pic_15
author: Shoham, Shelomoh Giyora

medunarodni kongres za kriminologiju

congres international de criminologie

international congress on criminology

mexXkgyHapogHblll coe3q iio KpumuHoAoTUU

Sh. SHOHAM (Israel)

Interactional trend

THE DELINQUENT

STEREOTYPE AND STIGMATISATION

~ .

P ittt N

VARY

First Section

BELGRADE, September 17—22, 1973

————

Izdaje: Organizacioni

komitet

Vil

m:a adunarodnoy

Kongresa

Za

kriminologiju,

Beograd,

Gracaniékao

18.

Oprema: FORUM — BEOGRAD. Nusiceva 16

Stampa: Grafi¢ki Skoiski Centar., Otona Zupancdi¢a 19

Shilomo SHOHAM

STIGMA AND STEREOTYPE — THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACH

The structuralist-functionalist views society as a labrynthine super-

structure composed of layers of systems and subsystems. Parsons tried to

reduce the social system within multiples of 4 squares. Others tried to dis-

cover some paradigms of social relationships that are structured into Ara-

besques, Gothic spires or Byzantine domes. If some structural interrelationship

is not apparent it does not mean that it »isn’t there«, all we have to do is try

again; look further until we discover the missing structural link. The conflict

theor:sts regard the social structure and human relations within it as a perpetual

obstacle course where the pendulum swings between contradictory and con-

flicting pressures towards the dialectical progress of the synthesis. For the

conflict theorists, tradition and conservation of structures, both for romantic

and pragmatic reasons, lead to staleness and decadence. Rejecting Durkheim,

they assign a negative mark to adjustment and stab:lity. For them, the synthes:s

resulting from a clash of conflicting forces is the essence of progress. The

decree of the historical necessity of conflict would consequently view deviance

which »rocks the boat« from a diammetrically opposite vantage po.nt to

the one held by the structuralist-functionalist.

The symbolic-interactionists however, and their modern offspring, the

ethnomethodologists, do not see any grand system or design in the social

system and human interaction. As per them, there is no way of tying one

pattern of human interaction to the wider matrix of personality structure

or the behaviour of groups. Human, face-to-face interaction is like a m:nuet

dance, one move may be predicted from the other, but one ball cannot be

coordinated with other dances taking place in another space and time.

However, the main premise of the symbolic interactionsts is that the

delinquent or deviant stereotype is strongly related to the group’s reaction

against the perpetration of delinquent acts. The behaviour of an individual

is indeed a pred.sposing factor for his being considered a delinquent or deviante.

However, the crucial decision rests with the group and its organs of soc al

control, which may or may not label him as dev ant. This means that the

given behaviour outside its social context is insuff c ent to const:tute soc al

dev ance. Moreover, many times, people who were not at all dev:ant :n ther

behaviour were labelled as such by the agenc.es of soc.al control.

The ostracisers in ancient Greece, the medieval inquisitors and the modern

professional slanderers have caused people to be treated as deviants because

they have been declared by voices of authority to be so. This, incidentally,

is an apt illustration for W. I. Thomas’s basic theorem of the social sciences,

namely: if man defines a situation as real, it becomes real in its consequences.

The branding mechanisms of society are the cruicial instruments which create,

according to the interactionists, social deviance.

The Changing Nature of Social Labels

The nature of the labels are also highly relevant in this context. The

whole concept of deviance would undergo a metamorphosis according to

the attitude of the group towards the deviant. We may envisage a kaleidoscope

of different meanings of deviance depending on whether the group regards

the norm infringer as a sinner possessed by the devil, a freak of nature, a

sick person or just a normal human being »who learned to be bad«. The

attitude of the group towards criminals, for instance, shifted throughout

the ages. Originally, the criminal who offended against his fellow man was

considered a sinner whose crime raised the wrath of the gods or other super-

natural powers and was therefore cursed by pollution. This pollution was

deemed to be contragious; the stigmatized offender was very often segregated

and ostracised. Sanction was originally an expiatory act that was supposed

to cleanse and purge the pollution and stigma incurred by the victim. The

crime offends the gods and causes pollution. The formal punishment cleanses

the offender of his pollution and also appeases the gods. The phenomena

of stigma and pollution as a consequence of violation of norms were almost

universal, and there are numerous examples in mythology, drama and history.

