Pixar's 2008 animated film Wall-E is a critically acclaimed masterpiece about two adorable robots falling in love.
Though I'd argue it also serves as an excellent example of sociological storytelling.
Like most of the best science fiction, this movie uses imaginative visions of the future as a lens,
through which to interrogate the social systems of today.
Now, in order to explore how Wall-E accomplishes this
we need to start with something that makes this movie relatively unique:
and that's the fact that it doesn't have a villain.
At least not the kind we've come to expect from a Disney-owned studio
[clip] "This is how we handle things down in Toontown."
Hollywood loves its larger-than-life, cartoonish villains.
The villainous characters that appear on the big screen are typically framed as 'bad apples':
they do bad things because of their personal deficiencies
and nefarious intentions
[clip] "Have a bite!"
This formula makes first simple, easy to understand plot lines,
but it also tends to reinforce an individualistic worldview.
The individualistic worldview is a false but widespread way of thinking
in which society is reduced to a bunch of individuals all making their own independent choices.
The central idea underpinning the individualistic model of the world
is that people *do* what they *are*.
People do bad things because they are bad people.
According to this reductive framework,
injustice is a result of the isolated actions of a few bad apples.
[clip] "How dare you! Off with his head!"
But that worldview, like the Hollywood narratives that are constructed around it,
minimizes or completely ignores the important role that social systems and institutions play in our world.
[clip] [singing] "Come on! How bad can it possibly be?"
[singing] "How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just building the economy."
[singing] "How ba-a-a-ad can I be?"
Since Wall-E's narrative isn't built around that traditional villain formula,
the movie presents us with a very different worldview:
a sociological one.
It's not that this story doesn't have antagonists or central conflicts—
—it has both—
—they just don't take the forms we're used to seeing in popular entertainment.
[clip] "Caution: Rogue robots."
The antagonist of Wall-E is the film's setting itself: the Axiom star-line.
Or, more specifically, the automated systems that run the ship.
In other words, the villain of this movie is not a person:
it's an institution.
I should briefly mention that the Axiom's A.I. is named 'Auto',
but unlike HAL 9000 or other A.I. villains, Auto is not sentient.
Nor are his actions the result of a malfunction.
Auto can't make independent choices.
All he can do is follow his pre-programmed directives,
and in that sense Auto isn't a traditional Disney villain.
Instead, he functions as the voice of the ship as an institution.
Okay, let's quickly recap the plot for those who haven't seen this movie recently:
humans have abandoned earth after polluting the planet to the point where it's no longer inhabitable.
The surviving population lives aboard massive luxury star-liners that are drifting through space.
These automated galaxy cruisers are run entirely by robots on behalf of the Buy and Large corporation
Buy and Large is essentially a combination of Walmart, McDonald's
Disney, GE, and Starbucks all rolled into one.
[clip] [distantly] "Time for lunch... in a cup!"
The company promised the original passengers that they would all be returned to Earth once the planet was made livable again.
[clip] [distantly] "Too much garbage in your face? There's plenty of space out in space!"
[clip] [distantly] "B'n'L star-liners leaving each day. We'll clean up the mess while you're away!"
That was over 700 years ago.
[clip] [distantly] "The jewel of the B'n'L fleet—the Axiom!"
Over several generations the human passengers have become so complacent
in their overindulgent lifestyle that they've even forgotten how to walk under their own power.
[clip] "Please remain stationary. A service bot will be here to assist you momentarily."
The film's core conflict
revolves around individuals of both the human and robotic variety realizing
they're all participating in a system larger than themselves,
and then working together to break free from that system.
And that premise, that we as individuals
are always participating in something larger than ourselves,
is the core concept underpinning the field of sociology.
Those 'larger things' that we're all participating in are referred to as 'social systems'.
Social systems are interconnected arrangements structures and relationships
that combine to form a coherent whole.
As individual members of society, we are all always participating in a range of different social systems.
So, for example, the family unit is a social system,
as are schools,
and police departments,
and corporations,
and whole societies.
Patriarchy and white supremacy are also examples of complex interlocking social systems.
To paraphrase sociologist Allan G. Johnson,
it's the dynamic relationship between us as individuals
and these larger social systems that makes social life happen.
Because the Axiom star-liner functions as a self-contained social system,
let's use it to help illustrate how all of this works.
Like all social systems the Axiom includes sets of rules,
or social norms which participants are expected to adhere to
in order to ensure that the system functions smoothly.
In sociological terms these socially enforced expectations
are referred to as 'paths of least resistance'.
In the movie, we can see this process play out
in the directives that each of the robots must follow.
And it's represented by literal lines,
along which both the passengers and the crew travel around the ship.
It's important to note that paths of least resistance
do not determine the behavior of all individual human beings.
We are not robots, after all.
And that means that we all have a choice in how we participate in these social systems.
We can, if we choose, step off the path of least resistance.
But doing so will likely lead to pressure from others to get us back in line.
[woman robot voice] /We interrupt your, timeline with an important message/
The most succinct description of how paths of least resistance operate that I've ever seen
uses the board game Monopoly.
The Monopoly example, along with many of the other concepts we've been discussing,
can be found in the excellent book 'The Forest and the Trees' by sociologist Allan G. Johnson.
He points out that Monopoly functions as a mini social system.
Like all social systems the game includes paths of least resistance,
which can be found in the rules inside the box.
All we really have to do is glance at those rules and we can predict exactly
how people's behavior will be impacted.
