Module 5

The film Boys in the Hood explores the social issue of poverty and its impact on communities. Poverty leads to a lack of resources and mistrust in the government. Discrimination by authority figures further exacerbates the distrust. The film also highlights how capitalism makes it difficult for those in poverty to escape their circumstances. Substance abuse and gun violence become normalized in these communities. Karl Marx's conflict theory and the American-style critical theory help explain the relationship between poverty and crime. Poverty directly influences crime rates due to untreated mental illness, substance abuse, and the fight-or-flight mentality. To address this, communities need resources, consistent policing, and equal opportunities. By eliminating the stress of poverty, crime rates can be reduced. The social phenomenon in the film Boys in the Hood is directly related to the social issue of poverty. Poverty and all the social issues related to poverty are directly related to an increase in areas stricken by poverty due to the lack of resources and the environment that poverty creates. Poverty is directly related to a mistrust in the government that correlates in a lack of trust in the rules set in place by the people in power to control and maintain a healthy society. Poverty results in desperation and creates an immediate need for daily survival due to the lack of the most needed resources. Those resources are food, safe housing, and positive role models to guide one's indoctrination into society. The film also goes into depth about discrimination by members of authority, which does not help with the general distrust of people in authority. The film shows examples of this through the experiences that the characters had to deal with the police as well as hints of it through their childhood teachers. The film also shows how in a capitalistic society, the people who live in neighborhoods stricken with poverty have even a harder time getting out of poverty due to some of the external practices that are in these communities. The film goes into how there are liquor stores and gun stores in the neighborhood, which does not help with the overall well-being in these communities. The film also goes on to say that these types of businesses are not in more affluent communities and they are allowed in poor neighborhoods as it is a way to poison poorer societies. Jay's dad also gives a speech about the need for financial literacy as a tool to educate oneself about how to break the cycle of poverty as he references the billboard regarding the cash for your home as a gentrification tool. In a capitalistic society, the ones in power and the ones who have the resources are at an advantage over the ones who are dealing with poverty daily. A conflict perspective is a good way to explain the correlation between poverty and crime. From a conflict perspective, there is essentially a winner and a loser on a given social issue. If the people in power choose to have a capitalistic society, then the glorification of materialistic goods is evident. It will result in the desire to obtain these goods. If the people in power market the glorification of violence and substance abuse, then the result will be violence and substance abuse. The same example works when people in power deregulate certain zoning practices in a certain neighborhood. If liquor stores and gun stores are allowed in a certain neighborhood, then the chances of these types of businesses affecting a community are higher than a community that does not allow these types of businesses. In the movie, there are numerous examples of how substance abuse clouded the thinking of these young adults as well as plenty of examples of the negative consequences caused by unnecessary gun violence. The continued cycles of poverty, substance abuse, and gun violence all the more made this behavior normalized in these poverty-stricken communities. A classical sociologic theory that helps me understand this social phenomenon is Karl Marx and the Conflicts Theory. Karl Marx explains that in a capitalistic society where the glorification of materialist goods is present, people put undue stress on themselves to gather these goods and make compromised decisions to get them. Karl Marx also explains that when the people in power are making all the decisions for the group, this builds a general distrust of the people being told what to do by the people in power. Karl Marx quotes, the more unequal the distribution of scarce resources in a society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate segments. The more subordinate segments become aware of the true collective interest, the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing pattern of distribution of scarce resources. Subordinates are more likely to become aware of their true collective interest when changes wrought by dominant segments disrupt existing relations among subordinates. Practices of dominant segments create alliterative dispositions. Members of subordinate segments can communicate their grievances to one another, which in turn is facilitated by the ecological concentration among members of subordinate groups, the expansion of educational opportunities for members of subordinate groups. Subordinate segments can develop unifying ideology, which in turn is facilitated by the capacity to recruit or generate ideological spokespeople, the inability of dominant groups to regulate socialization processes and communication networks amongst subordinates. The more subordinate segments of a system become aware of their collective interest and question the legitimacy of the distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to join in over-conflict against dominant segments of a system, especially when a dominant group cannot clearly articulate nor act in terms of their collective interest. When depreviations of subordinates move from an absolute to relative basis or escalate rapidly, subordinate groups can develop a political leadership structure. Turner, 2013, page 206. The greater the ideological unification of members of subordinate segments of a system and the more developed their political leadership structure, the more likely are the interests and relations between dominant and subjugated segments of a society to become a polarized and irreconcilable. The more polarized the dominant and subjected, the more violent will be conflict. The more violent is the conflict, the greater is the amount of the structural change within a society and the greater is this redistribution of scarce resources, Turner, 2013, page 206. A contemporary sociological theory that helps me understand the relationship between poverty and crime is the American-style critical theory. From its views on racial discrimination and civil rights movements in the 60s, the result added attention to the breakdown in systems and procedures that plague people of color and people who are experiencing poverty. A lot of these communities that were racially discriminated