Arrested Development and Philosophy (17 page)

Without that discovery, though, both theories only account for one phenomenon, the existence of a photograph. Zuckerkorn’s theory has the advantage of being far simpler. “This close they always look like landscapes,” is a far simpler description than Jarvis’s multiple-sentence theory. And that’s not only because Zuckerkorn is a master of word economy who once summed up a whole plea by saying “it’s very long” (of course, the fact that he hadn’t read that plea helped). By contrast, the length of and variables in JTIT, tempts one to compare it to a conspiracy theory.

It’s difficult to pick a winner in many of the categories. If, for example, one values fruitfulness above all, the JTIT looks attractive. The government’s desire to find WMDs, for instance, would make them apt to accept his theory. Kuhn certainly realizes that it will be rare that one theory wins in every category and that the victories may be slim. He also recognizes that some people will value some criteria over others. He is not, however, willing to rank the criteria or make a more complex metric of theory choice. At the end of the day, one just needs to know he or she is “looking at balls.”

Who Knows What Balls Look Like?

Having established some basic ground rules for how to tell whether you are looking at something through the right theoretical lenses and thus
what
we know, it is worth exploring
who
actually knows what they’re looking at. Who we accept as knowing about things—who we accept as a privileged knower—is an important question. Scientists, lawyers and, yes, even philosophers often fill this role. TV critics are supposed to know what is worth watching, but we may privilege critics as knowers and still not listen to them. TV audiences failed to listen to TV critics’ supposed sage opinions about the necessity of watching our beloved
Arrested Development
, for example.

Wayne Jarvis is a government lawyer and this makes him a privileged knower, able to mobilize the U.S. government and military in short order. Barry Zuckerkorn’s role as a lawyer should make him a privileged knower, but his incompetence and idiocy undermine his position. Just think of his unfamiliarity with the plea bargain and his failure to remove the ding-dong from its foil wrapper prior to microwaving it. In “Sad Sack,” though, Zuckerkorn’s sexual proclivities make him a privileged knower. The show frequently teases Zuckerkorn for his sexual experimentation. In “Justice Is Blind,” for instance, when Michael suggests that the plea is so long that Barry was right not to read it and that they should just take it, Barry responds, “I could kiss you on the nuts.” And in “Motherboy XXX,” Zuckerkorn talks about catching a judge at a drag club. Gob then asks him what he was doing there. It’s his familiarity with male genitalia that makes Zuckerkorn the privileged knower in this scenario, just as his role as a lawyer would make him a privileged knower in most scenarios (if he were a competent lawyer)

Of course, if it were enough to know a pair of testicles to become a privileged knower of photographs of testicles, then George Michael could have been the hero. Even though George Michael may recognize the image in the photograph, he doesn’t offer a theory that explains it. Indeed, George Michael is the opposite of a privileged knower in “Sad Sack.” Wearing prescription glasses that he doesn’t need, George Michael is stuck in a skeptical moment where he cannot assume any knowledge. In one of a few episodes where he has privileged knowledge, he’s unable to articulate even the most basic statement of facts. One’s epistemic position, then, is a social position. Knowing things isn’t enough to make you a knower. Zuckerkorn may be the one who recognizes the balls and creates the theory, but it takes numerous government agencies to accept the theory and the mass media to proliferate it. Zuckerkorn alone, then, is not recognized as a knower until his knowledge is corroborated and disseminated. In
Arrested Development
, knowledge is societal and political.

In the Absence of Opie (Sorry, Ron)

I’ve referred to
Arrested Development
’s narrator “Opie,” a reference to Ron Howard’s childhood role as Opie Taylor on
The Andy Griffith Show
. Likewise, Barry Zuckerkorn’s jumping a shark recalls his earlier role as the Fonz on
Happy Days
. The humor in Barry’s jumping the shark relies on the viewer being familiar with the actor Henry Winkler’s previous roles and the actions of his character on a decades-old sitcom. The theory-ladenness of observation, then, is important not only for policy and psychology, but is embedded in the very fabric of
Arrested Development
. One cannot see the deeper layers of humor in the show unless one is a certain type of person, the type of popular culture junkie who would research the show’s characters and actors to understand its many allusions. There is, then, a dominant theory at work that defines even our sense of humor.

