Parent's Idea Of A Peer Group example essay topic

The term violence doesn't necessarily have a fixed definition; it can be interpreted in many ways and the understanding of violence changes from person to person, circumstance to circumstance... What one man may see as a violent act, the next man may disagree. A violent act cannot, "amount to a criminal offence unless at least some observer considered it to be justified". (1) One has to consider whether the violent act was committed intentionally, recklessly or accidentally. The word aggression is often synonymous with violence, yet we are encouraged to channel aggression properly and put it into practices in fields such as sport and business.

This can be dangerous as "aggressive tendencies develop in many people... in an increasingly competitive world" (2) the most important factor here is that both violence and aggression are attempts to impose dominance. (3) The various interpretations of violence can be best put simply into four categories; physically defensive, where violence is seen as the only way to prevent injury to one's self. The defining emotion here is fear; , where the victim is seen as uncooperative or resistant. The defining emotion here is anger; malefic, where the victim is seen as disrespectful or contemptuous. The defining emotion here is hatred; and -malefic where anger is displaced by hatred. Juvenile violent crime today often heavily involves the usage of weapons, In particular knives.

The crimes of juveniles are often a lot more violent than years previous and we can draw on examples from the murder of Jamie Bulger and Dam iola Taylor. Although these, at large, are restricted (and high profile) cases there is still a growing feeling that juveniles today are more competitive on the "streets" and are getting involved in violence as a means to impress fellow peers through gaining a reputation and also getting more desperate in search of material goods such as mobile phones. Both these factors have always been key in the growing-up process of adolescents. Peer group influence is well established especially regarding drugs and alcohol. It can also extend to bullying behaviour- which can also be a response by a child who, themselves, is being bullied at home by an over-bearing parent.

In this way the child uses bullying as a release, out of frustration with conditions at home. Bullying can also be attributed to part of growing up. A lot of bullies are regular children, with no history of violence or abuse, who simply try to impress their peers by physically and mentally attacking a child whom they deem weaker than them. It would have no significance on their later life, if anything they would look back at how they behaved with guilt and shame; it's something that we grow out of as we move into the maturity of adulthood.

It has been stated that children who are friends with children that are bullies are more likely to bully themselves. This claim fits with the "homophile hypothesis" that individual behaviour is influenced by the groups they are part of. (4) The influence of a peer group is not just restricted to children in their early adolescent years but is a factor that influences people right through their lives. Peer groups are formed when people in similar locations and social structures come together and collectively they experience everyday life from a specific position in society and so they differently construct the, "cultural ideals of hegemonic masculinity". (5) Men in all social classes form "specialized" relationships with one another. For many lower working class men the focus of this bond is initiated through a street group.

In particular, neighbourhood-specific street groups form in containing large number of ethnic minorities. "Ghettos" are formed and this provides a competitive venue for individuals to prove their worth within the group, "to prove himself a man among men". (6) Participation in street violence can be a result of a lack of other hegemonic masculine ideals such as a lack of paid employment, lack of wealth or the lack of a partner. Peer groups influence violence because many adolescent friendships are based on conceptions of hegemonic masculinity such as gaining a reputation and protecting your territory (ghetto). Many group networks re-define these conceptions, so, in order to gain your reputation you have to show that you can, "stand up to physical confrontation".

(7) According to Messerschmidt (1993), ethnic minority males seek masculinity through group violence in order to make up for the masculine status they are denied in educational and occupational spheres. If other masculine outlets are unavailable then crime becomes an appropriate means of, "doing gender". (8) In this instance, the specific act of violence is a result of other's expectations and attitudes showing that peer groups are actively influencing men who have reached adulthood. It is claimed that masculinity is achieved by middle-class white males through educational and occupational processes such as sporting and academic success and that working-class white males gain masculinity through the occupational sector. This is derived from the, "class and race divisions of labour and power... ".

(9) Men use resources available to them to assert their gender, to show how "manly" they are. Violence is a way of seeking prestige and acclaim. Minority ethnic groups require more effort to prove their masculinity because they have fewer outlets and so are more likely to create a more, "physically violent opposition masculinity", such as a public display of "toughness". (10) Two thirds of children name a parent as their key support person in their life. (11) This amplifies just how important the role of the family is in bringing up and child and influencing their definitions of right and wrong, good or bad... What a child witnesses at home is undoubtedly stick in their minds throughout their adolescent years and through to adulthood.

