Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

In Withdrawal from Modernity: The Western and the West Side in The Wire

Posted by Aaron Bady on 03/10/09 at 11:36 AM

This is a (slightly expanded) version of a paper I gave this weekend, which had its original germination in this Valve post on The Wire last May. What a difference a year makes!

Last September, David Simon gave a talk here at UC Berkeley entitled the “Audacity of Despair,” and his take-home message was bluntly apocalyptic. Citing Camus and the honor of going down fighting, he told us that his title referred to the need to commit without hope of success, the fact that while the end was predetermined, “you might as well scream about it on the way down.” Most of the criticism on The Wire has more or less taken Simon at his word, seeing The Wire as showing (as Simon put it in an interview with Nick Hornby) “that our political and economic and social constructs are no longer viable, that our leadership has failed us relentlessly, and that no, we are not going to be all right.”

It has been, I think, Simon’s pithiest and least nuanced statements about the show that have tended to set the tone for the show’s critical reception. Eliding the broad differences one might draw between “our political and economic and social constructs,” his angry critiques of the failures of “the system” and “institutions” have gotten reproduced in statements like James Poniewozik’s that, for example, “All The Wire‘s characters face the same forces in a bottom-line, low-margin society, whether they work for a city department, a corporation, or a drug cartel.”

It isn’t the pessimism of all this that bothers me, but the reductiveness of it as a reading, its rhetorical insistence that there is no future grounded in a blanket denunciation on all our houses. After all, it almost seems so obvious as to not be worth saying, but there always is a future of some sort; history is a thing that has a way of continuing. And The Wire, ironically, illustrates exactly this fact: the show not only portrays Baltimore from the get-go as a place where the apocalypse has essentially already happened - and life has gone on - but it also aspires to an almost Geertzian thick description of the complex post-apocalyptic social world in which its actors live.

simon

I would say, in contrast, that the show’s leitmotif is not foreclosure but continuity, reproduction both social and otherwise. The show is tremendously sensitive to the ways that macro-level institutions and social structures reproduce themselves even while paying careful attention to the compromised agency that is possible in the micro-level social spaces in which individual human beings actually live. If the show dramatizes the ways institutions fail, in other words, and if it focuses on the internal contradictions and crisis-inducing problems that beset late capitalist US - and it certainly does do these things - it also displays a very nuanced interest in how both people and institutions instrumentalize these failures, how crisis becomes a mode of continuing existence, and how people survive and construct new structures out of the ruins of the old. As many examples as we see of the kinds of compromises that dependency forces vulnerable social actors to make, in other words, we see just as many examples of the ways that people construct their own dependencies, however ambiguously.

This is not necessarily a more optimistic picture, of course: Baltimore’s apocalypse is one in which a great many people get left behind. But I start here because there’s something symptomatic about the disconnect between a critical vocabulary in which “the institution” as such comes to stand in for all of society’s ills, and The Wire’s much more subtle exploration of social collapse as an open-ended historical moment, crisis as a moment of historical opening rather than foreclosure. That disconnect, I’ll argue, not only reflects The Wire‘s own internal contradictions, but is a constitutive problem that the show reproduces at the level of its own narrative texture, which I’ll attempt to approach by the question of the show’s genre.

First and foremost, it’s become a cliché to call The Wire the best TV show ever made, but the real thrust of statements like that is the claim that the show has transcended the medium of television; that, in contrast to the mediocrity of TV more generally, The Wire approaches the status of real literature. Such claims, I think, miss the point: if “TV” is being defined by its mediocrity, then calling it the best TV show ever is damningly faint praise, flattening out the complexity of the show’s generic lineage into a simplistic assertion of the show’s quality. In this sense, when the show’s writers and critics have pointed out its affiliation with social realism or American naturalism, the point has generally been simply to establish the show’s credentials as real literature. This isn’t CSI, they tell us; The Wire is Dickensian or muckraking journalism.

Now, critics are not wrong to liken The Wire to the kind of social realism of a Dickens or a Balzac; even The Wire’s form—serial and episodic with a multitude of characters but aiming at producing a unified narrative of a unified social order—is Dickensian in the way it integrate the uniqueness of the part into a synthetic narrative of social totality. And the show can be usefully compared with twentieth century naturalists like Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis, or Frank Norris: David Simon is a self-identified muckraker, the show’s aspiration to show “how the other half lives” is a profoundly Riis-ian ambition, and the American tragedy narrative of the show has a great deal in common with a Dreiser or Norris.