Unfortunately, we don’t always have a narrator like Opie to clear up our theoretical confusions, or even to give us the proper background knowledge to understand what we’re looking at (if only!). In the absence of a narrator to tell us how to choose between competing theories, we need some guidance. To save Buster Bluth from going to “Army,” one needs to be able to tell whether one is looking at bunkers or balls. Kuhn’s criteria are a good starting point. Like the creators of
Arrested Development
, Kuhn highlights the social and political aspects of knowledge in keeping both with the Duhem-Quine thesis and with the needs of a maladjusted mother’s boy who has been signed up for the military against his will. Choosing to believe Barry Zuckerkorn may have negative consequences for Tobias’s psyche. But the public display of the analrapist’s genitalia never would have taken place had Wayne Jarvis recognized the theory-laden nature of his own observations and stopped to think about what he was really looking at. And that might be the central lesson here: Sometimes it’s hard to know balls when you see them.

NOTES

1.
Thomas Kuhn,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(Chicago: UP Chicago, 1996), p. 206.

2.
Ibid., p. 206.

3.
Ibid., p. 206

4.
Thomas Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in M. Curd and J. A. Cover (eds.),
Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues
(New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998), p. 103.

PART FIVE

SOLID AS IRAQ: POLITICS AND ETHICS ARRESTED

Chapter 15

NO TOUCHING! GEORGE SR.’S BRUSH WITH TREASON

Douglas Paletta and Paul Franco

George Bluth Sr. is a bad man. Just look at the evidence: George Sr. made his own children fight each other for his profitable video series
Boyfights
, he cheated on his wife every Friday for years with his secretary Kitty, and, after the United States banned his frying contraption the Cornballer, he marketed it in Mexico despite the very real risk it posed of burning off one’s fingerprints. In addition to this impressive (but far from exhaustive) list of moral failings, George Sr. just may be a traitor against his country. He admits as much in the episode “Visiting Ours,” telling his son Michael that he’s currently in prison because there’s a “slight possibility” that he may have committed some “
light
treason.” The nature of George Sr.’s (possible and lightly) treasonous act remains secret until local newscaster Trisha Thoon’s hard-hitting report on Saddam Hussein’s mini-palaces in Iraq. Not only were these palaces clearly American built, but Michael quickly realizes that the mini-palaces eerily resemble Bluth model homes in both appearance and shoddy workmanship.

Thus, it comes to light that George Sr.’s alleged treason consists in building mini-palaces for Saddam Hussein, America’s enemy at the time. In doing so, he violated the sanctions against doing business with the so-called rogue regime. Even worse, those mini-palaces may have served as hiding places for weapons of mass destruction, which prosecuting attorney Wayne Jarvis points out potentially upgrades George Sr.’s crime from light to
medium or heavy
treason.

Now, there’s very little question that George Sr. violated the laws of his country by building mini-palaces in Iraq for Saddam, no matter how shoddily constructed or how poorly the fixtures stayed together. Moreover, George Sr.’s actions, including running from his arraignment after hearing the list of charges against him read all at once, seem to indicate that he recognized the seriousness of his crimes. But, what is it about his actions that made them treasonous? If they were in fact treasonous, does it make sense to call that treason “light” or “medium to heavy”? And on what basis would it make sense to call treason light: because he was a patsy of some shadowy British syndicate (Mr. F!), because the mini-palaces he built were poorly constructed, or because he only intended to make money, not hurt the US? We’re going to try to answer these questions about George Sr.’s possibly treasonous and actually inferior homebuilding from the standpoint of political philosophy, the study of how individuals relate to governments. In particular, we’re going to explore the nature of the duties we may owe to our government with a focus on the duty to not commit treason against one’s own country. We’re especially concerned with how George Sr. may have failed to fulfill this duty and to what degree he failed to do so.

“Do You Know How They Punish Treason?”—First Time . . .—“I’ve Never Heard of a Second!”

The fact that treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution highlights the significance of George Sr.’s alleged crime, no matter how light it may be. Article III, section 3 defines treason in the following way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The constitutional definition gives us several key concepts to focus on when evaluating whether someone committed treason. Citizens can commit treason in two ways: Either by levying war against their country or by helping an enemy. We’ll call the first type of treason aggressive treason and the second type, in accordance with the defining behavioral trait of the Bluth family, passive-aggressive treason.

