Why Do Some Countries Disapprove of Homosexuality? Money, Democracy and Religion

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. This post is republished during the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference occurring March 21 – 25 in Kansas City, MO. #ACJS2017


By Amy Adamczyk, City University of New York, author of Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe

Image 20170227 18526 18hfh5y
Gay pride – but not everywhere. bensonkua/flickr, CC BY-SA

With Trump’s removal of federal protections for transgender students, debate over LGBTQ rights rage again across the U.S. The Conversation

Despite these disagreements, Americans are relatively liberal compared to countries across the world, where the consequences for gay or transgender citizens are far more dire.

In Europe and here in the Americas, only a minority of people believe that homosexuality is never justified. The percentage increases in places like Russia, India and China. In Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia, attitudes become even more conservative.

Why are there such big differences in public opinion about homosexuality? My book, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality, shows that a key part of the answer comes in understanding how national characteristics shape individuals’ attitudes.

Within countries, a similar set of demographic characteristics tend to influence how people feel about homosexuality. For example, women tend to be more liberal than men. Older people tend to be more conservative than younger ones. Muslims are more likely to disapprove of homosexuality than Catholics, Jews and mainline Protestants.

Just like people, countries too have particular characteristics that can sway residents’ attitudes about homosexuality. I have analyzed data from over 80 nations from the last three waves of the World Values Survey, the oldest noncommercial, cross-national examination of individuals’ attitudes, values and beliefs over time. It is the only academic survey to include people from both very rich and poor countries, in all of the world’s major cultural zones. It now has surveys from almost 400,000 respondents.

My analysis shows that differences in attitudes between nations can largely be explained by three factors: economic development, democracy and religion.

Money matters

Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are some of the richest nations in the world. They are also some of the most tolerant. In sharp contrast, countries like Uganda and Nigeria are quite poor and the vast majority of residents disapprove.

How does the amount of money a country has shape attitudes? In very poor countries, people are likely to be more concerned about basic survival. Parents may worry about how to obtain clean water and food for their children. Residents may feel that if they stick together and work closely with friends, family and community members, they will lead a more predictable and stable life. In this way, social scientists have found that a group mentality may develop, encouraging people to think in similar ways and discouraging individual differences.

Because of the focus on group loyalty and tradition, many residents from poorer countries are likely to view homosexuality as highly problematic. It violates traditional sensibilities. Many people may feel that LGBTQ individuals should conform to dominant heterosexual and traditional family norms.

Conversely, residents from richer nations are less dependent on the group and less concerned about basic survival. They have more freedom to choose their partners and lifestyle. Even in relatively rich countries like the United States, some people will still find homosexuality problematic. But, many will also be supportive.

Regardless of how much money they make, most people living in poorer countries are likely to be affected by cultural norms that focus on survival and group loyalty, leading to more disapproval.

Freedom of speech

The type of government also matters. People living in more democratic countries tend to be more supportive of homosexuality.

Democracy increases tolerance by exposing residents to new perspectives. Democracy also encourages people to respect individuals’ rights, regardless of whether they personally like the people being protected.

Freedom of speech also allows residents to protest and not be arrested. When residents feel that they can freely express their ideas, they become even more inclined to speak up for themselves and others. This leads to more tolerance.

Dominant religious views

The final factor shaping individuals’ attitudes is religion. Countries dominated by Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy and those that have a mixture of conservative and mainline Protestant faiths are more likely to disapprove.

In contrast, nations dominated by mainline Protestant religions and Catholicism – such as Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom – are much more liberal.

Why are people from Muslim majority nations so opposed to homosexuality? Both Islam and conservative Protestant faiths generate high levels of religious belief. Most religious texts say that homosexuality is problematic. More religious people are more likely to take these religious precepts seriously. When a large proportion of people are highly dedicated to their religion, everyone within the country tends to develop more conservative views.

In these countries, the media are likely to reflect dominant religious views. Schools and businesses are more likely to support religious perspectives that disapprove of homosexuality. The government may censor the media so that they do not violate religious sensibilities. They may also restrict nonprofit organizations and human rights groups that promote views inconsistent with conservative religious values. Religious friends and family members are likely to reinforce anti-homosexual views.

