William Irwin (ed.) (1999) Seinfeld and Philosophy:
A Book About Everything and Nothing
Chicago, Illinois: Open Court
ISBN 0812694090
232pp.
John S. Vassar
Louisiana State University, Shreveport, USA
The show Seinfeld is an American television phenomenon. Since the show
now continues
in perpetuity in syndicated reruns as well as in the just released
fourth season on DVD, now
seems an appropriate time to judge the contribution of Seinfeld to the
realm of media and
philosophy. When it left the airwaves in 1998, it clearly left on top
of the television ratings
as it had dominated its time slot for years. In addition to its
popularity, Seinfeld seemed
almost unique in how it affected culture throughout its run. On Friday
mornings after the
Thursday night show, conversations across North America were sprinkled
with such insider
terms such as 'yada, yada, yada', 'no soup for you', and 'sponge-
worthy'. These terms are
generally meaningless to the larger population. Philosophy too has its
own insider jargon;
a dialect of a special group, generally inaccessible to outsiders. But
Seinfeld and
philosophy might share more than arcane nomenclature together.
Philosophy is notorious
in how it intersects popular culture in various ways. Philosophy
dialogues with popular
culture in obvious ways like aesthetics and ethics, but also in the
more obscure areas of
ontology and epistemology. If this close connection between philosophy
and media is
correct, then surely it is important to explore how Seinfeld might
display the philosophy of
contemporary culture.
Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book About Everything and Nothing edited by
William
Irwin is a book that exists to fill this (admittedly narrow)
oversight. This text offers an
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
115
entertaining and, arguably, even necessary critical exploration of all
things Seinfeld.
Seinfeld and Philosophy bears no pretence of objectivity. It is
clearly written for that
market of philosophers and Seinfeld aficionados. It begins with a
knowing wink to the hard
core fan (the dedication is to Bob Sacamano) and ends with a knowing
nod to philosophy
(with a list of significant philosophers indexed in the final few
pages). This work makes an
effort to subtly explore the substance of a show that expressed its
own irrelevance.
Seinfeld and Philosophy is divided into four acts and fourteen
chapters. Act I (The
Characters: aka the New York Four) explores the four main characters
from the series.
Elaine, Jerry, Kramer and George each are placed within a particular
philosophical
tradition. Each character is explored, though not necessarily
explained. Act II (_Seinfeld_
and the Philosophers) places the show against a larger backdrop of
philosophy in various
times and ways. The teachings of Wittgenstein, Sartre and Nietzsche
carry on a
conversation with the characters from the sitcom. Act III (Untimely
Meditations by the
Water Cooler) is wide ranging discussion of some seemingly random
philosophical
observations about the show. Act IV (Is There Anything Wrong With
That?) explores the
ethical context of Seinfeld. Following these four acts is a series of
indices that chronicle an
episode list and list of significant philosophers.
Introducing this work is an overview by the editor, William Irwin.
Irwin is concerned
about justifying the need for a book dealing with a 'show about
nothing'. This phrase is an
important one in the Seinfeld universe. In the fourth season of the
series, NBC approaches
Jerry Seinfeld asks him to develop a sit-com for them. When Jerry and
George pitch their
idea to NBC, they describe their idea as a show about nothing. In our
show 'nothing
happens, just like real life' says George. With this background in
mind, the relationship
between nothing and something, being and nonbeing, becomes a theme to
which many
of the writers return. Irwin notes how this discussion didn't start
with Seinfeld but has an
impressive pedigree going back to Nietzsche (whose subtitle for Thus
Spoke Zarathustra
was 'A Book For None and All' and even earlier to some of the
theoretical musings of
Parmenides. Following Irwin's 'apologia', the various authors begin
their exploration of
Seinfeld.
The first section of the book (Act I) introduces the four main
characters of the series.
William Irwin pens the initial chapter, entitled 'Jerry and Socrates:
The Examined Life?' Irwin
intriguingly focuses upon the connection between the fictional Jerry
Seinfeld and the real
Jerry Seinfeld. He compares their close relationship to the
relationship between Plato and
Socrates. Specifically, Irwin notes the difficulty between
distinguishing between the words
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
116
of Jerry and Jerry and Socrates and Plato. In addition he discusses
the tendency of Jerry
and Plato to utilize irony as well as to educate through questioning.
