Download Deviance-LectureNotes 20-Sociology and more Study notes Sociology of Deviance in PDF only on Docsity!
SOC 3290 Deviance Lecture 20: Homicide 2: Victims & Deviance Victims of Crime and Labelling Theory: A Parallel Process?
Abstract: Labelling theory tends to focus largely on the offender. Yet, implicit in interactionist theories of deviance is a concern for the social situation as a whole. This logically includes the victim of crime. In this paper I explore the potential of extending the interactionist perspective on deviance to the experiences of victims of crime. Specifically, I outline a parallel labelling process for victims in which differential social reactions to this status, flowing from varying attributions of sympathy worthiness, have an impact on the behaviors, adjustment, and identities of the individuals concerned. This process is further distinguished from the related labelling of emotional deviance. I then present the results of a qualitative study of individuals who have suffered the murder of a loved one. Through an empirical examination of the varying social reactions to these individuals by extended family, friends, acquaintances, and the community, as well as victims' varying responses thereto, I indicate how familiar terms such as accommodation, labelling, primary, secondary, and tertiary deviance each have their conceptual counterpart in the experiences of victims.
(^1) It has already been extended in the study of illness by Conrad and Schneider (1980:17-20 et. seq). As such, the parallels outlined by examining victims merely refer to one possible analogy among others. Indeed, while this paper’sspecific focus is on extending labelling theory, one can easily look to other theoretical traditions, such as Parsons’ (1951) work on the sick role, for additional insights. 1
Crime creates problems for people. In the past, much research in this vein, particularly from the labelling perspective, has largely focused on offenders. Yet, victims of crime often experience the labelling process as well. This paper delineates the processes and consequences underlying such labelling by empirically examining the experiences of individuals who have suffered the murder of a loved one. In this way, the labelling perspective, as a theory rooted in the interactionist tradition, is broadened in a direction implicit in its philosophical antecedents. (1) Prior Literature: The labelling perspective is grounded in the conception that deviance is defined by social reactions, and that the frequency and character of the deviation, as well as the role of the deviant, are largely shaped by interactional response ( Lemert, 1951; Becker,1963). As such, it draws attention away from the idea that there is anything objective in the actions of individuals that is deviant, focusing instead on changes in social definitional processes and their consequences. Yet this perspective need not be restricted to the study of deviance. 1 Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman (1983) note that victims often experience negative social consequences, asserting that "interpersonal reactions to victims are at best ambivalent, and at worst hostile and rejecting" (1983:23). Indeed, they make a distinction, parallelling Lemert, between primary victimization , i.e. the initial victimizing circumstances, and secondary victimization: the negative social reactions of hostility, derogation, and rejection that can follow (1983: 23). This often results in a “master status”(Hughes, 1945) where attributes related to victimization are highlighted and others downplayed. Ultimately: Even the best social responses to victimization may be aversive to the victim. The need to accept aid from others and the accompanying emotional reactions such as pity may indicate the condescension
duration, and intensity of their reactions. They point to studies demonstrating a correlational relationship between perceived social support and effective adjustment, but suggest that more emphasis should be placed on the deleterious consequences of behaviors that are intended to be supportive (1980:310; 313). They also note that despite a desire to talk, "people who are in the throes of serious life crises often report that they are encouraged to be 'strong,' are prevented from free expression of their feelings, and are thus denied the ventilation they frequently need and want" (1980: 314). This is despite evidence that many find the opportunity to express their feelings helpful, and that "lack of communication may intensify the strain of victimization" (1980:315). Particularly interesting is the work of Wortman and Lehman (1983), who assert that other's well- intentioned efforts to provide support may be regarded as unhelpful by the recipient, result in negative consequences, or both. They focus on three basic reasons why people may respond to victims of life crises in such ways: (1) for many reasons, people appear to hold negative feelings about others who are suffering or distressed (particularly because such encounters make potential supporters feel threatened and vulnerable); (2) Most people have little experience dealing with others in the throes of a life crisis, and may experience a great deal of uncertainty about what to say or do; and (3) Others hold a number of misconceptions about how people should react. Beliefs about how much distress should be experienced and displayed, and how long the effects of the crisis should last, will likely influence the kinds of support attempts made. To the extent that these beliefs are in error, others' support attempts may be inappropriate or counter-productive (1983:464). Significantly, the authors assert that all of these factors "are much more likely to predominate when the consequences of the victimization are serious" (1983: 467). Wortman and Lehman note that because of these feelings and beliefs, individuals engage in three
