Hi Evan

1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.

2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"

3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?

JBT






To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?

Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry

In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. American corporations such as WalMart, as a matter of course, purchase low-cost goods or services from countries with weaker economies-per-capita (WalMart has the dubious distinction of importing 10% of US imports from China in 2002 alone (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html)), and profit from them by re-selling them in the markets of stronger economies (primarily Europe, the United States, and Canada), with little benefit to China or other comparable countries. Further, Globalism has combined the Colonial ideal of massive influxes of raw or semi-complete material from less-developed nations with classical liberal free-market theory, which has the effect of expanding consumer markets to every locale possible. Companies like WalMart and McDonald’s are no longer “American” companies, in that they sell their product or service to citizens of many nations: McDonald’s website asks visitors to select their “country/market” from a list of 62 nations.
This globalization of trade has the effect of introducing (and in many minds, forcing) Western culture into societies that want little or no part of it. The introduction of America-provided jobs to a developing or third-world nation is often a double-edged sword, as the companies do not pay “American” wages (which would almost always be higher) and promote Western free-market ideals, western eating habits, and, most importantly, western progress ideals.
Is this, then, progress? From the perspective of a stereotypical American, of course it is. Globalism means that, in the future, goods will be cheaper, standards of living will be higher, democracy (our championed political system) will engender peaceful resolution of disagreement between nations and ethnic groups previously at odds, and philosophical conclusions that have been accepted by our country such as racial, gender, and economic equality will be accepted by the whole world. After all, once a hungry person discovers a new, good, food source (a fruit, if you will, for dramatic symbolism) isn’t it natural to share that fruit with those they love or depend upon?
Progressionism does not judge these progress ideals. The cynical tone of the previous paragraph was to illustrate that, in keeping with the idea that progress has no absolute positive value, it is simply change. Gender equality is a welcome change to most Americans, but many, less “advanced” cultures would see it as unnatural. It is in these cultural clashes between American or Western philosophical progress ideals and those of the rest of the world that a new, Cold War-esque conflict has arisen. Those who disagree with any of these tenants of the American progress ideal will likely fight back in order to maintain their current state or to unseat the future that Globalism has set and replace it with their own.

Hi Evan

1. I'm e-mailing about your final essay. Brad and I divvied up the final essay proposals, and I'm e-mailing each student whose proposal I have. Sections 1 and 2 are identical in all of my e-mails, whereas section 3 addresses your particular proposal.

2. The final essay assignment says that the "central problem for these essays is simple enough: to what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?" As with the research essay, your final essay should not be just a description or report on the topic. Your paper should be argumentative. There should be a thesis that you defend. Quoting once again from the assignment, "your job is to pick some area in which you think the notions of time and progress are particularly complicated or interesting. ... As the syllabus explains, we're particularly interested in topics that will allow you to 'relate modern ambivalence about [progress] to its complicated history.'"

3. I don't know the details, of course, of how you will develop this, but it sounds like a fascinating thesis. A powerful nation's concept of progress may lead to war with a nation that doesn't share that concept. I can certainly see parallels between the British Imperial era and the present. I think particularly of General Gordon in the Sudan being overwhelmed the forces of the Mahdi, a man claiming to be the Islamic Messiah, and then Kitchner's Anglo-Egyptian army crushing the Mahdi. And then there's the present unhappy day. Is that the sort of thing you are planning?
I have two minor comments/questions about word usages in your proposal. 1) In what sense can a third-world nation be a counterpart of a Western nation? The Taliban is certainly an opponent, but I wouldn't describe that group as a counterpart. 2) The other is about the phrase political violence. Is progress a political concept? Progress seems to me something broader than politics. If it is, and if it leads to violence, the notion that the violence is political seems to me too narrow.
What sources do you have?

JBT






To what extent are we still living with models of time, change, and progress developed during and shortly after the industrial revolution? How have we built upon them, extended them, amended them, rejected them?

Final Paper
IS 2001-Section 2, Fall ‘05/Political Violence, Fall ‘05
Evan Mowry

In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc.
In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.
Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within1 progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.
Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.
Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.
The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.
Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies, and is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.
In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the Global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. The United States,

