是我们当中的偏离者将社会维系在一起。

家伙维克托现在是加州大学圣巴巴拉分校的副教授维克托·里奥斯。其他 67 个来自原始帮派的朋友没有维克托的成功：四人被谋杀；九人永久受伤，大多数是手枪伤；十几个吸毒成瘾，有时流落街头乞讨生存。只有两人高中毕业，只有维克托上了大学。如果维克托，一个帮派成员，能取得这样的成就令人惊讶。

在一个贫困社区中，单身母亲的儿子靠福利生活，最终进入了一个拥有众多资格认证的职业，这告诉我们关于越轨行为与社会流动性之间的关系什么呢？

因为维克托现在是一名社会学家，我问他对走出贫民区进入象牙塔有什么看法。“很多时候人们对我说，‘哦，里奥斯教授，你真是独特。你拥有这些品质，你成功了。你凭借自己的努力走了出来。你走出了贫民区，现在你在这里。’我的回应是，‘嗯，部分原因是努力工作，但每个人都在努力工作。’例如，我妈妈，她一辈子洗碗，工作十个小时一天，她的时薪仍然是十、十一美元。这是辛勤的工作。但她从未进步。”他认为，努力工作是不够的；必须有一条机会轨迹通向摆脱贫困。

犯罪是对社会制定的法律的违反。

一个 $\mathrm{\$}500$$\mathrm{\$}500$$500\$ 500 很好。法律的变化标志着社会价值观和社会规范的转变，例如对性别和种族多样性的容忍度提高。

想象一下，社会是一个单一而复杂的有机体，拥有许多执行特定任务的内部器官。国家是社会的大脑，是立法者思考法律道德并将立法决策传达给其他负责实施的社会器官的决策中心。社会的所有器官都是维持社会有机体生存和健康所必需的，这些器官由个体或细胞组成。功能主义方法通过社会现象所执行的功能来解释其存在。在这个框架中，国家的发展是因为社会需要一个

有机团结是基于部分之间差异和相互依赖的社会凝聚力。

一种类似的正义形式可以通过更正式的程序由国家实施。当臭名昭著的俄克拉荷马城轰炸犯蒂莫西·麦克维被处死时，实际上是被集体、被美国公民谋杀。对于死刑的反对者来说，麦克维的

惩罚也可以是补偿性的——也就是说，它们试图恢复在犯罪或事件发生之前的现状。侵权法就是一种补偿性社会制裁的例子。例如，假设一个疏忽的承包商没有在游泳池底部安装格栅。一个小女孩在玩耍

想想那些在电子家庭安全系统广泛采用之前的邻里守望小组。社区中的人们团结在一起，同意留意入侵者、窃贼和可疑的陌生人。这些小组背后的想法是，社区可以通过公开声明他们监视周围环境的意图来维持社会秩序。有时，这些小组会为门窗发布标志或贴纸，以向不良角色发出信号，表明这个社区正受到警惕的目光“保护”。但这种活动不必如此正式化。城市理论家简·雅各布斯创造了“街道的眼睛和耳朵”这个术语，以描述在理想情况下，在混合用途（即商业和住宅）社区中，社会控制的线索是隐含地编织在日常生活中的事实（雅各布斯，1961）。通过窗户，祖母们看着孩子们打棒球。

在下面的街道上，警惕任何麻烦。在繁忙的工作日中，一位店主可能会注意到一群应该在学校的青少年在他的商店外闲逛，并将此报告给他们的父母或学校。

撤退主义者是指通过完全撤退或不参与社会，拒绝社会可接受的手段和目标的人。

标签理论是指个体潜意识中注意到他人如何看待或标记他们，这些标签在自我认同的基础上随着时间的推移而形成

起初，你知道。我不习惯那种事情”（第 239 页）。另一个用户始终无法学会享受大麻：

为了模拟逮捕和监禁过程，即将成为囚犯的人们被从家中带走，戴上手铐，并被实际的城市警察搜查。然后，所有囚犯被带到“监狱”——斯坦福心理学系的地下室，那里设置了牢房和一个特殊的单独监禁衣橱。守卫们穿着临时制服和深色太阳镜，以使他们的眼睛对囚犯不可见。到达监狱后，所有囚犯都被脱光衣服，搜查，并发放囚犯制服，这些制服像短款医院病服。第一天没有发生事件，囚犯和守卫们适应了他们的新角色。但在第二天早晨，囚犯们反抗，封锁了他们的模拟牢房，引发了虚构的守卫和囚犯之间为期四天的激烈对抗。从身体虐待，例如长达一个小时的俯卧撑计数，到心理上的

暴力，例如降级和羞辱，警卫的行为接近于施虐狂，尽管就在几天前，这些年轻人还是正常的斯坦福大学本科生。囚犯们很快开始“撤回并表现出病态的行为”，而一些警卫似乎乐于施加虐待。最初的计划是实验持续 14 天，但仅仅 6 天后就失控并不得不终止。

