Social reaction

Social Reaction (2012)
A criminology dictionary definition of "social reaction", by Victor Jupp (2012), conceptualized as embodying interactionism, labeling, and transactionalism. [2]
In hmolscience, social reaction or “social reactions” are reactions, i.e. human chemical reactions, which occur in a social retort. [1]

In criminology, “social reaction” or “societal reaction”, according to Victor Jupp (2012), are conceptual terms employed as a theoretical perspective and used somewhat in the sense of interactionism, labeling, and the transactional perspective; the theory of which, supposedly, being based on the work of Charles Cooley, George Mead, and Frank Tannenbaum (1938). [2]

The following are related quotes:

“In their origin, most of these religious observances of savages had some sort of useful effect. And in a more refined form, when the evil is purged out, something of permanent value may often survive. The typical examples of this may be found m the worship of the dead, in the adoration of the sun or the sky, and especially in a religious observance of one day in the week [e.g. Thor's Day or Sun's Day]. The task of mature civilization is to retain the valuable and discard the mischievous element in ancient superstitions. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to retain some of the external forms of antique worship, and to get rid of the moral and social reaction which first animated the spirit of the founders. It is said that positivism has borrowed much from Catholic ritual, especially its sacraments and the conception of a spiritual power. Certainly, this is true, and is no sort of reproach. Congreve answered Huxley with as much wit as conviction: Positivism is Catholicism plus Sciencei.e. its creed is the evidence of science in all its forms, but its purpose is a moral and social religion. It is the characteristic of humanity, that this idea alone is perfectly and fully human, can harmonize other types of civilization and incorporate the good, the true, and the humane.”
— Frederic Harrison (1913), The Positive Evolution of Religion [2]

“Like Carthage, the Great Wall [separating ‘humanities’ from ‘natural science’] must be totally destroyed. Halfway measures will not do. The barrier between man's spiritual life, which comes to highest expression in his social reactions, and the rest of his life is an artifact, nay, a monstrosity, conceived in ignorance, born of superstition, nourished by intolerance.”
Judson Herrick (1930), “Humpty Dumpty and His Great Wall: The Scientific Study of Man and the Humanities” [3]

1. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (pdf). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. Jupp, Victor. (2012). “Social Reaction”, in: The SAGE Dictionary of Criminology (social reaction, 30+ pgs; esp. pgs. 435-448) (editors: Eugene McLaughlin, John Muncie). SAGE.
2. Harrison, Frederic. (1913). The Positive Evolution of Religion: its Moral and Social Reaction (social reaction, pg. 75). G.P. Putnam’s sons.
4. Herrick, C. Judson (1930). “Humpty Dumpty and His Great Wall: The Scientific Study of Man and the Humanities” (txt), in: The New Social Science (GB) (editor: Leonard R. White) (pgs. 112-22). University of Chicago Press.

TDics icon ns

More pages