I recently re-watched the series “Breaking Bad.” I have plenty of thoughts about the show, but after I watched the last episode, I was curious to read what had been written about the series and the finale in the popular press. I read a few articles — by the New York Times, Esquire, The Daily Beast, and even one examining the philosophies explored within the show on harvard.edu. But the one that stuck out to me (not for good reasons) was an article by Laura Hudson in “Wired” called “Die Like a Man: The Toxic Masculinity of Breaking Bad” (http://www.wired.com/2013/10/breaking-bad-toxic-masculinity/) There were some intriguing insights, but the most damning thing about the article was the sort of idealistic postmodern gender-related clap-trap critiques that are all-too-common in magazines and e-zines like “Wired” that appear to offer some sort of mid-to-high-brow analysis of popular culture but, really, strive to rewrite the narrative of narratives … and fail in extraordinarily important ways.
The segment of the article that had me slapping my hand against my forehead in dismay was this:
“Breaking Bad was a show about a man with greatness inside him, and who believed that the only way to achieve it was by becoming the sort of man whose greatness would be acknowledged and respected. While it’s obvious that Walt isn’t a ‘good’ guy by the end, to many people he was still a sympathetic one. It’s far easier to high-five Walt for climbing to the top of the masculine power pyramid than to reexamine whether we should be tearing it down. Not only because of the collateral damage it does to people like Skyler and Andrea, but the damage it does to the men who attempt the climb.”
Let me highlight the key sentence: “It’s far easier to high-five Walt for climbing to the top of the masculine power pyramid than to reexamine whether we should be tearing it down.” Nowhere in the article—and this is true of all such pathetic critiques of “toxic masculinity” and patriarchy and the like—is there put forth any strategy for how a “masculine power pyramid” should or could be torn down. There’s no description of what an alternative society would look like, but then again how could there be if it isn’t known how to change from a “masculine power pyramid” to a ??? system?
This might seem insignificant except that it gives the impression that “how things are” (to a large extent) in the real world of the United States as portrayed through “Breaking Bad” is somehow different than it was portrayed in the series and, thus, that the show was somehow irresponsible. This is most evident in the article’s critique of the finale: “Taken on its own, the last episode of the show reads more like wish fulfillment than condemnation, as Walt dies surrounded not by his failures but by his triumphs, by the chemistry he loves rather than the family he sacrificed, and with a smile on his face.”
But that’s the point: Walt, in the end, chooses himself and his empire legacy while also providing financially for his family, doing what Gus Fringe suggested in an earlier episode: “A man provides for his family even if he is despised by his family.” He finally gets “revenge” or at least resolution by forcing Elliot and Gail to make reparations to his family after publicly dismissing his contributions to Grey Matter Technologies. He began the show as a milquetoast man, a man who had sold out his potential to Elliot and Gail earlier in life in exchange for security, a security which left him hollow and bitter as he watched what would have been his legacy become a monumental global success. His greatest achievement in life was frittered away for a $5000 buyout of his shares and that denied him recognition for what would have been his financial, professional, entrepreneurial, and scientific success.
His entire journey to drug kingpin began when he was confronted with a death sentence by cancer. He “wakes up” and begins to live for himself—all while trying to rationalize his quest for recognition, wealth, and power by telling himself, often through pleas to Skyler and others, that he is doing all of it “for his family.” But in the finale he comes clean with Skyler and, more importantly, himself by declaring that he did all of it for himself because he liked it and it made him feel alive. When confronted by cancer and death, he finally chose to eschew security for the sake of making a last attempt to live up to his potential for success. That it was a criminal enterprise didn’t matter. Even in that realm there is recognition for success and greatness. This is something the gender critique fails to see and yet, if it had, then it could made a more compelling argument about the role of gender in the tale. But not in the way the author of the piece claims … but I’ll get to that in a bit.
