Introduction
The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is a gripping drama about a jury’s deliberations on a capital murder case. The film dives into the psychology of the jury room, looking at how each juror operates differently, how it affects their judgments, and how the case turns out. Throughout the film, 12 jurors must come to a unanimous decision, leading to difficult and contentious deliberations as they grapple with the facts of the case and their own personal biases (Lumet, 2020).
In this essay, the disagreement in the film will be examined from three theoretical angles: Conflict Transformation theory, Social Exchange theory, and Friction Disruption theory respectively. The study of these theories will help the reader understand the dynamics of the jury room and the power dynamics that influenced the jury’s decisions.
The Conflict Transformation theory examines how dialogue and communication can change the dynamics of the rivalry in a movie. According to the notion, individuals can create an environment for understanding and progress, which can finally result in resolution when they are prepared to listen and engage in open discussion. This idea can assist in explaining how the jury’s deliberations developed since the jurors were able to communicate with one another and resolve their disagreements in order to reach a verdict.
According to the Social Exchange hypothesis, the jury’s deliberations were influenced by the balance of power in the jury room (Fox, 2020). According to the social exchange notion, each juror’s various levels of power may impact their opinions and judgments. This hypothesis may help explain why some jurors had more influence than others and why they were so enthusiastic about their opinions.
The Conflict Disruption theory examines how the interruptions that happened during the jury’s deliberations impacted their findings. According to the hypothesis, interruptions can influence the course of the conversation and affect the conclusion of the case, such as when new evidence is presented or the conversation shifts (Nasir et al., 2022). This argument can help to explain why the jury members were so quickly persuaded by new information and why their decisions were frequently so unpredictable.
The reader will learn more about the dynamics of the jury room and how the division in 12 Angry Men was changed, traded, and disturbed as a result of the theories presented in the essay. By viewing the movie from a theoretical angle, one can acquire a greater understanding of the psychology behind the jury’s deliberations and the power dynamics that shaped their judgments. Additionally, the study can teach us important lessons about how to resolve discord since it emphasizes the value of communication, comprehension, and empathy in doing so.
Conflict Transformation Theory and Its Constructivist Perspective
Conflict Transformation theory is a constructivist, disharmony-oriented approach that focuses on a change process in which stakeholders prefer to modify their conflicts and relationships. According to belief, clashes can be turned into chances for growth, development, and understanding (Nasir et al., 2022). Problem-solving and communication are the main methods for resolving antagonisms, with the goal of achieving a mutually beneficial outcome that benefits all parties involved.
Rather than attempting to resolve the issue, the Theory of Conflict Transformation focuses on the possibility of modifying discord into something beneficial. The concept proposes that through dialogue and problem-solving, the parties involved can reach an agreement that benefits everyone. To reach its conclusion, it is critical to understand each party’s underlying interests, values, and motivations. For a successful dialogue to take place, both parties should approach the conversation with an open mind and a nonjudgmental attitude. They should feel free to express their thoughts and feelings while also taking the time to consider and comprehend the opposing party’s viewpoint.
There is clear friction between the jurors in 12 Angry Men as they attempt to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The jurors uncover the underlying motivations behind their respective positions on the case through open dialogue and eventually reach a verdict through negotiation and compromise (Hanscomb, 2019). The jurors reached a decision that was beneficial to all parties involved by looking beyond their immediate differences and focusing on understanding each other’s perspectives.
The primary strategy of Conflict Transformation Theory is to focus on turning dissensions into opportunities for growth, understanding, and development. In 12 Angry Men, the primary disagreement was between the jurors in regard to the guilt of the accused (Rabinowitz & Fender, 2018). The jurors reached a compromise by engaging in open dialogue and moving away from their entrenched positions. As they listened to each other and attempted to understand the other’s perspective, they came to an agreement that was beneficial to all parties involved. The jurors exemplify the approach in 12 Angry Men, who show how it can be used to resolve conflicts successfully (Austrått, 2021).
