Month: October 2023

Food Insecurity in Jewish Communities

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Brian Hakimi, October 7, 2023

The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis which had a profound impact on the contemporary world. We have all witnessed the lingering effects of the pandemic on the United States; many stores and restaurants were forced to close their doors, and the cost of basic necessities has dramatically increased—especially for that of food. Naturally, this resulted in an exponential rise regarding the rate of food insecurity in the United States (Kakaei). Although the worst of the pandemic is said to be behind us, its effects on society remain extremely prevalent; many people are still struggling to make ends meet, as the cost of living remains at the elevated state it was placed in by the pandemic. This is reflected in the consumer price index, a principal measure for inflation rates in the United States, which increased exponentially from 2020 to 2021; the CPI skyrocketed from 1.4% to 7.0% in just this one year and it has remained at that level ever since (Hicks). 

Fortunately, the United States government has programs in place to assist people who are struggling with food insecurity. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently runs a federally funded program known as TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program), which was designed to provide low-income households with food at no additional cost. TEFAP, along with other government sponsored programs, certainly help many families across the United States put food on the table. However, TEFAP has not been able to help everyone in need of food security assistance as the food they provide cannot be consumed by everyone.

One particular group of people which this applies to are religiously observant Jewish people, who are an ethnoreligious group of people located all around the world. One prominent belief held by Jewish people is that the food they eat must be deemed  “kosher,” which restricts the types of food they are allowed to consume. Unfortunately, TEFAP does not provide many food options that are compliant with Jewish laws, meaning that impoverished Jews struggle to receive the necessary assistance from TEFAP. An article published by the Met Council—a New York based, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing kosher food for families in need—outlines why Jewish communities, as well as other communities that follow dietary restrictions, are in the situation they are currently in; “Our nation’s emergency feeding system is not designed to meet the needs of kosher and halal observant households” (4). The fact that food insecure Jewish communities are unable to receive the proper assistance because the USDA does not provide enough kosher food options is unjust, and it is essential that the USDA provides more kosher food options; not only are Jewish people struggling just as much as everyone else during these unprecedented times, but eating kosher food is extremely important to their cultural identity and an integral aspect of Judaism.

As mentioned before, people who are observant of Judaism are only allowed to eat food that falls under the category of being kosher. In order for a given food item to be considered kosher, it must follow a certain set of dietary regulations. A peer reviewed research paper published by Nature goes into depth on the requirements for food to be considered kosher; this includes the fact that the animal in question must be kosher, the animal must be killed in a certain manner, among other requirements (Mortas et. al). Additionally, it is prohibited under Judaism to consume any food that contains pork or any pig derivatives; any food that is even suspected to have traces of pork or pig derivatives cannot be deemed as kosher, even if every other aspect of the food follows the proper regulations (Mortas et. al). This process is extremely deliberate, and it is of utmost importance to religiously observant people that the food they consume follows these guidelines. In addition to this, a supervising process must take place during the production of kosher food, which contributes to its higher cost; this supervision is conducted by a certified Rabbi, who must be associated with a kosher supervising agency (Mandel). The manner in which the animals are raised and killed also contributes to the escalated cost of kosher food. In order for the animal to be kosher, it must be healthy and treated with care while it is being raised. Furthermore, the blade that is used to kill the animal must be as sharp as possible in order to ensure that the animal is inflicted with the least amount of pain possible (Moshe). These aspects of the production of kosher food naturally result in it being more costly overall, as these supervision and nurturing processes are reflected in the final price of kosher products.

This problem has hit closer to home than ever, as it is something that I am experiencing first-hand in my own life. Over the past couple of years, I have witnessed the price of food in the kosher restaurants in my area skyrocket to levels that I would have never thought were possible. This increased cost is likely due to supply chain issues, meaning that, overall, Jewish people have much less access to kosher food (Hanoka). I feel very fortunate that my family has been able to withstand this extreme rise in the cost of kosher food. However, other families are not as fortunate as mine, as I am seeing first-hand other people in my town feel the effects of this inflation on their cost of living. When taking this into consideration, I can only imagine the difficulties Jewish people in even more impoverished areas must be going through during these difficult times.

