Introduction
The essay is a critical examination of the three major characters in the movie Blood in Blood Out. This is accomplished through the lens of social bonding theory. The theory is used to give more insight on why or why not Miklo, Paco and Cruz committed or did not commit crime in the movie. The movie Blood in Blood Out was released back in 1993 and directed by Hackford Taylor and was filmed in the Spanish speaking region of Los Angeles in side San Quentin State Prison in California. The entire movie has been deemed a melodrama concerning what really happens in the street crimes, gangs as well as prison way of life of Chicanos. The three were cousin and associated closely with each other during violence in East Los Angeles back in 1972 (Hackford, 1993).
Before joining Cruz and Paco, Miklo had attacked his father. They engaged themselves in various criminal activities which eventually left each of them with serious negative consequences. For instance Cruz who was a talented artist after being hit on his backed was paralyzed for life and eventually decided to be a drug addict. On the other hand, after several crimes, Paco who was an accessory to murder eventually joined the military and became a detective in order to escape being jailed. Similarly, Miklo who was arrested together with Paco found himself rising up to being a leader of a gang in San Quentin. The gang was dubbed La Onda which was a Latino gang. Towards the end of the movie, Paco visited Cruz who had been re-accepted by his family and through their conversation they indeed Paco was responsible for all that has befallen them since he was the one who ordered Miklo to kill Spider, a gang leader (Hackford 1993).
Description of social bond theory
The theory was developed and proposed by Hirschi Travis back in 1969. The theory was later updated and it was dubbed social control theory. This theory has been deemed to offer an interesting platform from which the social problems facing mankind are approached and explained (Sampson & Laub, 1993). As described by author, “Elements of social bonding include attachment to families, commitment to social norms and institutions (school, employment), involvement in activities, and the belief that these things are important” (Hirschi, 2002). It is worth noting that this theory has a close bearing with the general theory of crime. Ideally the theory asserts that “there is an absence of social attachments among juvenile delinquents”.
Additionally, the theory holds that since those who live with us in one way or the other affect our lives, then “we in turn are direct descendents of their actions” (Sampson & Laub, 1993). The most crucial period of an individual is the adolescence as individuals here need a lot of positive influences in their lives so that these individuals will be better placed to have a close social tie with others in the society. However, if the association that is shared is full of negative aspects and attributes for instance criminal like habits, there are indeed higher chances of adolescence to be negatively influenced (Rhodes, 2000).
According to the author, there are four major or fundamental elements of the theory; “attachment, commitment, involvement in conventional versus deviant or criminal activities, and lastly the common value system within an individual’s society or subgroup” (Hirschi, 2002). Attachment has been viewed as the extent of values as well as norms and beliefs that a person holds in a given societal setting. This aspect is more pronounced when considering the manner of parenting that one was brought up with. Similarly, attachment to a peer group is equally important as that from one’s parents. Parents and peers who are well bounded influence deterrence from criminal activities (Hirschi, 2002). On the same note, it is held that other attachments such as learning institutions, prison among others play a major impact in conventional society. For instance, when the middle class student tends to prejudice and mock those from the lower class a seed of resent is planted making the affected individual loss trust and resent schools from very tender age. Ultimately such an individual will engage in antisocial activities.
Commitment as an element looks at the commitment of individuals to adhere to law, guidelines and procedure laid down by the respective authorities. At an early age, when individuals are taught the importance of obeying the norms as well as the manner with which a given society works makes one to be a better person as there is a platform to distinguish between what is deemed ‘right and wrong’. “A typical example is when a child is raised in a family where illegal drugs are bought and used; there are higher chances of such a child to get involved in drugs later in life” (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2005). Although the bound within a nuclear family might be good, there is also an opportunity given to individuals to choose how they will lead their lives. This is in most cases shaped by the basic rules taught to individuals. Additionally, “if a person shares common values/norms as others in their subgroup then the motivation to deviate will be hard to overcome”.
