Mead on Clockers

Following the format of the American Psycho paper, here is another application of theory: George Herbert Mead's theory applied to the novel Clockers.  Be warned: there are some spoilers if you have not read the book or seen the film. Again, please refrain from plagiarism.

From the University of Chicago's sociology department, George Herbert Mead emerged as one of the preeminent social psychologists of the day. Social psychologists are interested in studying the individual and their interactions with society. Mead's primary concern was to determine how modern persons are able to separate their thoughts and self-conscious from their actions. His answer was the pragmatic practice of role taking. A demonstration of Mead's concepts can be found in Richard Price's novel, Clockers.

To begin, we must first establish what Mead meant by 'modern person'. Prior to the Enlightenment and the rise of Protestant faith, individuals were perceived as unable to make their own decisions and were therefore dependent on group membership in religion and other social institutions to guide their lives. These were pre-modern persons. The Enlightenment and Protestant ethic countered this belief and contended that individuals were rational beings accountable for their own decisions. The 'modern person' is the rational individual who does not need to rely on social institutions to make decisions for them. (Allan, 140).

Pragmatism is a philosophical outlook that originated with this newfound modern person. Following the Civil War, Americans took a critical look at the ideas of morality and legitimacy that led to such a massive loss of life. Pragmatism is the belief that rational individuals are able to find meaning through the application of ideas that result in practical benefits. This is helpful to understanding Mead, because “Mead argues that the self is a social entity that is a practical necessity of every interaction. We need a self to act deliberately and to interact socially; it allows us to consider alternative lines of behavior and thus enables us to act rather than react. In pragmatism...decisions and ethics emerge out of a consensus that is based on a free and knowing subject: the self.” (Allan, 140).

Mead makes several initial assumptions regarding humans and society. He notes that humans are unique in that we differentiate ourselves from other animals by acting on stimulus rather than reacting to it. This is to say that after perceiving an environment and potential avenues of behavior, we use our rational mind to consider the options before selecting a response. “Actions requires the presence of a mind capable of symbolic, abstract thought and a self able to be the object of thought and action.” (Allan, 141).

He assumes that humans are a 'blank slate' when born, which is to say that our social interactions dictate our perceptions. We have no preconceived notions of social values when born; they are learned. Because we are capable of rational thought and have the ability to reason, we derive meaning from significant gestures and signs. These signs and gestures produce a “set of organized sets of responses.” (Allan, 142). Since the meaning of significant gestures is produced through social interaction, they become social objects. Social objects can be any idea or thing; it becomes a social object because we acknowledge, interact, and attach lines of behavior to it. Meaning is not inherently placed in any object. Meaning is reached through our perspectives and interactions. (Allan, 143).

Language is the primary significant gesture we use to interact. Language can be used to pragmatically control our environment and “this sign system comes to stand in the place of physical reality.” (Allan, 141). Society, then, “exists only as a set of attitudes, symbols, and imaginations that people may or may not use and modify in an interaction.” (Allan, 148). This brings us back to Mead's primary concern.“Because society is made up of interactions, the existence of human beings and the basic building blocks of society are wrapped up in understanding why people behave the way they do.” (Kruse, public presentation, February 27^th, 2012).

As mentioned above, the 'self' is a social entity. Role taking is the primary way humans develop a self and the ability to interact with others. “Role taking is the process through which we place our self in the position (or role) of another in order to see our own self” and “in every social situation, we make a role for ourselves.” (Allan, 144). The use of significant gestures is crucial here, as it allows a person to role take. Assuming roles is a pragmatic exercise, for it allows one to experiment with roles in order to find the ones that are most beneficial.

There are three stages of role taking. Role taking typically occurs with children as they progress in their maturation and socialization. The first stage is called the play stage. The play stage is the stage where one can “take the role, or assume the perspective, of certain significant others.” (Allan, 146). The purpose of this is to get outside of one's self in order to see their own self from a different point of view. The next stage is called the game stage. During this stage, “the child can take the perspective of several others and can take into account rules (sets of responses that different attitudes bring out) of society.” (Allan, 147). The last stage is called the generalized other stage. Prior to reaching this stage, a person has only been able to assume the role of specific others. The generalized other stage is the “sets of attitudes that an individual may take toward himself or herself – it is the general attitude or perspective of the community.” (Allan, 147). This allows the individual to possess a “less segmented self as the perspectives of many others are generalized into a single view.” (Allan, 147).

