Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

The Mind and its Minders

By Michael J. Reznicek M.D.

The history of psychology is littered with fads and fallacies: the four humors of Hippocrates, phrenology, Freudianism and behaviorism to name a few. More recently we’ve seen the “biochemical imbalance” theory of emotional problems, which has led to a robust pharmaceutical industry to “treat” imbalances.

These seemingly disparate movements share a similar perspective on mental life, namely, that the mind is controlled by mechanistic forces. Whether the forces are hormones, genes, unconscious dynamics, reflexes or neurotransmitters, human consciousness has always been viewed as a byproduct. According to the theory, you may think you’ve been making independent decisions in life, but in reality you’ve been a marionette, performing a scripted dance.

In college I remember thinking that many psychological theories bore an uncanny resemblance to Marxism: reductionistic explanations of human behavior followed by grand prescriptions that seemed to benefit the theorists more than they helped the stated beneficiaries. Centrally-planned economies fail because they misjudge human nature. Creativity and productivity flourish only when there is political and economic freedom. When people feel they can control their destiny, they begin to create it.

Modern psychology is on the cusp of a scientific revolution, and it’s long overdue. Neuroscience has recently shown that the brain is highly plastic and constantly changes to meet the demands that individuals place on themselves. Challenge yourself mentally or physically and your brain will adapt to improve your efficiency and accuracy.

The field of genetics is also undergoing a revolution. Both thoughts and behaviors can open access to genes, which then send instructions throughout the body to reinforce whatever it is we are doing. This heretofore unknown function—what we call “epigenetics”—appears to mediate the plasticity we find in the brain. It’s now more accurate to say that the mind controls biology, rather than vice versa.

In my book, Blowing Smoke: Rethinking the War on Drugs without Prohibition and Rehab, I address one area of old-school psychology—the disease model of addictions—and argue that it neither fits nor helps the problem of drug abuse. Neuroscience and the Berlin Wall teach us something important about the human condition: people thrive when they are not held back. After working with many substance abusers, I’m convinced most of them would move toward moderation if we quit telling them they are diseased, and instead give them their freedom.

Michael J. Reznicek , M.D., is a clinical psychiatrist in Washington state with over 20 years of experience. He has practiced in the military, in hospital-based community settings, in prisons and in state hospitals. He has been a guest on numerous talk-radio shows at the local, national, and international levels to discuss drug abuse.

The Messages in President Obama’s Spotify Playlist

By Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper 

Now that 2012 is upon us, so is another presidential election. Barack Obama is seeking a second term as the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, and four candidates are currently vying for the Republican Party nomination. There are many strategic decisions which these politicians make to promote their candidacies, including crafting inspiring speeches, offering eloquent answers to interview questions, and creating patriotic backdrops at campaign events. For as long as there have been American presidential elections, one of the candidates’ quadrennial considerations has also been selection of the right music.

President Obama made news on February 9th when he announced his campaign’s Spotify playlist. For those not familiar with Spotify, it is an online music service that streams songs to members of the website. President Obama released his playlist in 2012 in much the same way that he announced his iPod playlist during his 2008 candidacy. Playlists such as this can send powerful messages to the electorate, as they can transmit political ideas or associate a candidate with a notable musical celebrity. With this in mind, let’s have a look at a few of the 28 songs on President Obama’s Spotify playlist.

One of the more notable selections is Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.” President Obama previously sang the first few bars of this song at an appearance in the Apollo Theater in New York City on January 19th. Although originally written as a romantic song when first released by Green in the early 1970s, the song’s title and hook offer a powerful message from an incumbent president to the voters: vote for me, so that we can mutually continue along the path we are on now.

A second song choice by President Obama that musically asks for another opportunity to serve the country is U2’s “Even Better than the Real Thing.” In multiple places the overarching message is that the listener will be satisfied by giving the singer one more chance. The song goes on to refer to its audience as the real thing and even better than that. This can be interpreted as a way to “pump up” supporters of the President. Again, like “Let’s Stay Together,” the lyrics of “Even Better than the Real Thing” were clearly originally written with romantic intent, but the key catchy parts of the song can be co-opted to express relevant political messages.

REO Speedwagon’s “Roll with the Changes” exemplifies another important political theme for President Obama. The title of this tune harkens back to one of the President’s major campaign slogans from 2008: Change we can believe in. The lyrics go on to tell the listener that the singer is available when the listener is ready to move along with the changes that lay ahead. The lyrics also tell the listener that the tables have turned, and they imply that the darkest hour has passed. Certainly, one could see this as a message from President Obama that the economy is on the mend and things are getting better because of the changes he has implemented.

The songs a campaign chooses can also be used to thwart the message of the political opposition. One song on President Obama’s playlist that does this is “No Nostalgia” by Ages and Ages. Recently, Republican candidates have expressed a message that the country is on the wrong path, and only they can restore America to its past greatness. The hook of “No Nostalgia” takes aim at this notion, claiming that instead of looking to the past we should concentrate on the promise of what our country is now and can become in the future.

Of course, one must be careful not to read too much into these lyrics and song choices. Still, there is no doubt that President Obama and those working on his reelection campaign thought long and hard about which songs to release. Ultimately, song choice is an important consideration for presidential campaigns. The right song can become a memorable way to express important political messages. On the other hand, the wrong songs can muddle a campaign message, and key song omissions can lead to hurt feelings among those who were musically snubbed.

____________________

About the authors: Benjamin S. Schoening and Eric T. Kasper are the authors of Don't Stop Thinking about the Music: The Politics of Songs and Musicians in Presidential Campaigns.  Benjamin Schoening is Assistant Professor of Music at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and music director of the Red Cedar Choir in Rice Lake.  Eric T. Kasper is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Barron County and the municipal judge in Rice Lake.

Holy Megabucks, Batman! The Astounding Popularity of Superhero Films

By Timothy McGettigan

“The first person to live to 1,000 is already 60 years old.”—Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science Officer of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) Foundation

Has anyone noticed a pattern in recent summer film seasons? Maybe it’s just me, but lately it seems like one out of every three blockbusters is about a superhero. Spiderman, Batman, Iron Man, the Hulk, Wolverine, Captain America…need I go on? A review of any one of these films would be very brief: mind-numbing eye candy. If you like big muscles and even bigger explosions, then superhero films are for you. If, on the other hand, you prefer films that are slightly more sophisticated than WWF throw-downs, then you might find the burgeoning popularity of superdude sagas a wee bit puzzling.

Apart from costume changes – for example, the star of Captain America also played the role of the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four – most superhero films are pretty much identical. The stories revolve around a central character, who is often a loser, and who experiences some sort of tragedy. The plot thickens when the luckless everyman gets juiced up with some sort of superpower. The story builds to a climax when the super-charged hero dashes off to vanquish a bad guy who has really got it coming. OK, so if that about sums it up, then why do superhero movies set box office records year after year?

Hollywood producers have long known that a film’s success depends on forging a personal connection with its audience. But what connection could there possibly be between real people and comic book fantasies?

Ever since people invented anthropomorphic  gods—such as Thor, the star of a recent superhero blockbuster—it’s fair to say that humans have been fascinated with superhumans. The coolest thing about superhumans is that they are sublimely untroubled by the mundane problems that plague mere mortals. Compared to the gods, humans are puny, weak, and insignificant. However, humans are also similar enough to the gods that, if we permit our imaginations to run wild, we can privately entertain fantasies about wielding their superpowers:  “There, but for a thunderbolt from heaven, go I.”

 This leads us back to Aubrey de Grey, the Chief Science officer of a foundation that is devoted to finding a cure for death. Yes, you read those words correctly. Now, what on earth would inspire an otherwise level-headed scientist to claim that humans might be on the verge of achieving immortality? Such an outlandish fantasy would certainly seem to fall well outside the pale of serious science; however, it still falls well within the bounds of human aspirations. Keep in mind that Albert Einstein once said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

 In other words, fantasies often lead where science fears to tread. Crazy as it may seem, today’s fantasies are often tomorrow’s realities. If you want a glimpse of what the future might hold, then I recommend that you catch the inevitable sequel to Thor or Captain America. And don’t be surprised if you spot Aubrey de Grey in the front row of the theater.