Finally, there may not be any gay bars or other places to meet people with friendlier attitudes in these countries. Likewise, there may be limited internet access where residents could get more information about gay men and lesbians. In these countries most people are likely to disapprove, regardless of whether or not they are personally religious.

Are most nations becoming more liberal?

In 1996, there were only six nations that allowed for civil union or marriage. Seventeen years later, 43 nations allowed for it.

However, there has also been an increase in the number of nations that have a constitution or legal ban on homosexuality, indicating that there seems to have been a small backlash. These actions could be a reaction against the liberal legislation put in place in other countries.

As people across the world develop more liberal attitudes, many still disagree. Countries that are highly opposed to homosexuality tend to put in place policies and laws that reflect this disapproval.

While religion, economic development and democracy have a major role in shaping attitudes, the march toward greater liberalization is less straightforward than these factors alone would suggest.

Nations are embedded in a global context. Many countries located in Europe and North America were the first to become wealthy and democratic. Because they were the leaders, they were not subject to the pressure that currently up-and-coming countries now face from more powerful countries that led the way for gay rights.

Additionally, religion remains relevant, even in many rich societies, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and up-and-coming countries, like Egypt and South Africa.

Future changes in attitudes are likely to be complicated by international forces and the continuing significance of religion.

Eighty percent of the countries I examined are becoming more liberal. However, we can’t assume that these changes will always be linear or simple. While we’ve seen a general trend toward more liberal views regarding homosexuality, there are likely to be hiccups along the way that affect how these different socioeconomic and cultural influences take shape nationally and across the world.


Amy Adamczyk is Professor of Sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

 


Police Intelligence: Linking Teaching, Practice and Research

By Dean Dabney & Richard Tewksbury, authors of Speaking Truth to Power: Confidential Informants and Police Investigations

This guest post is published as part of a series in relation to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference occurring March 21 – 25 in Kansas City, MO. #ACJS2017

In the world of police intelligence the ideas of teaching, practice and research are all critically important for an integrated approach to one of the foundational activities that sets the gears of the criminal justice machine in motion. One powerful and increasingly relied upon component of the law enforcement toolkit for gathering of intelligence is the use of confidential informants. The practice is widely acknowledged but plagued by a dearth of research and teaching about the issue. When most Americans think of confidential informants (or, “snitches”) they immediately envision media-inspired/perpetuated stereotypes and images. Who are informants, how they work, with whom they work, and when, where and why the police employ informants are all issues about which people primarily “learn” via entertainment media. Are those images correct? Maybe, but maybe not. Unfortunately, we have a paucity of research about the topic.

In fact, unfortunately we have very little research on how police gather information, regardless of the means. As scholars we have done a good job examining how the police use information in investigations, prevention programs and solving crimes. But, how information is gathered is largely beyond the view of social scientists. This is especially crucial in the War on Drugs, where information gathering is critical for any and all of our “successes”.

This is because it is a secretive activity, and there is a need for such activities to be at least somewhat undercover for them to be effective. However, that argument can be made for many types of activities, by many types of actors – both inside and outside the criminal justice system. The fact is that we do have knowledge about all kinds of “hidden” aspects of many social activities. In fact, there is no reason we cannot, or should not, study these realms. The question becomes why we do not investigate police intelligence gathering more frequently and in more depth and detail?

The argument that scholars are “kept out” would be easy to make, and many can offer stories of their own efforts to gain access to data but being thwarted in their efforts. But, this is not to say that there is a police conspiracy to keep researchers out. As our own experiences showed, access, and even acceptance, inside the policing world is achievable. The key is to find the right “spot” for making entry. If we find receptive individuals and organizations and we approach the issue in an open and unbiased way, it can be done.

Scholars are not systematically and universally excluded from studying police and their activities from the inside. There are opportunities, but as scholars we need to seek, find and perhaps most importantly nurture relationships that can facilitate our ability to “see it from the inside”. How can we truly “see it from the inside”? In order to do so, we need to actually physically be inside, and then stay there. We need to actually talk to police, community members, and even offenders. We need to meet the people who do the gathering of information, and we need to see them actually do it. We need to understand how the experience feels, how it rewards and frustrates, and what can be done when unanticipated obstacles arise. In short, we need qualitative, ethnographic research on the topic.