Aggressive treason is clear enough. It involves trying to bring down the state. Fortunately, nothing throughout the three seasons of
Arrested Development
ever indicates that George is a revolutionary hell-bent on bringing down the American government. So, the question at hand is really whether George’s actions amount to passive-aggressive treason.

Passive-aggressive treason is the kind of treason that involves benefiting or helping out some group or state that is hostile to your homeland. What does this entail? It could involve giving an enemy of the state “aid and comfort,” something that might show that you adhere to their cause. But adhering to a cause and aiding a cause aren’t always the same thing. For example, Lindsay’s charitable endeavors involve raising money for many causes, including the anti-circumcision group H.O.O.P. (Hands Off Our Penises) and the inconsistent triad of “No More Meat,” “No More Fish” and “More Meat and More Fish.” She definitely provides aid, however inept, to each organization without adhering to, supporting, or standing by any of the causes. Alternatively, you can support a cause or country without ever benefiting it. Gob manages to support the cause of the Magician’s Alliance while simultaneously hurting it by inadvertently revealing the secrets to many of his magic tricks.
1

Actions against one’s country that are analogous to Lindsay’s and Gob’s don’t seem to fully capture the idea of treason spelled out in the Constitution. It’s possible to provide aid and comfort to an enemy without adhering to their cause, and it’s possible to adhere to their cause without providing any aid and comfort. So, adhering to a cause and supporting an enemy with aid and comfort are two different things. This means we shouldn’t understand passive-aggressive treason as just providing aid and comfort to an enemy.

Where does this get us? Well, we can see that unambiguous cases of passive-aggressive treason involve at least three elements. First, there has to be an enemy of the state. If a state doesn’t have any enemies, this type of treason is impossible. There’s no rival cause to support. Second, the alleged criminal must support or stand by that enemy. This is how the alleged traitor
adheres
to the enemy. Finally, committing passive-aggressive treason requires providing some kind of comfort or assistance to that enemy. Taken together, these three elements—an enemy, support of that enemy and providing aid or comfort to that enemy—make up the three parts of passive-aggressive treason. With this in hand, let’s look at the case against George Sr.

A Company Whose Founder May Be on Trial for Treason: The Case Against George Sr.

Saddam Hussein was our enemy. Regardless of the nuances of who counts as an enemy (perhaps the Sitwells? Lucille 2?), Saddam fits the bill. We waged war with Saddam twice, placed sanctions on his government for over a decade, and he long had ambitions of creating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). If Saddam wasn’t our enemy from the first Gulf War to the end of the second,
no one
would be. So, if an American supported Saddam during that time, he or she supported an enemy. Strike one.

George Sr. and the Bluth Company certainly had some sort of relationship with Saddam. He had his picture taken with Saddam in 1998, during the sanctions imposed between the first and second Gulf Wars. In the picture, Saddam’s apron is embroidered with a message that betrays his character: “You’ll take it the way I make it.” When the Bluth boys arrive at one of the model homes in Iraq, the Saddam look-alikes recognize the Bluth name and expect them to fix the air conditioner. All of this displays a level of familiarity that implies at least some degree of repeated interaction with Saddam’s regime. While it’s unclear whether George Sr. in fact supports the causes of the regime, he clearly stood by them economically. Because Saddam still owed George Sr. money, George Sr. kept documentation of his interactions with Saddam H. (in the H. Maddas cooler). This demonstrates George Sr.’s vested interest in the survival of Saddam’s regime. While such an interest might not constitute outright support, George Sr., given his demonstrated greed, probably wouldn’t want the United States to succeed in toppling Saddam’s regime. In this sense, George Sr. stood by Saddam’s regime. That’s strike two.

Now, the Bluth homes in Iraq certainly weren’t “solid as a rock,” but, even if the air conditioning didn’t work, they surely provided some comfort. The model homes housed the Saddam look-alikes, and maybe even Saddam himself (as suggested by the epilogue in the penultimate episode ‘Exit Strategy’). The home also hid a WMD, albeit a fake one (Homefill brand, like all other model home accoutrements) planted by one wing of the CIA. But what if Saddam had succeeded in making a real weapon of mass destruction and we had actual evidence of it, rather than a picture of Tobias’s balls (see Chapter: 14, “Bunkers and Balls”)? The secret room would have been a good hiding place. The CIA agent on the ground certainly didn’t know about it, and Michael Bluth lived in a similar house for three years before discovering his own secret room that served as the hiding place for Tobias’s bodybuilding magazines. That’s strike three. The facts add up, and since George Sr. isn’t the umpire of this company softball game, he probably committed passive-aggressive treason.