It is important to note that an individual is not just a reflection of the surrounding society, but that the self is an active process. Mead identifies the existence of the interactive parts of the self, known as the 'I' and the 'Me'. The 'I' is the part of the self that allows us to act spontaneously. The 'Me' is “the part of the self that takes into account how others feel and societal expectations of the behavior.” (Kruse, public presentation, February 27^th, 2012). Without the 'Me', our ability to act would be lost, for it helps the 'I' to act in a way that is socially acceptable. The 'Me' judges our behavior to determine whether or not it was the right course of action or if it will require modification in the future. The 'I' can act differently from the 'Me' and can “thus take action that the Me would never think of; it can act differently from the community.” (Allan, 149).

For the purposes of analyzing Clockers, one can use the concepts of the play stage and the 'I' and 'Me' parts of the self. As stated above, the play stage is a stage in development where one takes on a specific role in order to take a view of themselves from outside their normal behavior. The 'I' and 'Me' of the self are the two parts that take expected behaviors into account and choose to act in a specific way. After choosing the action, the 'Me' is able to evaluate the interaction and use that information to modify the course of action in the future.

Clockers is a novel that focuses on the intertwining lives of a group of drug dealers and police officers. The story is set in a housing project and the surrounding urban sprawl in the fictional town of Dempsey, New Jersey. The name of the book alludes to the very short career-span of a drug dealer, often measured in minutes rather than hours or days. A nineteen year old black male, Strike, is the main character. He is a small-time cocaine dealer who distributes the drug to a handful of even younger street dealers. His drug supply is provided by an aging dealer, Rodney.

Strike has grown weary with dealing drugs and is considering abandoning the lifestyle. He takes great efforts to conceal his profession and differentiates himself from other dealers by saving his money and keeping a low profile. Strike abhors uncleanliness and conflict and makes efforts to avoid either. Rodney offers Strike a promotion within their distribution chain that would take him off the street and allow him to make more money. Strike would be replacing a dealer named Darryl, whom Rodney has caught dealing cocaine from another supplier. The position will be given to Strike - but only if he kills Darryl.

After spending a day fretting over his options, Strike encounters his estranged brother, Victor, at a bar. While catching up, Strike concocts a vilifying story about Darryl in order to convince himself to commit the murder. Victor offers the services of a hit man who owes him a favor. Strike is surprised, since Victor has a family, two jobs, and has taken steps to distance himself from the crime surrounding their neighborhood. Strike assumes his brother is spouting drunken lies and dismisses the offer. Victor appears to keep his word, however, and Darryl is shot dead. Strike is shocked and does not know who is responsible for committing the murder.

Following the murder, Strike accepts the promotion. He begins grooming his replacement, an eleven year old from the projects, Tyrone. As Rodney introduces Strike to more members of the drug ring, Strike deduces that one of them is a friend of his brothers and therefore must have committed the murder. The homicide detectives assigned to Darryl's murder use their street connections to determine possible suspects. Despite his efforts to remain anonymous, the detectives identify Strike as a suspect since he stands to gain from the murder. The detectives question Strike but there is not enough evidence to arrest him. It is revealed that Victor was responsible for Darryl's murder, having impulsively committed the act after growing increasingly exasperated with his life.

Rodney is arrested on possession charges and he believes that the arrest stemmed from the police questioning Strike. Feeling betrayed, he sends an enforcer to kill Strike. Strike's young replacement, Tyrone, surmises that Strike will be killed and preemptively murders the enforcer. A local policeman who is a friend of Tyrone's family approaches Strike and threatens to kill him unless he leaves Dempsey. Strike uses his savings to buy an open-ended bus ticket and flees the city, his destination unknown.

