Sociological Perspective of Erin Brocovich

Sociology of Law

Sarah Vander Helm

Second Paper Assignment

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

-Introduce theorists and theories

-summarize movie

-thesis

I. BODY
Marx-Class conflict
The opening scene, Erin Brocovich demonstrates a modern-day example of the class conflict theory by Carl Marx. This scene reflects the idea of the lower class dominated by the upper class. Erin Brocovich appears to be from a lower class, with her dress attire and her use of language. The interviewer appears to have a professional career, which reflects a higher class position. Erin tries "to sell" herself for the position, without having a higher education. The environment of the lower class represents class struggle. This is a modern day example, which reflects the relations of production, and respresents the schematic representation of the Marxian base-superstructure model. The Marxian perspective of a higher class, owns the means of production, but in this type of modern day example, the interviewer is of the higher class that decides who can obtain the position. The class conflict reflects upon this scene and shows the base-superstructure model. "The ideas of the ruling class are in ever epoch the ruling ideas…The classes which as the mean of production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking , the ideas of those who lack the mean of mental production are subject to it (70 Sutton). This statement by Marx in relationship with the movie, demonstrates the interviewer representing the class with the means of production and control. Erin, represents a person whose ideas lack the mean of the mental production are subject to it. The fact that Erin does not have a higher education, implies the "mental production". The control that the higher class has over the lower class also supports the idea that crime favors the wealthy.
2. MARX-VIEW ON CRIME-FAVORS WEALTHY The courtroom scene with Erin versus the ER doctor supports a Marxian view on crime. Erin is a lower class woman who struggles everyday to meet the needs of her children and the E.R doctor is of higher class with higher socioeconomic status. An example of the Marixan view of crime is the statement that the E.R doctor's lawyer had made about his client just being an E.R doctor, which leads one to think that the doctor did not commit a crime. This scene reflects Marx's view on crime. Carl Marx's view of crime favoring the wealthy. According to Marx's view on crime, the E.R doctor's involvement in the accident disqualifies him from doing the crime because the E.R doctor has a higher socioeconomic status than Erin. The class difference, imposes a Marxian view that, the laws that are made favor the wealthy, especially when a crime is committed by the wealthy. These are the words of Carl Marx that prove this view "Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, and occupation, to act in their way…, and to exert the influence of their special nature" (75 Sutton). The special nature implies that law is, of course, to perpetuate inequality. Inequality is enacted through the statement that the defendant attorney makes his E.R Doctor client appear not guilty. This shows an action to over power Erin's confession of wanting to be a good mother to defend herself in court. Democracy does not eliminate social class distinctions. This scene shows a social class distinction between Erin the plaintiff and the E.R doctor the defendant. This social class distinction reflects the theory by Weber with the types of legitimate domination.
3. WEBER"S TYPES OF LEGITIMATE DOMINATION WITH A MARXIAN CLASS PERSPECTIVE The Marxian class distinction of Erin Brocovich and the lawyer versus the new partners in the case, represents Weber's typology of legitimate domination. Erin Brocovich and her boss represent charismatic domination in the case. The scene where the other woman critizes Erin for having missing information, shows that she has a legal rational domination of having in acted rules in the case. However, Erin has an emotional attachment with the plaintiffs and has a deep understanding of the whole case in a charismatic way. The other woman lawyer shows a legal rational domination and shows a higher socioeconomic status in the case. When the other woman goes to interview the plaintiffs, she does not seem to be respected by the plaintiffs because she seems to be of higher class. This shows the Weberian and Marixan connection, between class and legitimate domination of both parties, who are representing more than 600 plaintiffs in the case. Erin and her boss represent a lower class with charismatic domination because they are from a small firm and their partners represent a higher class with higher domination. "Legal-rational authority rests on "a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands" (106 Sutton). The partners in the case represent legal-rational authority because they believe in the discussion of oral traditional, but they are fashioned to achieve some end of more than just knowing the plaintiffs in the case. "Charismatic authority as a type of domination resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him" (111 Suttion). Erin goes door to door, talking with each plaintiff, finding out each plaintiff's story; with emotion and attachment. The way Erin handles the case reflects the charismatic authority in the case.

1. TOPIC SENTANCE 4
The entire movie reflects Durkheim's evolutionary theory with societies going from mechanical to organic and from repressive law to restituitive law.
2. INFO SUPPORTING THE MOVIE
3. QUOTE OF THE BOOK
4. ANAYLZING QUOTE WITH MOVIE
4.INFORMATION CONNECT WITH OTHER THEORIST??(WITH TRANSISTION)