Daniel Barwick explores the life of George through the lens of
Aristotle in the second
chapter, 'George's Failed Quest For Happiness: An Aristotelian
Analysis'. As Barwick
explains, George is clearly the loser of the quad. Jerry, Kramer and
Elaine have each
attained some degree of success in life, but George has emphatically
not. Barwick
contends that George represents the human baseline; designated as the
'many' by
Aristotle. George lives his life as the many do, prone to both rage
and self-loathing while
eliciting very little substantial happiness. That happiness which
George does achieve is
often transient and self-absorbed. Barwick attempts to explore the
future of George, yet
eventually concludes that it will eventually get George nowhere.
Sarah Worth explores the Elaine Benes character in her chapter
entitled 'Elaine
Benes: Feminist Icon or Just One of the Boys?' In this chapter, Worth
looks at Benes and
judges her to fill the role of a feminist Icon (just barely). Worth
describes Benes as one of
the boys, but then compares her to her female colleagues from Thursday
night television
in the nineties. Worth concludes that Benes portrays a more positive
role than the others
because she is gainfully employed and more self-confidence. Indeed,
throughout the
series she is the only character of the four who sets goals (suspect
though they may be)
and works to achieve them.
Irwin returns for the fourth chapter in the book with a character
study on Cosmo
Kramer. In 'Kramer and Kierkegaard: Stages along Life's Way', Irwin
evaluates Kramer's
character from the perspective of Kierkegaard's three stages of life.
As Irwin quickly notes,
this is fairly simple to do. Kramer never gets beyond Kierkegaard's
initial stage of the
aesthetic stage of life. Irwin's thesis is that the Kramer character
'provides us with an
excellent example of someone dwelling in the aesthetic sphere of
existence' (39). Irwin
notes further that there are some similarities between Kierkegaard and
Kramer. They each
have experienced some estrangement form their parents. Additionally,
both Kramer and
Kierkegaard had a troubled childhood, with some trauma.
Kierkegaard and Kramer also share the fact that they each adopt
various personas.
Kierkegaard writes Either/Or under a pseudonym and Kramer also spends
various episodes
taking up various names and occupations. In his description of the
aesthetic stage in
Either/Or, Kierkegaard describes the aesthete as one who constantly
changes from one
area of interest to another. The aesthete is amoral and chooses more
based on diversions
than on ethics. In a similar way, Kramer makes constant choices based
more on emotion
than reason. Irwin and the viewer face a dilemma. Like many sitcom
inhabitants, Kramer is
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
117
a flat, not a round character. He doesn't grow as a character and
cannot therefore make his
way from the aesthetic to the ethical or religious spheres. Although
he makes some
attempts to do so, he ultimately fails. Perhaps that is why most
viewers can relate to his
character.
In the second section of the book (Act II: Seinfeld And the
Philosophers), the writers
read Seinfeld alongside streams of philosophic tradition. In the
initial article of this section,
'Making Something Out of Nothing: Seinfeld, Sophistry and the Tao',
Eric Bronson hones in
on the concept of the show as nothing. Part of the lore surrounding
the Seinfeld series it its
purported focus on nothing. This focus on nothing as a plotline was a
recurring theme on
the show. Bronson examines how this theme of nothing has been
significant in the history
of philosophy as well. He incorporates the works of Parmenides and
Plato's response to
Parmenides' 'via negativa'. In particular, Bronson describes Plato's
work The Sophist as a
defense of nothing. Bronson then turns to eastern thought and includes
a reading of Lao
Tzu's Tao Te Chung. He argues that the Tao portrays nothing as a
powerful object that can
overcome and transform. Ultimately this chapter successfully
demonstrates that there has
been a tremendous amount of philosophical discussion precisely over
nothing.
Mark Conrad contributes the second article in this section entitled
'Plato or
Nietzsche?: Time, Essence, and Eternal Recurrence in Seinfeld'. He
reads Seinfeld alongside
these two philosophers' contexts. First, Conrad examines how the
series has individuals in
identical situations on a recurring basis. For example, most episodes
contain one or more
of the following: Kramer bursts through Jerry's door, George ends up
in a socially awkward
setting, Jerry hisses 'Newman' though clenched teeth or Elaine shoves
someone while
exclaiming 'Get Out!' Conrad argues (correctly) that these do not
precisely correspond to
Nietzsche's conceptions of eternal recurrence, although Conrad does
raise the tantalizing
possibility that syndication might offer a fruitful path for this to
occur.A more helpful take
on the recurrence of these characters comes from Plato's discussion of
essences. For Plato,
an essence is that characteristic of something that distinguishes it
from something else.
Conrad thinks that the Seinfeld cast is best understood in the context
of a recurring
essence rather than a recurring time as Nietzsche understood it. 'The
Bizarro Jerry'
illustrates this recurring essence by depicting the characters as
their individual traits.
