![[ Return to APA Home Page ]](../../../../pix/new.gif) Guidelines for Submissions APA NEWSLETTERS Navigation
|
APA NewslettersSpring 2001
|
 |
William
Irwin, editor, Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything
and Nothing University Chicago Press and La Salle, Illinois:
Open Court, 2000. xiii + 216 pp. $15.95 (paperback). Reviewed by Jessica Prata Miller University of Maine |
It
is no secret that the dearth of philosophy classes in secondary
education creates a number of pedagogical challenges for teachers
of introductory philosophy courses. Perhaps foremost among these
is the perception on the part of many students that philosophy is
irrelevant to modern life, an ancient (read: nearly dead) discipline,
practiced in ivory towers by absent-minded professors whose outside
interests, to the extent they exist, are strictly limited to culture
of the highest forms. And, to be fair, it is really not obvious,
especially to a novice, how, for example, Socrates' questioning
of Euthyphro, or Nietzsche's conception of eternal recurrence, might
bear on contemporary life.
Many instructors attempt to draw such connections in their classes
by screening recent Hollywood films, discussing the week's headlines,
or assigning short pieces of popular fiction. The idea is that by
using material with which students are familiar, and thus comfortable,
barriers to philosophical reflection give way. When successful,
this technique can reveal to students both the philosophical aspects
of pop culture and the contemporary relevance of long-dead philosophers,
with the result that neither look quite the same again. For those
of us trying to effect such revelations in an introductory philosophy
class, William Irwin's Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything
and Nothing promises to be an important resource.
Seinfeld and Philosophy is a collection of fourteen short essays,
written by professional philosophers from diverse philosophical
traditions, which explores the philosophical significance of Seinfeld,
a hugely popular sitcom about the everyday lives of four thirty-something
friends in 1990s New York City. (The show ran on NBC from 1989 through
1998.) The essays, most of which are written at a level which a
student or non-philosopher can understand, are divided into four
groups. The first group, "The Characters," looks at each
major character through philosophical lenses (for example, by asking
whether George is a man of practical wisdom in Aristotle's sense
and whether Kramer is stuck in Kierkegaard's 'aesthectic' stage).
The second group, "Seinfeld and the Philosophers," considers
figures and movements in philosophy (including Taoism, exestentialism,
Plato, Nietsche, and Wittgenstein) as they relate to the world of
Seinfeld. "Untimely Meditations by the Water Cooler,"
investigates philosophical issues raised by the show, such as the
nature of instrumental rationaliy and the possibility of postmodern
subjectivity. Finally, "Is there Anything Wrong with That?"
focuses on the show's normative aspects.
The essays which address the question of the good life are particularly
strong. Irwin's "Jerry and Socrates: The Examined Life?"
pursues parallels between Socrates' role as Athens' gadfly and Jerry
Seinfeld's penchant for provocative social commentary. Irwin's meditation
on the quasi-fictional status of both Plato's Socrates and the TV
character Jerry Seinfeld is fascinating, and his discussion of their
similarities (such as fondness for irony) as well as their differences
(in degree of humility, for example) sheds light on both the philosopher
and the comedian. Daniel Barwick's "George's Failed Quest for
Happiness: An Aristotelian Analysis," Robert A. Epperson's
"Seinfeld and the Moral Life," and Aeon J. Skoble's "Virtue
Ethics and TV's Seinfeld" each offer ethical analysis of the
characters in the Seinfeld episodes. Barwick argues that George
is a virtueless man by Aristotelian lights; Epperson contends that
while each of the main four characters in the show attempts to live
a moral life, they all fall short to some degree; and Skoble uses
the show to argue for the superiority of virtue ethics over alternative
traditions.
In contrast to the focus of the above three essays on virtue ethics,
Theodore Schick, Jr.'s analysis of the final episode, in which the
main characters are placed on trial for breaking the fictional town
of Latham, Massachusetts' Good Samaritan Law by failing to come
to the aid of a car-jacking victim-places the question "Is
Doing Nothing Something?" in the context of current debates
between libertarians and communitarians about what citizenship requires.
Drawing on Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous essay on abortion and
the right to life, Schick concludes that while Jerry and his friends
failed in their duty to be "minimally decent Samaritans,"
they are not bad people. Schick's contention that Seinfeld is a
show about basically good but interestingly flawed people which
often says something important about moral life is shared by virtually
all of the contributors to Seinfeld and Philosophy. But this view
stands in sharp contrast not only to the views of those who criticize
Seinfeld for finding humor in, and thus tacitly accepting, its character'
almost callous indifference to humankind (most plausibly in the
infamous episode in which George's fiancée dies from ingesting
toxic glue found on cheap wedding invitations) but also to the view
that Seinfeld is a mere comedy of manners, devoid of any philosophical
interest.
Several of the essays focus on the connection between Seinfeld and
a particular philosopher (for example, Plato, Aristotle, Kierkegaard,
Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Sartre). Two essays that are
particularly notable in this regard are Jennifer McMahon's "Seinfeld,
Subjectivity, and Sartre," which defends the provocative claim
that both Sartre and Seinfeld demonstrate the positive role of friendship
in the formation of the self, and Norah Martin's "Peterman
and the Ideological Mind: Paradoxes of Subjectivity" which
provides a Marxist/Lacanian perspective on the roles of irony and
cynicism in the perpetuation of ideologies (especially the idea
that clothing 'makes' the person). Eric Bronson's "Making Something
out of Nothing: Seinfeld, Sophistry, and the Tao" provides
the one exception to this volume's focus on the Western philosophical
tradition.
Two of the essays tackle contemporary social movements. Jorge J.
E. Gracia explores the episode in which humor is derived from Jerry
and George's near-hysterical attempts to quash a rumor that they
are gay. Gracia maintains that the invariable accompaniment to their
denials-"not that there's anything wrong with that"-reveals
a kind of "well-intentioned bigotry" common to the supposedly
enlightened middle-class. Sarah Worth pursues the question of whether
Elaine's sexual freedom, contentment with the single and child-free
life, and thriving career make her a "feminist icon or just
one of the boys".
As with most such collections, the quality of the contributions
varies, but since each raises important questions and makes thought-provoking
claims, the essays are bound to promote lively classroom discussion.
Students are sure to pick up on the questionable claims which some
contributors make on behalf of the show or its characters. (For
example, to defend his assertion that Seinfeld "manages to
make something considerable…out of trivial subject matter,"
Irwin inexplicably cites Jerry's comment that "There's too
much urinary freedom in this society. I'm proud to hold it in".)
McMahon's claim that the major characters share a deep and unique
friendship, and that they "always come through for each other"
makes many events, such as George's stranding of the gang on several
occasions in pursuit of his own self-interest, and Kramer's wooing
of Jerry's girlfriend, hard to explain. Finally, Epperson's assertion
that a "deep and abiding devotion to justice" is a major
concern of the characters is belied by George and Kramer's plot
to steal frequent flier miles, Jerry's theft of a rye bread from
an elderly woman, and other such incidents too numerous to mention.
The challenge for the instructor will be to keep class discussion
focused on the important issues these assertions raise (such as
the differences between social commentary and observational humor,
between bad actions and good people, and between justice and rightness),
rather than taking a detour into Seinfeld trivia.
While most of the essays in Seinfeld and Philosophy are clearly
written, free of footnotes, and offer enough rudimentary exposition
for the beginning student, they would be most effective if assigned
after more traditional readings and class lecture or discussion.
Given the focus of many of the essays on characters and personality
types, this book would work especially well in introductory courses
organized around theories of human nature or in those which emphasize
normative questions. It would be less useful in introductory courses
which focus on metaphysical and epistemological questions. Overall,
the essays are too introductory and too casual in tone to be appropriate
for advanced courses in which a philosophical background of some
depth is expected.
None of the essays presupposes more than a passing familiarity with
Seinfeld, which, in my experience, U.S. college students already
have. However, anyone with access to a television could get up to
speed by taking in just one or two episodes of the show. (The show
is currently being widely syndicated.) Alternatively, instructors
could take five or ten minutes of class time to screen relevant
scenes.
As a text for classroom use, Seinfeld and Philosophy would have
been improved by the addition of a bibliography directing interested
students to primary and secondary sources. It does offer a chronological
list of "Some Big-time Philosophers" with representative
quotations, most of which are, unfortunately, impossible to comprehend
out of context. There is a list of episodes and airdates at the
end, but the list would have been more helpful had the contributors
been more careful to give titles for each episode they mentioned.
There is also a six-page index.