These examples, and many others which abound in both ancient civili-

zations and contemporary primitive cultures, illustrate the historical pre-

cedence of stigmatized pollution as the group’s reaction to norm violation.

In certain periods in the Middle Ages, the tag of heresy was a sanction

applied to diverse and heterogeneous modes of belief and behaviour. The

common denominator of heretics seemed to be their deviation, not from

the prevalent religious dogma, but from the norms of society relating to

everyday life. The heretic was a person who deviated from accepted norms

in the use of language, dress, manners, sexual mores, or one who was con-

spicuous or different in his external appearance and behaviour.

Stigmatization as a heretic was an extremely fierce sanction: it could

be incurred for diverse and undefined reasons and sometimes for no apparent

reason whatsoever. The results of being branded as heretic were, however,

far from vague. Heretics could consider themselves fortunate if they were

merely ordered to wear a yellow cross on their garments because they fre-

quently suffered far worse indignities at the hands of the Inquisition.

In modern society the sanction of stigma differs in kind and consequences

from the medieval stigma of heresy and the primitive taboo, but its inherent

nature is unchanged. An individual who differs in his personality or behaviour,

or is considered different in a way that infringes the group’s normative system,

is liable to be stigmatized as being deviant; the social and economic con-

sequences of this stigma are dependent on the severity of the infringement

of the norm and are determined by the inner strength of the norm, which

4

may be measured by the indignation of a representative sample of the public

when this norm is infringed. This inner strength of the norm may be also

determined by the severity of stigma which is labelled on the infringer of

the norm. On the informal level, the group’s attitude to the violation of a

norm is apparent only from the stigma branded on the violators. The stigma,

therefore, is the best instrument for measuring the inner strength of a social

noriml.

Consequently, according to the interactionist approach, the tagging,

the labelling, the commendable attitudes or the derogatory stigma are crucial

factors in identifying an act as bad or good, conforming or deviant, delin-

quent or non-delinquent. A convenient model for the relative force of stigma

in generating social deviance might be as follows:

Value Deviation + Deviant Behaviour + Social Stigma - Social Deviance

where value deviations is the individual’s detachment from the value system

of the group and which may predispose him for subsequent deviant behaviour.

Also, this model suggests that stigma, deviant behaviour and value deviation

are interrelated with one another and are linked to social deviance 1n a des-

cending order of significance. We may define social stigma as a derogatory

attribute imputed to the social image of an individual or group and viewed

as a tool of social control. As such, stigma may be a tool of stereotyping

delinquents and deviants as well as generating further delinquency and de-

viance. Social stigma can therefore be studied on two levels. First, its effect

on the initial recruiting into crime and deviation, and second, its effect on

further crime and deviation after a person has already clashed with the machi-

nery of law enforcement and other mechanisms of social control. This second

phase of stigma is related to its formal effects. The stigma of conviction as

a criminal, or being identified and tagged as a deviant limits a person’s sociO-

economic opportunities and forcibly changes his status and role. He may

reject at first some of the

,,legitimate” group’s norms and seek the

company of other ex-convicts and deviants who have had similar adjustment

problems. Finally, a total rejection of the norms and values of the legitimate

group may ensue, leading to the adoption of the normative system of the

deviant group.

