Corridor of Shame

In the United States, the South Carolina education system is a shameful institution that is in dire need of rehabilitation. The rural schools in our state are suffering from the devastations of overcrowding, low quality teaching, high turnover rates, poor building conditions, and ultimately, neglect. The fallacies within South Carolina’s education system are dramatically illustrated in the documentary Corridor of Shame.

            Throughout the film there are various instances in which sociological perspectives are prevalent.  In the movie, the most notable example of such was the symbolic interactionist view. One of the teachers makes a statement that essentially says “Even at a very young age students already realize that there are factors working against them”. If we lived in a utopian society all of South Carolina’s students would attend a well cared for school, but unfortunately, we do not and students are plagued with a negative self-fulfilling prophesy at a very young age. These students are victims of the labeling theory and a self fulfilling prophesy. At a young age, these students are directly and indirectly informed that they will not receive the many opportunities other kids will receive in order to blossom in society. Because they see and experience the defective institutions that surround them, they convince themselves that they have no ability or right to succeed. Because these students have been labeled as underprivileged and lack the resources to achieve success, they subsequently conform to the majority of the impoverished and/or disadvantaged community. This problem is a sad truth that must be fixed and can only be done so via the sociological understandings of the South Carolina education system. 

Health Care

In sociology, the three perspectives – conflict, interactionist, and functionalism – have three different sets of values in regards to social issues. Typically, conflict theorists and functionalists reside on opposite spectrums. Conflict theorists tend to focus on those who are struggling and improving their stance and wellness in society. Functionalists tend to disregard small groups and emphasize the importance of society as a system of interrelated parts that all effect one another. Interestingly enough, when it comes to health care functionalists and conflict theorists are more similar than usual.            

            Conflict theorists believe that our nation’s health care system is an arena for competition and that the distribution of resources is unequal. They question why the health care system is unequal and try to uncover solutions for the problem. Functionalists believe that being healthy is functional for society and that it is dysfunctional when there is mass of unhealthy people in our population. These perspectives both relate to each other in that both groups desire wellness for our entire nation. They both agree that our society and our nation would function better if everyone was healthy. In my opinon, it would be best if functionalists and conflict theorists could work together to find a solution to fix the many issues related to health care.

The Right to Work Act and Me

When sociologists analyze the government and the economy, they often focus on the abuse of power within governing bodies. Conflict theorists especially look at how the government may exploit their control over the weak or un-empowered individuals. The Right to Work law has sparked much controversy in the sociological world, where as many argue that the act allows for a spike in employment and greater economic growth while others argue that the law allots for lower wages and mistreatment of workers. This law affects a large majority of our nation’s workforce, including myself.

            I have loved the art of acting ever since elementary school and proceeded to act in plays since the third grade. I eventually progressed into professional theater and tv/film acting as I grew older. After signing with an agency in Atlanta and an agency in L.A, I realized the effects of the Right to Work law within the acting community. Recently, a significant portion of the film industry has migrated away from California and into states with the Right to Work law (particularly Georgia and South Carolina). Because these states have incorporated the Right to Work law into their constitutions, film makers and producers can avoid Unions, such as SAG (the Screen Actors Guild), from intervening on set and in production. In Right to Work states, more non-union actors, like myself, can be hired, providing more people with employment, BUT non-union workers are typically paid less because we do not have representation by a union who regulates worker wages. Ultimately, the Right to Work act has been a personal benefit because it has brought more auditions, work, and filming to the Southeast region, providing me with more opportunities. It has also given me the option to avoid joining SAG before I am ready and before I have the means to pay the high union fees. While I know the Right to Work act does not benefit all actors and that I may one day need to join a Union, presently the law has had favorable consequences on my status as an actor. 

Roger and Me

Although I have lived below the Mason-Dixon line since I was nine years old, my home remains in Rochester Hills, Michigan; a suburb of Detroit and located about 40 minutes from Flint, Michigan. With the exception of myself and parents, my entire family resides in Michigan, including various relatives whom live in Flint. Due to my connection with the city, I feel I have reasonable authority to comment on the effects of GM closing various plants in the area over two decades ago – as depicted in Michael Moore’s documentary, Roger and Me.

In the film, Moore evaluates Roger Smith’s decision to close GM plants in Flint and the effect this had on the community; Moore does so from a perspective based on the Conflict Theory. Moore focuses on those who struggle after they have been laid off or negatively affected by GM and stresses that such group of people have been treated unfairly. He further uses the conflict theory as he views social classes in the area in a Marxist manner. The wealthy are portrayed as heartless and culpable while the penniless are illustrated as innocent, exploited laborers.

 The portrait Moore paints of the Flint community is heartbreaking. BUT, it seems to be most devastating on an individual or small group level. While I agree with Moore in that the plant closings may have been detrimental and unfair to many former GM employees, I have to wonder – Were Roger Smith’s intentions beneficial for society or completely self-serving? Although I do not know answer this question, I wish that Moore would have focused a bit more attention on the possible reasoning’s behind Smith’s decisions instead of automatically demonizing Smith before the viewer has a chance to here Smith’s side of the story. This would make the film more credible as it would allow the viewer to see both sides of the story, as opposed to the one-sided view expressed by Moore. While I enjoyed Moore’s documentary, and respect his attempts to boost Flint’s economy, I believe that Michael Moore’s stereotype of only including evidence to support his case and his tendency to extremity situations, partially shines through in this film.