 

Tim McGettigan is a professor of sociology at CSU-Pueblo and he is also the author of Good Science: The Pursuit of Truth and the Evolution of Reality.

 

 

Celebrities, "Extravagant Expectations" and the Love Life of Americans

By Paul Hollander

The recent ending of Oprah Winfrey’s talk show that ran for a quarter century is a reminder of the importance and prominence of celebrities in American society. The reverence shown toward them prompt reflections about the social, psychological and cultural conditions which underlie their cult.

Celebrities differ from the famous people of the past because their prominence depends to a very large extent on publicity - on the successful projection (or marketing) of a certain image or a "trademark" by the media. They also differ from the culture heroes of the past because their accomplishments, talents, skill or moral stature are more questionable. Most celebrities are entertainers, or known for some personal quality the public considers entertaining that may include forms of misbehavior or scandalous aspects of their personal lives.

I suggest that some of the conditions which underlie and promote the rise and cult of celebrities also play a part in the difficulties large numbers of Americans experience when trying to establish and maintain long term, intimate personal relationships. "Relating" to celebrities is a fantasy relationship stimulated by the shortage of genuine, face-to-face, one-on-one relationships - a futile attempt to personalize an impersonal world. When there is a scarcity of sustaining, intimate personal relationships and a decline of closely knit, durable communities, people seek substitutes. Celebrity worship is one of them. The endless browsing of dating sites is another one.

People admire celebrities because they seem to possess everything most ordinary people do not have: wealth, fame, huge amounts of attention, excitement and physical attractiveness.

Not unlike the difficulties many young people have in distinguishing a "soulmate" from a date or a "hook-up," fans of celebrities have an impaired capacity to distinguish between what or who is truly admirable and what or who is not. Confused values cast their shadow over the search for an ideal partner as they do on the attention and affection lavished on celebrities of questionable accomplishments and often even more questionable moral character. What seems to matter is that most celebrities are an integral part of popular culture that satisfies the enormous demand for entertainment.

In my recent book (Extravagant Expectations: New Ways to Find Romantic Love in America) I reported that the majority of a large sample of people (using a popular dating website) considered the most important human quality the sense of humor. These people were looking for somebody who would make them laugh, who are entertaining. Honesty, sincerity, integrity, intelligence, sense of responsibility were far less often mentioned as desirable qualities. I also found that conflicting and unrealistic expectations contribute to the difficulties many Americans experience in the pursuit of intimate personal relationships. It seems that Americans incline to believe that all good things are compatible, as for example adventure and security, excitement and stability, the capacity for self-promotion and authenticity, being rich and charitable, self-realization and dedication to some community.

In the final analysis the worship of celebrities and the haphazard pursuit of intimate personal relationships have similar sources.

Paul Hollander is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and author or editor of 15 books. His most recent book is Extravagant Expectations: New Ways to Find Romantic Love in America.

Stockman’s March to Social Madness

By James W. Russell (first published on Perfect Swindle blog, 4/24/2011)

David A. Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s Director of Management and Budget, came right out and said it in an April 24, 2011 New York Times op-ed, “The Bipartisan March to Fiscal Madness” Social Security should be reduced to a means tested program that would benefit only the poor.

Instead of being the primary source of middle and working class retirement income, it would become a welfare program.

At a time when 401(k) type retirement plans have been exposed for not being able to provide anywhere near the retirement security that the traditional pensions that they replaced provided for working and middle class retirees who are now more dependent than ever on Social Security, removing that source of retirement income from ordinary people would be a road to social madness.

Stockman’s advocacy is consistent with the World Bank’s 1994 Averting the Old Age Crisis report that led to widespread disastrous privatization of national retirement systems in Latin America.

What neither he nor the Times disclosed is that since leaving the Reagan administration, he has become very rich through positions in the financial services industry, including in Salomon Brothers, the Blackstone Group, and his own company, Heartland Industrial Partners. That industry stands to profit handsomely from all diversions of current retirement savings from Social Security to its own 401(k) like plans.

And, of course, Stockman has become so rich from the financial services industry that he has no personal need for Social Security benefits during his own retirement.