齐姆巴多声称，这一课是好人可以做出可怕的事情，这取决于他们的社会环境和期望。当被置于一个没有制约的权威、匿名和高压的社会背景中时，普通人可以变成异常的怪物。这是齐姆巴多所称的“路西法效应”，它提供了对伊拉克阿布格莱布监狱暴行如何成为可能的见解（Zimbe .j, 2007）。在 2005 年，当媒体公开了伊拉克囚犯被贬低和虐待的可怕画面——一些囚犯赤裸着，跪在离狂吠的狗几英寸远的地方；一些被罩上头巾，处于痛苦而扭曲的姿势；一些被迫躺在其他赤裸囚犯的堆上——而面带微笑的美国士兵在旁观看时，许多评论员（和军事官员）试图将这些虐待解释为“坏苹果”在其他好士兵中的个案。然而，坏苹果并不是凭空出现的，人们也不是天生就恶意或残忍的。当在不确定的高风险下获得无限权力时，就像阿布格莱布的士兵们所经历的那样，虐待就成为常态，而那些本来是好的人也可以做出邪恶的事情。

Even though the pseudo-patient was acting “normally” shortly after his admission, the “abnormal” label stuck and continued to color the staff’s perceptions and diagnoses. Just in case you are curious, the pseudo-patients were kept by the hospitals for 7 to 52 days, with an average stay of 19 days. Sticky label, indeed. 

污名是一个负面的社会标签，不仅改变他人对一个人的行为，还改变这个人的自我概念和社会身份。

为了确定种族和犯罪记录对就业机会的影响（Pager，2003）。她派遣了潜在的求职者（自愿参加实验的非裔美国人和白人男性大学生）以相似的简历申请入门级服务职位。每个种族的一半参与者被告知在他们的求职申请中注明先前的重罪定罪。Pager 发现，在那些有 $n_0$$n_0$n_(0)n_{0} 犯罪记录的人中，白人申请者更有可能获得回应（34%对 14%），但也发现，声称有重罪定罪的白人男性比没有报告犯罪记录的黑人男性更有可能被召回（17%对 14%）。在 Pager 的研究中，雇主稍微更愿意考虑有重罪记录的白人申请者，而不是有清白历史的黑人申请者。因此，犯罪记录不仅是一个阻碍潜在雇主的污名，而且求职者的种族仍然很重要。Pager 推测，一个可能的解释是

雇主们试图选择最佳候选人，但受到各种普遍且大多无意识的刻板印象的影响，这导致他们更倾向于选择白人候选人而非黑人候选人……雇主们基于非常普遍的媒体形象形成了这些负面刻板印象，例如，年轻黑人男性与刑事司法系统有关或以某种消极方式表现出来。我们获得了很多关于我们可能归因于非裔美国人群体的所有负面特征的信息……他们谈到黑人男性懒惰、危险、犯罪和穿着不当；他们对所有这些负面特征非常坦率地归因于 $b\cdot k$$b\cdot k$b*kb \cdot k 男性。但随后，当我问他们过去一年与黑人申请者或黑人员工的经历时，他们很难举出这些普遍态度的具体例子，而且大多数情况下，雇主报告称与他们的黑人和白人员工有非常相似的经历。（Conley, 2009f）

As labeling theory predicts, the ways other people see you affect your behavior and overall life chances. So, too, does the way you see your social surroundings, according to the broken windows theory. In 1969 Zimbardo conducted another experiment in which he and his graduate students abandoned two cars, leaving them without license plates and with their hoods propped up, in two different neighborhoods (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The first car was abandoned in a seemingly safe neighborhood in Palo Alto, California, where Stanford University is located. The second car was left in the South Bronx in New York City, then one of the most dangerous urban ghettoes in the country Unsurprisingly, the abandoned car in Palo Alto remained untouched, whereas the car deposited in the South Bronx lost its hubcaps, battery, and any other usable parts almost immediately. However, it was the next stage in the experi ment that offers valuable insight into how social context affects social deviance. Zimbardo went back to the untouched car in Palo Alto and smashed it with a sledgehammer. He and his graduate students shattered the windshield put some dents in the car’s sides, and again fled the scene. What do you think happened to the smashed and dented car in the “safe,” rich neighborhood? Passersby began stopping their cars and getting out to further smash the wreck or tag it with graffiti. The social cues, or social context, influenced the way people, even in a rich neighborhood, treated the car. 

In the South Bronx, the overall social context-involving many broken windows, graffiti, and diaperated buildings-encouraged deviant acts at the outset because the neighborhood setting of decay and disorder signaled to residents that an abaridioned car was fair game for abuse. In Palo Alfo, where neighborhood conditions were clean and orderly, people were unlikely to vandalize an abandoned car. However, when the vehicle was already mangled, that cue of turmoil signaled to people that it was okay to engage in the otherwise deviant act of vandalism. The broken windows theory of deviance explains how social context and social cues impact the way individuals act; specifically, whether local, informal social 

