Can Sociology be applyed to MI

[mistica0christina]

This will probably be one unusual topic for me to post but my discussion with PBL left me thinking about this from last night. I have seen members of this site and others apply some common things of psychology to the film but what about sociology? Don't know if many people would know about this and I can't guarantee that I remember too much either, I had taken a class on this some good summers ago so I can't guarantee that even I'll remember all the stuff on it.

For a basic idea of what it is, here's the article of it on wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology

Now, one of the aspects of Sociology that has me thinking is the topic relatiing to deviance which believe it or not has nothing to do with being evil or criminal so much but has to do more with sometimes changes within society that could be considered against the norm. One good example for this would be the anti slave movements, being against slavery during these time periods were considered an act against society and was also against the norm at this time....but I feel that this particular topic of Sociology may actually be a pretty good one to apply to MI.

We know from MI that the views of children which was to see them as dangerous, toxic animals was considered part of the norm, it was considered a part of the monster society and any view that was different was seen as wrong or downright awful. In fact, any practice that related to seeing children differently could also be seen in the same way as well. Techinically by the terms of deviance within Sociology, Sulley took part in an act of deviance due to him not only becoming quite close to Boo but eventually doing what he felt he needed to in order to do what was best for her. Now, keep in mind as I stated above that looking at how he chose to care for her, many wouldn't see this as an evil act but like I said, deviance within sociology doesn't always mean acts that are criminal in some cases. There is also another theory that relates to deviance in sociology and that is the neutralization theory. This theory relates to how a person who commited an act of deviance may use a certain mindset as far as justifying what they did...they are the following:

Denial Of Responsibility- the deviant believes he/she was helplessly propelled into the deviance, and that under the same circumstances, any other person would resort to similar actions

Denial Of Injury- the deviant believes that the action caused no harm to other individuals or to the society, and thus the deviance is not morally wrong

Denial Of The Victim- the deviant believes that individuals on the receiving end of the deviance were deserving of the results due to the victim's lack of virtue or morals

Condemnation Of The Condemners- the deviant believes enforcement figures or victims have the tendency to be equally deviant or otherwise corrupt, and as a result, are hypocrites to stand against

Appeal To Higher Loyalties- the deviant believes that there are loyalties and values that go beyond the confines of the law; morality, friendships, or traditions may be more important to the deviant than legal boundaries

After looking at this, the two that stand out within the nuetralization theory is that of "Appeal to Higher Loyalties" and "Denial of the Victim". According to "Appeal to Higher Loyalties" when applied to MI, Sulley did just that by considering his bond to Boo more important than any boundaries whether it conflicted with the law or not. According to "Denial of the Victim", Sulley and Mike in their minds may see their actions as justified because to them through their mindset at that point in the film, Randall to them showed no morals or virtues and deserved what he got.

Now, keep in mind that doesn't make it right because that particular theory of deviance can be applied to any situation, for example, somebody in my opinion showed no sense of having morel or any sort of virtues or to me what was considered virtues but I chose to harm them upon that particular theory of nuetralization...to the basic person if they didn't know of my mindset of that time than they would consider me an evil person because to them, I did an act that wasn't justified but if I explained my actions to them, they may or may not agree with my reasons for the act. Another topic of deviance would be the topic of taboo in which it is an act that is considered controversial or wrong by a majority. Taboo can be applied to cultures such as what we see as normal in the U.S. could be considered vile and downright wrong to other cultures and vice versa. Sulley's bond with Boo was considered taboo to monsters but to us viewers who are human, it's not.

Now that I think about it, I think alot of anti Randall fans actually apply some of these theories to the film and the scenes that took place without even realizing it as well because it goes back to what's considered part of the norm of a society, to our society, helping a little girl isn't considered wrong but to the monster society, getting involved with a human child was considered such an awful act that they blew up a sock!

Wow sociology can be applyed.

[pitbulllady]

Great post, Mistica! This can be applied to both Sulley AND to Randall, of course, but the thing is, most fans of the movie only would apply those concepts of "deviancy" to Randall and completely leave Sulley out of the equation. They do not consider that Randall in almost all certainty believed that he had no choices in in his actions, and for the most part, he didn't, since he WAS directly under orders/control of another individual. Of course, most fans of the movie ONLY see it from a human perspective and are unable to see things from the perspective of the monsters, who have a different set of values when it comes to human children and their treatment. Thus, they see Randall's plan to use Boo to test the Scream Extractor on as utterly reprehensible, failing to realize that him and all the other monsters, a human child was no more than an animal, and a dangerous, toxic animal at that. Sulley's actions seem heroic in contrast because of what Randall had wanted to do to Boo and also because of Randall's actions towards Sulley himself. One of the things I've noticed insofar as a sociological shift here in our culture is the acceptance that revenge is GOOD, that it IS the way to solve problems among people. If someone wrongs you, you get 'em back, and this is especially acceptable among younger people. I put the blame on the pervasiveness of the "gang culture" in our society, actually. Whether a person is even in a gang, the aspects of that subculture have permeated nearly every facet of our main culture, from entertainment to clothing to language, and of course, the "hit 'em back" mentality is a large part of how gangs operate, while the notion of forgiveness is totally foreign to them.

pitbulllady

[mistica0christina]

That is true...although I do notice that many do argue that Randall had a choice and from this standpoint it is true that he did have a choice it just so happens that the consequences involved negative consequence such as getting fired, ratted out, or even death...but seeing it like that would just show further that his options were limited thus leading to why he remained involved with the plan regardless. The only thing as far as deviancy goes is that people would go based upon deviant meaning evil but as it shows here in a sociological viewpoint, being deviant doesn't necessarily mean evil so unless anyone actually understood fully what deviance is in sociology then argueing to them would end up being a waste of anyone's time esspecially if you actually understood these theories.

It does seem that way within the media about getting revenge but one of the Batman films had put it best in which nothing good comes from revenge and all it fuels is just more vengence because what if getting back that one person isn't enough for you and decide to take your actions out on others in senseless violence, that doesn't prove anything but the fact that maybe a person who does this may have lost it. Or better yet, you get someone back and then somebody they know do the same and what do you have, a viscious cycle that all stemmed from you taking your revenge out on another...it is senseless and eventually proves to be pointless as well.