It is worth noting that this theory has been accepted by majority of sociologists due to the fact that bonds do exists in any given societal settings and such bonds can be evaluated to reveal the impacts it has to individuals. Thus for Hirschi, 2004 social bonds do exist and in situations where it is weak then there is bound to unusual behaviours to be experienced. This is captured in what the developer of the theory asserts;
[The more weakened the groups to which [the individual] belongs, the less he depends on them, the more he consequently depends only on himself and recognizes no other rules of conduct then what are formed on his private interests] (Hirschi, 2004).
Summery of the theory
A critical examination of the theory reveals that individual behaviour are usually or in most cases dictated by the influence of those they network with or live together with. For that, matter, a positive influence at a tender age especially during adolescence will in most cases result to an individual who can distinguishes right from wrong. However there are four major elements of the theory that best describes it; “attachment, commitment, involvement in conventional versus deviant or criminal activities, and lastly the common value system within an individual’s society or subgroup” (Hirschi, 2002).
The theory also notes that although one might be in a family that exhibits stronger bound, the choice of leading one’s life is in their own hands and for that matter individuals can engage in antisocial behaviours not because they were not brought up in a good manner and associated with good peer but because they see such acts to suit their way of life (Mills, 1990). The social bond theory clearly points out the time in human life that extra care needs to be taken (Brown et al., 2007). Adolescence has long been seen as the prime time where individual strongly need positive influence so that they can adopt norms, belief that are a true reflection of a society free from criminal activities.
According to McLennan et al., 1980 the major assumptions of the theory are; young individuals who had a stronger attachment to their parents were less likely to engage in criminal activities, commitment to values that are deemed conventional for instance struggling to attain good education exhibit generally acceptable behaviours and young individuals who indulged in behaviours deemed unconventional are more likely to engage in criminal or antisocial acts. Additionally adolescents who do not engage in unconventional behaviours are attached to their peers.
Thus, [Social Control Theory proposes that people’s relationships, commitments, values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into, and have a stake in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to commit deviant acts].
One prominent author that did critique the theory was Hindeland Michael back in 1973. Through his studies, he established that indeed peers who spent more time with delinquent peers were prone to commit crimes compared to those who got attached to peers with socially acceptable behaviours. On the same note, there are a number of studies that have indeed shown that those children who are brought up by parents who are drug abusers do exhibit a greater chance of following suit and becoming drug abusers later in life. According to Akers, 2000 individuals associating with peers, family members who are deviant will eventually get motivated to engage in criminal activities facilitating antisocial behaviours. It has also been established in subsequent studies that whereas weak bond between parents and their children leads to delinquency a strong bond among peers also yields the same results of increased rate of delinquencies (LaGrange and Raskin, 1985).
Criticism of social control theory
Although the theory has been hailed to help sociologists approach and clearly explain some social problems, there are important points raised by a number of authors in the field of sociology. One important point raised as a weakness of the theory is that it fails to succinctly differentiate the significance of each of the four elements of the theory (Krohn & Massey, 1980). It has been established and suggested by subsequent scholars that indeed it is possible that there exists differences in the four elements of social bond theory (Liska & Reed, 1985). For instance it has been established that adolescents who were found to actively engage in criminal acts were indeed highly involved which is contrary to what Hirschi held that such a high level of involvement reduces the chances of delinquency. Additionally, the developer concluded that any kind of any type of social attachment was of benefit, however it is eventually established that deviate parents and peers support and nurture antisocial behaviours (Brown et al., 2007).
It is also acknowledged that there are certain kinds of bound that was overlooked by the developer of social bond theory. A typical example is that of the Americans family structures. It is apparent that currently there are increased single family households, same sex marriage among others. Such kind of an arrangement although not fully studied leaves an open room for discussing whether it affects individuals in the society in a positive or deleterious manner (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2005).
Similarly another serious weakness in the theory is the failure of properly and exhaustively defining the major concepts of the theory. For that matter the manner with which terms are defined definitely alters the results from a well intended study. Lastly subsequent scholars who tried to justify the assumptions and hypotheses of the theory might have used a wrong study design (Krohn & Massey, 1980). For instance majority of them used self reporting studies. This methods has been shown to exhibit a number of serious negative consequences for instances it is possible that the reporter has a different motive of sharing certain information and that the posed questions might be understood and interpreted in a different manner other than what the researcher had intended (Wilson, 1980).