types of behaviors intended to be supportive but that are often detrimental: (1) they discourage open expression or discussion of feelings about victimization; (2) they encourage recovery or movement to the next life stage; and (3) they fall back on automatic or scripted support attempts which may seem to dismiss or trivialize the victim's problem, such as giving advice, providing a reason for what has happened, or telling the victim that they know how s/he feels (1983:468). Considering the impact of such behaviors on the victim, Wortman and Lehman state that there are three reasons why these particular support tactics may be ineffective and harmful: (1) they may make victims feel isolated and alone because they curtail opportunities to share concerns with others; (2) in many cases, they may seem to dismiss the victims' feelings as insignificant or unimportant; and (3) they imply that the victim should not feel as bad as he or she does. Indeed, there is evidence that victims worry about whether their feelings of distress are normal (1983:473-4). The authors deduce that those who are closest to the victim - and therefore who have the greatest stake in the victim's recovery - may have the least tolerance for the victim's distress. Indeed, they may be especially likely to engage in the inappropriate support behaviors noted above. A number of empirical studies have supported these arguments (Lepore et.al.,1996; Holman and Silver,1996; Wortman and Lehman, 1983; Wortman and Dunkel-Schetter,1979). All of this is consistent with the labelling of victims. Finally, a more specific literature also exists on social reaction to homicide bereavement in which further evidence of labelling is strongly suggested. Following the violent death of their loved one, individuals often turn to family and friends for help and support. Yet, in many cases they do not receive what they are looking for, and these interactions may do more harm than good. Published accounts of homicide survivors suggest that while family and friends are usually supportive at first,
(^3) This relates to Hochschild’s (1983) discussion of “feeling rules.” Indeed, Thoits draws heavily on Hochschild’s work in elucidating this concept. There is also a link with the “doubly deviant” character of HIV/AIDS victims, whoseillnesses place them in an ideologically different space from the socially sanctioned deviance of the Parsonian model (Llamas, 1994; Kowalewski, 1988).
porous boundary between the label of victim and that of deviant. Wortman and Lehman (1983: 464- 5), on the one hand, review the literature suggesting that many victims are stigmatized as such due not only to the unsettling feelings of vulnerability and helplessness they evoke in others, but the common belief that we live in a world where “people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.” In particular, the work of Lerner (1980) suggests that if an individual can believe that others do not suffer unless something is wrong with them, or there are weaknesses in their behavior, s/he will feel protected from undeserved suffering in the future. On the other hand, Thoits (1990) has introduced the term "emotional deviance" to cover the labelling of behaviors which violate some standard of appropriate emotional response in a given situation.^3 Intermediate between these positions are authors such as Coates and Winston (1983) who consider the long term depression associated with victimization to itself be deviant in cultural terms (1983:171-77). It will thus be important to see if stigmatization as victims , as deviants , and as emotional deviants may be separated empirically, and, if so, to examine the circumstances in which each occurs. The above issues are helpfully illuminated by the work of Clark (1987). In her work on sympathy, Clark found evidence that crime victims may be either considered "sympathy worthy" or "blamed" for their plight (1987:298). She proposes a theoretical model for distinguishing individuals who receive sympathy from those who are blamed which revolves around the concept of "sympathy margin" (i.e. the amount of leeway a given individual has for which s/he can be granted sympathy and not blamed). As such it is similar to the concept of accommodation to deviance (Lynch, 1983; Rubington and Weinberg, 1987; Yarrow et. al., 1955; Jackson, 1954). Sympathy may either be
(^4) This may relate to studies of charitable giving, where presumed culpability is identified as the major factor affecting sympathetic response to disasters (Russell and Mentzel, 1990).