A demonstration of the play stage can be found in the children in the projects, including Tyrone. Early in their interactions Strike displays a roll of money to Tyrone in an attempt to entice him, recalling that the “young boys around the project liked to tear and fold paper until they had a stack of blank pretend money and could play dope dealer, whipping out their roll, hiking one foot up on a bench and counting out loud like it was a good night.” (Price, 1992). These children have taken on the specific role of drug dealer and are acting out typical mannerisms in order to view themselves as potentially assuming that role in the future. Later on in the book, Strike looks around for Tyrone “and almost barked with surprise when he saw the kid rolling a bottle of vanilla Yoo-Hoo between his palms.” (Price, 1992). One of the things that Strike's is known for is drinking a bottle of vanilla Yoo-Hoo to calm his uneasy stomach. Strike's grooming has worked; Tyrone has picked up on this mannerism and has adopted it into a play stage that models Strike.

An example of the 'I' and 'Me' can be found within the description of an exchange between Strike and one of the homicide detectives working Darryl's murder case. The detective, Mazilli, owns a convenience store but rarely works there. Strike enters the store expecting one of the regular employees but instead finds Mazilli working behind the counter. Mazilli takes pleasure in tormenting Strike because Strike doesn't act like the typical drug dealer and Mazilli wishes to make Strike angry enough to draw out stereotypical bad behavior. Strike is caught off guard by Mazilli's presence, especially since he was “face-to-face with one of the cops charged with investigating Darryl's death. Strike took a second to compose himself, catch his breath.” (Price, 1992). Mazilli mimics Strike's urban slang in an attempt to anger him. Since Strike has braced himself for the interaction he exhibits restraint and is able to complete the transaction without breaking his composure. This is an example of Strike's 'Me' taking societal expectations into account, using his 'I' to make a decision and then acting accordingly. Mazilli wants Strike to act like a thuggish drug dealer but Strike knows that the course of action he decided to take was the proper one because he has not allowed Mazilli the satisfaction of seeing a break in character. This interaction provided a pragmatic result and will be stored for later and drawn upon in future communication.

As further reinforcement of the concept, the 'I' and 'Me' dictate the ending of Clockers. These two parts of the self are what influences Strike to break away from his normal modes of character when enticing Tyrone and involving the child in his life. Tyrone's actions following his connection with Strike have brought torment and grief upon multiple parties. Strike's predicament following the murder influences his decision to flee Dempsey at the end of the novel. Strike can no longer play the role of drug dealer, lest he tempt death at the hands of Rodney or the angered police officer. He considers his situation and acts in the best manner he sees fit. It is up to both the reader as well as Strike's 'Me' to determine if this was the best course of action.

Citations:

Allan, Kenneth. 2011. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Sociological Theory, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Kruse, Lisa. 2012, February 27^th. George Herbert Mead/Powerpoint presentation, Sociology 3000. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mi.

Price, Richard. 1992. Clockers. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers.

A marxist spin on American Psycho

For your consideration: a sociological theory assignment that charged students to apply a theory to a movie. I chose Marxist socioeconomic theory and applied it to American Psycho. I have a bit of trepidation in publishing it here because I have the feeling that Marx may not have intended for the concepts to be applied to the bourgeoisie. If anyone feels like chiming in with an opinion or correction, feel free. The paper netted me an A+, so the prof must've bought it. Also, please don't plagiarize. Pretty please.

 

Our modern capitalist economic system has been criticized by myriad opponents. One of the most staunch critiques emanated from Karl Marx. Marx argued that capitalism prohibits humanity from realizing their worth, which leads to alienation, commodity fetish, and false consciousness. A standout example of the detrimental effects of capitalism can be found through analyzation of the protagonist Patrick Bateman in the film American Psycho.

All economic systems are characterized by the means and relations of production. Capitalism differs from other systems in that it does not derive value from the use or utility of an item but rather how much value the item can demand in an exchange. The use-value of an item subtracted from it's exchange-value equals profit. The exchange-value of an item will always be higher than it's use-value because of the human labor put forth in the production of the item. The value of human labor is calculated by determining a living wage (the amount required to feed, clothe, house and educate laborers). One of the goals of capitalism is to pay less than market value for labor. This technique is referred to as exploitation. (Kivitso, 1998: 11).

