The Films of Karyn Kusama: Destroyer

 

The fifth film in my continued analysis of the films of Karyn Kusama is the neo-noir crime thriller Destroyer. Coming off the critical success of The Invitation, Kusama changed directions again to tackle another film category.  This, like other films in Kusama’s filmography, is both a genre picture and plays with genre: confirming and subverting tropes, themes, and audience expectations. This paper is an examination of the crime thriller through the lens of 2018’s Destroyer and the implications that these films have on the perceptions of the police by the public, and the expectations that police officers have when cinema is used as a soft power recruitment tool.

 

PLOT

When Det. Erin Bell (Kidman) gets called in to an unnamed gunshot victim, this sends her on an intersecting path with a Bank Robber (Toby Kebbell) that she attempted to expose by going undercover in his organization 16 years prior. As she gets violently reacquainted with the rest of her former “crew”, truths are revealed and Bell begins to unravel, all the frayed edges of her life: work, family and romance disintegrate in her hands. As she closes in on her quarry, Bell realizes that he is not the malevolence that she’s been seeking to exorcise, but her, who has become the architect of her own destruction.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Production

            The relative success of 2015’s The Invitation, and the social capital Kusama acquired through critical praise and admiration of her peers, did not translate into more money, or a more secure production. Part of this could be the (reasonable) demand Kusama has to get final cut of her films from studios, something she would not give up after Aeon Flux . The combination of these factors may have had the unfortunate consequence of never giving Kusama unwavering studio support.  Instead, she financed and wrote the script for the film along with Phil Hay and Paul Manfredi, in addition to directing, hoping that a distribution company would come through. On The Invitation, it was Netflix. On Destroyer, Annapurna was the savior.

Additionally, like most of her other films, Destroyer had both limited time and a limited budget. With only 9 million dollars in the coffers and a tight, location based heavy 33 day shooting schedule, Kusama had to employ some “Guerrilla style” “run and gun” quick filmmaking made popular by 70’s white male auteurs. Yet, unlike those self-obsessed narcissistic douche bags that were so revered that they eventually became Hollywood by establishing their own movie studios, Kusama was not even given the same clout. Kusama didn’t even get the clout Michael Mann had with Heat, nor Kathryn Bigalow’s Point Break, both films being a direct influence on the way that Kusama Shoots LA in this film. It was not until Nicole Kidman signed on after searching for a nuanced script that Destroyer got the clout necessary to be made.

 

Nicole Kidman is unrecognizable in this role. Taking a page from Charlize Theron in Monster, Kidman transforms herself into a physically and emotionally broken husk of a person. The Flashbacks then become increasingly pointed as the audience attempts to follow the trajectory of Bell’s decline from the person we see in 2002, going undercover, to the self-medicating, addled, but still relentlessly driven Det. Erin Bell in 2018. It was a role that was elevated by Kidman having the flu throughout most of the filming, and according to Kidman, was hard to shake emotionally for weeks after the shoot was over.

 This relentless and lingering nature of the film is felt by the audience through its cinematography. Shot by Julie Kirkwood, the film is one of the few to accurately convey the sheer punishment of the Sun on the “Asphalt Jungle” that is Los Angeles. Kirkwood uses harsh over-exposure lighting (mainly from redirected natural light) to capture the feeling of our blindingly aggressive star gently cooking you from millions of miles away. Every time that Kidman opens her eyes after a memory, we are reminded of that aggression, witnessing the sun sap the strength from the characters with each passing minute. Outside of the use of the Sun to express character disorientation, the rest of the film is leeched of color. While I am unaware if they shot digitally or on film, it seems like they provided a granular effect through “seeing” the film grain.  This all establishes a mood and tone of the film that is attempting to capture the grittiness of films like Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and The French Connection, giving Bell’s pursuit of the bank robbers a layer of gravitas.

In the opening scene of Destroyer, Bell is called to the scene of a murder. After she is given the details by another detective on the scene, Bell cryptically muses “What if I know who did this?” as she leaves the scene of the crime. It takes us nearly the entire run time of the film to get back to this scene where it is revealed that Bell killed the victim…the bank Robbing mastermind, Silas.  One of the mantras of film editing is “If it is done correctly, you won’t even notice.” This is especially true for films with dual and intersecting timelines. Aside from the first scene that bookends the film, most of the film is linearly focused with the use of flashbacks to give context. Yet, the revelation that the beginning scene was actually the end causes the audience, upon rewatch, to question the order of scenes, and whether or not one scene precedes the other, or if it is more convoluted, which adds to the craft of the picture as a whole.

    

The Racism of the Second Amendment and Policing

             To understand the implications of Destroyer as a crime film in the way that it portrays police, corruption, crime, and violence; there needs to be a foundational examination of the subject itself: police and policing. Historian Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz (2018) first makes the claim that policing and the Second amendment are intimately intertwined, not only with each other, but with American Racism as both its weapon and origin. The establishment of the Second Amendment to right and bear arms was, before the NRA reinterpreted it, only supposed to be applied to those that were a part of  “a well-regulated militia” in their function of maintaining a “free State.” For generations, scholars have debated the vague language of the second amendment trying to decipher the meaning and intent of its ambiguity. However, according to Dunbar-Ortiz (2018) and Anderson (2020) there is a direct causal relationship between weapon access, racism, and police violence.

            The relationship between the Second Amendment policing and racism is constructed out of what those “well-regulated” militia were ordered to do. They were regularly ordered to use their arms to “discover, pursue, fight, surprise, destroy and subdue the enemy.” (Dunbar-Ortiz 2018:45). The vagueness of the term “enemy” is specifically planted to eventually and continuously supersede it with whatever new target is decided upon. Throughout history “enemy” in this context has meant near anything from Indigenous people, the poor and indigent, to Black people and immigrants. The armed militia became the precursor to modern policing specifically when they were formed into slave patrols after Emancipation (Dunbar- Ortiz, 2018).

            Slave Patrols was the name given to Militia’s when they were used between 1700-1865 to hunt down Black people who escaped slavery to prevent labor loss from white slavers. Many of these patrols were populated by impoverished white men in an effort to “draw a color line” between people of similar social class standing (Zinn, 2000).[1] Not only were these slave patrols given enormous amounts of discretion as to the methods by which they captured and returned these people into bondage, but many of these methods also became the structural foundation of modern policing, such as: formal questioning, stakeouts, raids, detention, and apprehension. Additionally, the language of the police was directly pulled from these groups: patrol being the most obvious but also the term “beat”, and tonfa “Night Sticks” originally called “N*** Knockers”. Eventually, there would be an institutionalization of slave patrols into modern policing through deputization and the eventual Policing mechanism of the Criminal Justice System.  This meant that from a Black person’s perspective, “there was no distinction between patrollers, the Klan or White policemen” (Dunbar-Ortiz 2018:69).  