ascribed to strangers or those with whom one is acquainted. In the first instance, status factors such as age, social class, sex, and type of problem are significant (1987:291; 298; 300-1).^4 As for those in one’s social network, those in close relationships have an obligation to create wider sympathy margins for each other than do mere acquaintances. Regardless of the context, however, Clark notes that anyone who has been ascribed margin has the right to sentiment, empathy, and display of sympathy. Throughout, sympathy accounts or margins do not remain constant, but are continually negotiated. In this process, these may be "increased, decreased, replenished, or used up entirely" (1987:302). One may cash in the credits built up throughout his or her "sympathy biography" in a difficult situation, but should not drain the account completely. In such cases, the potential sympathizee may not only lose sympathy, but have to look elsewhere. Indeed, Clark outlines four rules of 'sympathy etiquette," which include (1) not making false claims to sympathy; (2) not claiming too much sympathy; (3) claiming some sympathy in appropriate circumstances; and (4) reciprocating to others for gifts of sympathy (1987: 303-13). She also identifies what she calls "deviant sympathizers," who either "underinvest" by not recognizing others' rights to sympathy, or "overinvest" by giving sympathy to others who are not worthy, whose plights are not worthy, or who do not adhere to the rules of sympathy etiquette (1987:313-16). In sum, the label of victim has three possible trajectories:
- Victims may be reacted to as such, ascribed sympathy, and be offered unconstrained, accommodative support;
- Victims may be reacted to as such, ascribed sympathy, but others respond in ways that indicate uncertainty or misconceptions about how to interact;
- Victims may be reacted to as such, initially ascribed sympathy, but others may eventually stigmatize them as “helpless victims” unable to cope.
(^6) This paper specifically focuses on the labelling dynamics faced by victims in informal settings, such as with friends, family, acquaintances and the community. Their encounters with formal agentsprofessionals, the criminal justice system) are exceedingly complex, and each warrant separate papers in their own right. (i.e. medical/ psychiatric
(^7) These strategies included: (i) volunteering, conducting fieldwork, and doing interviews for a year with a prominent Canadian victims’ organization; (ii)networking /advertizing with six other Canadian victims' rightsorganizations for interview/survey respondents; (iii)advertizing with a national U.S. support/advocacy group for the homicide bereaved for survey respondents; (iv) attending conferences, rallies, and protests on victims’ issues toobserve/seek respondents;(v) contacting a prominent bereavement support organization for potential subjects; (vi) contacting the provincial chapter of an organization devoted to combatting impaired driving for comparative data;(vii)subscribing to the newsletters of the above organizations; (viii) reviewing biographical and journalistic accounts of survivors’ experiences; (ix) unsuccessfully attempting, through formal access to information requests, to gain accessto"victim impact statements" submitted by survivors at the sentencing of offenders; and (x)writing all Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunals in Canada for information on applications by survivors.
(1985:173), it is argued that grief is "profoundly socially shaped." Indeed, there is reason to believe that, in the interactional construction of survivors' experiences, there is a dynamic relationship between others' conceptions of appropriate behavior, on the one hand, and the type of support (or lack of it) given to survivors on the other (Emerson and Messinger, 1977). By a careful examination of the differential labelling that occurs in informal settings,^6 and the ways survivors individually and collectively respond, labelling theory can be enriched and extended along a whole new dimension. (2) Methodology: The methods underlying this study were qualitative in nature. Recognizing the difficulty of accessing highly personal information from a traumatized population, I used a wide variety of direct and indirect approaches, including extensive volunteer involvement with a prominent victims’ organization, advertizing for interview/survey respondents with a variety of others, reviewing published accounts, and seeking information through the legal system.^7 Taken together, while some of these strategies were more successful than others, they ultimately resulted in a large volume of rich, qualitative data. The overwhelming majority of data fell into three general categories: (1) intensive interviews with 32 individuals; (2) mail-back surveys from 22 respondents; and (3) 108 homicide files obtained under an agreement with a Provincial Criminal Injuries
(^8) More detailed information on research instruments may be obtained from the author. (^9) Facing the problem of drawing a random sample from an unknown population (Berg, 1995: 178-9), theoretical sampling and Glaser and Strauss' (1967) "constant comparison method" were utilized. A purposive sample wasdeveloped (Berg, 1995:179), and, subject to my ability to gain access to willing respondents, efforts were made to cover an ever wider variety of survivors as evidenced by both the literature and completed fieldwork. This involved suchdemographic variables as race, class, gender, age, marital status, and relationship to the deceased. Other dimensions included circumstances surrounding the murder, plus variations in survivors’ interactions with family, friends, thecommunity, self-help and “victims” organizations, mental health professionals and legal institutions. This strategy was further buttressed once the C.I.C.B. data became available. I was then able to compare the purposive sample emergingthrough theoretical sampling with the entire population of homicide applications decided by a provincial C.I.C.B. between 1988 and 1993.
