After talking about Edwin Sutherland's theory of Differential Association do you think it is accurate? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“This blog is a place for you to expand on class discussions, discuss current events, and to give your opinion on given topics. You may comment on the opinions of others and build on their thoughts as a group. Each new post will stay current to the theme we are discussing in class and your responses should reflect your growth as a student of Sociology.”
Welcome Back Students
Hello - and welcome to the Sociology class blog for Mr. B. Please register at the bottom of the page so you can begin blogging! Please write down your user name and password in a safe place! Please choose a user name that I can identify!!!!!!! Feel free to explore the old responses to blog questions on the site.
24 comments:
I think Edwin Sutherland;s theory of Differential Association is NOT accurate because when you characterize people into two groups: 1. Deviant & 2. Nondeviant, is there really a person who hasnt done anything bad in their lifetime. Babies break things because they dont know what there doing. Teens smoke or drink or do sexual activity. Adults drink maybe break some laws. The elder dont know how to drive:] but by creating these two groups he is kind of telling people there there are either nice people, which comes to an extent of how and why people are nice, and there are mean people or "BAD" people in the world which in my opinion everyone has done something deviant and cant really be characterized into just one group. Everyone has alittle "good" and "bad" in them.
I think Differential Association is accurate because, for criminals is that they had to be taught or they have seen it somewhere, for example killing or stealing, someone had to be there to show them, I don't believe that people have it in them to do such an awful thing like kill someone,(maybe a psychopath) but not a person that is perfectly fine. a person that is lost and cannot find himself is usually taken to a group whenever that group is deviant or not, they will show them one of the ways to go to. It may be that bad one or the good. But then again what's good or bad... People have different opinions...
Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association is accurate. This theory is accurate because most of the time people react and interact with situtions based off of an influence of another person. When people interact with one another, they can learn deviant or nondeviant behaviors. Many people commit deviant acts, some are minor, some are seen as worse deviant acts, but most of the time these acts or behaviors have been seen or talked about controversially between many groups of people. For example, teen drinking while in high school, is seen as a deviant act. Many causes for teen drinking is because teens influence other teens to drink by peer pressure, which is one way that deviant acts are passed between individuals. There Edwin Sutherland's theory stands as a true statement/theory.
I think Edwin Sutherland's Theory is both right and wrong. For example if someone is not a type of person to think for one's self then the type of people that the person hangs out with might influence his or her behavior. On the other hand if someone thinks for their self in other words don't let people tell them how to act or what to do then he or she will not be influenced by the type of deviant or non-deviant types of friends he or she hangs out with. That person will determine his or her behavior in their society.
I think Edwin Sutherland's theory is not true. I believe people are basically born innocent and have free will. I believe that people can learn deviant behavior from other people. But I also believe people have choices. A child could grow up with a mother and father that steal and it doesn't mean that the child will grow up to steal. Deviant behavior may be avoided because of the person's disgust of deviant behavior.
Alyssa Bart
i think edwin sutherland's theory of differential association is correct because if someone sees how a devaint act is commited they may be influenced to copy the same act. for example people who murder other people or others that rob banks. that idea didnt just pop in their head they saw it somewhere else and copied it. i think his theory is also true because in society people can be labled as devaint or non deviant for many reasons. i think that if someone falls in with the wrong crowd his/her actions are heavily influenced by that group and it might not be his/her fault however, the fact that they committed the deviant act they are now considered deviant.
I do believe that people learn deviant behavior by interacting with others and by being around devient people. But just because they understant how to commit deviant acts and are around it does not mean that they will. Yes they are more likely to be a deviant person, but that doesnt automatically mean they will be deviant. I think to be a good person you have to take in everything that is around you and use it to your advantage. If there are alot of deviant people around you then you can use them for examples of what not to do and how to make your actions positive. Another thing is that i believe one good person or non deviant act outways many deviant people or deviant acts. Alot of people believe that one person cant make a difference, but when it comes to being a deviant person or not one interaction with a good person can change your ways or prevent deviance.
