Moral entrepreneur

Last updated

A moral entrepreneur is an individual, group, or formal organization that seeks to influence a group to adopt or maintain a norm; altering the boundaries of altruism, deviance, duty, or compassion. [1]

Contents

Moral entrepreneurs take the lead in labeling a particular behaviour and spreading or popularizing this label throughout society. This can include attributing negative labels to behaviour, the removal of negative labels, positive labeling, and the removal of positive labels. The moral entrepreneur may press for the creation or enforcement of a norm for any number of reasons, altruistic or selfish. Such individuals or groups also hold the power to generate moral panic; similarly, multiple moral entrepreneurs may have conflicting goals and work to counteract each other. Some examples of moral entrepreneurs include: MADD (mothers against drunk driving), the anti-tobacco lobby, the gun-control lobby, anti-pornography groups, Black Lives Matter and LGBT social movements [ citation needed ]. Pro-life and pro-choice movements are an example of two moral entrepreneurs working against each other on a single issue.

Rule creator and rule enforcer

The term moral entrepreneur was coined by sociologist Howard S. Becker in Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963) in order to help explore the relationship between law and morality, as well as to explain how deviant social categories become defined and entrenched. [1] In Becker's view, moral entrepreneurs fall into roughly two categories: rule creators, and rule enforcers. [2]

Rule creators generally express the conviction that some kind of threatening social evil exists that must be combated. "The prototype of the rule creator," Becker explains, is the "crusading reformer:" [1]

He is interested in the content of rules. The existing rules do not satisfy him because there is some evil which profoundly disturbs him. He feels that nothing can be right in the world until rules are made to correct it. He operates with an absolute ethic; what he sees is truly and totally evil with no qualification. Any means is justified to do away with it. The crusader is fervent and righteous, often self-righteous. [2] : 147–8 

These moral crusaders are primarily focused on successful persuasion of others, with less concern about the means by which this persuasion is achieved. Successful moral crusades are generally dominated by those in the upper social strata of society. [2] They often include religious groups, lawmaking bodies, and stakeholders in a given field. There is political competition in which these moral crusaders originate crusades aimed at generating reform, based on what they think is moral, therefore defining deviance. Moral crusaders must have power, public support, generate public awareness of the issue, and be able to propose a clear and acceptable solution to the problem. [2] The degree of a moral entrepreneur's power is highly dependent upon the social and cultural context. [3] Social position determines one's ability to define and construct reality; therefore, the higher one's social position, the greater his or her moral value.

After a time, crusaders become dependent upon experts or professionals, who serve to legitimize a moral creed on technical or scientific grounds. Rule enforcers, such as policemen, are compelled by two drives: the need to justify their own role, and the need to win respect in interactions. They are in a bind; if they show too much effectiveness one might say they are not needed, and if they show too little effectiveness one might say they are failing. Rule enforcers just feel the need to enforce the rule because that is their job; they are not really concerned with the content of the rule. As rules are changed, something that was once acceptable may now be punished and vice versa. Such officials tend to take a pessimistic view of human nature because of their constant exposure to willful deviance. [ citation needed ]

The sociology of social control seeks to predict and explain the behavior of both rule creators and rule enforcers. The creation and application of explicit rules are seen as characteristics of moralism, or the tendency to treat people as enemies. Among the social conditions that are identified as sources of moralism are status superiority and social remoteness between the agents of social control and the people whose behavior they regulate. Thus, the most likely targets of both rule creators and rule enforcers are those who are socially inferior, culturally different, and personally unknown. [4] It is their behavior that is most likely to seem objectionable and to call forth the strenuous efforts of moral entrepreneurs. Once moral entrepreneurs or claimsmakers define the behaviors of these individuals or groups as deviant or a moral threat, then the entire group may be seen by society as a deviant subculture. Similarly, they or their behavior may be seen as the roots of the next moral panic. This is often the goal of the moral entrepreneurs; to rally the support of society behind their specific aims through the redefining of behaviors and groups as deviant or problematic. Alternately, those individuals with social power, wealth, high status, or large public support bases are the most likely to assert this power and to act as a moral entrepreneur. [5]

Social problems

Social problems are born largely from the socially-constructed campaigns led by moral entrepreneurs. In the symbolic interactionist approach to social problems (including labeling theory), social policy is not seen as the implementation of a shared consensus about what is best. Rather, the society is viewed as consisting of a plurality of understandings of what is best. In order for social policy to arise, some individual or group has to initiate a social movement whose task is to articulate a definition of a social problem such that a desired social policy is consistent with this definition of the problem. These individuals or groups are referred to as moral entrepreneurs.