The quality of home life is going to help determine what sort of a person that specific child is going to become- whether they are going to be violent or non-violent, for example. Parents with a history of anti-social behaviour are more likely than other parents to abuse or neglect their children, to use inconsistent or harsh disciplinary methods with their children, to poorly monitor and supervise their children's activities, to spend an inadequate amount of time with their children, to be unresponsive, to act a spoor role models and to tolerate anti-social behaviour from their children. (12) However, parenting can be affected by the child's temperament (certain children are biologically difficult to deal with). Johnson et al (2004) shows that problematic parental behaviour in the home during the child-rearing years is likely to play an important role, as when the child reaches adulthood they are more likely to engage in physical acts of violence and aggression against others.

This backs up theory that problematic parenting leads to anti-social, criminal and delinquent behaviour. Johnson et al (2004) shows a particular relationship between problematic parenting arising in cases where the parents were themselves exposed to anti-social behaviour during childhood and adolescence. As noted above, child temperament can play an important role in how parents respond to a child. Offspring behaviour al difficulties can have a knock-on effect and lead to problems with parenting. Parents are often put under pressure when managing a difficult child and it's the response that they use that has the most significant and lasting effect on a child. If they act negatively, snap back and use violence then the child is going to pick up on this and think that it is normal behaviour.

The parents in this instance are acting as bad role models and it is only when the child gets older, and realise's that no other families discipline their children in a violent manner, when they start to question the actions of their parents. This can lead to confusion, the adolescent finds it difficult to surmise why someone who is supposed to love them could, at the same time, act violently against them. It is from this premise that when the child becomes a parent themselves, they use the same methods as their parents as a result of either frustration against their parents or simply that it worked on them so they must inflict the same treatment on their own children. A good working example of Johnson et al (2004) can be shown through the theory that a lack of parental affection for and supervision of the child can be associated with aggressive offspring behaviour- when changes were made to the sample families the results showed a dramatic decrease in the use of aggressive behaviour. Haas et al (2004) backs up Johnson et al (2004) as they describe factors that predict offending offspring to include low involvement with children, poor supervision, parental conflict and parental criminality. Family disruption seems to be as, "strong a prediction of self-reported and official delinquency as other major factors such as low family income, large family size poor-child rearing...

". (13) Low involvement with children can be result of a densely populated household which Mueller (1983) claims is more likely to produce violent criminals. If parents show more affection to another child or simply that the parents have so many children that its hard to share quality time fairly, can make their children grow up believing they are unloved, not good enough which can lead to rebellion which at best is a cry for help from a child who is desperately seeking attention- the problem being the rebelling often involves violence at an adolescent age. The Newcastle 1,000 family study shows that multiple deprivation during childhood e.g. overcrowding, economic dependency leads to subsequent violent behaviour. A 1998 research into disrupted families revealed children from broken homes are twice as likely to be at risk from delinquency. (14) However, coming from a broken home is not always as damaging as other factors.

McCord (1982) in his study it shows that boys from a broken home that had a loving mother were much less at risk than boys who came from a home with parental conflict. This shows that parents who stay together for their children's sake, despite barely resembling a couple, are often not doing the right thing by their child as when the child witnesses the disruption of their parents' relationship then it could have a much longer and complex influence on them than if their parents had just separated in the first place. "We cannot exclude that the stress maybe reduced when the parents finally separate". (15) Wells and Rankin (1991) show children from broken homes to be more likely to participate in less serious offences such as truancy and under-age drinking rather than serious, more violent offences such as theft and assault. It is also claimed that step-parents can have a detrimental effect on child's adolescence in that it increases the risk of delinquency. (16) However, coming from a broken home does not always bring about negative outcomes.

Haas et al (2004) shows that after separation, if the child is living with a mother who is warm and loving then the threat of delinquency is taken away and becomes irrelevant. Wadsworth (1979) concludes that family disruption at a young age- between 0 and 4 shows a larger tendency for delinquency than family disruptions at ages 11 and 14. This could be due to the child being in a more advanced stage at 11, they are able to form more rational, independent thoughts about the disruption and so don't blame anyone, instead take a more mature approach. Between the ages of 0 and 4 though, the child will remember nothing apart from the fact that there was disruption and it wasn't their fault. This can lead to a build up of frustration and anger that can boil over when the child reaches a time in their life when the roles are reversed and they, themselves, are at the centre of family disruptions. July and Harrington (2001) claim that family disruption is a key influence on delinquency and violence in later life.

