Ideologies

By Mason Lenches-Jhamb

What is an ideology?

“An ideology is a world-view, a system of values, attitudes and beliefs which an individual, group or society holds to be true or important; these are shared by a culture or society about how that society should function."

What is a Dominant Ideology?

“Dominant ideologies are ideologies or beliefs that we live by in our day-to-day lives and often do not question – they have become 'natural, common sense' things to do. This effectively dissuades people from rebelling against these beliefs, and keeps a sense of stability in society."

Ideologies construct our society’s interpretation of reality. They are the nucleus around which all aspects of a particular society operate. Once established, ideologies can define one’s view of self, others, institutions, and government. With such power, comes the danger of being rooted too closely to them. These beliefs can become “self evident” and can motivate action through the unconscious mind. The ideologies that then challenge or compromise those established are seen as foreign. Along with these challengers, comes uncertainty and instability. Often, they are met with dissension, and attempts to discredit them are common. Dominant ideologies do not so easily abdicate, for, thanks to the media, they are pervasive. The media typically function as champions of dominant ideology. Through consistent coverage that privileges some and relegates others, media are unsettlingly successful at maintaining the “balance of power” within a given society. Movies in particular, can either challenge or promote dominant ideologies. Most commonly, they support tradition with a stable set of images. This cultivates, within the collective mind of the public, an idea of how things should be.

The movie The Insider includes numerous ideologies that correspond with traditional American values. It reinforces such accepted ideologies as white privilege, patriarchy, materialism, capitalism, justice, and romance.

White Privilege: Throughout the entire movie, whites are placed in positions of influence. These positions include corporate executives, lawyers, journalists, and most notably, the protagonist. Whites, through these roles, become the “shot callers." From the noble whistler blower and the truth-seeking journalist to the corporate executives of CBS and big tobacco companies, minorities are absent. This becomes problematic in that it does not accurately reflect the diversity that exists in these positions. It is true, that in America, more often than not, whites are the dominant race in these positions. Yet, that does not mean there isn’t a single minority man or woman that holds such an office. Instead of integrating minority actors and actresses into these roles, they have been assigned to less prominent ones. These include a teacher, security guard, and court secretary. Are minorities not capable of earning as much as their white counterparts? It is certainly troubling when considering the combined salaries of the minority characters in relation to just one white character. The lawyer or corporate executive would make far more money than all of the minority characters. Upon what basis was this gross inequity established? Was it a latent disposition born of the traditional structure of society, or a malicious intent in the subjugation of minorities? As evidenced through the casting of particular characters, minorities are supposedly less successful than whites.

Patriarchy: The male characters within this movie, as is the case with whites, are privileged. By casting men in positions that are both lucrative and influential, the movie asserts the belief that men are more qualified than women. The men, within their roles, are strong willed and decisive. Jeffery Wigand and Lowell Bergman exhibit these qualities particularly well. Dr. Wigand is uncompromising in his pursuit of justice through exposing big tobacco industries. Mr. Bergman is equally as vigilant in his pursuit of the truth and a story that is worthy of public awareness. These two characters, in addition to their occupations and will power, are morally righteous. Men can then be interpreted as having scruples and success. On the contrary, women aren’t cast in nearly as flattering a light. Their roles are varied, and consist of wife, teacher, journalist, and lawyer; only the wife and journalist have considerable parts. Dr. Wigand’s wife is overly emotional, fragile, and prone to outbursts. She is unable to cope with the increasingly stressful situation as her husband is. There are various incidents in which she attempts to persuade her husband into abandoning his moral crusade. Where Wigand is depicted as strong, she is weak. Adding to her “weakness” is her lack of occupation. She relies on her husband for support. Her character substantiates the belief that women are emotionally precarious individuals that should remain in the household sphere. The journalist, on the other hand, is a woman that has an occupation. Yet, throughout the duration of the film, she serves as an errand girl for Mr. Bergman. Since she is his subordinate, women can be seen as below and obedient to men in the professional world. By casting men in superior positions, it can be surmised that they are more qualified and emotionally sound.