The practice of law enforcement intelligence gathering and use of confidential informants is a practice that is common, valuable but severely lacking in research. Without research on the topic we also have nothing to teach about the topic, except for what is common in our entertainment media. In this way the issue of police intelligence and use of confidential informants is a prime example of the need to integrate teaching, practice and research. As we stand now without that integration – and without quality ethnographic investigations — we are left with no knowledge, and no promises of gaining knowledge to teach about a practice. Only with the dedication of pioneering scholars will we be able to overcome our dearth of knowledge and learn how to better manage our law enforcement practices.

See Dean Dabney at: ACJS’s Author Meets Critic Session
Wednesday, March 22nd
11:00 am to 12:15 pm
Muehlebach Tower: Floor Trianon Level – Lido

Moderator:
Rod Brunson, Rutgers University

Critics:
Scott Decker, Arizona State University
William Wells, Sam Houston State University


Dean A. Dabney is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Georgia State University.

Richard Tewksbury is Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville.

 


Save 40% with UC Press during the 2017 Academy of Criminal Justice Annual Meeting

The 2017 ACJS Annual Meeting meeting convenes March 21 – 25 in Kansas City, MO.

Visit Booth #300 to see the latest UC Press titles in Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Law and Society. Books focus on linking the teaching, practice, and research on issues such as incarceration, corrections, policing, gender, immigration, school to prison pipeline, and much more. Senior Editor Maura Roessner wiil be in attendance if you’d like to learn more about working with her to become a UC Press textbook author or reviewer.

Read the latest blog posts from our authors.

And save 40% online with discount code 16E6715, or request an exam copy for consideration to use in your upcoming classes. The discount code expires April 5, 2017.


Beyond Mass Incarceration: The Cognitive Legacy of the Clinton Era

By Michela Soyer, author of A Dream Denied: Incarceration, Recidivism, and Young Minority Men in America 

SoyerheadshotWhen Bill Clinton signed the federal “Three Strikes Bill” in 1994, most of the teenagers I interviewed between 2010 and 2013 were barely a year old. Some of my interviewees were not even been born yet. For several of those young men, the upcoming presidential election will be the first one in which they are able to cast their vote. One of their likely choices will be the woman whose husband’s political choices in the mid-1990s have wrecked havoc in their communities. Twenty years later, Hillary Clinton works hard to put a distance between herself and her husband’s legacy; on her campaign website, she calls for an end of mass incarceration and criminal justice reform.

For the teenagers whose lives I describe in A Dream Denied, Clinton’s promise to undo some of her husband’s damage comes too late. Five of the young men I portray in my book won’t be allowed to vote in the upcoming election; they are either serving time in a state prison or are on parole for a felony. The others may have escaped the tragic cycle of incarceration and recidivism, but their formative teenagers years were nevertheless stunted. Their life trajectories have been shaped by a juvenile justice system unable to fill the void Clinton’s welfare reform has created. Their middle class counterparts may face anxieties about their lack of self-fulfillment and financial insecurities. The young men in my study learned early on that their basic freedom is nothing they should take for granted.

In June 2013, I conducted my final interview for the book. The young man I spoke with had just suffered through a string of family tragedies. His cousin and his aunt had been killed. “Why does this s*** keep happening to me and my family?” he asked. I didn’t know how to respond, and I still believe that there was nothing I could have said to ease his pain. His experience of incarceration, recidivism, fosSoyer.ADreamDeniedter care and death are deeply personal. On the other hand, the seeds for his troubled teenage years were laid around the time of his birth, when the Clinton administration ended “welfare as we know it.”

These young men grew up with the double disadvantage of a defunct welfare system and a racially biased highly punitive criminal justice system. Astonishingly, these young men still believed in a bright future. If Hillary Clinton were to meet with them, they probably would not confront her like a protestor did recently in South Carolina. Most of the young minority men whose lives I describe blamed themselves. They pointed to their lack of self-control, their laziness, or inability to listen to the adults in their lives. In that sense, they are true children of the Clinton years. They did not expect the government to help their families. Some even believe their punishment was justified. Worse than the time many young men have lost in the juvenile or criminal justice system, however, is that they were never able to develop any concept that they deserve better. This cognitive burden may be the most tragic legacy of the Clinton years, and it will shape the life trajectories of the young men in my study well beyond the presidential election this fall.


Michaela Soyer is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Hunter College.


