Foreword: This is another essay I wrote for my high school sociology class and the last one I will since school lets out on May 31, 2013. The class has been a tremendous experience, so much so that I wish it was a yearlong course to cover more of the burning topics and social trends of the modern age. Many I know for a fact couldn't care less about the class or the material taught in it, but this is probably the most exciting class I've taken in some time for the wealth of social knowledge and the intelligent teachers behind it.
For this essay, we watched a 20/20 documentary called Hidden America: Children of the Mountains, which concerned three families in dire poverty in the Appalachian Mountains. The thesis was "do you think the youth portrayed in the documentary will ever experience upward mobility or success?" We look at this issue through three common sociological perspectives; functionalism, conflict theories, and symbolic interactionism. Without further adieu here is "Hidden America: Poverty in an Unlikely Place."
Poverty is a word tossed around very much in modern society, seeing as over 15% of the population is unemployed and struggling to get by in one of the worst recessions in American history. Ostensibly, people associate poverty with those often in urban areas, in overcrowded housing projects, usually of the black race. The "20/20" special, "Hidden America: Children of the Mountains," poverty is shown in a place we almost never think to look; the Appalachian Mountains. Down a long, twisty road that leads up a mountain lives some of the poorest people in the country with some of the most unfortunate circumstances. It's a culture that breeds children who are exposed to the drug-life at a young age, family members often remaining distant, and Mountain Dew and other sugary sodas in their baby bottles due to a lack of money to pay for healthy, nutritious snacks. In the "20/20" special, we focus on the lives of the affected youth and the question that enters are minds is whether or not these kids have any chance at succeeding? Looking at the issue from the three known sociological perspectives - functionalist, conflict theorist, and symbolic interactionist, respectively - the kids profiled in the documentary have little to no chance, with blame resting on the shoulders of the system currently in place, the cultural norms that follow their behavior, and even the choices the kids and their parents make themselves. The first perspective utilized in modern sociology is a perspective known as the functionalist perspective, which is known for holding individuals themselves accountable for their actions and nothing more. They see personal accountability as the foundation for their beliefs and everything else is simply a trivial, unimportant matter. A functionalist would not see any of the three Appalachian families succeeding in life simply because of the choices they make to get by. A little girl named Erica is profiled in the film, who is living an underprivileged life with a mother who keeps falling in and out of drug abuse. A functionalist would place the blame of an unsuccessful, undernourished life on the fact that a little girl's mother continuously seeks out drugs and not the well-being of her family. Rather than spending her money on clothing, education, and food for the family, the mother selfishly purchased drugs off the street in deals rather than providing competent, adequate care for her child. It's a prolific bad choice that isn't advancing her at all in terms of mobility and will keep her functioning in the redundant cycle of misery. Furthermore, the documentary also details that dropping out of school before coming close to achieving higher education is very prominent in the community of Appalachia; many drop out in high school, not even pursuing a higher level of school. The film bats of a statistic that one in ten kids will get a college degree. A modern-day functionalist would echo the point and state that dropping out of school is an obvious bad decision that will leave a kid in 2013 America hopeless and without a silver-lining in the world of success. Functionalists, as a whole, return the blame of poverty back to the person in poverty, claiming it is a choice and that societal limitations and government regulation had nothing to do with it; you're in that position because it is your fault.