Walt dies, in the end, after taking out the neo-Nazis and allowing Jesse to go free … but not for the sake of Jesse. Again, it was for himself. The police find him dead in the meth lab, the unsaid message that he dies as Heisenberg and his legacy of creating and producing blue meth — after “freeing” Jesse — is assured eternally. Jesse will get no credit for it; the neo-Nazis will get no credit for it; Gus got no credit for it. Only Walt will be credited with the genius of producing the world’s most pure methamphetamine, now and forever. Had he had the “cajones” in younger years to pursue with vengeance his brilliant contribution that led to Grey Matter Industries then that would have been his legacy. His motivation throughout the entire show is really about him making up for that failure to “make something of himself” by choosing security over self-empowering (and self-absorbed) ambition. Doing what he did “for family” was just a lie that he told himself and others during the long process of ridding himself of the sort of values and ethics that security-related morality insists is “good.”
But he was always at the height of his greatness, his total power, when he was cooking, scheming, and settling scores. THAT is the supposedly “toxic masculinity” that fueled Walt to become “more than he was” which is to say that he finally woke up and started participating in his own life, self-directing it, taking charge of it, not allowing anyone else to get in the way of his American Dream. And that, too, is at the heart of the whole series: Walter White is the embodiment of what it means to pursue the American Dream which has always been the pursuit of success, of achievement (not happiness). In that sense, the “toxic masculinity” of Breaking Bad is not at all limited to men any longer. Women are as hungry for success, achievement, and power as men are in the U.S., and have for some time had access to the same highly competitive avenues for success that men have had; in some ways they have more avenues if success through sexuality counts for anything.
This is where third-wave feminism departed from second-wave feminism. Instead of trying to change patriarchal systems, having given up on that goal, what was pursued was what was most readily available: opportunities for relentless ambition within the structures and systems that had long existed. And of course there has been success for the third wave—they were no longer challenging the system and, finally, were willing to accept inclusion in the system. It is, if anything, a form of collusion, collusion with the existing “toxically masculine” institutional capitalism, politics, law, and governance.
But this leads me back to the article and what was said about tearing down the masculine power pyramid. Even if the author of the piece had been a second-wave feminist rather than a third-wave feminist (the only tip of the hat to second wave feminism comes from the notion that toxic masculine power pyramids should be torn down, but like all third-wave feminists she has no real notion of what that actually means; in other words, she’s just spinning her wheels while writing for a magazine/e-zine that is very much a part of the toxic masculine industry). But, if she had been serious about tearing down a toxic masculine system , how would that work, exactly? What would convince men and women to abandon the American Dream of ambitious success and the status-related meaning to life that superiority provides? The American Dream is not about security and Walt’s milquetoast life at the beginning of the show is proof of that. It’s evident in relation to his subordination to his brother-in-law Hank, the hyper-macho DEA agent who constantly derides Walt for living life as a “pussy.” It’s evident by his students who don’t respect him as a teacher nor the subject he is teaching—his passion, chemistry. It’s evident when he’s working his second job at the car wash while being berated by his boss or kneeling on the ground polishing the rims of a car owned by a student who mocks him for being “below” him even though he is a grown man who supposedly is in a position of authority and power over him (as a teacher). It’s evident in the lies and excuses he feels compelled to make to Skyler over and over again, his constant wringing of hands in worry that she’ll be displeased with him or disapprove of him.
The only place Walt starts to feel like he is empowered and “masculine” again is when he starts cooking meth and bringing in money and, even more importantly, gaining respect for his genius. That it comes in a criminal underworld isn’t the point. The point is that it finally arrived. There is an interesting issue related to this, though, one a gendered critique isn’t capable of seeing. He had given up recognition for his genius by selling his property rights in the company for $5000. At that point, he no longer had any control over what happened to his intellectual creations. Not only that, he had given up “ownership” of his intellectual creation. The “owner” of whatever formulas that had been patented were credited with its creation. It reminds me of the guy who sold DOS for about $50,000 to Microsoft. What was his name? Exactly.
