"IN ONE OF THE FOUNDING TEXTS OF SOCIOLOGY, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Emile Durkheim set it down that "crime is normal." "It is," he wrote, "completely impossible for any society entirely free of it to exist." By defining what is deviant, we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards. This apercuappears in the chapter entitled "Rules for the Distinction of the Normal from the Pathological."" --Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1993, Defining Deviancy Down)
The third shoe has now dropped on the whole Abu Graib thing for me this week. First, we have Ted Kennedy celebrating the first anniversary of Abu Graib, as if he thought the whole affair were something worth remembering (I wonder if he also visits Mary Jo's grave once a year).
The second shoe was the rubble kicked up intentionally by Isikoff and Newsweek to try and paint a picture of Gitmo guards dumping the Koran down the crapper.
Then, we get a London tabloid tossing out pictures of Saddam in his underwear.
You know what? I've had it. So some Arabs get their burnoose in a bunch over hurt feelings. I really can't muster any sympathy for that. If Muslims were taking care of their own criminals, they wouldn't find themselves and their people exposed to the idiosyncracies of western cultures; albeit primarily pure fabrications. So what if some of their citizens get humiliated, sneered at, and denigrated. That's nothing that hasn't happened in a US prison. Or at a Dixie Chicks concert for that matter.
I have to wonder if the people who have a problem with this form of free expression have the same problem with those who would burn a US flag or spray paint a fur coat.
Defining deviancy up, for the purpose of gaining sympathy for the devil is the work of the devil himself.
6 comments:
Durkheim tells us that it is not behavior that persists, but collective sentiments concerning behavior.
We as a people are offended by certain behaviors.
Furthermore, what we are offended by now is different from--and more acute than--what collectively offended us in the past.
Durkheim's "Rules" include the observation that "formerly, acts of violence against persons were more frequent than they are today, because respect for individual dignity was less strong."
As we now believe that respect for individual dignity is a social good, would you have us go back to believing that this is only true for Christians? Or Americans? Or whatever in-group we identify for ourselves?
Would you further have us believe that the US's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the unwarranted imprisonment and torture of Afghan and Iraqi citizens--under the flimsiest of evidence--has not led to Muslim outrage, but that a line from Newsweek has?
That's crazy.
I think you've hit on something there. Newsweek's stuff is not for the Muslim's consumption (though "the outrage" is reported as widespread) My point is that the Muslims should (and probably do) care precious little for the dignity of their criminals. We thus pretend to care more about it than they do, and Newsweek wants to exploit that (for their own reasons). I'm saying we shouldn't give a damn, and if by some chance the Muslims do, then they should tend to their own criminals, so we don't have to.
Americans don't often bother to define themselves. However, when there are attacks on America, we quickly see who lines up as an American. Yes, I'm part of that in-group, and I'll stand side by side with those who fight, and against those who fight that particular "us".
As regards the recent military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, I am not aware of any unwarranted imprisonment or torture. The case for that argument while often attempted, has simply not been made.
The problem is that from Bagram to Abu Ghraib, the US military is defining who is and who is not a "Muslim criminal." And in many cases, it's a wide net indeed.
The people in these prisons have not been tried or convicted, or in many cases even charged with what we would call criminal offenses.
They've simply been swept up. And held. And tortured. And some of them killed.
For what? Because some Saudis pissed us off four years ago?
Jesus!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/03/03_2005_Bazelon.html
Sure, all prisoners are innocent...just ask them.
The bad old Americans are torturing them, too. The prisoners will swear to that on the Koran or any other holy book.
and Some "reporters" will believe or at least report anything.
PS. Pissed off doesn't begin to cover it.
If we can't agree that deviance is whatever the people with the guns says it is, then stick a fork in this thread. It's done.
We certainly cannot agree on that, but that's not even what it's about. Lotsa folks, including those who fear guns -- and the second amendment -- will take a shot at defining deviancy. But they'll give a pass to those who they think are the enemy of their enemy.
Post a Comment