The Unhappiness of Jack Bauer

[Frederick M. Dolan]

The other day "Hustle," a BBC television series, was taken to task by a reviewer in the New York Times. She faulted it for presenting a fantastic image of contemporary London. It was too affluent to be believable, she thought, in light of British “decline.” Obviously she hasn't been to London lately. But quite apart from the question of empirical accuracy, the British have always trafficked in fantasies of affluence, just as much as Americans – perhaps even more than Americans, certainly differently than Americans. Crime and espionage movies and television are cases in point. Compare James Bond or John Steed and Emma Peel (of “The Avengers”) with Jack Bauer (of "24"). Bond wanted to save the free world, but only on the condition that he have a very good time while doing it. Steed's and Peel's Champagne hours made it clear that the idea was not merely to safeguard the West, but to do so with downright witty aplomb. To "defend" Britain while losing the ability to do what made life worth living would be the ultimate defeat, and for the British the good life is inseparable from class, style, and plain fun. Bauer, in contrast, is an utter mess. Has he even once made a witty (or even flirtatious) comment? Has he smiled, other than sadistically? The only women he telephones are his daughter and various computer operators at CTU. For him, the pursuit of justice and rightness and goodness is so consuming as to leave none of the 24 hours in the day available for pleasure. Bauer is an icon of what the American Empire has come to: it’s just no damn fun anymore. It's all work, dangerous work, all the time, 24/7.

[Valley Oak]

The unhappiness of Jack Bauer is a reflection of the unhappiness of the American people. Americans are clueless about how deep and multi-layered their unhappiness is.

"24" is essentially made by Americans for Americans. This insanely popular series is a strong reflection of our cultural, moral, ethical, historical, and collective persona. It is rife with torture, rampant violations of the U.S. Constitution, and very representative of the times we live in. The U.S. has an administration that uses, justifies, and defends torture in its foreign policy (indeed, has destroyed evidence of the use of torture), suspended Habeas Corpus, and lied to the public it is supposed to serve in order to invade a country with huge petroleum reserves. Most of the drama in "24" is inspired directly from the current administrations foreign and domestic policies and the program's content helps the administration justify its actions, which millions of Americans watch. "24" is saturated with Arab and Muslim terrorist characters attacking Americans in U.S. soil with atom bombs, biological warfare, etc. The program exploits to the hilt the American people's worst fears for entertainment value and profit.

The all-work-and-no-play Jack Bauer resonates deeply and accurately with the American character. The fictional personality of Jack Bauer reflects hundreds of nuances of the American psychological profile--a pathetic one at that. Tragically, the main character in "24" exposes the nudity of prevailing American archetypes in an unabashed and concentrated form. "24" is crack. It is pure suspense stimulation designed to keep you on the edge of your seat for the duration of the program and leaves you yelling for more (the next episode), exactly what Americans want and that is part of why it is so successful. Just listen to the nonstop suspense music in the background and the constant "Oh, no!" scenarios, the endless chain of them. The plots are relatively shallow and often stereotypical. "24" is designed to entertain the American psyche as well as serving (unwittingly?) as a propaganda piece for the White House.

Jack Bauer needs to go to charm school. He needs to learn a lesson or two from the British regarding class, style, and the more fun things in life. But shouldn't this also include Jack learning a few things about human rights and basic concepts of democracy, justice, due process of law and all of that junk? And didn't the British also have slavery once and eliminate it peacefully almost a century before Americans did? And didn't the British Empire practice massive repression around the world in order to maintain its wealth and world domination? And don't the British today like to identify themselves with the New Empire (the U.S.), born of its own loins, indeed, its immediate successor, no matter what the cost? The U.K. pays with its young mens' blood this expensive alliance with the U.S. Why? How can the Brits serve as an example when they are following us around like a loyal pit bull?

Well then, isn't it a bit difficult for a character like Jack Bauer to learn about lofty ideals such as human rights from a culture, such as the British, that has violated them so extensively for so long in its colonies such as India, the Thirteen Colonies, Ireland, even its own soil (the British mainland), and just about everywhere else?

I'm confused. Someone please help me here because I haven't a clue. I'm an American; I'm just another Jack Bauer. SOS!

Edward



The other day "Hustle," a BBC television series, was taken to task by a reviewer in the New York Times. She faulted it for presenting a fantastic image of contemporary London...

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Poor Jack's knowledge of and concern for human rights is so deeply buried, even more deeply buried than his instinct for a good time, that it's not even up for discussion. Not only is he fighting to preserve something that doesn't exist, he doesn't know what he's fighting for, or why. He's an automaton, a simulacrum, a revenant. To say that his unhappiness is multi-layered is probably to give him more credit than he deserves because it suggests a degree of individuation that he hasn't achieved. Bond, after all, though he used technological gadgets, retained a healthy skepticism regarding the hyperbolic claims made for their efficacy by Her Majesty's Secret Service. But Bauer isn't a user of gadgets; he simply IS one gadget among many in a larger system. Whether this represents the American character is another question -- I prefer to see it as a monstrous deformation of that character. Given enough time and power, though, the abnormal becomes the norm.


The unhappiness of Jack Bauer is a reflection of the unhappiness of the American people. Americans are clueless about how deep and multi-layered their unhappiness is....

