|
The story of the last two years of Colleen Applegate's
life-her involvement in pornography, addiction to cocaine, and
eventual suicide-is a tragic tale. As individual and distant as
Colleen's circumstances were, they can be better understood through
the application of a theory on deviance. Social Control Theory
can explain why Colleen strayed from conformity into deviance,
and what effect society had on her. [1]
Social Control Theory explores the reasons people
conform to societal norms rather than deviating. This micro-level
theory states that all people have potential for deviance. A weakening
in the ties that bind a person to society and its norms increases
the likelihood that a person will engage in deviance. According
to Hirschi (Kelly and Clark, 2003), the four bonds between an
individual and society are attachment, commitment, involvement,
and belief.
In Colleen Applegate's case, her move to LA in
March of 1982 magnified the nascent weakening of her bonds with
society. The oldest of five children, Colleen was involved in
her Minnesota high school and received letters for cheerleading.
In her last two years of high school, Colleen began dating Mike
Marcel. Because her parents disapproved of the older boy, they
argued with Colleen, and the attachment between parents and child
was weakened. Also, Colleen was not especially committed to the
norms of behavior in her town, because to attain her ideal career-modeling-she
would have to leave the small town of 4,800 people. These factors
combined to contribute to Colleen's first extreme act of deviance:
overdosing on pills. [2]
This act was treated as a simple cry for attention and aside from
a single group counseling session, ignored.
Following graduation, Colleen moved to LA with
her boyfriend Mike. The two had a difficult time finding jobs.
As newcomers without work, the two were neither involved nor committed
in the community. They had plenty of time to engage in deviance
and little to risk by doing so. All of Colleen's friends and family
were far away, so the bond formed by attachment to other individuals
was lessened as well. This also involved commitment; Colleen had
nothing to fear by engaging in deviance because most of her human
connections were far away, and thus the risk was small. The one
person in LA who she did know and care about-Mike-encouraged her
to take a job he had found for her at World Modeling. Through
World Modeling, Colleen began posing nude for magazines. Because
most magazines would only feature her once, Colleen had to pose
for progressively more vulgar magazines in a shrinking market.
This eventually led her to enter the pornographic film industry.
Colleen's bonds with society-especially that of
attachment to others-continued to disintegrate. Her boyfriend
Mike broke up with Colleen and returned to Minnesota, where he
told several others what career Colleen had entered into. This
embarrassed her sister and parents. Colleen's parents ordered
her to come home and she refused. When Colleen later returned
to Minnesota for a wedding, the bride's mother wouldn't let her
into the church. These are all signs of the gradual dissolution
of Colleen's bonds of attachment. It is obvious Colleen wanted
these bonds to remain strong. When two old high school friend
visited her in LA, [3]
she tried to convince them to get involved in nude modeling as
well. She also tried to give her mother a picture from her portfolio
of nude photographs. Both her mother and her friends refused the
overtures, and the bonds of attachment thinned further.
With her bonds of attachment weakened almost to
insubstantiality, Colleen's bonds of commitment weakened further.
The people she cared about disapproved of her life choices already.
Any more deviance would strengthen that opinion, and even if she
left the porn industry, she would still be indelibly stained in
their eyes. Thus, the consequences of engaging in deviance were
lessened. Colleen became addicted to cocaine.
Eventually, Colleen left the porn industry to
live with her cocaine dealer, Jake. Unemployed-without even the
career many considered deviant-Colleen was also without involvement.
This left her with plenty of time to engage in whatever forms
of deviance she felt desirable.
In February of 1984, Jake was arrested and jailed
for several years for dealing cocaine. Her attachment to him weakened,
but was not yet broken completely. Then a guy from Minnesota who
she's been secretly dating came to visit her in LA It seemed like
Colleen would replace Jake with this new man. However, because
she was high and had no car, Colleen forgot to pick up her boyfriend
at the airport. They broke up. Even worse, Jake called from jail
and broke up with her also. He told Colleen she had to move out
of his house. It was then, with her bonds of involvement, commitment,
and attachment almost completely broken, that Colleen shot herself
in the head. She died 24 hours later. [4]
Besides explaining the deviance of Colleen's life,
Social Control Theory can also be utilized to explain the relative
lack of deviance in mine. Social Control is especially applicable
here as it is structured to explain why people conform more than
why they deviate. Unlike Colleen, the bonds I have with society
are fairly strong. Even living away at college, I have a strong
sense of attachment to my family, and I talk to someone in it
at least once a week. Even when I'm angry with them, I know they
would rush to my aid if necessary, and I don't want to disappoint
them. Although I'm not the type to have tons of friends, I do
have several, and those friends are all close ones. I also have
other relationships with people I respect-teachers, coworkers,
bosses. So my level of attachment is high. [5]
My levels of commitment are also fairly high.
In commitment, one weighs the costs or risks of engaging in deviance,
and often obeys out of fear for the consequences. I have a well-developed
conscience-something I blame on early motherly guilt-trips-and
thus am not a big risk-taker. I have goals for the future which
include a steady well-paying job, and my own house. A good college
education is essential for this, and so I don't want to risk my
standing at Coe by getting addicted to cocaine, for example. Also,
I try to avoid debt like the plague, so doing anything that would
risk my scholarships and loans would be unwise.
As for the bonds created by involvement, I'm fairly
busy. I'm a full-time college student with a part-time job. And
while I don't like to get involved in very many clubs or organizations,
I still have plenty to occupy my time. Bonds of attachment intermingle
with involvement here. I often help my sister out by watching
her four children, and help friends to "screen" new
boyfriends, so to speak.
Belief is a more difficult concept to understand.
I didn't talk about it in Colleen's case because it's almost impossible
to know what she believed about the norms and rules of society.
Without any input from her-an impossible feat at this point-I
have no way of knowing what she thought. [6]
In my case, however, I agree with many of the norms, or at least
the values of groups I socialize and identify with. I generally
obey the law because to undermine that undermines the organization
of my society (besides, I've got this wide-awake conscience nagging
at me all the time
). Also, because I was raised in this
culture, many of the norms in it seem natural to me, and to deviate
from them seems wrong. That said, if there is a norm I don't believe
in, I'll disregard it. However, such disbelief in social norms
does not apply, for me, to getting involved in porn or cocaine.
My rebellions are usually over more minor things such as drinking
age and dress codes. So unlike Colleen Applegate, I have strong
bonds with society and therefore-according to Social Control Theory-I
am less likely to engage in deviant behavior. [7]
Like all theories, Social Control is not perfect. It does not
apply well to all forms of deviance, since such acts as embezzlement
are often committed by individuals with strong bonds to society.
Also, some of the bonds identified by Social Control Theory can
have the opposite effect than stated; attachment to others, for
instance, can increase a person's deviance rather than reduce
it-if those individuals are deviant. This may have been the case
with some of Colleen's relationships. One of her friends and fellow
porn stars was a cocaine addicts, as were her boss and her boyfriend
Jake. Colleen's attachment to these people may have increased
her likelihood to engage in deviance. Social Control also doesn't
explain why the first act of deviance occurs. It views deviance
as inherently attractive to all people.
Given these weaknesses of Social Control Theory,
there are other theories that would apply to explain Colleen's
deviance. Learning Theory, for instance, would say that Colleen
learned how to become deviant by associating and identifying with
other deviants, such as Jake her boyfriend/coke dealer. However,
this too has its flaws because according to the Differential Association
Theory of Learning, the influence a person has varies according
to frequency, duration, primacy, and intensity. Thus, Colleen's
mother-whose influence had the most primacy, a duration of approximately
eighteen years, and I high frequency within those first eighteen
years-would have more influence on Colleen than subsequent individuals.
[8] Obviously, this was not the case.
Labeling Theory can also be applied to Colleen's
situation. According to this theory, it is the response of society
and not any single act that makes someone deviant. Thus, the negative
reaction of Colleen's family and friends to her chosen career
made it deviant, but in and of itself, the pornography was not
deviant. Also within Labeling Theory, Colleen's case can be seen
as illustrating Lement's theory of secondary deviance. Her primary
deviance was posing for nude photographs. Once others became aware
of this behavior and labeled her as a "bad" girl for
it, secondary deviance began. Colleen internalized the label and
became more deviant. It was not until after society had reacted
to her nude photos that she became involved in pornographic movies
and cocaine use. However, Labeling Theory fails to account for
the first instance of deviance, nor does it explain why Colleen
chose the forms of deviance she did.
Strain Theory could explain that Colleen engaged
in pornography as a means to her goals. Posing for nude photographs
made Colleen a model-her lifelong dream-and also gave her a job
and money. However, there's no sure sign that Colleen felt anomie
(a sense of normlessness), because she was nearly always involved
in some sort of relationship with its own norms and values.
Finally, neither Social Disorganization Theory
nor Functionalism are applicable in Colleen's case because both
are macro-level theories which apply to society as a whole. Colleen's
case was a micro-level situation, revolving around the life of
one individual.
No single theory of social deviance can completely
explain the life oc Colleen Applegate, or any person. There are
too many factors to understand any life. However, theories go
a long way towards helping people to comprehend at least part
of the situation. In Colleen's case, Social Control Theory particularly
applies. The increases in deviance for Colleen corresponded to
increases in the weakness of her bonds with society. Thus, Social
Control Theory can shed some light on deviance and its relationship
to society, even if it can't illuminate human behavior completely.
Works Cited: [9]
1. "Death of a Porn Queen." Frontline.
[Video]
2. Goode, Erich. (1996). Social Deviance. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
3. Kelly, Delos H. & Clark, Edward J. (2003).
Deviant Behavior: A Text-Reader in the Sociology of Deviance.
6th Edition. New York: Worth Publishers. [10]
|
1. Nice concise intro!
Good because it contains a general intro, wraps up the main
events of the movie, and introduced theory. Didn't just charge
right into the issue.
2. Maybe give a bit
of context for the behavior (the suicide attempt). Set stage
more, by saying she was still in high school, clarifying that
it wasn't just friends that ignored it, but neither parent took
it seriously either.
3. The friends actually
lived out there too, moving to LA shortly after Colleen and
Mike. (Clarifying accuracy of information-usually a huge deal
in assignments; less so in this because it's a video watched
only 1-2 times)
4. Where's belief?
You talk about belief later. Maybe move some of that up here.
5. Good! You use the
specific points of the theory to explain your lack of deviance;
don't just discuss it generally.
6. I was wondering
when you were going to talk about belief! Maybe move some up
to top of page. Don't push the issue off to the side. You can
say one factor applies less to Colleen's case. Theories don't
fit perfectly to situations in the real world.
7. It can also relate
to the notion of "conventional" vs. "unconventional"
belief systems.
8. Good! Talking about
primacy, duration, frequency. Going into the theory deep enough;
don't review theory superficially.
9. Not all of this
is actually "cited" but I'm glad that you cited sources.
10. General Comments:
-I don't have rigid
expectations.
-One great way to organize
this is to make the narrative interwoven with the theory.
-There's no one organizational
structure for my papers.
-Many students are
too safe. They look for "the" answer, but there is
no one way to write the paper. Originality is good because if
I'm bored and I gave the assignment, that's not a good thing.
I have to read all of these papers, so diversity is good.
-Other organizational
things: intro and a conclusion, although I don't need the typical
5-paragraph essay.
-Titles are good. Not
a title that's the name of the assignment. That's as good as
no title. A good title sends the message that you've thought
about the topic.
-I love good grammar
and sentence structure. I used to take too much time correcting
assignments, fixing every grammar mistake. You will lose points
if it's clear you haven't at least read over the paper for grammar.
Even if you edit it just before class. I would much rather see
handwritten corrections than obvious mistakes.
-This
paper's audience is the semi-informed reader. Someone who knows
the theories, but maybe hasn't seen the movie, or saw it a long
time ago.
-This assignment was
mid-level formality. The informality of "I", "me,"
and "we" are fine in sociological papers, even formally-written
published ones.
|