WTFBOLEN

Saturday, March 24, 2012

What Was the Name of This Paper? I’m Told I Have ADHD.

Johnny Davison is entering the third grade with a renewed excitement. He is looking forward to hanging out with his friends and starting a new school year. Johnny excels in school. He is considered an above average student. Unfortunately for Johnny, he has a hard time sitting still. He fidgets. He does not listen to his teachers. He does not organize his tasks. He is easily distracted, and he is forgetful in his daily activities. His teacher decides to schedule an appointment with his parents regarding his disruptive behavior. At the meeting, the teacher expresses her concerns with Johnny’s parents as she believes that Johnny might suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). She wants Johnny to see the school psychiatrist. Johnny’s parents are a little reluctant, but they agree to have the psychiatrist visit with their son. Today, many parents are faced with this prognosis as children continue to be diagnosed with ADHD, and this has resulted in approximately 2.5 million children taking drugs to offset the symptoms of ADHD.¹ This diagnosis has become one of the overreaching answers to hyperactive children. While the debate continues as to whether or not ADHD is an actual disorder, the reality is ADHD is nothing new as kids have always been active, and this new disorder is simply a way for drug companies to make record setting profits at the expense of unsuspecting members of society.

Today, hyperactive children are being diagnosed with ADHD. It has become the answer for helping children overcome their overactive minds and bodies. According to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM), children can be diagnosed with ADHD if they present with six or more of the following problems. Some of those problems are:

(a) often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities (b) often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities (c) often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly … (e) often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities… (g) often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools) (i) is often forgetful in daily activities.²

These are the diagnostic tools doctors use to figure out who suffers from ADHD. If children demonstrate some of these markers, doctors are quick to recommend medicating the children, which generously benefits the doctors and the drug companies as they stand to make millions with these types of diagnoses. Thus, doctors and the drug companies have a great deal to gain by children being diagnosed with these illnesses. Today, ten million children are taking psychiatric drugs,³ and this is only possible because the DSM recognizes behaviors like hyperactivity as a disease, and because the DSM recognizes ADHD as a disease, it allows insurance companies to make money when people receive this diagnosis.

The use of medicine in American society has exploded since the 1990s when drug companies began targeting children, and now children are medicated at an alarming rate, which has resulted in record profits for drug companies. The drug companies target children and adults to convince them that they need medication. According to the documentary Generation RX, the United States is the last developed nation in the world to allow drug companies to advertise on television.⁴These drug companies use the media to entice people to use drugs in order to solve their problems as these drug companies claim they can provide people with a quick fix for all their problems, and according to the Generation RX documentary, this media campaign has resulted in the residents of United States using five times more drugs than people throughout the rest of the world.⁵ This targeted media campaign has helped companies make record setting profits. According to Generation RX, people spend sixty-nine billion dollars per year on psychiatric drugs, which equates to one hundred thirty thousand dollars a second spent on drugs.⁶ Drug companies, thus, stand to make a significant amount of money with the recognition of illnesses like ADHD by the DSM.

While the DSM may recognize ADHD as a problem, other explanations have been used to explain why some children are more active than others. In an article by published National Public Radio (NPR), researchers suggest that diet may have more to do with why kids are active. According to NPR, a recent study published in the Lancent Journal validated that kids who were diagnosed with ADHD performed better when their diet was restricted.⁷ According to Dr. Lidy Pelsser, the author of the article in the Lancent Journal, ADHD is a “disorder [that] is triggered in many cases by external factors — and those can be treated through changes to one's environment.”⁸ Dr. Pelsser’s study states that “64 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD are actually experiencing a hypersensitivity to food.”⁹ However, by suggesting that food may be the cause of ADHD, Dr. Pelsser has put herself at odds with the medical community as a change in diet would result in millions of dollars lost for drug companies.

While diet may be one cause of hyperactive children, another study, published in the Journal of Health Economics, suggests that some kids are simply diagnosed with ADHD because they are too young for their grade.⁹ The study demonstrated that younger children had a significantly higher chance of being diagnosed with ADHD; children too young for their grade were diagnosed at twice the rate of children age appropriate for their grade.¹⁰ Since these children are not prepared for class, they are told they may suffer from ADHD. While some people may disagree with these possible explanations for children being diagnosed with ADHD, a panel of well renowned experts who diagnose ADHD could not provide an answer to the simple question, “What does ADHD look like in children?” In 1998 a panel of experts met together at the National Institutes of Health to discuss ADHD, and when asked what the disease looked like in children, the expert called on to answer the questioned stammered over his words and could not provide the audience with a definition.¹² If a so called expert in the field cannot provide an adequate answer to the simple question of how ADHD presents itself, it would stand to reason that this disease may not be a disease after all.