破窗理论是一种偏差理论，解释了社会背景和社会线索如何影响个体是否表现出偏差行为：具体来说，地方性、非正式的社会规范是否允许偏差行为。

人们在南布朗克斯检查一辆废弃的汽车。菲利普·津巴多将这辆车放在纽约市，并在加利福尼亚州帕洛阿尔托的斯坦福大学附近留下了另一辆。这辆靠近斯坦福的车几天没有人碰触，但如图所示的这辆车却……
norms allow such acts. When signals seem to tell us that it’s okay to do the otherwise unthinkable, sometimes we do. The broken windows theory of deviance has inspired some politicians to institute policies that target the catalysts for inappropriate behavior (vandalism, burglary, and so forth). In fact, one of Zimbardo’s graduate students who participated in the car experiment, George Kelling, later worked as a consultant for the New York City Transit Authority in 1984, devising a plan to crack down on graffiti. The underlying assumption of the plan was that the continued presence of graffiti-covered cars served as a green light for more graffiti and perhaps even violent crimes. The Transit Authority then launched a massive campaign to clean up graffiti, car by car, to erase the signs of urban disorder, in the hope of reducing subway crime. In the mid-1990s New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also initiated a campaign of “zero tolerance” for petty crimes such as turnstile jumping, public urination, the drinking of alcohol in public, and graffiti. Today, the city’s newer subway cars are “graffiti-proof,” meaning that spray paint doesn’t adhere to the metal exterior of the cars. Indeed, both petty and serious crimes have dropped dramatically in New York City since the 1990s (Kelling & Sousa, 2001), although some criminologists dispute the causal impact of the Giuliani strategy. 

As noted above, crime is a more formal sort of deviance, not only subject to social sanction but also punishable by law. Sometimes an act falls clearly at one end of the spectrum or the other. Situations of self-defense aside, killing a person is generally agreed to be criminal; nose picking, however unpalatable, isn’t. In other cases, though, the distinction is not so clear. Whereas you might get strange looks for wearing aluminum-foil hot pants to class, if you show up with no clothes on at all, you will likely be sent to a mental health care provider for assessment, or arrested and thrown in jail for indecent exposure. But what if your hot pants weren’t foil at all but just silver paint? Would this be indecent exposure? 

街头犯罪通常指在公共场所发生的犯罪。然而，这个术语通常会引发特定的形象，即在城市环境中实施的暴力犯罪。无论是历史上还是今天，街头犯罪常常与帮派相关联，并且目前与弱势少数群体和贫困有关。
why people are drawn to a career of street crime has long been a favorite quesrion of social scientists and is still a matter of heated debate. Explanations for the fluctuations and trends in violent crime rates also vary widely. One theory, for example, posits that street crime rises and falls in relation to the availability of opportunity within the legitimate economy. When this is lacking, people rurn elsewhere. Expanding on Merton’s strain theory and the idea of anomie, sociologists Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) developed differential opportunity theory, which states that in addition to the legitimate economic structure, an illegitimate opportunity structure also exists that is unequally distributed across social classes. Hence, crime should rise or fall according to the relative returns on opportunities in the legitimate and illegitimate economies. One way, then, to reduce crime would be to raise the costs of working in the illegitimate economy, thereby lowering the net returns. Such a strategy lies behind tougher sentencing policies, such as “three strikes” laws (if you are convied of three felony crimes, you are imprisoned for life), which aim simultaneously to deter criminals and to incarcerate habitual offenders. The focus of such policies tends to be violent crime; lately, however, such laws have been extended to nonviolent crimes, such as drug dealing. Another strategy would be to increase the returns to entry-level opportunities in the legitimate economy; raising the minimum wage is one way to do this. Either strategy-decreasing the returns to the illegitimate economy or increasing the returns to the legitimate economy-shortens the distance, or differential, between the two economies. 

Many people attribute the decrease in crime rates to the adoption of a community policing ideology, in which police officers are viewed (and view themselves) as members of the community they serve, and not to the punitive nature of prison life. Rather than enforce laws from the outside in, as community members walking the streets, police can work to develop reliable relationships and bonds of trust with community residents. On a practical level, this means that greater police presence is felt in areas where community policing is in effect. (However, convincing evidence on this causal claim is still lacking; that said, community policing probably doesn’t make crime rates any worse.) 

Bernard L. Majoff rose through the social ranks of wealth on Long Island, then Manhattan, then London, and eventually became the chairman of the NASDAQ exchange, which was based on technology his privately held firm had developed. In 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison-a life sentence for the then-71-year-old. His crime was taking money from investors and fabricating great rates of return to pump up his reputation and keep money coming in when, in fact, his funds were losing money. Returns to investors were paid not from any actual gains their initial investments were accruing, but from the new money coming in the door. Madoff lived an opulent lifestyle, 

White-collar crime offense committed by a professional (or professionals) against a corporation, agency, or other institution. 

Corporate crime a particula type of white-collar crime committed by the officers (CEOs and other executives) of a corporation. 
employing well-connected friends and family to keep a steady stream of new investments coming ine Ders’ demands to cash out. An investigation by the Ferd. not keep un of Investigation ( FBI ) led to his arrest. Madoff estimated that he had lost $\mathrm{\$}50$$\mathrm{\$}50$$50\$ 50 billion, making his the largest fraud in American history 

Infractions such as fraud are called white-collar crime, a term coined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939. (heir) capacity in the professional worl (or professionals) in his or her (or er professional entity. According to the FB 
allar crimes are categorized by deceit, concealment, or violation of 
[w] hite-colar and are not dependent on the application or threat of physical force or violence. Such acts are committed by individuals and organizations to obtain money, property, or services, to avoid the payment or loss of money or ser. vices, or to secure a personal or business advantage. (2003) 

Although street crime is the most prevalent type of crime, looking strictly at the numbers, white-collar crime has greater financial impact. The FBI’s prosecution of white collar criminals resulted in billions of dollars in restitution (repayment) and hundreds of millions in fines in 2011-and those totals reflect only successful prosecutions. In contrast, the FBI has estimated that in 2013 the total loss from robbery, burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft combined was $\mathrm{\$}16.6$$\mathrm{\$}16.6$$16.6\$ 16.6 billion (FBI, 2014a; FBI, 2014b). 