Reducing labor value can be achieved through lengthening the work day or shortening the time required to complete a task. Reducing required time is the primary method to gain profit. Capitalists reduce time through industrialization and mechanization of labor lines. Machines increase production, which in turn reduces the value of human labor, which leads to increased profit. Surplus labor pools allow capitalists the ability to dictate wages and further exploit workers. (Kivitso, 2011: 31).

Modern capitalism is characterized by the continual drive for profit. This requires expansion into new markets. Entering new markets is referred to as commodification. Commodification is an amoral exchange of money on the open market, further distancing the use- and exchange-value of an item. When the supply of a commodity extends past the demand, production must be slowed or stopped to reduce the loss of profit. This increases the available labor supply (unemployed laborers command a lower price) and concentrates capital in the hands of fewer people. (Allan, 2011: 48-52). The endless drive for profit and the exploitation of workers is the point in which Marxist socioeconomic theory begins to critique capitalism.

Marxist socioeconomic theory is founded on two tenets; species-being and the material dialectic. Species-being is the concept positing that humans find meaning through their ability to produce what is required to survive. The material dialectic is the concept positing that the means of production (material) directly influences continually striving social forces (dialectic). (Allan, 2011: 42-47).

Marx identified two primary classes in the modern capitalist system; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the business owners; social elites who control the means of production. The proletariat are the laborers; the working class. Members of the bourgeoisie interested in furthering their capitalistic ventures have an obligation to maintain the division between classes and prevent society's progress.

Marx argues that meaning and consciousness are derived from humanity's ability to produce. Industrialization and commodification are harmful processes working against humanity's production, and therefore, humanity's progress. Separation from production causes alienation from the work process, the product, and from other people. Alienation leads to the inability to detect the oppressive relationship between labor and worth and distorts our awareness of society. An alienated understanding of reality which is not centered upon creative production is known as false consciousness. Marxist theory posits that a profit-driven economy combined with alienation leads to a consumer culture that links self-worth to the accumulation of property and money. This is known as commodity fetish. Commodity fetish controls laborers. “Workers become infatuated with their own product as if it were an alien thing. It confronts them not as the work of their own hands, but as a commodity, something alien to them that they must buy and appropriate.” (Allan, 2011: 59).

The combination of false consciousness, alienation, and commodity fetish prevents laborers from realizing their worth and fomenting social change to reinstate a socioeconomic system that values both equality and meaning derived from production. Oppressed proletariats divide themselves along trivial lines such as ethnicity, sexual orientation and identity instead of uniting under their mutual subservience and rebelling against the bourgeoisie. Exploitative capitalists rely on oppressed workers to maintain the current divisions of labor that result in profit concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Alienation and commodity fetish are both influential concepts in the film American Psycho. As stated above, alienation is the feeling of detachment from society to which one should belong, and commodity fetish is the abnormal desire to possess signifiers of wealth. Both concepts factor heavily into the behavior of the film's protagonist, Patrick Bateman.

American Psycho is a film that centers on a circle of ultra-rich yuppies in the 1980s. Yuppies are young, well-paid urban professionals who lead lives of luxury and engage in conspicuous consumption. Bateman and his peers are successful New York businessmen and yuppie elite. The film's primary focus is Patrick Bateman's inability to interact with the rest of humanity, prompting him to commit an increasingly violent series of crimes which culminates in an episode of mass murder. The ending of the film allows a certain degree of ambiguity, leaving the audience to sort out what was reality and what was the product of Bateman's mental instability.

Patrick Bateman is an extremely alienated individual. He is the Vice President of an investment banking firm on Wall Street. Investment banking is a profession in which individuals are completely removed from production processes and instead rely solely on deriving worth from the exchange of capital on the open market. This separation from production deprives him of a meaningful existence. Through inference and observation, the audience learns that Bateman's position as Vice President is neither the result of hard work or his Harvard education but merely the title given to him because of family ties within the company. Bateman does not complete any meaningful work at the office. Instead, Patrick is most often found at his desk listlessly doodling, listening to pop music and browsing magazines. His daily routine provides him with no satisfaction whatsoever, which worsens his self-worth and increases his alienation.

Bateman is aware of his detachment and alienation. Early on in the film the character professes the desire to fit in to society but admits that greed and disgust are his only two emotions. Both greed and disgust are byproducts of his alienation within the capitalist structure of his time. His disgust stems from his dissatisfaction with both himself and society. His greed stems from an upbringing and education which emphasized a cutthroat capitalistic attitude. Bateman's lack of empathy impedes on any success he may have at attempting to be normal. His detachment and alienation are both likely contributors to his compulsion to engage in the increasingly violent encounters he commits through the entirety of the film. Patrick's false consciousness is so thoroughly entrenched from his lifelong socialization process that he fails to recognize the harm in his actions.

The sense of alienation is further worsened by multiple instances of minor characters mistaking Bateman's identity with other Wall Street yuppies employed at other investment firms. Bateman observes that he and almost all of his counterparts dress in similar suits, wear similar glasses, and adopt similar haircuts. The audience is left with the understanding that any one of these individuals is interchangeable with the next. The knowledge that he can be replaced exacerbates Bateman's poor self-worth and disillusionment with his environment.

Bateman lives an opulent lifestyle centered around consumerism and commodity fetish. His knowledge of fine clothing brands, dress code, and gourmet dining is referenced throughout the film. Because he is so wealthy that he can purchase almost anything, his commodity fetish manifests itself in curious ways. Instead of purchasing the usual signifiers of wealth like sports cars, yachts, or jewelry, Bateman instead fetishizes mundane items such as business cards. Members of Patrick's social circle pass around newly printed business cards in an attempt to impress the rest of the group. Patrick demonstrates an extraordinary knowledge of typeface, paper quality, and color options. He grows furious with jealousy when he perceives the group's approval of a card that Patrick considers inferior. Members of Bateman's peer group also compete for reservations at posh dining establishments with preposterous menu items. The competition over restaurant reservations serve as another example of the fetishization in a culture where price is no longer an object. When money cannot buy an object, the urge to possess the commodity is even fiercer.

Bateman's alienation and commodity fetish combine with regards to his excessive consumption of pop culture. This is likely due to his desire to appear normal when among people with whom he shares no common ground. He displays an encyclopedic knowledge of theater events, celebrity figures, and entertainment statistics. Patrick easily recites complex music reviews by rote. When engaged in a conversation about the social problems America is facing, Patrick launches into a speech which takes a popular liberal-leaning stance so clearly not of his own opinion that his friends are incredulous. They assume he is being ironic but the reality is that Bateman is too far alienated and detached to identify with most other people. The speech is given because he believes that answer is the expected response.

Much like Marx urges the workers to rebel against their oppressors, Bateman rebels against himself. Bateman's internal crisis regarding his void, meaningless lifestyle reaches a tipping point and he begins to engage in a string of ultra-violent sexual encounters and commits a series of murders. His behavior is a 'cry for help' from his psyche to break free from his false consciousness. He derives satisfaction from his violence; a deranged fashion in which to address his urge to produce. Despite several obvious indicators regarding his criminal behavior, no one around him is even aware of the murders (save one person – a vaguely suspicious detective). Near the end of the film Bateman even confesses to his lawyer, who thinks the confession to be a crass joke.

The film ends with Bateman reaching the conclusion that he will not be apprehended for his crimes. He has escaped detection, largely because the society in which he resides is just as alienated and vacant as Bateman is himself. Because he has not been apprehended, nothing has changed. His inner rebellion has been quashed by his oppressor; his own capitalist lifestyle. He condemns himself and those around him to the world they have created. 

Citations

Allan, Kenneth. 2011. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Sociological Theory, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Kivitso, Peter. 2011. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Publications.