But if we bracket off television’s perpetual inferiority complex, it’s worth noting that these generic modes don’t actually describe The Wire very well at all. For one thing, the show’s urban spaces are unquestionably a very different kind of cityscape than Dickens’ London or Balzac’s Paris; as imperial capitols, they could stand in as metonyms for France and Britain at their expansionist peak, the most highly developed capitalist economies in the world. But the Baltimore of The Wire is a city defined by its peripheral isolation, a forgotten city wedged between Philadelphia and DC and left to rot. Its discontents, in other words, are not those of American modernity as a whole; its problem is that it is located, in some ambiguous sense, outside of America (as characters often bitterly remark). In this sense, while The Wire might also share with American naturalism a voyeuristic fascination with those who society has left behind, those turn of the last century novels and journalistic accounts were still basically structured by the telos of modernity and the inevitability of progress: as with Dickens or Balzac, Sinclair or Norris’ worlds were embedded in a capital h History, moving in one direction only.  Progress might have been a terrible thing, as William James put it, but no one doubted that it was coming; history moved forward as inevitably and as remorselessly as fate.

In The Wire, on the other hand, history is moving backwards: the most omnipresent landscape feature is the “vacant,” shuttered up apartments left to rot and ruin, and the corners where drug slingers set up shop are invariably boarded up store fronts. The second season is quite literally a Greek tragedy about the decline of the American working class, the fourth is about the collapse of the school system, and the fifth is about the auto-cannibalism of American journalism. And over the course of the five seasons, the drug narrative is one in which relatively sympathetic and legible mob bosses are replaced by Marlo Stanfield, a character who is not so much evil as empty, an illegible cipher. If there’s one thing that unites the show as a whole, in other words, it’s the sense that history has gone into reverse: progress has become regression.

In contrast, therefore, to the ways that the symbolic vocabularies of social realism and American naturalism emphasize incorporation as the dilemma of capitalist modernity - critiquing capitalism to the extent that they do only by reference to its inevitability - the crisis of a late-capitalist urban center like Baltimore is a product of neo-liberal contraction, the experience of having been incorporated but then abandoned, with a historical telos defined less by expansion and progress than by contraction and loss. It is, in other words, something more like what James Ferguson has illustrated in the Zambian copper-belt, after the collapse of copper prices in the seventies reduced the countries GDP from ... : the experience of having been incorporated but then abandoned. As Ferguson put it, “This is modernization through the looking glass, where modernity is the object of nostalgic reverie, and ‘backwardness’ the anticipated (or dreaded) future.”

As in post-collapse Zambia, The Wire shows us the dream of modernity indefinitely deferred, a city with an addiction to industrial civilization but deprived of its supply, experiencing not the “growing pains” of modernization but the symptoms of withdrawal. And because the problems of Baltimore under neo-liberalism are the mirror-image of Riis’ New York, Sinclair’s Chicago, or Dickens’ London, The Wire not only requires a different kind of generic setting, but the generic forms and narratives of an early era of optimism and capitalist expansion remain as, themselves, figures of nostalgic loss. In the fifth season, for example, The Baltimore Sun represents a Jacob Riis-ian desire to shine the bright light of civilization into society’s dark corners, but its a thing that (as Simon, former Sun reporter has repeatedly emphasized) The Wire both aspires to do itself and an aspiration which it shows to fail in practice. “The Dickensian aspect,” in fact, becomes a shorthand for the show’s own aspirations and for the manner in which that aspiration has become a tragically farcical (and politically impotent) version of itself, appropriated by the very institutional forces which it was meant to challenge.

Such generic markers, in other words, represent a light that has failed and critique its failure, persisting within the show as a sense of nostalgia for the loss of that hope, and embedded - I argue—in a different generic structure, that of the Western. After all, western iconography is absolutely omnipresent if you’re looking for it (and I have been): most of the show takes place quite literally in the city’s “Western district” for example, and the police constantly use that idiomatic reportoire. Kima Greggs refers to “law men in the canyon,” for example, or Daniels tells his people he doesn’t want any cowboy shit, and then orders them to mount up. The railroad tracks where McNulty and Bunk go to drink figures the inevitability of fate in a narrative homage to Westerns like Iron Horse, High Noon, or 3:10 to Yuma. And in writing Omar, the show’s most charismatic and popular character, Simon and company practically out-Leone Leone in blocking, shooting, and editing his various robberies and gun battles.