Application of the social control theory
For Miklo, it is apparent that his parents had separated. In my own humble view, problems in the family might have resulted to this and domestic violence was a key contributor. Being raised in a family prone to violence, Miklo ended up beating his father up before moving to stay with the two cousins of his. It is thus apparent that the negative influences around him via his father largely contributed to his delinquent behaviours (Nye, 1958). On the same note, while he met with his cousins, of which are his peers, it is evident how Cruz and Paco incited him though in a clever manner. Paco lets Miklo know that he is not suited for the gang this eventually made him prove his worth when he attacked the rival gang (Hirschi, 2004).
Initially, the thought of joining the gang was brought to light after the three meet hence involvement with bad influence is a serious concern in driving especially adolescents into criminal acts. The pressure on him to make it clear that he was ready to join the gang by launching an attack in order to gain recognition is in large part contributed by the very statement said by Paco (Matsueda, 1994). Similarly, the environment in which Miklo and his cousin lived was full of violence as well as criminal activities. The various gangs within the vicinity in my opinion played a major role in enticing these youths to join and engage in rivalry as well as supremacy (Hirschi, 2004).
After being arrested and sent to San Quentin Prison where the environment within is controlled by three major criminal gangs purely based on their race Miklo is left with no option but to engage in criminal activities. Even in the gang he was introduced by his friend Popeye, he was initially criticized for his colour; on the same note, the other gang known as Aryan Vanguard tried to make Miklo a sex slave. According to Jensen & Rojek, 1998, such an environment makes one to have no other option but to engage in delinquent acts. The pressure on Miklo to join the group was made clear to him when he met with the group leader.
He was to kill an enemy inmate of which he agreed to doing. He successfully convinced Big Al and eventually stabbed him to death. In this case it is evident that although the social control theory asserts that higher level of involvement helps deter criminal acts, it is indeed conflicting when this concept is applied to the case of Miklo. The pressure from the gang makes him commit serious crimes which in any society will be deemed unacceptable (Matza, 1964). Additionally it emerges that the officers are not able to charge Miklo since he has evidence about kickbacks from gambling received by the officers. Thus the societal setting within the prison in my view is rotten and it is an epicentre of criminal activities that goes unpunished (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2005).
When he was released on parole, Miklo continued to enact the orders of the group he had joined. However, while working his immediate boss in Miklo’s opinion was robbing him. This eventually pushed him to join an armed gang. In the case of Paco, although he engaged in criminal activities, the influence can be fully described from his peers. Despite the fact that he found himself in trouble a number of times, his desire to quite such acts deemed antisocial saved him a lot (Felson, 1994). As described in the theory of social control, individuals who engage themselves in constructive activities are not prone to engage in antisocial behaviours (Hindelang, 1973).
Since Paco joined the L.A.P.D and worked as a detective, there is no instance mentioned of him engaging in criminal activities rather he worked hard in restoring order and law within his jurisdiction. However, he acknowledges that by ordering Miklo to murder Spider, he is indeed responsible for the misfortunes that have befallen Miklo. Similarly, the major contributor to the reason why Paco initially engaged in criminal activities can be ascribed to the kind of parental he experienced (Bursik & Robert, 1988). In my humble view, his parents were not concerned with his activities as well as his whereabouts, show little empathy and love. This left him with no other option but to look where he can find an attachment with peers who are delinquent. “Becoming attached to delinquent peers makes sense only as a solution to the insecure feelings and distorted conditioned thinking which signal less healthy functioning” (Briar Piliavin, 1965: 43)
Similarly, for Cruz just like his two cousins, a volatile family greatly contributed to his troubles. Instead of choosing the right path of life, he was forced to choose a wrong one mainly because he lacked the kind of family support that instils proper behaviours that are socially acceptable (Hartwell, 2000). Additionally living in a society where crime is the order of the day, his mind was tuned to see such activities as not being wrong. Such an environment leaves very little room for an individual to be brought up and being able to differentiate right from wrong even if the family is committed to doing so. It is also apparent that his engagement in cocaine was aggravated when his family denied him (Harp et al., 1993). In my humble opinion, if his family could have showed intensive support in helping rehabilitate him, he would have found himself out of trouble earlier than expected (Akers, 2000).
