Crash: Seen through conflict theories of criminology

I was challenged to watch the movie Crash and provide commentary.  If you have a Netflix account, you can watch it here.

The movie Crash was one I found very disturbing - the raw racism was painful enough I had to watch the movie in phases across several days. The backdrop of ethnically and culturally diverse Los Angeles is the setting for director Paul Harris' film, which follows several groups of people through 3 tense days of interaction, where their lives are unexpectedly intertwined. Along the way, each of the main characters acts out of ugly racism (with the notable exception of the locksmith, Daniel), and then has a revelation that changes their perspective on race.  This movie has many plots and subplots, and I do not think there is a single conflict theory to explain all behavior -- although Marxist class struggle does seem to be an overarching theme.  

Many conflict theories of criminality are presented in the movie, and these include:

Radical criminology (William Chambliss, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engles, etc.) Anthony and Peter are presented as the bourgeoisie who are down-trodden without opportunities or hope, and the shopkeeper Fahrad is likewise presented as a man who is pushed into criminality through hopelessness from feeling wronged by a corrupt system.  Chambliss' theory that the upper and middle-class often escape punishment is further highlighted in an angry exchange between Cameron, a successful movie director, and Tom Hansen.  Cameron, a successful black man in an expensive car is let go, even as Anthony huddles in the front seat - the impression being that, had Anthony been discovered, he would have been arrested and not gotten away with just a warning.

Feminist criminology (Adler & Simon) - Power-Control Theory (Hagan) - Christine reacts to being arrested with violent outbursts and vehement anger as she is controlled and dominated by the police, and is further stripped of dignity through molestation at the hands of the police.  She reacts with mild violence and scorn to her husband, Cameron, who she saw as not protecting her to save his own dignity.  Through Christine, we see strong gender issues, where she is subjugated to her husband's career, and reacts strongly to that when this results in her sexual assault.  Sandra Bullock's character, Jean, is likewise subordinate to the career of her husband, who is more concerned (as District Attorney) that he was robbed by black men, and how that will effect his political career, than with the trauma felt by his wife.

Instrumental Marxism ( Reiman) - Through the eyes of the poor in the movie (Anthony, Fahrad, Peter) we see how the poor are downtrodden and subjugated by the police.  Peter is shot by a policeman, who saw everyone else as racist, and then winds up shooting Peter due to his own prejudiced beliefs -- after first mocking Peter that he could enjoy country music, go ice skating or would like to be a hockey player.  We see the interaction of the police with the citizenry as corrupt, domineering, prejudiced, racist and driving the forces of law to manipulate public image and create prescribed outcomes regarding race perceptions and twisted justice.  The criminal justice system is portrayed as a tool to control the poor, rather than a tool to create justice, law and order.

Critical Criminology (Sykes) Jean, having been robbed at gunpoint, quickly jumps to assumptions regarding the tattoos and baggy clothes that Daniel has, and demands her locks be changed again.  She is the epitome of upper-class snobbery keeping the ruling class dominating the underprivileged, and she is broadly critical of the hired help, and turns every perceived slight into aspects of criminality.  

Left-realist Criminology (Curran, Renzetti, DeKeseredy, Young) - While not as strong a theme as other conflict theories, there is the general overall sense in the movie that most of the poor portrayed in the movie are committing crimes of desperation and deprivation, while the police and ruling elite are the "real criminals" who are corrupt - framing the innocent, committing coverups, killing, bribing using extortion and crimes of sexual deviancy.  

Labeling theory (Howard Saul Becker's & George Herbert Mead) - While not a conflict theory, Labeling theory is seen in how many of the players in the movie label themselves, including a several minute dialogue by Anthony and Peter.  In particular, Anthony sees the antagonism of society against him as entirely based on race, then they both play to type and steal a car and gun point.  Peter, despite having a brother who is a successful police detective, is a 3-strike felon who sees few ways of opportunity except by boosting cars, accepting society's label as a hoodlum.

On Modeling Theory

In response to this lengthy and good article on Combat Training, Autopilot: "You honestly don't know you're doing it" by the esteemed Lt. Col. Dave Grossman...  

I think that there is much to be said for Modeling Theory, though I disagree with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman about laying the blame at "psychological conditioning" of video games.  Since before the Roman circuses, we have had violent games and displays, and children have played some antagonist/protagonist game of violence (Cops vs. Robbers, Cowboys vs. Indians, Empire vs. Jedi) for thousands of years.  I do not think that creating more realistic games necessarily creates a breakdown in reality that would cause someone to no longer be able to determine reality and to murder.

I don't find it that surprising, as Lt. Col. Grossman did, that a 14-yr old could score 8 hits with a .22 pistol, since there is virtually no recoil on a .22, and they can be very accurate, particularly at man-sized targets at room distance.

What I find more compelling is the explanation offered by Tarde of learned behavior, particularly imitation and suggestion, though I would modify his second law of imitation.  Where Tarde stated that imitation moves from the top down, I would think it more accurately is stated that imitation models the behavior of people we respect and would like to be.  That may not always be the bigger or wealthier, it could be the bad-boy rebel or goth, particularly in youth who discard the model of parents and seek rebellious peers to imitate.  I think Tarde's statement of replacement is spot-on, since every generation believes they invented sex, despite their own existence providing evidence to the contrary.  Behavior theory, as espoused by Skinner, also explains much about criminality, and is closely tied to the attachment theory of Bowlby, as both are related to positive reinforcements. I have a need, I reach a crisis of need, the need is met, and I feel love.  Or, the need is not met, and I feel unloved by that person.

Truthfully, I believe that you have all three theories operating and active in the formative years of a child.  The parent models behavior that demonstrate appropriate behavior (c.f. Bobo Doll experiment of Bandura).  The child learns hostility and aggression, or positive traits like sharing, showing affection, and good manners by modeling their parent.  They also will have the behavior theory of rewards and punishments, regardless if they are raised by parents that use discipline or parents that do not.  All children will be raised in an environment where they will observe the interaction with an authority figure, and the keeping or breaking of rules, and then the consequences of that behavior.  Finally, attachment to an authority figure that meets a need creates a bond of love and affection and feelings of security (where provided).  From that bond of affection will come deeper meaning to modeling theory and behavior theory of rewards and punishments, reinforcing both.  Where attachment is broken, and an attachment disorder is created, that will create a lack of empathy and violence as the child (and later adult) seeks unusual and atypical ways of gaining acceptance or meeting their needs.  They may suppress success, shun attachments, and punish those seeking attachments, creating cycles of violence.

I think you cannot divorce those 3 theories, because they are inextricably linked through child development that will teach someone patterns that I think are significant in the creation (or prevention) of criminal behavior.