James W. Russell is CSU Professor of Sociology at Eastern Connecticut State University and the author of Double Standard: Social Policy in Europe and the United States: second edition.

One Day It Will All Make (Common) Sense: Common, Conscious Rap, and Right-Wing Critiques of Hip Hop

By Reiland Rabaka

Along with Jill Scott, Bill Collins, and Rita Dove, the “conscious” rapper Common (Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr.) was featured at a poetry evening at the White House on May 11. His invitation drew criticism from big name Republicans and their media outlets. It is curious that folk who have little or no relationship with rap music and hip hop culture always wanna fix their faces to say something every time hip hop is given its props. It is even more dubious that for many of these same folk African Americans – their history, culture, politics, religion, and music – only seem to register in the negative. This is what we in African American Studies call a “pathological approach to black people,” which is to say, one that views people as problems instead of people with problems. All human beings have problems, right? Even Republicans, right? It is rare to hear anyone outside of the Hip Hop Generation acknowledge the power of poetry via rap music. Few folk are willing to concede that after the movements of the 1960s and 1970s, hip hop seems to be one of the most salient vehicles for self transformation and social change available to twenty-first century youth. Obviously hip hop, as with most great art forms, has its controversies and contradictions. But, to make it seem as though hip hop is the only art form with issues revolving around violence, misogyny, and homophobia is outright disingenuousness. Has anyone ever heard the song-cum-slogan “Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll!?” Is rock & roll somehow free from violence, misogyny, and homophobia? I don’t think so (and here I’ll make no mention of Ozzy Osbourne, Dire Straits, Guns N’ Roses, Nirvana, or Korn, etc.). Think for a moment. When is the last time you have heard heavy-hitting Republicans come out against the violence, murder, misogyny, incest, adultery, and profanity in the work of William Shakespeare (just for fun, see The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, King Lear, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet)? The Republicans, if I may state it outright, have the wrong rapper this time. Common, like Talib Kweli and Mos Def, is actually one of the more progressive rappers on the scene today. However, I’d be the first to admit that it took him a moment to find his voice and vision. His first two albums, Can I Borrow a Dollar? (1992) and Resurrection (1994) were interesting but rather generic. It wasn’t until he dropped One Day It Will All Makes Sense (1997) that his audience was provided with his unique brand of hip hop shamanism. It would be helpful if Common’s Republican critics really and truly engaged his work before mindlessly diving head first into foolishness and misinterpretation. African American music, as with African American life in general, is full of deep double entendres, and sometimes rappers raise issues to bring awareness to those issues and offer their own unique solutions to our problems. I am critical of hip hop’s cheerleaders just as much as I am hip hop’s hyper-critics. I am attempting to develop a relationship with rap music and hip hop culture that allows me to highlight its positives and its negatives, to both appreciate it and critique it. In closing I should say, President Obama is not the first president to invite an artist to the White House whose work includes references to controversial or, even more, criminal topics, and he certainly should not be the last. Here’s to American democracy. Here’s to freedom of speech. And, finally, here’s to artistic license, even for working-class and poverty-stricken U.S. citizens. God Bless America.

Reiland Rabaka is an associate professor of Africana Studies in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the author of Hip Hop’s Inheritance: From the Harlem Renaissance to the Hip Hop Feminist Movement; Against Epistemic Apartheid; and Forms of Fanonism.

What Is Going on in Wisconsin?: Scott Walker, Union Busting, and Fighting to Protect Workers' Rights

By Kim Scipes

Tens of thousands of people surrounding the State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin for days; Democratic legislators leaving the state and hiding out; unions upset: what is going on in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin has a budget crisis, and the Republican Governor, Scott Walker, wants to make public sector union members pay more for their health care and pension costs. But, much more importantly, Governor Walker also wants to basically gut public sector unions’ collective bargaining rights—and he has the Republican votes in both the Assembly and the Senate to get his way, once he has a quorum.

The problem for Walker is that he has 19 Republicans in the Senate—and needs 20 for a quorum. The Democrats, so far, have refused to give him his quorum, disappearing over the land (and presumably over state borders!). As long as the Senate Democrats stay away, Walker is stymied. Tens of thousands have mobilized around the state to try to convince the governor to change his mind.