The Cultural Consequences of International Criminal Justice Intervention

by Joachim J. Savelsberg, author of Representing Mass Violence: Conflicting Responses to Human Rights Violations in Darfur. A free ebook version of this title is available through Luminos, University of California Press’s new open access publishing program for monographs.

Savelsberg-RepresentingMassViolence

This guest post is published as part of a series in relation to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference occurring at the end of March in Denver, CO .

How can international criminal justice contribute to fighting mass atrocities?

Mass atrocities, specifically genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, have cost manifold more human lives than all street crimes combined. New research, mostly conducted by political scientists, indicates that interventions by international institutions, including the new International Criminal Court, reduce such violence. But the mechanism is hidden in a black box. Some speculate that deterrence is at work. The current book instead examines the cultural consequences of interventions. Based on content analysis of well over three thousand news media reports and interviews with Africa correspondents, NGO experts and foreign ministry officials from eight countries, it depicts the changing collective representations of mass violence. Criminal justice interventions play a major role as they keep mass violence on the public radar and increase the likelihood that it will be depicted as state crime and genocide. The age old celebration of those responsible for mass violence as great state builders and decades of denial are thereby challenged. And such challenges are likely to affect international responses to mass violence.

Are there challenges to the representative function of criminal justice interventions?

Challenges to criminal justice framing of mass violence are numerous. They do not just emanate from the dark forces of perpetrating organizations and states. Competing representations are also generated by other social fields that seek to provide relief in the midst of devastation or to put an end to the violence. Humanitarian aid organizations tell stories about the violence that differ substantially from those told by the Court. Their accounts treat the perpetrating state cautiously. They focus on deprivations in refugee camps rather than on those victims who suffer directly from criminal violence. In the words of one humanitarian NGO worker: “Who is the devil? Good and bad – we don’t necessarily see the world in that way… We need [communication], because to be present in an area you need acceptance by the groups.” Also diplomats who work tirelessly to put an end to the violence provide a representation that competes with the criminal justice frame. And here too, actors in the diplomatic field provide their reasoning openly: “If you want to make peace in Darfur through negotiations, you have to deal with the Sudanese government… If you want justice through the ICC, well, then you should stigmatize someone who is indicted.” Media analysis shows that the humanitarian aid and armed conflict frames, promoted by aid NGOs and diplomats respectively, also affect media reporting. Yet, they do so less successfully than criminal justice interventions.

Can findings about the case of Darfur be generalized?

Representing Mass Violence focuses on the mass violence that unfolded in the Darfur region of Sudan during the first decade of the 21st century. The estimated death toll is 300,000. Millions have been driven from their homes. Tens of thousands have been raped. The livelihood of half of the population of Darfur has been destroyed. But Darfur is not a single case. The last two and a half decades saw mass violence in countries such as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, the DRC, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and East Timor, continuing histories of horror of the 20th and of preceding centuries.

Today the ongoing mass violence in Syria and Iraq dominates news media headlines. To be sure, the geopolitical position of each of these countries differs, and so does their exposure to international criminal justice institutions. Yet, all of these situations have seen some form of criminal justice response. Many of the responding institutions are new and barely tested. Scholarship needs to pay close attention to their functioning and impact. The story of Darfur tells us, however, that they will likely contribute to a representation of those responsible for mass violence that will cast a shadow on the reputation of responsible actors. These state and military leaders are less likely to go down in history as heroes but as villains instead. The buildup of international justice institutions may generate some of the civilizing effect that the development of state institutions had over past centuries. Uncertainties are great, of course, but an opportunity lends itself, and continued observation is the order of the day.


Joachim J. Savelsberg is Professor of Sociology and Law and Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair at the University of Minnesota. He is the coauthor of American Memories: Atrocities and the Law and author of Crime and Human Rights: Criminology of Genocide and Atrocities.


The End of a New Beginning: The World’s First All-Female UN Peacekeeping Unit Departs Liberia

By Lesley J. Pruitt, author of The Women in Blue Helmets: Gender, Policing, and the UN’s First All-Female Peacekeeping Unit

Pruitt.WomenInBlueHelmets

This guest post is published as part of a series in relation to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference occurring at the end of March in Denver, CO, and in recognition of International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month

Just recently, the final contingent of the world’s first all-female formed police unit (FFPU) deployed in UN  peacekeeping departed Liberia for the last time—representing nearly a decade of Indian women’s contributions to building the peace in Liberia. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia commended them, saying, “The contribution you have made in inspiring Liberian women, imparting in them the spirit of professionalism and encouraging them to join operations that protect the nation; for that we will always be grateful.”