The media campaign by drug companies to target kids is simply a way to make money while creating an underclass of people throughout society. Children on medication are now seen as deviant and they are considered to have something wrong with them. They are put in a special category, and this is especially true for the poor and disadvantaged. According to Generation RX, children in foster homes are more likely to be treated with psychiatric drugs. Furthermore, children who have been in trouble with the law or kids who have been labeled delinquent by society are often forced to take psychiatric drugs whether they choose to take them or not.¹³ Children who do not have people to advocate on their behalf are being targeted by drug companies as delinquent, thus, creating an underclass within society. This is a simple process undertaken by the drug companies and psychiatrists whereby people become inferior by receiving labels, thus, creating a new deviant underclass in society.

In today’s society, ADHD seems to be catch all for kids who are hyperactive. People want to medicate children instead of accepting that some kids simply have more energy than others or there may simply be other reasons that contribute to why kids are hyperactive, which helps to explain why Johnny was overactive in class. Johnny’s parents returned to the school after Johnny met with the school psychiatrist. The psychiatrist concluded that Johnny did in fact have the markers of ADHD. When Johnny’s dad inquired what the markers were, the psychiatrists started listing the markers. When Johnny’s dad inquired if Johnny’s behavior could be explained instead by the fact that he was simply an energetic child, the psychiatrist did not have an answer and began to stumble on his words. Johnny’s dad quickly concluded that his son did not in fact suffer from ADHD, and he sought a second opinion from a different doctor. After meeting with Johnny, the new doctor concluded that Johnny did not suffer from ADHD, but rather he was bored in class because he was not being challenged by the teacher. Johnny needed to be in the fourth grade, not medicated.

Word Count 1406

1. Katherine Harmon, “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?,” Scientific American, 17 August, 2010, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/08/17/are-some-adhd-labeled-kids-just-young-for-their-grade/. 2012

2. “ADHD & ADD DSM-IV Diagnosis,” Abacus News, 2011, http://www.abacus-news.co.uk/adhd/adhd-dsm-iv-diagnosis.php.

3. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

4. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

5. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

6. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

7. NPR Staff, “Study: Diet May Help ADHD Kids More Than Drugs,” National Public Radio, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-diet-may-help-adhd-kids-more-than-drugs?sc=fb&cc=fp.

8. NPR Staff, “Study: Diet May Help ADHD Kids More Than Drugs,” National Public Radio, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-diet-may-help-adhd-kids-more-than-drugs?sc=fb&cc=fp.

9. NPR Staff, “Study: Diet May Help ADHD Kids More Than Drugs,” National Public Radio, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-diet-may-help-adhd-kids-more-than-drugs?sc=fb&cc=fp.

10. Katherine Harmon, “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?,” Scientific American, 17 August, 2010, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/08/17/are-some-adhd-labeled-kids-just-young-for-their-grade/. 2012

11. Katherine Harmon, “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?,” Scientific American, 17 August, 2010, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/08/17/are-some-adhd-labeled-kids-just-young-for-their-grade/. 2012

12. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

13. Generation RX, DVD, Kevin P. Miller, (2008; Vancouver B.C.: Common Radius Films).

Friday, March 9, 2012

ADHD, I'm Not Buying!

What is the main thesis of this film?
For me thesis of this film revolves around drug companies and the FDA, which are both corrupt entities. The movie portrayed these entities as corrupt, and these entities were allowed to target kids to create a new market for drugs. Regardless of the side effects, the drug companies continued to push their drugs on kids while creating a new demographic, and doctors continued to diagnose kids with problems to fund the drug companies.