            Through the lived historical antagonism of white men with guns free to enact domestic terrorism upon the Black population caused Black People to understand and exercise their 2^nd amendment rights when they were eventually applied to them in the late 1960’s. Ironically, when organizations like the Black Panthers started to lawfully exercise their 2^nd amendment rights, Gun activists like the NRA began to support Gun control legislation. According to Carol Anderson (2021) this points to the reality that the second amendment, and its interpretation, is ultimately antiblack in its creation and enforcement   to the point that the ability for black Americans to rightfully access, hold on to, and lawfully discharge a firearm became increasingly difficult as these gun laws disproportionally negatively affect Black people. Anderson (2021) points to a variety of different related gun laws: Conceal and carry, “Stand your Ground” laws, no knock raids, the castle doctrine being adjudicated differently based upon race. Anderson (2021) specifically points to the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery whose killers only were arrested after video was released, followed by a strong public outcry on social media.  This ultimately supports Anderson’s (2021) overall premise: That the Second Amendment is in place and enforced as protection for white people against Black people; because “Blackness is the weapon that [white people] fear.” Thereby keeping black people in a constant state of rightlessness (Anderson 2021: 158).

The motivations behind Rittenhouse’s and the Murderers of Ahmaud Arbery are heavily tied to popular culture consumption and the representation/glorification of the “lone wolf” hero protecting their home and family (or in the case of Rittenhouse, random property in another state)  from the evil dregs of society (often coded as Black and Brown people) is an image that is romanticized as idyllically masculine, and has been played out on screen for the last 40+ years. The one-man army style action film that dominated the 1980’s and 90’s with names like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Lungren, Segal, Van Damme, Norris, and Willis all reinforced this sense of masculinity that was tied to gun violence. This masculinity has also been influenced by the typical “movie cop” trope of which Destroyer supports and subverts in a variety of ways.   

 

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

            Kusama’s Destroyer is a social and cultural product of a film industry that regularly depicts the drama of police officers without a clear understanding of the occupation. While this is true of any occupation depicted in Hollywood movies, the way so many productions flagrantly gloss over ethical responsibilities, and systemic oversight of actual police work, is irresponsible. This becomes more dangerous and a much larger issue when the ability for cinema to motivate and shape decision making is factored in.   

The Movie Cop Trope [2]

Every police procedural film and television show has the character that is “the wild card” who disregards the rules and does anything to get their criminal. Sometimes referred to as “The Cowboy Cop Trope” these characteristics have dominated the artform for almost two generations.

The Common criteria for a “Cowboy Cop” trope:

·         Openly disobeys orders.

·         Flaunts their disrespect for the rules.

·         Has a maverick-like style.

·         Abuses power

·         Has unsubstantiated theories based upon conspiracy and conjecture (which are then proven correct)

·         Passionate about breaking the system of corruption.

·         Has a tragic backstory and a moral foundation/ possible heart of gold.

 

While the number of examples of this trope have waned in recent years, even to the point of parody for this cliché, much of the current “cop drama” content stand on the foundation of these films that project the problematic behaviors into the psyche of those watching it today.   

 

Destroyer’s Gender subversion of the typical trope  

            Most of the examples that are given to the cowboy/heroic/hero cop (Yes, I combined them all) are usually white men. This is no surprise, not only because the history of Hollywood only giving these roles to such men, but the ability to hold such characteristics and be alive, let alone revered, is a positive consequence of being white men. It is their whiteness and cis/het gender and sexual performance that shields them from criticism and allows such behavior to go unchecked.

 Kidman’s Erin Bell is one of the few times we get to see this grizzled strung-out “Cowboy cop” be embodied by a woman.  Unlike her masculinely male counterparts, she is not revered. She is constantly being hounded by her Commander and her Partner (hoping to be brought in on whatever they think she is working on) and the little interactions that we see between Bell and other officers, she is rebuffed and dismissed almost immediately upon arriving. Kusama, Hay and Manfredi gave Bell all the trappings of a “cowboy hero cop” without the propagandic fantasy of money, glory, and the adulation of the public. Instead, they brought it down to reality with Bell experiencing distrust, scorn, and ambivalence. Unfortunately, this more reality-based take on the trope adds to the criticism of the character. Yet, given that the same criticism is rarely applied to men exhibiting these tropes, when applied to Bell, it comes off as nothing more than thinly veiled misogyny.    

 

The Movie Cop as Propaganda and Police Recruitment

            In 1956, Sociologist C. Wright Mills in his book The Power Elite discussed the collusion of the three powerful social institutions in the United States, that of the Military, the Economy and The Government. The name for this collusion, the Military Industrial Complex, was attributed to Dwight D. Eisenhower during his farewell presidential address in 1961. What was considerably absent from this analysis, that was later filled in by other scholars in the interim, was the overall role of the media in this enterprise.

 The role of the media, and more specifically Hollywood, in the overall interconnection between these powerful systems is as a propaganda machine and recruitment tool. Since World War II, the media has been used to not only shape the public opinion about war, but to also provide the Military with large numbers of young, able-bodied recruits. Many of these tactics include but are not limited to: fear mongering (through news media), a sense of cultural pride (through an appeal to nationalism), to expressions of gender (combining militarization with masculinity) and economic stability (GI Bill and the Poor). This has led to the entire entertainment industry, from books and films, to television and video games, to be linked with the military and the broader department of defense. This Hollywood connection has been disparagingly referred to as “The Military-Entertainment Industrial complex” or more succinctly, “Militainment”.  

According to Rebecca Keegan (2011):  

Filmmakers gain access to equipment, locations, personnel and information that lend their productions authenticity, while the armed forces get some measure of control over how they’re depicted. That’s important not just for recruiting but also for guiding the behavior of current troops and appealing to the U.S. taxpayers who foot the bills.

Thereby many films, TV show episodes or Video Games that are about, or feature, any aspect of the military (regardless of genre) will have a military consultant assigned to them if the filmmakers want to keep their overall costs down.