The Explanation of Social Stigma

The most notable contributions to the theoretical analysis of the efiects

of stigma on deviance is the, now classic, description by Tannenbaum of

the tagging and isolation by society of the delinquent group. Howard Becker

examined the effect of stigma on the self-concept of individuals who joined

deviant groups, e.g., marihuana users and dance musicians. Cloward and

Ohlin in their Delinquency and Opportunity have used social stigma in their

explanation of the formation of deviant juvenile groups. They stated: »The

initial contrast between the individual and the authorities over the legitimacy

of certain social norms and the appropriateness of certain acts of deviance

sets in motion a process of definition that marks the offender as different

from law-abiding folk. His acts and his person are defined as ’evil’ and he

5]

is caught up in a vicious cycle of norm-violation. The process of alienation

is accelerated, and the chasm between the deviant and those who try to control

and reform him grows wider and deeper. In such circumstances the delin-

quent subculture and the prevailing bases of an individual’s rejection becomes

increasingly dependent on the support of others in his position. The gang

of peers forms a new social world in which the legitimacy of delinquent conduct

is strongly reinforced«.

A Model of Social Stigma

Our model of social stigma synchronizes two levels of causal analysis.

The first is an assortment of predisposing factors, the second a chain of dyna-

mic processes which leads to the actual stigmatization. The predisposition

factors are some forms of value deviation and deviant behaviour which in

a given culture raise the probability that an individual will be stigmatized.

We stress the cultural element because these predisposing factors vary from

one society to the other. We have already dealt extensively with value deviation

and deviant behaviour. We should add, however, that these predisposing

factors only raise the probability that an individual be stigmatized, yet one

may be branded with the Mark of Cain of deviance although he is a con-

formist both in his values and behaviour.

Our method of analyzing the dynamic processes of stigma would be to

trace first its psychological origins, then the socio-psychological factors which

stem from the relationship of the individual to his group and, finally, to exami-

ne the meaning and nature of stigma as a social act of power.

A CAUSAL MODEL OF SOCIAL STIGMA

Deviant Behaviour

Predisposing Factors

Value Deviation

The Dynamic Process of Stigmatization

Psychological

Outlet for Aggression

Projection of Guilt

Displacement of Resentment

W N =

The Stigmatized as »Scapegoat«

Socio-Psychological Pressures

The stigmatized: a symbolic source of danger

Relative powerlessness

Vulnerability to the source of stigma

»Somebody to look down upon«

O OO0\

»Explaining away« alters achievement

Social Level

10

Stigma as an Act of Power

Psychological Motives of Stigma

Inner aggression and the projection of guilt for the stigmatizer’s own

deviant tendencies are the subconscious sources of social stigma. The urge

to stigmatize is presumably linked to the individual’s own aggression and

the »free floating« aggression in groups. Inner negativity and group tension

find at least partial release in the derogatory branding of others. Social stigma

is an institutionalized safety valve and is thus similar in function to the fights

of the Roman gladiators, bullfights, public hangings, wrestling and boxing

matches. The mechanism of projection as a psychological source of stigma

has been described by Flugel as follows: »(People) experience delight in gossip

and scandal in which they gloat over the pecadillos and frailties of their neigh-

bours and acquaintances. They are indulging their own guilty desires vica-

riously, preserving their own virtue intact (the implication is that they them-

selves would never partake in such scandalous proceedings as those under

discussion) and expressing their disapproval through appropriate inflections

of the voice and shaking of the head«.

The release of frustrations and resentment through the subconscious

mechanism of transference and scapegoating is also the catalyst for the psychic

formation of social stigma and allows it to crystallize against a specific indi-

vidual or group.

The Socio-Psychological Processes

The choice of objects of social stigma is governed by conspicuous dif-

ferences which arouse fear and anxiety in the stigmatizer. The choice of the

objects is also determined by their relative powerlessness and hence vulne-

rability to stigma.

The stigmatized are, no doubt, very often chosen in a rational and for-

malized manner as in the case of illegal behaviour. In other cases, although

the choice is irrational and subconscious, it is not random. A major factor

determining the choice is the object’s being different in a symbolically relevant

way and therefore disturbing or menacing.