The second common approach to viewing sociology in a sense is through the lens of a conflict theorist. Conflict theorists look at problems and social issues with their criticisms centered on hierarchy and government regulation. In this particular instance, they'd state the issue of poverty as a result of broken legislation that affects the poor in more ways than in any other social class whatsoever. Unlike the functionalists that narrow their views to personal accountability, conflict theorists are known to look at the picture in a broader, more versatile way, diving into socioeconomic differences, federal and state government regulation, as well as other proprietary systems that have been made a significant part of a person's life. A conflict theorist would cite this particular issue as one that has been created not as a fault of the people but because of the fault of the societal system currently in place. For example, in Appalachia, there are few opportunities for a person to better one's self. Job-growth is methodical and scarce in the community, and the opportunities open are undesirable work such as in the fast-food industry and local big-box stores such as Costco and Sam's Club. These jobs offer little room for advancement and pay low and unsatisfying wages. The industry that pays the most in the community of Appalachia is the coal-mining industry, at roughly $50,000 a year. However, the mining field is a dirty and dangerous field, only for souls with an aptitude for working in claustrophobic low-lit places. The risk of lung-disease and health problems is extremely high and the presence of death looms around every dark and eerie corner. [Due to the lack of opportunities that will prove beneficial to the people in the community, it's prevalent to see that the people in the area will not climb up the social latter very quickly, if at all see a change in their income in their lifetime.] There is a character in the film named Shawn, who is a star football player at his high school with a partial scholarship to college. He goes to college for a few months before dropping out due to the rigor and the cost. A functionalist would blame him for dropping out, where a conflict theorist would state that skyrocketing tuition costs and an enormous emphasis on college education shackles that one can't necessarily succeed unless he totally beats the odds. On to the point of the education system and aside from viewing the staggering number of dropouts, the education the people of Appalachia receive is very restricted. Furthermore, it doesn't have the financial backing or ambition to show its students that there is a more desirable life out there that is obtainable if hard work and determination will prevail in the long run. We are shown in the documentary that they are thought there is little life outside of the mediocre fast-food industry or the monotony of small-business. Public schools located in suburban areas are known to tell kids to shoot for the stars, however, the only difference is that many suburban public schools are equipped with the technology and advancements to show them the stars and not just tempt them. The schools in Appalachia clearly do not have a system in place that does them equally. Conflict theorists have a broader view than functionalists in the sense they focus their sights on a larger problem that in return gives back a deeper understanding of the modern economic system, but also, in turn, reveals a problem that is much harder to fix. Without trying to oversimplify in either case, many would say it's easier to spend money on necessities than reform an entire education system where financial and social difficulties lie ramped. Regardless, both the education system's skyrocketing costs and mediocre criteria show that the kids of Appalachia have an extremely low chance of leaving their impoverished community in favor of a more lavish or even acceptable lifestyle.
Finally, there is the symbolic interactionist perspective, which, unlike the aforementioned functionalists and conflict theorists, sets its sights on identifying personal norms in separate social classes to formulate a consensus on whether mobility or success is evident. To simplify, it's more about personal interaction rather than constructing an idea or a justification based on prior-knowledge and personal opinion, hence the term "interactionist." In the film, the viewer observes and takes the information through this way. Using the sociological practices of Bernstein, it's evident in the community of Appalachia that there is an abundance of slang and improper speaking methods (coined "restricted speech"). It gets so bad that frequently must the film use subtitles in order for the viewer to comprehend what the characters are saying. The direct result of this not leading to the success the kids clearly want and dream of is the fact that it's easy to view them as incapable of "white collar work." Because of their speech code, the way they interact with others, and the mannerisms they use in public, this poses the difficultly of not being able to survive well in communities and areas not their own. Moreover, another sociologist named Payne introduced the idea that social classes, as a whole, have a series of personal norms that those specific classes view as socially acceptable. Because of this, this makes the working poor/working class community that is Appalachia have the inability to assimilate, making upward mobility more difficult. Consider Shawn's dilemma, how when he went off to college he couldn't do well enough on the material and had difficultly relating to his classmates and colleagues, who didn't have the unfortunate circumstance of coming from an impoverished community. Because of this, Shawn couldn't pay for the luxuries others had, and didn't have the spare money to spend on things like parties, going out to eat, or other things that his friends had. Because of incorruptible speaking patterns and the abundance of slang, along with the fact that people from the working poor areas have a difficult times assimilating with culture contribute to the fact that it is unlikely the kids of Appalachia will get out of the poverty they've so long lived in. In summation, regardless of which sociological perspective you look at, the likelihood of success in such a hopeless, unforgiving area is extremely unlikely.