Response Paper #3
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry

In the reading “The World According to NAMBLA”, the author is attempting to explain the ways in which the members of NAMBLA justify and rationalize their deviant behavior and/or beliefs. The author outlines and provides examples of four strategies NAMBLA’s members use to rationalize their beliefs, those of condemnation of the condemner, denial of injury, appeal of higher loyalties, and denial of the victim. In doing so, the author generalizes the specific case of NAMBLA, and provides an explanation of rationalization relevant to all instances of deviant and normal human behavior.
While reading this chapter, I was struck by the audacity that society labels things as harmful, when they could in fact not be. I began to critically examine concepts most people take for granted, like age of consent, or the accepted “damage” that is done by sexual activity between children and adults, and really distinguish the many viewpoints possible in those situations from a socially acceptable paradigm of “right” and “wrong”. In simple terms, what struck me most about this reading was how readily I understood the positions of the NAMBLA members, and how uncomfortable that made me feel, despite believing that I disagreed with them.
I agree wth the author’s main premise, that, when a belief held by a person or group is unpopular with the ruling societal consensus, that that group or person has “…a vested interest in justifying and thereby normalizing its philosophy and…practices.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 116). People are always attempting to describe their thought processes to those who assault their philosophical positions in order to elicit empathy, and by inference, societal acceptance. Outliers aside, I believe that it is an inherent urge for members of a society to attempt to belong to or even change a society rather than remove themselves from it.
I do not disagree with the authors so much as I wish they would have extended their analysis of rationalization beyond deviance and at least hinted that the desire to rationalize one’s behavior does not begin where societal norms end, and does not end where they begin. Most members of a society attempt to blend into the fabric of it, their status as acceptable or not regardless.
Because of its analysis of the seemingly universal drive for rationalization, and because this reading attempted to generalize specific examples of rationalization tactics to much broader themes, it has a wide application to the sociological study of deviance on the whole. Examples of “explanations” for deviant behavior, from the perspective of the deviant actors themselves, are present in the vast majority of types of social deviance, and so this reading sheds light on the vast majority of cases encompassed by “the sociological study of deviance”.
In addition to describing common themes of rationalization, this reading also highlights the deep intolerance contemporary western society has for any sexual activity outside the norm. By using words like “taboo” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 105) and “trauma” (pp. 109) to describe popular perceptions towards the nature and effects of adult/child sexual relations, this reading touches on the commonality of semantics used to describe sexual deviance, both violent and non-violent, and blurs the line between the two.
I do not think any particular sociological theory of deviance can be applied to the subject matter of this reading to explain NAMBLA’s behavior. The authors’ main premise was that deviant members of a society attempt to rationalize their behavior, because it is in their interests, so…Game Theory? Game Theory advocates a metaphorical view of human relationships: that of a game, with complicated rules. Game Theory would state that NAMBLA is only attempting to realize greater return in the societal game of acceptance by convincing the greater populace that their behavior is rational, and therefore acceptable, as if they were able to do so, they could pursue their chosen behavior more freely and, presumably, to greater lengths.

In chapter 10, “What’s a Nice Girl Like You Doing In a Place Like This?” the authors are attempting to explain that women strip as a means of limited social acceptance. Dancing provides a stripper with different aspects of a social conception of acceptability, through socially unacceptable means. By citing evidence of low self-esteem and other factors that would be detrimental to the women’s self-perception, the authors describes stripping as both a job choice and a path to achievement to socially acceptable goals like “…beauty, popularity, …fame, praise, and money.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 158).
To be honest, much of this reading did not surprise me, but I was shocked by the study stating “Three of every four strippers reported one or both parents abused alcohol, and fully one half had at least one parent who abused drugs.” It would make sense for sociological deviance to be a result of dysfunctional households during childhood, but numbers that high are staggering.
I agree with this reading in the sense that I also have come to the conclusion that the allures of stripping are not “deviant”, only in that it is labeled such is it actually a deviant act. The desire to acquire socially acceptable things is certainly understandable, and the “Ugly Duckling Syndrome” described by the authors contributes to the decision to take up stripping as stripping offers the same benefits as modeling without the social acceptance. For these girls, the study concludes and I agree: the benefits of stripping outweigh the detriment of being declared a deviant. Also, the final sentence of this reading “[strong and confident] qualities are typically present in dancers, but they are not qualities that lead women into stripping,” was very insightful, and ties in the authors’ belief that stripping provides these women with something they previously lacked, rather than being a simple job.
I don’t disagree with the authors of this reading on anything. Their hypothesis and conclusion; that strippers as a demographic have similar life characteristics, is supported by their research.
By exploring the factors resulting in deviance in a person’s life in one circumstance, any conclusions can be used to decrease or increase the occurrence of that deviance. These results would also be of interest to policymakers, for example, interest groups that want to reduce the occurrence of stripping in the US could concentrate on minimizing the characteristics that most female strippers share (i.e., a broken home, low self-esteem, etc).
This reading is related to other readings on sexual deviance because a common theme in sociology is the search for a cause: in this case, what causes women to pursue a career in stripping? By examining the strippers’ pasts, and their attitudes towards themselves and their past and present situations, a sociologist can determine the factors that led them to the decision to engage in deviance.
Structural Functionalism satisfactorily explains this reading. Stripping would be a societal structure with the purpose of providing women with low self-esteem fulfillment. Stripping, Functionalism would argue, has a purpose in society in that it provides a service to a demographic.