against or were plagued with poverty were directly related to some of the laws in place that did not allow certain minority groups to buy real estate in certain parts of town or to not be able to vote. The result was continued cycles of people getting elected by society who had something to benefit from by keeping these discriminatory procedures in place. The two great social movements in the second half of the 20th century, the civil rights movement for minorities and the feminist movements for women, are the sources of critical approach that emphasizes the continued existence of racism and sexism more broadly, that criticizes the failure of civil rights approaches to eliminate both subtle and obvious forms of discrimination. These approaches were institutionalized in academia, not only in many sociology departments, but also in various types of ethnic and women's studies department programs within academia. Yet, the institutionalization only began in the 1960s. Indeed, the critical period of American sociology is not part of the early sociological canon. True, racism and poverty, especially during the Great Depression, were part of American sociology, which for the most part operated under the ideology of amoralization that the less critical than American critical theory would become several decades later. I will only briefly mention American critical theory in this chapter because, in essence, it is outgrowth by social movements in the 60s and 70s and more a part of contemporary sociological theory than early sociological theory. Turn to page 654, 2013. In the article, How Poverty Influences Crime, the author, Louise Gall, who, besides being a writer, is also in finance, speaks about how poverty is directly related to crime for several reasons. Untreated mental illness, substance abuse, and the constant fight-or-flight mentality are all directly related to increased crime statistics from poverty. The author goes on to say that the only way to fix these issues is to provide these communities with the resources they need as well as consistent policing in these communities to protect the people in the areas stricken with poverty with the same attention as the more affluent communities get from police. There will always be crime. That much is clear. What our goal must be as a society is to eliminate crime that is due to the stress of poverty. Through reforms, treatment, and the removal of the stress that comes with living in poverty, it is clear that a lower crime rate will be the result. Justice has already proven this. In order to make this happen, we must be willing to set aside our personal stereotypes about poverty. Instead of someone being a poor person, we must view them as a person. We must treat children equally no matter what their socioeconomic classes might be. Then we must be consistent in providing opportunities to everyone no matter what their living situation might be. There are zero opportunities. An individual will make their own opportunities and that will usually be through crime. It will be through violent crime if necessary. We may never completely eliminate poverty within our lifetime, but we can set the stage for people to find a different way than the previous generations. Through education, treatment, and consistency, people will be given more opportunities that will help them be able to get the job that they need to provide for themselves with legitimate resources. If not, then our future might just be a world where people feel like they need to steal food from Taco Bell in order to survive. How poverty influences crime rates. The conflict theory helps explain this author's conclusion. If resources are not available, then the result will be a desire to get the desired resources. And if resources are not available, then poor decision making will be practiced to satisfy the need for survival or the fight or flight response. The second article, the video, I found was an opposing view of the first article. This video, It Doesn't Make Sense to Blame Crime on Poverty, Wall Street Journal, John Riley, February 28, 2023, goes into saying that the blame lands with the political powers in control for allowing this behavior. The video blames the lack of dealing with the smaller issues in society which result in larger crime issues, otherwise known as the broken window theory. The video explains by justifying bad behavior and not dealing with it when it's small, the result will be a frustrated society that has no respect for law and order. I can see how the conflict theory can be connected to this, as if people in power do not do their job in communities where poverty is present, then the result will be a frustrated community and the result will be a conflict between the oppressor and the people being oppressed. Just because someone is poor, that does not mean their neighborhood do not deserve the same attention that a more affluent community gets. The result will be a continued destruction of government resulting in lawlessness. Based on the two articles and their opposing viewpoints on how to deal with crime as it relates to poverty and the conflict theory, you can see how many references, you can see many references in Boys in the Hood. One very common theme in the movie is the general distrust in the powers that are in place. The members of the community have a general distrust of police and the government at large. Examples of this is a conversation Stiles has with Trey about a black man's place in the army as well as the social interactions between the community and the police. You can also see examples of how the community is not cared for by the government as far as trash in the neighborhood, liquor stores in the corners and the lack of community policing. There are examples, these are examples that are referenced in the broken window theory of the video by the Wall Street Journal. The other article on how poverty influences crime rates goes into how the basic need for food and mental health care can influence members of societies to commit crimes if these basic needs are not met. The film shows examples of substance abuse throughout the film and post-traumatic stress caused by gun violence. The continued behavior and stress all the more normalizes this behavior which will end in never stopping the repeated cycles of generational poverty and criminal behavior. In conclusion, the connection between poverty and crime is very complicated and not a one-size-fits-all approach will be the answer. A combination of giving these communities the same support more affluent communities receive as well as addressing the root causes of crime as well as community members taking some accountability for their own actions will all be the step in the right direction to correct these social issues. I once learned something at my job that if we as a government do not fix a problem that causes trauma, then we are failing the next generation who will have to deal with this repeated trauma when it's their turn to be the community.