A particular type of white-collar crime is corporate crime, offenses committed by the officers (CEOs and other executives) of a corporation. In the late spring of 2012, J. P. Morgan trader Bruno Iksil (also known as the London Whale) placed a giant risky trade and ended up losing $\mathrm{\$}6.2$$\mathrm{\$}6.2$$6.2\$ 6.2 billion for the bank. Losing billions on a trade is deviant but not illegal. Iksil was fired, but avoided arrest U.S. federal prosecutors have indicted his boss and his assistant for conspiring to cover up the losses by filing false reports. Penalties for their crimes includea $\mathrm{\$}920$$\mathrm{\$}920$$920\$ 920 million fine for J. P. Morgan, but no individuals did time (Stewart, 2015). 

Although it may seem, after a glance at the gruesome headlines in todays newspapers, that crime is getting worse, the truth is that deviance has always been present. Kai Erikson, in Wayward Puritans, demonstrates how even Amer ica’s seemingly most upstanding and God-fearing community, the Puritans, produced some bad apples-drunkards, adulterers, and thieves (1966/2005). Erikson’s point, however, was that while what is defined as deviant mas change over time, deviance is forever with us. For example, Erikson found “crimes against the Church,” particularly by Quakers in the late 1650 s, to 
be of central concern to the Puritan community. Religious or moral offenses, such as drunkenness and adultery, were of primary concern over economic or political ones-at least those were the crimes taken most seriously and probably reported most frequently during the Puritan era. Erikson’s central thesis is that a relatively stable amount of deviance may be expected in a given community, but what counts as deviance evolves depending on the type of society or historical period we examine. Think back to our early definition of social deviance; it is, after all, a social construct and subject to change over time and across cultural values. 

If the definitions of deviance and crime are always changing, how can we discern if the crime rate is going up or down? In 1960, the total crime rate was around 160.9 per 100,000 people. By 1992 , that number had soared to a little over 757 , but it has now fallen back to around 368 . Figure 6.2 shows the violent crime rate in the United States from 1960 to 2014. 

How can so much change occur in the crime rate in so little time? Is the situation really rapidly degenerating into complete chaos? Probably not. To make a statement about the crime rate going up or down, we have to know what is factored into the crime rate. For instance, the definition of assault may change to include more minor offenses. Recently, one local government proposed including brawls at sporting events in the assault category. And if the classifications of violent crimes are changing, it’s difficult to compare the crime rate over time. It is also possible that levels of crime reporting by victims fluctuate. In times of economic recession, people might be less likely to report 

crime because they feel helpless, depressed, or apathetic. Alternatively, a presidential address on fighting terrorism or injustice might make us more diligent in defending the social order. 

The point is that the crime rate changes in response to fluctuations in how society classifies and reacts to deviance. In fact, reporting bias may work in the opposite direction from the actual crime rate. Imagine a neighborhood whete crime is common. People might be reluctant to report being pickpocketed on the subway when they have just read about three murders the same day. Con. versely, in a situation where crime rates are perceived to be low, such as at the opera house, you might be more likely to report a missing wallet. In this way, the reporting of petty crimes may vary inversely to the rate of serious crimes, For these reasons, criminologists (experts trained in studying crime) usually reject the overall crime rate as a reliable indicator of trends in crime. Instead, criminologists use the murder rate to make statements about the overall health of society. Why do they use these statistics instead of violent crime rates? For one thing, it’s difficult to fake a murder-either there is a body or there inn’t. The murder rate is the best indicator we have of crime in general (Figure 6.3), but even it is not immune to broader changes in society. 

例如，如果你今天在美国被枪击，你生存下来的机会比 1960 年要大得多。可能有更多的人带着枪伤到达医院，但由于医疗技术的进步，死于手术台上的受害者却少得多。更高的生存率使我们对谋杀率的解读变得复杂（Harris et al., 2002）。谋杀未遂的数量是否有所下降，还是医生的救治能力更强了？

ureat bullet wounds? It’s difficult to say definitively. We can use the murder rate ${}_{\text{as}}$${}_{\text{as }}$_("as "){ }_{\text {as }} a gauge to gain a general sense of crime fluctuations, but precise statistics are practically impossible. 

Thus far, we have studied some of the functions and social origins of criminal beharior, as well as the prevalent methods of measuring crime. So how do crime fighters fight crime? 

Deterrence theory phulosophy of criminal justice arising trom the notion that crime results from a rational calculation of its costs and benefits. 

Recidivism when an individu who has been involved with the criminal justice system reverts to criminal behavio. 

codes have made it more likely that offend ers will commit technical violations against their parole terms. Because the system $h_{\text{St}}$$h_{\text{St }}$h_("St ")h_{\text {St }} increased its surveillance of former prison. ers, requiring time-consuming meetings with parole officers, the system creates better odds for technical slipups and for catching and punishing them. This is suggested by studies showing that mates of new criminal offense (as opposed to technical violations) for parol. ees tend to resemble those of people with comparable sociodemographic characteristic who have never been incarcerated. In addi tion, the prison experience might not have th intended rehabilitative effect. Could prisons make it more difficult for offenders to return to the “straight and narrow”? 