The key thing to realize here is that the issue is NOT about the budget—Walker himself helped create much of the $137 million deficit by cutting business taxes $134 million! Strangely enough, raising taxes on corporations to cover state budget deficits is never on the table—Wisconsin’s corporate tax rate hasn’t been raised since 1972.

In what is an obvious, coordinated attack, Republican governors in states including Indiana and Ohio have launched attacks on the collective bargaining rights of unions representing school bus drivers, public health care workers, teachers, etc. This is especially pernicious because both houses of these states’ legislatures are controlled by Republicans. This has been coupled with legislative efforts to pass “Right to Work” laws in a number of other states, which, ostensibly to help workers, in reality only undercut unions.

What we are seeing is a full-powered attempt to weaken unions, and their ability to represent their members. Yes, this is an attack on wages, benefits and working conditions that have been previously negotiated, but more importantly, these attacks are intended to do away with negotiation processes entirely.

There are two reasons for this. The first, as is well known, is that unions usually contribute substantial amounts of monies to Democratic politicians. More importantly, however, is the hours of volunteer labor union members contribute—whether phone banking or going door-to-door for endorsed candidates. Labor still has a strong electoral impact on elections. Destroying these forces can only help the Republicans.

More importantly, however, is the role that unions play in our larger society. While there are a number of problems plaguing the labor movement, the fact remains that unions are the ONLY institutions in US society that even potentially represent the interests and well-being of working people, both in the workplace and the larger society. In fact, their importance is even greater today, as unlimited amounts of political donations make our government “the best money can buy”—and the labor movement is the only institution between plutocracy and (popular) democracy.

Unions oftentimes don’t assert themselves in this position, but when members can motivate them to do so, unions CAN fulfill this important role.

In face of the Governor Walker’s intransigence, the question on the table is what next? Will Walker get his way? Will the unions prevail? Or, in face of Walker’s ideological assault on unions, will union members force their leaders into backing their demands by escalating their actions…. Stay tuned!

Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Purdue University North Central in Westville, IN. A long-time labor activist, he is the author of AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? (Lexington Books, 2010).

Two Missing Toddlers, Two Different Media Responses

By Carole Moore

When a two-year-old Florida child named Caylee Anthony disappeared on July 15, 2008, the national press followed the case with relentless devotion. New stories chronicling the investigation into the toddler’s disappearance appeared every day, often based on tidbits gleaned from unnamed sources or Caylee’s family. When the little girl’s remains were discovered not far from her grandparents’ home, no one was surprised: Her mother, Casey, already resided in the local jail. The tragic case drew lots of attention, both from police and the media.

Law enforcement has grown to understand the importance of speed in working disappearances. Although they still have some catching up to do, new laws and a better understanding of these cases has led to better investigations. The police aren’t there yet – but they’re on the right track.

The media has a wide reach and most families of the missing have learned their value. They also use social media, set up websites and network to keep their family members’ names and images in front of the public. But when it comes to the press, there’s still a sense of general neglect and disinterest in the coverage awarded minorities.

Years ago, Lisa Murray’s sister vanished from her Arkansas home. The only hint to her fate can be traced to a ring found in a pawnshop. Jeffrey Lynn Smith, an aspiring gymnast who worked for former President Bill Clinton, has not been seen since Dec. 4, 1985. Although Lynn’s disappearance was reported to police, Murray says no one really exhibited any interest in the 16-year-old until recently. She believes it is because her sister is black.

Certainly almost everyone recognizes Caylee Anthony’s name – how many have the same reaction to Jada Justice? Jada, a two-year-old Indiana toddler, vanished in relative obscurity one year after Caylee Anthony. Although there was some media coverage, Jada’s case didn’t draw the dramatic national press that Caylee’s did. And when a woman finally admitted beating the little girl to death and hiding her body, only a few covered the case.

The woman who murdered Jada was sentenced to life in prison with barely a ripple in the national press. But a news search under Caylee Anthony’s name brings up a dozen recent hits.

The truth is that law enforcement, while not yet batting 1000, has progressed further in their handling of missing persons cases than the media. Until every missing person, regardless of race, social standing or age is sought and covered on the same level, there truly is no justice.

Carole Moore is a former police detective and the management columnist at Law Enforcement Technology. She is the author of The Last Place You’d Look: True Stories of Missing Persons and the People Who Search for Them, which will be published by Rowman & Littlefield in early 2011.

Arizona’s SB 1070: A Transformative Pedagogy Critique and Analysis

By C. Alejandra Elenes

Advocates for transformative education and pedagogies have long recognized that the foundation for a truly democratic and just society rest on teaching and learning practices capable of analyzing unequal social conditions, power relations, and conflicts over meaning. Part of this process is to critically examine unjust social policies and laws, and to speak and act against oppressive conditions. Here I want to examine the significance for critical education the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona SB 1070. This examination shows that there is a relationship between public policy, power, nationalism, systemic oppression, and social inequality. SB 1070 not only creates a hostile environment for Latinas/os in Arizona but is part of a national narrative of race in the U.S. resulting from demographic changes and the fears about the “browning” of America.

Discursively, proponents and supporters of SB 1070 including Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce who introduced the bill articulate their anti-immigrant position by invoking the trope of the rule of law and enforcement. Arguing that immigrants increase crime and raising fears that Mexico’s war on drugs and violence is spilling into Arizona, SB 1070 is touted as the “natural” response of the State of Arizona to maintain the rule of law and lower the crime rate. Similarly, Governor Jan Brewer claimed that she signed SB 1070 into law because the Federal Government has not secured the border. By invoking the trope of law and order, anti-immigrants create a scenario of a dystopic future and a chaotic present, where crime is rampant and resources wasted. In this way, Pearce, Arpaio, Thomas and Brewer use Mexican bodies to vent their fears and hatred. Pearce has made it clear that his crusade against “illegal” immigrants is based on the simple fact that they are lawbreakers (however crossing the border without proper documentation is a misdemeanor). Yet SB 1070 does not resolve any of these “non-existent” problems, as the crime rate in Arizona is decreasing and there is no evidence that drug violence has moved into Arizona.

Legislation such as SB 1070 ignores the relationship between globalization, trade agreements such as NAFTA, and yes Federal immigration policy. Migrants from Mexico who find jobs in the U.S. –if they were able to survive the treacherous crossing through the Sonoran dessert—simply could not migrate legally because current U.S. immigration law does not allow them to do so. Yet, they need to economically survive in a globalized economy. SB 1070 does nothing to resolve the economic conditions that obligate people to migrate. Rather, it criminalizes the ontologically characteristics of a group of people. This legislation creates a category of people whose presence, ancestry, and nationality—that is the essence of who they are—is enough to create suspicion about their citizenship and lawful presence in Arizona. This is precisely what makes this legislation unconstitutional.

Pearce is not done yet with his anti-immigrant and unconstitutional legislation, as he is saying that he will propose legislation countering the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deny citizenship to children of “illegal” immigrants born in the U.S. In an e-mail Pearce forward to his supporters from someone else it reads: “If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother. Call it sexist, but that’s the way nature made it. Men don’t drop anchor babies, illegal alien mothers do.” Clearly, the ideology behind anti-immigrant legislation goes beyond maintaining the rule of law; it is about reducing the number of people of Mexican and Central American descent in the U.S. Anti-immigrant groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—which help draft SB 1070—have had a long association with eugenics and curtailing the reproductive rights and freedoms for women of color, especially Mexican and Puerto Rican women.

C. Alejandra Elenes is Associate Professor at Arizona State University and the author of Transforming Borders: Chicana/o Popular Culture and Pedagogy that will be published later this year with Lexington Books.

Torture is an Ugly job but Jack Bauer Has Got To Do It, while We Watch

By Geoff Martin and Erin Steuter

Within the last decade, pop culture has been invaded by “pop torture,” a term that has come to describe the frequency of images of torture and violence in mainstream culture. Since 9/11 torture has been particularly common in media in the United States, exemplified by television shows such as 24, which wrapped up on May 24, attracting a weekly audience of fifteen million viewers, and generated millions of dollars through DVD sales. The series, a product of the Rupert-Murdock-owned Fox Network, covers the events of one 24-hour day, in “real-time,” as viewers follow the exploits of US counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland. As a commercial and critical success, Jack Bauer and his brutal forms of interrogation, including torture, have seeped into the public consciousness. In the show’s eight seasons, Bauer has tortured terrorists, criminals, even colleagues who may have crucial information, acting out numerous improvised and grisly acts of torture that serve to justify his end of extracting information. For example, this attitude was clearly expressed after Bauer shoots and kills a restrained criminal in front of his superior, George Mason, in an episode that aired during the second season. When Mason condemns Jack’s action as unnecessary and extreme, Bauer fires back, “That’s the problem with people like you, George. You want results, but you’re never willing to get your hands dirty.”(1)

Pertinent to the controversy surrounding 24 is the consensus that there is no proof that torture is a successful method of extracting accurate information, although Bauer’s methods unrealistically continue to draw out the information he is seeking. Actor Kiefer Sutherland, portraying Jack Bauer of 24, has conceded that “You torture someone and they’ll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear whether it’s true of not, if you put someone in enough pain.”(2) Additionally, Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq, has stated:

In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence…I used severe hypothermia, dogs and sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee’s hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened.(3)

However, the prevalence of torture on television as a means to extract information has helped to justify its widespread use, particularly as seen in the Iraq War. For example, on March 8, 2008, George Bush used his veto power to preserve the right to torture, under his preferred term “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Bush expressed his belief that “‘hardened terrorists’ merit different treatment from captured soldiers.”(4) In November of 2006, US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, an Army lawyer and Dean at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, arrived in Southern California to meet with the creative team of 24 to voice concern about the premise of the show. Finnegan argued that it is becoming more difficult to convince the students at the Academy (cadets who become battlefield commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan) to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists do not. He suggests that this is because of the message of torture spread by 24. “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about 24?’ The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”(5)

As we might expect, popular culture is not immune from movements in Obama’s America. Perhaps sensing a change in the wind, the seventh season of 24, aired in early 2009, presented a stronger counter-argument against the will-to-torture that is so dominant in the show. There is FBI Agent Larry Moss, who consistently argues against “aggressive interrogation,” and Jack Bauer confides in his colleague and friend, Renée Walker, that his propensity to defend the innocent “at all costs” is what his heart tells him, not his head. He knows the importance of the rule of law, he says, but he just can’t help it.

While the final season provides multiple scenarios of Jack Bauer torturing a host of characters with effective and immediate results, there is more of a sense that the viewers and cadets may not want to try this at home. Jack’s friends and colleagues are worried that in his relentless pursuit of revenge for his lost comrades, that he may have lost his moral center, as he eviscerates a Russian suspect and bites off the ear of a American official. Nevertheless, the storyline continues the series theme that the government may be corrupt, the international community naive in their support for a mythical peace process, but Jack Bauer is left as judge, jury and executioner. Jack as the lone, rogue soldier knows the real truth; that vengeance for the fallen cannot be achieved unless someone, like him, is willing to do the dirty work and bear the cost of having blood on their hands. The Fox Network series closes with rumors of a movie spin-off. Jack is a fugitive and an outcast, but those who know his motives, are grateful for his sacrifice. Joel Surnow, creator of 24, defines his show as “patriotic,” others may find this sort of entertainment to be a disturbing rationalization of war crimes.

NOTES

1. Knapper, Nate. “Jack Bauer ‘24’ and the Acceptance of Torture in American Culture,” The National Ledger, September 13, 2006.
2. Faiz Shaker, “US Military: Television Series ‘24’ Is Promoting Torture in the Ranks,” Think Progress, February 13, 2007.
3. Jane Mayer, “Whatever it Takes: The politics of the man behind 24.” The New Yorker, February 19, 2007.
4. David Cole, “The Torture Veto,” The Nation, March 13, 2008.
5. Jane Mayer, “Whatever it Takes.”

Geoff Martin is assistant professor of continuous learning and political science at Mount Allison University. Erin Steuter is professor of sociology at Mount Allison University. They are the authors of Pop Culture Goes to War: Enlisting and Resisting Militarism in the War on Terror.