Compensation Board (C.I.C.B.), including information on 145 individuals. Aside from the C.I.C.B. data, in which there was a confidentiality agreement negotiated for transcription/content analysis of case files, interview and survey respondents were informed in advance about the subject matter of this study, confidentiality, and given opportunities to ask questions before proceeding. Possible threats to validity were dealt with by having both academic colleagues and key members of the victims’ organization in which I was working - including survivors - read and comment before research instruments were used. The valuable input received, and changes made on the basis of these suggestions, buttressed my confidence that the instruments did indeed get at the issues they were intended to elicit. In addition to face validity, the fact that the sought after issues emerged through the use of these instruments was suggestive of construct validity as well. With regard to reliability, rather than rely on only one question per issue, research instruments were constructed such that they generally utilized several different questions to measure/get at the same thing. As such, problems of consistency in responses were reduced or negated. 8 While the sample was neither random nor clearly representative of any specified population,^9 all efforts were made to keep it as diverse as possible within the researcher's ability to gain access to
dynamics at work. I will briefly discuss these results in three parts: (a) extended family and friends; (b) acquaintances, strangers, and the community; and (c) subjects’ responses. First, a minority of respondents experienced widespread, ongoing support from the majority of their extended family and friends. I’ve always had people really look after me. I’ve never been left to do this alone - and that made a huge difference. My family and friends were there morning, noon and night for at least 2 years, which made me feel good - to know that they were there for me (Survey #19: Female, age 45). These individuals reported a number of sympathetic, and reportedly “helpful” responses such as others visiting and staying, providing ongoing emotional support, handling responsibilities for them, and a wide variety of helpful communication involving the ability of others to pick up subtle cues regarding when, and how, to offer support. Running through such responses is the implicit theme that these individuals were considered “sympathy worthy” by others (Clark, 1987). On the one hand, as extended family and friends are relatively close to survivors, they may have built up, or feel it necessary to extend a wider “sympathy margin” than others, at least initially. However, as these responses were only mentioned by a minority in the sample, it may be that this also has something to do with survivors adhering to the rules of “sympathy etiquette” such as making “legitimate” claims to sympathy in “appropriate” circumstances.” These matters are closely interrelated with survivors “victim” status, and these sympathetic behaviors cannot be understood outside of this context. Indeed, in Clark’s terms, such helpful responses, often extending for considerable periods of time, suggest that suffering the murder of a loved one prima facie constitute, for these sympathizers, a “legitimate” claim for sympathy, and that the victim label, in some instances, even broadens their definitions of what is “too long” for victims to accept sympathy and their obligation to reciprocate.
As well, it may be argued that much of the above fits clearly into the idea of accommodation to deviance (Lynch, 1983; Rubington and Weinberg, 1987; Yarrow et. al., 1955; Jackson, 1954). Grief, in such unusual and violent circumstances, is frequently extreme and persistent (Rynearson and McCreery, 1993; Knapp, 1986; Klass, 1988), and the data in this study certainly bore this out. Family and friends who respond to such behavior as above are attempting to make adjustments to accommodate survivors' powerful emotions without making an explicit labelling of deviance. If anything, it may be the situation that is seen as unusual, not survivors' reactions to it, which are considered normal for victims. As such, the label of victim may not only play a role in accommodation to deviance, it may indicate the entry point of a parallel labelling process revolving around the term victim. Accommodation in one sense is thus interchanged by labelling in the other. On the other hand, the stigmatization of victims and the labelling of emotional deviance generally proceed when accommodation quickly breaks down, or doesn't occur in the first place. Together, these were the most common patterns, and had a far different impact on survivors' experiences. Most generally, survivors who reported a lack of support from the majority of their extended family and friends over time felt that this made their experience worse. One survivor noted: The only thing I remember is that I was alone - all the time. All the time. There was nobody came around. My family hasn't been supportive. I haven't seen any of my family. None of them have come, and that hurt ...It's been two years, and I think you are the third person that's been in this house. (Interview #10: Female, age 60). (Emphasis added). Similar comments were made by survivors about their friends: We were ostracized in a sense. In our own minds we felt ostracized anyway by everybody we knew (Interview #14: Male, age 54). (Emphasis added). This was a time for me to find out who my real friends were, and it sometimes hurt a lot to see that you friends are not always the one that you had considered. It is a shock. (Survey #3: Female, age
- (Emphasis added).
