Michael Scott; A Horrible Player: The Office Through the Lens of Wittgenstein

The show is an artful composition of awkwardness, each line vacant of a laugh track drips with irony and embarrassment. NBC’s The Office is a comic portrayal of how language plays its part in society, bringing the audience into moments of pure, unadulterated tension and keeping them there. In order to create this tension they write characters that are totally incapable of assimilating into generally accepted socio-linguistic patterns. In the later works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, he shatters his previous assertion that meaning is reference. Instead, the Wittgenstein of Philosophical Investigations claims that meaning is use. This essay will argue that the reason Michael Scott and the rest of the cast of The Office is awkward is due to their inability to properly participate in the language games that make up “proper behavior.” In their breaking of these systems the audience deems “normal” or “common sense” the show creates hilarity. Thus it is necessary to explore the components of language that give it meaning within the late Wittgensteinian framework.
In Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein lays out a new way to understand meaning distinct from his previous ideas in the Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus. In this earlier work Wittgenstein describes philosophy as elucidation. In a manner, he is building a bridge with language to what is real, or true. This takes the form of his logical atomism by using the idealized language. From this, what we can say we can say clearly; what we can’t say we show- namely the relation between things. It is this seeking of the discrete that pares language down to a one to one relation between the reference and its corresponding label. Quine calls this one to one relation the “Myth of the Museum.” It describes an exhibit that is labeled by a plaque or sign. In this “myth” the entire meaning of a word on the sign corresponds to the reference, that which is being exhibited.
Learning a language then is the matching of objects with the assigned, static word, which denotes that object. This process could be done with through ostension, a wonderful example of this is a flash card. The picture portrays the object or action which is labeled by the word on the other side of the card. The learner thus connects the image with the word.
If meaning is thus affixed, the clarity of language should be achievable. Words will set out certain relations between proposition that make up the complexities of the world, and because those words are of a concrete nature both parties who speak that language will therefore be capable of comprehending those complexities. This, however, is not the case and The Office is a prime example of the critique Wittgenstein has of his own earlier framework.
Michael Scott is the epicenter of the drama in the show because he tries to say things (and subsequently do things) that are beyond his comprehension. Even in situations where he is able to decipher the dictionary definitions, he is often unable to understand the specific utilization of those words as they are being used within the particular context. Nuances are lost to him because words do not have a one to one concrete correlation, but as Wittgenstein describes in Philosophical Investigations, are parts of webs of relation that construct meaning via use. Wittgenstein asserts, “One will point to places and things- but in this case the pointing occurs in the use of the words too and not merely in learning the use.“
Wittgenstein explains that language acts as webs and systems of tensive symbols, each use set within the context of each other use. These are called language games and each one of these different games are not set apart by distinctly articulated rules, but rather are held in cohesion with rules that are ambiguous and yet intuited. Wittgenstein describes the rules of these games as follows: “ But we say that it is played according to such and such rules because an observer can read these off from the practice of the game- like a natural law governing the play.” In order to find the meaning then, it is necessary to find its use, not its flashcard. One does this by entering into the game and watching those who play by its “rules.” If one were to watch a game of women’s Lacrosse, it is clear that there are a great number of rules, which are enforced. Seemingly every two minutes a whistle blows and the field resets, the girls get into a different formation and the game starts back up again. It would not be simple to learn the rules of Lacrosse simply by being told them. Once one watches for long enough the game starts to look familiar and one can start to recognize movements against the common flow and layout of the play. This is precisely how one is able to learn language, “Don’t think, but look!” Language however does not have a referee that runs out and blows a whistle (even if grammar wishes to do so.) It is not the whistle that then signifies a miscalculated throw, or a misused word. “ But then the use of a word is unregulated, the ‘game’ we play with it is unregulated- it is not everywhere circumscribed by rules…” Wittgenstein also talks about these language games in terms of a picture that is blurred. Even in such a photo the shape and form of the person is apparent. He asks, “Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn’t the indistinct one often exactly what we need?” Not only is the indistinctness of language game parameters apparent, it is necessary in order to provide a language, which can contain the possibility of communication. The various nuances of language are given to us by the various uses of words, not by their fixedness but rather by their mobility.