Not only is kosher food generally more expensive than non-kosher food, but the pandemic has affected the cost of kosher products to a significantly greater degree than non-kosher products. An article published by The Jewish Chronicle (a Jewish newspaper) estimated that the price of kosher food had increased by roughly 25% in 2022, which is around four times greater than the price increase of non-kosher food. Additionally, the Jewish charity GIFT (Give It Forward Today) has noticed a remarkable increase in the number of Jewish families that require support since the pandemic began, which certainly makes sense when taking the drastic inflation into account (Doherty). The fact that the cost of living for Jewish people has increased to such a ridiculously high degree indicates that food insecure Jewish people require support more than ever, which further proves why the USDA needs to implement more programs and policies that will cater to their needs.

Fortunately, organizations such as the Met Council and GIFT are able to provide a good number of impoverished Jewish families with the support  they need. However, these organizations can only do so much—whether or not this issue can be solved is ultimately up to the federal and state governments since they have the necessary funds and resources to provide food security support to all of the impoverished Jewish families and communities across the nation. If the proper measures are taken by the USDA to cater to the needs of all these people, then the support they provide, along with the support that is provided by these organizations, can help so many struggling Jewish Americans.

Overall, food insecure Jewish people are in desperate need of support. Although the assistance of other organizations would help tremendously, gaining more aid from the USDA would be especially impactful since they are directly linked to the federal government. Since keeping kosher is a fundamental aspect of the cultural and religious identity of Jewish people, for them to disregard this belief would be a major violation of Judaic principles; therefore, eating non-kosher food is simply not an option for the religiously observant families and communities. Additionally, the effect of the pandemic on the general price of kosher food does not make it any easier for these people. On top of the inherently greater costs of kosher food incurred by the supervising process and the fostering of the animals, the price of kosher food was inflated by the pandemic to a far greater degree than non-kosher food; due to this, the cost of living for religiously observant Jews has generally become far more expensive than for non-observant people.

The previously mentioned article published by the Met Council does suggest some potential solutions to this problem. One of the main resolutions suggested by the Met Council is that the USDA should establish an office which is specifically geared towards addressing the dietary needs of these communities. More specifically, the purpose of this office would be to oversee the process of making sure that healthy, culturally compliant food reaches these communities (14). This is an excellent idea, as dedicating a specific subsection of the USDA to address how kosher (or other dietary restricted food) can be made available to low-income families seems to be a very effective and efficient way of helping the problem. The Met Council also revealed that the USDA are simply not familiar enough with the dietary restrictions that are associated with religions such as Judaism, so they typically do not have the right programs to address the needs of these communities (4). Ultimately, the best way to address this crisis on a large scale would be to spread awareness of this issue. This can be accomplished if we all come together as a community and further educate ourselves and others on the beliefs of not just Jewish communities, but all other communities of people who observe some sort of dietary restriction.

Works Cited

Doherty, Rosa. “Jewish Children Going to Bed Hungry in Kosher Cost of Living Crisis.” The Jewish Chronicle, 26 May 2022, https://www.thejc.com/news/news/jewish-children-going-to-bed-hungry-in-kosher-cost-of-living-crisis-4FCckFZ76BNLT5d11POR4K.

Hanoka, Yitzchak. “How Changes to the Supply Chain Affect Kosher Certification.” OK Kosher, 5 Apr. 2022, www.ok.org/article/how-changes-to-the-supply-chain-affect-kosher-certification/.

Hicks, Coryanne. “How Inflation Affects Your Cost of Living.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 7 Feb. 2023, https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/inflation-cost-of-living/#:~:text=After%20spending%20more%20than%20two,to%206.5%25%2C%20in%202022.

Kakaei, Hojatollah, et al. “Effect of Covid-19 on Food Security, Hunger, and Food Crisis.” COVID-19 and the Sustainable Development Goals, 22 July 2022, pp. 3–29., https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91307-2.00005-5.

Mandel, Bethany. “Kosher Food Is Already Expensive and Inconvenient. Now Thanks to Covid, There’s a Lot Less of It.” The Forward, 18 May 2020, https://forward.com/life/446702/kosher-food-is-expensive-and-inconvenient-thanks-to-covid-theres-going-to/.

Mortas, Mustafa, et al. “Adulteration Detection Technologies Used for Halal/Kosher Food Products: An Overview.” Discover Food, vol. 2, no. 1, 20 Apr. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44187-022-00015-7.

Moshe, Jordan. “Why Kosher Meat Is so Expensive.” Jewish Report, 4 July 2019, https://www.sajr.co.za/why-kosher-meat-is-so-expensive/.Virtual Listening Session on Food Insecurity in Kosher- and Halal-Observant Communities. Met Council, July 2022, https://sbubrooklogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/40df5-whvlreportonfoodinsecurityinkosher-andhalal-observantcommunities.pdf.

