Collectivism vs. Individualism in the film Over the Hedge

Face-Negotiation Theory is a communication theory introduced by Stella Ting-Toomey. This theory posits that people from all cultures are constantly negotiating “face”. Face is seen as “our public self-image, the way we want others to see us and treat us”. The concept of “facework” is described as the verbal and nonverbal communication used to maintain face or recover from face loss. Ting-Toomey suggests that various cultures will conduct themselves in different manners depending on whether the culture is collectivistic or individualistic. A collectivistic culture is one in which people focus on we-identity and rely on the group to provide care in exchange for loyalty to the group. An individualistic culture is a culture where the standard is I-identity, with people looking out for themselves and having a disregard for others. I wish to explore in more detail the differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures, using the DreamWorks film “Over the Hedge” to serve as an example of these ideas.

                In the film, we are introduced to RJ, a raccoon who is a loner with no family. RJ provides a great example of someone from an individualistic culture; he has no one to rely on for support and must gather his own food and look out for only himself. Due to hunger, and because of his individualistic nature, RJ elects to steal a stockpile of food from Vincent, a hibernating bear (who is himself the epitome of individualistic). Vincent discovers RJ in the act and an altercation ensues, resulting in the loss of all of the food. Vincent agrees to return to his hibernation and give RJ the remaining time to replace all of his food. RJ agrees in an attempt to save his own life and sets out to begin his food collecting.

                Living in a small community in the woods, we are introduced to the perfect example of a collectivistic culture. Living in this community are many different types of animals, including skunk, turtle, porcupine and chipmunk. This foraging group refers to themselves as family, despite being from different species. Collectively, they gather enough food for everyone to survive through the winter. Upon waking from their winter slumber, they discover the forest where they generally find their food has been torn down and replaced with a residential neighborhood full of humans.

                RJ spies the collectivistic group in the woods and overhears their concerned discussion about where to find food. RJ, looking out for only himself, hatches a scheme to trick them into gathering food from the humans, supposedly so they can survive through the following winter, but with the actual intent of stealing the food to repay Vincent. RJ and the foragers set out on a long mission and slowly build up a collection of food, all items on RJ’s list to return to Vincent. Eventually, the foragers are captured by a pest-control technician and RJ escapes with the food as they are being taken away. After returning the food to Vincent just within the deadline, RJ begins to feel bad about his actions and remembers how the collectivistic group took care of him and treated him like family. At the risk of losing his life, he embarks on a dangerous mission to rescue the other animals.

                Once the other animals have been saved and agree to forgive RJ since he finally did the right thing, RJ is welcomed back to the group and, once again treated as family. The best example of collectivistic culture is seen when Vern (the family leader) tells RJ he should have just told them the truth and they would have given him the food. Finally, this story helps to illustrate how individuals can assimilate into a new culture, indicating that culture and values can be successfully changed.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory in the Film American History X

American History X - IMDb link - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/

 

                While Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory has its roots in social psychology, it is also included as a theory in the academic study of communication, especially where interpersonal influence is considered. My goal here is to present Cognitive Dissonance Theory and, through reference to a popular film, illustrate it in detail so it may be better understood. The film I have chosen to exemplify this theory is American History X. The film focuses on the life and choices of Derek Vinyard, a troubled youth who finds an outlet for his anger by teaming with his mentor, Cameron Alexander, to start a white supremacist, skinhead gang in the Venice Beach neighborhood of Los Angeles. I will provide a brief outline of the story and follow with various elements of Cognitive Dissonance Theory, providing examples from the film to illuminate these elements.

                Cognitive Dissonance Theory was introduced by Leon Festinger, a social psychologist at Stanford University. Festinger referred to Cognitive Dissonance as “the distressing mental state brought on by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action”. He further posits that we are driven by consistency and strive to avoid the discomfort brought on by inconsistency. This principle is best illustrated in the film when Sweeney visits Derek in the prison infirmary. Sweeney shows concern about Danny following in his brothers footsteps, to which Derek offers denial. Sweeney tells Derek that he needs to ask the right questions such as, “has anything you’ve done made your life better”? The discomfort Derek goes through when considering the answer shows the distressing mental state brought on by cognitive dissonance.

                Festinger includes three Hypotheses in his theory, referred to by researchers as selective exposure, postdecision dissonance and minimal justification. Selective exposure is “the tendency people have to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it’s incompatible with their current beliefs”. In the film’s debate scene between Derek and Murray, we see this hypothesis played out. Murray and members of Derek’s family try to explain minorities rioting in their own neighborhoods and the Rodney King beating in terms of social inequality. Derek denies any possibility this explanation is feasible and argues that their liberal views only serve to worsen the situation in America.

                Postdecision dissonance refers to the idea that “strong doubts experienced after making an important, close-call decision that is difficult to reverse” serves as a cause of cognitive dissonance. In the film, we see an example of this when Derek makes the decision to leave the prison skinhead gang. He suffers a sexual assault for his indifference to their group. He knows, as his fellow laundry attendant inmate informs him, that without their protection he may face assault or death at the hands of the prison’s black gangs. Despite this information, Derek refuses to be a part of a group who says one thing and then acts in a contradictory manner. He begins to realize that the cause he so strongly believed in suddenly makes no sense and the only friend he has at the moment is a black man that he should consider an enemy.

                Minimal justification suggests “the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior”. Maybe a slight stretch, we can see an example of this in the film. Derek’s and Danny’s mother wants the best for her son(s). In particular, she is concerned about the direction of Danny’s life. Although outward appearance is only one part of the skinhead activities he engages in, she believes that any change, even as small as allowing his hair to grow out is an identity change in the right direction. She asks Danny when he’s going to let his hair grow back and he jokingly tells her when she quits smoking. She responds, “deal”. It seems trivial and a small price to pay to see positive change in her sons identity. He asks for nothing large, simply that she quit smoking. According to Festinger, this small request is more likely to produce a change that will also affect his attitudes and beliefs than a larger reward.

                The final idea I will present from Cognitive Dissonance Theory is compliance. Compliance is “public conformity to another’s expectation without necessarily having a private conviction that matches the behavior”. This can best be shown by the behavior Danny engaged in immediately after his brother’s incarceration. Danny never took part in the skinhead activities while his brother was free. However, after Derek’s arrest Danny was met with new friendships and a higher place in the skinhead community; almost taking his brothers place. In the beginning of the film we see Danny has written a paper arguing for Hitler as a civil rights leader. Sweeney makes him write a new paper about the events leading up to Derek’s arrest and how they shaped his view in contemporary America. In the first line of the paper, Danny writes, “people look at me and see my brother”. Ironically, he ends the paper with a quote from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address; driving home the point by replacing a paper entitled My Mein Kampf with a quote from the man who emancipated the slaves.

The philosophy of House, M.D.

Let me preface this post by explaining what my goal is here. As part of the requirements for my COMM 3300 (Communication Theory, Culture & Films) course, I am starting a blog to discuss how certain films offer us "equipment for living". Basically, this means what about a particular film is moving and might create the desire within someone to make a positive change. Some examples might include "Higher Learning" and the way watching it helped to change or shape your world view - whether it was how it made you feel about racism or involved some aspect concerned with gender/sexuality or social action. The following post is from a paper I wrote in the Fall 2009 semester for my intro Philosophy class. I feel it is quite fitting for this blog and encourage your feedback or questions. At the end of the paper, I will comment on how this might provide us with "equipment for living" and provide insight on how it has affected me.

The philosophy of Dr. Gregory House

From the episode The Socratic Method:  “Pick your specialist, you pick your symptoms. I’m a jerk. It’s my only symptom. I go see three doctors. The Neurologist tells me it’s my pituitary gland, the endocrinologist says it’s an adrenal gland tumor, the intensivist, can’t be bothered, sends me to a witty philosopher, who tells me I push others because I think I’m Socrates.”

The fictional character, Dr. Gregory House, from the television show House is portrayed in a manner that suggests his belief is that life has no meaning. Through a comparative look at some various philosophical ideas, I wish to explore several areas that may describe [Dr.] House’s life philosophy and use his actions to further define each idea. From the works of Socrates, Plato and Diogenes, to more recent philosophers like Mill, Thoreau and Liebniz, House can be seen, at times, as the embodiment of several philosophers’ ideas. Although each of these is seen time and time again during the show, none is more prevalent than Socrates, whose Socratic Method tends to dictate every action in the characters life.

            Socrates referred to it as the “examined life” and Plato called it a “life of reason”. If you don’t live by it, House M.D. will say “you’re an idiot”. House acts in a manner that suggests life is meaningless, yet plays into these roles more than he himself may be aware. His disdain for organized religion and the idea of spirituality is illustrated over and over in episodes such as “Three Stories”, where House states, “I find it more comforting to believe that this life isn’t simply a test”. Again, in”97 Seconds” House speaks on his absence of religious belief when he tells Wilson, “There’s no after, there is just this”. In this latter episode, he is so inquisitive as to arrange to kill himself and be revived just to see what a patient claimed to see. The dialogue that follows his being revived indicates that he felt something, but he is too stubborn to admit it to anyone and continues in his traditional manner. He implies that everything one may or may not see in a situation like that can be explained by some medical rationale. Finally, House’s Nihilistic view of life is echoed in his statement, “Our actions here are all that matters”. Reasoning is at the core of House and his behavior, both in and out of the workplace, Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital.