While Dickens or Upton Sinclair chart history by a remorseless advance of progress, the Western, by contrast, is not only structured by the deconstruction of progress, but it makes the regression into primitivism the central drama of Americanization. Frederick Jackson Turner’s 1893 “Frontier thesis,” after all, placed the idea of the frontier at the center of American civilization only by announcing that the frontier was now closed (making the future of American development a function of the fact that its formative period was over), and left room for the American frontier narrative to continue into the future by imagining future spaces opening up where Americans could continue to regress. In a particular sense, this is a paradox: when Huck Finn lights out for the territories (to escape being civilized by Aunt Sally) he is also growing up: he matures, paradoxically, by running away from adulthood, only the first of many Western cowboys in American pop culture who woulod do so.

The Western, in other words, does something that the the generic narratives of social realism and naturalism cannot: by incorporating the idea of progress by reference to its loss, it creates space between narratives of maturation and progress which are to be critiqued (that represented by the advance of predatory capitalism, for example) and the idea of modernity represented by the desires of those who have been excluded from it. Aunt Sally’s hypocrisy, after all, is very different from the mother whose absence structures Huck Finn’s entire narrative, just as the modernity represented by the hopes and aspirations of Zambia at the height of its expectations of modernity have to be distinguished from the modernity of the predatory capitalism which manipulates commodity prices to maximize profit.

The Wire, I argue, uses the Western in exactly this sense: by reproducing the idea of America as an object of nostalgic loss, its faith in the coherance of those ideals - and its assertion of their continuing viability - gets hidden in plain sight. And because it mediates its ambivalence towards American modernity via figures who either are excluded or escape from it, the Western is actually quite well suited for the problem space of postmodern Baltimore, and for the question of what kind of freedom neo-liberal conditions represent. “Neo-liberalism,” after all, is less a concrete set of political and economic ideologies than it is the expression of long held free market orthodoxy during a period of economic decline; as such, the problem cannot be how to get rid of “neo-liberalism” as such, but how to adapt to the conditions which it describes. After all, if the predicament of neo-liberalism is the extent to which the public safety net has been hollowed out, leaving ordinary people isolated and vulnerable in the face of predatory corporate structures, the flip-side of our historical moment is the possibility that new social structures will fill the vacuum left by those once-powerful public institutions. James Ferguson, for example, has more recently been only one of a variety of Africanists who have noted that while organizations like the IMF and the World Bank have effectively eviscerated “the African state,” to the extent that it can be generalized, the vacuum that has been created has been filled far less by global capital centered in New York, London, or Paris, than by a variety of more locally based and patronage based quasi-capitalist networks; if not necessarily better, at least fundamentally different.

The Wire, I think, envisions something similar, and in illustrating why, I want to add some complexity to the David Simon straw-figure I’ve started off with. For one thing, it’s worth noting not only that Simon gave his talk after the show was over, but that most of the publicity the show has gotten really only began after the fourth season. The Wire only became “the best show on television” after four years of low ratings. I point this out because just as the title of Simon’s talk was structured by a loss of hope which is still there as a trace of its absence - “The Audacity of Despair” after all, tropes on Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” - his talk was also permeated by a sense that “it could have worked!” and that things could have been, should have been different. He repeatedly spoke of admiring good police work and his deep faith in good journalism was on display; at one point, he actually said that while he hated institutions, he respected professionals, and after describing a variety of misdeeds by public and corporate offenders, he told us that “every institution behaves this way, because journalism has been eviscerated.” One of the things that Simon has been most angry about, in fact, is that The Wire itself (like American journalism more generally) has failed to be a source of change in Baltimore, but the hope that structures that frustration is still palpably visible. In contrast to the sinister “institution,” in other words, “professionalism” emerges as a locus of possibility.

If one goes back to the very beginning of the show, the DVD commentary in the very first episode shows us a David Simon who is much less pessimistic and much more careful in not foreclosing what the show does and does not proclaim about the future. In his words, the show is “about how we live together and it’s about how institutions have an effect on individuals and how regardless of what you are committed to, cop, longshoreman, drug dealer, politician, you are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution you’ve committed to.”

But what does it mean to “commit” to an institution? Where does one draw the line between “professionalism” and “institutionalization”? While I want to flag this distinction as a hopeful possibility which Simon’s idiom struggles to open up, saying so only begs the question I want now to ask: how does the show, in practice, portray and formalize the distinction which it imagines in theory?