In Breaking Bad there are plenty of times when Jesse or another party tries to take control of Walt’s formula for the pure blue meth. As hard as he fights for his money, he never fights as viciously as he does when his “intellectual property” is being threatened. Unlike the “legal” business world, Walt has recourse to reclaim “what is his” through scheming, threats, and violence. It is clear that his motivation stems almost entirely from having made the mistake of allowing others to walk all over him in exchange for a paltry security that let to an utterly unsatisfying life. Does Walt necessarily WANT to become “toxically masculine”? No, but in order to be alive, to succeed at what he values, he has to be within the systems that exist, the very systems that devalue his “pedestrian” roles as teacher, husband, father, and car washer. He was a brilliant man who, by trying to gain some security and pursue a family life, wound up as the working poor and was disrespected on nearly all sides within his own family and certainly among former colleagues. He lives within the system that exists and, for some reason, it takes cancer and the threat of impending death for him to rise up to try to accomplish something that he deems important—providing for his family. And, in the process, he confronts the loss of his potential from earlier in life.
I think MANY Americans can identify with the Walt at the beginning of the show. It isn’t because they share his ethics or values, per se, but because they share his sense of not having lived the life they wanted, that they gave in for greater security and, by mid-life, discovered that the security is relatively empty in a society that primarily values wealth and power and success. It’s easy to see through nearly all sources of media: sports, entertainment, politics, business, and so on, in every way what is most celebrated are those who have achieved the most—this, of course, even includes “success” at being beautiful (even if it is to throw rotten tomatoes at them). Most people in America, though, die of cancer without ever trying to get out from under their own sense of failure in light of the dreams they may have had in youth. Or, they simply got beat by others in the process. Breaking Bad is filled with examples, not just the early Walter White evidence of failure (the car wash scene being the most striking to me).
But within the entire criminal enterprise of making, distributing, and selling meth, competitors fall by the wayside all throughout the show. Most end up dead, some in prison, and some just disappear. And even though meth is illegal, it is still regulated by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Those “legal” regulations greatly influence the cost of meth, the profitability of meth, and the prestige of successfully running a criminal empire. Beating law enforcement at their own game? What could be more challenging than that in our world?! You have to be willing to kill and die. There ain’t no “pussies” in the meth business, that’s for sure. And those factors, to a large degree, are why criminal enterprises, particularly as portrayed in Breaking Bad, are the ultimate American success stories. It’s starkly evident when Walt, in the final episode, goes to Gail and Elliot’s to make them provide his son a trust with his own money. They are terrified of him. Whatever success they had had in their business, they are still milquetoast people living pampered and sheltered lives. Walt’s the Wild West come to roost and it’s clear after meeting with them that they will likely be terrified the rest of their lives, long after Walt is dead. That’s the power of the criminal man, the ultimate in hyper-masculinity because the criminal world REQUIRES the ultimate in hyper-masculinity. Walt and the criminal world is living closer to a natural order of “survival of the fittest” than the rest of civilization.
But the whole endeavor is also brutally ugly and morally horrifying … when viewed from the seat of a middle-class living room. I think it’s important to remember what compels people, in this case Walter, to pursue such a life: “Giving life a shot.” That’s how it’s conceived, at least, that pursuit of success, whether for money, control, influence, or power. Perhaps the critical piece that drives a person to succeed in such ways isn’t the institutional mechanisms but the absence of love and respect. Walt clearly doesn’t have it in his life or at least within himself. What he receives from family and friends when they find out he has cancer is pity—which is anything but respectful or loving. It’s a form of diminishment, at least on the end of the one receiving it. The idea of having to accept charity is apoplectic for Walt. That’s the result of a systemic ideation created not by gendered politics but institutional paradigms. If love isn’t possible then the next best avenue for respect and fulfillment is through achievement (success). In the scheme of American society, achievement through business, academic, political, or artistic means seems far easier to attain than acquiring a lasting love within oneself and/or from others. That, too, is a matter of “toxically masculine” institutional design—of course, “masculine” can simply be eliminated; “toxic institutional systems” is not only sufficient but more accurate as institutions CREATE gendered dynamics (and I’ll get to that soon).