One of the most ancient sources for the hatred of foreigners and other

ethnic groups lay in the fact that the members of out-groups were not only

different but actually dangerous, not potential, but real enemies.

In ancient Greece, where policy-making was quite often realistic, stig

matization by ostracism was achieved by »chipping off the tallest ears of

corn«, those which seemed to be more conspicuous than necessary and the

question which was asked from the assembly in a manner quite relevant to

our context was: »Is there any man among you who you think is dangerous

to the State? If so, who?« In other words, we have here conspicuousness

and danger: difference equals or implies danger — this seems to be the most

obvious criterion for the attributes and therefore choice of the stigmatized.

Social stigma in an achievement-obsessed culture serves as an illusory

achievement technique where real achievement has failed or is insufficient

(as defined by the stigmatizer). Because achievement is relative, an individual

can »achieve« by derogatorily branding (stigmatizing) others. When an achi-

evement-obsessed individual or group craving for success as compensation for

7

insecurity and anxiety does not achieve these goals, they will try to »achieve«

status by lowering the status of the stigmatized. This is the actual function

of stigma, and is recognizable in the gossiping matron belittling the looks

of arival as well as in the perennial inclination of the socially insecure lower

middle-class to the hatred of out-groups, anti-semitism and racial discri-

mination.

Stigma related to a person’s successful innovation or imputed to his

achievement, can »exaplain away« his performance so as to narrow the gap

of »relative-achievement« between the stigmatizer and the stigmatized. »If

I cannot be as good as John Smith, I can at least neutralize his success by

bringing it down to my level«. The Nazi ideology, for instance, stressed that

Germany did not actually lose the war, the war which should have been fought

»properly«, as among knights of the Nibelungen. »It was not they, the cele-

stial Teutons, who had lost the war, it was the Jews and the Marxists who

slyly and surreptitiously had administered the fatal stab in the back which

made them reel and falter«. It was not a fair fight. However, no logical or

material link need be apparent between the stigma and the superiority of

the stigmatized. Usually the connection is superfluous or non-existent. Cause

and effect seem to be irrelevant for »explaining away« success by means of

stigma.

Stigma as an Act of Power

The stigma of maladjustment is acquired in a way similar to that of a

criminal. 1t is not necessarily linked with ethics, metaphysics or justice, but

with an act of power directed against an individual ora group too conspicuo-

usly different, whose existence or behaviour is detrimental to the power-backed

stigmatizing agencies. The essence of social stigma on the social level is em-

bodied in Tnez Cirano’s statement to Garcin in Sartre’s No Exit: »You are

a coward, Garcin, because [ want it to be so«.

The Roman infamia is the most appropriate illustration of stigma as

an act of power. The criteria for this declaration was so amorphic as to amount

to a complete freedom for the censor to brand any person he chose with the

stigma ol infamia.

Sumners’ description of the normative basis of social mores fits the con-

ception of stigma as a social act. »Nothing but might has ever made right«.

If a thing has been done and is established by force, it is right in the only

sense we know, and rights will follow from it which are not vitiated at all

by the force in it. We find men and parties protesting, declaiming, complaining

of what is done and which they say is not »right«. They lose sight of the fact

that disputes always end in force. Therefore, might has made all the right

which ever has existed or exists now. The habit of using jural concepts, which

1S now so characteristic of our mores leads us into vague and impossible

dreams of social affairs, in which metaphysical concepts ar supposed to

realize themselves, or are assumed to be real.

