Social Stratification In Bowling For Columbine

4 Pages 989 Words

With “Bowling for Columbine”, Michael Moore explores many facets of society in an effort to determine what the United States’ obsession is with guns. He is looking and looking and trying to analyze what factors play a role in producing the crippling fear that drives Americans to own guns and commit violent firearm crimes, but it hits him right in the head and he drops the ball. All throughout the documentary, Moore unearths many quality examples of social stratification at work. Clearly, even Moore is not without his own limitations due to stratification. He is confronted with it, appalled by it, given the run-around through it, and even self-justified by it. Moore wants so badly to point a finger at someone and be a shining star, the genius that sparked a social revolution that defies human nature, to live without fear. In going about proving his point, Moore develops a scattershot approach at looking for causality. It eventually boils down to a culture of fear, perpetuated by the media and government.
Moore’s fear is not necessarily like being afraid of spiders, it is a fear seeded deep in the traditions, patterns, and values of a hierarchical social structure. It is the belief that some must be in charge, some must have the power and force to wield upon those that have none. But what controls the power? Is it socio-economic status? Ask Dick Clark, or better yet, let Michael Moore ask him and we can clearly see who is pulling rank in the power department during that interaction. How about TaMarla Owens? Is there any sign of social stratification in her life?
This woman’s six-year old son took a gun to school and shot a classmate, ultimately because TaMarla was booted off welfare and worked two jobs, only to lose her housing and watch her already unsettling world crash down around her. Her son shot a

little girl. Is she to blame? Is she a bad parent? Is Dick Clark to blame? Am I to blame? By nature, we ...