Social Class and Crime - The First Purge (2018)

At the beginning of The First Purge (2018), they bombarded us with images of American citizens who have become disenfranchised by the state of the nation. We hear voice overs of news presenters discussing violence, crime, death, and the opioid epidemic that is plaguing the nation. They talk about how Americans are sick and tired of experiencing these situations and perhaps, President Bracken is going to provide hope for his citizens. In a press conference, Bracken announces that “The American Dream is dead. We will do whatever it takes for you to dream again”. However, I don’t think that the residents of Staten Island expected to be the petri-dish experiment for the New Founding Fathers of America night of crime and violence, otherwise known as The Purge. 

Headed up by sociologist Dr May Updale and the experiment known as “the purge” was the social catharsis to the disenfranchisement that the individuals on Staten Island (and America) are experiencing. By selecting a low socio-economic market for this experiment, the NFFA made a bold choice in assuming that these individuals would take part in violent crimes. Crucchiola (2018) argues that the NFFA could exploit the nature of inequality by offering money to participants if they stay on the island, hoping that they would join the experiment, thus resulting in their goal of population control. This choice shows that the NFFA are doing everything in their power to not affect those in power and the wealthy. 

We come across clear disparities between rich and poor throughout the film where we see members of NFFA vs those who are living on Staten Island. At the start of the film, we meet Nya, who is protesting with others against the experiment taking place on Staten Island. One person in the crowd is holding a sign that states “Being poor is not a crime”. There are obvious motives why the NFFA have selected this city as the place to host the first purge experiment. Along with their discriminatory selection processes, the NFFA has monetised poverty and low socioeconomic status by offering a $5,000 incentive to those who decide to stay on the island for the 12-hour event. Through a selection and interview process, those who want to stay on the island are psychologically tested to determine their appropriateness for the experiment. Many of the interviewees are responding to questions from the evaluator with statements such as “People pissed. They ain’t got no money. They ain’t got no food. They gotta release their anger. If they participate, it’s going to be for that paper”. Through the montage of participant interviews, we see a variety of residents being interviewed by the NFFA. As we meet the different characters in the film, we see two homeless Black women volunteer themselves to the experiment for the monetary incentive. During the commencement of the purge, we witness the two women engage in almost prank like attacks on Isaiah, the younger brother of Nya. 

At the commencement of The Purge event, we see the NFFA discussing the fact that nothing is happening. The thing about crime is that there is an assumption that your social class is intrinsically linked to violent crime and the capacity to commit violent crime (Tittle, 1983). Arlo Sabian demonstrates this assumption by stating that he thought that a lower-income city would engage at a higher rate of violent crime. Sabian becomes frustrated when he sees that more people are engaging in parties and staying home than they are in violent crime and murder. For decades, a consensus theory existed amongst criminologists. This theory was that those who were of low socioeconomic status were more likely to be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated, leading to the notion that they were ‘violent’ offenders (Newburn, 2016). The Purge fails to register that these crimes would not exist in a system that placed minorities at a disadvantage. The First Purge plays into this consensus theory, assuming that the minorities living on Staten Island will engage in higher acts of crime given the chance, the chance to not suffer the consequences of a night of crime and violence. 

The issue with this is the lack of acknowledgement in analysing the reduced access to social capital rather than a propensity to commit violent crimes such as homicide “for fun”. Considering that all participants from The First Purge (2018) are all from one (or similar) socio-economic background, there isn’t competition for social capital causing a lack of social and ethical standards. When this assumption of low socioeconomic equals propensity to commit murder doesn’t go to plan, Sabian introduces mercenaries to plant weapons to incite violence and to commit legalised homicide in the city, giving off the impression that the experiment is a success and that the purge contributes to reducing the population. Through a conversation between Dr May Updale and Sabian, she makes a realisation saying to Sabian “You want to depopulate the lower social classes just so the NFFA doesn’t have to support them” to which he responds with a statement about how there will always be a portion of society that will suffer for the country. 

The Purge franchise offers an interesting commentary into the assumptions that are made about those who would commit crimes if a) paid to engage in criminal activity and b) come from a demographic that is assumed to be prolifically violent. These films offer insight into the behaviour of those with and how they manipulate and prey on those who have very little. The First Purge shows the spiralling of the power that can come from assumptions, greed, and wealth. 

References:

Crucchiola, J. (2018, July 2). Let’s Recap the Twisted Mythology of The Purge. Vulture. https://www.vulture.com/2018/07/lets-recap-the-twisted-mythology-of-the-purge.html

Newburn, T. (2016). Social disadvantage, crime, and punishment. In D. Hartley & L. Platt (Eds.), Social Advantage and Disadvantage (pp. 322–340). Oxford University Press.

Tittle, C. (1983). Social Class and Criminal Behavior: A Critique of the Theoretical Foundation. Social Forces, 62(2), 334-358. doi:10.2307/2578311