Why is crime such big business? And I’m not even talking about the actual business of crime: corporations and governments engaging in illegal activities for profit. I’m talking about why does our popular culture and media seem to have a pre-occupation with the criminal mind. Crime shows fill the airwaves. News of crimes explode across all media. And yet we have Christian fundamentalist and other groups on the sidelines crying out against the erosion of morality within our culture. Maybe the two trends actually fit together… maybe there’s really something going on here.
Ethics, as we have recently talked about, has to do with right and wrong action. Judeao-Christian religious traditions are extremely concerned with ethics. Entire books of the Bible are dedicated to explaining in great detail right and wrong action. But the fact is, that in our modern scientifically managed society, ethics is variable - changing to meet the needs of society as it evolves. You cut ethics from the mooring of religion and suddenly all you are left with is a program of management which can be tweaked and updated as necessary.
Thus morality is no longer as fixed as it once was. What was okay to talk about or think a few years ago is no longer politically correct or fashionable. Expectations and old ways of being must be continually updated to stay constant with the ethics of the day. And how are these things modulated through society by the media? By way of publicizing crimes which highlight the boundaries of our current ethics. The idea goes back to sociologist Emile Durkheim and his views on the necessity of deviance within a society:
[O]therwise abstract concepts of criminal law can only be illustrated by their violation. Durkheim contends that, by committing crimes, the deviant tangibly enacts principles that are antithetical to the law. In so doing, the deviant supposedly makes the law “real.” Once incarcerated and properly punished, the deviant is sacrificed on the altar of conformity for the education of the public. Because the letter of the law must be consistently reiterated for the common citizen, society requires an inexhaustible supply of deviants to act as examples.
In other words, you don’t know what the law is until you or someone else breaks it. There is no longer just a book of the Bible that we can consult for ethical questions. There is no overarching guidebook on social etiquette anymore. You simply just move along until someone catches you for violating something and decides to make an example out of you. Thus, criminals become the law by their violation of it.
Within such a technocratic system, the idea that you are trying to prevent crime becomes laughable. You actively allow or even encourage certain types of behavior so that you can publicly punish it, establishing moral boundaries within society.
Crime, argues Durkheim, is a universal feature of all societies. This is because crime serves a vital social function. Through the punishment of offenders the moral boundaries of a community are clearly marked out, and attachment to them is reinforced. The purpose of punishment is not deterrence, rehabilitation nor retribution. Punishment strengthens social solidarity through the reaffirmation of moral commitment among the conforming population who witness the suffering of the offender.
Just because you’ve never heard of Durkheim before, don’t think for a moment that social engineers and planners have not. Whether or not his principles are consciously followed today, the fact remains that this man was a giant of sociology, and his ideas were not radical within that field, but fit firmly into the positivist tradition as it was begun by the likes of Auguste Comte and others.
In any event, this hopefully will give you something to think about during the next high-profile crime that strikes the media. Why was this one person caught and not another performing this same act under different circumstances? Also look at this with regards to terrorism: when the government says that it is trying to stop terrorism, what is it really trying to do? It is trying to catch people who fit a certain profile so that their actions and intentions can be held up as a negative example of what not to be in a society where ethics and morality can and do change at the drop of a hat.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- CSI For Kids
- High Tech Crime & Futuristic Security
- Alternative Reference Point Visualization Techniques
- The CSI Theory of History
- Crime & Sin
9 Comments
Again, religion can’t logically give us ethics. This argument suggests that changing ethics stem from the loss of power by the government that calls itself the Catholic Church. And indeed, the Reformation showed us contrarian religious people like the Quakers and Diggers and especially Ranters. The Puritan goverment created new anti-blasphemy laws just for them.
Once again, a provocative exposition. I think it needs to be added that crime and sin are not the same thing. Sin is a religious concept and does not exist for the non-religious person.
We avoid crime because we don’t want to get caught, and because of our sense of conscience. Our conscience has its own set of ethics, which overlaps our awareness of sin and crime but remains distinct from both. My conscience may allow me to commit a crime and a “sin”, but may prevent me from doing things which are neither.
In former centuries, what discouraged crime was cruel punishment and the fear of hell. I think Durkheim’s idea as quoted is far-fetched. It’s true that lawyers depend on previous cases to illustrate the application of the law, but in England, there are plenty of laws still extant which have not been tested in the courts for hundreds of years. But, I am glad to say, I am not a lawyer, so there may be some subtlety I am missing here.
Great post!
I think this has a correlation with the bizarre-o mixed messages regarding sexuality that we see in our culture, as well. On one hand, we have rampant promiscuity and carefree sexual indulgence (nearly resembling hedonism) as prevailing themes within the entertainment media. On the other hand, schools, churches and the medical industry are projecting any number of messages regarding the “evils” and necessary sanitization of sex: STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, rape, etc, etc.
Teenagers ultimately bear the brunt of these mixed messages during the years when they’re already confused enough about sex. Being bombarded by constant, plasticized sexual hedonism within pop culture gives the impression that this is normal, expected and “cool.” Sure, it’s just entertainment, but people, especially young people, certainly internalize those messages and they do affect their perceptions.
With regard to crime, I think the extreme mixed messages that you mentioned fit into this. People are fascinated by crime and are content to believe that crime is prevalent, regardless of whether they have any firsthand knowledge of this or not. Internalizing the the constant barrage of crime leads to lack of trust and perpetual paranoia. But, most importantly, the constant emphasis on crime keeps people isolated from one another. Whether it’s fear of terrorism or fear of crime, the unease is always there as a reminder of why we so desperately need our smart friends in Washington to run things for us and keep us safe from those terrorists and criminals.
The point that I wanted to make previously regarding sexual mixed messages is that all of this has led to a curious form of sexual repression in our culture….one in which sexual “liberation” is utilized as a tool for marketing, sales and entertainment, but is rather off limits to the average person. The constant display of sexuality within the entertainment world leads people to believe that this is really how people behave in our society is when it comes to sex….a false sense of promiscuity, if you will.
I think the same can be said for crime. It amazes me how people see so much crime on television and actually believe that this is somehow a real reflection of our society. Fear and paranoia.
Not sure if this is making sense to anyone else, but I just wanted to clarify…
No, Yves, this makes a certain amount of sense from a sociological point of view that has no connection to law or lawyers. See Brad Hicks on liberalism and conservatism.
This relates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5301824.stm
to hf: excellent link, I get the point now. Think of me as a slack-jawed English yokel, lacking sophistication in these matters, but getting the point days later.
Awesome points all around. I am going to branch this off into its own new post and try to rekindle this conversation in a new direction