Pressure, coercion and stigma are applied by the group (or by individuals

who possess enough power to do so) when some interest or value of the group

(or of a powerful individual) has been infringed or injured. No other criterion

has the same significance. Justice, ethics, piety and »positive« values are at

8

best only formal and idealized criteria for differentiating between the dehlin-

quent and the good, the misfits and the »adjusted«. The criterion which

actually triggers the process of dividing the criminal and non-conformist

from the law-abiding and conforming population is the power element of

social stigmatization. No other criteria would serve to define the mythical

crime of Prometheus and the anti-social behaviour of Socrates. Alcibiades

Savonarola and Jesus Christ; they acted against the interests of groups which

had enough power to ostracise them and ultimately to exterminate them

In the last analysis, a criminal, a deviant or an antisocial person is one

who is branded and treated as such by a group or an individual with the power

to do so. The Mark of Cain, therefore, consists mainly in an exercise of power

by the branders to put tags on individuals or groups who »don’t fit in«. In

the case of crime, there are certain legal barbiers to the branding machinery

of society, but not so with stigmatization of a person as deviant and

maladjusted

The criteria for stigmatizing a person as deviant are necessarily amor-

phous, and change with every shift in the power structure of government,-—--

bureaucracy, custom and other components of the social system. The ¢ ec;Is

of stigma are powerful once started, the segregatmg and stlgmatlzm

g

sure

leads down and the way back upwards to regain social status is blocked. by

g

many barriers.

J \.J

\

Kafka’s Mr. K. was not familiar with the nature of social stlghta when

he insisted on his innocence. His Mark of Cain of social stigma by 1tsélf was

more than enough to establish his guilt.

V/

This potency of social stigma has induced many social scientists, notably

Becker and Goffman, to redefine deviance, not by the act or actor, but by

the labels which these acts and actors have been tagged

Another important premise of the interactionist approach relates to

the crystallisation of the self-concept of the deviant following the internali-

sation by them of the deviant tags branded on them by the agencies of social

control. The interactionists claim that the individual’s self-concept is crystali-

sed by his interactions with his surroundings and especially with the relevant

»others« around him. The need for food, shelter and acceptance and the

impossibility of full and constant reciprocity by the providers make for a

conflictual basis to this interaction. The self-concept is deemed to be deli-

neated by the »ego-boundary« which has been conceived as the imaginary

dividing line between our self-concept and the outside world. This ego boun-

dary does not exist in the very early phases of development. The voung child

does not have any sense of differentiation among himself, other human beings

and his inanimate entourage. He gains this through interaction with his relevant

others in early socialization. It is being built laver after layer and with each

consecutive expansion the boundary becomes clearer and the self-concept

more distinct

The »Containment« Theory of Deviance

A strong »ego boundary« making for a favourable image of self has

been related to many theoretical and empirical expositions of deviance. One

of the first theories of deviance, or to be more precise, conformity in relation

9

to the self-concept, was Reckless’ »Containment Theory«. The gist of this

theory is that »internal containment consists of ’self components’ — those

having to do with the strength of the self as an operating person. It is com-

posed of:

1. A favourable image of self in relation to other persons, groups and

institutions.

2. An awareness of being an inner-directed, goal-oriented person.

3. A high level of frustration, tolerance (i.e., one does not »lose one’s

cool« very easily).

4. Strongly internalized morals and ethics.«

This image of the strong, silent, reliable and moral hero of the American

movies of the twenties and thirties could indeed effect a self-concept (if pro-

perly internalized) which insulates itself from deviance. Subsequent research

in these inner barriers agains delinquency revealed that »insulation against

delinquency is an ongoing process reflecting internalization of non-delinquent

values and conformity to the expectations of significant others«.

»Differential Identification«

Glazer’s »Differential Identification« theory deals with the absorption

by the individual of deviant roles. The essence of this theory is that »a person

pursues criminal (or deviant) behaviour to the extent that he identifies himself

with real or imaginary persons from whose perspective his criminal behaviour

seems acceptable.« In other words, a person who incorporates within his

self-concept deviant roles and images is more likely to behave in a deviant

manner.

»Techniques of Neutralization«

Sykes and Matza present their »techniques of neutralization« by means

of which a deviant may rationalize his motives for his behaviour so that he

retains his self-concept by having done the »right« thing. A delinquent may

voice the psychiatric jargon as in »Gee, Officer Krupke« of West Side Story,

to prove that his personality as moulded by the wretchedness of slums made

it impossible for him to behave otherwise and that consequently he is not

morally responsible. He may also point out that because of the elaborate

insurance systems nobody really suffers from a bank robbery. Or he may

point out that homosexuals »have it coming to them« if they are mugged

and robbed while looking for small boys in the park. Another common »te-

chnique of neutralization« is based on the belief that one’s loyalty to the

gang is more important than the laws of society. A gang member’s self-concept

as being »right« not only remains intact, but is actually strengthened by pre-

ferring the norms of his deviant gang to the »square« rules of society.

»Unsharable Problems«

There are some less-generalized ontological expositions of deviance

which relate to specific and relatively well-defined modes of behaviour.

Gressey’s study of embezzlers was anchored in what he calleed »unsharable

10

problems« which are basically conflicts between the prospective embezzler’s

self-concept as presented to some relevant others and some harsh facts of

life. A bank messenger who presents himself to his new girl friend as a bank

manager could not possibly ask his boss to share with him some expensive

night club bills. The same holds true for a husband who is reluctant to share

with his wife the news that he has lost a month’s salary at the race tracks.

Both might see in embezzlement the only way out of their plight.

The »Masculine Protest«

The »Masculine Protest« theory was formulated by Talcott Parsons

and is based on his analysis of the structure of the middle-class American

family. The mother i1s the main socialising figure in this family, whereas the

father is most of the time outside the home taking care of his business and

other affairs. This causes the boy’s identification with the »role-model« of

his mother; consequently, when the boy seeks a mascrline identity he may

turn to the unrealistic extreme of being tough and nonsentimental. One way

to be »tough« (and, to be sure, an obvious one) is to commit delinquent acts

»becoming to a man.

Cohen also subscribes to this hypothesis while dealing briefly with middie-

class delinquency. He adds that »good behaviour is symbolized by (mother’s)

femininity, whereas ’bad’ acts stand for masculinity and alad who grows up

in a family dominated by feminine figures and images, asserts thus his man-

hood by being ’bad’, i.e., deviant.«

The »Closure« Theory

Lemert expounded his »closure« theory to explain the naive cheque-

forgery of persons who are economically not needy. The subjectively-felt

social isolation of the person resolves itself in an act of impulsive cheque-

forgery which leads to punishment of oneself or some »relevant others.« In

some forms of deviance such as homosexuality, the self-concept is all im-

portant. The »coming out« nhase is the realisation by the latent homosexual

of his deviant tendencies and the crystalization of his new identity which

clarifies uncertainties and disperses the diffusion in his self-concept. This

is, reportedly, a rather pleasant, tension-releasing experience. Conversely, a

heterosexual self-concept when enhanced by some strict rules of behaviour

remains intact although a person engages regularly in male prostitution..

The Making of Jean Genet

Probably the best illustration of the development of a deviant self-concept

is the case of the thief-poet-philosopher, Jean Genet. Genet’s self-image is,

no doubt, one of a thief, an »ex-con«, a member of the criminal sub-culture,

His writings are very personal. Although fact and fiction intermingle, most

of the episodes happened in one way or the other with Genet as participant,

resulting in a mixture of personal experience, feelings and reminiscences.

Genet was born out of wedlock. His mother abandoned him in his cradle

and he was cared for in his formative years by the state orphanage in Paris.

11

In due course he was entrusted to a foster home — a peasant family in

Le Morvan. At first he was happy there. He lived the pcaceful life of a village

youngster. However, he soon realised that he was not like the other youngsters.

He was a foundling, he had no mother, no father, and therefore no clear

identity to internalise. The village was a closed community and he soon found

out that in the peasant family he was »Jean, the little bastard«. The other

children in the family found a simple solution to their problems by attributing

any mishap or misdeed to »the little bastard« from the orphanage. He thus

became the receptacie for all the residual, unwanted and despised attributes

of the family and small peasant community: his self-image or inner anchor

of identity consisted of definitions, images and characteristics tagged on

him by the relevant others. Genet did his utmost to comply with the negative

images branded on him by the peasant family and the village community.