Despite their many disagreements, the jurors were able to put aside their differences and prioritize gaining insight into one another’s perspectives (Rabinowitz & Fender, 2018). This enabled them to reach a verdict that was beneficial to all parties involved. Conflict Transformation Theory highlights the significance of open conversation and collaborative resolution to create a better understanding of the conflict and achieve an outcome that benefits all sides.
Social Exchange Theory and Its Rational Choice Perspective
An individualistic, power-centered paradigm called social exchange theory strongly focuses on the equitable distribution and utilization of shared assets among partners. The hypothesis is predicated on the idea that people get into partnerships because they anticipate benefiting from them. In order to achieve a win-win conclusion for all parties concerned, the main strategy of the social exchange proposition is to assess costs and benefits and maximize rewards while minimizing expenses.
In order to examine how discord is handled in the classic movie 12 Angry Men, Social Exchange Theory might be used. The jury in a murder trial is watched in this movie as they decide the defendant’s fate (Rodriguez, 2019). The jurors must manage the power dynamics among themselves while they discuss the evidence and moral ramifications of the case. The costs and advantages of the many contacts and trades that occur amongst the jurors can be examined using the social exchange notion, as well as how they try to maximize their rewards while reducing costs.
The jurors are acutely conscious of their interplay of power throughout the movie. The supporters of a guilty verdict and the supporters of an innocent verdict clearly hold different levels of authority. The majority of the power is held by those who want a guilty result, like Juror 3.
At the same time, the minority of jurors who favor an innocent verdict, like Juror 8, are at a disadvantage. Juror 3 uses his influence to persuade the jury’s verdict in favor of finding the defendant guilty in an effort to maximize his gains while minimizing his expenses (Fox, 2019). He deliberately works to discredit those who are arguing for an innocent person and makes repeated attempts to scare the other jurors. Juror 8, on the other hand, tries to maximize his benefits while limiting his expenses by appealing to the other jurors’ sense of fairness and reason and utilizing his intelligence and logic. He tries to reach an agreement with the other jurors and backs up his claims with data and proof (Huemer, 2021).
The jurors employ Social Exchange Theory to negotiate the power dynamics between them throughout the movie. They strive to increase profits while reducing expenses to achieve a result that benefits all stakeholders. The jury members are aware that they must achieve an amicable agreement to obtain a unanimous decision. The jurors must bargain with one another to reach a just judgment that eventually makes everyone happy (Fox, 2022a). In the end, Social Exchange Theory offers a valuable method for examining how the dispute in 12 Angry Men is handled and how the jury is able to reach a resolution that is acceptable to all parties.
Conflict Disruption Theory and Its Critical Perspective
A structural, power-focused approach called “conflict disruption theory” places emphasis on the upheaval of power dynamics and the alteration of social structures. This theory is predicated on the notion that power dynamics are the root of disagreement and that, in order to establish a fairer society, power must be transferred. Conflict disruption theory’s main tactic is disruption and resistance, which aims to upend current power structures and alter the social order in order to build a more just society.
The movie offers a great illustration of the dynamics of power in a very unequal society. A young African-American man suspected of killing his father is the defendant in the movie. Twelve white males who have different perspectives on the case make up the jury. Only one jury, Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), is unconvinced and wants to provide the defendant with a fair trial (Honig, 2019).
The bulk of the jurors are eager to find the defendant guilty and are persuaded of his guilt. Juror 8 makes an effort to level the playing field and ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial throughout the entire movie by upending the power dynamics between himself and the other jurors. Only jury number eight speaks up on behalf of the defendant, and he does it concisely and reasonably. He questions the evidence offered, challenges the other jurors’ presumptions, and refuses to accept the guilty decision without carefully reviewing all the evidence. He deliberately aims to disrupt the power dynamics in the room and change them to one that is more egalitarian. Juror 8 aims to disrupt current power relations throughout the movie (Harwood, 2020).