The Office uses the indistinctness of language to provide a backdrop for humor. The show presupposes the initiation of its audience into certain language games that make up our societal norms. This includes how words are used in certain contexts, and what words, phrases or intonation are inappropriate in a given situation. The audience was rarely given the “rules” to these language games, but have almost by happenstance, been thrust into playing them. After a period of time it becomes so natural that the game is essentially invisible, until someone exhibits a behavior that cuts against the grain of these systems. Wittgenstein points us to the “behavior characteristic of correcting a slip of the tongue. It would be possible to recognize that someone was doing so even without knowing his language.” It is also possible to know that someone ought to be correcting a slip of the tongue, but the characters in The Office do not even know that they have violated anything. The audience is thus left squirming, not for a distinct reason, but rather for an indistinct violation of the intuition. It is not unlike watching a horrible game of soccer played by five year olds. It is clear that the kids who are scrambling about aimlessly are not fully able to participate in that thing we call soccer, and humor arises from this parody of what a match should look like. When I was playing on a local recreational league team in first grade I saw the kid with the ball and full on tackled him. My father had to pull me aside and persuade me that this particular game did not allow for my rather narrow skill set. The problem with Michael Scott is that he is 40 years old and has lost the cuteness factor of the above-mentioned five year olds. Subsequently we laugh at him because he is pitiful and ridiculous.
Setting the show within an office extenuates the audacity of these misuses because language games of the work place require “professionalism.” This professionalism presupposes a certain vocabulary, thus when Michael calls things “gay” he gets himself into problems with the company. Oscar is actually a homosexual and is thus rightfully offended by Michael’s inability to discern how to use language within this professional context. In order to fix the problem Michael forces Oscar to “come out” publically. This results in Oscar calling Michael “Ignorant, insulting and small.” While Michael may be all of these things this situation is brought to a head because Michael is inept at seeing how the language game functions, he does not see the contour of the blurry person, he sees a radically different shape, or what is more likely, is that he is playing an entirely different game all together.
Another example of how Michael Scott is unable to differentiate between language games is in the episode titled “Back from Vacation.” In it Michael gets back from a trip to Sandals, Jamaica, where he learned several phrases and behaviors that he wants to bring back to the office. Here it is appropriate to cite Wittgenstein proposing “Of course, what confuses us is the uniform appearance of words when we hear them spoken or meet them in script and print. For their application is not present to us so clearly.” While here Wittgenstein is speaking about the uniform appearance of a word, it is equally possible to talk about the uniform sound of a word. Even if two people pronounce a word the same way that does not mean that within each other’s language game the word means the same thing. This is precisely Michael’s problem; he tries to get the entire office to say “HEEY MAUN” While this was a word that made overweight and sunburned American tourists happy while on vacation, it is not something that makes sense to say within the context of a work environment. Michael also uses the phrase “island living” while bundled up and shivering in his parking lot in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Michael is here trying to transport meaning as if it was static, but the audience can see that he is mistaken.
While Michael Scott is predominantly the source of comedy because of his inability to play language games there are also moments where Michael starts to make sense. Almost seamlessly Michael will move from being incompetent and embarrassing to being a skilled salesman. This is because sales, and some other skills, are actually games that Michael knows how to play. In one episode Michael takes a client out to dinner, while most of the experience is almost painful to watch, when it comes to the actually sales part of the meeting, he comes roaring to life with tremendous skill. This simply highlights that Michael is not just bad at most socio-normative language games, but is good at games that are foreign and more obscure.
Many of the other characters in The Office are unable to participate in the language game of the audience. In fact the only two who are exceptionally skilled at playing the language games are Jim and Pam, who bait the others into saying and doing things that are obviously ridiculous. This comedy of errors is not unlike the Three Stooges; only instead of physical stupidity, there it is a comedy of verbal errors.
The framework that Ludwig Wittgenstein sets up for understanding meaning as use gives us a lens to see our world differently. Rather than a language that is constrained to a direction denotation of reference we are given a complex web of relations that allows for rich webs of meaning. In The Office, we have seen how these language games are played and governed by “natural laws” that make the audience aware that Michael Scott is unable to participate in these patterns correctly. In describing the show one might describe being anxious or fidgety, these are also symptoms of our own language games regulating what we see as “fair play.” While The Office is seemingly void of academic complexities, it displays a comedy of linguistic miscalculation that might have even made Wittgenstein himself chuckle.