“He’s Guilty, Michael, of Medium to Heavy Treason”: The Degrees of Treason

Some cases of passive-aggressive treason are worse than others. Helping North Korea maintain an active nuclear weapons program seems worse than building mini-palaces in Iraq that barely stay together. So you probably can commit treason to varying degrees. Fortunately, by distinguishing the three elements of treason, we already have the tools to make sense of the severity of treason in George Sr.’s case.

We suggest that the degree of treason corresponds to how bad the act is along each of the elements in the constitutional definition: (1) the threat posed by the enemy, (2) the extent to which the traitor adopts the enemy’s cause, and (3) the amount of aid and comfort provided to the enemy. We’ve already said that Saddam counts as an enemy of the United States, but, without grinding any political axes here, if Saddam only had Homefill WMDs then he may not have posed much of a credible threat to U.S. citizens. On this metric, George Sr.’s helping out Saddam’s regime remains pretty light.

What about the other two conditions? If George Sr. had the destruction of the United States in mind when he built mini-palaces for Saddam, things would be pretty bad. That would definitely fulfill condition (2). But if his behavior throughout the series is any indication, George Sr. is primarily motivated by making money (Caged Wisdom, Cornballer, the Bluth Banana Jail Bars, cheap houses, and on and on) and base feelings of jealousy. After all, he sold out his twin brother, Oscar, so he could be with a wife he doesn’t seem to care about all that much. Moreover, if the mini-palaces he built actually aided Iraq in hiding WMDs
or
housed prisoners of war
or
were torture facilities, this would take George Sr.’s treasonous acts to a whole other level because it would fulfill condition (3). None of those things happened. It’s not like George Sr. and Saddam were making and finishing each other’s sandwiches. At most, the homes provided an occasionally comfortable place to stay for a few Saddam look-alikes.

No matter how you cut it, on our interpretation of the law, George Sr.’s treason was quite light. Despite its
light
qualification, George Sr. committed treason against his country by building model homes, which aided an enemy. Just as he failed to be loyal to his family, George Sr.’s actions were disloyal to his country. The facts of the case bear this out. But political philosophy isn’t just interested in whether a particular act fails to meet the letter of the law. It’s also concerned with whether we ought to follow the law in the first place. Yes, George Sr. technically committed light treason, but why is that a bad thing? In order to determine why it’s bad that George Sr. commits treason, we need to look at why he has obligation to be loyal to his country.

“We Do Need to Stick Together Like a Family on This”: Why Treason Is Wrong

Sometimes philosophers make easy questions seem hard. Didn’t we just show that treason involves supporting the enemies of the state? Enemies—like Saddam—who wouldn’t lose any sleep if the United States was wiped off the face of the earth! We know why mass murder is wrong—it kills a lot of people. And presumably, helping a dictator hide WMDs would make someone partly responsible for mass murder if the WMDs were ever used. However, being a murderer, even a mass murderer, is different than being a traitor. If you help Saddam develop and maintain WMDs and he blows up his own people, you have a hand in the mass murder. By itself, however, that terrible deed doesn’t make you a traitor to your own country. Helping hide the WMDs would amount to
treason
only if Saddam threatens your homeland. The defining characteristic of treason is intending harm to your country or compatriots. So, the wrongness of treason must depend on some special duty or obligation George Sr. has to his country or fellow citizens. Philosophers have come up with a lot of theories about why we have an obligation to our fellow citizens or country, and these theories can roughly be sorted into one of two umbrella categories: instrumental theories and relational theories. Since each type of theory provides a different kind of explanation as to why we have the obligation, they provide different standards to use for assessing George’s dealings with Iraq.

The Instrumental Approach

According to instrumental theories, the reason we should all support our government, and the reason why the government can demand obedience, has to do with the benefits a government provides that cannot be secured any other way. On this general approach, the government is a tool that we can use to reach our goals. Governments are particularly good at helping us secure certain goods that are hard for individuals to get but which help everybody; for example, no individual can secure our borders. Just look at Buster. He couldn’t get a bird out of the house without causing damage or even get over a medium-sized wall during his army training. There’s no way he could protect the U.S. borders. Whether individually or collectively, citizens have very good reasons to support any government that can protect them and help them get what they want.