Jenkins’ response focuses on an analysis and critique of Victor's application of a sociological argument to the 1988 satanic abuse scare in Rochdale, England. Important questions relate to why the religious collectivity in Rochdale assigned SRA behavior to a “deviant” category. The author critiques Victor's failure to suggest the range of alternative theoretical paradigms used to explain collective behavior and the linkages there are between ideology, social action, and collective response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.New York: Free Press.
2.
DurkheimE. (1958). The rules of the sociological method (S.A. Solvay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
3.
DurkheimE. (1960). The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
4.
GarfinkelH. (1956, January). Successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420–424.
5.
KitsuseJ. I. (1964). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. In BeckerH. S. (Ed.) The other side: Perspectives on deviance (pp. 87–102). New York: Free Press.
6.
LemertE. M. (1951). Social pathology.New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
MertonR. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (rev. ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
8.
ParsonsT. (1951). The social system.Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
9.
VictorJ. S. (1992). Ritual abuse and the moral crusade against satanism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 20(3), 248–253.