Additionally, Juror 8’s actions ultimately change the jury room’s social structure. He is able to persuade the other jurors to review the evidence and consider the possibility that the defendant might be innocent. Another crucial aspect of Conflict Disruption theory is the alteration of the social structure of the jury room, and it is obvious that Juror 8 is working toward this goal throughout the entire movie.
Overall, while analyzing the discord in 12 Angry Men, the Conflict Disruption theory offers a valuable theoretical perspective. The movie provides a great illustration of how power dynamics can be changed to produce a more egalitarian society (Rose, 2017). The acts of Juror 8 are a prime illustration of this, as he makes a concerted effort to upset the balance of power in the jury room and alter the social order in order to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial. It is evident from this theoretical analysis of the movie that Conflict Disruption theory is a helpful resource for comprehending the discord in 12 Angry Men.
Analysis of Scenes
Scene 1 – The First Vote
The jury members must decide if the accused is guilty in the first scene of 12 Angry Men. There are two juror groups in this scene: those who believe the defendant is guilty and those who believe he is innocent. The Conflict Transformation theory is helpful in understanding this scene because it stresses the significance of communication and problem-solving in reaching a win-win result. In order to establish a consensus, the jurors in this scene converse with one another and try to grasp one another’s viewpoints (Honig, 2019). Understanding this picture is also made easier by the Social Flow theory, which places an emphasis on the sharing of resources between partners.
The protagonist, Jury 8, is the only juror to vote not guilty, whereas the majority of the other jurors do so without hesitation. He expresses his skepticism regarding the evidence offered and implores the other jurors to consider the possibility of reasonable skepticism (Ramiah et al., 2011). As a result of the dispute among the jurors, there is tension and strife in the room.
To comprehend Scene 1, the Conflict Transformation theory is applied. This idea recognizes that effective dialogue and collaborative solutions are essential for a mutually advantageous result. In this scene, the jury members are conversing with one another and trying to comprehend one another’s viewpoints. Juror 8 urges the other jurors to consider the facts and the accused’s guilt more carefully, not by insulting or attacking them (Honig, 2019).
Understanding this scene is further helped by the social exchange hypothesis. This approach places a strong emphasis on the sharing of resources within a relationship. In the scene, the jurors share thoughts and information to reach a decision that is in their best interests. The jury members are deliberating the evidence and discussing the facts rather than simply casting a blind vote. The Conflict Disruption theory, in contrast, places more emphasis on the destructive potential of a clash than it does on communication or resource exchange. However, the picture is distinguished by conversation and the sharing of resources in order to arrive at a win-win solution (Collins & Sanderson, 2009).
Ultimately, the jurors are able to come to a unanimous decision due to the dialogue and exchange of resources in the room. Conflict Transformation and Social Exchange theories are used to successfully resolve the contention in this scene. The jurors are able to come to a decision that serves their interests and respects the opinions of all the jurors.
Scene 2 – The Discussion of Reasonable Doubt
The jurors discuss the concept of reasonable doubt and its implications for the case in the second scene of 12 Angry Men. The jurors in this scene are divided into two groups: those who believe that reasonable doubt is required for a not-guilty verdict and those who believe that reasonable doubt is not required.
Conflict Transformation theory can help us understand this scene because it stresses the role of dialogue and problem-solving in attaining a mutually beneficial outcome. In scene 2, the jurors converse and try to understand each other’s points of view in order to reach a unanimous decision (Hanscomb, 2019).
Social Exchange Theory, which centers on the reciprocal transfer of benefits in relationships, aids in interpreting the scene. In order to make a decision that is in their best interests, the jurors in this scene exchange thoughts and information as resources. Because it overlooks both communication and resource sharing, the conflict disruption theory is less useful for analyzing Scene 2 compared to the other two models.