Let’s first think back to Durkheim and his theory of anomie, which affirms that when our normal lives are disrupted and we can no longer rely on things being relatively stable, we are more likely to commit suicide or engage in other deviant acts. Going to prison for 10 or 15 years might have just this effect; it would be very difficult to “find stable employment, secure suitable housing, or reconcile with… family” afterward. Also, reintegration into a community after release from prison is extremely difficult because of “the absence of . . . informal social controls and strong social bonds” (Spohn & Holleran, 2002). Furthermore, while in prison, drug offenders rarely receive the kind of substance abuse treatment that addicts need. They are thus more likely to revert to drug use upon release. Therefore, imprisonment may be particularly counterproductive for drug offenders, and getting tough on crime may inadvertently breed criminals. In addition, as low-level offenders interact daily with serious criminals in prison, they may become socialized by these new peers, adopting their attitudes and behaviors. 

Ex-convict turned prison re-entry social worker (and later lawyer) Marc Ramirez has an insider perspective on the system, arguing that the violent, punitive culture of incarceration is counterproductive to rehabilitating, productively socializing, and preparing prisoners to give back to society. 

We’re paying top dollar to incarcerate people when there are cheaper alternatives. There’s been study after study that prison spending effects education spending. We have taken PELL grants and education programs out of prison. Family, having a family base [is critically important for successful re-entry], but then these people in prisons are so far away from their families, that they lose dies. We make visiting so difficult for families, you know, it’s hard to maintain the family. The cost of making a phone call from a lot of prisons is prohibitive. (Conley, 2014d) 

Ramirez is angry that the options facing newly released prisoners are suffocatingly limited. He remembers seeing prisoners “terrified to leave prison because they have not prepared, they have no support system. They don’t know what they’re going to do . . . there were so many people who would come back. And my thing was always like wow, so many of you guys have had breaks your way and I can’t get a break. You gotta do better. You gotta want better. But ou’re not really given the tools to do better . . . the system is kind of designed of fail.” Ramirez’s story suggests that providing more housing, employment, and counseling to former convicts as they re-enter society may help reduce the number of former prisoners who commit more crime upon release. 
Sociologists and geographers have also examined the impact of incarceraon the communities prison inmates call home (Fagan et al., 2003; Williams, 2005). In New York City the incarcerated population is disproportionately drawn from a small handful of neighborhoods, a pattern that is sustained even as crime rates have dropped dramatically. While they are in prison, inmates canot make positive contributions to the community in terms of providing steady incomes, starting families, or building up social networks that lead to employment in legitimate industries. At the community level, high rates of incarceraion among community members create conditions for continued poverty, as those left behind must support families on fewer salaries both during and after ncarceration. From Pager’s research earlier in this chapter, we know that former felons have a difficult time finding employment. Blocked access to legitimate employment creates conditions for sustained poverty. At the same time, historical crime rates are used to determine current police involvement, which means that once-crime-ridden neighborhoods will continue to receive disproportionate formal surveillance and a higher likelihood that their residents will be arrested. 

The high rates of recidivism in the United States bring us back to labeling theory, which suggests that the process of becoming a deviant often involves contact with, even absorption into, a special institution such as a prison or mental health institution. Ard as labeling theorists have shown, our interaction with others very significarstly impacts the formation of our personal identity. Erving Goffman, writing in the symbolic interactionist tradition, theorized about how institutions such as prisons and mental health hospitals often become breeding grounds for secondary deviance, providing an important link in the reproduction of deviance through their effects on inmates and patients (Goffman, 1961). 

Presumably, most of us sleep, play, and work in different places, with different people and rules structuring our interactions at each location. For example, you probably spend the evening in your home or dorm, relatively undisturbed, and leave in the morning for class, where you are expected to dress appropriately and respect your professors. Total institutions are distinguished 

Total institution an institution in which one is totally immersed and that controls all the basics of day-to-day life; no barriers exist between the usual spheres of daily life, and all activity occurs in the same place and under the same single authority. 

Inmates in an Arizona jail. The local sheriff requires all of the county’s inmates to work seven days a week. They are fed only twice a day, are denied recreation, and receive no cottee, cigarettes, salt, pepper, or ketchup. 
by “a breakdown of the barriers separating” these “three spheres of life” (sleep, work, play). In total institutions, “all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority” (Goffman, 1961). In total institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals, life is highly regimented, and the inmates take part in all scheduled activities together. The inmates have no control over the form or flow of activities, which are chosen by the institutional authorities to “fulfill the official aims of the institution.” Thus, if the official aim of prisons is rehabilitation, prisoners might be required to attend at least one self-improvement class a day or engage in some sort of productive labor. All of these activities occur in the same place with the same group of people every day. 

