From bridges@u.washington.edu Mon Oct 16 17:15:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: from homer27.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA26937; Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:15:51 -0700 Received: by homer27.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA12433; Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:15:50 -0700 X-Sender: bridges@homer27.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: George Bridges To: soc271-l@u.washington.edu Cc: soc271@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: ideas about C&O In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Caroline: Good ideas. I think Cloward and Ohlin and the other Structural Strain (SS) Theorists are saying that crime rates are higher among the lower class, particularly when they live in areas characterized by extremes in poverty and wealth. The problem for Merton and C and O is that they believe that in a capitalistic economic system, "following your dreams" means pursuing money and there is no good way to change that. So they would argue that unless there are major economic changes in the society, efforts would be better spent on changing opportunities to attaining wealth. They are *not* advocating socialism or communism. Rather, they're just saying that if we want to reduce crime and deviance, we need to level the playing field a bit so that the very poor have a few more of the advantages than the rest of us have. Better schools, better job opportunities. Hope this answers your questions! George B. On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, C. Eells wrote: > Hello Professor Bridges. I'm kind of wondering about the Cloward and > Ohlin theory. I feel that their idea that economic > inequality and lack of means for attaining wealth are the two factors > that cause deviancy. First of all, I feel that the main problem in > America today is the fact that we are teaching people that wealth > attainment equals success. That is why this country is so hung up on > living in mansions, having big, expensive cars, and the idea that a lot > of money means a lot of happiness. Going back to the theory, it seems to > me that to say that economic inequality causes deviancy is like saying > all poor people steal. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that we > should be teaching people today to follow their hearts, and their dreams > ( instead of emphasizing wealth attainment ). That would be less costly > alternative too. Is this idea of mine too far-fetched? I think that part > of C & O's theory may works in other countries because other countries > aren't as hung up on materialistic, monetary things. Are Cloward and > Ohlin suggesting communism? What do you think of all this stuff? > I lived in the country of Finland for five months and wealth > attainment wasn't important to them. I kind of liked the way some things > worked there. It was sort of Socialistic ( actually very much so ) but > the unemployment rate was low, health care was provided to all, people > were just in general well taken care of. I suppose it has it's pluses and > minuses, just like everything. I just don't understand why many Americans > are so greedy? I think things would be a lot nicer if we all would just > go back to basics! Wow, I must be an idealist! Please write and give me > your thoughts and ideas on this. Thanks. > Caroline Eells > > .