(Group 1): Whatever the Case May Be—Manipulation vs. Cooperation & Synchronicity
+4 4 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group 1): Whatever the Case May Be—Manipulation vs. Cooperation & Synchronicity
- Created: Jul 13, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
This theory is based on B. F. Skinner and Carl Jung by ProfOzone. You may wish to read it before continuing.
Wow! I loved this episode—and I think it may have given me a good idea about one of the social dynamics on the show. At first, I was concentrating on the triangle and the way in which stereotypical gender roles got played around with in the dynamics of the Jack/Kate/Sawyer story—I was thinking of this as the “Who’s on Top” story. So one thing you notice immediately there is that in that story the relationships are hierarchical. Then I got to thinking about the relationships of the other characters—primarily Sayid/Shannon and Rose/Charlie (and also the one scene with Locke & Boone) and in comparing the two story lines immediately noticed how the main plot was about manipulation, coercion and violence while the subplot was about cooperation. And while the main plot reenforced gender roles and wound up in a hierarchy (albeit not completely based on biological gender because I would argue that Sawyer is actually the one playing the most traditionally female role in this plot), the subplot was all about getting past those roles in order to accomplish something.
So that got me thinking about how change happens on the island and the role of synchronicity. I’m using the concept of Synchronicity primarily from Prof’s posts here and from his website. If you’ve ever seen a model of gravity in a physics text that shows spacetime as a blanket with the planets weighing down the blanket—that’s the illustration for synchronicity that makes the concept clear for me—that it gives an event a force of attraction in the same way gravity does for objects. What gives more weight to an event, as I understand it, is having more people pointed in the direction of that event—so obviously the more people are cooperating toward an outcome, the more likely it becomes. Whereas manipulation and coercion—by setting people against each other would lessen the probability of the event occuring. But what if out of that manipulation and coercion you wind up with a hierarchical structure with a charismatic leader at the top—a leader with a very strong sense of will and belief that he is responsible for everything? Maybe that would give him an equal kind of weight, but would wind up bringing about an event that shouldn’t have happened if instead cooperation had taken its course. I’m sure you can all see where that line of thinking is going.
Here are some of the details from the episode which illustrate what I’m claiming:
The Main Plot:
- Kate’s flashback is about Kate using traditional feminine wiles (flirting with the banker, pretending to need protection, pretending not to know how to use a gun) in order to get what she wants. Of course this is all shown to be a false front.
- Sawyer starts off either trying to play protector or being accused by Kate of stalking—traditional male roles. But—what are generally the ways in which women have tried to get what they want/need in cultures that deny them access to more direct means of power? Artifice, secrecy, flirtation, seduction, manipulation—much more descriptive of Sawyer’s usual modus operandi. And in the fight to get the case—when he tries to use brute force (male), he fails. Kate, in contrast, doesn’t use any of those traditional female wiles to get the case away from him.
- Jack says to Kate—do WE have a problem or do YOU have a problem—Kate’s secrecy (female) and Jack’s need to get at the truth (more traditionally male) lead them to a power struggle where he’s definitely the winner. Interesting that Sun listens in on the conversation—the fact that she knows English a manipulation of her husband.
- The case is a Halliburton—corporate hierarchies.
- A final question—are Jack’s motives and Sawyer’s in wanting to open the case different? Are Jack’s about the need to know wherease Sawyer’s are about his need for Kate? That’s my inclination.
The Sub-Plot
- Rose and Charlie: Charlie feels he failed as a man, as a protector. Rose gives him forgiveness (maybe this is her main function?). Gets him active again moving off the beach.
- Shannon & Sayid: as far as our culture would represent the extremes of male/female—the bimbo, scantily clad—a Muslim man speaking to her as she holds up a covering to her breasts, the association of Muslim belief in women being totally covered. She sees herself as “useless” an object—he asks her to be something useful—to bring out a self byond her looks. When they run into conflict over the map—she sees what she’s doing/translating as “nonsense”; he seems to be looking for rationality. They get past all of that by the end. Where is that leading? Not sure, but my inclination (along with Rose/Charlie and Locke/Boone) is that cooperation is leading them inland toward the center of the island and that Jack’s leadership and decision to call the ship will of course lead in the opposite direction.