            Aristotle suggests that the life of reason leads to happiness or well-being. The good life, for him, is leading that life of reason. House, in all of his negativity, is the perfect example of what Aristotle meant when he said, “Man is a rational animal”. If someone isn’t using his or her capacity for reason, then the individual has failed to realize the aptitude he or she holds as a human being. According to Bertrand Russell, “Philosophy is to be studied . . . for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation” (1 ). It is ironic that House, while he questions for the sake of questioning, so often acts in dogmatism and rejects any opposition to his theories. It is also important to note, though, that House often does so to prove a point or make others rethink their diagnoses.

            The philosophers Principle of Sufficient Reason states, “[. . .] there is a rational explanation for every event”. Gottfried Leibniz wrote, “Nothing takes place without sufficient reason, that is . . . nothing happens without it being possible for someone who knows enough things to give a reason sufficient to determine why it is so and not otherwise” (3). House continuously exemplifies the Principle of Sufficient reason in his actions and words. Despite Dr. Wilson’s (House’s only real friend) attempts to suggest things can occur “against all reason”, House continues in his course of action to discover the cause of every case he sees as interesting. For House, there is always a reason and never satisfaction until it is discovered. For House, the teacher, no tool is more valuable than his employment of the Socratic Method in every situation.

            The Socratic Method tells us that one can’t be given knowledge, but must discover it for himself. According to this method, the only way to help someone learn is to bombard him with questions that, through reason, cause the individual to arrive at the answer. House says the Socratic Method is “the best way to teach anything apart from juggling chain saws”. Like Socrates’ words in Plato’s dialogue Meno, House (in the episode Three Stories) tells a student “you’re useless. But at least you know it.” (4) Descriptive of Socrates in Gregory Vlastos’s Socratic Irony, Houses role in teaching may be to “puzzle and perplex”. The Socratic Method teaches that we aren’t very knowledgeable. The second step, in the words of Socrates, “In every case I first lay down the theory which I judge to be soundest”, which echoes of House’s so-called differential diagnosis method (4). Viewed as arrogance, the trait is necessary in House to properly make use of the Socratic Method. Also included in the method is to assume we are right. House drives home the point when Dr. Foreman explains how wrong House has been on a particular case. House responds, “Of course, when you’re right, self-doubt doesn’t help anyone, does it?” Despite being wrong, assuming he was wrong would not help him arrive at the truth, either. Once the Socratic Method has been used, we need others to challenge our best theory. This is where House’s diagnostic team comes into play. Without dissent from these other Doctors, House could not continue in his Socratic Method, thus he could not continue as a successful diagnostician.

            While it is apparent that House uses the Socratic Method and, in many ways, emulates Socrates behavior, one should explore the other philosophers whose views are also shared by the Doctor. Several philosophers speak on eccentricity and some pose the question of whether it can be considered a virtue. Henry David Thoreau spent a couple of years living in isolation on Walden Pond while writing some of his most profound works. Like Thoreau, at least metaphorically, House “has chosen to live a life of isolation”. Another philosophy that strikes at the core of the character House is Stoicism. The Stoics did not believe material possessions necessarily led to happiness. Although House has a few weak spots, such as his motorcycle and music collection, he does not live in the manner one would expect of the typical successful doctor. Living in a comfortably-sized apartment and having musical instruments and records as prized possessions does not fit the norm and illustrates the similarities House shares with the Stoics. Further, the ideas of Diogenes, a famous Cynic, can be seen in the philosophy of House. Most important to note here was Diogenes belief that one’s public and private personas should be identical – that is, one should act the same in private as he or she would in public, and vice versa. Both House and Diogenes feel antipathy for hypocrisy. This is most evident in the shows repeated theme that “everybody lies”(5 – this paragraph).

            Regarding eccentricity, we must return to Socrates and recognize him as befitting of the title. Not seeking attrition for his actions, Socrates makes it clear that if he is not allowed to live life virtuously, then he’d rather not live at all. Similarly, House would rather forgo the practice of medicine than conform to the rules that his colleagues must live by. As supported by John Stuart Mill (On Liberty), eccentrics are necessary to an objective investigation of ideas. Mill argues in On Liberty that:

If we want a society that is capable of a meaningful search for the truth, we want a society in which there is a rich and robust marketplace of ideas. If we want a society in which there is a rich and robust marketplace of ideas, we must encourage eccentrics and their experiments in living. Thus, if we want a society that is capable of a meaningful search for the truth, we must encourage eccentrics and their experiments in living.

House exemplifies this passage through his search for the truth and his eccentricities. These “experiments in living” help to defy the status quo and are necessary in any search for the truth.

            Also, while speaking on Mill, one would be remiss to not mention his work with Jeremy Bentham regarding utilitarianism. This utilitarianism says the outcome of an action determines whether the action is morally right or wrong; simply stated, from a moral perspective, the end must justify the means. Further, rule utilitarians believe rules which bring about the best consequences should be followed. Similar to rule utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant believed we should follow rules, as well. Though, these rules were not in place for the sake of concern regarding the consequences of one’s actions. Kant believed that, regardless of outcome, an action was either right or wrong from the outset. House most readily follows act utilitarianism, the view that each action should be judged based on its outcome. This further explains the way in which House fills his role as teacher.

            Finally, one can easily see the similarities in Dr. Gregory House and the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre. Again regarding cynicism, Sartre had a distrust of interpersonal relationships. Sartre proclaimed “hell is other people” and made his point in the comedy No Exit. In this play, hell is portrayed as a single room and the male character is left in the room with 2 female characters. Although he, at first, thinks this is an unusual hell, he quickly comes to realize that there is to be no escape from the room and, ultimately, one another; thus, the hell has become realized due to the uncomfortable situation of being forced to live eternity with the other. There are no windows and the characters have no eyelids. Similar to the play, the episode “One Day, One Room” places House, an already antisocial being, on clinic duty as punishment for some House-ism that has annoyed his boss. In the episode, Eve, a young philosophy and comparative religion major, is in the clinic for having been the victim of rape. House is chosen to be her attending physician.

Similar to the play, most of the scenes take place in the confines of a windowless exam room and neither party wants to be present. The episode demonstrates the dependence on others both are subject to, while expressing the disdain each feels towards the other for having to share this moment with him or her. This is one of the few episodes that, eventually, paints House with a caring side, despite himself. You can see that he doesn’t want to be there, not because he doesn’t care, but because he can all too readily empathize with her pain. House finally (and for the only time in the show’s course) opens up to someone who just happens to be a stranger that shares a pain similar to his own. During their conversation, House asks, “You going to base your whole life with who you got stuck in a room with?” To which Eve responds, “It’s what life is. It’s a series of rooms. And who we get stuck with in those rooms adds up to what our lives are.” Regardless of his actions, the following is descriptive of Dr. Gregory House:  “While others engender anxiety, they also define who we are” (6).

1.     1,  Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1976), 161.

2.    2.   Barbara Anne Stock, It Explains Everything, House and Philosophy:  Everybody Lies (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009), 71.

3.     3.  G. Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason, sec. 7, in Philosophical Essays (Hatchett Publishing Company, 1989).

4.    4.   Melanie Frappier, “Being Nice is Overrated”, House and Philosophy:  Everybody Lies, 102-104.

5.     5.  John Fitzpatrick, House and the Virtue of Eccentricity, House and Philosophy:  Everybody Lies, 187-197.

6.      6. Jennifer McMahon, House and Sartre:  “Hell is other People”, House and Philosophy:  Everybody Lies, 17-28.

We've all known someone, often in a position of authority over us so we could not escape, who struck us as beyond reproach and so dogmatic in his or her views that it was not just unpleasing, but bordered on imposing. We tend to write this person off. It is my belief that a close look (such as that above) at Dr. Gregory House provides us with "equipment for living" through illustrating the tremendous good one can provide to society, despite his overbearing behavior. Whether you have been on the receiving end of discourse with someone who is a self-proclaimed loner or you consider yourself to belong to this group, House shows us that close personal relationships are necessary even if we don't (or think we don't) want them. It is the human condition to be with others and the cornerstone of this condition is communication. It is commonly said that one can not not communicate. With that said, I will not speculate here about what Greg House communicates to his friend(s), co-workers, boss and patients. I will say that it has been well established through the first 6 seasons of this show that regardless of one's shortcomings with communication or stand-offish attitude he can still be a valuable member of society. This is best shown by the fact that Dr. House still has a job. Most interesting is the number of people who, despite him or to spite him, accept his flaws and embrace him as someone who needs help rather than avoiding interaction with him. I think we could all stand to learn something from this type of altruistic behavior. I would encourage you to stop the next time you are dealing with a difficult person and think about this blog. I would further challenge you to try and understand that individual and what is making her act or react in this manner. The old adage comes to mind, "turn the other cheek". We will, no doubt, be given plenty of opportunity to do just that and I hope you will try to engage this person(s) in genuine conversation, in an attempt to understand him, rather than miss out on the opportunity to learn something new from someone who is difficult to approach.