He wilfully, almost joyfully, plunged into depths of negativity. He finally

knew who he was for he had been given the image he never had before —

— and if the image was that of a pederast and a thief, it had to be honed to

perfection.

The Self Image of an »Qutsider«

Outsiders like Genet who comply with the images of evil imputed to

them by the surrounding »others«, feel that by assuming the role they serve

the group: by being evil because they have been defined as evil the outsider

feels that he has fulfilled a mandate — he has been submissive, has conformed

to the tagged image, and society owes him, if not acclaim, at least acceptance;

disillusionment is bitter if he is not accepted. Many convicts have personally

reported a similar feeling to the author. They were accused of committing

a crime and against ail common prudence they were seized with an urge to

confess, a wish to expiate themselves, to turn over a new leaf, to repay the

debts in order to be reaccepted — and all this by one magic act of admission,

of compliance, of redemption. Some confess even when the prosecution has

scant evidence against them, and subsequently feel a sense of ease, as if they

say: »You, judge, jury, attorneys, the world at large, you say I am evil; right,

I am, but now we are quits. You have tc accept me — you owe 1t to me«.

The inevitable rejection quickens the cycle of stigma and counter-stigma;

this is the essence of the »outsider’s dilemma«.

A Criminal Identity

Treachery, theft and homosexuality are Genet’s sacred trinity. He raised

these threce perverse elements to the rank of a theology, contrasting the cheri-

shed bourgeois virtues of loyalty, the sanctity of private property and

heterosexuality.

The adroitness and literal-mindedness of the criminal world is contrasted

with the hypocrisy, smoothness and double standards of »your world.«

The act of crime for Genet means vigour, freedom and fulfilment. Vigour,

because one puts a lot of energy and concentration into an act of stealing,

it has a »terminal oneness«, a combination of sacrifice and damnation which,

for Genet, is the epitome of moral vigour. Freedom, because the commission

12

of a crime or a betrayal gives one a sense of ease without any moral preoc-

cupation, a feeling of expiatory detachment. Fulfilment, because the inner

violence of the act of theft gives it a ritualistic and religious aura — it becomes

an expiating sacrifice, an offering.

When Genet commits a crime he acts according to the image cast on

him. He complies first of all with the expectations of his immediate environ-

ment and this in itself is satisfying. Genet, of unknown origin, with no parents

and no past, of a precarious present and uncertain future, at last finds his

coveted identity; one that is not only cast upon him, but one that is his alone:

nobody is going to challenge him to it or take it away from him as they did

with other things. The compliance with the image of a criminal not only gives

him an identity, but also makes him eligible for entry into the group of other

thieves and homosexuals, thus affording the opportunity for group-identity

and a sense of belonging.

Empirical confirmation of this hypothesis was provided by Lewin who

showed that the emotional tension of adolescent youths was greatly dimi-

nished when they finally became members of a criminal gang where they

found their coveted identity. The crucial point, however, is that every new

act of crime reinforces this identity with a resultant feeling of accomplishment,

elation and energetic vigour.

Genet sees himself as a scapegoat, as a receptacle of abuse, refuse and

vileness. The black religiosity of Genet induced him to apply ritual to every

further step in his evil transformation. Every additional negation is a triumph.

Being a criminal as a vicarious obligation to others, as a sacrifice to others,

is a sacrifice worthy of fulfilment. The salvation is apparently not confined

to Genet himself, but is a sort of cleansing vehicle for the pollution of others.

He is the scapegoat, the damned. He receives, as in stoning, all the evils from

the community cast of from them and transferred symbolically to him. By

receiving these stigmatizing stones, he is ritually expiated — he cleanses them

of their sins by taking them upon himself. This is the basis of his claim to

ritualistic fulfilment — the beatitude of a thief. He knows however, that

his vicarious expiation of the evil of the others by being their damned

scapegoat will not be paid with social acceptance.

