Education, Deviance and Social Control
Immigrant Paradox and Intimate Partner Violence
Violence has been a human behavior that has caused mayhem in our societal set up. In its simplest term, violence can be defined as a code of behavior that causes discomfort to the people and damages property. Its main categories are institutional and anti-institutional violence, the former being carried out by administrators while the later is directed towards the government for violating legal processes, (Macionis, p. 154). Modern families are exposed to even more violence than previous generations because of the several reasons. The society has got people with different behaviors, values and opinion. As a result, violence and criminal behavior have become part of our daily society life. According to Wright and Benson, (2010), “Recent evidence indicates that contrary to some criminological theories, immigrants are less violent than native born Americans.” There is a strong relationship between the state of immigrants and the level of violence in that, the relation is based on the notion that they can be related to the level of analysis and the surrounding community. This scenario is what is referred to as the Latino paradox or immigrant. To some levels, it has been vaguely suggested that cultural diversity and close social links within a given social set up result into low level of violence among immigrants. The factors that influence this scenario are enough to tone down the level of criminology that is detrimental to economic growth. Therefore, in this paper will establish whether such patterns can extend to the level of intimate partner violence. This idea is built upon the perception that there is low level of intimate partner violence in places with high concentration of immigrants.
There has been an historical perception that immigrants are the main cause of street violence in our society. However, according to Sampson, Morenhoff and Raudenbush as quoted by Wright and Benson, (2010), “Recent research has challenged the historical stereotype that immigrants increase crime on the streets. Indeed, numerous investigations have found that immigrants are less violent at the individual level.” This therefore disqualifies the idea that an area with high concentration of immigrants is likely to experience high crime rate; thus, immigrant paradox. Immigrants are assumed to be experiencing crime prone conditions for instance, economic hardship and cultural alienation, but these conditions do not result to increased crime rates. In fact, the rate of criminology is said to reduce under these conditions hence, the paradox. There have been suggestions to explain this paradox. To begin with, Robert Sampson according to Wright and Benson (2010), has presented a model known as cultural importation to justify the claims. Sampson argues that immigrants can carry with them cultural perspectives that are bound to bring eligibility of violence that is quite different from that evident on the streets, also know as street code of violence. This imported violence may not significantly affect the lives of many Americans like the street violence that form their subculture. The invasion of immigrants in the American land may result to buffering against the original cultural values or to absorb and dilute the level of violence of the American people.
The second explanation of the immigrant paradox is attributed to strong social networks among the immigrants within their community. This can be explained in the sense that the social values and practices that the immigrants adhere to are non-violent and despise criminology. Immigrants disown violent behaviors as dictated by the code of practice of the majority in the social set up. Therefore, intimate partner violence just like other violent behaviors is not condoned among the Latino/immigrants. However, the ideals of the Latino paradox do not apply to some extend. The proponents have assumed the cultural practices of the immigrants to be superior to those of the Americans. This is not always the case because since they are a minority, code of street violence can neutralize the imported violence. Moreover, the rule of law and applied justice can lead to reduced rate of violence more significantly than the suggested imported violence. The success of social control attempts is measured by the extent of deviations after guidance and justice system is in place unlike the imported violence model that assumes cultural consciousness.
Gender Inequality in Science and Technology Arenas
The problem of American gender inequality is evident in the society but the way in which it is explained has resulted to a stand off. Most citizens depend on meritocratic ideologies to explain the unequal labor market patterns rather than using structural factors. This is in total disregard to the fact that such beliefs also depend on the social location of a person. However, the use of present survey data can be used to explain achievements of professional women in the science and technology fields. The use of these fields of study is motivated by the idea that these fields are gender barred from women by potent meritocratic notions. A study by Cech and Blair-Loy, uses multinomial logistic regressions in coining meritocratic and structural frameworks to explain achievement of women. The study is based on response from different professionals under different family situations. “Married women, those with business education, and those in the top levels of their organizations are more likely to account for gender inequality by invoking deficiencies in women’s human capital or motivation.” On the other hand, they argue that “mothers, primary breadwinners, sellers of professional services, and those working in unsupportive organizations are more likely to invoke structural explanations,” (Cech and Blair-Loy, 2010).
The findings of the research call for social action in that, women in the professional science and technology fields should help in stumping out the structural difficulties for other women. Also, through adherence to meritocratic ideologies, they can restore their beliefs on the ability to indulge in professional studies that are deemed impossible for women. This is supported by the fact that the other women who have succeeded are like them. The Americans use dominant ideology to justify inequality. According to Cech and Blair-Loy, (2010), “It assumes that those with the requisite training, experience, and personal motivation will succeed in a meritocratic society, while those who fall behind have only themselves to blame.” The second ideal explains that inequalities rise due to structural factors strong social networks, stereotyping, and discrimination. These frameworks are justified in the explanation of gender inequality in America. To begin with, women have risen to take up professions that were male dominated like science, technology and political offices. This bolstered with campaign on gender equality has narrowed the gender gap as more and more women get empowered. In addition, men have accepted to accommodate and appreciate women’s ability in the society and this has significantly reversed the initial meritocratic beliefs.
Social problems which affect the society through education, deviances as well as social control affect are factors that are encountered by the society in the day to day living. Having sampled the two articles above, problems are highlighted that bring several social issues that constitute social problems. Understanding the main issues that constitute ‘less violence’ among the Latino will help in establishing truth behind the social issue. Also, establishing the real fact behind gender inequality is what will help stump out the problem as long as the society accepts there is a problem; thus enhancing harmonious living to all members of the society.