphere advocating martyrdom feel that it is no longer deviant (or admirably deviant) to do so.
Many of the cases of State Terrorism, such as that of Augustus Pinochet in Chile, very closely resembled Social Conflict theory. Acts labeled deviant ranged from support of rebels to being a student, as determined by the Pinochet regime.
An interesting hypothesis to note when discussing sociological theories of violence is that of Robin Morgan. In her book “The Demon Lover”, Morgan outlines a feminist view of terrorism, arguing that a historical focusing of masculinity into an ideal “Demon Lover”: a man who does not fear death, and who, through trials and tribulations, eventually usurps the father figure, has produced a global culture of violence. She explains that there is a general consensus among the men of the world that power is to be strived for and that struggle is righteous in itself, regardless of the costs or effects.

Part II-2: Analysis

Because terrorism is at the forefront of foreign and domestic policy issues in today’s political sphere, it is viewed as more important today than it was many years ago. In addition, with the end of the cold war, United States politics there has been a shift in focus away from State-Sponsored Terrorism and Fringe-Left Terrorism and towards Fringe Right, dissenting political violence. In part this is due to the aforementioned end of the Cold War. The political climate of the US is no longer rabidly bent on the eradication of Marxist ideologies.
Another reason we have focused more on Fringe-Right Terrorism is because globalization has become much more relevant to our economy and culture. We no longer feel our culture infringed upon when Capitalism is attacked; we are becoming more defensive towards our national identity and ideology than our economic system. We no longer speak of “communists” with such contempt; we label “terrorists” our enemies, despite their belief that they’re fighting for the very same things Americans originally fought the British for.
I feel that the topics we covered in class that parallel the topic of terrorism the best are those of Racial and Ethnic Interpersonal Violence (Chasin, pp. 275) and Suicide Bombings (T & C, pp. 79)
Terrorism in many of its forms grows out of Racial and Ethnic conflict. The majority of cases of State-sponsored terrorism have included racist elements, and race is a huge labeling factor in today’s terrorist environment. Additionally, statements like these:

“You go on missions to impress your friends. You get a name as a tough guy who is down with the neighborhood and down with his people.” (Chasin, pp. 276)

…and:

“The underlying causes of brutality for a lot of cops in New York and other big cities are fear, racism, and misunderstanding of other cultures. They fear that new immigrants and new arrivals in the city are unwashed hordes about to take over the streets.” (Chasin, pp. 293)

…are telling in the sense that they are American versions of the same feelings being expressed by those in the Muslim world. For the first, replace [tough guy] with [martyr], and for the second, replace [brutality] with [extremism]; [cops in New York and other big cities] with [Muslims in the Middle East]; [unwashed hordes] with [Americans who want to subsume your culture]. In doing so, we see the parallel between inter-ethnic violence within our own borders and inter-cultural violence without, and how the drive toward individual affirmation by one’s culture can result in extreme acts that would not be undertaken in other circumstances.
In Thio & Calhoun’s chapter on Suicide Bombings they explore the rebirth of the concept of “the martyr” and how, at its core, terrorism is possible. The manner in which they explained suicide bombers’ perspectives allowed me to understand the concepts in Martin’s book much more fully. Their description of the idea of the martyr, and how it lends power to the powerless; in a sense, suicide bombers sacrifice their life to gain power over another group, which I understood before, but I didn’t really understand the thought mechanics behind it.
Also discussed is the tactical advantage to terrorism, which I had not considered very much. Calhoun mentions that:

“The fact that al-Qaeda has nothing tangible to gain from its operations-it does not fight conventional wars in order to capture territory- is not a disadvantage. On the contrary, this makes it virtually unassailable.”

This is particularly salient when considering T & C’s chapter 50, How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism (T & C, pp. 307). I am of the opinion, being extremely well-versed in terrorism for an undergraduate student, that military options cannot halt, or even slow, the spread of terrorism. Empirical evidence suggests that military action against communities actually increase terrorist activity. Bearing that in mind, the next step is to attempt to discover what actions can reduce terrorism; if not war, then what? I believe the use of a sociological imagination, when combined with information about specific terrorist conflicts, can provide us with a humane, although seemingly dichotomous solution. Thio and Calhoun suggest humanitarian outreach, fair trade agreements, and diplomatic compromises, which seems antithetical to much of the United States. Why should we help people who are attacking us? What we (as a country) fail to see, is that that is what they really want, and terrorism is the only method they feel effective in getting their message across.

