I just finished re-watching the entirety of The Sopranos, HBO’s classic Mafia drama. I saw it season-by-season when it originally aired (1999-2007), and I still hew to the allegedly philistine view that the ending was not only bad, but insulting. Overall, though the show’s reputation is well-deserved. Here are the top social science insights I take away. (minor spoilers)
1. Human motivation is overdetermined. For any important action, people usually have several plausible reasons, and pinpointing the marginal factor is nigh impossible. Thus, does Tony kill Ralph because he believes Ralph torched their racehorse? Because Ralph denied doing so? Because Tony had stolen Ralph’s girlfriend, and didn’t believe Ralph was OK with it? Or was it all because Tony never forgave Ralph for murdering his own pregnant girlfriend a season earlier?
2. Humans are unbelievably petty. By providing readers with an array of credible motives, the show leads us to think that small grievances at least occasionally cause massive reactions. When Paulie murders his mother’s elderly frenemy, for example, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that he wouldn’t have done so if the frenemy hadn’t tried to wrongfully appropriate his mother’s dinner rolls. Similarly, Carmela doesn’t try to divorce Tony because he’s a serial adulterer or brutal criminal. She’s known both for years. Instead, she tries to divorce him because Irina, Tony’s ex-girlfriend, calls Carmela’s home to tattle that Tony slept with Irina’s one-legged cousin.
3. Out of sight, out of mind. In The Sopranos, criminals and non-criminals routinely interact. The non-criminals would have to be fools not to realize that the criminals aren’t merely violent, but murderous. Still, as long as the non-criminals do not witness the violence with their own eyes, they barely care. Even when they discover details that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the horrifying had happened, they look the other way. Thus, everyone except Adriana’s mother gets over her disappearance (murder, actually) with minimal cognitive dissonance. Never mind that her boyfriend was a junkie who repeatedly beat her; Adriana must have just decided out of the blue to leave New Jersey and never talk to her family or friends again.
4. A disciplined organized crime family can act with near-impunity. It’s easy to catch the typical murderer because the typical murderer murders someone he personally wants to murder. A crime family, however, can handily re-allocate its crimes so everyone lacks a personal motive for the crimes he personally commits. Criss cross! When Adriana tries to get Chrissy into witness protection, he doesn’t murder her. Instead, he tells Tony, who delegates the job to Silvio.
5. Organized crime families are not, in fact, disciplined. Criminals are overwhelmingly impulsive, macro males. So even though they have a great social technology for manufacturing ironclad alibis, they routinely fail to use it. Early in the series, Chrissy shoots a random baker in the foot in broad daylight. A great way to get caught… but Chrissy felt slighted, so he shot anyway. Ralphie beats his pregnant girlfriend to death in the Bing parking lot because she insulted his manhood.
6. Hedonic adaptation is mighty. The leading criminals on the show aren’t just filthy rich; they’re very popular with the ladies. Yet these criminals almost never count their blessings or stop to smell the flowers. Instead, they’re deeply bitter – and constantly on the edge of throwing temper tantrums. The wives of the leading criminals objectively have even less to complain about; they enjoy their husbands’ riches without ever facing the danger and brutality of acquiring those riches. Even so, the mob wives spend their days complaining and feeling sorry for themselves. Carmela, Tony’s wife, is the clearest case. Her main happy minutes come when she unwraps new jewels and furs. The rest of the time, she’s crinkling her nose with crankiness.
7. Rooting for the bad guy is easy… as long as he’s got charisma. If you neutrally described the typical Sopranos episode, almost anyone hypothetical juror would hand down centuries of jail time. As you watch, however, righteous verdicts are far from your mind. Why? Because the criminals have amusing personalities. My family’s personal favorite is Paulie “Walnuts” Gaultieri; we can’t stop quoting this scene:
Paulie: As far as f***n’ bears are concerned, I say, get rid of them all. They had their turn, and now we got ours. That’s why dinosaurs don’t exist no more.
Dancer: Wasn’t it a meteor?
Paulie: They’re all meat eaters.
Chris: Meteor, me-te-or.
How can we feel such affection for a sadistic killer like Paulie? Because he’s hilarious, and we’re in no danger. Oh, and how he loves his mother!
8. Psychiatric language is largely a set of excuses and power-plays. The Sopranos addresses anxiety, depression, ADHD, addiction, sociopathy, Borderline Personality Disorder, and much more. Yet in virtually every case, it acknowledges that there is, to quote psychiatrists’ psychiatrist Elliot Kupferberg, a reasonable “pre-therapeutic” take on the same situation. Yes, you can say that addicts are helpless victims of a “disease.” But you can also say that addicts are people who willfully place their own self-destructive habits over family harmony. Indeed, The Sopranos standardly insinuates that psychiatric language mostly boils down to Social Desirability Bias. If a character has ADHD, he’s sick and needs help; only a monster would growl, “Man up and work harder.” But as the plot plays out, attentive viewers will notice that it’s the no-nonsense approach that fits the facts and improves behavior. Even psychiatrist Dr. Melfi reverts to old-fashioned theories of personal responsibility when she exits her office; if you cross her, she’ll lash out no matter what psychiatric labels you carry.
