Stanley
Hall brings up interesting points about crime in youth in his attempt at
understanding and explaining the phenomena. I want to share some of the points
that hit home with me, and hopefully these ideas will hit home with you as
well.
In
the preface, Hall brings up the fact that America is a young country; he was
not exaggerating when he said American literature, etiquette, fashion and
taste, institutions, system of justice, and even our way of believing in God
were in a sense “copy-and-pasted” from distinguished nations like Holland,
Rome, England, and Palestine. Essentially, if America were a tree, its roots
would be thin and brittle, without history or precedence to claim as its own.
It is in this background that youths are expected to mature; so according to
Hall, it was no wonder that they matured in leaps. In their exposure to modern
society with all its “material civilizations”, American youths have found
school, and even church a source of shortcomings in accommodating their period
of “stress and storm.” The educational system failed to acknowledge the value
of romance, activity, and freedom and instead pushed for tedious studying of
theories and other things children could not care less about; and the church
seemed brimming with hypocrisy and ignorance, making sure their charities and
missions were in fruition while slums in close proximity abounded. Hall makes
his point by saying that youth had to face these challenges amidst their adolescent
struggles.
After
his thorough account of the situation that serves as the background for
criminal youths, Hall goes into characterizing them in many different ways, in
which I will discuss the physical characteristic. The physical attributes were
tightly intervened with environment, for Hall could not dare say that criminal
intents were due to physical attributes alone. He observed (which still applies
today) that certain physical features and poverty (environment) together made a
criminal. Some of the features include lighter weight, small heads, defects of
sight and hearing, and parts of the body not in proportion to the rest. I think
this might be the result of malnutrition in the child’s development.
Another
aspect he introduced was that the physical attributes of youths are one of the
things that hampered more serious crimes, such as a brutal murder, from happening.
While such a feat might be possible for a grown man, a child who lack in physical
strength would not be able to accomplish the task. So here we have two
different points: one might go as far as to help us identify future criminals
by listing out the common physical traits, while the other
implies that youth are less dangerous because of those physical traits.
Throughout
it all, he seems to state that the essence of criminality is animal, savage,
unimpressed by “social norms”—and childish. Actually, he explicitly states this
when he says, “Criminals are much like overgrown children—egoistic, impulsive,
gluttonous, blind to the rights of others, and our passions tend to bring us to
childish stages.” This means that children are closest to our violent, criminal
nature, which is strikingly opposite to the theory Rousseau had. While Rousseau
claimed children were purest before being corrupted by society, Hall seems to
emphasize the importance of society’s role in disciplining them and teaching
them self-control. However, this also is ironic because Hall opens up his book
by pointing out the inherent weakness in American society, unstable and without
thick roots. So I hope you understand that there were many points that I found both
striking and ironic.
Hall, G. Stanley. Adolescence:
Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex,
Crime, Religion and Education. New York: D. Appleton, 1904. Print.
Assuredly hall paved the path for the study of adolescence however his profiling of criminals through their physiognomy and economic condition is a dangerous form of classification to adhere to. Albeit during this period of youth-as-objects of saving pinpointing criminal tendencies on poverty furthered reformers agenda;however, in doing so it categorizes a people as a whole who already are economically disenfranchised as dangerous. In retrospect, exposing the poor to classicist assumptions, such as “all poor are dangerous”, and social stratification.
ReplyDeleteAs a critique I feel Michelle laid out her argument in a clear fashion. I really enjoyed reading her blog and found her analysis both thought provoking and interesting. Thus, I agree with Michelle in the sense that there were contradictory points in Hall’s study.
Michelle Shin's post clearly describes Stanley Hall's view on youth as "objects of saving and study". Hall's descriptions of the various challenges that youth face demonstrate the viewpoint very common during the progressive era that youth need to be saved from the troubles of society, especially when concerning youth who live in poverty. However, while Hall takes some time to explain the challenges that face youth, Hall’s study also shows aspects of youth being a dangerous class. His frequent references to criminals as being immature and as children as being less developed and more prone to violence demonstrate that he views children as a danger to themselves and to society. Hall’s use of the term “adolescence” further emphasizes the point that youth have to go through a transformation in order to reach the same maturity level as that of an adult. This is similar to the idea that youth have a less developed sense of responsibility and should not be held to the same standard as an adult, but with the belief that youth are more dangerous because of it. While it might seem contradictory, Hall’s article is an example of how “youth-as-objects-of- saving-and-study” and “youth as a dangerous class” can coexist.
ReplyDelete