In 'Seinfeld, Subjectivity, and Sartre' Jennifer McMahon analyses one
of the crucial
parts of the television text. McMahon has two objectives. Her first
objective is an attempt
to justify reading the Seinfeld series from a philosophical
perspective. Her second
objective is to argue that Seinfeld demonstrates Sartre's theory of
Subjectivity. Specifically,
McMahon argues that the formation of George's, Kramer's, Jerry's and
Elaine's individual
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
118
selfs occur only because of their relationship to one another. They
are inherently
identifiable only through their intertwined, mutual relationships.
Individual identity
emerges exclusively through the relationship of self to others. Lastly
McMahon concludes
with an intertextual reading of Sartre's No Exit and the final episode
of the Seinfeld series
'The Finale'. Both works point to the relationship among several
individuals and conclude
with the primary characters incarcerated together.
The last chapter of the second section is Kelly Dean Jolley's
'Wittgenstein and
Seinfeld on the Commonplace'. Jolley compares the focus of
Wittgenstein on the
commonplace with Seinfeld's episodic journey to minutia which often
(pre)occupies the
mind of each and every character on the show. If Seinfeld is the
master of the mundane,
then Wittgenstein might represent an expression of this perspective in
the philosophical
realm. A final similarity is in their equal dismissal of their own
work. Seinfeld characterizes
Seinfeld as a show about nothing and Wittgenstein characterized his
own work as
'unimportant, at least in the sense that it builds nothing, creates
nothing great or
important' (117).
The Third act of this work is entitled 'Untimely Meditations by the
Water Cooler'. In
this section, the contributors write about how philosophy intersects
with the series in
diverse ways. The first article in this third section is written by
Jason Holt and is entitled
'The Costanza Maneuver: Is it Rational for George to 'Do the
Opposite?' The 'Costanza
Maneuver' is Holt's term for George Costanza's decision to start
choosing the opposite of
his natural instincts in the episode entitled 'The Opposite'. Since
his entire life has been a
miserable failure, George decides that doing the opposite of his
natural inclination must
lead to a better life. Holt explores the ramifications of that
decision and also uses the
episode as a basis for his discussion of what exactly the term
rational means.
In 'Peterman and the Ideological Mind: Paradoxes of Subjectivity'
Norah Martin
explores the relationship of Lacan and Seinfeld. Specifically Martin
examines the close
relationship between cynicism and irony. Martin argues that in some
ways, the Peterman
character is the most realistic on Seinfeld because he is the one most
hollow. That is, his
catalog details numerous dashing exploits of his life that are
completely fictitious. In
reality, he is the most normal of the characters as his life is
completely unexceptional. 'Mr.
Peterman thus represents us most completely. The 'I' is experienced by
us as emptiness
and as desire. In other words, as dissatisfaction.' (146). J.
Peterman, in Zizek's conception,
thus demonstrates the nothingness that is so common to humanity.
Jorge Gracia takes on one of the most detailed discussions of a
Seinfeld episode in a
section entitled 'The Secret of Seinfeld's Humor: The Significance of
the Insignificant'. This
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
119
(ambitiously titled) section argues that the secret to understanding
Seinfeld is how he
allows the viewer to see the significance of the insignificant and the
insignificance of the
significant. Gracia discusses in great detail 'The Outing' episode.
This episode revolves
around Jerry and George's frequent attempts to convince a reporter
that they are NOT gay,
all the while noting 'Not that there's anything wrong with that.'
Gracia explores how an
intense focus gender stereotypes and seemingly insignificant
activities can be laden with
(humorous) meaning. By focusing upon the minute portions of the
episode, Gracia argues
humor of the episode manifests.
'Is there Anything Wrong With That?' is the title of the fourth and
final act of the text.
This section examines the ethics of Seinfeld. The first article of
this section is entitled
'Seinfeld and the Moral Life' by Robert A. Epperson. Epperson
correctly identifies proper
conduct as one of the most significant themes in Seinfeld. Virtually
every episode is
devoted, at least in part, to what is the appropriate response to a
given situation. Epperson
builds on this concept and argues that this fascination with right
conduct demonstrates
that Seinfeld does not depict an immoral group of New Yorkers, but
actually contains a
significant foursome whose conversations regularly revolve around
right action. The
characters in Seinfeld depict morality in absolute terms and do not
base their behavior on
foundations like the Torah or the Bible. But they do attempt to live
their lives in accordance
with moral certainty and thus the series Seinfeld often discusses
morality in a far more
detailed way than other, more serious, television shows. Aeon Skoble
contributes the
second article in this section, 'Virtue Ethics on TV's Seinfeld'. In
this article, Skoble discusses
Seinfeld within the context of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
Specifically he examines
how the Seinfeld foursome is concerned with developing practical
wisdom, discovering
and emulating positive role models, and acting well. Because so many
of their activities
focus on these three actions, Skoble concludes that the characters in
Seinfeld are very
much interested in acquiring an ethical existence, following Aristotle
along a similar path.