The only clear-cut exception to this psychiatric skepticism is Uncle Junior’s dementia. Even here, he starts out as a faker, feigning dementia to delay his trial. By the end of the show, however, Junior’s run out of money – and can’t remember where he stashed his emergency funds. Indeed, he barely knows who he is anymore. The lesson: Dementia, unlike the other mental problems characters face, is a hard constraint rather than an exotic preference.
9. Despite ubiquitous ambiguity, right and wrong is fairly obvious if you calm down and detach yourself from your society. In season 3, a lone righteous character, psychiatrist Dr. Krakower, sees through a web of wrong-doing and lame excuses in a matter of minutes. Carmela Soprano goes to Krakower for help, and he delivers The Moral Answers. Highlights from one of the greatest scenes of all time:
Carmela: […] [Tony’s] a good man, a good father.
Krakower: You tell me he’s a depressed criminal. Prone to anger. Serially unfaithful. Is that your definition of a good man?
Carmela: I thought psychiatrists weren’t supposed to be judgmental.
Krakower: Many patients want to be excused for their current predicament. Because of events that occurred in their childhood. That’s what psychiatry has become in America. Visit any shopping mall or ethnic pride parade. Witness the results.
Carmela: What we say in here stays in here, right?
Krakower: By ethical code and by law.
Carmela: His crimes. They are, uh, organized crimes.
Krakower: The mafia.
Carmela: Oh so, so what? So what? He betrays me every week with these whores.
Krakower: Probably the least of his misdeeds. You can leave now, or you can you stay and hear what I have to say.
Carmela: Well, you’re gonna charge the same anyway.
Krakower: I won’t take your money.
Carmela: That’s a new one.
Krakower: You must trust your initial impulse and consider leaving him. You’ll never be able to feel good about yourself. You’ll never be able to quell the feelings of guilt and shame that you talked about. As long as you’re his accomplice.
[…]Carmela: So . . . You think I need to define my boundaries more clearly. Keep a certain distance. Not internalize my–
Krakower: What did I just say?
Carmela: Leave him.
Krakower: Take only the children, or what’s left of them, and go.
[…]
Carmela: I’d have to, uh, get a lawyer. Find an apartment. Arrange for child support.
Krakower: You’re not listening. I am not charging you because I won’t take blood money. And you can’t either. One thing you can never say, that you haven’t been told.
10. Dylan Matthews and Tyler Cowen notwithstanding, the Columbus Day episode was hilarious and wise. The veneration of this murderous slaver isn’t just shameful; it exposes the shameful essence of identity politics of every description. And what better vessels for these truisms than a gang of self-righteously aggrieved mafiosi?
READER COMMENTS
Kurt Schuler
Apr 1 2019 at 6:50pm
Do I infer correctly from your remarks on Columbus that the veneration of Martin Luther King, Jr. is likewise shameful and exposes the shameful essence of identity politics of every description? Columbus was a slaver at a time when slavery was generally accepted by the morality of the period. King was, among other things, a plagiarist and an adulterer at a time when the morality of the period condemned those things. Or might it be the case that those who have never accomplished anything great should acknowledge that the relationship between greatness and goodness is often an uneasy one?
Mark Z
Apr 1 2019 at 10:19pm
So, morality is determined by the consensus of the time and place, and being “great” requires one to be immoral, and therefore the “great” should be forgiven their immoralities because of their supposed greatness? I think you also missed the identity politics point. Why should someone think that Columbus putatively discovering America justifies a sense of pride, simply because he was born on the same peninsula Columbus was born on.
Kurt schuler
Apr 2 2019 at 12:32am
Mark Z, to address your points: Moral progress does occur, at least along some dimensions, so to expect Columbus to share all aspects of our morality would be like expecting him to have known about gene splicing half a millennium ago. Being great does not require being bad, but if you consider Martin Luther King, Jr. great, consider how far he was from being entirely good, and consider how often that is true of other great men. Finally, on the identity politics point, that kind of pride is something libertarians dismiss because, being typically somewhat alienated from their society and hence rootless, they don’t understand its value. It is valuable in creating community, though it has its possible demerits as well.
asdf
Apr 4 2019 at 2:29pm
You’re proud of the moon landing. Hell even Ayn Rand said she was proud of the moon landing. Why? Did you land on the moon? Did you work at NASA? Why are you taking pride in other peoples accomplishments because of the value connection of sharing a “nation” with them. If you’re my age, why are you taking pride in something that happened before you were born?
Look, somebody paid those NASA salaries, even if one tax dollar at a time. Somebody drove the truck that delivered the parts to the launch pad and the lunches to the grocery stores that the astronauts shopped at.
Somebody landed at the beaches of Normandy to defend the country that would eventually achieve such a feat. Somebody made the bullets in his gun. Some mother changed that soldiers diapers when they were an infant.
We all of us contribute to our societies. Our ancestors did. Our children do. Perhaps it’s weird for someone to take the SAME kind of pride in the moon landing as Neil Armstrong, but it’s correct to take some pride. Without all the little people making a society capable of that possible, the astronauts couldn’t accomplish what they did. Earlier generations can take pride in what their parents did, try to have their own accomplishments, and bequeath to the next generation the tools to achieve themselves.
Do you really not understand pride in collective action? Are you autistic?
JFA
Apr 2 2019 at 10:35am
Given that at the time of Columbus there was the beginnings of a human rights philosophy within the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t use the “everyone was doing it” excuse for defending how he treated native peoples. Also, it seems you are misreading history. The Jim Crow south (and much of the US) was defined by identity politics in that white people thought that their skin color allowed them to restrict the rights of blacks. I wouldn’t call “just because I’m black doesn’t make me less of a human being” engaging in identity politics. Also, slavery and adultery are very different things on the “bad things” scale.
Mark Z
Apr 1 2019 at 10:14pm
I have mixed feelings regarding the ending, but I feel obliged to defend it. David Chase wanted the show to be very ‘un-hollywood,’ and I think ending in the middle of a mundane scene, and with so many unfinished questions (is Tony going to get indicted? Is he really safe from retaliation by the New York mob?) with the insinuation of a threat looming, leaves one with a feeling far more reflective of what real life is like: narratives don’t just end neatly tied up. Where one chooses to end is rather arbitrary, and therefore is, in reality, in the middle of things; and especially for a criminal, as close as you can get to a ‘happy ending’ still leaves one with threats looming over one’s head. The ending of the Sopranos was, imo, meant to go against the standard narrative that ends with a crescendo and a resolution, favoring something more reflective of reality.
Other than that though, I like the analysis. The recurrent theme of the psychiatric framework enabling sociopathic behavior rather than correcting it was excellent. It actually motivated me to read the book by Yochelson and Samenow referenced in the show.
David
Apr 1 2019 at 11:14pm
While I appreciate the effort and energy the author took to put this together I have to ask if he understands this is a fictional story. The life Tony led isn’t the life those guys live. And most of the stuff they did was a mix of what could be plus some creative licensing. Chrissy shooting the baker was an homage to his scene in goodfellas when he was shot in the foot then later in the chest. Fyi they made Tommy dig the hole. But I digress. I would argue that the Sopranos for all its moments of suspended disbelief was a great dramatic series who if you are a fan of the genre would and should appreciate. Fyi there was a family in New Jersey at the time of the Sopranos, the Declavcante family who apparently had a lot of similarities with the family. Anyway that’s my 2 cents.
Floccina
Apr 2 2019 at 2:33pm
+1
Go here for some really mafia info, much of it taking place in my home town Providence IR.
Ghost
Apr 2 2019 at 4:56am
Enjoyable, thoughtful post – thanks.
PS “macro males” – Paul Krugman? Scott Sumner? 🙂
Alan Goldhammer
Apr 2 2019 at 8:08am
The ending episode of the series was right on target. David Simon’s The Wire was a far better show.
Mark Z
Apr 2 2019 at 9:21am
Though the wire was often as good, I don’t think it was on average as good as the Sopranos, in part because it would take long detours away from the best parts of the show – the interactions between the police and the drug dealers – into what seemed to me less interesting subplots that seemed rather forced (especially the newspaper one). It also probably says something about me that for these season-long subplots, I tended to take the opposite of the intended moral theme: for season 2, I was rooting for automation to eliminate the dock jobs; for season 5, I was fine with the internet was making the old fashioned newspaper obsolete.
Patrick
Apr 7 2019 at 10:42pm
The Wire and The Sopranos both showcase the pitfalls of managing characters’ strengths. The Wire kills off Stringer Bell after he’s become too strong of a character and fails to fill the resultant gap. On the other hand, The Sopranos fails to kill Tony to make way for Carmela in season 2 and it never recovers.
John Stalnaker
Apr 2 2019 at 8:57am
Witty, clever, pungent analysis; thanks Bryan. However, Mark Z is right about the ending. An ambitious epic show like the S needs an open ending ; a neat package at the end would have been a kind of betrayal.
Matthias Görgens
Apr 2 2019 at 12:33pm
How do you know that dementia wouldn’t just be an even more extreme preference?
Thiago Ribeiro
Apr 4 2019 at 12:48pm
“if you cross her, she’ll lash out no matter what psychiatric labels you carry.”
Even if weren’t the best way to help problematic people, isn’t it the easiest and the most satisfying one anyway? You probably won’t fix the guy and you are not being paid to try, so why not lash out?
Michael Stack
Apr 4 2019 at 5:46pm
RE: the ending of the Sopranos:Undoubtedly for me, the best ending of any TV show, ever. It was definitely NOT ambiguous at all. I think it is probably the most haunting episode of all the Sopranos, provided you understand what Chase was trying to convey.
In the episode right before the finale, they flash back to Tony talking to Bobby about what happens when you die in a hit – “you never see it coming, it all just goes to black”. They flashed back to this scene up for a reason. In the final episode, Tony dies – we’re looking at his POV when the bell rings. He looks up, and it goes to black. He was shot by the guy coming out of the bathroom (wearing a “Member’s Only” jacket, naturally). For way more evidence and analysis, you can read more here:Master of Sopranos link here:https://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/
Comments are closed.