A Brief Analysis of Ennui in Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Namal Fiaz, September 29, 2023

The term ennui, a French loanword, describes a state of boredom induced by a lack of purpose and feelings of dissatisfaction with life. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, the narrative captures the reflections of an embittered, reclusive man whose thoughts are tightly chained by that very state. Several philosophical revolutions were simultaneously developing throughout Europe in the 19th century – namely nihilism, a glaring threat in Dostoevsky’s eyes. Published in 1864, Dostoevsky’s novella was a polemic against the Russian nihilist movement gaining traction in the nineteenth century.  In Notes from Underground, the relationship between the narrator’s ennui and consciousness lead him to live a dreadful existence, one that rises directly from his nihilist mindset.

Nihilism is the supreme catalyst of the underground man’s ennui. In order to effectively analyze the role of ennui in the narrator’s consciousness, it is necessary to establish a brief philosophical definition of nihilism. The term was popularized following Ivan Turgenev’s 1862 novel Fathers and Children, in which it was contextually defined as someone who rejects authority and principles of all faiths. It follows the Latin nihil – “nothing” – implying the nihilist is ultimately “pursuing nothingness.”1 Additionally, this philosophy asserts a lack of an objective meaning to human life. Existential nihilism, a more developed concept, states that existence itself is ultimately pointless given that all action and suffering does not have a meaning.2 Efforts to create meaning are therefore impractical in their futility. 

The unnamed narrator in the novella, the underground man, is an extreme nihilist. He eponymously lives underground alone in St. Petersburg after retiring from his work as a civil service officer, though his isolation is entirely self-imposed. His contempt for other human beings, skepticism of society, spiteful attitude, and eventual retreat to a life of seclusion are key influences of his nihilistic mindset. The character expounds on his beliefs in a series of confessional diary entries. His pessimistic outlook on life is derived from his intense self-awareness and critical nature, which naturally leads to – or rather intensifies – feelings of ennui. The underground man personally attributes his ennui to acute consciousness, claiming that “to be too conscious is an illness – a real thorough-going illness.”3 He explains the difference between men of consciousness – like himself – and the “stupid,”4 or direct men. Those who act on their thoughts and beliefs – direct men – are able to do so because their minds are at ease. In contrast, the underground man’s habit of dwelling on each thought, event, and emotion through deep analysis causes him to have an overactive and restless mind. He believes he is therefore burdened by his superior intellect. 

“There in its nasty, stinking, underground home our insulted, crushed and ridiculed mouse promptly becomes absorbed in cold, malignant and, above all, everlasting spite. For forty years together it will remember its injury down to the smallest, most ignominious details, and every time will add, of itself, details still more ignominious, spitefully teasing and tormenting itself with its own imagination. It will itself be ashamed of its imaginings, but yet it will recall it all, it will go over and over every detail, it will invent unheard of things against itself, pretending that those things might happen, and will forgive nothing.”5

The acutely conscious man ruminates and dissects his thoughts to the extent of dehumanizing himself; he calls himself a mouse.6 Though it is of course a metaphorical statement, the lively imagery created by the underground man’s descriptions provide crucial insight into his self-perceptions: by shrinking such a person to the size of a small rodent – one that is known for its tendency to flee at the shadows of the slightest danger – the narrator characterizes himself as timid, self-conscious, and withdrawn. According to the underground man’s further commentary, the direct man, when seeking revenge, uses justice as a motive to commit the action. Meanwhile, the “mouse” is unable to do the same as his acute consciousness diminishes the emotion by dissecting it. He will overthink and create doubt in his own mind, and then rework it with other details and possibilities, all of which make his mind relentlessly spiral. The conscious man’s tendencies can be equated to thinking oneself to death. The narrator mentally torments himself out of boredom since his mental state renders him incapable of having a meaningful life and intimate human connection. By convincing himself that he is limited in his actions, the narrator remains stationary in the place he rents underground.

