Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Sociology & Criminal Justice Theses & Dissertations Sociology & Criminal Justice Summer 2016 What Can State Talk Tell Us About Punitiveness? A Comparison of Responses to Political Mass Shootings in The United States and Norway Kimberlee G. Waggoner Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/sociology_criminaljustice_etds Part of the Criminology Commons, Scandinavian Studies Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Recommended Citation Waggoner, Kimberlee G.. "What Can State Talk Tell Us About Punitiveness? A Comparison of Responses to Political Mass Shootings in The United States and Norway" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Sociology & Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/6e42-3262 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/sociology_criminaljustice_etds/10 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology & Criminal Justice at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology & Criminal Justice Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT CAN STATE TALK TELL US ABOUT PUNITIVENESS? A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO POLITICAL MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY by Kimberlee G. Waggoner B.S. May 2009, Northern Arizona University M.S. May 2011, Northern Arizona University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2016 Approved by: Randolph Myers (Director) Mona J.E. Danner (Member) Tim Goddard (Member) ABSTRACT WHAT CAN STATE TALK TELL US ABOUT PUNITIVENESS? A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO POLITICAL MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY Kimberlee G. Waggoner Old Dominion University, 2016 Director: Dr. Randy Myers Highlighting the culturally contingent nature of state reactions to crime, the present work focuses on state talk issued by the U.S. and Norwegian governments in the aftermath of politically motivated mass shootings. The research is guided by the question: how does state talk—conditioned by economic, political, and cultural forces—facilitate or constrain punitive responses to political mass shootings? Here, the focus is on the January 8th 2011 shooting of U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents and the July 22nd 2011 bombing of a government building and shooting of a youth political camp in Norway. These two cases illustrate how state talk can either help to escalate or moderate responses to horrific events. Situating state discourse in the context of American exceptionalism in the case of the United States and Scandinavian Exceptionalism in the case of Norway, the present study argues that state talk reflects and reinforces both the United States notably precarious and competitive social order and Norway’s comparatively less volatile and more cooperative social order. Analysis of both more and less incendiary government talk and the cultural factors that uphold the tone and content of such state talk is needed to better understand the role of government rhetoric in shaping responses to tragedy. The present work, relying on qualitative content analysis, examines government press releases, speech transcripts, and op-eds posted to government websites. Here, themes thought to constrain or facilitate punitive responses, derived from criminological literature, were applied to the state talk data. This approach reveals the divergent ways in which states talk about tragedy across cultures. I then link divergent state talk findings to politics and social life after January 8th and July 22nd to paint a picture of the dissimilar effects of state talk. In conclusion, I discuss policy considerations in light of these findings and future avenues of research. iv Copyright©, 2016, by Kimberlee G. Waggoner, All Rights Reserved. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The logical starting place here is to thank the members of my committee. Dr. Randy Myers, my chair, deserves all the thanks in the world for the immense amount of time and energy he put into making sure I had the feedback and guidance to move forward, even when I didn’t particularly feel like it. I would also be remiss not to thank Dr. Myers for advocating for graduate students from the very beginning of his career. This combined with his killer sense of humor and sharp mind is what makes him such a good mentor. Dr. Mona Danner, another person who has influenced me greatly, has also earned my gratitude for sharing her time, space, and expertise over the years. Her advocacy for women, advice on negotiation, and generosity are powerful. Last but certainly not least, many thanks to Dr. Tim Goddard who provided me with invaluable food for thought and detailed comments from afar. What a joy to have found an “outside” committee member who meshes so seamlessly with his “inside” counterparts. Thanks everyone for making defenses feel more like productive, intellectual conversations than torture sessions. Writing a dissertation isn’t easy, both for the person writing it and the people who have to put up with the person writing it. I thank Victoria Collins (aka Pinky), Favian Martin, Annie Lee, Melanie Holland, Richard Stringer, and Amanda Smith for all of their excellent ideas, support, and quality companionship over the years. Thanks to Isabel Shoultz aka my Swedish Spirit Guide for sharing her humor and Scandinavian expertise. Gina Champion, my childhood chum from the earliest days in Arizona, has earned herself a shout out, for surviving not one but two years living with me during the dissertation process. Finally, my family put up with me not coming home for years on end. Maybe you’ll see more of me now that I am done being a professional student. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT STUDY ..............................................................................2 WHY STATE TALK MATTERS .......................................................................................3 THE ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................5 RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................................................7 OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION ............................................................................7 2. MAKING SENSE OF DIFFERENCE: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..........................9 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................9 CRIME AND JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY ..........................11 PUNITIVENESS: A COMPLEX AND CONTESTED CONCEPT .................................13 THE WELFARE STATE ..................................................................................................15 A TALE OF TWO POLITICAL CULTURES ..................................................................21 SOCIAL SOLIDARITY AND INTERPERSONAL TRUST ...........................................27 TRUST IN GOVERNMENT .............................................................................................30 INSECURITY AND FEAR OF CRIME ...........................................................................33 DIVERGENT PENAL SENSIBILITIES ..........................................................................36 WHY DOES STATE TALK MATTER? ..........................................................................45 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................46 3. METHODS ................................................................................................................................47 THE PRESENT STUDY ...................................................................................................47 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF QUALITATIVE METHODS IN CRIMINOLOGY ..............48 ANALYZING STATE TALK ...........................................................................................50 METHOD: QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS .....................................................54 CODING AND ANALYSIS..............................................................................................57 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................58 4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................59 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................59 OVERVIEW OF THEME FREQUENCY ........................................................................59 JANUARY 8, 2011 ............................................................................................................61 JULY 22, 2011 ...................................................................................................................63 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................64