Materialism: There are two distinct references to materialism that emphasize it as capable of improving one’s life. Dr. Wigand justifies his working for the tobacco industry because of the money associated with the profession. With such money he was able to live comfortably. In such comfort he could afford a seemingly large suburban home and drive an Audi. However, after losing his job, his wife laments that they must lose the house, car, and other associated comforts that she has known. Losing these material items seems to bring her a degree of distress, emphasizing that material comfort possesses the capacity to make one happy. This reinforces the American dream of material prosperity and the happiness that accompanies it. It is suggested by these scenes that material items are the sole source of security and peace of mind. This perpetuates the purchasing of material items by those that view the association.

Justice: As is typical of Hollywood narratives, justice prevails. Although the road to exposure is paved with many obstacles, Wigand, with Berman’s help, is able to reveal the evil tobacco companies’ deceit to the American public. Thus, the American public is saved, Bergman’s persistence enables him to walk away with a clear conscience, and Wigand escapes with his dignity and life. The ending does appear bittersweet, as Wigand has lost his family, yet the movie’s ending leaves room for the possibility of reconciliation. This reaffirms the ideal that, in America or its cinemas, good never fails to triumph over the forces of evil. Rest assured Americans, in your country all will be well. This cinematic exaggeration of justice skews audiences’ perceptions by offering that everything in life can reach such a resolution.

Capitalism: America’s creed, capitalism, makes its appearance within the movie as a self-regulating system. Initially one might conclude that this movie undermines capitalism, as the tobacco companies were able to deceive the American public. However, the ruse is eventually exposed as the information is leaked to a more just institution. Thus, one may deduce that privately owned corporations have the ability to keep one another in check. These institutions are able to maintain the balance of American society, while turning a profit in the process. In this context, private ownership is able to meet its profit-oriented goals and level the playing field. Capitalism is then a system that exceeds its purpose, keeping America and its corporations wholesome, honest, and financially afloat.

Romance: It would seem as though no movie since the invention of cinema has been without a romantic element. Romance has become integral to the movie narrative. The Insider is no exception. The primary romantic component is the relationship between Dr. Wigand and his wife. As the plot progresses, and the security of the Wigand family is placed at risk, the tensions between husband and wife rise. With emotions running high, the couple gradually diverges in their sentiments. Wigand is willing to endure the threats to his family’s security, whereas his wife is unable to. Their separation ensues and the audience is instilled with the loss. The movie becomes all the more evocative and emotionally relatable. Supplementing the primary relations is Bergman’s relationship with his wife. This relationship serves as a contrast to that of the Wigand’s in that Bergman’s wife plays a more supporting role as she encourages her husband. With an appeal through both conflict and harmony, the audience is thrust into a multifaceted romance (or lack thereof). This portion of the movie may sound all too familiar, as it is constantly recycled. Yet, somehow it manages to recur with slight variation. The movie has the potential to stand on its own without any depiction of relationships, but romance has withstood the test of time.

These dominant ideologies have persisted throughout scores of movies. As they have been repeated consistently, viewers have grown accustomed to these qualities. Some of these ideologies are almost imperceptible to the average viewer. It is only through careful scrutiny that one may unveil the ideologies that this movie advocates. Those of us that have been raised in the United States may find it more difficult to determine the ideologies at play because they are consistent with the values in which we are immersed. As our society tends to privilege white males, the unsuspecting viewer may not second-guess The Insider placing white males in positions of power and all others in less successful positions. Moreover, as capitalism and materialism are also cast in a positive light, viewers accept these ideologies as societal norms. Big business and consumerism are then left to dominate the economic landscape of our country since there are no other alternatives according to movies. Other dominant ideologies such as romance and justice have long been established as vital elements of movies. The good guy will prevail while simultaneously getting the girl. It occurs time and time again, and will continue to. It is what audiences are willing to spend their hard earned money on. The prospect is frightening. It may not necessarily be the filmmakers that determine the content of movies, but rather the audiences. These elements are proven to ensure profits. Why not exhaust them, turn a profit, and maintain traditional society in the process. Only diversity is at stake.