            The development of this relationship between entertainment and the military began in early Hollywood with film directors making legitimate Propaganda films in the 1940’s (look at Frank Capra’s film: “Why We Fight.”). This continued through the 1950’s and 60’s with the films of John Wayne, members of the Rat Pack and Elvis. Yet, this collusion wasn’t solidified until the Reaganite 80’s with the release of Top Gun in 1986. The Navy was heavily involved with the film as a consultant ultimately increasing Navy recruitment by a staggering, but yet unsubstantiated, 500%. Thirty-five years later, that link is still strong with its sequel Top Gun: Maverick not only being nominated for best picture, but praised as being the film that saved theaters after the COVID-19 lockdown. Any film that is contentious, or critical of the military and its mission, will not get support. Oliver Stone had a very difficult time getting his films Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July funded because the military rejected his funding requests given the depiction of the Military in those films.

            In a previous essay, I discussed the way in which the Military Industrial Complex, through its operation, and motivated by profit ultimately results in the Militarization of the Police force and the inherent dangers that come with that (Balko 2021). The same parallel can be found in the use of the entertainment industry by the police. Just as the military uses film, Tv, and Video games to shape their public image and increase recruitment, so too does state and local police rely on the heroic image of cops to secure increased levels of funding, shape the public perception, and increase recruitment.

            Dubbed “Copaganda” by Academic Stephen Thrasher, this is the collusion between the institutions of police and the media that “describes the perceived capacity of screen representations to promote law enforcement.” The movie cop tropes are a part of this. Most of the depictions of law enforcement in popular culture are favorable in their attitudes of cops overall. Sure, in addition to the “Hero” cop trope, there might also be a dirty cop, or one that goes outside of the law, but usually by stories end, bad cops are punished, cowboy cops are vindicated, and hero cops are praised; always seeing the Institution through an individual lens; promoting the false narrative that the Institution is strong, unbiased, and just. It is only a “few bad apples” that need to be thrown away.

It is this form of manipulation that shapes the white public perception of police officers to believe their sense of justice and righteousness is above reproach. This is predominately because, on average, white people have fewer direct interactions with the police, and when they do, they are far less antagonistic. White culture teaches its children to see the police as saviors, as those you run to for help and assistance. This racialized cultural norm, coupled with a lack of interaction with actual police officers in the exercising of their duties, result in white people using film and tv as the greatest single reference for their understanding of policing. Add to this the way that a lot of these police procedural shows and films stereotypically depict black and brown people as criminally dangerous, white people not only support the Propaganda infused structure of “Law and Order” (Title of a popular police Procedural now manifesting as a political dog whistle for “antiblackness”) but they then also maintain the racist stereotypes that are perpetuated by these media representations.

To Defund or Abolish…

The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by police led to a massive protesting against police brutality during the Summer of 2020. Out of that conflict came two popularized, albeit misunderstood mantras “Defund” and “Abolish” the police. “Defund the police” focuses on a reformation of the police and seeks a redistribution of police funding into more community-based programs; ones that focus on outreach, mental health services and alternative first responders that are trained non-violent intervention specialists. From this perspective, it is not a divestment in police so much as an investment in other programs and services, designed to unburden Police Officers from being councilors, mental health professionals, homeless shelters, and addiction experts.   “Abolish the Police” focuses on the Fragmentation and elimination of the police as they have been perceived. This relates to an end to Police Militarization and a warrior-style training model.

 Derecka Purnell (2020), in her article “How I became a Police Abolitionist” articulates this beautifully:

  Police couldn’t do what we really needed. They could not heal relationships or provide jobs. We were afraid every time we called. When the cops arrived, I was silenced, threatened with detention, or removed from my home. Fifteen years later, my old neighborhood still lacks quality food, employment, schools, health care, and air—all of which increases the risk of violence and the reliance on police. Yet I feared letting go; I thought we needed them. Until the Ferguson, Missouri, cop Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown. Brown had a funeral. Wilson had a wedding. Most police officers just continue to live their lives after filling the streets with blood and bone.

Out of this backlash against the police resulted in a mass exodus of Police officers from the profession (either by quitting or early retirement) to the point that now the police are facing a drastic recruitment shortage, because police are no longer lionized in the ( majority white) public as being virtuous. While I expect that the entertainment industry will be, once again, called upon to bolster their ranks, and get police officers back in the (majority white) publics good graces[3], lets at least take solace that there are depictions of police that are anathematic to public acceptance and recruitment, like Erin Bell.

 

CONCLUSION

            Destroyer is a masterpiece. It is a well-crafted neo-noir crime thriller that consciously weaves together an emotionally dense character study with the drama of corrupt police procedural. It is a representation of cinematic tropes in Hollywood flipped by gender swapping the typical protagonist to these stories. It rejects the cultural norm and history of the media being used as a propaganda machine and recruitment tool. Instead, Erin Bell, like so many of her 70’s male counterparts (on which she was based) is a cautionary tale of the dangers the institution of police can become without extensive regulation, or outright abolition.    

 

REFERENCES

Anderson, Carol 2021. The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America New York: Bloomsbury Publishing

Blako, Radley 2021 Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces: Revised and Updated New York: Public Affairs

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne 2018. Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment San Francisco City of Lights Books.

Keegan, Rebecca 2011. “The US Military’s Hollywood Connection” in The Los Angeles Times Retrieved at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-aug-21-la-ca-military-movies-20110821-story.html  Retrieved on: 4/9/23

Purnell, Derecka 2020. “How I became a Police Abolitionist.” In The Atlantic Retrieved at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/ Retrieved on 4/9/2023  

Stahl, Roger 2009.  Militainment, Inc.: War, Media, and Popular Culture New York: Routledge

Zinn Howard 2000. A People’s History of the United States 1492- Present New York: Harper Perennial  

 

---

[1] Many members of The Clan also organized their own illegal slave patrols, but they like militias were not well regulated.

[2] To be fair there are many cop tropes in film and TV. There is the Bad cop, The Corrupt Cop, and The hero cop trope” among others.

[3] If you want an example of a piece of police related media content that responds to public perceptions rather than try to change it, I recommend Brooklyn 99. The initial premise of the show is a comedic spoof on police procedurals, the main protagonist, Jake Peralta,  growing up on 70’s and 80’s Cop shows and movies wants to be “The Hero cop” but as the culture around the show shifted (especially in 2020) had Jake learn about the seediness of 70’s Cop work and the institutional racism and corruption of Police in its final Season (The show runners rewriting the back half or the season to reflect the social unrest surrounding the police.)  