In Chapter 4 we examined the various theories of socialization and the development of the self through our interactions with other social actors. All your life you have been slowly accumulating knowledge about who you are in the world. Once you enter a total institution such as a prison, a process that stips away your sense of self begins. As Goffman puts it, “a series of abasements, degradations, humiliations, and profanations” quickly commences. Once people ecter a prison or a mental institution, they are closed off from their normal routines and cease to fulfill their usual social roles. Because the roles people play are indportant to the way they perceive themselves, this separation from the world eroles that sense of identity. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, what first occurred when the “inmates” arrived at the “prison” in the basement of the psychology department? They were issued uniforms and given numbers in place of names. The mandated homogeneity of prisoners (and patients) results in an erasure of self. The total 
instinution simultaneously strips away clothes, personal belongings, nicknames, hairstyles, The inmates no longer have control ore that people use to identify themdilly activities, or personal possessions. It’s not ${10}^{\text{a}}$${10}^{\text{a }}$10^("a ")10^{\text {a }} sense of helplessness. The total institution rapidly dee his process leads of self-determination, self-control, and freedom. 

The authorities in these total institutions are given the unenviable duty of “showing the prisoners who’s boss” and expediting the process of prisoner degradation to ensure “co-operativeness” (Goffman, 1961). Wardens must “socialize” inmates into compliance through informal "obedience test $[\mathrm{s}]$$[\mathrm{s}]$[s][\mathrm{s}] " or "will-breaking contest $[s]$$[s]$[s][s] " until the inmate “who shows defiance receives immediate visible punishment, which increases until he openly ‘cries uncle’ and humbles himself.” When Zimbardo locked a group of seemingly normal college kids into the basement of a Stanford building (discussed in the box on pages $210-211$$210-211$210-211210-211 ), he found that not only were the inmates affected but the guards also felt impelled to use increasingly violent and inhumane means to solidify their authority and keep the prisoners in check. We can see these patterns in everyday life, too. When given the responsibility of watching younger siblings, have you ever secretly (or not so secretly) delighted in bossing them around? Because the roles we play are important to how we think about ourselves, it is hardly possible for the self-images of both guards and prisoners to remain unaffected by the prison environment. 

On March 2, 1757, Damiens the regicide was condemned “to make the amende honorable [a kind of ritual abasement] before the main door of the Church of Paris,” where he was to be “taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds”; then, “in the said cart, to the Place de Greve, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs, and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulfur, and, on those places where the flesh will be cotn away, poured molten lead, burning oil, burning resin, wax and sulfur meted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds.” (Foucault, 1977, p. 1) 

Besides possibly turning your stomach, the above passage vividly illustrates the dramatic shift in penal practices from the eighteenth century to the present day. How do we conceive of punishment nowadays? We usually think of prisons, juvenile detention centers, and probation. In Discipline and Punish (1977), the French theorist Michel Foucault examines the emergence of the modern penal 

system and how this system represents a transformation in social control. How did the modern prison system emerge? And what functions does it serve in the disciplining of modern life? 

When Robert François Damiens was publicly tortured and then eventually drawn and quartered for trying to kill King Louis XV, the target of punishment was Damiens’s body. The entire public spectacle revolved around Damiens suffering for his wrongdoing, culminating in his death. Damiens was even put to death holding the same knife he used to attack the king. According to Foucault, this gruesome “violence against the body” (1977) exemplifies a premodern form of punishment, which is concentrated on the body and associated with the crime committed. So, for example, if you kill someone, you are publicly executed. If you steal something, perhaps your fingers or hand will be cut off. This “eye for an eye” mentality is similar to that represented by Durkheim’s mechanical social sanctions. 

We might like to believe that modern punishment came about because prison reformers lobbied for more humane penal tactics that aimed to reform the criminal through rehabilitation. We no longer (with the exception of the death penalty) publicly violate the criminal’s flesh by, for example, pouring molten lead on his excoriated body. Punishment takes place in private, away from the public eye, and it leaves the criminal’s body intact. (Although much violence, including rape, does occur inside prison walls, the state does not formally sanction it and is supposed to protect prisoners from such attacks.) Foucault claims that modern punishment has as its target what he calls “the soul” of 
the prisoner. The soul, for Foucault, is the sum of an individual’s unique habits and peculiarities: what makes me me and you you. Such a penal system tries to understand the individual and his or her abnormalities to correct or reform bad habits. (Again, this is a highly stylized view of the history of criminal justice, given that in the United States, some jurisdictions still impose the death penalty and our government has even tortured political detainees. At the very least, we have witnessed an incomplete Foucaultian transformation.) 
By “reforming the soul,” Foucault means the use of experts such as social workers, psychologists, and criminologists to analyze and correct individual behavior. How does a prisoner become eligible for parole? The Nev York State Parole Handbook (New York State Division of Parole, 2007) indicates that “parole 'readiness”’ depends on the inmate’s “good prison behavior,” involvement in “prison programming” for education and skills acquisition, and substance abuse counseling, all to “make important strides in self-improvement.” After a criminal leaves prison on parole, the newly released prisoner is assigned a field parole officer who is in charge of monitoring the whereabouts of the parolee and guiding his or her reentry into community life. The handbook also indicates that a parole officer must help parolees “develop positive attitudes and behavior” and “encourage participation in programs for self-improvement.” Parolees are, in principle, scrupulously supervised by parole officers and sometimes subject to unscheduled visits at work or home. This is all part of what Foucault would consider the modern face of penal practices. 