In chapter 11 of Sexual Deviance: a reader, Exposing the “Pretty Woman” Myth, the authors attempt to convey the complexity of the factors that converge to lead a woman into prostitution. The authors’ main point was that popular perception is that prostitutes are either beautiful women who get “saved” from the street life by a prince or are depressed drug-addicts who define their life by prostitution, and that this perception is incorrect; prostitution is the result of a complex interplay of factors, leading to the decision to engage in a dangerous act for very specific benefits.
I was most struck by the high incidences of abuse represented in the sample. Nearly all of the subjects had been severely abused in one way or another before turning toward prostitution, and nearly all were abused after beginning to prostitute themselves. Also, I was struck by this assertion: “Still, when asked, participants explicitly reported personal responsibility for choices made.”(Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 183) This statement caused me to really think about the mentality of the prostitutes, and how I would deal with personal responsibility in an environment that seemed to force prostitution on me. The realization that accepting personal responsibility for things I would have no control over would be the ONLY control I would have, like when one subject said “I ain’t givin it away…I ain’t no 10, 15$ ho”, really pushed the whole reading into both stark contrast and parallel with my own life.
I did not disagree with any assertions made by the authors in this reading. I do think the evidence overwhelmingly points to external factors strongly influencing women to engage in prostitution, and that personal choice is a meaningless term when questions of survival, drug addiction, and children go unanswered.
Like the other readings in this section, the factors that lead to a life of deviance are of special interest to policy makers and to people who are faced with the same situations as the subjects. If we can understand what influences a person to engage in dangerous activities, it is theoretically possible to decrease, or even eradicate, negative situations for people considering deviance in their lives.
This reading ties in well with other readings on sexual deviance, in that so far they have examined factors that are present in deviants’ histories before they choose to begin deviating from the normal standard of behavior. As in the reading on strippers, the pursuit of socially acceptable goals by unacceptable means has distinct commonalities depending on the demographic and society, regardless of the actual act. Ironically, I think, the actual goal is misunderstood by both blue and white-collar deviants because inherent in the goal is an understanding that it was acquired through socially acceptable means.
I wouldn’t have said this before the reading, but Differential Association theory is very strongly suggested throughout. Many of the subjects reported being coerced into trying drugs or prostitution by their male acquaintances, frequently referred to as husbands or boyfriends or pimps, implying a somewhat intimate relationship. As far as this study is concerned, associating themselves with deviant individuals directly influenced the subjects’ own decisions to engage in deviance.

The authors of the study “Male Street Hustling” attempted to show that a major factor in the choice to engage in hustling was that of peer introduction to it, and also that identification of the hustler as not gay (or, at least, not “slutty”-gay) was very important to the subculture.
I was most struck by this study’s depiction of hustlers vehemently protecting their heterosexual label. It made me think that there are many deviant groups in our society that attempt to rationalize their behavior into the mainstream, instead of remaining outside it. This ties in very well with the reading on NAMBLA, and the universal desire to fit in, despite being different.
I agree with the authors in their assertion that separating the hustlers from the clients is a means to identity. In today’s society, the perception is that having sex with men makes you gay, and having sex with females makes a man straight, where in reality the sexual act is generally a function of sexual attraction, and not the other way around. The hustlers’ uses of words like “queer” and “fag” were indicators of identity declaration, in a situation where they perceived many people would be confused as to the hustler’s sexual orientation.
In their conclusion, the authors stated that failure to avoid arrest would result in stigmatization. I disagree with this, as I believe avoidance of public knowledge of deviant acts is an acknowledgement of a pre-existing stigma, held by the hustlers; if people knowing about your behavior is realized to be a negative thing, then the stigma has already set in a personal sense. I admit that stigmas could easily have little effect on one’s life outside hustling before they are realized in the public sphere, but the shame inherent in avoiding a public stigma goes unmentioned, which I feel is an oversight.
The intentional separation of hustler from client that this study depicted reminded me of the rationalization of NAMBLA’s attitudes towards adult/child sex. In both instances, the deviant group was vehemently attempting to justify its actions: NAMBLA by exclaiming the benefits of adult/child sex and rejecting the claims that it is harmful, and the hustlers by making it very clear to the researchers that their motivation was strictly monetary, whether it was or not.
As in the reading on female street prostitution, male prostitution seemed to strongly suggest Differential Association theory, as “The majority of these hustlers became involved in male prostitution as a result of peer introduction.” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) This would indicate that association with deviant individuals positively influenced the subjects’ perceptions towards that deviance. Evidence of this is seen not merely in the general act of male prostitution, but in the specific acts, as inductees were given “…key instructions…[as to]…the type of sexual acts they should engage in with their tricks,” (Hensley & Tewksbury, pp. 199) which implies a great influence of peers over perception of specific aspects of hustling.
I selected these particular readings because they were the ones that I felt provided a good sample of the readings we did for this unit, and because I thought they all had interlocking themes. Rationalization, and the select deviance being well-described by Differential Association theory, were common themes. However the readings differed from one another in that some attempted to describe why deviance was engaged in (Strippers, Prostitutes), while others only attempted to explain how (Hustlers). The reading on NAMBLA did neither, instead choosing to focus on a characteristic of the deviant’s that occurs after the deviant act becomes a part of their life.



