For this essay, we watched a 20/20 documentary called Hidden America: Children of the Mountains, which concerned three families in dire poverty in the Appalachian Mountains. The thesis was "do you think the youth portrayed in the documentary will ever experience upward mobility or success?" We look at this issue through three common sociological perspectives; functionalism, conflict theories, and symbolic interactionism. Without further adieu here is "Hidden America: Poverty in an Unlikely Place."
"Hidden America: Poverty in an Unlikely Place"
Poverty is a word tossed around very much in modern society, seeing as over 15% of the population is unemployed and struggling to get by in one of the worst recessions in American history. Ostensibly, people associate poverty with those often in urban areas, in overcrowded housing projects, usually of the black race. The "20/20" special, "Hidden America: Children of the Mountains," poverty is shown in a place we almost never think to look; the Appalachian Mountains. Down a long, twisty road that leads up a mountain lives some of the poorest people in the country with some of the most unfortunate circumstances. It's a culture that breeds children who are exposed to the drug-life at a young age, family members often remaining distant, and Mountain Dew and other sugary sodas in their baby bottles due to a lack of money to pay for healthy, nutritious snacks. In the "20/20" special, we focus on the lives of the affected youth and the question that enters are minds is whether or not these kids have any chance at succeeding? Looking at the issue from the three known sociological perspectives - functionalist, conflict theorist, and symbolic interactionist, respectively - the kids profiled in the documentary have little to no chance, with blame resting on the shoulders of the system currently in place, the cultural norms that follow their behavior, and even the choices the kids and their parents make themselves. The first perspective utilized in modern sociology is a perspective known as the functionalist perspective, which is known for holding individuals themselves accountable for their actions and nothing more. They see personal accountability as the foundation for their beliefs and everything else is simply a trivial, unimportant matter. A functionalist would not see any of the three Appalachian families succeeding in life simply because of the choices they make to get by. A little girl named Erica is profiled in the film, who is living an underprivileged life with a mother who keeps falling in and out of drug abuse. A functionalist would place the blame of an unsuccessful, undernourished life on the fact that a little girl's mother continuously seeks out drugs and not the well-being of her family. Rather than spending her money on clothing, education, and food for the family, the mother selfishly purchased drugs off the street in deals rather than providing competent, adequate care for her child. It's a prolific bad choice that isn't advancing her at all in terms of mobility and will keep her functioning in the redundant cycle of misery. Furthermore, the documentary also details that dropping out of school before coming close to achieving higher education is very prominent in the community of Appalachia; many drop out in high school, not even pursuing a higher level of school. The film bats of a statistic that one in ten kids will get a college degree. A modern-day functionalist would echo the point and state that dropping out of school is an obvious bad decision that will leave a kid in 2013 America hopeless and without a silver-lining in the world of success. Functionalists, as a whole, return the blame of poverty back to the person in poverty, claiming it is a choice and that societal limitations and government regulation had nothing to do with it; you're in that position because it is your fault.