Part III: Evaluation and Comment

On a scale of one to ten, from an educational perspective, I would give this book a nine. It’s only lack is that it does not explore, from a sociological perspective, why terrorism occurs. Citing evidence of extreme poverty and oppression does little to explain beyond the surface of the phenomenon; Martin does not attempt to explain the conscious choice to terrorize vs. some other form of protest.
Much of the material in the book I was familiar with, but the matrices provided rearranged already known material into a more accessible framework. I also found the frequent use of examples extremely comprehensive, as every new concept is paired with a real world instance of its occurrence. He provides ample empirical evidence, and exhaustive definitional support for the many forms of political violence he explores.
I would not recommend this book for someone who already has a great knowledge of terrorism and is looking to further explore the underlying causes. However, for someone with only passing background knowledge (or for someone like myself, who frequently writes papers on the subject and is looking for easily accessible sources of information and theories), this book would provide an ample foundation to base the rest of your terrorist education off of. In addition, anyone interested more specifically in the interplay between governments and terrorism, or governments and media, would do well to read the relevant chapters in this book.

Progress as Regression: An Analysis of Political Violence and Its Relation to the Path of Progress

Progress is a concept, and like any concept its worth is viewed subjectively by those it impacts. Throughout history, different manifestations of progress have been both accepted and rejected, many at the same time. Sometimes, the process of acceptance results in a synthesis of old and new values into a composite ideology that dominates a culture (Hegel, 1). Other times, rejection of the new values results in a denial of synthesis or in violence. I will examine two examples of a people rejecting a new paradigm of progress, violence primarily emanating from different sides (one supporting, one detracting). The first, Luddism, was an anti-technological perspective whose original incarnation lasted from 1811 to around 1816 in response to increasing industrialization during the vanguard of the industrial revolution. The second, Manifest Destiny, was the idea that America’s rightful destiny was subdual of all the lands it currently occupies, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, and whose vehicle was brutal suppression and relocation of the indigenous peoples. By examining these two periods of human history with the assumption that social values are subjective, I will attempt to prove that progress does not process in a straight line, that it does not reach toward some indefinable goal: progress is merely the ebb and flow of human preference, and those who hold power can lift themselves above the waves to avoid its negative consequences, or can strike the water and move it according to their preference. In a sense, I’m just going to be extremely cynical and pessimistic with regards to human nature and our future.
The first manifestations of the Industrial Revolution were not huge factories and gushing steam, but quiet, gradual use of complex machines in households. As early as the 1600s drastic improvements were being made on common household machines like looms, and prompting an increase in production and an easing of poverty. However, more and more workers were hired to work at someone else’s machine, instead of using their own. This exploitation was the newest form of capitalism, and drew increasing criticism from both the lower and, to a much lesser extent, upper classes. Lord Byron famously supported the Luddite movement, and argued against parliamentary resolutions against their actions.
The term “Luddism” grows from an urban myth of England; that in 1779 a man named Ned Lud broke into a house and destroyed two stocking frames. People who identified with the insane man, having presumably lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods threatened by the capitalization of low-scale industry, took on his moniker and began mimicking his actions. Industrial sabotage of this sort had been going on since 1710, but it erupted in 1811 with the formation of a radical militia of Luddites, parallel to today’s American Patriots movement in scale and purpose. Skirmishes between the British Army and the Luddite forces resulted in the death penalty being enacted for any acts of “machine breaking”, or industrial sabotage, in an effort to curb the violence and to appease the merchants whose capital was being vandalized.
The Luddite movement was “eyes wide open class warfare” (Pynchon, 1). It is a perfect example of Marxist theory’s class warfare, the start of a socialist revolution, in a sense. The theory of relative deprivation fits the Luddite movement very well, when combined with Marx and Engel’s treatises. Relative deprivation, basically, states that when people expect X, and they receive Y, and Y is less than X, then there will be unrest of a sort. Lordy Byron’s rejection of the Frame Breaking Act of 1812 was based not on any anti-capitalism leanings, nor any fear of technology as humanity’s downfall, but because the drastic increase on the price of wheat was combining with high unemployment (perceived as an effect of the hiring of low-wage apprentices to work simple machines) to increase poverty to unbearable levels for the lower class. He wrote in 1812:

“Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.”
(Byron, 1)

The Industrial Revolution, when devoid of its proud title of “Progress”, had the following effects: pollution, extreme class disparity, unemployment, and direct contribution to much larger, more directly lethal events (the World Wars spring to mind). All of these effects overwhelmingly negatively impacted the lower-classes far more than they did the upper. Luddism was merely a lower-class rejection of an upper-class value and the consequent clash over dominance, at which the upper-class eventually won out.
Social Conflict theory also explains rather well the Luddite movement. It argues that acts of deviance (in this case, industrial sabotage) are not labeled as deviant because of some inherent quality of the act, but because of the way they are viewed by those in society who hold the power. To put this into perspective, the general population would consider industrial sabotage against government sponsored or affirmed power plants to be deviant and wrong, but would be less likely to label a military demolition of private power plants as wrong. Even in today’s supposedly enlightened and civilized society, much of the time, those in power transparently decide what is right and wrong according to their own interests.
Additionally, the sociological theory of Social Control theory illuminates the situation of the Luddites. Social Control theory states that an individual consciously or subconsciously weighs three factors before engaging in deviance. First, are the gains worth more than the risks? Second, is the person too involved in socially acceptable means of pursuing goals to engage in deviance? Finally, do they reject social mores or rationalize their actions within those mores? A convenient parallel to the actions and situation of the Luddites when viewed from this perspective is that of pirates 200-100 years earlier.
The gains for both were worth more than the risks, as the perceived likelihood of being caught was so low. Also, both deviances arose out of extreme poverty and adverse living conditions, and both were seen as a way to improve those conditions.
The majority of Luddites had no jobs or were being paid very little, and so had no involvement in the current means of improvement.
Finally, the Luddites rejected the social mores of the time; those of the developing hegemony of the rich. The sought to break that hegemony by breaking the physical manifestations of it: the machines.
Luddism turned out to be a mere hiccup in the progress of industrial capitalism, but its significance lies, in a sense, in its failure. By realizing that progress is not necessarily in the best interests of everyone, one can come to understand the forces at work behind social change.
The concept of Manifest Destiny, later viewed as greedy and capitalistic, and closely tied with the gold rushes of the 1860s and 1870s, was first optimistically conceived in an 1845 piece by John L. O’Sullivan. He wrote:

".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley, 1)

As in the above quote, it was first perceived as a philosophically and religiously reasoned right to further the growth (a good thing) of America (a good thing, so, a good thing ²). This feeling, when fueled by the discovery of gold in the Oregon Territory, brought about a direct conflict of interest between the American government and People and that of the Native Americans. The influx of settlers began to wear on the Native’s land and resources, and the formation of the Transcontinental Railroad, begun in 1863 (PBS, 1), prompted the US Government to displace thousands of Natives and enstated precedence that allowed for the slaughter of entire Native American communities with little or no provocation. From this dichotomy the title of my essay arises. Between Brinkley’s concept that envisions a free, inclusive, and benevolent nation and the nation that is evidenced from events such as the Trail of Tears or the Sand Creek Massacre there is a terrible schism. The public’s synthesis of Brinkley’s progress accepted the destiny to spread and possess, and rejected that of liberty, instead maintaining the old standbys of violence and oppression to further the new concept of progress.
I hereby hypothesize that synthesis might not only be the combination of two different value systems, but also could merely be the more supported value system hijacking the language of the lesser to further its own means, destroying the weaker value system in all but name. In a way, progress as a concept behaves virally, with the current value system representing an immune system, and the new theory being a virus. Applying this metaphor allows us to see progress in a new light: not as cooperative and organic and positive, but simple mathematics. If the current value system is not strong enough to shrug off the invading concept, it becomes infected, and its fundamental processes are distorted to further the cause of the virus in multiplying. Because progress itself seems to be the rather sterile process of synthesis of totally subjective value systems, it itself is devoid of any qualitative value.
I believe this also illuminates an unfortunate aspect of most historical forms of progress: the infected cell will survive for a time, but will ultimately burst. We see this in the example of the American Indians. Their culture was slowly destroyed by the new system of living they were thrown into, and is only now being exhumed, long after the concepts and perceptions that fueled its demise have now themselves died out.
When applying this new concept of viral progress to the Luddite Movement, the conflict jumps into a different contrast. The slow invasion of the upper classes into the everyday industry of the lower classes was too insidious for the “immune system” of the lower classes to fight off, though they sporadically tried. The values of the lower-class: individual government, freedom, and reasonable living slowly gave way to mere survival in the face of upper-class dominance of societal goals.
As the inheritor of social traditions that claimed to value peace, justice, and non-violence, our society has evolved out of hypocrisy. The purest, brightest, and most ideal concepts have consistently been overridden by the personal interest of those who hold power. In order to further our own views; affect our own subject ideas of progress, we must understand completely both what our view of progress is and the current social forces that may twist and warp it into a vehicle for future pretense. Further, we must understand the vehicle that will bring about our preferred social change; the hammer that allows us to drive the nail home. We must understand the power of power in the course of social change.