My family, for the most part, kept their distance. And, occasionally when we'd come by, they would just sob and cry, and they'd be so upset. The few that did came by, they'd just break down. Horrible. I think they felt they were just upsetting us more and would be all apologetic. Then they wouldn't come by. (Interview #31: Female, age 46). (Emphasis added). Our friends? It varied. I think that the reason why some of them kind of were standoffish, was because they couldn't handle it themselves. I figure that because they knew _____(the deceased) personally, they just couldn't handle it. It was too close to reality for them, so they kind of backed off. I was a little bit taken aback by that and I was very hurt. It's been difficult because you really do need your friends at a time like that. (Interview #1: Female, age 47). These responses were particularly notable among individuals previously close to respondents. Third, there were survivors, initially labelled as victims, who noted how the initially sympathetic responses of others eventually gave way to others privately urging them to “get on with your lives.” This signifies a breakdown in others’ ascriptions of sympathy worthiness and the beginning of stigmatization as “helpless victims.” These are individuals who have broken one of the cardinal rules of sympathy etiquette: not to claim too much sympathy for too long. We had some very close friends who came out to visit us, but after a while their recommendation to us was, 'You've got to put this in the past, like, bury this right now.' (Sarcastically) The closest friends we had! He'd say to me '____ (survivor's name), You've got to put this behind, get back to work, and you've got to get on with your life.' You know, 'You've got to maintain your business, you've got to...' and I'm not thinking any of this! (Interview #14: Male, age 54). Next, some individuals came to feel that they were stigmatized as emotional deviants by others due to “inappropriate” behavior in public settings. For example, some talked about how their inability to talk about subjects other than the murder, nor to remain calm, drove others away and resulted in uncomfortable encounters at social events. Others talked of their own upset driving family and friends away_._ This is more suggestive of labelling as emotional deviants: They started changing the subject a lot, so we would just pick up on it that 'OK, we won't talk about this any more.' We caught the vibes, right? Bad vibes. Some pulled back from us, and this continues right up to the present. Nobody really wants to talk. (Interviews #8: Female, age 45). I think if I'm showing signs of emotion, I mean showing tears or emotional stress to others, they don't
feel very comfortable, because they don't know how to handle it. And so, if you are at a stage where you can't speak about your son or daughter clearly, openly, and without showing an awful lot of undue stress, it drives people away. (Interview #5: Male, age 50). Finally, some individuals were simply stigmatized as deviants. In these cases, survivors attributed others’ reactions to the perceived stigma or discrediting that went along with having a murder in the family, a stigma that suggested shared deviance: The rest of my relatives were worthless and acted like a stigma attached to us, like something about us caused us to have a murder victim. (Survey #7: Female, age 38). Some asked me 'How could you let him kill the kids?' A few other people I counted as close friends suddenly were distant. The press had picked up that when _____(the offender) was arrested he shouted that I had done it. Some of these 'friends' seem to have doubts about my involvement. (Survey #6: Female, age 37). These were individuals who felt blamed, or thought they were somehow viewed as contributing to their plight. In some cases this stigmatization referred to ostensibly “questionable” circumstances surrounding the murder (e.g. the murder of drug dealers; families of women who remained with abusive partners). However, this was not necessarily the case, and many may have simply been the result of individuals’ attempting to apportion blame in line with a cultural belief that “people get what they deserve” (Lerner, 1980). Essentially, these were individuals who broke (or were perceived to break) another cardinal rule of sympathy etiquette: not making “false claims” to sympathy. The ultimate result of such interactions, whether motivated by stigma, uncertainty regarding how to behave, survivors' or others' own upset, or generally not wanting to further upset each other, was that survivors tended to become socially isolated when they needed support. Moreover, while this often upset them further, many chose to withdraw themselves as “people in general don’t understand...it’s too difficult” (Interview #29: Female, age 37). Summing up this topic, survivors indicating a wide variety of perceived support from their