This inaction – called inertia7 – is another consequence of possessing an acute consciousness along with ennui. As a result of the narrator’s isolation, his existing ennui greatly reinforces itself through a melancholic, repetitive mechanism. With very little to keep him occupied, he traps himself in a cycle of rumination — an idle dweller in his self-constructed prison cell.The fight against ennui is very much a continuous and lifelong struggle. As exemplified by the character’s situation in Notes from Underground, nihilistic thoughts promote a swift resignation to even attempting to live a fulfilling life. The prevalence of this feeling of ennui, especially in current times, is largely due to the way many naturally begin to find comfort in its presence after a prolonged period of despair. The underground man has lived in his depraved hole for nearly two decades during the time of his writings, and he is thoroughly comfortable in his position; he finds solace in idleness. Breaking through the fog of ennui may bring about bouts of discomfort and anxiety that may discourage many people – avoidance is simply a more bearable response. However, in order to live a meaningful and authentic life, ennui requires direct confrontation. The act of acknowledging that one exists in a state of ennui itself is daunting, it may rouse uneasiness in an individual’s pride, among other things, but it is a necessary step towards a fruitful existence.

There  is also a necessity, perhaps above all else, for conscious effort. Allowing ennui and nihilism to take over the conscious mind is akin to digging one’s own grave – while still alive – convinced that the only thing left to do is lie in it. In the face of absurdity –  “an unfulfillable desire for complete fulfillment,”8 as defined by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre – the happenings of daily life can appear bleak and devoid of meaning. An individual must therefore exercise conscious effort and recognize that they have the ability to construct personal meaning in life. Dostoevsky’s allegorical Notes from Underground serves as the first, and arguably the most profound, existential novel. His exploration of the human condition through the cynical underground man character conveys life in the depths of nihilism where free will is used to choose a path of misery. Unlike the underground man, people can use their abilities to take control of their situations, such as the hopelessness that ennui brings, and make decisions that lead to personal contentment. After all, knowing that we possess the power to make conscious decisions towards fulfillment, such as finding pleasure in the mundane, is the tide that washes us of misery.

Footnotes

1 Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4.

2 Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

3 Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 56. Thames & Hudson

4 Kaufmann, 59.

5 Kaufmann, 60.

6 Kaufmann, 60.

7 Kaufmann, 64.

8 Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Bibliography

Irvine, Andrew. “Existentialism,” 1998. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme20.htm. 

Kaufmann, Walter Arnold. “Dostoevsky: Notes from Underground.” Essay. In Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Edited, Selected, and Introduced by W. Kaufmann, 52–82. Thames & Hudson: London; printed in U.S.A., 1957. 

Petrov, Kristian. “‘Strike out, Right and Left!’: A Conceptual-Historical Analysis of 1860s Russian Nihilism and Its Notion of Negation.” Studies in East European Thought 71, no. 2 (2019): 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4. 

Pratt, Alan. “Nihilism.” Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2022. https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/#H3.

The Power of Social Influences

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

by Joshua Isakharov, September 29, 2023

Ever wonder why a person is suddenly motivated to do something that they know is wrong? Incredibly,  psychological influences have more power over people than they might believe. Oftentimes, good people commit deviant behaviors. A good person is a person who otherwise displays actions and qualities that are intended to promote the welfare of society. A deviant behavior is an action done by an individual that breaks or defies social norms. A social norm is the behavior typically expected by an individual from the society they live in during that time period. Thus, a good person committing a deviant act can be defined as a typically moral individual who generally promotes social welfare through their actions but at times commits actions that violate the morals and norms of society. While the greed factor is often touted as an explanation for deviance, neutralization theory and the pressure to conform are far superior explanations for why good people commit deviant behaviors.

Neutralization theory is a theory stating that people (or in this case good people committing deviant behaviors) will make use of one or multiple justifications in order to neutralize their actions (Bernard). According to this theory, a good person will cognitively justify their deviance in their mind through a train of thought. A neutralization, or rationalization, is a thought process that a person will undergo to explain or justify their action. In fact, neutralizations are considered to be one of the most, if not the “most important explanation of deviant behavior” (Kaptein and van Helvoort 1261). The theory can therefore be used to explain why a good person will “do bad” as “they did not know it was bad” (Sampson 123). The reason why the otherwise good person failed to acknowledge their action as bad is because they neutralized the action in their mind. 

