The American Sociologist

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 5–23 | Cite as

Blame analysis: Accounting for the behavior of protected groups

  • Richard B. Felson
Article

Abstract

When a group is not doing as well as other groups on some dimension, group members and sympathizers give accounts that attempt to minimize the group’s blame for its predicament. These accounts reflect concerns about prejudice, as well as policy concerns. This approach to social science may be called “blame analysis,” because it evaluates theories according to the extent to which they blame protected groups. Blame analysis treats cause and blame as the same, and rejects theoretical arguments that posit any causal role for the protected group because they “blame the victim.” As a result, discussions of proximate causes and mediating variables are avoided in explanations of outcomes for these groups. The author argues that this approach violates scientific principles and discourages the investigation of important issues.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, Howard S., ed. 1964.The Other Side. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benokraitis, Nijole and Joe R. Feagan. 1987.Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle and Covert Discrimination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Black, Donald. 1983. “Crime as Social Control.”American Sociological Review 48:34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenthal, M.D., R.L. Kahn, F.M. Andrews and K.B. Head. 1972.Justifying violence: Attitudes of American Men. Ann Arbor MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, Angela. 1987.When Battered Women Kill. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Brownmiller, Susan. 1975.Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Brush, Lisa. 1990. “Violent Acts and Injurious Outcomes in Married Couples: Methodological Issues in the National Survey of Families and Households.”Gender and Society 4:56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, Peter J., Jan E. Stets, and Maureen A. Pirog-Good. 1988. “Gender Identity, Self-esteem, and Physical and Sexual Abuse in Dating Relationships.”Social Psychology Quarterly 51:272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, Nathan and Stephen Nelson, 1973. “On Being Useful: The Nature and Consequences of Psychological Research on Social Problems.”American Psychologist (March): 199–211.Google Scholar
  10. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1968. “Values and Social Science: The Value Dispute in Perspective.” InEssays in the Theory of Society, edited by Ralf Dahrendorf. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dobash, E. Emerson and Russell P. Dobash. 1984. “The Nature and Antecedents of Violent Events.”British Journal of Criminology 24:269–288.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, Jacquelynne S., and J.E. Jacobs. 1986. “Social Forces Shape Math Attitudes and Performance.”Signs 11:367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eitzen, D. Stanley. 1989.Social Problems. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Feiner, Susan F. and Bruce B. Roberts. 1990. “Hidden by the Invisible Hand: Neoclassical Economic Theory and the Textbook Treatment of Race and Gender.”Gender and Society 4:159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felson, Richard B. 1981 “Ambiguity and Bias in the Self Concept.”Social Psychology Quarterly 44:64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Felson, Richard B. 1984. “Patterns of Aggressive Social Interaction.” InSocial Psychology of Aggression: From Individual Behavior to Social Interaction, edited by Amelie Mummendey. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Felson, Richard B. and Steve Ribner. 1981. “An Attributional Approach to Accounts and Sanctions for Criminal Violence.”Social Psychology Quarterly 44:137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fine, Michelle. 1989. “The Politics of Research and Activism: Violence against Women.”Gender and Society 3:549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. French, Marilyn. 1985.Beyond Power. New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gagnon, John H. 1977.Human Sexualities. Glenview, Il: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  21. Gans, Herbert J. 1990. “Deconstructing the Underclass: The term’s dangers as a planning concept.”Journal of the American Planning Association 56:271–277.Google Scholar
  22. Hirschi, Travis. 1973. “Procedural Rules and the Study of Deviant Behavior.”Social Problems 21:159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1987. “Disenthralling Sociology.”Society, January/February, 48–54.Google Scholar
  24. House, James. 1981. “Social Structure and Personality.” Pp. 525–561 inSocial Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edited by Morris Rosenberg and Ralph H. Turner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Karmen, Andrew. 1984.Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Belmont, CA: Cole.Google Scholar
  26. Kornblum, William and Joseph Julian. 1989.Social Problems, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Kruttschnitt, Candace and Donald E. Green. 1984. “The Sex-Sanctioning Issue: Is it history?”American Sociological Review 49:541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kurz, Denise. 1989. “Social Science Perspectives on Wife Abuse: Current Debates and Future Directions.”Gender and Society 3:489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lauer, Robert H. 1989.Social Problems and the Quality of Life. 4th ed. Dubuque: W.C. Brown.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, Barrett A., Sue Hinze Jones, and David W. Lewis. 1990. “Public Beliefs About the Causes of Homelessness.”Social Forces 69:253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, Oscar. 1966.La Vida. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  32. Lieberson, Stanley. 1989. “When Right Results are Wrong.”Society 26:60–66.Google Scholar
  33. Lofland, John. 1969.Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Luckenbill, David F. 1977. “Criminal Homicide as a Situated Transaction.”Social Problems 25:176–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marini, Margaret M. 1989. “Sex Differences in Earnings in the United States.” InAnnual Review of Sociology, edited by W. Richard Scott and Judith Blake (Vol. 15). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Moynihan, Daniel P. 1965.The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy Planning and Research, U. S. Dept. of Labor.Google Scholar
  37. Pagelow, Mildred Page. 1984.Family Violence. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, Jean. 1932.The Moral Judgement of the Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  39. Raiman, Jeffrey H. 1979.The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class and Criminal Justice. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenthal, Robert. and Lenore Jacobson. 1968.Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupil Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Ryan, William. 1971.Blaming the Victim. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  42. Schaefer, Richard T. 1990.Racial and Ethnic Groups. 4th ed. ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  43. Schlenker, Barry R. 1980.Impression Management: The Self-concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  44. Scott, Marvin and S. M. Lyman. 1968. “Accounts.”American Sociological Review 33:46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll. 1985.Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tedeschi, James T., J. Gates, and A. N. Rivera. 1977. “Aggression and the Use of Coercive Power.”Journal of Social Issues 33:101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Toby, Jackson. 1980. “The New Criminology is the Old Baloney.” InRadical Criminology: The Coming Crises, edited by James A. Inciardi. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Tomaskovic-Devey, Barbara and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey. 1988. “The social structural determinants of ethnic group behavior: Single Ancestry Rates Among Four White American Ethnic Groups.”American Sociological Review 53:650–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valentine, Charles A. 1968.Culture and Poverty: Critique and Counter Proposals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weber, Max. 1958.From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Weitzman, Lenore J. 1979.Sex-role Socialization: A Focus on Women. Palo Alto: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  52. Wilhelm, Sidney M. 1980. “Can Marxism Explain American’s Racism?”Social Problems 28:98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams, David R. 1990. “Socioeconomic Differentials in Health: A Review and Redirection.”Social Psychology Quarterly 53:81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Willie, Charles V. 1978. “The Inclining Significance of Race.”Society 15:5.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson William J. 1978.The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, William J. 1987.The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard B. Felson
    • 1
  1. 1.the University at AlbanyState University of New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyState University of New YorkAlbany

Personalised recommendations