Compare and Contrast the Approaches Taken by Huesmann Et Al. (2003) and Hall Et Al. (1978) to Explaining Social Disorder.
- Submitted by: bonnieboo
- Views: 607
- Category: Science
- Date Submitted: 08/06/2013 05:00 PM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Compare and contrast the approaches taken by Huesmann et al. (2003) and Hall et al. (1978) to explaining social disorder.
This essay will review definitions of social disorder before contrasting the different approaches taken by Huesmann et al and Hall et al to explaining social disorder. Key elements of each approach will be presented and then comparisons will be drawn. It will show that Hall et als focus on street crime, Cohen’s focus was on youths in the 1960s and that they share the view that social factors play a role and view the media as ‘mediating’ instances of social disorder through coverage that amplifies and worsens the situations. This approach will be contrasted with Husemann’s approach to explaining social disorder, which did not consider social factors or mediation but focused on the violence and aggressive behaviour itself and sought to prove a direct causal link between viewing media portrayals of violence and violent behaviour/disorder.
There is no accepted definition of disorderly/ anti-social behaviour and different communities may judge some activities in the ‘social space of the street’ as disorderly or not [book pg360). Behaviour such as being loud or even dropping a piece of litter in the street can be considered as antisocial behaviour. On the UK government’s website anti-social behaviour is referred to as ‘selfish and unacceptable activity that can blight the quality of community life’ (Kelly and Toynbee,2009, pg360) Some anti-social behaviour can be considered by governments as criminal acts and social scientists suggest that it is the rich and powerful in society who determines what is disorderly or criminal, and that they are powerful enough to be able to prevent their own actions being viewed or defined in such terms (Kelly and Toynbee,2009, pg359) A legal definition is found in the crime and disorder act 1998, which describes anti-social behaviour as ' acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause...
This essay will review definitions of social disorder before contrasting the different approaches taken by Huesmann et al and Hall et al to explaining social disorder. Key elements of each approach will be presented and then comparisons will be drawn. It will show that Hall et als focus on street crime, Cohen’s focus was on youths in the 1960s and that they share the view that social factors play a role and view the media as ‘mediating’ instances of social disorder through coverage that amplifies and worsens the situations. This approach will be contrasted with Husemann’s approach to explaining social disorder, which did not consider social factors or mediation but focused on the violence and aggressive behaviour itself and sought to prove a direct causal link between viewing media portrayals of violence and violent behaviour/disorder.
There is no accepted definition of disorderly/ anti-social behaviour and different communities may judge some activities in the ‘social space of the street’ as disorderly or not [book pg360). Behaviour such as being loud or even dropping a piece of litter in the street can be considered as antisocial behaviour. On the UK government’s website anti-social behaviour is referred to as ‘selfish and unacceptable activity that can blight the quality of community life’ (Kelly and Toynbee,2009, pg360) Some anti-social behaviour can be considered by governments as criminal acts and social scientists suggest that it is the rich and powerful in society who determines what is disorderly or criminal, and that they are powerful enough to be able to prevent their own actions being viewed or defined in such terms (Kelly and Toynbee,2009, pg359) A legal definition is found in the crime and disorder act 1998, which describes anti-social behaviour as ' acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause...