Sociological Analysis of Roger and Me, Term Paper Example

The film Roger and Me, directed and produced by Michael Moore, is a social commentary on the downfall of General Motors in Flint, Michigan and its impact on the lives on the individuals living there. What was once a prosperous town became one of the most impoverished areas in the country due to a significant loss of jobs. A majority of Flint’s inhabitants were employed by General Motors, and a loss of economic influx from these individuals caused the town’s local businesses to shut down as well. It is essential to understand this event from a structural functional perspective because this analysis will help define the aspects of General Motors’ presence that contributed to the solidarity and stability of Flint. Once these factors are defined, it may be possible to propose a manner in which Flint, Michigan will be able to recover from its socioeconomic downfall.

Based on Michael Moore’s description of Flint, Michigan during his early childhood, the presence of General Motors in the area allowed it to be generally self-sufficient. During this time however, since a majority of jobs available in the area were with the company, Flint became entirely dependent on it in terms of economic stability. However, beginning in 1985, all General Motors plants in the area started laying off workers and closing plants altogether in an effort to seek cheaper labor in Mexico. Ultimately, this had a negative impact on the norms, customs, traditions, and institutions of Flint, which reduced the stability of the town as a whole. Since its inhabitants were completely reliant on the commerce that General Motors established, lay-offs from the automotive industry resulted in lay-offs in all other local businesses. Since the reduction of available jobs occurred across the board, individuals who found themselves out of work were unable to find a replacement vocation. Because so few willing and able workers were able to find jobs, the entire culture of Flint, Michigan changed to a middle-class town to an impoverished area. Instead of working to live, these individuals needed to work to survive and to become creative in doing so.

Although it is clear that the General Motor plant closures in Flint, Michigan impacted local solidarity and stability, these concepts extend to the solidarity and stability of the United States as a whole. Many individuals living in Flint found it necessary to apply for welfare and other governmental assistance programs in order to survive, which requires a greater percentage of federal taxes to support these individuals. Federal economies are more stable when there are more working individuals and fewer impoverished. Thus, the situation in Flint, Michigan extends to the economic situation of the country as a whole and can lead to the reduction of jobs outside of the town. In turn, this impacts the social norms of the rest of the country. A majority of Americans have a somewhat disposable income and do not generally have to worry about where their next meal will come from. However, the tragedy in Flint has led to greater disparity among the social classes, which will trigger institutional changes as well.

Interestingly, not all of the residents of Flint shared the same understanding of what was happening to their society. Some people blamed those who were out of work, while others blamed General Motors. These different views are due in part to the rapid shift of social norms that occurred as a consequence of General Motors’ diminishing presence. While it is clear to everyone in Flint that the stability of their town no longer existed, it was difficult for them to understand why. Since this happened so rapidly, this became confusing, which was emphasized by a lack of understanding of how to cope with these changes. Most individuals believed that General Motors left for financial gain, and are correct, but disagree on the reasons why that this is the case. Those that blame former workers postulate that General Motors left because they were not good workers and the company wanted to seek help elsewhere. Similarly, because these individuals were paid too much and did not want a pay reduction, the company decided to leave. Ultimately, this demonstrates an inability to cope with change, and those who were unable to cope justified this change with whatever reasons they could to hope to better understand it.

Assuming that Michael Moore did not make this film solely for financial gain, he made the film to make Americans aware about the General Motors disaster and to send a message that this can occur in other towns. Ultimately, awareness is necessary in order to put a stop to things like this from happening. Firstly, he is emphasizing that it is important for towns to not become economically reliant on large corporations. If these corporations decide to leave, the town will be devastated. Second, he is calling for political action to keep American factories in America and primarily hire Americans as workers. If a policy like this had been in place, the financial catastrophe in Flint could have been avoided.

In conclusion, it is clear that the presence of General Motors was directly related to the economic stability and solidarity of Flint, Michigan, and its removal led to its downfall. The removal of General Motors led not just to an economic collapse, but a lack of solidarity that cause its inhabitants to blame one another for their downfall. In order for Flint, Michigan to return to return to its former status, it would be essential for a new industry to enter the area to enhance its stability, and it is likely that solidarity will follow.

Works Cited

Allen, J. “GM buys its birthplace: 2013 already marked as a year of ups and downs for   automaker in Flint”. The Flint Journal. 2 May 2013. Web 10 May 2014.

Ebert, R. “Oscar and “Roger & Me””. N.D. Web. 10 May 2014. <http://www.rogerebert.com/festivals-and-awards/oscar-and-roger-and-me>

Fonger, Ron. “GM Weld Tool Center closing: General Motors history in Flint area has been full of highs and lows”. The Flint Journal. 17 January 2013. Web. 10 May 2014.

Holmwood, J. “Functionalism and its Critics”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.