The Problem with Rick and Morty
Added 2019-11-05 01:23:14 +0000 UTC
Comments
I think this excerpt of a summary of Philip Mirowski's "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" (about the 2008 Great Recession) does a better job than I do of expanding on the point: "The double-truth doctrine’s effectiveness depends on what Mirowski dubs “everyday neoliberalism,” an ensemble of attitudes and practices that turns all of life into a never-ending market. In the neoliberal imagination, the human person is an “entrepreneurial self,” a package of vendible talents and qualities: “a product to be sold, a walking advertisement...a jumble of assets to be invested...an offsetting inventory of liabilities to be pruned, outsourced, shorted, hedged against, and minimized.” Promulgating a “catechism of perpetual metamorphosis,” neoliberalism denies the existence of a “true,” invariant self, and celebrates the “eminently flexible” personality always ready and willing to submit to the Market. Averse to solidarity, the neoliberal self erases class from its political lexicon. Inoculated against empathy, it espouses a punitive sado-moralism toward the poor, the weak, and the unsuccessful. (American Idol, The Apprentice, and other “reality shows” are, in Mirowski’s words, “an unabashed theater of cruelty,” reflecting neoliberalism’s unforgiving attitude toward “losers.”)" https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/never-let-serious-crisis-go-waste
Pavel A
2019-12-02 03:12:29 +0000 UTCThose are some interesting examples. I don't want to get waylaid by this, but I have a very different interpretation of Frankenstein. I actually think that the novel should be interpreted through a lens related to sexuality and repression. I read Victor's relationship with Henry Clerval as being a gay relationship and that The Creature is actually a manifestation of Victor's requirement to repress his relationship with Henry so that he could conform to social pressure to marry Elizabeth. But that's another story entirely, and is a bit of a tangent. It only bares on this discussion to the extent that it might help explain Victor's cruelty toward the monster and perhaps contextualize the Cruelty / Intelligence axis in English literature. I am *very* interested in your note of Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil. I see these as pioneers in the field of "reality tv" whatever which seems to be a piece of this puzzle I hadn't put together with the Intelligence / Cruelty axis. Reality TV, from it's inception (in perhaps the mid 80s?) even till now, seems very much to be about the commodification of cruelty. Reality TV shows are a sort of Pageant where someone is responsible for playing the role of most cruel. I'm not expert in the genera, but I think I understand that the cruelest person is rarely the "winner" but is often among the finalists. This tracks pretty neatly with my notion that this Cruelty conflation seems to have progressed from a 1990s portrayal of intelligence as causing emotional indifference and it being a weakness through a time in the late 2000s where intelligence causes cruelty which is somehow a strength. Thank you for giving me another point of data to think about.
Ramsey Barghouti
2019-11-11 06:15:37 +0000 UTCLots of good counter-examples here (I also think that Lisa is somewhat unique), but I would point to the idea that to a certain extent, intelligence has always been seen as emotionless, distant, aloof and by default somewhat cruel (Dr. Frankenstein, Spock). Except that this was usually seen as a *negative* attribute (Spock gets ribbed by McCoy, Dr. Frankenstein is a fairly obvious shithead, etc). Since this is now also the age of cruelty, I think we've also parted with the notion that we should condemn such cruelty and aloofness. There's maybe a broader point to be made about how cruelty becomes more marketable under capitalism as more and more crabs are added to the bucket... as Qjimbo pointed out, there has been an elimination of empathy from lots of modern media. Philip Mirowski called it the capitalist "theater of cruelty" - shows like Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil parading the destitute around and letting us wallow in their misery for our enjoyment. Its not a surprise that its seeped into every other aspect of media as well.
Pavel A
2019-11-11 04:11:54 +0000 UTCThere's been a sort of elimination of empathy and caring in TV across all genres in my opinion. Warm fuzzies have been replaced with dark, gritty and mean. Just look at the explosion in crime/murder oriented shows for example. I think this idea of cruel intelligence also fits into that wider trend.
Qjimbo
2019-11-06 18:41:27 +0000 UTCI apologize for using "certainly" like a bazillion times. It's horrible to read. ... There. I've removed most of them. It's much less horrible now.
Ramsey Barghouti
2019-11-06 03:38:26 +0000 UTCCertainly, but I think I'm curious about why it's popular now as opposed to being popular, say 20 years ago. Portrayals of heroic intelligence weren't conflated with cruelty in the 1990s American Mass Media. Doogie Howser, Lisa Simpson, Steve Urkel and Commander Data weren't portrayed as cruel. Though they have that characteristic of being "objective" and "emotionally detached" that you mention. By contrast Sheldon Cooper is portrayed as cruel to an extent. So is Sherlock (Modern BBC version). I suppose to me, I think the reason that I bring up the conflation of intelligence with media literacy is this. I think that in some ways Rick is designed as a critique of the Lisa Simpson character. Everything in the above video criticizing Rick is true. But I think it's missing something of context. In a sense, Rick is saying: "Look the Lisa Simpsons of the world will only get you so far and deep down they're really cruel, they're just in denial about it." Meanwhile, every 90s archetype of "smart hero" was either decentralized from the plot (Lisa Simpson) or had to learn a lesson and grow to resolve (Steve Urkel). I think there was an inflection point culturally between the time when intelligence wasn't conflated with good and now. If I had to pinpoint it, I would say it was Gregory House. Gregory House's intelligence was was the key to his rightness, but his cruelty was always a *counterbalance* to his rightness. Never the cause of it. He wasn't right because he was willing to be cruel. Crucially, House *believed* he was right because of his reckless cruelty while the show never framed him as right because of his cruelty. House was good because he was right despite being cruel. On the other side of the inflection point was Walter White. His cruelty was definitely what made him right. Walter White was right because he was cruel despite being evil. I suppose I would place the inflection point exactly between those two points. I would also like to observe that it was at approximately this time that writers began paying attention to internet fan forums and using them to produce more intricate stories.
Ramsey Barghouti
2019-11-06 03:06:37 +0000 UTC"I would like to see a discussion about *why* the notion of cruelty being conflated with intelligence was popular in the first place." At least one source is the idea of the "objective" pursuit of knowledge without "emotional" attachment. This is a pretty common archetype of the perfect scientist/doctor/intellectual who eschews human attachments for the "more perfect" forms of scientific knowledge (see Dr. House/Sherlock Holmes as a part of those pop culture archetypes). Its a fundamental misunderstanding of both the idea that science is a philosophy (with all of the attendant issues) and that scientists are people who craft specific narratives, ask often emotionally-driven questions and exist in specific sociological milieus.
Pavel A
2019-11-05 15:33:06 +0000 UTCLoved this video. Excellent work. Gave me a lot to think about. I would like to see a discussion about *why* the notion of cruelty being conflated with intelligence was popular in the first place. This video connects the series to Shapiro and other such media figures, but I think if we're honest we have to look further back historically to find the sources of the cultural forces that encourage this conflation. If we look at the references that Rick and Morty draws on, I think we can find hints at the sources of R&M's popularity. For example, Something Ricked this way Comes is one of the older references that R&M makes. Referencing a cultural trope and early 20th century fiction "The Monkey's Paw". The scene where Summer uses the literal monkey's paw artifact to make wishes that could not backfire to save the devil from his suicide is perhaps a great example of the context that R&M was born into. It's a hilarious display of Summer being aware of the risk of wishes backfiring and the use of extremely judicious framing of wishes. Over the late 20th century and early 21st century, there are numerous examples of people dissecting the "Be careful what you wish for" trope, trying to find increasingly more clever way to invent wishes that cannot backfire. And Summer's actions in this episode are a direct reference to these sorts of games. In the original story, The Monkey's Paw, the device is used to teach that one should not tempt fate and ultimately to become contented with a status quo even if it means facing emotional burdens. In the story this is the death of your son. But Summer, presumably having read the story itself (she finds it ironic that they couldn't get rid of the monkey's paw) so knowing the history of the monkey's paw, she wishes for 1) a desk to be lighter, so she could move it. 2) a noose to be lighter so she could untie it and 3) to know CPR so she could administer it to Mr Needful (the devil) What matters here is that Summer's ability to use the monkey's paw and thereby help the devil himself was born specifically out of media literacy. Before we take this as an example of intelligence being used for kindness in the series, we have to really highlight that Summer is literally saving the life of the literal Devil. I would argue that this trope is pervasive through the series. Not only is intelligence conflated with cruelty, but it's also conflated with media literacy. A huge percentage of the jokes in the show come from Rick understanding something before others not through a deductive process, but rather by comparing it to something in a broader cultural lexicon of media reference. I contend that there is a sociological connection between this Cruelty=Intelligence conflation and a Media Literacy=Intelligence conflation. Though I believe I'm poorly equipped to explore it in greater detail. I may bring this discussion to Reddit. I'm not very Reddit savvy, but it seems like there might be forums there where this notion might be better explored.
Ramsey Barghouti
2019-11-05 14:35:43 +0000 UTC