It does so, I argue, through Barack Obama’s favorite character on The Wire, Omar Little. For one thing, Omar is not only at the show’s narrative heart in a particular (and not inconsiderable) affective sense (as the only character who seems able to live outside the system),[1] he is also equally anomalous within its narrative structure. As George Pelecanous says (dvd commentary 5:6), the writers constructed the show’s narrative by first blocked out a “scene-by-scene diagram of the episode. We start by putting cards on a board, and you have different color cards for the police, the drug dealers, Omar, the educators, that kind of thing, the kids.” In other words, each narrative had to be first distinguished from every other narrative - and part of The Wire’s genius is the art with which it integrates these distinct narratives into a single viewing experience - except that every narrative but Omar’s was named by the institutional structure which defined its parameters. Omar, in other words, is not only the show’s single example of a character who lives outside the bounds of institutional purview, his story is the single narrative defined not by an institution (as McNulty’s story, for example, is enfolded into the police) but by his name.

In a certain sense, Omar represents the concrete realization of a certain strain of Western narrative, the idea that the individual can step out of society and make his own destiny, narrate his own story in opposition to the institutional forces of society.  And there’s a moment in one of the dvd commentaries from season three, which illustrates the terms through which this fantasy gets articulated. The writer - Pelecanous again - is pointing out winks to Sergeo Leone westerns in the way the gun-battle between Omar and Brother Mouzone is framed, and he mentions that Omar is “Like McNulty, who doesn’t fit anywhere, not even in the institution of marriage.”

This was kind of a light bulb moment for me, because the idea that the word “institution” would apply, say, to both the Baltimore Police Department and “Marriage” both radically stretches the term, and is symptomatic of a certain disconnect in our public discourse (which a particular version of the American cowboy mythology often aids and abets): since almost every cowboy in the cinematic canon can only live free on the range to the extent that he escapes from both the clutches of civilizing institutions and domestic life more generally, both are quite often embodied, as in Huckleberry Finn, in the same feminine figure.Thus Omar must be gay precisely because he’s a cowboy: because he doesn’t cow-tow to society, and lives according to his own code (making his own law by robbing the drug-dealers he has apparently judged to be bare-life), Omar’s homosexuality is a natural expression of the Western’s conflation of capitalist industrial society and the a feminized domestic sphere, neither of which (as Stringer Bell notes) Omar has any “use” for[2].

Homosexuality, in other words, emerges to figure a kind of professionalism without production, and a kind of labor detached from the economy of use which has, in Baltimore, run aground. Just as the Western serves - in part - to dramatize the rejection of the conspicuous consumption of bourgeois society, so too does the basically “non-productive” nature of homosexual sex serve to figure the manner in which a Fordist mode of production has, in its collapse, left behind a vacuum to be filled by an affective economy that proceeds from a fundamentally different basis: instead of social networks being a function of the imperative to produce (as the Stevedore’s union, for example, derives social space from the spaces of shared Fordist labor), a post-fordist economy’s presumption of the diminished importance of production means that different affective economies become, themselves, the basis of subsistance and reproduction.

In short, in place of social organization in service of production, The Wire illustrates the increasing centrality of informal client-patron relationships in organizing the life-ways of “off the map” Baltimore, a shift in orientation which Omar’s narrative (and economic position) nicely figures: he evades the Barksdales because he is at the center of his own economy (distributing drugs and money to his neighbors and lovers), and one which neither the Barksdales nor the police can perceive or penetrate. The superior epistemological position he derives from it not only allows him to spy on everyone, it makes his a kind of over-narrative, above and beyond the others, his apparent omnipotence a reflection of the failures and limitations which structure the others.

In this sense, while the most simplistic reading of the show is as a blanket rejection of the institution as institution - and a blanket celebration of the maverick that’s almost Palinesque in its vacuousness - I want to return to the measured embrace of ambiguity in Simon’s original commentary from season one, and read it through the ultimate failure of Omar, his final, apparently senseless death in season five. When Simon speaks about “how we live together” and “how institutions have an effect on individuals” and “how...you are ultimately compromised and must contend with whatever institution you’ve committed to,” I want to first re-read these as questions, not answers. After all, the word “commitment” can signify either a bond of love or the incarceration of someone deemed by society to be a mental or moral defective, and it seems to me that show works very hard to think about and portray the complexity of these modes of attachment and the ways they bleed into each other.

Yet Omar’s undoing turns out to be precisely the extent to which he does not live “together” with anyone. Throughout most of the show, Omar has been a character without apparent limitation; if he is occasionally shot or incarcerated, such moments only achieve narrative poignancy in reference to the show’s underlying sense of his epic invincibility. But in being laid low by a child - as we have seen him grow old before our eyes, reduced to walking with the aid of a crutch - we see the tragedy of those who do not reproduce, those who do not find a way to produce - somehow - a form of social support for their old age (thus, the importance of Kima’s adopted son). When deprived of his own ability to play the patron - profligately wasting the drugs he could have transformed into social capital - Omar is economically retired, but lacks anyone to take care of him, and so dies, alone. In fact, when Omar’s own place in the grand scheme of things is taken by Michael, it is significant that the show has so carefully illustrated this not to be a passing of the torch: Michael not only has legitimate fears that Omar will kill him if he recognizes him, but, in calling Michael “Sweet pea,” Omar inadvertantly steps into the narrative role that was played by Micahel’s step-father who molests him. Any relationship between them, in other words, is fraught with danger.

In contrast to Omar - known as the “dick-suck” throughout - the show uses the idea of “suction” to illustrate the kinds of social bonds which Omar constitutively lacks. The term absolutely pervades season one, but what’s interesting about it is that it signifies a two-way connection between superior and subordinate, that it’s a patron-client relationship in which both sides are (albeit unequally) pulled together. In sharp contrast to Capital’s preference for temporary labor - valued less for its productive power than for the ease with which it can be fired - “suction” represents the bonds formed by ongoing professional interaction and reciprocity, the unspendable social capital accumulated within a subterranean economy of affect.

We first learn the term, for example, in reference to a client who must placate his patron by taking care of his patron’s son-in-law, which he does because he expects a very specific form of compensation down the road. Yet the point is that favors are not exchanged as economic transactions - in which the exchange ends the alliance - but as a production of an ongoing relationship of mutual implication. “Suction,” in other words, is a relationship because it’s also a compact, but the alliance between a stronger and a weaker party nevertheless binds them together going forward, even if the patron loses his power to reward feality. Precisely because Omar has lost that form of social capital, he cannot survive into retiurement as other fallen patrons (Burrell, for example) are painstakingly shown how to do.

In this sense, while season five illustrates the possibilities that reproduction (as a function of built social networks) offers for overcoming abandonment, season one carefully illustrates the same point by reference to the detail’s penetration of the Barksdale crew: the drug syndicate falls, after all, precisely because it treats its members as disposable (and thereby alienates them and makes them vulnerable to being flipped by the police) while it is built into the logic of the police department that a patron would much rather put a bad client on the shelf than actually cut them loose. In contrast to the Barksdale’s crews pretentions to be a family, it is the police department that takes care of its own.

The Wire is therefore a Western only via a careful inversion of its terms, a ultimate rejection of Omar’s myth of self-sufficiency in favor, ultimately, of the reformed McNulty we see at the show’s conclusion. While the Western genre tends to strategically elide the difference between family and capitalism in order to produce an escapist straw man of “the institution,” The Wire (especially in the first season) conflates the terms towards a different end: an ambition to transform “the institution” into something more like the comittment of familial bonds, as when McNulty finally learns to live within his two families.

It’s worth pointing out, in this sense, that the show ends on a note of hope precisely to the limited extent that the Baltimore Police Department becomes like a family, significantly, through affective bonds figured by homoeroticism. McNulty is told by Beadie, his last chance for a hetero-family, that “the people at the bar” won’t be at his wake when his time comes, that the only people who will remember you are family, and a few people who are as good as family. Yet when McNulty retires, his department stages a wake for him and the entire police department is there. Beadie, pointedly is not present, and when they try to force Lester Freamon, “his partner in crime” to lie down on the pool table with him - with all the homoerotic banter that has characterized every inch of professional relations in the show up to that point[3] - the analogy is clear: the “institution” might be the enemy, the show argues, but only to the extent that it has not been remade from the inside, by a “professionalism” that stands in for love, and by a homosocial love that hides in plain sight as homophobic banter that is, nevertheless, exactly what it seems to be.

The show is not optimistic about this possibility, of course: season five argues that we are moving in the opposite direction, that the brutal managerial dictum “make more with less” is transforming the communal ethos of the BPD into a squabbling mess, just as it simultaneously condemns the Baltimore Sun for printing fictions instead of journalism. The new police commissioner is Valchek, by far the least competent police we’ve seen (and the most senselessly nepotistic and spiteful), just the various good reporters at the Sun are being pushed out to pasture (as was Simon himself). But what many critics have identified as the final season’s weak point - its faith in journalism, which seems to stand in stark contrast to so much of the series’ cynicism - is, I think, precisely what makes it work: we describe what we’ve lost - and structure our nostalgia - by reference to the things we are working to rebuild. In The Wire, despair isn’t the absence of hope, it’s the presumption of it.


[1] Simon, for example, mentioned that while the show was structured by Greek tragedy (a point he makes at greater length in the Hornby interview), such tragedies need heroes who go down in flames fighting; as he put it, “You need a couple characters like that or the show is unwatchable.”

[2] Specifically: “now that he out of prison, I hear he has even less use for pussy”

[3] In addition, too, it’s significant that the drug crew’s homophobia figures their inability to produce long-term attachments through their work: their constant fear of being thought a bitch figures their inability to allow themselves to engage in two-way relations of reciprocity, with significant exceptions (Stringer and Avon together, for example, are untouchable; it is only when they break apart that they become vulnerable)


Comments

Wonderful stuff Aaron.

One scene I’m surprised you didn’t latch onto despite it pulling together a lot of the themes and imageries you mention is the bit at the end of series 5 when Dukie falls in with a group of Mexican drug addicted scrap merchants.

Visually they combine the post-apocalyptic themes with the western ones as they inhabit a bunch of old buildings and go out into the city with horse-drawn carts and cowboy hats picking over the detritus of Baltimore’s manufacturing past.

Dukie’s decision to throw his lot in with them receives hardly any treatment.  He’s in a car with Michael who warns him about these people and Dukie just replies that he knows what they are.

When I first saw that scene I interpreted it as part of The Wire’s wider theme of eternal replacement.  Michael replaces Omar, Sydnor replaces McNulty, Dukie replaces Bubbles and follows the path laid out by his parents.

But I think your ideas about the tension between individuality and accruing social capital through ‘suction’ better explain Dukie’s decision.  Dukie lacks the ferocity to become a drug dealer and the brains/individuality to walk the straight and narrow path by staying in school.  But, as is shown earlier in the series, he could help out the scrap merchants and get suction from them.  So when Michael decides to go underground, stepping outside of all his old scial networks, Dukie is left adrift and latches onto the first network he has an suction with… that of a bunch of drug addicts.

So I think that The Wire acknowledges the fact that suction is not purely a good and positive form of professionalism.  Even outside of the hatred directed by the series at impersonal networks (’institutions’), the series reflects the fact that sometimes, if you’re not Omar, you’re stuck in a social network.  Even if you know that it’s no good for you.

So whie I agree that Omar highlights the downsides to traditional western individualism, I think there are also character arcs that suggest that sometimes it might be preferable to sticking with the social networks you have.

By Jonathan M on 03/10/09 at 02:49 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Whether structured as Greek tragedy or not, The Wire as described is retrograde as compared to Jack London’s 1906 novel The Iron Heel or Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel Les Miserables or Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s 2006 novel Wizard of the Crow, and other works. All three novels are (far more than) conscious of the needs and desires for progress or revolution to more-or-less libertarian-socialist conditions. No ethos of professionalism could be remotely enough. No restoration of any golden era or even marginally better era could be seen as appropriate, let alone grand. Far more than hope, these works possess progressive/revolutionary vision and exploration - in addition to plenty of other dramatic forms exploring the vast array of the real.

This is all in line with what I’ve argued here before that based on what anyone claims about The Wire, it bites off too little. To its credit, the show doesn’t sound like it is hoist by its own petard nor that it falls on its sword, but that it ideologically limits itself to what it can be as drama and rhetoric, art and artifact. The Wizard of Baltimore would be quite a show. It could do everything The Wire does and far more.

By Tony Christini on 03/10/09 at 04:07 PM | Permanent link to this comment

(I have nothing to say about *The Wire*, which I am now obstinately refusing to watch, for much the same reason as I refuse to read *Harry Potter* or teen vampire novels—too much admiration is usually a sign I won’t like it.) Anyway:

Tony, I’m interested in how you see *Les Miserables* as a novel of revolutionary hope.  That doesn’t jibe with my sense of the novel.