The Gospel According to Brandon...Sort of..

I am in a Synoptic Gospels class here in Lithuania. It has been a very interesting and is led by a young professor who just got his Ph.D at 29! One of the assignments was to evaluate the editing process of the Gospel authors by writing our own gospel. I know it sounds heretical, but it was really fun! It has been a great opportunity for me to processes how I see Jesus.

The following is FICTION that I have written by drawing upon various source material from the canonical Gospels as well as from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and my own imagination. It is followed by a comprehensive analysis. Here we go...

The Gospel According to Brandon Walsh

A follower of Jesus

It was in the second year of Jesus ministry that he took the twelve to the Jordan. As they walked Philip came up to Jesus and asked him:
“Why is It that you do not mind the company of Gentiles, are they not unclean?”
Jesus Replied: “We have lived in a time where the purity of ones hands has defined their righteousness, but in the Kingdom of God it is not filth on ones hands that makes one unclean but rather the wickedness that has taken hold of their hearts. I tell you the truth that in the coming age the gentile will be grafted into the lineage of Abraham and receive through faith brotherhood among God’s people. For the Gentile will now be offered new life, Just as it is written:
“Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!”
So too will the Gentile may enter into the Kingdom if they repent. After saying this Jesus walked to the shore and cried out; “ Come here and listen to the words of the LORD your God . Stand in the river and I will show you how the Kingdom will come.” So the twelve came down to the river, but the current was very strong so the disciples call out to Jesus saying to them, “ Jesus, the current is too strong, we will surely be swept away if we enter it.”
Jesus turned to them and said:
“ The Kingdom will not be calm and cool water, it will be violent and threaten to tear at your flesh. Yet only those who offer themselves up to the promises of God will be able to obtain it. “
Peter threw his cloak around himself and entered the stream. The water surged and tossed him under its foaming waves. The other disciples called out in agony but were too afraid to help him. In a loud voice Jesus parted the river and the water heaped upon it self. There at the bottom lay Peter. Jesus walked over to him and said loud enough for all of the disciples to hear.
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” With this he breathed on Peter and he was raised from the dead. All the Disciples now were amazed and rushed to Peter and after embracing him fell at Jesus feet.
Jesus told them : “Just as Joshua has parted this river to lead his people into the Promised land I separate it to bring you into the Kingdom of God. Just like Peter you must be willing to suffer. For whoever loses his life will gain it, but those who are not willing to suffer will not be able to enter into life eternal.”
After this Jesus and the disciples began their journey to Jerusalem. It was a long and hot day when they came through a small village. They stopped there to eat, and drink from their well. As they were sitting in the shade Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said to him, “Are you intoxicated? Have not you walked with me for two years now, listening and seeing what acts the Son of Man has performed to proclaim the coming Kingdom of God!”
Jesus told them this story.
“ The Greeks have many false gods and tell tales of their ‘greatness’. One story is of Prometheus . A god who looked down on mankind and saw that they were without protection; without claws to hunt or fur to stay warm. Prometheus went to Zeus and asked permission to give man fire in order that they might live in light and not darkness. Zeus refused to allow man to have fire, to let man have light. But Prometheus brought fire to man anyways, for this act he was tortured and endured great suffering. This world is based around the power of the strong dominating the weak, just as Zeus has dominion over man in this Greek myth. In this world the Son of Man has come to bring light unto the world and release the hearts of men from their greed for domination. Just as Prometheus I will be persecuted by the powers of this world and will suffer the most brutal death.” He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter.
"Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Then he called a crowd to him along with his disciples and said:
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
After hearing this Jesus’ disciples were perplexed, and did not understand what he was saying. So Jesus looked at them and said.
“I have not come to overthrow Rome but to overthrow something that Rome bows to. Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, that sin which makes brother kill brother and gives man the desire to dominate one another. It is this hierarchy of Power that I have come to negate. My teachings are a manifesto to the Kingdom of God, which inverts this fallen power structure and reestablishes right relation from man to fellow man, and from man to God. I will die to this fallen flesh and rise again as the first new creation, bringing to reality what will be made in full at the end of the age.