In this context, the usage of the word “bad” is used interchangeably with deviant. For example, if an otherwise upstanding citizen steals a little bit of money from someone else, they can rationalize the action in their mind by telling themselves that it’s not a bad thing since other people do it or that the person they stole from did not really need the money. This rationalization has the effect of cognitively convincing a person that their action was not bad and did not defy standard social norms. This justification is indeed how “a good deal of ethical misbehavior starts [as] a small misstep at the beginning, a recognition that it doesn’t do much harm, and a continuance, until one has developed behavior that is habitually perverse” (Duska 23). This neutralization is exactly how the infamous swindler Bernie Madoff justified his Ponzi scheme, as “he cheated a little bit at the beginning, got away with it, and fell into a pattern or habit of taking from one person and giving it to another” (Duska 23). Although Bernie Madoff may not be an example of a star citizen, one can argue that he was not such a deviant person before he started his Ponzi scheme. There are many other Bernie Madoffs in this world; otherwise good people who neutralized one deviant action before that one deviant action became a habit that made them into a monster.

Neutralizations are a critical component of explaining deviant behavior. A popular saying in society that exemplifies neutralizations is “the ends justify the means.” According to one psychologist, “if an outcome is important, [people] begin to believe that the ‘ends justify the means’” (Riggio). When a person begins to believe that their actions are okay in context, then they can engage in ego protection and can freely commit acts of deviance, especially if their actions result in something meaningful to them. If a person’s end goal is to make as much money as possible, they may not care who they trample on in the process as that end goal is so important that any and all actions leading up to their end goal will be justified even if deviant. Through their studies, two psychologists named Cressey and Matza argue “that delinquents possess a system of rationalizations that allow them to (temporarily) view crime as acceptable in particular situations” (Thomas 7). The work of Cressey and Matza illustrates the very concept of “the ends justify the means” as the delinquents studied neutralized their behavior situationally in order to justify the means to their end goal. 

Furthermore, “prior work has shown that situational rationalizations and general moral beliefs are not strongly correlated and are distinct constructs” (Thomas 7). An otherwise good, moral person can thus situationally exonerate themselves of any deviant behaviors as their morals are not really related to their system of justification. The fact that these two systems are not connected only reaffirms the idea that good people can commit deviant behavior. The idea that morals and situational rationalizations are distinct explains why “among U.S. adolescents, 93 percent report disapproval for hitting another person and 97 percent report disapproval for stealing, while the prevalence of such behaviors is substantially higher” (Thomas 8). Many otherwise moral youth are good people who have strong beliefs and know what is morally right and wrong based on societal norms, yet many still engage in behaviors that defy societal norms such as hitting others and stealing. Once again, “the concept of situational rationalizations addresses this” phenomenon “because it denies that delinquents must outright approve of delinquency and holds instead that they temporarily approve of it given certain circumstances—that is, they are able to sidestep their abstract disapproval of delinquency by applying a rationalization” (Thomas 8). In order to free themselves from society’s bounds, people will rationalize their behavior based on the situation they are in so that they do not have to break any moral beliefs they might hold. Through this strategy, a person can fully believe that their behavior was not in any way morally incorrect, offering a straightforward explanation as to why a person can commit a deviant act in one moment and then carry on with their lives as if they are a good, not deviant, person in the next.

Most acts of deviance are internally justified. One popular justification of deviancy is “‘Everybody does it’” (Duska 24). This popular saying is a form of ego protection as it allows an individual to neutralize unpleasant feelings that may arise from their actions. After all, “the maintenance of self-esteem and self work [are] among [the] strongest and most persistent human goals” (Bersoff 28). Ego protection is an extremely integral part of human existence and allows for neutralizations to occur. An example of this would be an underage individual engaging in illegal alcohol and drug consumption and then telling themselves it is okay because “everybody does it.” Although the underage individual may know that it is wrong to drink alcohol and take illegal drugs, they will utilize this saying in an attempt to neutralize any unpleasant feelings associated with their deviant behavior. However, it is important to note that “there are situational differences in the difficulty of applying a rationalization” (Thomas 11). An individual may not be able to hit an elderly man and steal his money as easily as taking illicit drugs, as it might be harder to say that “everybody does it” to hitting an elderly man than it would be for taking illicit drugs.

Additionally, a study conducted by David Matza suggests that part of the reason why people commit deviant acts is social (Thomas 7). Humans are social beings. As a result of being social beings, “people learn to behave in accordance with the wishes or habits of those who lead their tribes” (Duska 23). Since people will often follow their leaders, their actions can often be attributed to social pressures. It is why a person will commit deviant behavior based on the wish or command of a boss as they are socialized in a manner that teaches them to follow the leader. Despite an individual’s belief of being “autonomous and self-ruling,” studies such as Milgram’s experiment illustrate the “large extent [to] [which] people are likely to respond to authority” (Duska 24). Milgram’s study involved participants being told to administer a shock to another person if they got an answer to a question wrong, with each successive shock being higher in voltage, and thus more fatal. Even when the participants did not want to administer the shock, an authority figure strongly encouraged obedience (McLeod). The fact that most people were obedient to authority elucidates how Nazi soldiers carried out terrible atrocities, even if they did not want to. Therefore, a big reason why otherwise good people commit deviant behavior is because most people are socialized into believing that they need to be obedient to authority and need not question it. Consequently, most people justify their actions as being of those in authority instead of their own.