Bibliography:

Sexual Deviance: A Reader (Hensley & Tewksbury, 2003)

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

Deviance Proposal

Evan Mowry
Sociology of Deviance
Friday Seminar Proposal: Piracy

I have chosen to discuss various forms of maritime deviance, centering on piracy. Piracy, in the traditional sense beginning around the early-17th century and still goes on, to a certain extent, today, is the unlawful seizure of property on the High Seas, which itself varied in definition from all salt-water, to any water more than thirty miles from shore, to the modern definition of International Waters.
Throughout the years piracy has gone through myriad perceptual changes, becoming more and less accepted depending on the target and the economics of those judging their actions. Because of fierce nautical rivalry during the years of Imperialist expansion, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser extent other coastal nations first dealt with piracy against their own shipping militarily and then with money, creating a new system of privateering, in which letters of marque were presented to the captain of an independent ship which gave him, his ship, and his crew a sort of diplomatic immunity as long as the only shipping they preyed upon was not that of the country signing the letter of marque. Some countries, such as Canada, relied almost solely on privateers to protect their coastal towns in the absence of a strong standing navy.
I believe I will also be discussing mutinies, due to their relevance to both piracy and the concepts of power structures and other sociological theories that are showing up a lot in our discussions of deviance theory. In addition to mutinies, the maritime traditions and power relations of the time resulted in a host of things that would today be considered deviant, which I will also explore. Extreme corporal punishment, prostitution, and violence will be discussed.
I chose to discuss piracy because I believe that in exploring what caused men to huddle aboard a floating coffin and kill for a living is applicable in the exploration of the causes of gang violence, military dictatorships, and terrorism in the contemporary world. While the situations are superficially quite different, people in general are still very much the same, and what motivated one person to commit to a life of crime long ago might parallel what causes people to participate in political or urban violence now. Also, piracy continues to flourish in parts of the Caribbean and the South Pacific, which is seldom realized by us, mostly land-bound students, in Morris.
During my discussion I plan on quickly presenting a more accurate view of piracy than that presented by the modern entertainment industry, and describing what exactly piracy was. I will then go more into depth with respect to the possible causes of piracy, here exploring mutinies, economic conditions, and common military policy of the European nation-states that “produced” pirates, and draw parallels and possible explanations of piracy from the theories we have learned of in class. I will then quickly cover the modern aspect of piracy, and explain why I think the sociological aspects of historical piracy are relevant today. I believe I will show a clip from the movie “the Life Aquatic” both because it gives an accurate portrayal of modern piracy, and because it’s hilarious.

Potential Questions:

#1: How do you think the military policy of “pressing” might have impacted piracy, and why?
+Is this situation familiar to the modern world?
+How does this relate to the theory of Social Control, etc…?

#2: What, in your opinion, caused the shift from Piracy to Privateering?
+Does this parallel a “deviance” that has become acceptable in recent years?
+What forces resulted in both of these social changes?

#3: Which sociological theory best explains the historical existence of Piracy?
+Why?

#4: What contemporary social phenomena resemble, in structure or character, historical piracy?
+Given the history of piracy, and its changes through time, how can those phenomena be dealt with or fixed?

ICC Annual Piracy Report

Piracy Map


Piracy Somalia

Piracy Somalia #2

Pirates and Privateers

Canadian Privateers

Connecticut River Museum

Piracy Timeline
Salacious Historian's Lair

Piece of Eight

ICC

WOW. ESSAY.

Def. High Seas

Def. Pirate

Nat. Geographic Piracy Articles

History Channel

Best History Sites

IHR

GOOD timeline

British Info

GOOD Piracy Info