2.    What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?
The main arguments that supported the thesis were two things: the numbers, and the doctor who couldn’t describe what the symptoms of ADHD consist of. Some of the numbers behind the drugs are, ten million kids are taking drugs today, sixty-nine billion dollars are being spent annually on drug in the United States, which equates to one hundred thirty nine dollars a second, forty million people are on Prozac, there has been a four hundred percent rise in antipsychotic drugs in teens and children, eight out of thirteen kids involved in school shootings were on psychotic drugs, Ritalin use is up by seven hundred forty percent in the 1990s, and twenty-eight thousand people experienced adverse effects to Prozac in four years. The other point that really validated the thesis came when a panel of Doctors could not describe what a child with ADHD looks like.

3.    How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?

This film directly relates to the overall themes of the course as the drug companies are creating a deviant class. In sociological terms, deviance can be defined as anything out of the norm;¹ however, as more and more kids become hooked on drugs, the deviant class will be the kids who do not take antipsychotic drugs. The kids on these drugs are oftentimes outsiders, which is one of the ways Howard Becker describes deviance.²This films directly corresponds to the course.

4.   Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
For me, the most convincing parts of this film revolved around the numbers, and the panel of doctors who could not describe what the symptoms of ADHD.

5.   Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

I did not find any part of this movie to have flaws. It was very convincing throughout. I have been arguing for years that the idiots who are diagnosing ADHD are doing nothing more than condemning kids for being kids.

6. Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

I would like to study the whole ADHD epidemic. It has clearly become a moral panic in our society. I would like to take kids who have been diagnosed with ADHD and to the best of my ability have a controlled study by seeing how kids on some form of medication perform in school versus kids without medication. I would have them all in the same class, with the same teacher, and make them all do the same work. I would like to see how these kids perform. I have a feeling it results would make for an interesting report.

Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert. (2010). A New Typology of Deviance: Integrating and Reactivist Definitions of Deviance. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Howard S. Becker. (1963). Group from Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Tough People All Around!

What is the main thesis of this film?
The main thesis of this film is men are supposed to fit into a specific masculine identity, and in today’s society, men are supposed to be even more masculine than ever before. Men are supposed to conform to the masculine standards set by society or men run the risk of being classified as deviant.

2.    What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?
For me, some of the most convincing arguments came when the dolls were presented. I was shocked at how much bigger the dolls were than twenty years ago. It was a shocker. I also found it really interesting when African American masculinity was said to be rooted in Mafia culture as well as a way of mimicking white male masculinity. The other thing that was not only convincing but disgusting was listening to Howard Stern when he was talking about the Columbine incident. He actually made the comment that the boys shooting people “should have had some sex.” These things clearly show how male masculinity has evolved.

3.    How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?

This fits with the overall theme of the class because males in our society are expected to fit the role masculinity. If they do not conform to society’s ideas of masculinity, they run the risk of being deviant since deviance is anything outside of the norm,¹and according to Howard Becker deviance can be defined as people who are outsiders,² which would clearly be a male who does not fit the societal idea of masculinity.

4. Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
The most convincing points of this movie were the male dolls and the loud mouth Howard Stern. Those things were very convincing.

5. Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

I did not find any part of this movie to have flaws. It was very convincing all the way around.

6. Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

I would like to study how women fit into this equation. I want to know how women view male masculinity and if they believe in the same trends. I would do this by interviewing women and showing them various pictures of men and asking hem questions about what is attractive and what their thoughts are.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Words: Do They Really Carry That Much Meaning?

Words mean things, and the words people choose may carry consequences. While some people try to disregard words as meaningless, the reality is words can cause harm to individuals and carry serious consequences when not chosen correctly. A popular refrain when I was a child was “sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you.” In theory that may be true, but words do in fact hurt and carry serious consequences. Recently, an ESPN employee ran an article about a popular American basketball player entitled “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-stopping Loss to Hornets”¹ on ESPN’s website. On the surface, the title may seem innocent but unfortunately, the term “Chink” in this case refers to a Chinese American man, and as such, the word “Chink” takes on a new meaning. While Anthony Federico, the author of the article, may have thought he was making an innocent comment, the word “Chink” is a derogatory word used to describe the people in the Chinese community in a negative connotation. In society today, much like throughout history, people continue to deliberately use words meant to offend people and portray them in a disparaging way.

Our society provides many examples of words that are used to offend people. A tough guy, for example, would take exception to someone calling him a “fag” as this would mean he was weak, feminine, and not a “real man.” People in society use words like “fag” to create an underclass of individuals. These words are used to empower the person who utters the hurtful refrain while marginalizing the person who is targeted by these words. This word, much like other words in society, carries with it a negative connotations and serious consequences with them. While the word “fag” may instantly conjure up negative images in one’s mind, other words are more subtle, and although many people may not think of the word “fruit” as having negative consequences, the reality is it carries these same negative connotations as the word “fag” in our society.