The jurors discuss the idea of reasonable doubt and its ramifications in this scenario. This discussion, which is based on the Conflict Transformation theory, underscores the usefulness of communication and problem-solving in order to arrive at a solution that benefits all parties (Fox, 2022b). The social exchange hypothesis is significant in this context because the jurors share information and ideas to arrive at a decision that serves their interests.
The jury members analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint while considering the group’s interests. They concentrate on comprehending each other’s viewpoints as they continue to discuss the idea of reasonable doubt to reach a consensus. They are also conscious of the potential repercussions of their choice because a guilty verdict could result in the death penalty.
A multitude of individual biases and prejudices further exacerbate the debate of reasonable doubt in this setting. The jury members discuss reasonable doubt as well as their preconceived notions of the accused and the victim. To make a judgment based on the evidence provided in court, the jurors must get past their preconceived notions. The jury members continue to think about their moral convictions as well as the social, cultural, and historical norms of the moment during the deliberation.
The jury concludes that reasonable doubt is necessary for the accused to be declared not guilty. The jurors’ ability to reach a consensus, have an open discussion and consider the diverse viewpoints presented led to this decision. The conflict disruption theory is less useful in analyzing Scene 2 than the other two theories because it places less emphasis on communication and resource exchange. Instead, attention is paid to the escalation of conflict, which is unimportant in this situation.
Usefulness and Limitations of Theories
The three theories examined in this essay can all be used to comprehend the conflict shown in 12 Angry Men. It emphasizes how important problem-solving and communication are to getting a win-win outcome. Discord reformation theory is helpful. The main drawback of these ideas is their inability to adequately explain the nuanced nature of the confrontations shown in 12 Angry Men. The capacity to describe the power dynamics between the jurors, the fundamental causes of the dispute, and the interpersonal dynamics between the jurors is all constrained by conflict transformation theory, social exchange theory, and conflict disruption theory.
The usefulness and limitations of these theoretical approaches also become evident when considering the various antagonisms depicted in 12 Angry Men. In order to resolve jury disagreement, the disagreement Transformation theory places a strong emphasis on communication and problem-solving. In contrast, the Social Exchange hypothesis underlines the need for parties to exchange resources in order to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. Conflict Disruption Theory explains how power relations are disrupted, and social structures are transformed.
As an illustration, Juror 8 applies the Conflict Transformation theory to engage in conversation and problem-solving when he tries to persuade the other jurors that the defendant is innocent. This is similar to how Juror 3 employs social exchange theory to convince the other jurors of the defendant’s guilt by exchanging resources (Waller et al., 2018). Finally, Juror 11 employs Conflict Disruption Theory when he challenges the assumptions and views of the other jurors in an effort to upset the power dynamics. The movie also accentuates how crucial compromise is to resolve conflicts.
Due to their unwillingness to make concessions, the jury is unable to decide for the entire movie. Juror 3 is a prime example, as he maintains his opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Waller et al., 2018). However, ultimately, the other jurors are able to persuade him to make a deal, which results in the settlement of the dispute. This emphasizes how crucial compromise is to resolve disputes.
However, these theories have limitations when it comes to complex clashes. Conflict Transformation theory does not fully understand the power dynamics between the jurors, Social Exchange theory does not fully understand the underlying causes of the conflict, and Conflict Disruption theory does not fully understand the interpersonal dynamics between the jurors. Furthermore, these theories cannot explain the larger context of the conflicts depicted in 12 Angry Men. The film itself is a good example of the complexities of discord resolution. The answer is yes. To ensure a successful outcome, the film emphasizes recognizing the root causes of the conflict, the balance of power, and the interpersonal relationships among the jurors is essential.