Death, Taxes, and Bureaucracy: A Weberian Analysis of Kurosawa's Ikiru

 

            For many people in the United States, the beginning of the year is met with wonder and whimsy about the (seemingly) endless possibilities of the year to come. They make plans, look forward to events, and cultivate a purposeful motivation to get through another rotation around the sun. As someone who studies systems, I unfortunately see every coming new year as the inevitable and consistent bureaucratic reset button; that we must do everything all over again, just like last year, with the possibility of being slightly easier or more difficult than the year before. No matter what else the rest of the year brings to us, these systems, and our place within them (usually) stays constant.  It is this concept of joyful life juxtaposed within a bureaucratic organization, that is the central theme of Akira Kurosawa’s masterpiece Ikiru. In this paper, I will be using (primarily) a Weberian analysis to illustrate how the film understands organizational systems, and an individuals’ place within them; ultimately causing neither to be “alive.”

 

PLOT

After being given a terminal cancer diagnosis, a government “salaryman” Kenji Watanabe (Shimura) falls into an existential crisis, trying to grasp at the embers of life before they are snuffed out. He drinks, gambles, sees prostitutes, all with the same dispassion that he held at his job. It is only when a young government employee (Miki Odagiri) becomes his life muse, that he is finally filled with passion and vigor. Yet, as he becomes increasingly obsessed with the vitality of her, he struggles with finding it within himself. It is only by building a playground for a local community, that he finally understands, for him, life is found in the service of others.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Production 

Loosely based on the Tolstoy novella “The Death of Ivan Ilych”, Ikiru marks the first collaboration Kurosawa had with long time writing partner Hideo Oguni, who helped him pen the bulk of Kurosawa’s masterpieces. Oguni’s idea of having the protagonist die halfway through the film got him the job. The film was written relatively quickly, Feb 1952, and was release later that October. It was initially screened at the Berlin International Film Festival which got its attention to the international markets, releasing in New York in 1960.

The Three Kings

Three contemporaries of 20^th century Japanese Cinema were Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu and Kenji Mizoguchi. Each Director’s work speaks to various aspects of Japanese culture and filmmaking of the time. Given that Kurosawa was often (unfairly) criticized as being too western in his approach, many of Kurosawa’s films do not often get compared to his directing peers. Instead, many film critics opt to either compare Kurosawa’s work to his influences (Jon Ford) or those he directly inspired (Lucas, Scorsese, Coppola and Spielberg). When Kurosawa is compared to the others, especially Ozu, Kurosawa often ends up considered less than.

In a reprinted essay for the Criterion collection release of Ikiru, Donald Richie (1965) states:

…to set Kurosawa next to Ozu is to be startled by their differences. Ozu’s films are about characters that stoically accept their duty, even if everything in them crise out against it. Kurosawa’s …are about raging often quixotically against the system.

Many other critics have made the same comparison. Ozu is quiet, Kurosawa is loud. Ozu is meticulous where Kurosawa is broad. And while this bifurcated comparison is often used to didactically criticize Kurosawa for “not being Japanese enough”, Ikiru seems to be an intersecting point.  Kurosawa blends his typical” the raging against the system” message with an Ozuian reserved acceptance of the other salarymen at its climax. Even Mizoguchi’s penchant for the disruption of the patriarchy in Ugetsu, is commented on in Ikiru’s relationship between Kenji and Toyo.

Each of these directors in a variety of their projects have taken on western influences. Mizoguchi began his career being influenced by Tolstoy and German expressionism while Ozu was influenced by Welles’ Citizen Kane. The differences are that with Ozu and Mizoguchi, their western influences were early at the beginning of their careers, while Kurosawa leaned into the comparison throughout his. This may have unfairly led to Kurosawa becoming more successful (internationally) and widely more well known than his fellow masters; but it often comes across as Kurosawa seeming like the westerly assimilated younger brother of a traditional Japanese family, that is critical of their loss of culture. Conversely, I find Kurosawa’s work to be a delicate balance of viewing Japanese culture filtered through a western filmmaking style, highlighting both comparison and criticisms. Kurosawa is not a western director, but he is a director that can be easily more digestible to western audiences (given his influences) making him more popular; while perceived among some traditionalists, as being less authentic.               

Adaptations

            As with many of Kurosawa’s other pictures, Ikiru has been a sought-after project for adaptation. Surprisingly, aside from a Hindi remake in 1973 titled Anand, the remakes of Ikiru have been sparse. The most notable adaptation of Ikiru as of this writing, happened just last year when British filmmakers adapted Kurosawa’s and Oguni’s script into the film Living, directed by Oliver Humanus, and starring Bill Nighty. True to form, the ending of this western adaptation leans into the hopeful nature of the protagonist’s accomplishments, believing that he has made a difference, whereas in Kurosawa’s version, it is far more ambiguous. Living is currently under consideration for best adapted Screenplay at the 95^th Academy Awards.

            Another unlikely Ikiru adaptation, that still leans in to the hopefulness of hopeless government bureaucracy is the Mike Schur run sitcom Parks and Recreation. The initial pilot of the series follows affable, but ignorant, Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), taking on the (seemingly) monumental task of filling in “the pit” (lot 48), and turning it into a park, after concerned citizen, Ann Perkins (Rashida Jones), brings it to her attention during a townhall meeting. By the second season, the series retools Leslie to eliminate her ignorance and make her both good and successful at her job. For the bulk of the series, Leslie mirrors Ikiru’s Watanabe as they both skulk around government buildings hoping to get paperwork signed, city ordinances notarized, and environmental impact reports filed.    

 

THEORETICAL INTERLUDE

 

“The bureaucratization of the social order, inherit in most western democracies, is the polar night of icy darkness”-  Max Weber

 

  According to Weber (2019), the social structure is regulated by a certain type of authority, to maintain order.  The type of authority dictates the order of society; and how it operates.

 

Traditional: This type of authority is believed to exist within society through “natural relationships” (authority structures based on bloodlines/ birth order) that have been in existence from a long-lasting system of beliefs (i.e., the belief that one’s authority is legitimated by being ordained by a higher power). This allows generations of the same family to remain in power because of the same indoctrinated beliefs that solidify unequal structures. According to Weber (2019) in traditional authority, obedience is owed to the person or the chief who occupies the traditionally sanctioned position, and who is bound by tradition.

