Key Roles In The Symbology Sociology Essay Essay
Symbology plays a cardinal function in single and besides group life. Harmonizing to Bartlett ( 1925 ) symbols must be distinguished from mere marks. He argues that anything that stands for or represents something else is simply a mark. For illustration, the UK Highway Code utilises a ocular aggregation of images that represent words that give way on the right use of Great Britain ‘s main roads and bypaths. These are marks.
Symbols provide a sort of cultural adhesive and aid in the care of a group ‘s values, civilizations and beliefs, even keeping together a fragmenting group. Of class, the same symbol has the leaning to attest itself in the contrary to the out-group ( Bartlett, 1925 ) . Symbols themselves are no more than images, images, Markss on a canvas. However, the interplay of symbol with the single subconscious can be a powerful combination. Symbols provide “ rich, non-verbal linguistic communication ” ( Pratt, 1995 ) for the direction of relationships and individuality. Symbols have been used throughout history to convey a message or to instil procedure or point of view from one to another. It is a remarkable method of communicating with multiple significances. Symbols and images assist people in the administration of their experiences and the relationships between groups ( Vintean, 1993 ) . The symbols hold an simple place in the building of individuality. From this are structured cultural boundaries, protection and the administration of the group ‘s external relationships. Jung ( 1964 ) describes the importance that subliminal messages can keep for human behavior. Such messages bombard one ‘s subconscious invariably, conveying with it the significances and messages they hold.
All people have some signifier of symbology in their lives, with the image, mark or symbol stand foring significance and helping as a reminder to some set of values or beliefs. The Crucifix and the Star of David, for case, are both powerful symbols and reminders of certain groups of spiritual beliefs. As Geertz ( 1973, p. 90 ) provinces, “ Religion could be defined as a ‘system of symbols ‘ which act to set up powerful, persuasive, and long permanent tempers and motives in people ” . The Union Jack flag can frequently been seen in copiousness when happenings of national pride are made salient, for illustration, a enthronement or a national sporting event. These symbols, powerful in their reading and perceived significance are used to instil or do salient a set of beliefs, rites or rites. Conversely, certain images, even those one time stand foring peace and harmoniousness have been later subverted and adopted by groups who purport to other political orientations and representations. The Hakenkreuz, for illustration, has been adopted by fascist, white domination and neo-Nazi groups to stand for hatred and bias. The Hakenkreuz has come to stand for hatred, bias, antisemitism, white-supremacy groups and neo-Nazi administrations. Through the Hakenkreuz, the Nazis colonised the ocular universe as they did the occupied districts ( Quinn, 1998 ) .
A more modern-day illustration of a “ good symbol turning bad ” is the ‘Lonsdale ‘ vesture line a sportswear trade name normally associated with the athletics of packaging in the United Kingdom. More late, in the Netherlands, the vesture trade name has been adopted first by hardcore music fans and later by neo-Nazi groups. In Holland the word LONSDALE has been adopted to stand for: Laat Ons Nederlanders Samen De Allochthonen Langzaam Executeren ( Let Us Dutch Slowly Execute the Allochthones or individuals with non-Dutch beginnings.
Images taken from web log sites Jan 2010.
Members of this sub-culture are planing other racialist marks and symbols to show their racialist positions, for illustration by have oning white lacings in black boots to symbolize white power ( Fedorkin & A ; Koevoet, 2005 ) . Further grounds of this use of manner to supply designation and group rank in hatred groups is rather evident within the prison system. More elusive and perchance clandestine methods are in usage including little elements of vesture and manners of frock every bit good as ocular signals and handshakings. However, there are frequently more blazing shows of symbols as graffito or tattoos. The undermentioned images depict one such method of show used to enroll rank to racist groups within a British prison. This illustration was the merchandise of an outside fascist group imported into the closed prison environment and intercepted by staff.
Shirt intercepted in a class B prison 2010
Photographs: Telfer – Prisons 2005-2010
These shirts illustrate current tactics for enlisting that links chauvinistic pride to the Middle East struggle. The fact that this propaganda was directed at captives for promotion and enlisting speaks volumes.