[clip] "Why don't we play Monopoly?"
The path of least resistance for players is to simply follow the rules.
[clip] "Bart, you're cheating!"
Refusing to adhere to the rules
will lead to pushback from other players,
and likely get you kicked out of the game.
Whenever the rules of the game are followed,
an antagonistic pattern of behavior will always emerge—
[clip] [laughter] "That's it, baby. Welcome to Marvin Gardens."
—and that pattern is one of a ruthless greed.
[clip] "You're a little light here, Dad."
[clip] "I'm good for the rest. You know I am!"
Remember, the game of Monopoly is over
when one player has taken everything of value from everyone else.
[clip] "One, two, three... Doh! Why you little—!"
[clip] [chirpy voiceover from advert] "Isn't Monopoly game night the best?"
[clip] [voiceover] "The love, the laughter, the competition!"
As Johnson reminds us, if we use an individualistic lens to explain this pattern of behavior,
it leads to one explanation:
people are greedy.
Remember that the core idea underpinning the individualistic worldview
is that people *do* what they *are*.
So according to that, people playing Monopoly behave in greedy ways,
because people are greedy.
Now, the problem with that as Johnson points out
is that most people don't behave in ruthlessly greedy ways
when they're not playing Monopoly.
Sure, all people have the capacity for selfishness to some degree
but the rules of Monopoly not only encourage greedy behavior,
the rules actually make greedy behavior a necessary condition of participation.
The personal values of the players are irrelevant to describing the game and its rules.
It doesn't matter if you're a Buddhist monk or a Wall Street Banker,
if you play Monopoly as it's meant to be played
you'll end up acting like an absolute monster.
Paths of least resistance and their outcomes vary greatly
depending on which social system we're talking about.
So in Monopoly the outcome is greed.
On the Axiom however, the path of least resistance for the passengers is to be passive super consumers.
[clip] [distantly] "Attention Axiom shoppers: try blue! It's the new red!"
Many film reviewers noted that Wall-E functions as a critique of consumer capitalism,
which it undoubtedly does.
However, the film doesn't take the easy route
by vilifying individual Buy and Large consumers.
In that way, it's the opposite of a film like Idiocracy,
which is a movie I absolutely despise.
[clip] [numbly] "Welcome to CostCo. I love you."
Idiocracy is also meant as a critique of consumerism
but it traffics in a brand of cynical, elitist humor
that ends up blaming individuals,
often the most powerless and poorest of people,
for the destructive actions of corporations and governments.
To its credit, that's not how Wall-E frames the humans living aboard the Axiom star-liner.
Yes, they're complicit in their situation,
and yes, they enjoy the privileges the system affords them.
If we were to use an individualistic lens to explain their behavior,
we would be forced to conclude that the Captain and all the passengers
act in lazy, stupid, in apathetic ways
because they are naturally lazy, stupid and apathetic people.
But since Wall-E is an example of sociological storytelling,
it frames the passengers and the Captain as initially acting in the ways they do,
because that's what the Axiom's social systems expect from them.
Even the passengers' physical appearance is a direct result of the ship's systems
and not a result of their personal failings.
They are simply following the paths of least resistance that are laid out for them,
and that means the passengers are not defined by their complicit role in that system.
They have the capacity to grow and break free.
[clip] "We'll see who's powerless now!"
And I'd argue that that idea,
that people can change how they engage with social systems,
and in so doing transform, or even abolish those systems
is an incredibly hopeful message.
Paths of least resistance in the real world
are rarely as well defined as the directives aboard the Axiom,
or the rules of a board game.
The social expectations in our daily lives are often unwritten,
and we conform to their norms unconsciously.
For example, imagine you hear someone tell a sexist joke.
[clip] [singing] "We saw your boobs!"
[still singing] "We saw your boobs."
The path of least resistance is typically to laugh.
[audience laugh and clap]
Imagine being confronted with sexual harassment in the workplace.
The path of least resistance there might be to stay silent.
[clip] "The issue of men speaking out has been a big talking point with this scandal,
with many who have worked with Weinstein remaining quiet."
Predatory sexual behavior is not just the result of a few very rotten apples.
It's part of a much larger systemic problem.
Social systems of male entitlement work to reinforce,
excuse, and enable that type of behavior
Social systems are one of the most important
and one of the most misunderstood concepts in my work
around media and masculinity.
From time to time, I'll use terms like misogyny,
patriarchy, male privilege or male entitlement
and that tends to elicit a very defensive reaction,
especially from guys, who feel they're being personally condemned as villains.
However, these terms are not meant as an indictment of every individual man.
They're simply ways of describing the larger social systems that we're all part of.
One of Allan G. Johnson's key insights from the Monopoly example,
is that we can describe the game of Monopoly and its outcome
without describing the personalities of each individual player.
This also means that we can describe the framework of real-world social systems
without necessarily saying anything about the personalities
of the people participating in those systems.
The passengers and rebellious robots aboard the Axiom
all eventually step off the path of least resistance
and, as a result, change the fate of humanity.
And we, as people in the real world,
can collectively step off our own paths of least resistance
and refuse to be complicit in oppressive social systems.
Thanks for watching!
If you like these long form video essays please consider going over to Patreon and helping to fund the project there.
There's also a link to PayPal in the description below.
Everything I make is entirely funded by viewers like you.
Next month, we'll be talking about George Lucas
manhood, and the Star Wars prequels... so that should be fun.
See y'all then.