Groups, Deviance, and Race: Social Influence on Groups, Labeling Theory (Essay Sample)

Group Deviance and Race
Name
University
Group Deviance and Race
Social Influence on Groups
Social impact is the shift in character that an individual cause in another person, unintentionally or intentionally, as a consequence of the manner in which the changed individual perceives themselves in connection to the society in general, the influencer, and other people. It is undisputed that the social influence of groups operates majorly through a normative force. Evidently, this constitutes the first of the main principles of how social influence in groups works (Cialdini and Trost, 1998, pp. 321-324). Normative influence, therefore, takes place when members of the group listen to the opinions expressed by each other on an issue with a variety of options. Primarily, members of the group arouse the discussion with already predetermined ideas. As the meeting occurs, they share their opinions. Consequently through this procedure, each gets to know the preferences of the other members. Hypothetically then, members are most probably expected to adopt the majority opinion.
Another way in which social influence of groups works is by way of informational influence. Here, members of the group study new information on the options available. Therefore due to this information, they alter the train of their thoughts resulting in a shift in the opinions they hold.
There exist three major sections of social influence that are obedience, compliance, and conformity. Conformity is the situation where individuals alter the manner in which they behave to be in agreement with the viewpoint or behavior of the group (Cialdini and Trost, 1998, p. 342). Apparently, it is very important to the esteem and belonging requirements as people look for friendship and approval of the members of that social group. In some cases where internalization occurs, the group beliefs run deep and become part and parcel of the own personal system of belief.
On the other hand, compliance refers to a situation where an individual performs tasks that they are asked to perform by another (Cialdini and Trost, 1998, p.377). Finally, obedience differs from compliance since it involves an individual that one accepts to possess authority. In obedience, it is the belief of many that they lack an alternative, unlike compliance where one has a choice to either comply or not.
In 1989 in his book Racism, sociologist Robert Miles defines racialization as the process of attributing racial or ethnic identities to social practice, relationship, or entity that did not recognize itself as such. For instance, many have argued that after the era of the explosion of civil rights activism, incarceration and criminalization is fundamentally a province of macro injustice and racialization. For example, the whites with their social, economic, and historical dominance benefit both with and in the law.
Labeling Theory
Labeling theory is cropped from the literary work of Thomas W.I. in the year 1928. He once wrote that "if people define circumstances as real, they are real in their results." The theory commences with the hypothesis that no act is criminal itself (Wellford, 1975, p. 86). In a narrow sense, this approach seeks to investigate what takes place to criminals after being labeled. Rather than seeking the reasons as to why specific groups in society have a rapid rate of commission of crimes, this theory looks at why particular people doing some acts which come to be labeled as deviant.
Moreover, the labeling theory claims that those in power define criminality by way of statutes and interpretation of those statutes by courts of law (Wellford, 1975, p.99). Therefore criminality and deviancies are not a band of intrinsic behaviors of groups or individuals. These concepts are a procedure of interaction between the non-deviant and deviant.
Most of the regulations and laws that define deviance and the context where labeling of deviance takes place are created and applied by the more dominant and powerful in the society; for example, wealthy for the needy. Finally, once an individual is labeled a deviant, it is hard to remove the label from them (Wellford, 1975, p. 112). The deviant suffers from stigmatization as a deviant or criminal and is likely to be treated and considered as dishonest for the rest of their entire life. A critique of this theory of labeling is that it places more emphasis on the process of interaction that leads to labeling rather than the process that causes the acts of deviance.
Should We Let Private Corporations Run Our Prison?
It's true that privatization of firms that operate prisons may seem to have benefits; however, the cons of such policy outweigh the pros. Prisons should not be privatized because private prisons are fundamentally unjust for taxpayers, public policy, workers, and prisoners. They are in fact counter-productive and unnecessary. Their primary goal is to maximize profits. In essence, this goal conflicts the traditional objective of the system of criminal justice such as lowering the rate of crimes, increasing the safety of the public, and rehabilitation of the offender (Gold, 1996, p. 45). Another reason privatization is not the way to go is that prisons are public obligations. In private companies, a high number of inmates would result in more profits made. Evidently privati...