 

Charismatic: This type of authority draws its legitimacy through the individual person in power; their characteristics and abilities. These characteristics are believed to not be possessed by everyone; that the authority figure is “special”. Because of this, the charismatic authority can:

-          Make people believe what they want you to believe. (They’re persuasive)

-          Seemingly move people out of complacency especially if it is a transition from something different.

 

However, Weber (2019) notes that the charismatic leader(s) must prove themselves to the public.  These individuals do not derive their “right” from their own will. Rather, it is the duty of those whom they address, to recognize the charismatic person as their leader (usually through and election).  Therefore, much of the “specialness” of the charismatic leader is not due to something inherent in the individual; but due to the historical, social, and political context they are living in, and the people who define them as such.  Many charismatic leaders have come to power as an answer to the previous leadership/authority structure. In fact, the social structure dictates the rise of different types of charismatic authority at different times. Because this type of authority is an affront to other types of authority, charismatic authority is often routinized by the bureaucracy; (especially if it’s successful).  Therefore, bureaucracy can be perceived as the death of charisma.

 

Bureaucratic-Rational/Legal: This type of authority is derived from the rule of law and is legally and rationally enacted.  Thus, The President of the United States derives their power from the laws of society. This authority is often identified as the most democratic because:

-          It treats everyone the same (like a number)

-          Gives people equal opportunity to access power.

 

However, Weber (2019) mentions that this type of authority also seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions a secret.  To this he gives the examples of secret or closed-door sessions that solidify a dominance structure by cutting off information.  This is used to create domination through objectifying, depersonalizing, and demystifying its subjects, to make things more stagnant, complacent, and efficient.  Yet, in operation, this authority tends to be quite inefficient for those under its rule.  It is this type of authority that is used in the formation of bureaucratic social structures within our society. In fact, the bureaucracy is a creation of the modern world which leads to formal rationalization.

 

 BUREAUCRACY

 

According to Weber (2019), bureaucracies have distinct characteristics that separate it from any other type of social structure.  The scope of bureaucracies, especially under a legal rational authority, is far reaching causing many organizations and operations to be modeled after the bureaucratic structure thereby creating uniformity.

 

Characteristics

 

1)      Bureaucracies function and are organized around rules (laws or administrative regulations) that are fixed within specific offices, occupied by specific officials in jurisdictional areas.  Regular activities required for the bureaucracy are distributed to different offices, and the authority to carry out those tasks, is also similarly distributed. Essentially, this means that bureaucracies are ruled over by individuals who occupy offices that have fixed jurisdictions, and who determine what kind of behavior is regulated. 

2)      Bureaucracies, and their offices, are organized into a hierarchy which disseminates authority across the entire structure.  Each office has authority and power over a specific set of behaviors or actions which does not infiltrate into another’s office. But power in one office can be superseded by another if it is placed higher in the hierarchy. This supposedly opens the lines of communication, allowing decisions in a lower office to a higher authority; but that does not mean that the higher authority can take over the business of the lower completely, it can only do that when the lower offices “aren’t functioning.”

3)        The management and communication of bureaucracies happen via written documents (memos, letters, e-mails etc.) which are preserved for posterity for a pre-prescribed amount of time.  Therefore, there is an entire staff of officials that scribe all communications and distribute them.   This helps to maintain a distance between work and home and regulates the types of communication that is acceptable within the bureaucracy.

4)       Hiring and working in a bureaucracy requires/ and presupposes expert training in the field in which they will be working. Many of the jobs within bureaucracies that are not physical labor, or other kinds of lower wage work, requires advanced training in education and orientation to do specific jobs.  This means that many even mid-level bureaucratic jobs require a BA or above.  The position/ job itself does not lie with the person; it belongs to the structure. 

5)      When the bureaucratic structure is fully formed, work for the bureaucratic structure becomes obligatory. This causes many private personal lives to become secondary.  The staff doesn’t own the means of production, they are only given the tools they need to do the job. We become trapped in Bureaucracies as we move from one to another in the everyday exploration of our lives. 

6)      Management of the Bureaucracy is done with impersonality.  Because the bureaucracy is ruled by organized regulations and specific rituals.  The regulation of behavior is not done on a personal level.  The bureaucratic structure punishes, and rewards failure and success equally based upon structured criteria.  The bureaucracy is never out to get individuals in its operation.  Where the issue lies, however, is in how bureaucracies are implemented and constructed…by humans.

 

RATIONALIZATION

There are many types of rationalization that Weber (2019) discusses throughout his work in Sociology. For our purposes, the type that interests us the most in this analysis of Ikiru, is formal rationalization.  According to Weber (2019), this type of rationalization occurs with reference to universally applied rules, laws, and regulations, that are enforced with a means-to-an-end calculation, upon both the system itself, and everyone within it; to appear more efficient in its functioning. Thus, a type of formal rationalization: bureaucratic rationalization is a type that is the most influential and necessary for us to understand structural domination through bureaucracy. This type of rationalization emphasizes four basic characteristics:

 

1)      Calculability: This is the drive for a bureaucratic rationalization to quantify objects to the point that quantity often takes the place of quality. There are numerical standards by which the process and the product are judged.  There is an emphasis on speed during the process and the amount produced; thereby reducing the importance of production and service down to just numbers, while also reducing the quality to mediocre. That mediocrity is then obfuscated by advertising, hoping to manufacture desire for the unnecessary.

2)        Predictability: The unflinching unchanging structure. Predictability allows for the same business and operation to exist in one part of the country as it does in others.  This also allows for order by number efficiency by the systemization, and formalization of routines, maintaining consistency, and a methodical operation that, while it gives consumer’s peace of mind, it also transforms everything into a suicide inducing repetition.  Individuality is the enemy, if you do things different, its wrong and immediately corrected. Even language is scripted (e.g.: “Hi, welcome to…”,courtesy)    

3)      Efficiency: This means that you choose the optimum means to a given end.  This is done through streamlining the process, faster is better (e.g.: fill in boxes, “just swipe it”, self-checkout lanes). To be clear, this speed is only good for the organization/institution and not necessarily those who are affected by it (Weber 2019).

4)      Control: This is often done by replacing humans with machines, or other types of technology (automation), and more subtly, the way bureaucratic rules, regulations manuals etc. regulate human behavior.  Following these controlling steps makes sure that human beings become a tool themselves. They will be trained to control their behavior. But this control extends to the product as well (many products come pre-packaged, pre sliced in fact pre-prepared “just heat and eat”) so that less work needs to be done and workers do not have to exercise either judgment or skill.