I think that Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association is not accurate because people break rules an example would be criminals that have been charged, some are "fortunate" to never being caught but the non deviant could have been a deviant. Not all good people are good but not all bad people are bad. Some do things to help someone out. How could you be characterizing someone if they are deviant or non-deviant. An example would be ..If someone had to defend themselves from getting raped they would try to be safe but instead ended up killing the person trying to kill them in the first place.
I think that Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association is not accurate because most people know at least one deviant person in their life. just because you know and interact with people who are deviant doesn't mean that you are more likely to do something illegal. For example, some criminals may never interact with anyone else that could be labeled as deviant, but they would still be just as likely to commit a deviant act.
I think that Edwin Sutherland's theory of Differential Association is accurate because in order to commit a crime you obviously have to have seen or heard about someone commiting that type of crime to be able to do it. Also if someone hangs aroudn with people who can be labeled as deviant they are more likely to commit deviant acts too because they learned it from their peers. On the other hand I do not think that it is absolutly true that if you hang around with deviant people you will necessarily become a deviant person, but it does increase the chances of that by a lot.
I dont think Edwin Sutherland's theory of Differential Association is accurate. Just because someone commits a crime that is deivant doesnt mean that they are truely a bad, or deviant person. In society there is never someone who is truely "non deviant" everyone has done at least one deviant thing in their lifetime, no matter how small it may be. There is no truely non deviant person because we dont live in a perfect society. If we did then there wouldnt even be talk of a punishment for commiting a deviant act because no one would commit one. Just because you do commit a "deviant" act doesnt mean you are a bad person or an outcast, it just means you werent thinking when you did it. Also just because you are associated with someone who is labeled deivant doesnt mean you are going to copy their acts, you may be influenced by them, but in the end it is your decision and your choice to do what is right or wrong, no one elses. So i feel that his theory isnt accurate because you cant base a person on the things they do and classifly them deviant or not according to that.
i think his theory is accurate. the reson why is because people dont just think of doing these things. it has to get put in the head somehow. for exsample i may be poor, and have no food. but if i see someone else who has no food start to steal food then i might do the same thing. it all depends on who you are with. other people have a very big affect on what you do.........billy p
The main idea behind the differential association theory is identifying criminal behavior as a learned behavior, a form of deviance. The interactionist theory suggests that deviance is learned and modified through interactions with other people. By doing so, we are able to align ourselves according to behavioral patterns of others. This is somewhat picking and choosing how we define criminal acts and deviance on a personal level. For example, robbing a local 7/11 may not be such a big deal to you if you live in a neighborhood where petty theft is negligible. This shows how we are able to rationalize criminal behavior, and supports the differential association theory. Also, because we identify and outline exactly what criminal behavior is, it obviously suggests that since people are aware of the consequences of the act, they must learn to choose it through others.
I think Edwin sutherland;s theory that talks about Differential Association is not accurate to me at all because it does talk about different association in general but it is not accurate because it doesn't briefly go into some robber's life or what they have been through in the past. There is also two other things that really comes into part of his theory about Deviant and Nondeviant, it talks about what types of Different Association, and different types of people commit different types crimes who are known as the bad people. The once who are never into this crimes that are defined as Nondeviant. But to conclude everyone is different and right in their own ways.
i think that Edwin Sutherland's theory of Differential Association is not accurate b/c nobody is perfect in this world and to categorize into two groups doesnt make any sence. People beak rules alll the time from little toddlers to nuns. the naughty list would be too long and the nice list wouldnt exist i think. Edwin is trying to show peope there are good and bad people and i dont think you can do that
I believe that Edwin Sutherlands theory of differential association is not accurate because when you characterize people as deviant and nondeviant your saying that not all people are bad and do wrong things. Most people know right from wrong and know that if something that is wrong is being done they should stop. But deviant people don't really care if its wrong because they are still going to do it because they think its right. Most deviant people have learned there deviant ways from other people what they see what they watch, and they think its right, they think theres nuthign wrong with it when there is alot wrong with it. But nondeviant people know right from wrong and are not going to do something to get themselfs in trouble they want to stay away from it. I also believe that at one time or another everyone has done something that isn't right but that doesn's make them a bad person.