According to Richard Posner—who was also influential to the concept of moral entrepreneurship, after Howard Becker—moral entrepreneurs are people with "the power to change our moral intuitions." [6] They do not use rational argument, and according to Posner:

Rather, they mix appeals to self-interest with emotional appeals that bypass our rational calculating faculty and stir inarticulable feelings of oneness with or separateness from the people (or it could be land, or animals) that are to constitute, or be ejected from, the community that the moral entrepreneur is trying to create. They teach us to love or hate whom they love or hate. [7] : 42 

Moral entrepreneurs are critical for moral emergence (and moral panic) because they call attention to or even 'create' issues by using language that names, interprets, and dramatizes them. [8] Typifying is a prominent rhetorical tool employed by moral entrepreneurs when attempting to define social problems. Typification is when claimsmakers characterize a problem's nature which is most commonly done by suggesting that a problem is best understood from a particular perspective (i.e. medical, moral, criminal, political, etc.) [9] Therefore, moral entrepreneurs often engage in typification by claiming that certain behaviors or groups are acting in morally dangerous ways. Moral entrepreneurs are more successful at defining deviance when they can identify an entire group with a particular behavior and create fear that the behavior represents a danger not only to the group but also to the rest of society. Through typification and the creation of a dangerous class, moral entrepreneurs aim to place the activities of a particular group on the public's agenda and label certain actions as social problems. [10]

Claimsmakers in areas such as the problem of drinking and driving, child abuse, or date rape, play an important role in the creation of the rhetoric that creates and determines what is deviant and what is a considered a problem in society. [11] Through creating and popularizing definitions for terms relevant to the issue (such as "rape," "abuse," and "drunk"), claimsmakers and moral entrepreneurs can not only further their interests, but also sway the social movement and understanding of the issues themselves.

Lawmaking

Moral entrepreneurs are also central in the construction of social deviance, including the development of drug scares. The role of moral entrepreneurs in this instance, for example, is to assign responsibility to drugs for an array of preexisting public problems. [3] Over the course of the past century, drug laws have been passed with the intent of reducing drug problems; even if they have not done this, they have certainly expanded the power of the social control held by moral entrepreneurs. [3] Examples of laws created by moral entrepreneurship include those during prohibition in the United States, San Francisco's anti-opium den ordinance of 1875, and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social norm</span> Informal understanding of acceptable conduct

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social control</span> Concept within the disciplines of the social sciences and within political science

Social control is a concept within the disciplines of the social sciences. One dictionary defines social control in terms of a certain set of rules and standards in society that keep individuals bound to conventional standards as well as to the use of formalized mechanisms. In sociology, Foucault's disciplinary model preceded the social-control model.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moral panic</span> Fear that some evil threatens society

A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society. It is "the process of arousing social concern over an issue", usually perpetuated by moral entrepreneurs and mass media coverage, and exacerbated by politicians and lawmakers. Moral panic can give rise to new laws aimed at controlling the community.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate crime</span> Crimes committed either by a corporation or its representatives

In criminology, corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation, or by individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or other business entity. For the worst corporate crimes, corporations may face judicial dissolution, sometimes called the "corporate death penalty", which is a legal procedure in which a corporation is forced to dissolve or cease to exist.

The deviancy amplification spiral and deviancy amplification are terms used by interactionist sociologists to refer to the way levels of deviance or crime can be increased by the societal reaction to deviance itself.

Role theory is a concept in sociology and in social psychology that considers most of everyday activity to be the acting-out of socially defined categories. Each role is a set of rights, duties, expectations, norms, and behaviors that a person has to face and fulfill. The model is based on the observation that people behave in a predictable way, and that an individual's behavior is context specific, based on social position and other factors. Research conducted on role theory mainly centers around the concepts of consensus, role conflict, role taking, and conformity. The theatre is a metaphor often used to describe role theory.

Abnormality is a behavioral characteristic assigned to those with conditions that are regarded as rare or dysfunctional. Behavior is considered to be abnormal when it is atypical or out of the ordinary, consists of undesirable behavior, and results in impairment in the individual's functioning. Abnormality in behavior, is that in which is considered deviant from specific societal, cultural and ethical expectations. These expectations are broadly dependent on age, gender, traditional and societal categorizations. The definition of abnormal behavior is an often debated issue in abnormal psychology, because of these subjective variables.

Medicalization is the process by which human conditions and problems come to be defined and treated as medical conditions, and thus become the subject of medical study, diagnosis, prevention, or treatment. Medicalization can be driven by new evidence or hypotheses about conditions; by changing social attitudes or economic considerations; or by the development of new medications or treatments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Labeling theory</span> Labeling people changes their behavior

Labeling theory posits that self-identity and the behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent in an act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms. The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. Stigma is defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Howard S. Becker</span> American sociologist (1928–2023)

Howard Saul Becker was an American sociologist who taught at Northwestern University. Becker made contributions to the sociology of deviance, sociology of art, and sociology of music. Becker also wrote extensively on sociological writing styles and methodologies. Becker's 1963 book Outsiders provided the foundations for labeling theory. Becker was often called a symbolic interactionist or social constructionist, although he did not align himself with either method. A graduate of the University of Chicago, Becker was considered part of the second Chicago School of Sociology, which also includes Erving Goffman and Anselm Strauss.

