Description
PART1
Instructions
Ask two questions to each colleague that would help them further develop their analysis/consider an alternative perspective.
Peer 1 for reply
As someone who is bilingual, my source of information regarding COVID-19 came from both the Chinese and American social media platforms. It is not surprising to see how much of a difference it displayed between the two media platforms. It is very common on American social media platforms to address the virus as a “Chinese Virus” and have all of the racist talks. During the COVID-19 period, it is very common to see posts on Twitter(now X) addressing the virus as a Chinese Virus and rejecting to wear masks. In terms of the sources that I trust, I have multiple sources because I’m bilingual. I would do some cross-checking regarding the news provided on social media platforms before I would buy into them. According to Dr. Elder, there was also an outburst of videos that are about people going wild and refusing to wear masks in public – disobeying government laws and authorities. In general, sources such as Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and other user-generated content platforms would be considered as containing more misleading information that would cause concerns.
Regarding the parallels between COVID-19 and the claims about media-driven panic during the SARS outbreak, there are a lot of similarities. In both cases, media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and perceptions of health crises. In the case of COVID-19, the constant news cycle and widespread coverage have led to panic, misinformation, and redirection of attention from other significant issues.
Muzzatti’s claim about the diversion of public attention and resources during the SARS outbreak is echoed in the COVID-19 period as well. The fact that there was so much public attention and resources towards COVID-19 diverted the focus from various other critical health issues, such as mental health, routine medical care, and the needs of marginalized communities. During the pandemic, there was a rise in Asian hate crimes. Both crises displayed the impact of media coverage on public perception and resource allocation. Despite the fact that media coverage can be very important for informing the public, it can also lead to both intended and unintended consequences like misinformation, panic, neglect of other pressing societal issues and stigmatizing a certain population.
Peer 2 for reply
Morality, as we have dissected in our course, is a social construct that is deeply intertwined with the concept of deviance. It is the societal barometer by which behaviors are judged and categorized as acceptable or deviant. The films on Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s experiments, alongside Sternheimer’s insights, underscore the profound impact of social contexts and power dynamics on morality, revealing its malleability and the consequent variability in definitions of deviance.
Zimbardo’s exploration of the effects of an “evil” environment on “good” people and Milgram’s examination of obedience to authority highlights a critical aspect of morality: it is not a fixed trait within individuals but is susceptible to external influences. These studies demonstrate that under certain conditions, societal pressures and authoritative commands can lead individuals to act in ways that deviate from their moral beliefs, suggesting that deviance is not inherently synonymous with immorality. Instead, deviant actions can respond to the situational factors and power structures individuals find themselves within.
Reflecting on the concept of moral panics, as discussed by Muzzatti and observed in the societal reaction to events like the SARS and H1N1 outbreaks, it becomes evident that deviance is not a static concept but constructed and amplified by societal fears and the media. Moral entrepreneurs and crusaders play a pivotal role in shaping these panics, influencing what is considered deviant. This shows that without such agents of moral panic, the landscape of deviance might be vastly different, as they are instrumental in dictating the moral codes that define deviance. The subcultural theories, particularly Cohen’s work, further illuminate the relativity of deviance. They show that behaviors deemed deviant in one cultural context may be entirely acceptable in another, underscoring the idea that deviance is not absolute but relative to the dominant moral codes of society. This relativity is echoed in Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, which posits that deviant behavior is learned and that what is known depends significantly on the social group one is associated with.
Moreover, control theories, especially Hirschi’s social control theory and Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization, suggest that deviance can result from a breakdown in an individual’s bond to societal norms or from a redefinition of morality to justify certain behaviors. These perspectives highlight that morality is not only malleable but also subject to individual reinterpretation.
In conclusion, the connection between morality and deviance is complex and multifaceted. Deviant behavior is not merely a reflection of immorality; instead, it is a manifestation of the prevailing moral codes shaped by social contexts, power relationships, and the actions of moral entrepreneurs. Deviance, therefore, exists not as an absolute measure of behavior but as a variable construct that reflects the shifting moral landscapes of society. As such, deviance is relative because morality is relative, shaped by context, timing, and the ever-changing dynamics of societal values.
PART2
200WORDS