Presumably, symbols play a cardinal function in this propaganda of hatred. However, there is comparatively small research sing the function of symbols in the development of bias or the coevals of menaces to one ‘s worldview. Other symbols, nevertheless, have been shown to hold powerful effects in laboratory-based surveies.
In a recent survey of the effects of exposure to the US flag on inter-group dealingss, Butz, Ashby Plant & A ; Doerr ( 2007 ) found that National symbols dramatically increase in display Numberss following a menace upon the cultural beliefs or values of that society. Harmonizing to Johnson ( 1977 ) “ National symbols, including flags and anthems, pervade most modern-day societies and their presence additions when national security is threatened ” . Further, presentations of chauvinistic symbology have a leaning to increase perceptual experience of group integrity and single individuality ( Reshback & A ; Sakano, 1997 ) . These national symbols are representative of nucleus values and ends that the state or in-group clasp true and that sing this symbology may be a trigger towards these values and ends therefore helping the in-group to believe in and act consequently to the values of that group or collective ( Johnson, 1997 ) .
Research by Kay and co-workers ( 2003 ) demonstrates the symbolic power of even mundane objects in act uponing behavior. The research workers emphasise the function that certain objects – e.g. , the show of books, diaries in an academic scene, candle visible radiation in a Gallic eating house ; briefcases and suits in a concern scene — drama in the sub-conscious priming of assorted interpersonal and organizational contexts. They argue that raising the saliency of these symbol-heavy but mundane objects can increase the cognitive handiness of the certain concepts and play an of import function in the creative activity of typical situational context and the communicating of associated behavioral norms.
Weisbuch-Remington et Al, ( 2005 ) suggest that spiritual symbols can act upon motivational procedures during the public presentation of goal-related undertakings, and that witting screening is non necessary to incite this influence ( see besides Jung, 1964 ) . Their survey involved topics sing spiritual symbols, presented outside of the participants ‘ witting consciousness. Those who viewed the symbols manifested measurably different results than the control group. They argue that the nonconscious screening of these symbols provides a significant influence on get bying procedures. They discovered grounds that raising the saliency of spiritual symbols was influential, but merely when the undertaking was relevant to experiential issues ; besides when the influence was personally relevant or of import to the participant. They further present the statement that the ocular cuing must be both undertaking and personally relevant for it to hold consequence during a motivated public presentation undertaking. However, it can be seen from their statements that raising the saliency of a certain symbology, albeit in this instance spiritual symbology, the subconscious screening does arouse touchable effects. Jung ( 1964 ) argues that witting consciousness was non required for the symbol to hold an influence ( see besides Blascovich and Mendes, 2000 ) . Harmonizing to Weisbuch-Remington et Al, ( 2005, p. 1206 )
Within societal psychological science, a big empirical literature demonstrates that un-reportable stimulations in general ( i.e. non needfully spiritual ) can be influential. Aggressive behavior, readings of others behaviour, attitude, memory ability, and even physiological responses have been influenced by stimulations presented outside of the participants consciousness.
It may be argued as with the power of the symbol that those who rally round and under the symbols may or may non get down out racialist or bias, but it argued here that the symbology acts as a premier therefore and harmonizing to Turner ( 2006 ) that despite theory and statement that informs that witting and unconscious are extremely mutualist, it is still imaginable that a individual who believes they are non prejudice is prejudiced unconsciously because “ the unconscious is the reservoir of cultural acquisition that somehow dominates over the societal nowadays ” ( p. 43 ) . Specific for the results and ways frontward post this survey, it is argued, that corporate must be altered – the in-group – therefore when changing the collective as a whole so alteration will be effected for the person who supports this in-group social political orientation.
Harmonizing to Pass ( 1989 ) a prison environment possibly seen as an extension of the larger universe it serves, this it is argued by the writer provides a societal micro-culture or civilization within a civilization for a prison. However, Pass ( 1989 ) argues that race dealingss in a prison should non be treated as any particular signifier of human dealingss ; he offers that albeit while there is racial tenseness in America, this is by and large reflected in American prisons, but besides magnified. Pass ( 1985 ) had antecedently argued that should there be a greater demand for societal distance, there would be a greater chance for struggle to be within a prison environment. The writer draws upon this theory and argues that there is an increased component for white HMPS staff to hold this greater societal distance and this is manifested by virtuousness of their chosen profession. A intent of this survey will be to through empirical observation show that those chosen white HMPS staff will describe higher in societal distance.
Harmonizing to Hewstone et Al, ( 2002 ) , it is the acquiring and giving of group trust, positive idea to other group members, following a concerted and empathic attack to the in-group members but to the exclusion of the out-group members which is in itself the preparation of the initial phases of favoritism. It is argued for therefore paper that it is the very renters of in-group trust, coherence and the empathic entreaty which draws together white HMPS staff, thereby the base renter of favoritism as described here has the cultural ‘ turning bed ‘ to put the seed and cultivate by those hierarchal higher-ups therefore perpetuating the prejudiced consequence from the initial contact with the prison environment and those out-groups contained within.
The sum of racial graffito in prisons is great, the attendant impact of this, it is argued, within this micro-culture of secure social values and beliefs is, if left unbridled, a cause for far making harm both within the prison secure system but besides to those placed within its attention by the tribunals particularly black and minority cultural captives. The primary hypothesis of this research is that sing racialist marks and symbols increases bias against out-groups and factors associated with racism and hatred, with this graffito holding the power and presence to impact such additions in bias and hatred, and on the behavior and attitudes of those who view them. These symbolic shows supplying a power base of individuality and acknowledgment for those who rally unit of ammunition and back up the out-group societal values and positions. It is argued that there is a deeper more cloak-and-dagger ground for this symbology, whereby an addition in societal distance, societal laterality and bias of bulk manifests itself with damaging consequence upon out-group members.
It has been demonstrated that racial graffito has been a long standing concern for HMPS, with small advancement being made against the raft of allegations and mistreatment of black and minority cultural captives. Indeed following the alleged betterments and remedial actions emanating from the station CRE probe and joint action program, the reported intervention of this group of captives does non look to hold improved at all with black and minority cultural captives still being more likely to have countenance and penalty disproportionately to white captives. Important for the current concerns of HMPS and the wider society is the continued usage of these marks and symbols in ways that destabilise the safety and direction of those held in prison and threatens the civilization and values of all affected.
A major component of this paper and the scene of the research in around the increased fond regard realised when a individual – in-group universe cultural and social values are threatened. It is argued that this is a primary causing for the intervention that black and minority cultural captives receive at the custodies of white HMPS staff with the rejection of others positions, social and cultural norms as they are jointly viewed to convey menace to the in-group thereby increasing attendant punitory actions
There are many definitions of intergroup favoritism – see ( Hogg 2003 ) who interestingly offer the illustration of replacing the word ‘group ‘ in intergroup with the word ‘national ‘ or ‘ethnic ‘ which he argues so brings the moral force of this relationship or in this instance favoritism to a much clearer point. See besides ( Tajfel, H & A ; Turner, J, 1979 – Pettigrewr, 2006 ) statement, and one which is vitally of import to this survey, that for HMPS this was so the instance, that big elements of intergroup favoritism are structural, in that they frequently have ingrained or built in elements that may work to know apart against certain groups within the prison construction. Furthermore that favoritism may happen even when there is no knowing favoritism by the leaders of the map or establishment. He states that those leaders or caputs with non-discriminatory or prejudice positions may “ inadvertently lead extremely prejudiced establishments ” ( p. 3 ) . This was and to some extent still is the instance with HMPS – Back-to-back Director Generals[ 1 ]hold openly appeared shocked or ashamed when claim, allegation or publication has been made against the Prison Service – see text of this paper, besides the similarity to the US authorities reaction to the allegations levied at the staff of Abu Ghraib. It is farther agued by the writer that for HMPS favoritism and bias has gone unchecked for most of its being. This may be counter argued in that there have been policies and processs implemented and amended over clip, but as has been illustrated it took the Commission for Race Equality to come to the point of functioning a favoritism notice on the Prison Service to eventually ( in this case ) force it as a organic structure to take stock and reexamine – despite a catalogue of both blazing and elusive bias, hatred and prejudice. Then and now the senior directors and managers of the Service, certainly, it is argued, must hold had some cognition or apprehension of this. Yet no positive action to consequence alteration was of all time undertaken to contradict the intervention of out-group black and minority cultural captives. Therefore it is argued that on the footing of this inability to take action, HMPS has ‘tolerated ‘ at the really least or possibly ‘turned a unsighted oculus ‘ to these prejudiced patterns, and it has become the norm. Thereby approving, it is argued, mistreatment of those black and minority cultural captives in its attention. Furthermore it is by this really act of tolerance or ignorance to the facts that, harmonizing to the writer, it has allowed a social norm and fostered cultural beliefs within the in-group of intolerance and countenance towards the out-group when the cultural values and beliefs of the in-group are threatened.
It is farther argued that there are two constituents here which are worthy of treatment, foremost by leting by possibly ignorance, possibly tolerance, possibly and more perchance argued by the writer, elements of both combined with an inability to confront the issues and concerns so apparent within a closed penal society, that it allowed, it may be argued by default a civilization of hatred and favoritism to boom, but more significantly for this survey it is by the really fact that this civilization and associated norm of the white HMPS staff and by default white captives, that when these universe position values, norms and social balances are threatened by the out-group by virtuousness of coloring material, race, credo or faith, that the attendant actions from the in-group is prejudice, favoritism and hatred. In promotion of the hypothesis of this survey it is further postulated that those already high in bias and racial hatred as measured within this survey, will further describe higher elements when their ain mortality is made salient to them ( TMT ) thereby going more hateful and punitory towards those who threaten their values.
Harmonizing to Wiegand et Al ( 2008 ) in the US there has been many stairss taken to deter favoritism in the workplace, they site Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act 1964, which provides protection against favoritism based upon sex, race, coloring material, faith or natural beginning. In the UK there is the Race dealingss Act 1974 AA 2000 which provides similar protection. The similarities are striking, yet harmonizing to Wiegand ( 2008 ) it is vitally of import to develop those who are either direction or who are involved in the choice determination devising procedures are cognizant if their natural inclinations to put people in classs and the attendant behavioral results that may ensue from this. Important for this survey is this really issue for HMPS, if those who enter managerial functions are non made aware of or the state of affairs eradicated so this out-group prejudice and favoritism will go on to boom in malice of all the statute law and policy that exists or may be introduced in the hereafter – This will be ineffectual if the determination and policy shapers are non made to gain what a ) effects them and b ) how and why.
In puting this paper within a prison environment it is to merely place outside, non-incarcerated societal norms and values into an incarcerated secure micro environmental society with the intent of exemplifying a similarity of interaction with white and colored captives and staff. Furthermore the situating of this definitional construct of white against colored captive and staff against a prison background has highlighted the issues posed. The social and cultural menaces and dangers endemic in society are repeated in the mirrored micro environment that is a penal establishment.
The shows of graffito or ocular cues form a corporate group individuality with the marker of district of boundary declaring a rank and association to the social values and universe positions of the group. Symbols of hatred displayed on walls, fencings, desks, and most cloths of a prison provide a marker of district or boundary, more significantly they provide a ‘message ‘ of fright and hatred.
Therefore on the one manus it is argued that the symbols of hatred have a enlisting and keeping map and on the other a more cloak-and-dagger influence as a societal alteration component of the in-group HMPS. Whilst at the same clip making the ‘closed-shop ‘ in-group that bonds white HMPS staff together. The consequences of this survey will supply empirical grounds of systematic and institutionalized bias, hatred and punitory application towards black and minority cultural captives – what stairss can be utilised for a decrease in bias, hatred and punitivness to black and minority cultural captives by current and future HMPS staff, policy and process and society as a whole.
In drumhead, symbols of hatred have an of import influence upon social and group values. It is this cementing of a group ‘s individuality and beliefs that cause the symbol to present and exhibit such power and control. Specific for the results and ways frontward post this survey, it is argued, that corporate must be altered -the in-group – therefore when changing the collective as a whole so alteration will be effected for the person who supports this in-group social political orientation