- Sayid at first wants to deny the whispers and not deal with the map—he changes his mind in order to help Charlie.
- The French Lyrics: “The Sea/Changing Reflections/Under the Rain” —Rain as a signal of change, reflections—through the looking glass—reflections reverse left/right—possible destinies the inverse of each other? according to whether they need to get closer to the island’s center or away from it?
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charlie | Charlie Pace | 1.7, 1.2, 2.10, 1.24, 3.21 | 403 |
| Jack | Jack Shephard | 1.1, 1.5, 2.11, 1.11, 1.16, 1.20, 3.9, 3.22, 3.1, 4.10, 4.12, & 3” href=”/episodes/theres-no-place-home-parts-2-3/”>4.13 | 1451 |
| Kate | Katherine “Kate” Austen | 3.6, 1.2, 1.3, 2.9, 1.12, 1.16, 1.22, 3.15, 4.4, 4.12 | 711 |
| Sawyer | James “Sawyer” Ford | 3.4, 2.3, 2.6, 2.13, 1.16, 3.10 | 451 |
| Sayid | Sayid Jarrah | 2.14, 1.9, 3.11, 4.3, 4.12 | 387 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.12 | Whatever the Case May Be | 1-5-2005 | Kate | 63 |
jaz, that’s really well done. I was fascinated at all of the things going on in the episode, but I didn’t see it that Jack’s actions were/are taking them in an opposite direction, as in a bad way. His actions are consistent with someone thinking rationally toward trying to get out of their predicament.
What was interesting was the Kate - Sawyer dynamic. Sawyer repeatedly hurling the case against the rocks was so cave-man like, it was comical - almost like he was a primate. “Me Kate, me throw rock” How James of the Jungle! They are so alike in their conniving ways. They want to trust each other, but like true con-people, they can’t trust anyone.
But beneath the facade of their con-person persona, we see real human beings: Sawyer kept Sayid’s signal fire going - odd way to show fondness for someone who just tortured you. And the way he speaks to Sayid is with an advanced vocabulary “..a less magnanimous man…” and “without fear of reprisal” which is in total contrast to his cave-man behavior with Kate. Sawyer is a complex guy.
And finally the layers of Kate’s onion are peeled away till we get to the core: Tom Brennan’s toy plane. All the womanly manipulation for what is seemingly trivial. Jack can’t comprehend, but he is getting to know Kate. What’s interesting is he doesn’t disown her even though he knows she’s not trustworthy.
This is way better scripting than Survivor! +1
Heya Stip,
Sorry, I think I was a bit confusing there—I didn’t mean that the dynamics between the three in this particular episode were leading them off island particularly. I meant that the struggle between the three of them was the very opposite of cooperation and it led to Jack being the one on top—the one, out of three, with the most power due to his driving need to know the truth. In fact he was kind of Sayid like with Kate—not at all falling for her lies, noticing when she palmed the key, etc.
And then I think if you take the two structures (hierarchical and cooperative) and apply them to the show overall, it seems to me that Jack’s same driving need to know and to be the fixer creates the Jack as decider role—putting him in charge of where they are all headed, rather than the decider role being more group based. And I think that is going to turn out to be a very bad thing.
Some of the stuff between Sawyer and Kate was hilarious—he does kind of come across cave-man like which would seem to make him the “macho” one, but actually I think he is, of the three of them, the most “feminine” in his relationship to power. I find that a pretty funny contrast too actually. :-)
Oh, and as an afterthought—I think end of season three his story begins to develop much more into a traditionally male narrative—killing/replacing the father, his cold-bloodedness in killing. That is potentially a bad sign as traditional male narrative tend to be tragedies (female narratives more like screwball or romantic comedies ending in marriage/renewal).
yeah Kat, I had never really thought about that before this ep. Also his particular kind of con artistry relies heavily on his sexual attractiveness—again usually a female strategy.
oh gosh, one other point—the struggle over the case—what is in the case? Guns & the symbol of Kate having lost the love of her life through violence. I wonder how that might tie-in to Jack’s motives if he is the decider? That his decisions will center on giving Kate back what she has lost rather than on what is best for the entire group?