Overall, 12 Angry Men provides a good example of the complexities of decision-making. It focuses on the value of dialogue, comprehension, and compromise in settling disputes. The three theories covered in the essay can be utilized to understand the conflict depicted in the movie, but it’s crucial to keep in mind that each of these ideas has some drawbacks. It’s critical to focus on the individuals, their histories, and their interactions in order to comprehend the subtleties of the disagreements shown in the movie. It is possible to learn more about the disagreement and how it was finally settled through these observations.
Finally, it is critical to understand the utility and limitations of the theoretical approaches discussed in this paper. While the theories are useful in understanding the conflicts between the jurors in 12 Angry Men, they fall short of explaining the full complexity of the antagonisms depicted in the film. The film itself serves as an example of the power of dialogue and problem-solving in resolving a clash. It emphasizes how crucial it is to comprehend the fundamental reasons for the dispute, the balance of power between the parties, and the relationships among the jurors in order to guarantee a favorable verdict.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the three theories discussed in this paper are all helpful in understanding the conflict depicted in 12 Angry Men. Social exchange theory emphasizes the sharing of resources between parties in a relationship, conflict disruption theory emphasizes the disruption of power relations and the alteration of the social structure, and conflict transformation theory emphasizes the value of communication and problem-solving.
However, the theories’ capacity to describe the intricacy of the discords depicted in the movie is constrained. In the end, these ideas offer a helpful place to start when attempting to comprehend the conflict portrayed in 12 Angry Men. Still, they fall short of being comprehensive enough to explain all of the subtleties of the struggle.
Furthermore, it is crucial to remember that a disagreement portrayed in a film, even one as well-made as 12 Angry Men, is not always representative of the complicated fights that occur in real life. Even though the movie offers an intriguing beginning point for an investigation into conflict, it is insufficient on its own to draw any relevant conclusions about how disagreement is resolved. To get a better picture of the whole scale of discord, it is crucial to take into account the viewpoints of individuals who are really engaged in it.
References
Lumet, S. (2020). 12 Angry Men (1957) [Film]. Orion-Nova Productions. Web.
Austrått, J. S. (2021). Critical literacy and 12 Angry Men. 73. Web.
Collins, R., Sanderson, S. (2009). The basis of conflict theory in conflict sociology: A sociological classic updated, 19-23, Web.
Fox, K. H. (2020). Perspectives on conflict: Insights for professional and personal practice. Pre-publication draft.
Fox, K. H. (2022a). Week 3 – Social identity theory.
Fox, K. H. (2022b). Week 3b – Social identity.
Fox, M. P. (2019). Legal consciousness in action: Lay people and accountability in the Jury room. Qualitative Sociology, 43(1), 111–142. Web.
Hanscomb, S. (2019). Teaching critical thinking virtues and vices. Teaching Philosophy, 42(3), 173–195. Web.
Harwood, J. (2020). Social identity theory. International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology.
Huemer, M. (2021). Role Playing. Justice before the Law, 271–311. Web.
Honig, B. (2019). 12 Angry Men: Care for the agon and the varieties of masculine experience. Theory & Event, 22(3), 701–716. Web.
Nasir, D. M. H., Batool, A., & Mirza, D. E. (2022). Forensic discourse analysis of legal and courtroom interaction: A study of 12 Angry Men. City University Research Journal of Literature and Linguistics, 5(1). Web.
Rabinowitz, S., & Fender, C. M. (2018). Seeing is believing—but is it accurate? Eyewitness lessons from 12 Angry Men. Management Teaching Review, 237929811881777. Web.
Ramiah, A. A., Hewstone, M., & Schmid, K. (2011). Social identity and intergroup conflict. National Academy of Psychology, 1-9.
Rodriguez, L. (2019). Psychology of popular media culture (S. Agtarap, A. Boals, N. Kearns, & L. Bedford, Eds.). Psycnet.apa.org. Web.
Rose, R. (2017). Twelve Angry Men. Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Waller, M. J., Sohrab, G., & Ma, B. W. (2018). Beyond 12 Angry Men. Small Group Research, 44(4), 446–465. Web.