Question

Explain John wick movie and connect it to social bond theory

Answer 1

John Wick used to work with the Russian mafia in New York and developed a fearsome reputation as the 'Boogeyman' who knocked off all rivals so that mafia boss Viggo could rule the Mafia roost, so to speak. He retires from that life though, when his wife is dying of terminal illness so that he can look after her. She had arranged for a beagle a puppy named Daisy to be given to him after her death as a way to help him cope with her passing away. He develops a bond with the fog.

One day, he goes out for a drive in his vintage 1969 Mustang and sees a bunch of gang members at a gas station he stops at to refuel. One of them, the son of Viggo, it turns out, demands to buy it. But Wick is not too happy about that and makes his displeasure known. Used to having his way, Iosef and his goons follow John to his home, break in at night, attack him, kill his dog and steal the car. Later, Iosef gets to know about who he has stolen from and his dad is extremely upset about what Iosef has done. But now that the deeds have been done, they have no choice but to prepare for what John is going to do to them and try to fight back.

Viggo tries to talk John out of seeking revenge but that fails. A hit squad he sends to John's house to execute him is also wiped out. John then checks into a hotel that exclusively caters to assassins and uses that as his new temporary base of operations. John then heads to a nightclub called the Red Circle. He kills Iosef's friend Victor before dispatching most of their men. But Iosef makes a lucky escape when John is subdued by Viggo's henchman. He goes back to his room and fends off another female assassin who tries to kill him.

John then visits a church, which a secret hoard of Viggo's wealth in cash and torches all of it after killing all his guards there. However, he is later temporarily captured by Viggo's men but makes a lucky escape when a sniper named Marcus who was actually hired by Viggo to kill John, actually helps John instead by shooting John's tormentor in the nick of time. John, who has by now found out from Viggo where Iosef is, finally kills the latter. John is also wounded in the abdomen by now from one of his many violent encounters but has a final encounter with Viggo at the docks. Despite being wounded, John is able to gain the upper hand and kills Viggo. Later, we see John recovering from his wounds and he also pays a visit to a dog shelter, where he picks a new dog at the end of the film.

Social Bond Theory - The Social Bond theory was created by Travis Hirschi in 1969. Social Bond theory, that later developed into the Social Control Theory, has historically been an interesting way of approaching social problems and how we, in turn, explain them. Before one can apply the Social Bond theory, they must first have a firm understanding of its definition, which can be accurately described by Hirschi (1969) as, “Elements of social bonding include attachment to families, commitment to social norms and institutions (school, employment), involvement in activities, and the belief that these things are important”. This theory is rooted and derived from the General Theory of Crime. The basic difference between the General Theory of Crime and Hirschi’s (1969) Social Bond Theory is the focus on peers and peer groups of individuals. The four basic elements of social bond theory are attachment, commitment, involvement in conventional versus deviant or criminal activities, and lastly the common value system within an individual’s society or subgroup. Attachment is described as the level of values and or norms that an individual holds in society. Attachment is especially important when it come to the person’s parental figures. . According to Hirschi (1969) other attachments, such as school, play a tremendous role in conventional society. School has tended to be a middle to upper class involvement since it was first created. The middle class children tend to make fun of or demoralize the lower class children. This treatment also does not just come from the child it also comes directly from the institution, through the teacher. In combination with each other the person starts to resent school at the earliest point. This resentment also hinders the continuation of further education. This comes full circle to the lower class standard of living for generations to come (Hirschi, 1969). Next is commitment, this can be described as the level of commitment that an individual has to abide by legal behavior (Burton, Cullen, Evans, Dunaway, Kethineni, and Gary, 1995). The norms and values taught to us as an adolescent should be to obey how society works in normal terms. From very early in our lives we hopefully learn the difference between “right” and “wrong”. This understanding has an enormous effect on how we turn out and set our place in normal society. For example, if a child is raised in a home where drugs are bought, sold, and used regularly, then that child has a greater chance of having involvement with drugs in the future. Also, the “bond” between mother, father, and child in a normal nuclear family, is very strong, this, in turn, has made a blueprint of entire adult life on the child. Third, is a person’s choice to get involved in conventional versus deviant behavior. This choice is formed not far after the basic rules of life are taught. If no “right and wrong” basis are formed or provided the adolescent will make the decision that tends to make the most sense. This also ties into family involvement in a person’s life. lastly this in many ways senses directly correlates many factors or aspects of the four main parts of Hirschi’s (1969) theory. Together they form the backbone of the everlasting “bond” theory. Social Bond Theory has long been widely accepted among many sociologists for a variety of reasons. The fact that bonds exist in all aspects of society means that the relation of these bonds can be readily discussed. Hirschi (1969) bases his theory on the means that social bonds do exist and when a bond is weakened or broken then unusual behavior for that individual may occur. This brings me to a profound quote by Durkheim (1969)