[Willie Lumplump]

The unhappiness of Jack Bauer is a reflection of the unhappiness of the American people, etc., etc., etc.I like the way you think.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The unhappiness of Jack Bauer is a reflection of the unhappiness of the American people. Americans are clueless about how deep and multi-layered their unhappiness is.


It al started when they made the pursuit of happiness a national goal in their Grundgesetz. We Europeans are more cynical about the perfectibility of man, and hence maybe a little more relaxed?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

It's interesting that you perceive it that way. I read the right to the "pursuit of happiness" with the stress on "pursuit" not achievement and with the strong implication that there will never be a consensus on what happiness is or how to achieve it, and thus as a statement about the political value of pluralism. It is true that we Americans are not very "relaxed" about the pursuit and that we keenly feel its "tragic" character and its fragile status. But until recently that was also the European attitude. I'm by no means certain that a relaxed attitude towards the question of what constitutes happiness and how best to pursue it is the most admirable position.


It al started when they made the pursuit of happiness a national goal in their Grundgesetz. We Europeans are more cynical about the perfectibility of man, and hence maybe a little more relaxed?

[Valley Oak]

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which contains the statement, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he borrowed those words from English political theorist, John Locke. Locke wrote about a century earlier about the right to "life, liberty, and property." Jefferson did not want to broach the subject of property because it was not going to be guaranteed in the new republic, their experiment. Only property owning, white males could vote. Indeed, some people WERE themselves property (slaves) and Jefferson knew this; Jefferson owned slaves and reprocreated with them. The easiest thing for Jefferson to write was to replace Locke's word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness," an elusive need not achievable by most people. I don't think Jefferson had much choice in the matter given the social fabric at the time.

People have a right to be happy. But in the eighteenth century, the best the framers of the U.S. Constitution could offer people was the mere possibility of reaching happiness. It was definitely a carrot for garnering desperately needed support from as many people as possible to help them fight the British troops in mortal combat and birthing a new government.

Edward


It's interesting that you perceive it that way. I read the right to the "pursuit of happiness" with the stress on "pursuit" not achievement and with the strong implication that there will never be a consensus on what happiness is or how to achieve it, and thus as a statement about the political value of pluralism. It is true that we Americans are not very "relaxed" about the pursuit and that we keenly feel its "tragic" character and its fragile status. But until recently that was also the European attitude. I'm by no means certain that a relaxed attitude towards the question of what constitutes happiness and now best to pursue it is the most admirable position.

[Zeno Swijtink]

People have a right to be happy. But in the eighteenth century, the best the framers of the U.S. Constitution could offer people was the mere possibility of reaching happiness.

Edward

Which proves my point if I had one. Apparently just a pursuit, a possibility has turned into a right. The sneaky way of words strategically placed!!

So if you're not happy you rights have been violated! But by whom? There is no obvious perpetrator. Whining and sulking results ...

[Lenny]

Bauer, in contrast, is an utter mess. Has he even once made a witty (or even flirtatious) comment? Has he smiled, other than sadistically? The only women he telephones are his daughter and various computer operators at CTU. For him, the pursuit of justice and rightness and goodness is so consuming as to leave none of the 24 hours in the day available for pleasure. Bauer is an icon of what the American Empire has come to: it’s just no damn fun anymore. It's all work, dangerous work, all the time, 24/7.

WOW. What a buzz kill! And then to take it out of the realm made for fun and put the whole thing into "critical analysis"; make me want to party with you, NOT.:2cents:

[Frederick M. Dolan]

In 17th century English the word "property" had a much wider significance than it later had (the word's meaning may be changing again now), so that "life" and "liberty" were themselves forms of property, property being not only things but anything legitimately acquired including faculties, abilities, etc. I suspect that the significance of the "pursuit of happiness" phrase relates to the ideas of pluralism and procedural liberalism, signaling that a just political order does not impose a substantive idea of the good but rather guarantees the right of individuals to define and pursue it as they see fit. It's also relevant that in the 18th century "happiness" did not have the exclusively subjective emotional meaning that it has today. It meant something like the achievement of a fit between one's gifts and that upon which they are conditioned, i.e. a life in which one possesses the means to act in accordance with one's nature. Since different people have different virtues, talents, gifts, etc. it is all the more important that no single definition be imposed and that all have the right to pursue it in accordance with their specific natures.



When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which contains the statement, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he borrowed those words from English political theorist, John Locke. Locke wrote about a century earlier about the right to "life, liberty, and property." Jefferson did not want to broach the subject of property because it was not going to be guaranteed in the new republic, their experiment. Only property owning, white males could vote. Indeed, some people WERE themselves property (slaves) and Jefferson knew this; Jefferson owned slaves and reprocreated with them. The easiest thing for Jefferson to write was to replace Locke's word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness," an elusive need not achievable by most people. I don't think Jefferson had much choice in the matter given the social fabric at the time.

People have a right to be happy. But in the eighteenth century, the best the framers of the U.S. Constitution could offer people was the mere possibility of reaching happiness. It was definitely a carrot for garnering desperately needed support from as many people as possible to help them fight the British troops in mortal combat and birthing a new government.

Edward