MIL Three Speaker Notes

The film Boys in the Hood explores the sociological issue of crime and violence in South Central LA. It shows that these behaviors are influenced by one's surroundings, upbringing, and social circles. The film depicts how kids without guidance can fall into a life of crime, while those with positive role models like Trey can choose a different path. The interactionist theory explains that our actions are influenced by the social behaviors around us. The film also highlights the impact of the environment on individuals, with the lack of parental mentors and community support contributing to the prevalence of crime. Conflict theory examines the role of money, power, and limited resources in creating and perpetuating social issues. The film shows the consequences of a broken family and education system on the community. The articles on functionalism and conflict theory further explore the perspectives on crime and deviance. Functionalism suggests that crime can be positive for society, wh Sociological view. The sociological issue that is apparent in the film Boys in the Hood is crime and violence, which is directly related to the social phenomenon that is happening amongst the South Central LA neighborhoods. Social phenomenon are behaviors and actions that occur because of social influences. People don't just choose a life of crime and violence out of nowhere. A person is conditioned and influenced by their surroundings, upbringing, and their social circles. In the film, you can see that these kids without the right direction from a parent, guardian, or mentor can fall into crime and violence. It's happening all around them in South Central LA, and I think it's a survival tactic for them. The need to survive by carrying a gun and possibly needing to kill someone that is trying to kill you. Throughout the film, we're experiencing gun violence, whether we're hearing the gunshots, a flash of someone's gun on the hip, seeing a dead body on the side of the road, Trey's dad shooting at someone breaking into their house, and of course, watching Ricky being killed and then the gang members who killed Ricky being murdered. These boys are watching this and experiencing this at a very young age. The harder road to take was Trey's path. He was fighting his way upstream by wanting a better life for himself. The theoretical theory that best explains the social phenomenon of crime and violence that is happening in South Central LA in the film is interactionist theory. In our book, Contemporary Sociological Theory, the interactionist is defined by one's self, but also how one's self is in society or the role they play in society. Basically, how we act is based on the social behaviors and actors surrounding us. If the majority of people around us are choosing violence and crime as a way of life, then the probability that you will choose violence as a way of life is extremely high. We are all a product of our environment. Trey, as we know, had a wonderful mentor of a father, Furious, that helped guide him to choose more for his life. Furious knew that the odds were against him and his boy, Trey, that the neighborhood of South Central LA could easily take him down the wrong path, like most of his friends. These kids were constantly around absent parents, druggy neighbors, and corrupt cops. They were being conditioned to think that life was just this. The relationship between Trey's future is directly linked to the environment that he was raised in. The moral and values that were instilled in him to choose better by his father, Furious. Ricky and Doughboy are also examples of the environment they came from. Though Ricky seemed to have a brighter future than Doughboy with his college scholarship to USC for football, the environment that Ricky and Doughboy came from eventually is what killed Ricky. Had there all been more present father figures to look up to and a community that supported underprivileged families, then I don't think we would have even had a movie to write like Boys in the Hood. A classical theory that helps explain the crime and violence social issues we are seeing in Boys in the Hood film is conflict theory. Money, power, and limited resources is the constant theme in conflict theory. Conflict theory is what created South Central LA to begin with. Having a lower income neighborhood will always support the pockets of politicians, and it will always keep the large corporations making money. Fast food restaurants feed lower income neighborhoods. That's why you see them on every corner. The meals are affordable for families who are struggling to put food on the table. The lack of food, the lack of parental mentors, and the drugs that are being floated into the South Central LA community is what is contributing to the crime and violence. The power is coming from city planning and the lack of community building that is happening in South Central LA. The crime and violence are accepted in their neighborhoods throughout the film, like having it being normal to hear gunshots breaking out all night. These kids in the movie were conditioned from a young age that crime and violence is just normal for the neighborhood. As kids, they were seeing dead bodies. They were stealing from the store because they had no money. Without a parental mentor that wanted a different life than what South Central LA was offering them, you watch what they became because of it in the film. Finding a contemporary sociologic theory to examine the social issues of crime and violence happening in the film was tough, not to just pick conflict theory. I chose functionalist theory to show the shortcomings of the system and its direct impact on the community with zero positive coming from it. Examples of functionalism would be education and family. We are seeing tons of violence and crime happening in South Central LA during the film, which indicates that the family and education systems are broken. I doubt you'd be seeing thriving people in a community that are coming from broken homes and education systems. Family and education systems are what teach us how to function in society. There's a saying, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and I couldn't relate to that more for the functionalist theory describing any family or education system. For my additional research, the two articles I chose are by Revised Sociology and Lumen Sociology. This is going to go with functionalism versus conflict, two articles with opposing views on crime. I chose an article about the functionalist perspective on crime and deviance. Durkheim was a social theorist that believed crime was inevitable and could be good for society, deviance being necessary for social change, regulation, and integration. He believed that not all humans could fit the bill and share the values, morals, and beliefs of society as a whole. He believed that we are influenced and exposed to things and circumstances that make it impossible for us to all be alike. Durkheim believed that crime and deviance brought on social change through criminals testing the boundaries of the law, which plays a huge helping role in the law to enforce the wishes of the community to legitimize social change. Regulation is enforced when someone commits a crime and is slapped with a consequence for their action, showing there are punishments for the crime committed and society is watching them. This creates the regulation of acceptable behavior. When a total heinous crime is committed, like murder, the community bands together in outrage, which strengthens the community bond. This is the kind of social integration a functionalist like Durkheim thinks is positive for a community. A functionalist thinks crime is necessary and helpful for a society, but not too much crime because then it's dysfunctional. A functionalist theory suggests that it strengthens the boundaries and reinforces social behavior. My second article was Conflict Theory and Deviance. Karl Marx led the way with influencing the population that we are divided into two separate groups, the wealthy, bourgeoisie, and the proliterate, the ones who depend on the wealthy for employment and survival. Money and power are what is controlling all systems for financial gain. The amount of white-collar crime that is happening with no real punishment versus the crime on the streets that are disproportionately affecting the black community is mind-blowing. Conflict theorist Karl Marx believes that crime stems from the inequalities of society, creating a huge difference between the top percents on the economic ladder versus the ones at the bottom. The lack of funds, support, and the racism is directly related to the crime that is happening in the areas. Conflict theorists believe that this was all created to dictate who gets the money and the power and who they are going to be controlling with it. In the film Boys in the Hood, we aren't seeing the community come together at all like a functionalist would see a community does through crime happening in the neighborhood. We are seeing the community having a lack of resources and killing each other, which are directly related to each other. We have people hungry, no education, and the opportunity to sell drugs. Boys in the Hood is a great film that depicts how the social structure is built for the rich to stay rich and the poor people to get more poor and or kill each other. This social structure is built to get out of it. It's to keep you there and to flood our prison systems, float the drugs, and not be a threat to the pockets of the wealthy.