Conclusion
From the review of the social control theory and its application, there are four major elements that are key to understanding it and they include attachment referring to an individual’s sensitivity to live of others, commitment, involvement and beliefs. Individuals are influenced by the social environment in which they are brought up from and for that matter persons who are raised in a volatile environment, having negative consequences are more likely to engage in acts that are antisocial. For the three major actors in the movie Blood in blood out, it is apparent that Miklo, Cruz and Paco engaged in serious crimes as results of social influence basically driven by the four mentioned elements. In my opinion, it would be better for the relevant stakeholders such as parents, relatives, neighbours and the government to ensure that young individuals as they grow up are taught as early as possible to differentiate right from wrong and internalized socially acceptable norms and beliefs. Although there are criticisms about the theory, social control theory opts to be recognized as a major and dominant theoretical perspective in criminology not only in the previous centaury but also in 21st centaury (Spinner & Leaf, 1992).
References
Akers, R. (2000). Criminological Theories. 3rd Edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Briar, S. Piliavin, I. (1965) “Delinquency, Situational Inducements, and Commitments to Conformity.” Social Problems 13 (1): 21-39.
Brown, S. et al. (2007). Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context. Newark, NJ: Anderson.
Bursik Jr. & Robert J. (1988). “Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects”. Criminology 26(3): 519–539.
Felson, M. (1994). Crime and Everyday Life. London: Pine Forge Inc.
Hackford, T., Gershwin, J. (Producers), & Hackford, T. (Director). (1993). Blood in blood out. [DVD]. United States of America: Hollywood Pictures.
Harp, T. et al. (1993). “Partnerships in recovery: shelter-based services for homeless cocaine abusers” New Haven. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 10(3): 77–90.
Hartwell, S. (2000). “Not all work is created equal: homeless substance abusers and marginal employment” Research in the Sociology of Work, 9(4): 115–125.
Hindelang, S. (1973). “Causes of Delinquency: A partial Replica and Extension,” Social Problems, 21(1): 471-487.
Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (2004). A General Theory of Crime.” Classics of Criminology”. Ed. Jacoby, J. Long Grove, IL: Waveland P, Inc.
Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (2005). “Punishment of Children from the Perspective of Control Theory” In Donnelly, M. & Murray, A. Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective. New Haven, CT; London, UK: Yale University Press.
Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of Delinquency. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Hirschi, T. (2004) “Control Theory of Delinquency. Long Grove, IL: Waveland P Inc.
Jensen, G. & Rojek, D. (1998). Delinquency and Youth Crime. 3rd Edition. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Krohn, M. & Massey, J. (1980). “Social Control and Delinquent Behaviour: An Examination of the Elements of the Social Bond.” Sociological Quarterly. 21 (1): 34-74.
LaGrage, R. & Raskin, W. (1985). “Age Differs in Delinquency: A test of theory,” Criminology, 23 (1):19-45.
Liska, A. & Reed, D. (1985). “Ties to Conventional Institutions and Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 50 (2): 1-15
Matsueda, R. (1994). “Testing Control Theory and Differential Association.” American Sociological Review, 47(1): 2-34.
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and Drift. New York: John Wiley.
McLennan, G. et al. (1980). Crime and Society: Readings in History and Theory. London: Routledge.
Mills, R. (1990). “Substance abuse, dropout and delinquency prevention – The Modello/Homestead Gardens public housing early intervention project”. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on the Psychology of Mind, St. Petersburg, FL.
Nye, F. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behaviour. New York: John Wiley.
Rhodes, R. (2000). Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist. New York: Vintage.
Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Spinner, G. & Leaf, P. (1992). “Homeless and drug abuse in New Haven” Hospital Community Psychiatry, 43:166–168.
Wilson, H. (1980). “Parental Supervision: A Neglected Aspect of Delinquency”. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2): 43-61.