How did the transformation in penal practice, from punishment targeted at the body to reform of the soul, take place? Foucault believes that this transformation is linked to changes in how social control operates more generally, which in turn leads to innovations in penal practices. Foucault uses the following example to illustrate the way modern punishment is organized and its implications for modern social control: 

The prisoners’ day will begin at six in the morning in winter and at five in the summer. They will work for nine hours a day throughout the year. Two hours a day will be devoted to instruction. Work and the day will end at nine o’clock in winter and at eight in summer. . . At the first drum-roll, the prisoners must rise ard dress in silence, as the supervisor opens the cell doors. At the second dram-oll, they must be dressed and make their beds. (Foucault, 1977, p. 6) 

Foucault’s example, extracted from a contemporary prisoners’ timetable in France, contrasts strikingly with the way poor Damiens was punished several centuries earlier. Foucault’s point, however, is that this sort of regimentation happens in not only prisons but also society at large. Penal practices are indicative of how social control is exercised outside prison walls. Disciplinary techniques are modes of monitoring, examining, and regimenting individuals that are diffused throughout society. Foucault gives many examples of where 

The Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois was built along the principles of Bentham’s panopticon, a model for a prison in which inmates would always be visible. 
and how this discipline takes place both in and of prisons-in the military, in schools, in medical institutions, and so forth. For example, when you first entered school, perhaps even when you entered college, you were probably required to take a series of standardized tests. You were also required to visit your pediatrician for shots and a checkup in which he or she meticulously documented your growth and health. Once in school, you were made to sit in straight, orderly rows (so the teacher could see all students at all times) and then were issued a report card every term. If you were chronically disruptive or inati tentive in class, you might have been sent for specia testing by experts to determine if you had a learning or behavioral disorder. These are all examples of how you have been subjected to various modes of disci pline that monitor, examine, and regiment individuals 

Foucault articulated the diffusion of disciplinary techniques in society through the concept of panopticism. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, devised the panopticon as an architectural design for a prison. The panopticon is a circular building composed of an inner ring and an outer ting. Prisoners’ cells are located in the peripheral outer ring, and large 

Panopticon a circular building composed of an inner ring and an outer ring designed to serve as a prison in which the guards, housed in the inner ring, can observe the prisoners without the detainees knowing whether they are being watched. 
windows compose the front and back of each cell, allowing ample natural light to flood the rooms. The inner ring is a guards’ tower, which also has large windows that open onto the windows of prisoners’ cells. As Foucault notes, the cells “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility,” The guards can always see the prisoners, regardless of where they are in their cells, but the prisoners do not know when they are being watched (although the visibility of the central tower serves as a reminder that they are always under scrutiny). Foucault asserts that the “power” of the guards is both “visible and unverifiable” (1977). 

Foucault uses the panopticon as a metaphor for the general functioning of disciplinary techniques in society. Therefore, when the modern prison system emerged, based on monitoring, examining, and regimenting individual prisoners, there was a “gradual extension of the mechanisms of discipline,” and they “spread throughout the whole social body,” which ted to “the formation of what might be called in general the disciplinary socies.” Remember all the steps you had to go through to gain entrance to kindergarten? The tests and checkups? And then the report cards, the parent-teacher conferences, the tidy rows of desks? These are the sorts of panoptic (literally, “all-seeing”) disciplin ary techniques diffused throughout the social body. In Foucault’s words, “our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” 

At various points in history, the U.S. criminal justice system has fluctuated between two approaches to handling criminals: rehabilitation and punishment. Since the 1890s, argues Frank Allen, the rehabilitative ideal has lost most of its significance and appeal because of shifting cultural values among Americans. Despite what Durkheim predicted, the concept of punishment ("lock ‘em up and hrow away the key’) has largely replaced rehabilitation, winning political and popular favor and influencing criminal justice policy (Allen, 1981). 
Today we have the highest rates of incarceration than ever before in American history. At the start of 2002 , approximately 5.6 million adults at some point had served time in state or federal prison. That’s about 2.7 percent of American aduits, up from 1.3 percent in 1974, a difference of 3.8 million people (Bonczar, 2003). From 2011 through 2013, slightly more people left incarceration than were locked up, but 1 in 35 Americans is still under correctional supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014b; see Figure 6.4). What accounts for the increase? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about two-thirds the system has expared as a result of first-incarceration rates, meaning that War on Drugs. 

Not all Americans have been affected equally by the tougher laws, however. Among black men, 16.6 percent were current or former prisoners in 2002, 

图 6.4：监狱人口规模，1980-2013
Prison population 

compared with 7.7 percent of Hispanic men and 2.6 percent of white men Among women, a similar pattern holds, although far fewer women are incys. cerated ( 1.7 percent of black women, 0.7 percent of 0.3 percent of white women). The lifetime chances of impriso ment for men and women combined are 3.4 percent for whites, 10 perce, for Hispanics, and 11.3 percent for blacks. If current incarceration rates don’t change, a whopping 32 percent of black males are estimated to serve time in then manic men and 5.9 perduring their lifetime, compared with 17 percent of Hers are strikingly high for percent of white men. These numbers of prison in ther 20 industrialized democracy, and the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to use capital punishment (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). 

