Foundation for a General Strain Theory, Essay Example

Many graduate school programs implement a curriculum that is driven by theory and conceptual frameworks as a means of arriving at various conclusions across various disciplines. Engaging in concept-based learning drives students to hone their critical thinking skills, thereby forcing them to take into consideration how concepts intersect and interlink in the nuanced process of knowledge production. It is of paramount importance thus to define what a concept is in a way that transcends the definition the dictionary provides in order to develop a more meticulous, precise, and critical definition of the word itself. Indeed, the nature of concepts differs on an idiosyncratic basis in different areas of knowledge or epistemological systems such the knowledge system of religion and in the Natural sciences. This reality suggests that concepts are both and intrinsic aspect and product of the methodology within certain areas of knowledge (AoK). This observation must be compared to how the theory of knowledge guide defines concepts as the language deployed in order to label the epistemology. Language does not merely convey extant, non-verbal knowledge but rather in several cases, the language itself that is utilized makes up the knowledge in itself. Without language, nothing exists, which is why concepts constitute the building blocks of knowledge and epistemological systems. Beyond defining concepts, it is also necessary to consider what it means to draw conclusions from said concepts. Like concepts, conclusions often vary on an idiosyncratic basis according to Area of Knowledge and Ways of Knowing (WoK). When dialoguing about conclusions, it is necessary to take into consideration the purpose, objectives, methodology, and hegemonic Ways of Knowing within an AoK. This process calls for the invocation of links to a certain Knowledge Framework in order to enhance such an investigation. Ultimately, it is unequivocal that there is crucial correlation between concept develop and language within an AoK.

To begin discussing this issue, the real-world example of food labeling can aid in framing how concepts and conclusions relate to each other at a somewhat superficial level. Food labeling carries with it a litany of assumptions that can be gleaned just be the presence of food labels that are more times than not quite misleading. For example, many products are labeled as being “sugar-free” or 99% fat free, which function as the concepts in this particular example. The assumptions drawn from the presence of these labels such as thinking the product must be healthy because it lacks sugars or fats, represents the conclusions. Thus, on a quotidian basis, people draw conclusions on concepts in germane settings without realizing the process that is taking place. The simple question over how linguistic labeling shapes the inferences an individual makes is a poignant topic of discussion that pertains to this ToK.

By looking at various Areas of Knowledge, it is discernible how concepts develop differently and how the place of language within respective Areas of Knowledge shapes the scope and methodology of the language in order to draw idiosyncratic conclusions. In the field of psychology, social and behavioral psychologists often characterize particular behaviors as deviant or conformist, which carries the possibility that they discounted biological or physiological influences that contributed to an individual’s behavioral or cognitive processes. In the realm of the visual arts, many people define modern art, or so-called pop art, as lacking any real artistic currency. In the realm of economics, the concept of utility often cultivates a far more normative comprehension of customer satisfaction which others may not agree with. As such, linguistic relativism is critical in how worldviews are shaped within particular Areas of Knowledge. Such relativism is supported by Sapir Whorf’s seminal hypothesis that language functions as a form of constructivism, which broadens the discussion on concepts and conclusion to include the fundamental nature of concepts themselves (Kay and Kempton 65). Concepts within this ToK can thus be perceived as relevant to a particular paradigm or worldview. A significant portion of what people view as objective facets of the external world is in reality merely a product of language. As such, within this epistemological viewpoint, human presuppositions and reasoning about the world is influenced by language itself.

Examining various examples within various Areas of Knowledge further adds nuance to this discussion on concepts and conclusions drawn. In the area of Criminology, experts have tried to fully comprehend the etiologies of escalating crime rates in addition to inert rates of recidivism in the United States. Beginning in the 1970s when the War on Crime was commenced by then president Richard Nixon, various worldviews and paradigms that applied divergent sets of concept yielded starkly contrasting conclusions regarding this issue. One sociologist named Robert Merton bought into structuralism, so he applied the concepts associated with positivist functionalism in order to explain what caused people to engage in criminal and thus deviant behavior (Merton 470). The concepts Merton applied included ascribed social roles, socialization, educational values and perceptions, normative conformity, and social echelon, among other related values. His conclusions resulted in the germination of the strain theory, which postulates that macro-economic success and opportunity for socio-economic advancement are strained and thus results in the germination of criminal and deviant behaviors (Agnew 47). Criminality is the product of socially and culturally constructed formations, thereby appearing both functionalist and structuralist in nature.

From a different vantage point, Professort of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley proffered an ethnographic and interactionist approach to discursively frame criminal behavior. This approach called for the appropriation of the concepts of semiotics, social roles, representation, and masks, thereby appearing wholly non-structuralist in formation. Criminality in this discourse can only be explained in terms of how individuals reacted to stigmatization that germinate as a result of the social labeling of subaltern cultural groups. Applying different concepts to the same socio-cultural phenomenon undergirded the starkly contrasting paradigms, which reveals how concepts dictate the development of paradigms that proffer divergent conclusions.

Of course, the antithetical view to such a line of argumentation can be broached from various different angles. More generally, it is often opined that concepts are universal traversing various Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge. Indeed, concepts cannot be reduced to being causal within defined conflicts. The assumption of neutrality thus undergirds the conclusions that are derived from the application of universal concepts. Moreover, it can be argued that there are various other external, contributing factors such as the methodology deployed in an Area of Knowledge or the contingencies of the issue at hand beyond the application of concepts that influence any and all conclusions that are drawn. Because concepts lack homogeneity across various Areas of Knowledge, it is not possible to accurately predict how much they impacted any conclusions that were arrived at as a result of the application of said concepts. Finally, the same concept always varies on an idiosyncratic basis within personal and shared spheres of knowledge, which renders it impossible to actually pinpoint which sphere the conclusion or multiple conclusions drawn point to. The idiosyncratic nature of knowledge both personal and shared renders it difficult to draw a causal connection between concepts and conclusions. Interestingly, perceptions, which are not conclusions, are often shaped by concepts as well, which poses the question of how much do the various ways of knowing circumscribe what humans can actually discern and truly know.

Works Cited

Agnew, R. “Foundation for a General Strain Theory.” Criminology 30.1(1992): 47-87.

Kay, Paul and Willet Kempton. “What is the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis?” American Anthropologist 86.1(1984): 65–79

Margolis, Eric and Stephen Laurence. “The Ontology of Concepts—Abstract Objects or Mental Representations?” NOUS 41.4(2007): 561-593.

Merton, Robert K. “George Sarton: Episodic Recollections by an Unruly Apprentice”. Isis 76.4(1985): 470–486.

Sapir, Edwaard. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt: Brace, 1921. Print.