If mundane acts are treated with increasingly aggressive behavior (286), how would this establish a standard for more extreme forms of delinquency? Zero-tolerance policies have not proven to be entirely effective, and a byproduct of these policies is a heavier emphasis on punishment for mundane acts (286). Do these punishments incentivize even more aggressive behavior towards extreme acts, or is there a possibility to consider only using aggressiveness for extreme acts #so345

Given that we have read other works by Anderson, I was interested in his take on "street wisdom." Notably, this is the process by which inadequate police protection can lead to residents anticipating different cues and signals to serve as their own protection (284). If residents themselves are responsible for their protection, can this foster hostility toward police who are seemingly not doing their job? #so345

The Klemko article talked about a vendor giving training from ex-military members who discussed "enemy combatants" versus the normal citizen (6). This is in line with the theme that police can tend to err on the side of aggression, especially in the early years of training. This is particularly prominent in smaller police departments, as they have inconvenient access to government services and must instead rely on the private sector vendors (3). #so345

The conclusion reinforced that there is a collective understanding of what it means to "deviate" to the average layperson. However, this can be incredibly enhanced when we zoom out to the different ways it can manifest itself. It made me question: does hegemony work so well because of the fear of deviating which has been socialized into us all? Is teaching deviance from a younger age valuable, and in what ways could this inspire change in social institutions that are seldom challenged? #so345

Are there examples of people who are involved in self-help groups who do not want to stop their own behavior but do want to help others? I was interested in "problem solvers [being] the problem sufferers" (154) and wondered if someone could try and help another person while ignoring their own behavior. Do all people in self-help groups then recognize their own behavior as deviant because they have been socialized into it or because they want to stop the behavior for other reasons? #so345

The chapter notes that the “discredited may redefine their stigma as a positive attribute, resulting in pride rather than shame. In this case, there is no longer a need to conceal their stigma; rather, it is often flaunted” (146). This leads to the bigger question for me: to what extent do individual characteristics contribute to status denial, and what other factors play a role in the difference between a self-fulfilling prophecy versus acceptance with pride? #so345

Reading the section about discreditable deviance made me think about first impressions and meeting new people. I've found myself in the process Goffman describes where he says people can choose “to display or not to display, to tell or not to tell, to let on or not to let on, to lie or not to lie; and in each case to whom, how, when and where” (140). I wonder if the true self has ever been fully given away during a first encounter or if there is always an unraveling process #so345

To what extent is secondary deviance associated with group polarization? Chambliss reasons, "As the self-conception (of being deviant) became more firmly entrenched, [Roughnecks] also became willing to try new
and more extreme deviances" (194). Here, they accept their role and build on it to a higher degree than where they started. I saw parallels to this and the psychological phenomena of group polarization, and wonder how the two intersect or can explain each other. #so345

This excerpt made me wonder about people who are out in the world right now and have a desire to deviate but don't have the means. Page 191 offered that the roughnecks could have had just as bad a heart as the Saints, but they were carefully being watched and did not have as much money to act. I think this would apply to extremely large scales of deviance, but the concept was interesting to me. #so345

I saw a reference to the metaphor of the ledger in legal cases when it said, "the defense presents the person as favorable and normal, while the prosecution defines the act as one typical of [a] deviant" (129). The argument is that guilt isn't a main factor in cases, but rather the deviant label. I believe witnesses, who are typically cross-examined on their credibility and character, would moreso fit into this labeling process than the defendants #so345