In the final article of section IV and the entire book, Theodore
Schick surveys
(appropriately enough) the final episode of Seinfeld. In his article
'The Final Episode: Is
Doing Nothing Doing Something?' In the final episode, Jerry, Elaine,
George and Kramer
stand idly by while a man is mugged. They are then arrested for
violating the Good
Samaritan law of Lathan, Massachusetts. During their trial,
individuals from previous
episodes repeatedly testify to their bad character. Schick traces the
thought and
justification behind the so-called 'Good Samaritan Laws'. He examines
how a libertarian
and communitarian perspective might affect our agreement over whether
or not these
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
120
laws are a good idea. Schink finally concludes that the New York
Foursome is in fact guilty
of not helping the individual and morally should've assisted him.
Evaluation:
I suppose the first question I asked as I saw this title was 'why'? As
a Seinfeld fan of many
years I am intrigued by the critical thought applied to the series.
This text is unabashedly
written by and for Seinfeld fans. The authors display a depth of
Seinfeld archana that is
truly remarkable. Clearly this volume depicts the advantages of
exploring popular culture
from a philosophical perspective.
It is difficult to evaluate such a diverse and fascinating set of
articles. Overall a
collection can be judged on creativity and contribution to the field.
This collection
certainly excels in these areas. As someone who instructs in the field
of philosophy I came
up with numerous opportunities to incorporate areas of this work into
my classes. Each
essay highlighted at least one episode that will be helpful in getting
across a significant
philosophical point. This work is certainly a helpful assist from a
pedagogical perspective.
McMahon's piece on Sartre is one of the strongest and addresses the
skeptics who
cast askance at the use of popular culture to illustrate philosophical
inquiry. Her
justification of the reading of popular culture as a legitimate field
of inquiry offers great
utility to scholars in other fields. If Seinfeld offers a fruitful
arena for studies, then so may
other works of popular media culture.
Someone unfamiliar with the Seinfeld universe might be lost in various
articles.
Some articles, like those by Gracia and Schick, offer an intensive
look at particular episodes.
But most of the pieces presuppose a great deal of familiarity with the
main characters and
with some of the more (in)famous episodes in the series. Obviously the
fact that the
collection is about this series serves the reader fair warning that
some familiarity is helpful.
A second weakness of the text is the third sections. It is designed to
simulate a
conversation around a water cooler, but it seemed to disconnected from
the rest of the
book. I think that the section on ethics could've been expanded with
more articles and this
section eliminated. This effect, incidentally would duplicate the
habit of American and
(usually) British situation comedies to follow the traditional three
act structure.
A third weakness for the readers of this particular journal, there is
little on the
technical side of how the series is filmed. No mention is made of the
use of three cameras
in most episodes (or the exceptions, like the use of a single camera
in 'The Trip (Parts I and
II)'. None of the authors explored those elements of media criticism
related to elements like
mise en scene or composition of a shot. The authors could just as
easily be analyzing a
Film-Philosophy, 10.3 December 2006
Vassar, John S. (2006) 'From Socrates to Seinfeld: What's the Deal
with Nothing?', Film-Philosophy, v. 10, n. 3,
pp. 114-121. <
http:/www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/vassar.pdf>
ISSN: 1466-4615 online
121
written text rather than a television text. Obviously this was an
intended omission on the
part of the author, but readers looking for a formal critical
evaluation of the technical,
production side of Seinfeld would need to look elsewhere.
Related to this weakness is a lack of describing the particular genre
of situation
comedies. There is little in this text that explores the peculiarities
of this art form. Only one
article dealt in a substantive manner with why Seinfeld is
particularly funny. No article
discussed how the situation-comedy genre might affect how its message
is delivered. I
would be interested in reading what some of the author's felt about
how the television
medium affects the message of this particular series.
But omission is surely a lesser sin than commission and here the
compilation truly
excels. Most contributors do an impressive job of reading various
episodes from disparate
philosophical perspectives. This text does touch on an appropriately
diverse number of
thinkers and thoughts and would function as an excellent undergraduate
text-book. It
might even make Bob Sacamano proud.