 

“THE IRON CAGE”: IRRATIONAL RATIONALITY

According to Weber (2019), this bureaucratic rationalization will cover the globe by seeping into every institution, organization and operation that make daily living possible. Because we move from one rationalized structure to another through our daily lives, we become trapped by this bureaucratic rationality in which we cannot escape. This is what Weber (2019) calls The Iron Cage. This is where the continuation of rational behavior, in practice, becomes increasingly irrational as basic humanity gets denied.  The irrational trap of The Iron Cage takes 5 main forms:

 

1)      The absence of real(ity).  This is the idea that organizations and institutions that operate in this bureaucratic structure create environments and/or products that either remove people from reality or take the place of it. Disney, for example, gives consumers the idea that you can escape to a place that is “pure magic” or “pure fun”. A place where consumers are confident it will never change, and always be there. Secondly, other products like Mountain Dew, has a taste that is completely synthetic (it has a taste that is not represented in anything existing tangibly in nature). Yet, it is still seen as real and is a part of a publicly traded company. Candy and frozen dinners have flavors injected into them to make them taste like the food they are mimicking.  Trouble is, that those synthetic flavors become so mass produced that it is perceived as what the actual real product should taste like. For example: Starburst cherry taffy does not taste like eating a cherry, but when thinking of the flavor of cherry, you are more likely to remember the candy.

2)       Depersonalization This is the notion that within the bureaucratic structure a person becomes a number.  To the State, a person is just their social security number, to the school, their student id number, to work, their employee id number, at a Fast-food restaurant, a ticket number.  This makes skills, thoughts, feelings, ideas, and emotions irrelevant and distracting for the bureaucratic structure. By assigning a number, the bureaucracy is reducing human life to something that is expendable and ultimately replaceable; continuing to allow inhuman work in inhuman conditions.  

3)      Disenchantment This Weberian idea resonates from the belief that in Western societies “magical elements of thought” are gone. Anything that is seen as fantastical and or mythical, are either routinized or destroyed.  The bureaucratic characteristic of control is an aversion to any enchanted thoughts beyond being used as a distraction. This ultimately impacts the way that we interact with other people. Much of our interactions, especially with strangers in these bureaucratic structures, is disenchanted into false friendliness.  Disenchantment often happens because. like everything else, religions too, become engulfed in this bureaucratic plague, forming and conforming so that every church within a particular ideology looks and acts similar.

4)      Standardization: Everything is the same. Business operations under the bureaucratic model for success, give more similarities and few differences. Many corporate models for business operate under the same organizational chart. Thus, this is when one thing becomes like everything else.  We get so used to this, we admonish people who do not get or follow the standardization process.

5)       Inefficiency: Ironically, rationalized bureaucratic structures operate in a very inefficient manner for those trapped within it. From the red tape of politics to the long lines at the grocery stores, the following of a never-ending series of rules, regulations and procedures is quite time consuming and the exact opposite of efficiency. Consider the following examples: The Starbucks’ drive thru: is supposed to be faster than going up to the counter. The Highway system, especially in Southern California, is supposed to be in place so that people can get where they are going faster, however this is only true at certain times of day.  Also, in the name of efficiency, these organizations and companies pass some of the unpaid labor onto the consumer (personal banking, checkout lanes etc.) which is individually inefficient.  

 

 

CAPITALISM AND BUREAUCRACY

 

There is an interesting comparison and confluence when talking about Capitalism and Bureaucracy; those are the differences between a Marxian vision of Capitalism and one shared by Weber. Weber’s work first identifies Capitalism as the “spiritual” biproduct of Protestantism, specifically Calvinist beliefs.

Weber

According to Weber (2002) specific Calvinist beliefs are the most important to the development of Western Capitalism. These beliefs led to a series of behaviors that make it easier for Capitalism to take root as an economic system.

1.      Inner Worldly Asceticism: This is the understanding that Calvinists believe in focusing in on the present, and the tangible world. This is in opposition to Catholics whom Protestants believed were “Outer worldly Hedonists” who indulge in worldly pleasures, while exalting the existence of post-mortem kingdoms of gold, and a life everlasting, easily achieved through slight acts of contrition.  Instead, what matters to Calvinists, is their thoughts, behaviors and actions that exist in the world that they live in. They were encouraged to be frugal and only spend what they needed,  and to not be wasteful.

2.      The Belief in Predestination. Calvinists believe that it is already predetermined whether an individual was “destined” for their version of “Heaven” or “Hell”. Because of this unknown, Calvinists had to look for “Signs of Salvation” based upon their belief system. One sign of salvation that they decided on, was that of “Hard work.” If someone was perceived to be “working hard” then it was more likely that they would get into “Heaven”

3.      The Belief that a person’s Job was a “Calling”. This is the Calvinist understanding that whatever job an individual performs, that job is perceived as a “calling from “god”. Therefore, success in a person’s career is also success with “god.” Most occupational successes are measured by wealth.[1]

 These beliefs create the social behaviors that allow Capitalism to arise and take root in a particular society. Frugality, hard work, and economic success are all behaviors that are favorable to the development of Capitalism. They are “the spirit” of Capitalism that allows the economic system to thrive. However, Weber notes that this trajectory only happens in western/western influenced civilizations and are only valuable until Capitalism becomes ritualistically self-sustaining, when money itself, and its acquisition, becomes its own ethos.   

Marx

            Marx’s understanding of Capitalism, more from the grass roots side of the conflict, recognized the essential problems with capitalism, which left in its unregulated natural state, would create several forms of exploitation through Capitalism’s cycle of capital accumulation. The basic path model equation of capitalism (M-C-M) introduces several fundamental flaws in its solution. Firstly, that the valuing of Profit (the resulting M in the equation) ultimately causes the dehumanization of people both within the workforce (labor) and outside of it (consumers). There is a foundational axiom of “profit over people” that Capitalism evokes which is carried out through the alienation of the workers (through outsourcing and automation) and the exploitation of consumers (through price gouging). This is what economist David Harvey calls “accumulation through dispossession” that leads to privatization and the theft of intellectual property (Chomsky and Waterstone 2021:57).

