#she was constantly undermined by other paternalistic characters

[overthemoonwithme]

Wild to me how aggressive people were wrt Moffat and misogyny when a lot of it was already present in the series prior to him but ignored because of the deification of RTD, and s8-10 paved the way for a female doctor by testing the waters with characters like River, Missy, Clara and the General

[pynkhues]

Why does Dean plead guilty? Is it bc of Phoebe? Is it because he wants to protect Beth? Is it because he wants to take the credit? Does it have to do with his male-ness? Have you already explored this topic? #questions

That’s such a good question, anon! It makes for a really interesting (and I actually think in-character) beat for Dean, and I think you’re right in the sense that it’s partially about protecting Beth and partially having to do with his male-ness, but I think there’s also something more fundamental at play.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how this show explores image, perception and projection, and how frequently those things are at the root of Beth and Dean’s arcs, both together and apart. These themes do of course feed into other character storylines (Annie at Ben’s school charity auction in 4.02 being one of the clearest examples of this – that was entirely about projecting an image to Ben’s peers and trying to change the way she would be perceived), but I don’t think it roots as deeply as it does in Beth and Dean, in no small part because Beth and Dean’s biggest audience is themselves.

So! Let’s break that down and talk about how that feeds into Dean pleading guilty.

Rose Coloured Boy (Rose Coloured Girl): nostalgia as the face of love

One of the things that’s always fascinating to me about Beth and Dean’s relationship is how often the show roots it in the past. One of the very first moments of Dean acting regretful over his cheating way back in 1.02 is through talking about the ‘fun stuff [he and Beth] did in the back seat in highschool’. That sense of the history of their romance is further emphasised in imagery of their past – Beth and Dean’s wedding photo is revisited frequently in season 1 while their anniversary is a key moment of the finale, Dean reminisces over screenshots of the kids as babies in season 2, and they even talk sweetly about anniversary dates, and their first apartment together after signing their divorce papers in 2.13.

This paints a picture of a tender history. One of young love and years of happiness and kindness, only it’s a history that the show has regularly, deliberately undermined.

All those beautiful pictures Dean’s looking at of his young family together and happy? Well, 2.05 confirmed that Beth was pregnant while he was having one of his affairs, so which of those photos are truly happy, and which were taken while Dean was betraying her? Similarly, they talk and joke about Valentine’s Day three years ago at the end of 3.08, but if he wasn’t having an affair with Amber then, he was likely having one with another woman.

The purpose of undermining history like this isn’t about the show forgetting or retconning these plot points – especially when the show ties these moments to other emotions, like Dean’s jealousy over Rio in 3.08 (and I’ll come back to that later), or Dean’s feelings of failure – but rather to establish the way that Beth and Dean both romanticise their past and paint it with a rose-coloured brush.

They tell themselves that they might not be happy today, but they were happy yesterday. And then they say that the next day and the next day and the next day, until every unhappy day, becomes a happy yesterday.

That romanticisation of their history is intrinsically tied to an image that they want to project to themselves. They have put so much time and energy into this thing between them, they have so many children, have so much of their lives entwined, that they need to believe that it’s all been worth it, because if it’s not, the image cracks and I don’t think either of them have the tools to handle that.

Which we kind of saw in 4.03.

It’s not an accident that the Beth and Dean flashbacks were in that episode – an episode that in a lot of ways fractured the image of Beth and Dean’s relationship, particularly for Dean. He’s been under the impression that they’re better, that they’re working again, that neither of them are cheating and Rio’s far away and Beth believes in him like she did before everything went wrong, and to discover that that image was false – was a projection of what Beth wanted him to believe, and perhaps simply what he himself wanted to believe too – is challenging to say the very least.

He was put in a position where he was faced not only with the extreme consequences of his wife’s actions, but a domino effect of lie after lie after lie, and the show choosing to take us back to the start of their relationship at that very moment, I think, shows us that the root of Beth and Dean’s relationship came back to Beth needing to be looked after, and Dean deciding, without knowing Beth very well, that he wanted to be the one to do it.

Macho Macho Man: Dean & Masculinity

Which brings us to Dean and masculinity. I’ve talked about the show’s exploration of masculinity quite a bit now (hell, it even has its own tag now, haha), and wrote a whole series of posts after 2.04 about male ego which I should probably update sometime to include s3 and s4,  but it really is one of the core themes of the show. It bubbles to the surface almost constantly and frequently becomes a driving factor of character motivations, particularly characters like Turner, who had his male ego challenged by Beth which resulted in a vendetta, to Boomer’s toxic masculinity driving him through much of the show.