The second common approach to viewing sociology in a sense is through the lens of a conflict theorist. Conflict theorists look at problems and social issues with their criticisms centered on hierarchy and government regulation. In this particular instance, they'd state the issue of poverty as a result of broken legislation that affects the poor in more ways than in any other social class whatsoever. Unlike the functionalists that narrow their views to personal accountability, conflict theorists are known to look at the picture in a broader, more versatile way, diving into socioeconomic differences, federal and state government regulation, as well as other proprietary systems that have been made a significant part of a person's life. A conflict theorist would cite this particular issue as one that has been created not as a fault of the people but because of the fault of the societal system currently in place. For example, in Appalachia, there are few opportunities for a person to better one's self. Job-growth is methodical and scarce in the community, and the opportunities open are undesirable work such as in the fast-food industry and local big-box stores such as Costco and Sam's Club. These jobs offer little room for advancement and pay low and unsatisfying wages. The industry that pays the most in the community of Appalachia is the coal-mining industry, at roughly $50,000 a year. However, the mining field is a dirty and dangerous field, only for souls with an aptitude for working in claustrophobic low-lit places. The risk of lung-disease and health problems is extremely high and the presence of death looms around every dark and eerie corner. [Due to the lack of opportunities that will prove beneficial to the people in the community, it's prevalent to see that the people in the area will not climb up the social latter very quickly, if at all see a change in their income in their lifetime.] There is a character in the film named Shawn, who is a star football player at his high school with a partial scholarship to college. He goes to college for a few months before dropping out due to the rigor and the cost. A functionalist would blame him for dropping out, where a conflict theorist would state that skyrocketing tuition costs and an enormous emphasis on college education shackles that one can't necessarily succeed unless he totally beats the odds. On to the point of the education system and aside from viewing the staggering number of dropouts, the education the people of Appalachia receive is very restricted. Furthermore, it doesn't have the financial backing or ambition to show its students that there is a more desirable life out there that is obtainable if hard work and determination will prevail in the long run. We are shown in the documentary that they are thought there is little life outside of the mediocre fast-food industry or the monotony of small-business. Public schools located in suburban areas are known to tell kids to shoot for the stars, however, the only difference is that many suburban public schools are equipped with the technology and advancements to show them the stars and not just tempt them. The schools in Appalachia clearly do not have a system in place that does them equally. Conflict theorists have a broader view than functionalists in the sense they focus their sights on a larger problem that in return gives back a deeper understanding of the modern economic system, but also, in turn, reveals a problem that is much harder to fix. Without trying to oversimplify in either case, many would say it's easier to spend money on necessities than reform an entire education system where financial and social difficulties lie ramped. Regardless, both the education system's skyrocketing costs and mediocre criteria show that the kids of Appalachia have an extremely low chance of leaving their impoverished community in favor of a more lavish or even acceptable lifestyle.
Finally, there is the symbolic interactionist perspective, which, unlike the aforementioned functionalists and conflict theorists, sets its sights on identifying personal norms in separate social classes to formulate a consensus on whether mobility or success is evident. To simplify, it's more about personal interaction rather than constructing an idea or a justification based on prior-knowledge and personal opinion, hence the term "interactionist." In the film, the viewer observes and takes the information through this way. Using the sociological practices of Bernstein, it's evident in the community of Appalachia that there is an abundance of slang and improper speaking methods (coined "restricted speech"). It gets so bad that frequently must the film use subtitles in order for the viewer to comprehend what the characters are saying. The direct result of this not leading to the success the kids clearly want and dream of is the fact that it's easy to view them as incapable of "white collar work." Because of their speech code, the way they interact with others, and the mannerisms they use in public, this poses the difficultly of not being able to survive well in communities and areas not their own. Moreover, another sociologist named Payne introduced the idea that social classes, as a whole, have a series of personal norms that those specific classes view as socially acceptable. Because of this, this makes the working poor/working class community that is Appalachia have the inability to assimilate, making upward mobility more difficult. Consider Shawn's dilemma, how when he went off to college he couldn't do well enough on the material and had difficultly relating to his classmates and colleagues, who didn't have the unfortunate circumstance of coming from an impoverished community. Because of this, Shawn couldn't pay for the luxuries others had, and didn't have the spare money to spend on things like parties, going out to eat, or other things that his friends had. Because of incorruptible speaking patterns and the abundance of slang, along with the fact that people from the working poor areas have a difficult times assimilating with culture contribute to the fact that it is unlikely the kids of Appalachia will get out of the poverty they've so long lived in. In summation, regardless of which sociological perspective you look at, the likelihood of success in such a hopeless, unforgiving area is extremely unlikely.
Comments
Post a Comment