Similar to imprisonment rates, justice on death row is not color-blind (see Figure 6.5). In 1998 a study of Philadelphia death penalty cases revealed ample evidence of some form of racial discrimination: Either the race of the defendant or the race of the victim came to bear on the outcome of the case (Baldus et al., 1998). First, the race of the murdet victim matters. For example, in a study of the North Carolina justice system, researchers found that the odds of a murderer receiving a death sentence rose 3.5 times if the victim was white, holding constant other relevant factors (Unah & Boger, 2001). Second 

图 6.5：1976-2015 年执行人数和被执行者种族分布

SOURCE: Death Penalty Information Center, 2016 
and more obviously, the race of the accused matters, Contrary to popular belief about black-on-white violence, interracial murders are fairly mare As of September 2013, out of 1,347 execurions carried out in the United States since 1976 (when the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty), 273 involved cases of black-on-white homicide, but only 31 involved executions arising from cases of white-on-black murder. One hypothesis would assert that these statisrics could result from African Americans committing disproportionately more crime than whites while receiving, on average, appropriate penalties for their criminal behaviors. To make this sort of claim, we would need to have faith in the criminal justice system as a sound entity that generally delivers fair and accurate punishment. However, more than enough data to the contrary exist. Berween 1973 and 2014, 150 people were exonerated from death row. Of these, 78 were black, 58 white, and 12 Latino. In 2014 alone, seven persons were released from death sentences, after an average of 30 years behind bars, their careers and families having been permanently altered (Death Penalty nformation Center, 2015). Some of these exonerations resulted from new DNA evidence. In a sense, the new technology bas shed light on the flaws in the system, raising the question: “How many cases were wrongly judged before the deployment of DNA testing?” This evidence of injustice has led to the abolition of the death penalty in Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Maryland, and Nebraska since 2007. 

With prison ove rowding resulting from our extremely high incarceration rate (see page 228) sne of the questions running through criminal justice research is the proper suie of time behind bars. Does going to prison give inmates access to services and treatment that makes them better equipped to be productive members of society, thereby reducing the number of crimes they might commit in the future? Is it plausible to think that individuals who are incarcerated may spend their time kicking drug habits, gaining religion, avoiding negative influences in their community, obtaining an education, and emerge less likely to commit crime when they are released? 

Or perhaps the very thought of serving hard time works to deter crime? If so, we might expect the strongest deterrent effect to be among those who have already dealt with the harsh realities of prison life. After all, who would wan to go back to jail after being released and tasting the freedom that most of us 

Inmates at San Quentin State Prison in an adult education? money to fund educational opportunities for inmates? 
take for granted? This is the principle behind “scared straight” programs for youth who are teetering on the path of righteousness. By showing teenagers in trouble what prison is “really” like, such interventions hope to take any glamorous shine off a life of crime. 

At first blush it would seem that prison does indeed breed crime. After all, one of the best predictors of future arrest is past incarceration. However, it could obviously be the case that those criminals sent up the river so to speak are the ones most beyond hope of teform. That is, they would have committed more crimes regardless of whether they went to prison, received probation, or were let off completely. We could, of course, look at ofenders who commit the same crime, comparing those who go to prison a., hose who don’t, to see how they fare afterward. But the problem is that the eryay be subtle differences in the two groups that judges knew about but whard we cannot hope to adequately measure from administrative records. 

这个问题的解决方案来自于一些州和地方随机将法官分配到案件中。和其他人一样，法官也是有某些倾向的人。具体来说，一些法官在判刑时更为严厉。
than others. So it’s like assigning convicts to a randomized medical treatment: Some get the “treatment” (the harsh judge who sends them to prison) and some get the “placebo” (the more lenient judge who gives them probation). By examining variability in outcomes among convicted criminals based on the type of judge they were assigned (not on their own characteristics), we can idenify the effects of incarceration-and, by extension, the effects of the massive investment we’ve made in the prison system. 

As it turns out, for adults, it doesn’t make much difference to their probability of committing a future crime (and getting caught) whether or not they go to prison. (This lack of a difference suggests that taxpayers could get roughly the same crime rate but save a bunch of money on prison overhead by sentencing most criminals to house arrest. Of course, for this to work we have to assume that the deterrent effect against first-time offenses is minimal as well.) 

For youth, the story is even starker: Across the United States, more than 130,000 juveniles are detained each year, and on any given day 70,000 minors are in formal detention. But as it turns out, locking these kids up makes them less likely to complete high school and more likely to commit crimes as adults (as evidenced from the random assignment to judges). In other words, far from being “scared straight,” kids sent to detention are simply prepped for criminal life. Of course, this means that not only is locking kids up expensive, it generates future costs in the form of more crime to deal with when they grow up. 

Training a sociological lens on deviance requires a careful and slow review of not only the immediate causes and effects of deviance but also the broader social forces that undergird and define it. Sometimes, doing so takes us to paradoxical places, such as Émile Durkheim’s finding that some degree of crime is healthy for a society, insofar as crime unites the social body by allowing us all to rally against a common enemy. Sometimes, doing so reveals the unintended consequences of labels such as “deviant.” And quite often, sociologists study tragedies in order to seek the social answers to violence and death. Sociology does not hope to provide comprehensive accounts of criminal acts or injustice, but it does seek to dig deeper for concrete answers in our social world. 

Formal and informal social sanctions allow people to coexist with strangers in crowded public spaces. When do people break these sanctions, and how do others enforce sanctions? Watch the Sociology on the Street video to find out more: digital.wwnorton.com/youmayask5core. 

IT IS THE DEVIANTS AMONG US WHO HOLD SOCIETY TOGETHER. 
$\to$$\to$rarr\rightarrow