It is claimed that a loss of the mother is the most damaging factor which is backed up in Haas et al (2004) studies of Cambridge and Swiss study. Families disrupted by parental disharmony are more at risk than families disrupted by death, "disrupted families in general are associated with relatively high delinquency rates... ". (17) High conflict in a family is defined as, "chronic tension or disagreement in many fields between the operative parents". (18) However, adolescents who experience family transition such as parental divorce or bereavement can be protected not just by the remaining family but by factors such as social and academic features. A structured school environment or a supportive group of peers has shown to promote resilience in the affected child.

(19) Elliot et al (1985) puts forward three reasons for delinquency on the family's behalf: 1. the failure to develop internal controls during childhood 2. the breakdown or re-awaking of previously established internal controls- particularly during adolescence 3. Social disorganisation- in particular social units e.g. family thus, results in weak external controls. The family according to Elliot et al (1985) is an important source of both internal and external controls so, it sets out the child's belief system, what they perceive as right or wrong internally, and also regulates what the child can do externally i.e. what time they are allowed out till, pocket money etc Children who are brought up without an immediate family i.e. children who are raised in institutions, orphanages, social care are more likely to develop violent delinquent behaviour, "children placed in institutions often suffer long-term consequences because... the absence of a sufficiently warm and firm family" (20) If a child is in an institution then they are going to fail to see the importance of stability and support that a family brings. Denying a child these things is dangerous because they can be easily manipulated and exploited when they are growing up because they will lack fundamental values and principles that can only be obtained through the love and guidance of a family unit. Even the extended family for example, grandparents can take a more prominent role in a child's life. Haas et al shows that additional nurturing resources can have a positive effect and again, reduce the risk of violent behaviour in adolescence and later life.

Our behaviour at times can be very erratic and it is very complex to work out the factors that influence our actions such as violence. It is important, however, to consider other issues that affect the way we behave. Agnew (1992) concentrates on a general theory of strain which is broken up into main categories; failure to achieve desired goals, removal of a positive stimuli (death of a friend), existence of negative stimuli (physical pain, embarrassment) and the presentation of a negative stimuli (e.g. an argument)... People have differing levels of aggression, but people with high levels of aggression are often easily irritable, less tolerable and so when they react to whatever difficulty confronts them, they are more likely to commit, "acts of theft, vandalism, drug or alcohol abuse, or violence". (21) Similarly, Bowl by (1951) works on a trauma theory for children.

For children to grow into healthy adults they require their mother to be loving, warm, stable and continuous. If, during the child-rearing years, there is any disruption then the more disruptive the influence, the more damaging the outcome and the resulting behaviour is more than probably going to result in violence. There have been many attempts to make a positive correlation between poverty and violent crime. Engels (1993) claims that exploited working class workers saw violence as a, "retaliation against the bourgeoisie". As already stated, the working class have an instrument of masculinity taken away from them because they have little wealth and so have to rely on other hegemonic ideals to put across their masculinity. However, Jones (2000) states that linking violence and poverty is contradictory and that there is no clear evidence linking crime rates with economic downturn.

But, poverty and domestic can be related according to Jones (2000) because as couples become more financially constrained they become frustrated, poor resources and lack of space can add to the melting pot which can easily boil over into arguments and even violence. Clearly the family and peer group have a huge influence on many behaviour al treats and decision making processes. A positive family life gives a child the ideal start in life in that you can help control and monitor their beliefs, how they look at the world and how they make their judgement's. Outside of the family the next best thing is your own peer group. With adolescents though there are problems and conflicts with the family because parent's idea of a peer group is often very different to a child's.

This is where conflict comes in, because often stopping a child from seeing their friend's only makes them more determined to rebel and misbehave when they are out of the parent's sight. Violent crime is one area that parents must be vigilant about, anti-social behaviour should be discouraged from an early age and high risk families can be provided with appropriate services, which aim to help parents deal with their children better using different intervention methods and offering treatment for potential parental disruptions. Maybe in the 21st century masculinity is being pushed into new realms, it could be coming under pressure from modernizing mechanisms. Perhaps simply standing up to physical violence, proving you " re a "man" isn't enough anymore. Sometimes it looks as if the competition in society and the pressures that seep out from divisions in class, race and power are creating a society where masculinity is now a matter of how far you are willing to go, how far you can push the boundaries to prove oneself as a man.