Comprehensive Analysis of The Gospel of Brandon

This Gospel provides both narrative and discourse that play into Brandon’s interpretation of the Kingdom of God and what it costs to be a disciple. The Gospel starts out with a discourse between Jesus and Philip about why Jesus eats with gentiles. His response calls on various Old Testament texts and shows clear connection to Pauline theology in the book of Romans.
Next we enter into a narrative at the riverbank of the Jordan, Where Jesus tells the disciples to go into the water. But they refuse because of the rapid current. Jesus quotes Joshua and alludes to the symbolic act of crossing the river into the holy land of Israel. After Jesus rebukes the disciples for not understanding that the Kingdom of God will be painful, Peter jumps into the river and is swept away. The disciples cry out in anguish but Jesus parts the river, just as Joshua parted the river to enter the promise land and Elisha did to legitimate his prophetic anointment in 2 Kings 2. Jesus sees Peter lying dead at the bottom of the river and brings him back to life.
Jesus then interprets his actions by telling them that just as Joshua led his people into the Promised Land that he would lead them into the Kingdom of God, and that in order to enter the Kingdom one must being willing to suffer, like peter. Jesus then leads them into a small town where he asks them a passage from the Gospel of Thomas. It is a request somewhat like the one found in Mark 8, where Jesus asks his disciples to tell him who he is. In this Gnostic version though Peter tells Jesus that he is like a “righteous angel” and the Matthew says he is like a “wise philosopher.” Then Jesus rebukes Thomas for not knowing. Brandon now adds the story of Prometheus that Jesus uses to explain his role in the world, saying that he goes against the will of the power that has dominion over the hearts of man and that by bringing them the Kingdom that he will be persecuted.
Then we see the exact words of Mark 8 transferred into this text. Where Jesus predicts his death and Rebukes Peter of denying it. Here again we see the theme of the cost of discipleship and Jesus ends the Gospel with a explanation of all of these actions. Jesus explains that he has not come to overthrow Rome but to overthrow something bigger, the fallen power structure of humanity.
This Gospel’s Genre is a mix between several different themes. It includes discourse on Jew and Gentile relations, a prophetic legitimating narrative and several discussions on the purpose of the Kingdom of God. It incorporates the narrative into this text with the discourse so that they can co-interpret each other. The discourse brings new understanding to the parting of the Jordan and the parting of the Jordan brings new meaning to the cost of discipleship teachings.
There are four distinct sources in the writing of this gospel and each is used differently to make the Gospels central argument. The canonical scriptures are used, including the Old Testament, as well as the Gospel of Thomas, Greek mythology and unique material that I will call “special B.” The OT verses used to support the prophet legitimation also provide a new way to interpret how they could be read in their original context.
The source material from the Gospel of Thomas is put in a new context to provide a new framework for Jesus’ own interpretation of who he is like, Prometheus. This element of Greek mythology is unique to this Gospel. It shows the authors interaction with Greek culture and possibly even language. This story itself is reinterpreted in order to show Jesus as the Prometheus and Zeus as the power (Satan) that rules the world.
Special B is a unique source material that seems to mix various elements of Canonical themes with modern interpretations of the meaning of Jesus. The source includes the parting of the Jordan, not found in any other source, and the final discourse at the end of the Gospel that describes the Kingdom’s new power structure.
The Christology that we see in this Gospel is not unlike Matthew and Luke. Jesus is clearly calling himself the Son of Man and performing tremendous miracles to show he is the chosen one of God, but he does not use any “I am” statements as he does in the Gospel of John. Jesus is still human enough to want to stop and get a drink of water in the village, but divine enough to raise Peter from the dead. This Christology reflects the orthodox paradox of Christ, both fully man and fully God.
The Ideology of the Gospel is one of Christ’s purposes to restore what was lost in the Garden of Eden. Jesus has come to give an alternative way to live, according to the power structure of the Sermon on the Mount rather than the strongest dominate the weakest.