he categorized people in deviant and non deviant. he also said that if you socialize with more deviant people than non deviant people then your chances of being deviant are higher. your friends influence who you become in a lot of ways than most. you feed off of eachothers actions and learn from one another. if one friend commits more deviant acts and they get caught then you are most likely going to learn from their mistakes because of the consequence. if they do something and dont get caught well then you are more likely to pick up on their action because its a. fun b. time filling and c. you dont think youll get caught. if this friend ever left you could either let the actions go OR keep this attribute leading up to 'well i just went through a phase; or it became apart of me'being through a phase doesnt necessarily mean youre deviant. hanging out with deviant people doesnt mean that you will most likely be deviant. you have a say in what you do and the actions you commit. so no i dont agree with sutherland that all deviants influence people in bad ways and make them deviant.
Edward Sutherland's theory of Differential Association is not accurate due to the multiple other components that come into play in labeling a person "deviant" or "nondeviant". First off, this theory is assuming two things: that people are either deviant or nondeviant, and that your environment determines who you are. In my belief that Sutherland's theory is not applicable, I think about the argument of nature vs. nurture. And I believe that you are born with certain characteristics that do not change throughout your life. Therefore, no matter how bad of an influence people in your life may be, everybody has a personal belief that can't be changed so easily. Another argument against Differential Association is that some friends or family members may draw a bigger influence than others. I feel that Differential
Association is a concept quite too simple to explain how humans function. Ours minds are so complex, and a theory that weighs by numbers and black-and-white labeling of people would not be applicable for every person.
To me Edward Sutherland's theory of Differential Association is not accurate because it's not right to catagorize someone between non deviant and deviant because it does not tell you enough about that person. Someone could have much more deviant acts then another person, but in actualality be less deviant. Differential Association does not give an accurate representation of how deviant a person is. Everyone has done some deviant acts in their life, but does that make them deviant? Or is it just people who do harsh deviant acts? Edwin Sutherlands theory is unclear and not accurate.
I do think that to a certain degree that Sutherland is accurate. I believe that if you look at a person’s foundation then you can determine if a person is cable of being deviant or not. For instance if you compare one person who has grown up with a strong foundation compared to a person with a weak foundation then it could immensely effect one’s fortune . An example of a good foundation is having responsible, caring parents or guardians who teach and guide you through life with the knowledge not to do wrong. Then with a good foundation a person could make the right decision throughout life.
I believe Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association is accurate. The people and friends and your community you associate yourself with does affect the outcome of your own actions. As we grow up we learn from our parents or our elders to start we act how they teach us to act. Later when we venture off with our friends we may or may not encounter and commit some deviant crimes just because they said to or just because we think it’s ok. If we start hanging out with the deviant kids in school chances are were going to become a deviant kid ourselves. Also I believe we can learn from others deviant acts. If we have friends that are deviant we can learn from their mistakes and move on and become a better person from it knowing that they are doing the wrong thing. Also I think different communities have an effect on the child as well. If you’re born and live in a less fortunate area with bad things occurring around you then I believe we will also act that way just because it’s what we’re used to. So overall I do believe the theory of differential association is an accurate statement.
I believe that differential association is fairly accurate, although miser occurnces of deviance will always occur in the non-deivant group. These acts can also cause pressure for others, which can cause other non-deviants to act deviant. Those who are deviant can also change, but most of the time, those who kill murder and steal, will sometimes continue that pattern. A good example of minor deviant acts is drinking in high school, where it is a common occurance, although it is highly looked down upon. This can cause other people through peer pressure to drink, but ultimately doesn't make them bad.
Post a Comment