Happiness and Deviant Behaviour in “Happiness” Movie

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Fictional Reality
Deviancy
Discussion
References

Introduction

The film was aptly titled happiness. The characters were in pursuit of happiness but many of them failed to achieve what they longed for. Ironically it was their desire to achieve the happiness that led them to do things that they would regret later in life. For some characters, the pursuit of happiness led them to a downward spiral; first they were emotionally hurt, then they destroy friendships and relationships and then eventually they end up all alone. This paper will focus on the link between happiness and deviant behavior. This is made possible by using the idea of Jon Frauley – that fictional reality can be used to study crime and deviancy. Aside from Frauley’s work, other theoretical frameworks will be used to understand deviant behavior.

Fictional Reality

Frauley made a valid point when he said that works of fiction such as those in film and literature can be used as a pedagogical tool. He believed that fictional reality can be used to enhance the capability of students in learning the intricacies of the criminal justice system and criminology in general (Frauley, year). The author explained that this is not only possible but it is also practical to do so because of two reasons:

Fieldwork is considered costly, time-consuming, and rife with possible ethical complications while fictional realities can be viewed and studied in the comfort of one home; and
The fictional reality can provide a “hands-on” approach while at the same time offering a web of relations that is both layered and complex (Frauley, year).

Todd Solondz film, Happiness (1998) is a perfect example of what Frauley tried to describe when it comes to the use of well-crafted films that offer a multi-layered view of the world. In Happiness (1998) the complex web of relationships created by the characters in the movie was very much evident from beginning to end. The first phase was crucial because the character played by Philip Seymour Hoffman went to see his psychiatrist. He was unloading his problems to his psychiatrist named Bill but he had no idea that his confession partially influenced Bill to do something with his own set of problems. The patient and the psychiatrist went their separate way only to entangle themselves in a web of relationships that will ultimately link them together.

Hoffman’s character was named Jimmy, an ordinary-looking employee. He was overweight, in his mid-thirties and had no self-confidence. Bill on the other hand was a successful psychiatrist who had a hidden secret – he wanted to have sex with little boys. It is ironic that both men could not find happiness in their lives. Jimmy was incapable of building relationships with the opposite sex. But there is actually nothing that can stop him from doing so. It was his low self-esteem that prevented him from being with someone with whom he can grow old with. Yet, Jimmy thinks that he is not good enough for these women.

Bill went to his own psychiatrist and told him about a recurring dream, that he was in a park armed with a high-powered rifle and shooting everyone on site. He had problems that he could not share with his wife. Yet, he pretends that everything is well in his family. It was implied that he was not having sexual intercourse with his wife. He tried to diminish the importance of intimacy between man and wife and the need for the husband to have intercourse with his partner on a regular basis. On his way home he stopped by a convenience store and bought a magazine for kids. Yet he used it instead to achieve a measure of happiness.

Jimmy went home and instead of talking to the woman that he adores he randomly went through his phone book and tried to have phone sex with the unsuspecting woman who had the misfortune of answering the phone. In this manner, he was able to connect to Joy Jordan who happened to be the sister of Trish, the wife of his psychiatrist. To complicate matters even more these two women are related to Helen Jordan, the object of Jimmy’s desire. The director tried so hard to link everyone. Suggesting perhaps that every person is somehow interconnected and the action of one person can affect the whole community. This was contrasted by the ever-present feeling of loneliness and isolation.

Deviancy

For those who are interested in sociology and criminology, this movie is not merely a social commentary and an art film. It is also a tool that can help them understand the nature of deviant behavior. Yet, there is still a need to utilise various theoretical frameworks in order to understand deviant behavior. One of the most helpful in this regard is the framework explaining the types of deviant behavior (Becker, year). In this framework there are two major human behaviors, the first one is obedient behavior and the second one is rule-breaking behavior (Becker, year). Now, these two forms of behaviors can be obscured or magnified depending on the perception of other people. For instance, if the person is obedient to the law and he is perceived to be deviant then that person is falsely accused of a crime that he or she did not commit. If an individual is well aware of his rule-breaking behavior, does not mind the consequence of his actions, and he or she is perceived to be so, then this person is a pure deviant.