But, again, how do we go about creating an alternative to the “toxic masculine power pyramid”? First of all, are the Gus Fringes of the world going to merely lay down and “play fair” (whatever the hell that might mean) with everyone? And in case it seems that I’m singling out the criminal element, what about the Ted Benekes and Hank Schrader’s of the world? Yes, Hank Schrader. Remember how much of a factor Hank is in motivating Walter to “become a man”: Hank is constantly thumping his chest to impress Flynn and he does it right in front of Walter, essentially emasculating him in front of his son. Hank derides Walter’s “wimpy” lifestyle, job, etc. Hank is as “toxically masculine” as anyone else in the series. And here he works for the supposed “good guys” in the DEA which, the show demonstrates, is its own version of hyper-machismo. It takes “cajones” to get ahead in the DEA just as much as it does in the meth business. But the gender critique doesn’t address these issues at all.
Furthermore, there is Madrigal and Los Pollos Hermanos. Gus is one thing, but the German conglomerate that owns a substantial share of Los Pollos (and other restaurants as well as other industries) has its own culture of success and, once again, it is related to wealth and power which, if the gender critique is to be believed, are at the very root of toxic masculine evil. In other words, the global economic system is, itself, the embodiment of toxic masculinity. Lest it be believed that it is only men who are toxically masculine in the form of greed and power, Lydia holds a prime position of influence and control within Madrigal that allows her to be a “kingmaker” in the global meth industry. She is a major player with contacts and access, a player whose position trumps most of the men in the business. Again, the gender critique does not address this.
Ultimately, what I see, looking through the lens of “gender culture” is very much like Hank’s claims to be trying to “provide for his family.” In other words, to believe gender cultures and roles drive the action and determine the nature of the industry, whether meth or fast food restaurants, misses the structural subtext: the gender culture is created by the economic, legal, political, and governmental systems. It is fairer to say that what the author of the “Wired” piece calls the “toxic masculine power pyramid” is really the “toxic institutional systems of the world.” In other words, gender politics does not create the systems; the systems create the gendered cultures and roles (which are not exclusive between males or females).
One last salvo. Imagine if you will some sort of altruistic institution run by a “non-toxic masculine or feminine person.” It could be Bill Gates, Donald Trump, a Rockefeller, whoever. Imagine they became … altruistic and non-toxic (whatever that means). If they give charitably, which I suppose is what goes for altruism, how is it ever any different than what Gail and Elliot (Grey Matter Industries) did when they gave $28,000,000 for drug abuse treatment? It isn’t. ask yourself who REALLY benefits from charitable giving? The people who manage and are otherwise employed by the “charity institution.” It’s not a person with a drug problem who gains a decision-making management position with a good salary at a drug abuse rehab institution. No. It’s someone who has had SUCCESS academically and then professionally at running/managing institutions. Success begets success. The recipients of aid or services are always on the bottom of the system. Everyone can feel good about helping such-and-such a person, but the only satisfying feeling of achievement is felt by those running the institutions, those providing the “helping” roles. They have standing, they have “success,” they hold position of power (to varying degrees), they make money. The institution gives those individuals positions of power over the “drug abuse victims.”
The rehab patients are versions of Walt at the bottom of the totem pole at the car wash. They are lesser than every other being within that rehab institution. Their purpose is to receive services or “help”; what they don’t do and are not allowed to do is to contribute in any institutionally meaningful way and, thus, whatever contributions they actually make have no value within the setting. In other words, they cannot improve their standing within the institution. The best they can do is “pass the test” and then leave the institution. Whatever efforts they gave at the institution cannot be translated into anything approximating societal success. On that level, how can such a “charitable institution” ever provide anything approximating care or success for those individuals? They can’t and that is another reason those institutions fall under the umbrella of the “toxic institutional systems of the world.” Charity, as is well-covered in Breaking Bad, is a form of disempowerment, of subjugation, of dehumanization, of objectification. Charity itself has to be reconsidered and redesigned in order to provide opportunities for true empowerment in the world. But that can’t happen under the systems design that currently exists. Anything that makes a person feel “lesser than” is going to be problematic and NO ONE should be surprised when individuals choose dangerous alternative routes to success when “legitimate” avenues are inaccessible. If anything, such endeavors into illegality are a sign that a person otherwise defeated hasn’t yet given up and is attempting to take advantage of the opportunities available.