Sure, it criticizes certain injustices in the restoration-era French society.  But it’s just as ruthless in its criticism of idle student revolutionaries, like Grantaire, who drunkenly sleeps through the uprising, only to die “bravely” by Enjolras’ side when he finally wakes up.  There is an admiration for the revolution’s self-sacrificial stance, but that is ultimately grounded in Hugo’s almost Calvinist ideas of Providence and destiny and his Catholic admiration for individual sacrifice (Myriel’s turning the other cheek, Jean Valjean’s countless sacrifices for Fauchelevant, Champmathieu, Fantine, Cosette, and Marius, Eponine’s sacrifice for Marius, etc.).

In the end, the novel confirms—as so many historical novels do—that individual change is the only resolution for social crisis.  Marius learns to love Jean Valjean, Gillenormand accepts Marius, but all the true radicals, the truly perverse and interesting characters—Gavroche, Eponine, Jean Valjean, Javert—have to die off to make the way for the happy little family. 

(Doctorow will make the same exact move later in *Ragtime*.)

I think *Les Miserables* is among the grandest, smartest, and most moving novels ever written.  But I admire it precisely because it locates social change in individual change.  Not sure it’s ultimately *socially* progressive; not sure progress even makes sense, given the novel’s reliance on fate and destiny in its plot structure.

By on 03/10/09 at 07:02 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Jonathan,
That’s all completely dead on, I think, and adds a bit of welcome nuance to my reading. I still like your coinage, though, the “theme of eternal replacement” since, as you point out, social reproduction isn’t necessarily a good thing; after all, the show has as many bad fathers (bad bonds of affection) as it has good ones. To be fair to the arabers though, Dookie only hooks up with them after every other potential father figure has failed him. He goes to Prez, Cutty, and even Poot (in the shoe store) but they each essentially wash their hands of him; when Michael no longer has a use for him (one of the head scratching moments for me was the fact that Michael didn’t take any responsibility for him, actually), it’s only then that he takes up with the scrap metal guys.

I’m not actually sure why Dookie doesn’t stay in school, now that I think about it; was it really that he lacked the fortitude or was it that babysitting bug seemed like a better option until it wasn’t anymore? Haven’t seen season four in many months.

By on 03/10/09 at 07:44 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I’m not actually sure why Dookie doesn’t stay in school, now that I think about it

He is bumped up to high school too soon, but without his friends I think he finds it too intimidating.  Ultimately, he sticks with the one friend he has left - Michael - and not in school.

By on 03/10/09 at 08:02 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Thanks, Tom.

I think it’s an important point because Dookie’s problem is very intentionally not located in him (his skills or lack thereof); it’s made very clear that he has a certain set of abilities which simply can find no opportunity for expression in the world; he’s too young to work but too old to stay in school (or at least the one he can handle). And in contrast to someone like Prez, who gets nine-thousand second chances (which is what makes them such a heartbreaking pair), Dookie can’t even get the one.

By on 03/10/09 at 08:17 PM | Permanent link to this comment

The aspect of The Wire most worthy of analysis and debate, in my contrarian opinion, is its undying (and insatiable) *audience*... which, in its essence, dates all the way back to the antebellum era of American entertainment. Normative Magic’s brilliant misdirection has us deconstructing a funhouse mirror instead of the worldview it serves by disguising.

Black suffering and death as Entitlement’s spur (and aphrodisiac): discuss, brothers.

By Steven Augustine on 03/10/09 at 08:45 PM | Permanent link to this comment

I don’t see Les Miserables as “a novel of revolutionary hope.” What I see in Les Miserables is a lot more exploration of progressive and revolutionary social vision, example, and ideals than one gets any sense of existing in The Wire in these critical discussions and comments, including those of The Wire’s writers.

Unlike The Iron Heel and Wizard of the Crow, Les Miserables does not (as I recall) incorporate speculative elements into its realism and “naturalism” to explore its progressive vision and drama. However, the novel does include broad based socio-political progressive drama and analysis from the reformist socialist to the revolutionary. (See, for one example, Chapter X - The Bishop in the Presence of an Unknown Light, which helps to disprove your claim that “In the end, the novel confirms...that individual change is the only resolution for social crisis.") Hugo stays true to what happened historically in France of the time thus he cannot portray realized revolution (except the private, or the personal, and some social reform), but the novel often takes up the topic and possibility in relation to a variety of social institutions, including wholesale revolution. There are of course some counter currents and many complimentary currents as well.

These novels may not work as models or blueprints for future liberatory novels, at least not in their entirety, because they are quite specific to time and place, situation (and as such, novel), even to some degree when speculative. But we can learn plenty from them, and in liberatory regard, The Wire sounds crimped compared to these works. At least the show is discussed that way, including by its creators.

