Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Sociology Explains Nothing


A recent article posted on The Star takes issue with Stephen Harper’s tendency to dismiss sociological explanations for crimes. For example, in response to the murder of Tina Fontaine, Harper argued that her death was an isolated incident and that the murder was not part of a sociological phenomenon. Harper also made similar comments in response to the attempted bombing of a VIA train last year. The journalists at The Star take issue with this attitude because supposedly it is an “ideological attempt to prevent Canadian society from being able to identify and tackle its structural injustices.” While I can’t defend everything Harper has done or said, I feel his objective approach to this crime is commendable, especially since it doesn’t capitulate to the incessant whining of social justice warriors.


How does one distinguish between an isolated incident and a structural phenomenon? The Star article claims that structural injustices differ from individual crimes in that crimes by individuals can be traced back to a single person(s), whereas structural injustices are committed by society at large. If that is the case, I fail to see how Ms. Fontaine’s murder should be regarded as the latter rather than the former. Considering that we don’t even know who the murderer is yet, it doesn’t make sense to attribute his/her motivations to racism, as that is not likely the case. 


Most of what is deemed as structural injustices are no more than statistical disparities between one group and another. For instance, the article implies that the difference between the murder rate of aboriginal Canadian women and non-aboriginal women is indicative of structural racism. Leave it to the crazy SJW’s to automatically claim this to be the result of racism or sexism. However, differences in the murder rate between one group and another cannot by itself reveal structural discrimination. Tina Fontaine was a runaway teenager. Seeing as though the vast majority of child abductions happen to runaway children[1], I would venture to say that Ms. Fontaine’s status as a runaway put her at far greater risk of being murdered than being aboriginal.  There are often underlying differences between the groups (such as economics, cultural values, level of education, etc.) that lead to such statistical disparities. In Canada, men are far more likely to be the victims of aggravated assault and murder than women[2]; however, few SJW’s would suggest this statistical disparity to be the result of sexism or racism since it does not fit in with their preconceived narrative—namely that women and minorities are oppressed whereas white men never are. There is no simple, convenient explanation for why men are murdered far more often than women, or why aboriginal women are murdered more than white women, but to simply dismiss this as sexism or racism clearly ignores all the nuances and complexities of human interactions. However, when the statistical disparities do reflect the world view of the SJW’s, then they will be the first to cry racism or sexism.


I don’t have anything against the academic discipline of sociology per se, but we all know that when The Star talks about “structural injustices”, what they really mean is finding a way to blame everything on either sexism, racism, capitalism, or all the above—a practice that is far removed from anything resembling the scientific method. It should be remembered that Tina Fontaine wasn’t murdered by society, she was murdered by an individual person, whose motivations for doing so were solely his own. The reason why I believe the attitude conveyed by The Star is toxic is because it diverts the responsibility of Ms. Fontaine’s murder away from the individual who committed it and imposes it collectively on society. Since Ms. Fontaine’s murder was the result of structural racism according to these people, it is society that needs to atone for it. For Stephen Harper to acknowledge these “structural injustices” would mean effectively signing a blank check away to any social justice warrior or special-interest groups who claims to have the answers. It’s funny that the solution to rectifying so-called structural injustices typically involves the redistribution of wealth in some form or another.


When Margaret Thatcher said that “there is no such thing as society”, she meant that there is no entity called “society” that may speak, feel, think, or act on anyone’s behalf. Society is an abstract concept referring to the various relationships between individuals, and to speak of society apart from individuals is to remove all humanity from the discussion.  It may be tempting to blame society for a heinous crime like the murder of Tina Fontaine when there is no suspect to point the finger at yet. However, trying to impose the guilt of one individual upon an entire collective is an absurd accusation. Stephen Harper is demonstrating a level-headed approach to such a heinous crime instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions.






[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
[2] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/t001-eng.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment