Mass Shootings, Social Contract Theory, and the Sociology of the Media Essay

A Background to the Sociology Behind the Problem

Crime is on the rise across the globe, and gun-related homicide is one of the most disturbing issue within this problem. The United States, which is the world's most diverse and complex social ecosystem, has been posting some of the most unsettling cases of mass shooting in the past five years (especially in schools) and gun violence. Some of the most recent Mass shootings in the United States have also been the worst in both the history of the nation and the world. An article in CNN online noted that the USA had been bedeviled by at least 1 school shooting every week as of May 25th 2018 (Ahmed & Walker n.p.). Associatively, the events-especially the ones committed with social motivations-and their implications raise various very pressing questions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A review of these concerns can only be made using social theory because mass shootings are the manifestation of serious social anomalies that play to a slew of sociological perspectives and concepts (Henslin 3). In that regard, culture, race and ethnicity, socialization, the law, sociology of the media, communities (sex/gender and religious communities), values and value systems, deviance and social control, status and role, as well as beliefs and belief systems all come into play when the issue of mass shootings and gang violence in general is considered (Gereluk et al. 461; Blum & Jaworski 410). Notably, in the context of the problem in focus, these concepts must be dissected within the theoretical parameters of the social contract theory if a comprehensive understanding of the role of the individual to the problem is to be understood.

Mass Shootings, Social Contract Theory, and the Sociology of the Media

In order to grasp the full implication of this challenge, it is important to start off with Hirschman's sentiment on the connection between social contract theory and gun violence/politics in the United states. The scholar posits that's:

And on a local/community level, nonfiction narratives such as the events depicted in Lawless suggest that the social contract may be jeopardized periodically by the very agents of government who are responsible for our protection. Among certain sectors of the American public, there is a historical distrust of governmental motives and/or capabilities that creates a felt need for self-protection (e.g., the readers of Soldier of Fortune magazine). Because the weaponry used by the American military is often lauded in these media vehicles (and sometimes in the government's own communications to the public, e.g., Act of Valor) as "the best in the world," this becomes the iconic set of firearms sought out by American civilians for their own protection (see Craft International 2012; Souter 2012). Ironically, the same government that is charged with protecting the populace may itself play a key role in modeling the self-arming of that populace (p. 558).

In the statement above, two main social concepts manifest; beliefs and the media as a vehicle for various social issues. First of all, it is evident that the issue of self-arming, which is the problem that underlies the liberal use of arms and, therefore, the mass shootings, rides on a belief among the general public that the government is significantly incapable of protecting the people. Statistics indicate that in the United States, 1.3 women aged 18 and above are forcibly raped every minute, an armed robbery happens every 5 seconds, and 2,000,000 home burglaries occur every minute; the rate of crime in the United States is appalling and the citizenry are, on many levels, justified to distrust the government to a point when it comes to their personal safety (Hirschman 551).

It is apparent that the issue of insecurity is sensationalized even further by the media through films such as Act of Valor and Lawless, both released in 2012 to rave reviews and impressive consumption by the general public. Continued readership on guns and weapons by fans of the Soldier of Fortune magazine also indicates how socially impactful the media is as a driver of beliefs behind crime and social institutions tied to matters of crime in the United States. Wilson, Ballman, and Buczek echo these sentiments when they claim that "The majority of news about mass shootings, even if the article does not mention mental illness or contains expert information, may contribute to negative attitudes" towards institutions that are supposed to maintain social order (p. 644). In the same vein social elements tied to the criminal such as race, religion, ethnicity, community, and class also exacerbate the problem.

Belief, Values, and Other Core Sociological Concepts

Having laid an ideological foundation for the background of weapons in the United States-and examined the issues of belief and the sociology of the media in this context-it is now possible to address values and value systems and how dysfunction within this sociological domain has seeded gun violence. Although the general public seems to be acutely concerned with gun possession as a means of protecting itself against criminals, it is all but oblivious to the fact that most of the guns used in school shootings-and most other mass shootings-are legally licensed arms that originate from home (Hobbs n.p.). In that respect, it is justified to point out that the beliefs underlying gun possession are, in fact, the source of mass shootings as a social issue steeped in crime and seeding the secondary issue of personal safety. Now, social contract theory is, according to Hirschman, an agreement, written (as in the case of gun laws in this case) or unwritten (the overarching belief that people need to protect themselves by having arms) that moderates the relationship between the individual and the society he/she lives in. In that regard, it is justified to argue that the masses supporting gun laws and overlooking the license that this action gives to mentally ill mass murderers is a vicious circle of crime and social insecurity (Hirschman 553).