Erich Goode is an American sociologist specializing in the sociology of deviance. He has written a number of books on the field in general, as well as on specific deviant topics. He was a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

From a sociological perspective, deviance is defined as the violation or drift from the accepted social norms.

Primary deviance is the initial stage in defining deviant behavior. Prominent sociologist Edwin Lemert conceptualized primary deviance as engaging in the initial act of deviance. This is very common throughout society, as everyone takes part in basic form violations. Primary deviance does not result in a person internalizing a deviant identity, so one does not alter their self-concept to include this deviant identity. It is not until the act becomes labeled or tagged, that secondary deviation may materialize. According to Lemert, primary deviance is the acts that are carried out by the individual that allows them to carry the deviant label.

A label is an abstract concept in sociology used to group people together based on perceived or held identity. Labels are a mode of identifying social groups. Labels can create a sense of community within groups, but they can also cause harm when used to separate individuals and groups from mainstream society. Individuals may choose a label, or they may be assigned one by others. The act of labeling may affect an individual's behavior and their reactions to the social world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marxist criminology</span> School of criminology

Marxist criminology is one of the schools of criminology. It parallels the work of the structural functionalism school which focuses on what produces stability and continuity in society but, unlike the functionalists, it adopts a predefined political philosophy. As in conflict criminology, it focuses on why things change, identifying the disruptive forces in industrialized societies, and describing how society is divided by power, wealth, prestige, and the perceptions of the world. "The shape and character of the legal system in complex societies can be understood as deriving from the conflicts inherent in the structure of these societies which are stratified economically and politically". It is concerned with the causal relationships between society and crime, i.e. to establish a critical understanding of how the immediate and structural social environment gives rise to crime and criminogenic conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social control theory</span> Criminological theory

In criminology, social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and social learning builds self-control and reduces the inclination to indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial. It derived from functionalist theories of crime and was developed by Ivan Nye (1958), who proposed that there were three types of control:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of terrorism</span> Academic field that seeks to understand terrorism

Sociology of terrorism is a field of sociology that seeks to understand terrorism as a social phenomenon. The field defines terrorism, studies why it occurs and evaluates its impacts on society. The sociology of terrorism draws from the fields of political science, history, economics and psychology. The sociology of terrorism differs from critical terrorism studies, emphasizing the social conditions that enable terrorism. It also studies how individuals as well as states respond to such events.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deviance (sociology)</span> Action or behavior that violates social norms

Deviance or the sociology of deviance explores the actions and/or behaviors that violate social norms across formally enacted rules as well as informal violations of social norms. Although deviance may have a negative connotation, the violation of social norms is not always a negative action; positive deviation exists in some situations. Although a norm is violated, a behavior can still be classified as positive or acceptable.

A social panic is a state where a social or community group reacts negatively and in an extreme or irrational manner to unexpected or unforeseen changes in their expected social status quo. According to Folk Devils and Moral Panics by Stanley Cohen, the definition can be broken down to many different sections. The sections, which were identified by Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda in 1994, include concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility. Concern, which is not to be mistaken with fear, is about the possible or potential threat. Hostility occurs when an outrage occurs toward the people who were a part of the problem and agencies who are accountable. These people are seen as the enemy since their behavior is viewed as a danger to society. Consensus includes a distributed agreement that an actual threat is going to take place. This is where the media and other sources come in to aid in spreading of the panic. Disproportionality compares people's reactions to the actual seriousness of the condition. Volatility is when there is no longer any more panic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminology</span> Study of crime and criminal actions/behavior

Criminology is the interdisciplinary study of crime and deviant behaviour. Criminology is a multidisciplinary field in both the behavioural and social sciences, which draws primarily upon the research of sociologists, political scientists, economists, legal sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, psychiatrists, social workers, biologists, social anthropologists, scholars of law and jurisprudence, as well as the processes that define administration of justice and the criminal justice system.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Pozen, David E. 2008. “We Are All Entrepreneurs Now.” Wake Forest Law Review 43:283–340.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press Glencoe. pp. 147–153.
  3. 1 2 3 Reinarman, Craig. 1994. "The Social Construction of Drug Scares." Pp. 155–65. Moral Entrepreneurs: Campaigning.
  4. ↑ Black, Donald. 1993. "Making Enemies." Pp. 144–57 in The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  5. ↑ Tuggle, Justin and Holmes, Malcolm. 1997. "Blowing Smoke: Status Politics and the Smoking Ban."
  6. ↑ Pozen, David E. 2008. “We Are All Entrepreneurs Now.” Wake Forest Law Review 43:283–340.
  7. ↑ Posner, Richard. 1997. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory.
  8. ↑ Finnemore and Sikkink. 1998. "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change." International Organization 52(autumn):887–917.
  9. ↑ Best, Joel. "typification and Social Problems Construction." Pp. 3-10 in Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. 1989.
  10. ↑ Schneider, Anne L., and Helen M. Ingram. 2005. Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy. Albany: State University of New York.
  11. ↑ Glazer, Nathan. 1994. "How Social Problems are Born."
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.