remarkable support from mere acquaintances. This included many of the matters discussed earlier, but especially emotional support. It was really strange because you found out who you could lean on. You know, and sometimes it's the people you least expect. (Interview #16: Female, age 56). (Emphasis added). We found some friends that we considered to be close friends never showed up again. Yet, there were other people that came out that we had sort of considered acquaintances, and we became very close. (Interview #24: Male, age 47). It is hypothesized that acquaintances who labelled respondents as victims considered them as legitimately sympathy worthy as did sympathetic friends and family. However, their expression of sympathy was not as readily blocked by their own upset, familiarity, and personal grief. Interestingly, respondents sometimes noted a groundswell of support from strangers in the community as well. Strangers sometimes volunteered to search for the deceased, sent cards, flowers, food, raised money, erected memorials, organized petitions, and urged respondents to take action. Two factors were associated with the wide sympathy margins ascribed to such survivors: First, either the deceased, or their survivors, were well known , had much prior community involvement, or both: ______(the deceased) had a lot of friends. She was a very popular girl. She had a lot of friends from school. And I was very active in the community. I belonged to the Optimist Club, I coached baseball, I coached hockey, and so on - so I was very active, as far as that goes, with kids and all that all the time. I worked in other various organizations, working bingos and fundraising. So, I mean, there were a lot of people that it stunned too. Then, as the trial went on, they were reading the newspaper and were getting upset with what was being said, and most of the people got together and wanted to do something. So, basically that's how it started. (Interview #23: Male, age 49). Second, there was widespread media coverage sympathetic to the survivors , illustrating the impact of the mass media on sympathy margins: It was not until the Saturday that it made the papers. The local paper did a good story, and people started coming to the door then, and we had literally hundreds of total strangers just arriving at our door in tears, very upset. It was obviously that their prayers were with us. Food started arriving in trays, flowers, baskets of fruit, it was just incredible. From 10AM to 10PM there was just a steady stream of traffic, and probably thirty to forty people at all times. (Interview #31: Female, age 46).
(^13) While the issue of applying the term “deviant” to those organizing lobby /self-help may be questioned by some, this is firmly in line with how these individuals - and others - perceive them (i.e. as somehowthis does not mean that they, or their emotional self-presentation, must be seen as immoral. In the words of one such man different ). However, “our normals are different now.”
Indeed, it appeared that several respondents were cast into the role of victim advocates in such a context. One woman, who has made a career as a moral crusader for “victims’ rights,” recounts: I went on the radio (to thank the community search teams). A policeman phoned in and said 'I searched for (the deceased), now what are you going to do?' And that's how I started. I wrote a petition, and this whole thing kept going and kept going. So that is how _____ (this survivor's organization) happened. People just kept coming to us and saying 'what are you going to do?' There was never a day when the phone didn't ring thirty times. (Interview #17: Female, age 50). Such widespread community support, in several cases, was the genesis of more enduring victims' rights organizations. Moreover, in such altercasting (Weinstein and Deutschberger, 1963) we may see the potential social basis for such survivors' “tertiary victimization” (Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman, 1983; Kitsuse, 1980 ) or "tertiary emotional deviance" (Thoits, 1990; Kitsuse, 1980), where the victim role is converted into something positive, meaningful, and socially efficacious. 13 However, in cases where the deceased and/or survivors were not well known, sympathy margins were lessened. Where interactions with the media also did not go well, there was little interest in the story, or the press' investigation of the crime resulted in an unfavourable portrayal, the mitigating effect on sympathy margins, community support, and survivors was magnified. One woman asked: Why isn't our daughter being talked about? (Field Notes: Female, age 50). Another added: The publicity made it worse. The fact that the murder had to deal with drug dealing made it much worse, as there was no sympathetic community support. It was almost 'like AIDS.’ (C.I.C.B. #91: Testimony of Female, age 46). Aside from generalized lack of sympathy, such circumstances and related statuses were frequently characterized by an increased potential for stigmatization , either as a victim, deviant, or emotional