While the creation of the environment for gun violence is, by all means, attributed to laxity in laws (which is the fundamental means of social control in this context) and a purposeful blindness by the masses, the social narrative underlying the motivations for this particular crime is completely different. Mental illness has been blamed extensively for the problem, yet social motivations of race, religion, and sex are equally (if not more) common causes for the issue (). Research has pointed to the fact that the leading cause of gun violence is mental illness. Metzl and MacLeish categorically present this argument in the claim that:

Four assumptions frequently arise in the aftermath of mass shootings in the United States: (1) that mental illness causes gun violence, (2) that psychiatric diagnosis can predict gun crime, (3) that shootings represent the deranged acts of mentally ill loners, and (4) that gun control "won't prevent" another Newtown (Connecticut school mass shooting). Each of these statements is certainly true in particular instances (p. 240).

The statement above is the simplest and most straightforward assumption made by specialists in investigations for mass shootings motivations. The claims above hold water particularly with regards to school shootings that involve young criminals. For instance, the May 11th instance in Palmdale, California, was perpetrated by a 14-year old. The Great Mills High School shooting in Lexington Park, Maryland, was also committed by a teenager, with the shooter at Marshall County High School in Benton, Kentucky also being a 15-year old teenager. The worst shooting of the past two years, which occurred on the 14th of February at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was committed by a 19-year old (Ahmed & Walker n.p.).

However, some of the shootings reported have origins and motivations that are either unclear or are entirely attributed to hate and dissonance between social communities. By way of example, the Orland gay night club shooting on June 12th 2016-the worst shooting in American History until the Las Vegas Shooting of October 1st 2017- was motivated predominantly by hate towards the LGBT community. From a social perspective, this issue can be explained as being the product of deviance; the attacker, who pledged allegiance to ISIS (a definite deviance from conventional value systems and beliefs in the community he lived in), also expressed hate for gay people, who in this context must be understood as sexual others (Orland Nightclub Massacre). In order to understand this concern even better, it is important to import the sentiments of the Metzl and MacLeish again; the two argue that:

Yet, as we show, notions of mental illness that emerge in relation to mass shootings frequently reflect larger cultural stereotypes and anxieties about matters such as race/ethnicity, social class, and politics. These issues become obscured when mass shootings come to stand in for all gun crime, and when "mentally ill" ceases to be a medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat (p. 240).

The claim above sheds a very strong light on the social truths underlying mass shootings. By and large, while people have chosen to propose legislative social controls as a means to curbing the impermissible deviation that is gun violence, it is actually inherently social issues such as tension between communities (like the radically straight and gay), race and ethnicity wars, religious variances (such as the ISIS shooter in Orlando) and politics of class and faction that influence mass shootings and gun violence. It is impossible to demarcate these causes from gun violence and the 21 shootings that had already occurred in the first five months of this year as of May 25th 2018.

In full view of all these factors, institutions of socialization, especially religious and educational bodies, should never be overlooked in attempts for an exhaustive solution to this social condition. It goes without saying that some of the most fundamental elements of socialization are also the building blocks for the deviant ideas and world views that spur young people into committing the crimes in this essay. Shapiro has the following to say about this point of view:

A recurring claim following mass shootings is that their cultural, political, and educational milieus must be absolved... Although such claims may appear compelling, they conceal the relationships of shooters to their educational, communal, and political environments, and to the times in which we live. I argue that denying such relational, contextual dimensions relegates school shooters to the problematic status of "exceptions." This assertion of exceptionality distorts certain historical, political, and linguistic understandings of this devastating phenomenon, implying a definitive separation between what is considered normal and exceptional and between an expected course of human events and sociohistorical aberrations (p. 424).

In the sentiments above, socialization-by way of social institutions-is identified as a major factor in the way notions on communities, race and ethnicity, class, and even political dynamics within a society works. This perspective is universally acclaimed as evidenced by the argument that the various elements of social location such as demographics, institutions, politics, and so on, influence the way people behave (Henslin 3). It is impossible to miss the truth value of the argument that mass shootings in America are an inherently social problem that must be addressed by means that reach far beyond the arguments posted in exist discourse and debate on gun laws.

Conclusion

In conclusion, mass shootings in American, especially in schools, are not a menace to the socie...