Finally, the interactionist tradition envisages the situational analysis

of the actual deviant, delinquent, or violent behaviour as distinct from the

probablistic profile analysis of the delinquent or deviant types of persona-

lities. We may take, for example, the case of a murder cited by Wolfgang:

»A drunken husband, beating his wife in their kitchen, gave her a butcher’s

kn.fe and dared her to use it on him. She claimed that if he struck her once

more, sh: wculd use the knife. He slapped her face and she stabbed him to

death«. Th s excerpt describes the last phase of a violent exchange of words

and actions between husband and wife which culminated in death. Most

of the attempts to explain murder would aim at finding some specific factors

which single out the slayer from other human beings. The biologists would

try to find some physiological irregularities, abnormal blood chemistry, or

the recently-popular XYY chromosome theory claiming that the murderer

's a real »he-man«. Psychoanalysts would look for unresolved complexes

.n the development of the personal.ty. Sociolog sts would pursue their peren-

13

nial quest for correlations between murder, »bad« homes, »bad« schools

and »bad« neighbourhoods. These types of explanation are »genetic« or

»historical«. However, the situational explanation of murder would consider

it as a direct sequel to an escalation of tension, culminating in the violent

act. This has already been pointed out by Sutherland.

Scientific explanations of criminal behaviour may be stated either in

terms of the processes which are operating at the moment of the occurrence

of the crime or in terms of the processes operating in the earlier history of

the criminal. In the first case, the explanation may be called »mechanistic,

»situational« or »dynamic«, in the second »historical« or »genetic«. .. Cri-

minological explanations of the mechanistic type have thus been notably

unsuccessful, perhaps largely because they have been formulated in con-

nection with the attempt to isolate personal and social pathologies among

criminals. Work from this point of view has, at best, resulted in the con-

clusion that the immediate determinants of criminal behaviour lie in the

person-situation complex.

The situational approach attempts to explain the deviant act by the cri-

minal-victim relationship.

In some types of violence, for instance, personality and demographic

factors would be relevant as predisposing factors. Apart from the physio-

log cal factors predisposing to »low boiling points«, some measureable per-

sonality traits may also contribute to violence-proneness. On the other hand,

we may envision a Maine farmer whose inner-directedness 1s so firm that

any infringement upor his internalized standards would confront him with

a private purgatory. Yet he would very rarely interpret communications

transmitted by others to be provocations, as they are by definition extraneous

to his internal controls.

Predisposition to violence, as gleaned from various studies, may eventually

be expressed as probabil .ty prof:les. These would point out the low or high

chances of an individual display.ng a given set of character:stics related to

committing a violent act. However, the actual sequence of events precip.tating

the violence would :n some cases take the form of a causal chain of inter-

action between cr.m nal and v.ctm. This communication pattern could be

ign.ited on the spot by the exposure of a compromising situation, e.g., the

ever-loving w fe and her lover n the husband’s nuptial double-bed. Words

hurled with gross and obv ous ntent to offend would have the effect of swit-

ching and individual’s action to a d fferent cogn tive level, i.e., »he would

see red«. Other express ons may have th s »tr ggering off« effect on an indi-

vidual because he def-nes them subjectively as hum lLating due to personality

pecul:arities of h' s own. The word »bugger« thrown at a latent homosexual

or an expression quest on ng the vrlty of a man who has anxiet.es about

h:s potency, may have ths effect. The convent:.onal form of an offens:ve

gesture, such as the tw st ng of a moustache and-the em:ssion of a snore :n

the presence of a devout Moslem, may have dn even stronfer escalatory effect.

Such an exchange

{

4

~words and gestureg would not tr gger off immed ate

$

arousal to anothi:

t

« ievel but, depend ng on the reaction, may gra-

dually lead to

» et urTi¢

{

\

\

4

14

\

Sou?

”~

-