Joker and the Real World
There has been a fair bit of internet controversy and debate over the social and cultural implications of the 2019 Todd Phillips movie Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix. The story is of course fictional, taking place in 1980 Gotham or basically a poor, unequal, and divisive New York City. But this in many ways mirrors current social conditions, or least many’s perceptions of them. I don’t think the movie is making any specific political statement through their portrayal of a mentally ill character, Arthur Fleck, who becomes the Joker through destabilizing life events and a turn towards violent crime. But there are real world insights to be had.
Your experience with the world and other people strongly shapes whether you think the world we live in today is a good or bad one. And that is one of the core themes of the Joker. The rich, represented mainly by Thomas Wayne, are seemingly doing great while the poor are struggling to get by. Fair or not they harbor a lot of resentment against the rich who at times treat the poor with both open and masked disdain. This is a key issue of our time. The wealthy, often called the 1%, are pitted against the middle class, working-class, and the poor. I think the problems of inequality and poverty are important, complex, and solvable, but at times overblown by the media or activists. The public policy goals in reducing poverty and inequality is to find the best solutions that are politically feasible.
One of the interesting parts of the film from this public policy perspective is when Arthur’s social worker (therapy) sessions are canceled because they lost funding. Arthur’s mental illness and subsequent violence is an example of what happens when an unstable person does not get the help and support they need. Arthur seemingly only has an elderly mother who needs Arthur to take care of him and is not capable or chooses not to take care of him. While Arthur is an adult and should seemingly be able to take care of himself his life has been anything but a picnic. Having suffered from childhood abuse and lack of a steady job, he appears to be harmfully adrift. In both his own mind and society.
While the movie doesn’t make this case, the absence of a stable family or support structure is clearly needed. Life can be hard, especially when you don’t have a good family or friends to take care of you. Absent this support it makes sense for the government to provide the social services necessary to help individuals cope with mental health issues. The use of taxpayer government resources can be a controversial philosophical and ideological issue. For the good of both the individual and society, if the individual themself or private charities can’t help people with mental illnesses, then the government is the last resort. And an important one. This is also where public-private partnerships could be effective.
Overall this movie helped me reflect on the type of society we have and the one we want. Personal responsibility is a great goal for a healthy society, but so is one where help comes from anyone capable and willing. When there is the absence of family, friends, and local civic communities to help individuals who are struggling the government is the next logical step. But government services are only as good as the people who take part in it or support it. Some problems are strictly individual problems. And some problems require the help of anyone who cares. As Arthur Fleck said in the movie, “the worst part of having a mental illness is people expect you to behave as if you don’t.”