The word fruit has multiple meanings, implied and literal. According to Webster’s Dictionary Online, the first definition of the word fruit is, “a product of plant growth,”² which is the meaning that most people in society are familiar with when they hear the word; however, the word also carries implied meanings when used in a certain context. According to the Urban Dictionary, the first definition of the word is, “someone who is a flaming flamboyant homosexual,”³ which is generally not the first definition that comes to one’s mind. The word fruit originates from the Latin and was first introduced in the 12^th century.⁴ The word fruit did not take on a negative connotation until 1931 when it was used to refer to women as easy or willing to have sex with anyone, and it was not until 1935 when the word took on a new meaning, which was to refer to a male as a homosexual.⁵ This phrase is often used among males in today’s society when they are attempting to marginalize other males in society. It is used to imply that certain people are weak and are not the ideal man.

Our society today uses words to label people and marginalize individuals who are deemed different. Society does this to create an underclass, which allows for self fulfilling proclamations tolerating the dominant individuals in society to remain the prevailing class. Howard S. Becker provides insight on labeling and how people use labels to demonize individuals. According to Becker (1963), “being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one’s further social participation and self-image. The most important consequence is a drastic change in the individual’s public identity.”⁶ Labels are often used to describe people and are regularly used in general conversation, but when society applies labels to people, these labels have consequences and those consequences become significant when individuals, who had not previously used the label, accept and attach those labels to people. Becker (1963) states that deviance is not defined by the behavior itself, but rather, it becomes defined with the interaction of the person who committed the offense and the people who responded to it.⁷ Thus, when members of society accept the label that one has been given, the label now attaches and has new consequences. As Becker states (1963), “[one] is treated in accordance with the popular diagnosis of why he [or she] is that way.”⁸ The label, therefore, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as people accept that label, and as it attaches to the individual, people treat him or her according to that label.

While the label fruit is used to marginalize certain people in our society, this label, which is meant to degrade the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, questioning community (LGBTQ), is generally accepted and used among the LGBTQ community although there are still a small segment of the LGBTQ community who find the term offensive. The term fruit in the LGBTQ community has led to the use and acceptance of other words that are derived from that label; one of those new labels is the term fruit fly. According to the Urban Dictionary, the word fruit fly defines a heterosexual attractive woman who hangs out with gay males.⁹ While there may be some people who do not like this term, this term has come to be an acceptable replacement to the term “fag hag,” which was previously used to describe a heterosexual woman who hangs out with gay males.¹⁰ While members of people outside of the LGBTQ may use this word to demean people, the LGBTQ community generally looks at this word as harmless. It does not carry the same stigmatism inside the LGBTQ community as it does outside of the community.

Words do in fact carry with them consequences. As people in society continue to use words like fruit to marginalize certain individuals, there will continue to be an underclass of people in our society. When Anthony Federico wrote his article regarding the Chinese American basketball player, I doubt he imagined the consequences that lie ahead. The outrage over the title of his article was felt nationwide, and ESPN responded quickly to the public outcry by firing Federico. Even though Federico insisted he meant no harm by his words, the damage was done.¹¹ Words in society have meaning, and when people use words to define people, the labels carry consequences. While the adage, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” may in theory be true, it is hard to believe the words Federico used are not hurting him and his family today.

Word Count 1121

1. Gurney, M. (2012). National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/matt-gurney-racially-tinged-slips-of-the-tongue-shouldnt-get-you-fired/

2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit

3. Urban Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fruit

4. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit

5. Online Etymology Online. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fruit&searchmode=none

6. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

7. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

8. Howard S. Becker. (2010). Labeling Theory. In Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers (Eds.), Readings in Deviant Behavior (pp. 39-41). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

9. Urban Dictionary. (2012). Fruit. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fruit

10. Razzano, T. (April 27, 2011). Creative Loafing. Retrieved from http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2011/04/27/back-talk-are-friendships-between-fruit-flies-and-gay-men-the-real-deal#.T0mZhPWimuI

11. Gurney, M. (2012). National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/matt-gurney-racially-tinged-slips-of-the-tongue-shouldnt-get-you-fired/

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Murderball: What a Name!

