The Other Wes Moore
Societal expectations can place a great deal of pressure on the citizens that arise in those communities. In Baltimore, these societal expectations are much harsher than other communities across the United States. As a city stricken with large amounts of drug consumption and distribution, high crime rates, incarceration rates, teen pregnancy, low literacy rates, and a large percentage of high school dropouts, it may be easy for citizens of Baltimore to fall victim to these acts. However, personal accountability can play a significant role in combatting these societal expectations. The story of both Wes Moore’s is opposites. Wes (O) lacked personal responsibility and fell victim to societal expectations, whereas Wes (A) was able to evade these expectations and live a successful life.
As presented, personal accountability is essential to identity formation. Specifically, for Wes Moore (A) and Wes Moore (O), it polarized their connection to one another. Wes (A) was responsible for the actions he took and the consequences for each activity (Johnston et al., pp. 141). As a result, he was able to successfully evade the societal expectations of falling victim to drug consumption and distribution, committing crimes, and dropping out of school. Wes (O), however, was not able to escape. On paper Wes Moore (A) and Wes Moore (O) are connected with the same identity; however, with different parenting styles and personal accountability throughout their lives, they are very much different.
Criminological crime in America
Criminological crime in America, by Anderson and Dyson, is a book documenting the scope of speculations that the writers consider suitable to the American understudy’s comprehension of criminology and the hypothesis of crime. The theme is applauded because there is currently agree ment that the thesis is principal to reviving criminology, visualizing only reactions to crime, and conjecturing elective possibilities for criminal justice. The book initiates a starting area that traces remarkable highlights of the crime issue in the United States. The subject matter generally endeavors to clarify the dis-point of a decrease in brutal crime, however raging, across the board, and expanded open dread of crime.
This book’s introduction is sufficiently telling, uncovering a focal target in urging understudies to contemplate crime and especially exploitation, remaining as a distinct difference to the reading material of only a couple of decades back, which didn’t organize exploitation in such a design. A paltry, however, in any case, irritating shortcoming of the content is manifested by the various definitions dispersed about the presentation. The authors prompt that crime is characterized as any commission or oversight of a law precluding or instructing such conduct, which incorporates exclusions, speculation that may sit awkwardly with those having even a simple comprehension of the law. Additionally, criminology is characterized as the logical investigation of the starting point, causation, nature, and degree of violations. Criminological crime in America highlights different theories of crime. In this analysis, I am focused majorly on my understanding of the different stated theories, conflict theories, Socioliological theories, and theories on Social Progression or process and Development. The theories I chose are the Sociological theories and the Social Progression or process and Development
Theories
Sociological theories explain the connections between institutions, groups, and lawbreakers as the consequence of social procedures, as the natural outcome of parts of social structure, or as the consequence of financial and class battle. Social structure speculations, with which this section explains, for the most part, are just one of three kinds of sociological clarifications for the crime (Akers pp. 109). Social structure hypotheses underline poverty, absence of training, nonappearance of attractive abilities, and subsocial qualities as central reasons for wrongdoing or crime.
Since hypotheses of social structure seek the association of society for their illustrative force, mediation procedures dependent on them ordinarily try to lighten the social conditions that are thought to deliver wrongdoing. Social projects dependent on social structure presumptions as often as possible look to upgrade socially adequate open doors for progress and to build the accessibility of essential works.
Other theories I read, are the Theories on the Social Progression or process and Development. Social progression approaches incorporate social learning hypothesis, social control hypothesis, naming hypothesis, disgracing, and dramaturgy (Akers pp. 127). Social improvement speculations, interestingly, centers around the existence course and the unexpected occasions that influence the changes that individuals make as they travel through the existence cycle.
How the theories connect to The Other Wes Moore
Personal accountability plays a paramount role in identity formation and life outcomes. Being accountable means one is responsible for the actions he or she takes, and more importantly, the consequences for each said action. With this understanding, people can think critically before committing an act, and prevent an undesirable outcome, stay committed to a goal, be resilient when challenges arise, and take ownership when they fail. This accountability, or lack-there-of, can either set someone up for success or failure. Additionally, responsibility may also lay the foundation for personal happiness.
Without a father figure throughout adolescence and Mary exhibiting a permissive parenting style, Wes (O) was not taught much about accountability growing up and demonstrated impulsive choices while possessing low self-esteem. Despite Tony’s honest efforts to hold Wes (O) accountable for his actions and prevent him from entering the drug game, Tony’s actions spoke louder than words to Wes (O). The drug game consumed Tony, and without a father-figure, Wes (O) looked up to him and set out to pursue a life like Tony’s. After Mary discovered the secret stash of drugs in Wes’s (O) room, it appears to drive him deeper into the game rather than turning things around (Johnston et al., pp 149). If personal accountability were instilled in Wes (O) at an early age, I believe he would be more aware of the decisions he was making and the implications that would result. Instead of falling behind in school or being involved in the drug scene, Wes (O) may have lived a life similar to Wes (A). However, his devious acts lead him to be incarcerated and thus becoming the other Wes Moore.
Although Wes (A) lost his father at a young age, his mother Joy instilled personal accountability at a young age. This is first observed towards the beginning of the book where Wes (A) hit his sister, and his mother sent him to his room, yelling never physically to harm a woman. Joy exhibits a democratic parenting style with her children by having their best interest in mind, providing a loving environment that sets them up for success, and helps develop self-worth. However, Joy also is not afraid to lay down the law when needed. The reader can observe this when Joy sends Wes (A) to military school after Wes (A) begins falling behind in school and is caught by the police spray painting with his friend on private property. Though personal accountability was instilled in Wes (A) during adolescence, the military school truly enforced this. This enforcement forced Wes (A) to work hard, keep a level head, and work hard in all aspects of life. This accountability was essential in the identity formation of Wes (A), where it propelled his life in a positive direction (Reynolds et al., pp. 45). As a result, Wes (A) was able to defy societal expectations. He was able to complete high school with several collegiate offers for basketball, received his college diploma, and was able to become a successful leader and a well-respected member of society.
In conclusion, as presented, personal accountability is essential to identity formation. Specifically, for Wes Moore (A) and Wes Moore (O), it polarized their connection to one another. Wes (A) was responsible for the actions he took and the consequences for each action. As a result, he was able to successfully evade the societal expectations of falling victim to drug consumption and distribution, committing crimes, and dropping out of school. Wes (O), however, was not able to escape. On paper Wes Moore (A) and Wes Moore (O) are connected with the same identity; however, with different parenting styles and personal accountability throughout their lives, they are very much different.
Works Cited
Akers, Ronald L. Criminological theories: Introduction and evaluation. Routledge, 2013: 107-201
Johnston, Gregory D., and Amy L. Onofre. “Book Review: The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates.” National Youth-At-Risk Journal 2.2 (2017): 128-157
Reynolds, Clarence V. “The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates.” Network Journal 17.6 (2010): 41-109