There is a second type of perception. The observer cannot detect any type of wrongdoing. So the one who exhibited obedient behavior and the observer makes the judgement call that this person is not a deviant then he or she is a conformer to norms, rules etc. But if the observer failed to see the true nature of the rule-breaker then the deviant behavior can be perpetuated and the deviant person will continue to behave that way until apprehended by law enforcers or forced to conform by a society who deemed such actions as immoral and unethical.

If this simple and rigid framework will be used then it can be argued that almost everyone is guilty of deviant behavior except perhaps Trish Jordan and her mother the matriarch of the Jordan family. The rest are guilty of deviancy while two men can be accused as secret deviants. Joy Jordan is guilty of having multiple sex partners and this is taboo in many cultures. Her sister Helen Jordan is guilty of the same. Vlad the Russian immigrant is not ashamed to be a thief and a con man and so he is a pure deviant. While Bill and Jimmy on the other hand are very secretive and they belong to the last category: appearing blameless and respectable on the outside but struggling with their dark secrets on the inside. They are secret deviants.

The elder Mr. Jordan is a combination of a secret deviant and a pure deviant. This is in accordance to the rules of convention. A man should stay married to his wife until she dies. Abandoning his wife in old age is an unacceptable behavior in many societies. Various kinds of religion frown upon this kind of action. Since Mr. Jordan is open about his desire to leave his wife – at least to his family – he can be considered as a pure deviant for he knowingly went against the rules. On the other hand he can also be considered as a secret deviant by other people, especially those who do not know him personally.

This is because Mr. Jordan did not file for divorce and instead of breaking the promise he has made to his wife, he tried to bend the rules by leaving her without leaving any evidence or any documentation that he is no longer married to his wife. Thus, his old friend can be fooled into believing that they are still a happily married couple. This qualifies Mr. Jordan to become a secret deviant.

There are those who may find this overly simplistic framework too stifling and would prefer a more open-minded approach to classifying deviant behavior. In this case additional theoretical frameworks must be utilised to study the said film. In this regard, researchers developed a more nuanced view of deviancy and proposed that there are two kinds of deviant behavior: 1) intolerable deviance; and 2) tolerable deviance. In this new framework many of the characters in the movie will be considered as displaying tolerable deviant behavior. As long as they will not do things that his highly threatening to the moral order, they can be considered as tolerable deviants. This will leave Bill and Vlad as the characters who are secret and pure deviants respectively.

The same conclusion can be derived at if one will use the theoretical framework called “Cultural Criminology” (Ferrell, 1999). In this context people are made guilty because they went against cultural norms and traditions. Thus, applying this concept to the film many of the characters cannot be considered as deviant. For instance Mr. Jordan will not be criticised for leaving his wife because “Cultural Criminology” implies that marriage is a social construct that can be easily dissolved using a legal remedy called divorce.

There is still another framework that can be used to understand deviant behavior and this is the “Marxian Theory of Deviance” (Spitzer, 1975). If one will use this framework then Vlad is not a criminal but the victim of a ruthless capitalist system of appropriating the product of human labour (Spitzer, 1975). In other words Vlad was forced to steal because the capitalist system was highly oppressive and therefore the rich are becoming richer while the poor are becoming poorer (Spitzer, 1975). The only problem with this theoretical framework is that it cannot explain other social phenomenon.

For instance, Joy Jordan was taken advantage of by Vlad. The Russian immigrant did not only steal her CD player and guitar but he also coerced her into lending her a few hundred dollars. The viewer is certain that Vlad had no intention of paying her back the loan. This is just one of the weaknesses of Marxist theory. How can Vlad be the victim when he is the one victimising women and using them for his own pleasure. Moreover, the Marxist theory on deviancy cannot explain the reason why Bill was raping boys. There is no connection between the capitalistic way of manufacturing goods and Bill’s overwhelming desire to hurt children. This is perhaps the reason why Marx’s ideas are obsolete.

Those who cannot be saved by a more lenient theoretical framework can still find a way to reduce the impact of punishment by utilising the following techniques: 1) The denial of responsibility; 2) the denial of injury; 3) the denial of the victim; 4) the condemnation of the condemners; and 5) the appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957). In the film, the pure deviants as well as the secret deviants were able to utilise many of the said techniques in reducing the impact of their deviant behavior. Vlad was an expert in denying responsibility and injury; he acted as if nothing had happened between him and Joy Jordan. The same is true with Bill he acted normal when he was at home and no one suspected that he was paedophile.

