Archive: Dec 2012

Just over a year ago, the UK was rocked by five days of rioting and looting that spanned across London and forty-six other local areas. Denouncing the violence as evidence of uncontrolled mobs, Prime Minister David Cameron and Tory politicians declared an “all-out war on gangs and gang culture.” Yet the prevailing stereotype of chaotic, irrationally violent gangs has meant that the ensuing government policies have largely failed. Some have even backfired.

In this recent research (Social Problems, September 2012), Oxford’s James Densley outlines the real operation of gang violence. Examining gang recruitment in London, Densley argues that gangs actually place a premium on a potential recruit’s established reputation for using effective, yet “disciplined violence.” By recruiting talented but discerning fighters, a gang increases its own collective reputation for violence, thus limiting the actual amount of violence in which its members will need to engage. Fear over fists, if you will. Furthermore, Densley refers to instances in which gangs have actually “taken out” their members with reputations for indiscriminate violence—these unpredictable members were more of a liability than an asset to the group.

A far cry from the image of riotous youth, the portrait that Densley paints of the “ideal” gang recruit most closely hews to “The Wire’s” Stringer Bell, who ran his gang’s meetings with Roberts’ Rules of Order, than the “feral underclass” that politicians and pundits love to villainize.

The 1990s saw the rise of multi-party elections in Africa, as well as an increase in election monitoring by international organizations. The goal of such monitoring is to assess and document whether the election process is free and fair, so it’s expected that monitoring should promote peace and increase respect of the electoral process by all parties. Surprising recent evidence, however, suggests fraudulent elections are more likely to lead to violence when they are monitored by international observers.

Ursula Daxecker (Journal of Peace Research, July 2012) analyzes 189 African elections from 1997 to 2009 and accounts for contributing factors, such as pre-election violence, stability, and economic development. In cases in which there was election fraud, Daxecker finds that international observations may actually incite violence, rather than providing a stabilizing force. Essentially, the credible documentation of fraud publicizes illegitimate tactics and may serve as a rallying point for violent unrest and mobilization.

While international peace and democracy advocates assume increased transparency and media coverage is positive, Daxecker’s findings suggest increased attention can be problematic. In cases of fraudulent elections, documenting the truth comes with unintended consequences.

Many contemporary reality shows focus on bodies that are “extreme” in one way or another. In a recent article, Laura Backstrom (Sociological Forum, September 2012) takes a closer look at a pair of these shows, finding that the presentations vary greatly based on conceptions of disability, responsibility, and identity.

Backstrom compares “Little People, Big World,” a reality show that follows a family in which the parents and one son are dwarfs, to “Ruby,” an eponymous show that chronicles the life of one obese woman. Both shows focus on the challenges posed by living with an abnormal body size, but in vastly different ways. In “Little People, Big World,” dealing with dwarfism is constructed as an identity project—encouraging bodily acceptance and a positive social identity. Additionally, the show attempts to de-stigmatize dwarfism and bring attention to the various ways that the world is “not built for little people.” Ruby’s challenges, on the other hand, are constructed as a body project—focusing on weight loss as the primary path to happiness. In contrast to the notion that the world should adapt to little people’s needs, there is no mention the world needing to be modified to fit Ruby’s body. Instead, the focus is on how Ruby’s body prevents her from participating fully in social life.

Backstrom finds that “Little People” follows the principles of the disability rights movement: little people are shown being encouraged to accept themselves as they are, exhibit a positive identity, and participate fully in the social world. Ruby’s obesity, however, is not a condition that fits into the disability rights model. Her  size is portrayed as a roadblock to a positive identity (and as an obstacle she can remove rather than accept). The solution to obesity in shows like these, Backstrom concludes, is always body modification, never de-stigmatization or acceptance of the obese body.