For Dean though, his masculinity is frequently projected only to be destroyed, undermined or used against him in a way that ultimately completely emasculates him. The scene of Dean trying to reassert gender roles on himself and Beth only to have Rio bone his wife, destroy his prized car and insert himself into his business is perhaps the clearest example of that, but it manifests in plenty of other ways too. From hiring hitmen only to be robbed and have his wife’s panties stuck in his mouth, to buying the gun only to have it stolen, to think he’s establishing a new business for himself only to discover his wife’s pulling the strings with her ex-lover. Hell, even the fact of losing the business in the first place is inherently emasculating.

What I’m getting at is that every time Dean asserts himself in ways that are typically considered ‘Masculine’ – providing for his family, dominating his wife / treating her paternalistically, behaving with violent intents, establishing a business – it’s only to have that immediately undermined in the narrative. Dean likes this image for himself, and wants to project it, but the show keeps telling us that the image is a false one.

And then the show outright used that falsehood, and Dean’s insecurity over it, in 4.02 with Dave convincing Dean to give him the books, despite Beth telling him they weren’t ready.

Dean played right into his hand because Dave saw Dean’s masculinity for what it was – a projection covering an insecurity, which in turn, made Dean act thoughtlessly.

(Another pattern of behaviour for Dean! Like hiring the hitmen or cutting the money plate).

Dean’s commitment to the image of masculinity is in a lot of ways too tied to this idea of the rose-coloured image of his and Beth’s romantic history. Beth, from an image standpoint, is a case study in traditional femininity, and for much of their 20-year relationship, they’ve had their roles and they’ve stuck to them. The challenge of that throughout the course of the series is ultimately a challenge to the image that their relationship is based on, which in turn means that Dean’s feelings of failing masculinity end up being tied to his feelings and insecurities around Beth, frequently manifesting into jealousy over Rio.

To have that used against him by Dave (and funnily enough, Rio using those same feelings of Dean’s against Beth in 4.02) is a really interesting character note and I think very much fuels his motivation in the scene with Phoebe.

That Loving Feeling: a brief aside

I feel like I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention here that I actually do think Beth and Dean love each other. I think that it’s a broken love, like Christina said in her BUILD interview while promoting season 3, and I also think it’s a child’s love, which is something that we saw a bit through these flashbacks. Their relationship is so steeped in that history and that origin, that their love has failed to grow with them. It’s a sort of arrested development type of love, which I think makes them cling to the image all the harder, and it’s that old love and that image that’s stopped Dean from ever even contemplating turning Beth in.

Dean Pleads Guilty

Projection and perception are key in this show overall, but especially this season. We’ve seen that with the way Fitzpatrick has projected onto Beth, which I’ll talk about another time, but we also importantly saw Phoebe project onto Beth in this episode. She equates Beth to a girl she was friends with in highschool who used her, and tells Dean as such.

Phoebe’s projection of Beth – her image of her – isn’t one that Dean identifies with, and he tells her as much in return. While Dean is quiet in the scene overall outside of that interaction, the flashbacks deliberately seek to remind us of the nostalgia that has driven Beth and Dean’s relationship for the last twenty years and four seasons of the show. There’s a part of Dean that still sees Beth as the girl he chose to look after when they were just teenagers, and I think having his masculinity threatened the episode before by Dave intermingled with Dean’s nostalgia and his desire to ‘man up’ and take care of her in the way he tried to when her mum was in the hospital. All their murky, messy history and anger and hurt is painted over again, and Dean, at least in the moment, re-commits himself to the image of what he and Beth are.

He’s the man, she’s the woman, and it’s just another unhappy today for all those happy yesterdays.

[gravitascivics]

A MENTAL DIALECTIC

The last posting of this blog presented information in a form not previously used by this blog.  That is, it presented and compared elements of three mental constructs in a chart. The three constructs are federation theory, natural rights, and critical theory.  This blog judges federation theory to be, in certain key aspects, a compromise between natural rights and critical theory constructs.  

That means, federation theory has adopted certain claims the other two constructs set forth.  To gain a sense of this “cross pollination,” the reader is invited to click on the last posting to see the chart, but this posting wants to address how critical theory informs federation theory on the concepts of solidarity and equality.  

To begin, in terms of critical theory, its ultimate or trump value is equality.  Equality for critical theorists means equal results; that is, equality is reached when society distributes equally its wealth and income. Under such a regime, the people of that society share a sense of comradeship that reflects a solidarity among the populous.

         And how does such a view see liberty or freedom?  This is a real concern, especially to American sensitivities and beliefs.  With a strong view of unity – solidarity – Americans are apt to shun this level of oneness among a citizenry.  They would worry about their individualism if ever a serious attempt were made to enforce the critical theory view.  

This worry is well placed.  From the chart, liberty is seen as the “[f]reedom from the exploitation by dominant class …”  This, for the advocates of critical theory, leads to a “true” freedom; one in which people are free to discover their true humanity.  It also means the diminution of what most Americans regard as their sacred rights – especially rights associated with property.

