quentin tarantino: economic sociologist
Fabio
I was watching Reservoir Dogs a few days ago when I realized it contained many economic sociology insights. For those of you who haven’t seen it, the movie is about a diamond theft that goes badly. The criminal gang realized that one of their own is probably an undercover cop or a traitor. Here’s some orgtheory from the film:
- It’s all about networks: Criminal gangs are built on social networks, or references from people in your network. In fact, the boss quickly discovers the mole when he remembers who got a reference from a shadowy person in the network.
- Reputational effects: Criminal life is about sorting hard core criminals from everyone else. Doing jail time creates unimpeachable reputational capital in criminal networks.
- Performativity: People judge your professional competence from your performance in social interactions. The undercover cop’s handlers actually train him like an actor. They give him a script with stories he can tell about his non-existent life as a petty drug dealer. When he’s drinking with the criminals, the undercover cop tells it so well that they buy his criminal “authenticity.” Telling the story makes it true, as far as everyone in the movie is concerned.
- Tipping: Classic question – why do people tip at restaurants? Scene 1, when Mr. White and Big Joe chide Mr. Pink into tipping at breakfast, provides Tarantino’s answer: fanatical tippers punish the dissenters. Why do tip-fanatics care so much? Because they see tipping as a form of enforced charity for low status people, specifically the low education women who tend to do waitressing. As my colleague Brian Steensland might argue, cultural categories drive social policy. The apathetic just go along with the loudest people.
I’ll probably rent Pulp Fiction over the weekend to see what nuggets I can find…
Hey, I’d like to think that reservoir is about the homoerotic bond that forms between the would be traitor and the seasoned criminal, as each one serves as one another’s specular other (das ich-ideal in the original Freudian sense). Alternatively, we might say that is an exploration on the limits of pleasure (in pain), what Lacan referred to as jouissance. In fact it can be said that the film explores the question of a specifically masculine jouissance. This comes out clearly in the internal diegetic analysis of the underlying referent of Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.”
So don’t be messing it up with your econ soc jibber jabber.
Omar
March 23, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I’ve also heard someone describe RD as a great movie example of game theory in action. Their situation is ideal for exploring game theoretic choices, as the people involved didn’t really have a lot of personal experience with one another prior to the botched heist. Also, James Surowiecki uses RD in the Wisdom of Crowds as an example of how people can use contracting (in its purest market form) to accomplish objectives. So basically, all around, RD is a classic for any organizational or economic scholar.
brayden
March 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Feh. I think all y’all are just looking for an excuse to show Reservoir Dogs in your classes.
I’m sure *that* would go over well, particularly at BYU…
kim
March 23, 2007 at 6:44 pm
He, I brought up Reservoir Dogs in a discussion recently in my markets and society class and half of the students had never even heard of the movie. This made me very, very sad….
brayden
March 23, 2007 at 8:40 pm