Discussion

There are theorists who said that deviancy is just a product of the collective consciousness of those who live in a particular society. There are those who argue that it is simply the byproduct of culture. Karl Marx even developed a new theoretical framework to help understand deviancy. He blamed capitalism as the root of all evil. Yet, even with all the rhetoric it was also very clear that deviancy creates a ripple effect in the community. No matter how Karl Marx tried to justify the actions of a thief there is still something fundamentally wrong with an immigrant resorts to stealing rather than working hard to change his life.

Marriage is something that many consider as sacred. For those who are non-religious, they marry because they still believe that it is an important component of strong and healthy partnership, especially if husband and wife were able to produce children. So apart from the religious element there is the legal element. It is easier for a couple to establish a family especially concerning the law such as the names of the children, their properties etc.

For those who argue that the rules of deviancy were created by the dominant members of society will find it hard to explain why husband and wife are hurt when they decide to separate.

If rules are arbitrary then how come Mr. Jordan was still unhappy even if he already left his wife and regained his freedom. When Mr. Jordan tried to bend the rules of convention, there was no law enforcer who tried to shame him for what he has done and yet he felt the void inside of him. There is therefore something fundamentally wrong with a man leaving his wife. This can be easily explained through religion. Separating husband and wife is an affront to God. Yet even if the couples are not religious they can still suffer from the negative impact of separation or divorce. It is true that divorce is legal in many parts of the world but it is also true that the children and even husband and wife had to go through terrible times. It can even be argued that it will leave an emotional wound that may not heal even after the passage of time.

The movie was a social commentary about the vain pursuit of happiness. It seems that the director had a very narrow world view. For director Todd Solondz the whole human population can be easily divided into two groups of people. In the first group are the lonely miserable people who had no real friends and no one who truly cares for them. In the second group are those who pretend that they are happy but they deep down they are not. There are those who may not agree with him.

There is not enough information to conclude that it was a social commentary against developed countries – that it is only in highly industrialized countries where all the people are lonely and sad. There is no way to determine if this is true or not because the film focused on the lives of Americans who live in New York, New Jersey and Florida. The pursuit of happiness left many people emotionally battered and bruised. Yet they continue to pursue happiness like an elusive dream and they are not tired of doing so. Joy Jordan epitomizes this kind of behavior.

On the other hand, Bill the psychiatrist was on the extreme side. He pursued happiness even if this would mean the destruction of his family and his community. As the movie progresses, Frauley’s ideas were validated. It is becoming clear that fictional reality – in this case a film about dysfunctional families, pedophiles, thieves, rapists, and murderers – can be used as a tool to understand sociology and criminology. The viewer can follow the primary plot which is about happiness and loneliness but underneath the surface, one can find deviancy. Frauley was also correct when he said that fictional reality can be an effective learning tool because it allows for the display of many layers of human behavior without having to spend so much time, money and effort just to study each one of the various social phenomena.

Thus, a student can sit back and relax in a movie theatre without having to go to New Jersey, the retirement homes in Florida and the well-manicured homes of the rich and successful people of New York. The film will also allow researchers to study a web of complex relationships and see the big picture when it comes to studying the impact of deviant behavior. There is a need for moral regulation but many are finding it extremely difficult to establish rules that can benefit every man, woman, and child on this planet (Hunt, 1997). Moral regulation is important even if more people are clamoring for more freedom. The film was able to show what will happen if men and women are allowed to do whatever they want to do without knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

References

Becker. (year). Kinds of Deviance: A Sequential Model.
Ferrell, J. (1999). Cultural criminology. Annual Reviews. 23, 395-418.
Frauley, J. The Fictional Reality and Criminology: An Ontology of Theory ad Exemplary Pedagogical Practice.
Hunt, A. (1997). Moral regulation and making up the new person. London: Sage Publications.
Spitzer, S. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social Problems, 22(5), 638-651.
Sykes, G. & D. Matza. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.

Click Here To Order Now!