Besides possessing a strong obedience to an authoritative  figure, people are most often loyal to their group and feel the need to go with the group rather than against it. Oftentimes, when members of “a group [engage] in unethical behavior, individuals are far more likely to participate in or condone that behavior rather than risk standing out” (Bradberry). Due to the need for approval and acceptance, an individual would rather let members of their group commit unethical actions or even join in on the deviant behavior than go against the grain and condemn the deviance. People dislike confrontation, and going against the group you are a part of risks confrontation and possible expulsion from the group. Therefore, since “people have a tendency to keep their heads down”,  “ethical behavior at times requires heroic effort” (Duska 23). Rather than be a hero and risk standing out for their morality, an otherwise good person will commit deviance for the sake of conformity and group cohesion, which they can later neutralize in order to protect their ego. 

Although there may be additional reasons for why otherwise good people commit deviant behaviors, the neutralization theory as well as the feeling of needing to conform are the most influential. Some may argue that money is a largely influential factor in deviant behavior. However, in the case of stealing, “research on employee theft does not support the theory that workers steal, in general, because they need the money” (Bersoff 29). In fact, “three out of four shoplifters can afford to buy the merchandise they have taken, and many are even caught carrying enough money to pay for the lifted items” (Bersoff 29). Money may very well play a pivotal role in why good people do deviant things, but it is not the most influential. As shown by the aforementioned research, it is more likely those who shoplifted did so as a consequence of social pressure or as a rationalization of the action as “not bad,” allowing them to protect their ego and steal despite possessing the capacity to pay.

It is abundantly clear that people will justify their deviant actions in some manner in order to protect their egos. However, not all hope is lost as there are ways to combat our own deviancy, as we are all capable of committing some degree of deviancy. One such way a person can do this is by strengthening their mind and increasing their willpower (Duska 24). In his book, Can’t Hurt Me: Master Your Mind and Defy the Odds, David Goggins relays many techniques he has used to increase willpower and offers practical solutions to help others increase their own willpower. Although mastery of such a technique may not come easy, it can be very effective and can improve a person’s lives in various ways besides simply preventing deviance. A solution against group influences would be to “recall what your mother said when you asserted that everybody does it. Your mother would say, ‘I don’t care if everybody does it (jump off the bridge, jump off the cliff ), that doesn’t make it right’” (Duska 24). According to Duska, this popular saying was found to be universal among students of different cultures in some form or another (24). This conveys how although a person can be influenced by social pressures, they can still resist and do not have to take part in deviancy. Therefore, through the use of anti-rationalization techniques, a person can protect themselves against committing potential acts of deviancy and can thus contribute to a stronger moral character of not just themselves, but those around them as well.

Works Cited

Bernard, Thomas J.. “Gresham M. Sykes”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 25 Oct. 2022 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gresham-M-Sykes. Accessed 24 February 2023.

Bersoff, David M. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 1999, pp. 28–9., https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001003. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023. 

Bradberry, Travis. “14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things.” Inc.com, https://www.inc.com/travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-that-make-good-people-do-bad-things.html. 

Duska, Ronald. “Why Good People Do Bad Things: Applications to Financial Advisors—The ‘WIZARD.’” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Sept. 2013, pp. 23–24. 

Kaptein, Muel, and Martien Van Helvoort. “A Model of Neutralization Techniques.” Deviant Behavior, vol. 40, no. 10, 1 Dec. 2018, p. 1261., https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.

Mcleod, Saul. “The Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics.” Simply Psychology, 8 Mar. 2023, https://simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. Accessed 18 Mar. 2023

Riggio, Ronald E. “The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 1 Nov. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things. 

Sampson, Steven. “Good People Doing Bad Things.” Journal of Legal Anthropology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, p. 123., https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2021.050105. 

Thomas, Kyle J. “Rationalizing Delinquency: Understanding the Person-Situation Interaction through Item Response Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 1, 26 July 2018, pp. 7–11., https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818789752. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.