Stip: Samsonite used to have a commercial with a gorilla beating the bejeezus out of a piece of their luggage. I’m fairly certain the scene with Sawyer was based on that ad. If you can remember the ad, the scene is all the more funny. :-)
jaz: You’re brilliant. But I’m sure I’ve said that before… :-)
thanks prof—not contradicting you (who would want to contradict such a nice compliment :-))—but I’d add that I think it was a group effort. :-)
And sorry I keep adding on more things; I keep remembering other points I was going to raise, and maybe this is already clear from what I said above—but another difference between the two structures is that the hierarchical one is going to reenforce binary oppositions (male/female; science/faith, rationality/nonsense) and I think the cooperative model will transcend them.
Right, jaz. I wonder, in fact, if that isn’t a fundamental aim of the show, to challenge the dualities we tend to gravitate towards. Good and evil. Science and faith. Even “good boy” vs. “bad boy” in all the debates about who Kate will end up with. :-) The show is constantly giving us new “this or that” options and many of us immediately set up our preferences. But I don’t think the narrative will ever give us an out… it will never move in a direction that will tell us which side is “right”. Because in the end the real conflict isn’t in which duality you like, it’s in clinging to dualities in the first place.
What a magnificent dialogue…But coming from the three brilliant minds as you three its no surprise! My comment is in regards to the Sawyer - Kate interaction. These two characters have such parallels as you have pointed out. Their similarities are so remarkable that they could also meld into one. Do two like kinds equal a match. Their personality are so in tune with each other that the upper hand seems impossible ot achieve. Do they struggle with each other because they are so congruent? Can true romatic sparks be iginite coming from the same fire?
Verrrrry interesting read, jaz! And I think the comparison to peeling away the layers of an “onion”, is apparent in the characters personalities as we see them evolve on the show. It appears that “the island” allows them the internal peace to embrace their true natures. Also, I think the fact they are “in this thing together”, allows them to form a strong bond, for the common good of the group.
Good questions, tharde. And excellent points, dab.
hmmm, tharde, not sure I have an answer for those questions. It’s the do opposites attract or do people need certain commonalities question—and I think that kind of depends on what the similarities and differences are. I guess one thing I see Kate and Sawyer having in common is a very strong need for another person because of the losses in their backstories. It reminds me of something I read in a book on film once—that to make a hero a romantic figure you have to give him a weakness that can be made up for by another person, rather than a weakness that can be made up for by his or her own heroic actions in the movie. And this is why I think Jack and Kate have a different kind of relationship—I do think Jack loves her, but his love (at least so far) seems to be of the more selfless, sacrificial kind. Which is admirable and makes him a heroic (probably also tragic) figure, but not so much a romantic one, ‘cause I think romance is based on mutual need and exchange. So I guess that was a long-winded way of saying that I think the likeness between Kate and Sawyer is the romantic spark. :-)
jaz: I like that a lot: “…to make a hero a romantic figure, you have to give him a weakness that can be made up for by another person…”
that’s why we cheer for certain characters to hook up - because we see the jigsaw pieces of their psyche matching - and we hope to see them come to realize it as well. Great stuff.
Thanks, Stip.
I was just realizing that another version of the same triangle is Luke/Leia/Han—I don’t think you even need the sibling relationship to see that the lone hero (who’s main conflict is with his father, and who is going to have to make the big sacrifices) is not the romantic hero, plus Han & Leia seem to speak more the same language from the beginning.
And this is a funny Star Wars moment to apply to Lost:
(cut scene from “A Tale of Two Cities”:
Christian Shephard on the phone to Mr. Paik: “That boy was our last hope.”
Mr. Paik: “No, there is another.”
eh, “whose main conflict” I mean
Great post Jaz, I really like these points.
“It can be both ruthless in conflict and empathetic in friendship.” Wow, Kat, that’s great!
I keep noticeing similar triangles now (Luke/Leia/Han; Harry/Hermione/Ron)
I’m not sure what part I’d assign to Kate in Jungian terms as I don’t know enough about Jungian archetypes—but my first thought in response to your shadow comment was to remember the black horse that both Kate and Sawyer see. When I looked up shadow on Wiki it said the shadow is thought to be closer to the animal side of the human being than the conscious mind is.
nice, Kat.