1.    What is the main thesis of this film?
It seems to me that the main thesis of the film is simple: people in wheelchairs are no different than everyone else in society. That point was made clear when Mark Zupan’s friends stated that Mark was an ass before the wheelchair. The wheelchair did not turn Mark into an ass.

2.    What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?
Some of the main points that support this claim would be the conversation the men were having about sex. It is clear that they can participate in and enjoy sex. They were also all engaged in sports. They were clearly active and were not sulking about their condition, which they do not see as a condition. They were also engaged in everyday activities like joking around. For example, one of the guys hid under a box and the other guys in the room asked some lady to pick up the box at which time the man in the box revealed himself causing the girl to scream. Finally, the individuals in the movie were not looking for sympathy. They were content with their lives. They didn’t want handouts from people. They knew that they were no different than anyone else in society and wanted people to realize and understand that point. For example, when one of the guys was asked if he needed help to his car while he was at the grocery store, he was annoyed. He stated that he wouldn’t come to the store if he couldn’t get back to his car. In other words, he is fine. People do not need to pity him.

3.    How does the thesis of this film relate to the course?

This course is all about deviance, and while we may not think of people in wheelchairs as deviant, we do view them as different. According to Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert (2002) some people can be viewed deviant simply for having an unfortunate condition for which they cannot be held responsible, and according to Alexander B. Smith and Harriet Pollack (2000) in “Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste,” Howard Becker defines deviants as outsiders. Our society tends to pity people who are different. The term deviance in Sociological terms deals with anything out of the norm (Heckert 2002). People in wheelchairs would not be considered normal as our society believes that anyone who can walk would want to walk; therefore, people in wheelchairs need our pity and sympathy. People in wheelchairs are not deviant in the sense that they are committing atrocities. They are deviants simply for being different.

4.   Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?
Some of the most convincing points in the film were the attitudes of the gentlemen in the film. Joe, for example, was an unapologetic tough guy who didn’t back down from anyone. He lost the use of his legs when he fell sick with Polio, but he didn’t look for sympathy. Instead, he became the greatest Murderball player in United States history, he has been married for several years and supports his family, and he has been able to find gainful employment throughout his life. The other part of the movie that was quite convincing came when the guys were having a candid conversation about sex. One gentleman even went as far to show you how he reinvented the doggy style. The men in this film were like most people in society. They had desires, goals, and dreams.

5.   Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?
I would have liked it if the film had spent more time researching people who did in fact give up. It seems to me that not everyone shares the same outlook as the men portrayed in the movie. While they did provide us a small glimpse into the first days of individuals who were paralyzed, we really did not get a sense of what it was like for people who did give in and decide that life was indeed horrible. Finally, I want to know why this sport is sex segregated. Those wheelchairs look pretty secure. It seems to me that the producers of this film should have asked and researched why women are excluded from this sport. Generally speaking, co-ed sports can take place when there is a third party exception. For example in horse racing, there are women jockeys. In auto racing, there are women drivers. The premise for allowing these exceptions is the horse or the car is doing all the work, and not the woman. Therefore, why don’t women participate in this sport with the premise that the wheelchair is doing all the work? And I don’t accept the premise that it is a contact sport.

6.   Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

The point that stands out to me is how accepting most of these men were of their new life in a wheelchair. I would really like to know if this is the status quo. How many people are just as accepting? How many people decide that life isn’t worth living if it has to be in a wheelchair because of the pressures our society puts on people to be normal? I would like to research people who have been paralyzed and see how their lives have turned out. Does everyone have the same positive outlook? How many individuals, who are in wheelchairs, found it difficult to assimilate back into society after their accident? Were they able to find work? How hard is it to go on dates? If they are married, did their marriage survive? If they have kids, how did their kids react? Do their kids treat them differently? Do the kids get treated differently from their friends at school? Do the individuals in wheelchairs have a sense of hopelessness or do they look to the future as bright? To research this I would make visitations to the hospital where people who are rehabbing from their accidents. I would ask them if I could follow them throughout their rehab and while they attempt to assimilate back into society.

Alexander P. Smith and Harriet Pollack. (2000). Deviance as Crime, Sin, and Poor Taste. In Patricia A. Adler, and Peter Adler (Eds.), Constructions of Deviance: Social Power, Context, and Interaction (pp. 19-28). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.