Moreover, Sirleaf added, “Our security service now has 17 percent women – we owe all that to you, because it was not even one percent a few years ago. And these women want to emulate you in the way you’ve served this country.” Indeed, President Sirleaf said if it were up to her, they wouldn’t be leaving: “If I had my will, I would have recommended for another unit of the United Nations Mission in Liberia to leave, so that the Indian Formed Police Unit would continue its stay in the country for the time being.”

Praise for the FFPU 

While these particular remarks come at the end of their term in Liberia, such praise is nothing new for the FFPU. When the Indian FFPU first deployed to Liberia in January 2007, Indian media declared that, “the Ladies from India Have Landed in Liberia,” and hailed the initiative, declaring the “Battalion a Hit in Liberia.” That first contingent consisted of 105 women peacekeepers recruited from across India’s Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), a paramilitary police organization. The first group was deemed a success by the UN and media reports, and a rotation system was put in place so that the contingent was replaced annually up until their recent departure.

Indeed, the very first FFPU commander, Seema Dhundia, back in 2007 predicted such positive outcomes for her team, saying, “These girls are experienced and have been trained. They have worked in areas of India where there was insurgency. They will do a good job and the Liberian ladies will get motivated and inspired to come forward and join the regular police.” Facing challenges from riots to Ebola, the FFPU officers have proven themselves up to the task again and again. Indeed, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon commended the FFPU as their term recently ended, highlighting that, “Through their work, they managed criminality, deterred sexual and gender-based violence and helped rebuild safety and confidence among the population.”

An Innovative Peacekeeping Practice

Given these outcomes, it is critical to understand how this innovative initiative came about, what made it possible, and what outcomes have been achieved—for the people of Liberia, for the women of the FFPU, and for the world more broadly.

In my own fieldwork in New York (USA), New Delhi (India), and Monrovia (Liberia), I was able to develop an understanding of the actual and possible benefits and challenges to women’s participation in peacekeeping. These benefits and challenges affect the women peacekeepers themselves, the local populations where they serve, and the home communities to which they return after deployment. Through examining the ways women and men working in a variety of contexts found practical ways to achieve this innovative peacekeeping practice and advance gender equity despite obstacles, I came to a deeper understanding of questions we need to be urgently asking about the relationship between gender, peace, and security more broadly.

In an interview recounting some opposition to the original FFPU deployment, Mark Kroeker, former Civilian Police Advisor of UNPOL, UN DPKO, explained that, “I think when the discussion was there and the idea of the FFPU emerged the question was can the Indian government actually produce it? Do they have the right equipment, qualifications, and is the mission willing to have them? …The questions started coming: Are you sure an all-woman unit is really appropriate?” In hindsight one might argue that not only was the FFPU appropriate, it was sorely needed.

For now, this case clearly shows that significant and innovative changes can happen, even within the confines of conservative institutions beholden to a variety of stakeholders, not all of whom support women’s participation in peace and security. Moreover, while there are still many impediments to adequately implementing gender perspectives in peacekeeping, it nevertheless appears that the situation now is riper for change than it ever has been. In the words of Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy, “Another world is not only possible. She is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”


Lesley J. Pruitt is a lecturer in international development at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.


Join Us at the 2015 American Society of Criminal Justice Sciences Meeting

Join University of California Press this spring at the 2015 American Society of Criminal Justice Sciences. The meeting convenes March 3-7 in Orlando.  “Broadening the Horizon of the Criminal Justice Sciences: Looking Outward Rather Than Inward” is this year’s conference theme.

Visit our booth 35 at the Caribe Royale All-Suite Hotel to check out our criminology titles and check out the following offers:

  • 30% conference discount and free worldwide shipping
  • Request exam copy requests for course adoption for your upcoming classes
  • Win an $100 worth of UC Press books! Join our eNews subscription for eligibility.

Please see our conference program ad for our latest offerings. Acquisitions and marketing staff will be available for your publishing questions.