         This posting aims to expand on this last point.  It extends the ideas expressed on a previous posting, “Be As I Am, Or Not,”[1] in which this writer reported on the ideas of Paulo Freire.[2]  Specifically, Freire outlines how in exploitive societies, the exploited take on the standards of the exploiters.  Chief among these standards is that the exploited pine to become exploiters. This, along with the actual realities of exploitation, offends the humanity of those involved, both the exploited and the exploiters.  

Therefore, according to that view, true liberation entails breaking this psychological connection.  Why?  Because to be truly human, one cannot harbor such a sense of who one is, who his/her fellow citizens are, or what he/she or they should become.  The fate of each and the fate of all are inextricably tied.  

The exploitation path might lead to riches for the oppressors, but only to be enjoyed in a perverted reality where constant vigilance and suspicion prevails.  When people are exploited, the realities associated with the desire for justice are constantly at issue and the resulting demands, on the part of the oppressed, never disappear.

When the oppressed struggle to be free, they are seeking liberation.  That can be a perverted sense of liberation – when the oppressed want to become oppressors – or a state of true liberation – when the oppressed strive to eliminate the system of exploitation.  But the struggle for true liberation is not easy and the oppressed often do not see or understand it.  

But when it is sought, it is difficult and it often involves a slow process in order to accomplish it.  Freire uses the analogy of being reborn.  In its way, the challenge is due to the very psychological factors just mentioned.  It calls for a “birth” of a new person that sheds any desire to exploit.  That is a person that is neither an oppressor nor an oppressed person.  

What can one say about the process to achieve this birth?  Most of the initial processes have to do with one’s thinking and feeling.  Those mental processes must be arranged to be encompassing of two realms of thoughts and feelings:  over the objectified realities involved, and over the normative judgments made of those realities.  

If done, this psychological accomplishment opens the possibility of exiting the oppression in that it allows a belief, that liberation can be achieved.  One needs, first, to be convinced that the world in which they are living is not a closed one where there is no exit.  And that insight, in turn, can become the motivation to move on.  

In this there is an objective reality to know – mostly of the forces sustaining the exploitation – and there are valuations or espoused theories to formulate and define – a vision of what is just, legitimate, and in the best interests of all involved.  Despite the “dialectic” relationship between these two mental realms (one needs to introduce Hegelian language), a realization can descend on the oppressed:  the oppressor cannot exploit – cannot reap his/her wealth – without the oppressed.  And that is a liberating realization.

And for the oppressor, such realizations can also be liberating.  Afterall, who wants to be given the title of oppressor with all its degrading character? He/she, history shows, is apt to engage in what he/she sees as actions undermining such a designation.  “Rationalizing his[/her] guilt through paternalistic treatment of the oppressed, all the while holding them fast in a position of dependence, will not do.  Solidarity requires that one enter into the situation of those with whom one is solidary; it is a radical posture.”[3]

What the oppressed people need is not paternalistic treatment – meant to continue dependency by smoothing its rougher edges – but for the oppressors to take on another strategy.  Not a strategy to continue the exploitive relationship they hold over the oppressed, but by actively fighting, along with the oppressed, for true liberation for all.  Obviously, this calls for a transformation of their beliefs, attitudes, and values similar to those changes needed from the oppressed.

They, the oppressors, need to see the oppressed as real people, not as some abstract figure to be pitied or for whom to feel sorry. He/she needs to adopt a true love for these people as people, each with their own stories, challenges, and hopes. The oppressed are not a category but are beings with humanity.  

This other humanistic sense, to be satisfied or actualized, must be accompanied by the subject engaging in related practices – praxis – that actuates a newer view of who the oppressed are.  Two aspects emerge:  the objective reality and the subjective valuation of that reality and they must be accommodated within one’s thinking and feeling.  This internal dialectic characterizes the psychology of the liberated oppressed and of the liberated, former oppressor.

         Therefore,

Making “real oppression more oppressive still by adding to it the realization of oppression” corresponds to the dialectical relation between the subjective and the objective.  Only in this interdependence is an authentic praxis possible, without which it is impossible to resolve the oppressor-oppressed contradiction.  To achieve this goal, the oppressed must confront reality critically, simultaneously objectifying and acting upon that reality.  A mere perception of reality not followed by this critical intervention will not lead to a transformation of objective reality – precisely because it is not a true perception.[4]

A liberated person does not divorce or attempt to separate the reality (objectified to attain reliable knowledge) from the judgement (the normative valuations of how and why oppression is unjust); he/she, to be effective at achieving true liberation, thinks, analyzes, and arrives at workable solutions for the dichotomies his/her mind observes and must account for in any resulting praxis.

         The next posting will address the implications of this argument on federation theory.

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Be As I Am, Or Not,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, January 5, 2018, accessed October 25, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/01/be-as-i-am-or-not.html .

[2] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY:  Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).

[3] Ibid., 31.

[4] Ibid., 33-34.