In our modern Capitalist system, we do not sell labor anymore (as we did during slavery) instead we sell labor power. The chief difference in social class is then measured by whether you can obtain income and wealth only from your own labor power, or through the labor power of other people. The bifurcated social class model that Marx introduces is clearly delineated by the ability to buy, sell, and gain wealth from other people’s labor power. The Bourgeoisie can gain wealth from the labor power of their workers and themselves because they control and hold the positions of power in the labor force. The Proletariats, on the other hand, only have their labor power to sell for their survival. According to Chomsky and Waterstone (2021), there is something nefariously bleak about this capitalist system that fosters an inability of people to be able to provide and produce for themselves. Instead, it makes workers reliant on their capacity to sell their labor power to someone else [because the job they do isn’t owned by them, just performed by them]. Then, the wages that they are “graced with”, must be used in the service of consumerism to survive.  Yet, this all gets normalized and made invisible through understanding it as common sense…the capitalist realism which falsely believes that everything within society should be run like a business (Chomsky and Waterstone 2021).

            Weber Answers Marx

Marx believed that the alienation that workers felt would eventually be so great that they would rise in a glorious revolution that would shake the pillars of Capitalism down to its core, developing first into socialism, and then communism. However, this revolution never happened. This is because Marx underestimated the formation of Bureaucracy and its ability to keep people complacent within the Iron Cage of irrationality. It distracts them with frivolity and neurotic worries, that trap them in a prison of their own making. This is the alliance between Capitalism and Bureaucracy, both have benefited from the organization of the other. The destruction of traditional levels of authority into a broader, seemingly democratic legal structure, allows for a wider range of capitalist activity, while bureaucratization also allows for the protection of private profit. Bureaucracy is used as a precise instrument of economic domination (Gerth and Mills 1958:230-231).  

This is where we find the Protagonist at the beginning of Kurosawa’s Ikiru; a shell of a man (mummy) going through the motions of life, but never truly alive.    

 

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

 “He is actually killing time. He has never really lived. Might as well be a corpse, nothing left of will and passion- Narrator.

            Kurosawa’s Masterpiece Ikiru, which directly translates into “To Live”, itself a declaration of sorts, does not shy away from the central theme of bureaucracy explained above. From the repetitive nature of Kanji Watanabe’s movements as he shuffles papers from one side of the desk to the other, with no other discernable difference than his minuscule stamp of approval, to the montage of the community following the draconian labyrinth of various government departments, Kurosawa makes clear the disempowering nature of bureaucratic systems and the life constricting clasp of Weber’s “Iron Cage”.

            Throughout Ikiru, Kurosawa emphasizes one of the lesser discussed components of Bureaucracies “Iron Cage”, Disenchantment, at the micro level. Whereas Weber primarily looked at disenchantment through the lens of religion, and the desire to control belief, Kurosawa brings it down to a micro level analysis, illustrating how bureaucracies can severely impact our interactions and the development and maintenance of relationships throughout our lives, resulting in the alienation of people, and thereby disempowering them.  According to C. Wright Mills (2002) one of these stratifying processes is the Bureaucratic development of “The Cheerful Robot.”

            As I explained in a previous essay:

“The Cheerful Robots” are the apathetic individuals of a mass society who blindly and complacently accept their life chances as determined by fate (Trevino 2012: 191).  For Mills (2002), this is the common psychological trait for those living in a bureaucratized capitalism. There is an emptiness to the work; a lack of fulfillment that never gets satiated, as each task gets divided down to it minute detail, adding to this depression. The alienation of a lack of ownership of products is obfuscated by the psychological acceptance that the amount of labor used determines ownership. This puts workers in a state of false consciousness, they feel emotionally invested in their work and want to continue producing. Yet even recreation, also becomes commodified and rationalized, so even in leisure, workers become routinized.  This gives rise to what Mills calls “Personality Markets”; where individuals would be able to be sold the personality traits they desire through their purchasing of products.  This commodification of identity is again another step in the creation of a “robotic” workforce.  These “robots” then become “happy” through the creation of a social interaction “mask” each worker wears, built on stereotypical greetings, kindness, friendliness, and personalized service (Trevino 2012). The consistent wearing of such a “mask” stifles creativity, magnifies feelings of estrangement, and results in self alienation. The worker learns to just go through the motions, and manufacture emotions, solidifying their assimilation.  

 

While few would call Kanji Watanabe, “cheerful”, he maintains the amenable affability that is standard practice for the service industry, and government positions that often translates to a mild neglect to those they interact with. Thus, when he is given the cancer diagnosis, and his existential crisis begins, Watanabe does not know how to interact with people. His mask has alienated him from others. After withdrawing 50,000 yen from his account, he ends up at a bar drinking alone, where he meets a vagrant. Through the vagrant’s suggestions, Watanabe shops through the Millsian “Personality Market” by trying to embody the societal presentation of someone who will die soon and is short on time. He drinks heavily, gambles recklessly, and visits prostitutes. But he soon realizes that this, too, will bring no joy. Society’s perception of “living [it up]” is just as hollow as sitting at his desk with his government stamp. Since no one else knows his cancer diagnosis, much of this is perceived as a late midlife crisis, in part because they too, perceive his hedonistic bacchanal as the pinnacle of joyful reckless abandon.

 There are many things that are presented to us, mainly through marketing, that promise to satiate our woe, alleviate our ennui, and recalcitrate our revelry. This is Capitalism. The cause of the problem is presented as a solution. The emptiness that Watanabe feels after indulging himself in the behaviors that he is told to “want and experience”, is Kurosawa’s testament to such a solution being both impractical and ineffective. According to Mills (2002) this is a product of the bureaucracy itself, the division of labor created between work and leisure. Because work is perceived and constructed as both impersonal and alien, this requires that leisure be full of the “personally familiar”, trying to fortify us with a variety of prescribed and self-imposed medications to get us through another workday. Unfortunately, we, like Watanabe are perpetually dissatisfied.

“Each day men sell little pieces of themselves in order to try and by them back each night and each weekend with the coin of ‘fun’. With amusement, with love, with movies, with vicarious intimacy they put themselves together to some type of whole again…” (Mills 2002:237)

Kurosawa discusses this dissatisfaction through the juxtaposition between Watanabe and Toyo Odagiri, the government employee whom he is inspired by.  After finding no satisfaction with the cavalcade of indulgences he had been participating in, Watanabe becomes obsessed with Toyo, a young government employee who, in a conversation with another worker, mentioned that she had intentions to quit because she “didn’t want to become an old mummy” like Watanabe. Watanabe sees in her the life and vigor that he once had and seeks to understand the source.