Obviously I think it vital to focus on what is lacking and what there is too much of in art and other cultural productions, particularly from a liberatory perspective.

By Tony Christini on 03/11/09 at 01:36 AM | Permanent link to this comment

But Omar doesn’t lack a social network because he chooses not to have one - he lacks a social network because they all get killed. He had one: his banker the blind barman, his succession of lovers and accomplices, even Mouzone.
And he’s also, in himself, an institution: one of the key scenes is Bunk bracing Omar at the deserted train station and criticising him for acting as a destructive role model to the local kids. Omar isn’t just a cowboy, he’s explicitly part of the problem: eventually Bunk walks off with a disgusted “Makes me sad to see how far we done fall.”

By on 03/11/09 at 11:49 AM | Permanent link to this comment

The Wire is acutally, and unintentionally, a great companion piece for HBO’s true masterpiece, Deadwood. If The Wire is about progress stalled, or progress unraveled, Deadwood is about the frightening horror of progress unstoppable, and the puny, pathetic barrels we try to roll in its way in the vain hope of keeping this as they are.

By on 03/11/09 at 02:16 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Ajay, I think you’re right about both of those things, but my point would be to narrativize it: when Omar succeeds, he does so not because he’s a rugged individualist but because, as you say, he’s an institution in his own regard, the center of a particular economy based on the drugs and money he steals.

In this sense (as the Bunk moment serves to illustrate), his model is neither replicable nor quite what it seems: people see in him the myth of the rugged individualist (and overlook the sense in which he is, himself, an institution and survives because of it) and when he, himself, starts to believe in the myth (trying to take on Marlo and everyone else all by himself) he just gets himself shot. When he believes in his own cowboy mythology, in other words, he strips himself of the social network he’s always used to succeed.

By on 03/11/09 at 02:29 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Toni, as it sounds like you’ve not even watched the wire, how are you qualified to dismiss it?

By on 03/12/09 at 04:42 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Archy, I don’t dismiss it. I’ve engaged some critiques of it.

By Tony Christini on 03/12/09 at 05:53 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Really interesting analysis, Aaron!

I’m wondering how you might fold in the idea of technology, metonymized as “the wire” in “The Wire”? Technology is often presented as a partial “solution"--though continually and sometimes ultimately thwarted by external, often institutional forces--to various cases/problems: Lester and McNulty’s delight in the wiretap, the computer program that registers the “missing” conainers, Dukie’s proud mastery of the computer in Prez’s classroom. It is both a kind of professionalism (with the notable exception of the Herc/Marlo camera debacle and the Herc/Carver/microphone debacle) and progress that depends on “networks.” I can’t remember, though, if the 5th season ever explicitly calls out the internet as a catalyst for the demise of print journalism, like the 2nd season showcases the robot replacement stevedores (technology without human networks?).

By on 03/12/09 at 09:43 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Hey Marisa! That’s a really nice point, actually, and the absence of technology in the fifth season (which I never noticed, because absences are hard to see) *is* kind of glaring; they very specifically do not talk about technology, I think. In fact, the specter of the internet as journalism killer has disappeared behind the specter of corporate buyouts and out of town ownership. Simon made this exact point when he was talking in the Maude Fife, that people focus on the internet as the problem in ways which cause us to miss what he sees as the real problem, the corporate evisceration of news media, but that disinclination to talk about technological change as the problem does kind of converge with the rest of the show’s tendency to uncritically embrace modernization as a basically good thing, albeit an absent one. And in that sense, I would say that in spaces of underdevelopment (like Zambia and Baltimore) the narrative of “technology taking away our jobs” is rarely applicable because the problem is the opposite: no technology and no jobs because both have gone elsewhere (leaving one nostalgic, not threatened, for that vision of progress).

By on 03/13/09 at 05:46 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Especially since the docks are one area where technology really has taken people’s jobs: the move from traditional cargo handling to containerisation meant far faster handling, and therefore far fewer jobs.
The first series was particularly strange for a European viewer for the Barksdale reliance on pagers, which by that time had gone the way of the dodo over here…

Good point on Omar, Aaron. Another point that always struck me in S1 and S3 was the similarity in method between Omar’s crew and the detail; there were episodes which would cut almost directly from the detail watching a stash house to Omar doing the same thing. Ultimately, of course, both sides were similar in (lack of) outcome as well; Omar dies and is replaced by Michael, Freamon and McNulty leave and are replaced by Sydnor…

By on 03/16/09 at 10:12 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: