Fitting in nicely with my study of societal strain theories and illegitimate opportunity structures, Ken Skilling of Enron fame was sentenced to 24 years and 6 months in prison for his role in the pervasive fraud and conspiracy that bankrupted Enron.
And I really can't help but wonder... given all the theories, given all the opportunities.. Is it really his fault?
Popular, though static strain theory suggests that those in upper classes are just as likely to commit crimes (though white collar) as those in lower classes are, due not only because of the gap between prescribed aspirations and means for realizing.. but our unexamined acceptance of a primary goal of monetary and material success. The weak and dying emphasis on the means to achieve these goals, like honest hard work, is so far removed from somebody who can just point and click their way to an internet stock trading fortune via insider trading - without ever being personally invested in the work to elevate the company to a viable status. But are their goals any different from what we all aspire to? Or just their means of getting there?
Is this really all that different from a young person living in a lower class environment who's aspirations of money and fame and dare we say it - the American Dream - are so far removed from thier means that they too turn to illegitimate opportunity structures like robbery, drugs and violence? Is there really a difference between somebody cooking crack and cooking the books when the societal strain on the two is equal in most respects? Is the crack dealer a little more admirable in that at least he gets his hands dirty?
The only thing that differs is their relative deprivation - not an absolute standard of sustainability but in measurment to those around you. Mayhap Ken Skilling just hung out with somebody with THAT much bigger of a house, or THAT much nicer of a car. We all wonder - didn't he have enough?, but I think we all agree that it's never enough. We always want more. Material, monetary - it can just keep coming.
We've all agreed, unconsciously or wholeheartedly (I think it depends whether you're in oil or not..) that our common goals are material, are monetary, are newer and faster and smaller and sleeker, with 3 bedrooms and GPS.. the list goes on. Can we really blame somebody by not playing by the rules, or just blame them when they're caught? Selling crack or selling sugar as crack, the goals that they are attempting to attain are still the socially acceptable ones that we've all agreed upon.
Are they really that different? Skilling can ask his cellmate. He has a while to figure it out.
*quote by Merton
And I really can't help but wonder... given all the theories, given all the opportunities.. Is it really his fault?
Popular, though static strain theory suggests that those in upper classes are just as likely to commit crimes (though white collar) as those in lower classes are, due not only because of the gap between prescribed aspirations and means for realizing.. but our unexamined acceptance of a primary goal of monetary and material success. The weak and dying emphasis on the means to achieve these goals, like honest hard work, is so far removed from somebody who can just point and click their way to an internet stock trading fortune via insider trading - without ever being personally invested in the work to elevate the company to a viable status. But are their goals any different from what we all aspire to? Or just their means of getting there?
Is this really all that different from a young person living in a lower class environment who's aspirations of money and fame and dare we say it - the American Dream - are so far removed from thier means that they too turn to illegitimate opportunity structures like robbery, drugs and violence? Is there really a difference between somebody cooking crack and cooking the books when the societal strain on the two is equal in most respects? Is the crack dealer a little more admirable in that at least he gets his hands dirty?
The only thing that differs is their relative deprivation - not an absolute standard of sustainability but in measurment to those around you. Mayhap Ken Skilling just hung out with somebody with THAT much bigger of a house, or THAT much nicer of a car. We all wonder - didn't he have enough?, but I think we all agree that it's never enough. We always want more. Material, monetary - it can just keep coming.
We've all agreed, unconsciously or wholeheartedly (I think it depends whether you're in oil or not..) that our common goals are material, are monetary, are newer and faster and smaller and sleeker, with 3 bedrooms and GPS.. the list goes on. Can we really blame somebody by not playing by the rules, or just blame them when they're caught? Selling crack or selling sugar as crack, the goals that they are attempting to attain are still the socially acceptable ones that we've all agreed upon.
Are they really that different? Skilling can ask his cellmate. He has a while to figure it out.
*quote by Merton
No comments:
Post a Comment