Bibliography:
Hegel, 1: Enzyklopädie ,Paragraphs 79-82
PBS, 1: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/timeline/
Pynchon, 1: http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html
Brinkley, 1: American History: A Survey, Volume 1, pp. 352
Byron, 1: Morning Chronicle, 2 Mar. 1812

For my Perspective Analyses I will be focusing on primarily European continental pirates, operating in the Caribbean, during the “Golden Age of Piracy”, which lasted from about 1670 to 1780, with some statistics outside of that period or demographic.

DEFINITION

Piracy (as defined by reference.com): A pirate is one who robs or plunders at sea without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation. Pirates usually target other ships, but have also attacked targets on shore. These acts are known as piracy.

Piracy (as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica): robbery committed or attempted on the high seas.

High Seas (as defined by reference.com): The terms international waters or transboundary waters apply where bodies of water (or their drainage basins) transcend international boundaries. For oceans and seas, waters outside of national jurisdiction are also referred to as the High Seas.

PIRACY

Piracy (Buccaneers (boucan, barbacoa), vrijbuiter (free-loot-agent), Flibustiers (and later into Filibustering), Freebooters, etc)

Actually began around 1350 BC, when Lukka raiders attacked shipping from the coast of Asia Minor (http://pirateshold.buccaneersoft.com/pirate_timeline.html)

We’re familiar with the more modern incarnation, of which you see fanciful renderings in films like Pirates of the Caribbean and books like Treasure Island.

Pirates traditionally focused on moneys and valuable material (whalers were plagued by pirates, as was the Spanish navy during Spain’s rape of the South Americas), but slavery eventually became more profitable. Many pirate expeditions ditched robbery for the more straightforward practice of smuggling slaves.

PRIVATEERING

Privateering (Corsairs (cursa->latin for raid, expedition, inroad): A privateer or corsair was similar to a pirate in method but had a commission or a letter of marque from a government or king to capture merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation.

Mostly ended in 1854 @ Declaration of Paris, England continued hiring Privateers (Sir Francis Drake, who became a hero to the British and a personal friend to Queen Elizabeth, despite her inability to acknowledge his accomplishments due to English-Spanish politics.)

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES (WHY PIRACY?)


Anomie-Strain Theory: Social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct.

“[Culturally defined] goals, purposes, and interests…” (at time of Golden Age):

Survival (serious concern)->Wealth, Power, Prestige, Freedom (to a certain extent/from oppression).

“…confines, regulates, and controls acceptable modes of reaching out for these goals” (at time of Golden Age):

Government->State-sponsored military: “Many procedures which from the standpoint of particular individuals would be most efficient in securing desired values…”

Church: “…value laden sentiments (supported by most members of the group or by those able to promote these sentiments through the composite use of power or propaganda).”

“-the exercise of force, fraud, power-are ruled out of the institutional area of permitted conduct.”

+++DISCUSSION QUESTION(s)+++

Q: Modern parallels to Piracy (contemporary examples of organized, violent crime; social perceptions): struggle to reach societally acceptable goals through societally unacceptable means?

Possible A’s: White-collar Crime, Mafia/Mob, Drug Cartels, Plastic Surgery (less and less so), Steroid Use, Shoplifting (clothes, accessories, etc).

Q: Assuming survival, wealth, piety, and power were the socially acceptable goals people of the 17th century, have those goals changed over time? Which have remained constant? Has society added new goals to these over time?

Possible A’s: Wealth/Power have remained, focus on power now more monetarily based. Beauty, Gender Roles of individuals have become increasingly more important to define for society at large. Survival less a concern. Christian piety has changed and become National Ideologies (ie, Freedom, Cultural Integrity, etc).


Differential Association Theory: Criminal Behavior is learned (in interaction with other persons in a process of communication, principally within intimate personal groups). The learning includes techniques of committing the crime and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes, which are learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of those same needs and values.

The best way to interpret Piracy through Differential Association theory is through the common practices of the Militaries before and during the Golden Age of Piracy and the conflicts that arose between the two main sources of authority during the time because those practices (Church and State).

Church Values: Righteousness (of individual actions): Mercy, Charity, Spirituality, Brotherhood with fellow man (to a certain extent).

State Values: Righteousness (of state actions): Wealth, Power, Survival

The constantly violent nature (and therefore, values) of the military conflicted with the societally accepted values of the church fostered an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law (whereas law is replaced by common values). Deviant behavior (violent robbery) was learned by the military because it was common practice, and individuals were encouraged to diverge from legality of their state because their captains were telling them that things that were illegal (read: immoral) were acceptable. These attitudes were not confined to the nautical sphere: rape (albeit more acceptable then than now), robbery, and arson were employed against “others” by all the militaries of the time, engendering a popular perspective of delinquency (read: devaiance) in the military (from which the first pirates diverged, and was the source of much of the piracy of that age).

+++DISCUSSION QUESTION(s)+++

Q: Can you think of any contemporary examples of authority conflicts resulting in a popular action of socially unacceptable means of pursuing goals? (Have them explain.)

Possible A’s: Media and State/Education (violence (gang/other), drugs, sexuality, etc).


Social Control Theory: Delinquent acts result when an individuals bond to societal rules is broken.

Commitment: cost/risk analysis. Are the gains of piracy worth the consequences of being caught?

A: Simply, yes. Values were wealth, power, and survival. All three of these are qualitatively enhanced by piracy. The penalty for engaging in piracy was death, but individuals hardly ever concern themselves with the consequences if they think they won’t get caught, or if the alternative to illegal activity is similar to the punishment for engaging in it. (Poverty, Press Gangs)

Involvement: Is the person too involved in socially acceptable means of pursuing goals to pursue piracy? Do they have the time to pillage and plunder?

A: The socially acceptable means of pursuing goals in 17th Century Europe were constructed with the primary effect of keeping those who were poor in poverty. There were few (and no easy) ways to pursue the goals of Wealth and Power without resorting to illegal means.

Belief: Does the pirate reject social mores or does he rationalize his behavior within those mores? (Variation)

A: Most pirates flat out rejected the morals of “mainstream” society, mostly because of the lack of social mobility when confined by those morals. As is seen in the sample pirate code, they developed their own set of social rules by which to live, which more closely mirror the liberty-centric governments of today than do the “legitimate” governments during the Golden Age.

These were the articles used by the ship Revenge which was commanded by Captain John Phillips.

Article One
Every man shall obey civil command; the captain shall have on full share and a half in all prizes. the Master, Carpenter, Boatswain, and Gunner shall have one share and quarter.
Article Two
If any man shall offer to run away, or keep any secret from the Company, he shall be marroon'd with one bottle of powder, one bottle of Water, one small Arm, and shot.
Article Three
If any Man shall steal any Thing in the Company, or game, to the value of a piece of Eight, he shall be Marroon'd or shot.
Article Four
If at any Time we should meet at another Marrooner (that is, Pyrate) that man shall sign his Articles without Consent of our Company, shall suffer such Punishment as the Captain and Company shall think fit.
Article Five
That a man that shall strike another, whilst these Articles are in force, shall receive Moses's Law (that is 40 Stripes lacking one) on the bare Back.
Article Six
That Man that shall snap his Arms, or smoak Tobacco in the Hold, without cap to his Pipe, or carry a candle lighted without lanthorn, shall suffer the same Punishment as in the former Article.
Article Seven
That Man that shall not keep his Arms clean, fit for an Engagement, or neglect his Business, shall be cut off from his Share, and suffer such other Punishment as the Captain and Company shall think fit.
Article eight
If any man shall lose a joint in time of Engagement, shall have 400 Pieces of Eight: if a limb, 800.
Article Nine
If at any time you meet with a prudent Woman, that Man that offers to meddle with her, without her Consent, shall suffer Death.


+++DISCUSSION QUESTION(s)+++

Q: Can you think of any examples where people without social mobility have resorted to illegal means of self-promotion?

Possible A’s: Drug trade, KKK, Booze-Running during Prohibition

Q: Can you think of any examples where people lacking opportunity have broken from mainstream culture and have created their own social rules and mores?

A: American blacks before 1960, today in inner cities. Pilgrims. Declaration of Independence.
________________________________________________________________________

Social Conflict Theory: Crime, as officially determined, is a definition of behavior that is conferred on some people by those in power. Definitions of crime are formulated according to the interests of those who have the power to translate their interests into public policy. The powerful interests are reflected not only in the definitions of crime and the kinds of penal sanctions attached to them, but also in the legal policies on handling those defined as criminals. The dominant interests intervene in all the stages at which definitions of crime are created.

“An ideology of crime is constructed and diffused by the dominant class to secure its hegemony.” (Quinney)

Shipping was in the interests of primarily the dominant class (landed nobles, ie, Government) and somewhat that of the middle merchant class (which had significant political clout). Shipping fulfilled three purposes, directly descended from, and contributing to, the pursuit of wealth:

#1: Money allowed for military->political power outside the country, which resulted in peace among state-peers, wars of conquest with weaker states, sanction of the church (leading to #2), and holding of colonies (leading to more shipping-> money).

#2: Money allowed for societal control within the country, ie political power, as seen in merchant class despite traditional power structures, which resulted in favorable laws-> money, and #3.

#3: Money allowed for the improvement of one’s life (luxury, servants, housing, property, etc).

Because the benefits of shipping were so great to the powerful class, and invasion of that benefit was perpetrated primarily by those outside the nation and the lower classes within the nation, violating that privilege rapidly became a severely taboo act, with the harshest penalties imaginable.

Social Control theory states that: “Because it is not the quality of the behavior but the action taken against the behavior that gives it the character of criminality, that which is defined as criminal is relative to the behavior patterns of the class that formulates and applies definitions.”

We see a perfect example of this statement in the utilization of privateers. They were still pursuing acts of piracy, but because the piracy was not perpetrated against the “behavior patterns of the class that formulates and applies definitions”, it was not considered criminal.

Today, the law is slightly different. A radical proponent of Social Control Theory would argue that our perception of piracy has changed only because there is more international cooperation in trade, and that it is not that laws against piracy are Jus Cogens (“compelling law” in Latin, a fundamental principle of international law that is to everyone’s universal benefit) that piracy is labeled a crime against humanity but because it violates the capitalist upper-class of ALL countries (due to our new, cooperative system of trade), and those practicing it may be tried in any competent court, regardless of nationality.

+++DISCUSSION QUESTION(s)+++

Q: Given our recent discussion on Drug laws, what parallels can you draw between piracy and drug use?

Possible A’s: Social control (drug laws primarily impacting disadvantaged minority groups).




STATISTICS

ICC 2004 Piracy Report:
30 murders, up from 21 (in 2003)
325 attacks, down from 445 (in 2003)

No reliable statistics were available for piracy before 1985, although at the time of the Golden Age it was considered the second greatest problem behind costly wars for most of the nautical super-powers (Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal), in part because it hindered those wars. Also, relatively wealthy, coastal communities were plagued by pirates (the United States and Canada foremost among these), and Canada, at least, made up for their lack of a standing navy by simply hiring many of these pirates on as privateers to defend against their former compatriots.

Luddism (Denver)

Luddites (Wikipedia)

Luddism (USU)

Timeline, Creation of the Railroad

Effect of Railroad/Whites on Indian Tribes

BEST