It is (pleasantly) surprising that Kurosawa did not follow the trope of “young girl shows old man the meaning of life.” All the secondary characters around Toyo and Kenji do not understand their relationship and believe it is a self-destructive affair. Even Toyo and Kenji realize the unhealthy nature of their companionship, with Toho realizing that Kenji has become as parasitic as the government job that she wants to leave. Again, unlike other stories of its ilk, Kurosawa leans away from expectations and does not have Watanabe try to save her from becoming him, but instead, tries to convince her to stay in her government job.  He becomes a cautionary tale for her, and She is the specter of life that he gave up so that his son could have a better one.

The concept of sacrifice is baked into bureaucratic capitalism[2]. We are conditioned through socialization and other mechanisms of social control, to give of ourselves; to give time, money, energy, and effort back into the society in which we live. This is how our society runs on labor power. We are convinced to relinquish much of ourselves to the society at large through a variety of socially constructed motivations. For Kenji Watanabe, and many other workers, it is through reproductive futurism. This is the idea that the choices we make about the future are motivated by the health and safety of the next generation. Whether that is because we want to selfishly secure our own legacy to prove that our life has meaning, or that we individually are emotionally invested in the wellbeing of people that we love; on a macro level, many people are not motivated to better their own lives outside of their progeny. Thus, people are willing to endure, and capitulate to the system because it is “what is required.”

In Ikiru, Watanabe is finally able to break free from this magnificent monotonous malaise, when he realizes that the joy he was missing was a sense of fulfilment; not at the bottom of a bottle, or inspired by youth, but through service. When the community comes to his office again and demand a park be created, Watanabe spends the last four months of his life navigating the community through the red tape and roadblocks of local government. Throwing caution, self-respect, and humility out the window to just get one thing accomplished. A sacrifice, but rather for himself, Watanabe’s sacrifice was for other people. Kurosawa’s point? Perhaps, if the system is going to grind us all down, we might as well throw ourselves into it for the betterment of others, and not just those with whom we are emotionally invested.   

Kurosawa encapsulates and crystalizes the nature of bureaucracy in the reactions and interactions of the other government employees at Watanabe’s funeral. As Watanabe continues to be praised for his endeavors, his colleagues in Public Works and other local government salarymen, try to take credit for the park and the building of the playground with the common generalization that it was a “team effort”; even to the point of getting angry, that they too need to be commended. This is a apart of “The Managerial Demiurge… the societal uneasy interlocking of private and public hierarchies, and at the bottom, more areas become objects of management and manipulation.” (Mills 2002: 77). The lack of personhood is such that both Watanabe’s subordinates, and superiors, can not allow for credit to be collectively given, and only singularly received. If one is praised, then they all should be praised.

Mills (2002) explains it like this:

Management is not a Who but a series of Theys and even Its…You are a cog and the beltline of the bureaucratic machinery itself; without you the managerial demiurge could not be.      

 Yet, among middle management, white collar workers, there is a fair amount of “status panic” in which these salarymen try to justify their existence in a transparent display of occupational self-protection, and to keep up appearances (Mills 2002, Veblen 1994). This is especially true in the Japanese culture where honor is an important personal and cultural identifier, and the social pressure to maintain at least the thin veneer of respect and dignity is very high.

  Later, when the Salarymen’s hypocrisy is exposed, they are contrite and drunkenly prostrate themselves in front of Watanabe’s son and the townspeople. They reveal that they too feel the Weberian “Iron Cage” draining the nuanced life from their bodies, only leaving behind a tattered husk of routines, norms, and predictable patterns. For other filmmakers, this would be the moment of revelation, when the sacrifice of the protagonist leads to greater and longer lasting systemic change; having these men see the error of their ways and feeling the same emptiness as Watanabe, seek to change the system. Kurosawa, however, understands the routinized nature of bureaucracies and the souls trapped within it. Once the salarymen leave, it is pointed out that these men will do nothing. They will go back to the office tomorrow and they will fall back into their old habits. All the lofty platitudes that they spouted in their self-medicated manufactured performative grief at the foot of Watanabe’s alter, are as hollow as they are; too consumed with success and shackled within the bureaucratic prison to realize that they are a just a living corpse waiting to rot.  

 

CONCLUSION

Kurosawa being influenced by western filmmakers and Russian literature (Dostoevsky) it is not surprising that he understands the bureaucratic social order. Yet, in many other films there is a hopeful strain that runs through them that is absent here. In Seven Samurai, even though the Samurai cannot stop the societal changes leading to the obsolescence of their class status, the villagers, the lower class, still won and have a future. In High and Low, Mr. Gondo still chooses to go through with the ransom demands even when it is revealed that it was not his son that was kidnapped. Ikiru is Kurosawa at his bleakest. There is no true success within a bureaucratic social order; you get consumed by it and become a charismatically emaciated husk, condemned to drain the life from the next hopeful person it ensnares. Like Weber, Kurosawa has no solutions for us. He leaves the audience with a haunting series of images. First, of Takashi Shimura singing in the snow, and then his friend gazing upon the finished playground before returning to work…hoping one day “to live.”

 

REFERENCES  

Chomsky, Noam and Marv Waterstone 2021. Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance Chicago: Haymarket Book

 

Gerth H.H. and C. Wright Mills 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology New York: Oxford University Press

 

Mills C. Wright 2002. White Collar: The American Middle Classes 50^th Anniversary edition New York: Oxford University Press

 

Richie, Donald 1965. “To Live” Reprinted in The Criterion Collection edition of Ikiru

 

Trevino, A. Javier 2012. The Social Thought of C. Wright Mills Los Angeles: Sage Publishing

 

Veblen, Thorstein 1994. The Theory of the Leisure Class New York: Penguin Books

 

Weber, Max 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings New York: Penguin Books

 

Weber Max 2019. Economy and Society: A New Translation Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.  

---

[1] Is this the excuses of rich people to not only justify their wealth but essentially buy their way into heaven? Yes.

[2] This concept of sacrifice is also gendered in that women, more so than men are socialized to sacrifice their own desires for their family. They are the ones more likely to step away from job as careers when the family is in need. To sacrifice their own self-care time for others, and be/take on the responsibility of being the sole proprietor of their family’s emotional labor needs (especially their spouse). This is because the mechanism of gender socialization value women more through their bodies and their relationships with others, rather than their work, or their personalities.