Society gets an F

As the first episode of Season 2, which is when the show really started to get its act together, “Bart Gets An F” is a pretty standard Simpsons episode. It has a basic sitcom-y plot: Bart gets in trouble at school, engages in a variety of hijinks attempting to get out of it, and ultimately pulls through at the last second. There are, of course, the characteristic Simpsons twists: Homer actively impedes Bart without realizing it, Bart gets consistently screwed over by the casual malice of his peers (both when they’re trying to hurt him and when they’re trying to help him), and the final cause for celebration is “just barely” a D- (part of which belongs to god). On closer inspection, though, the true situation is considerably worse, as the episode indirectly raises but never actually addresses a much deeper issue – one with horrifying implications.

fear

Contrary to popular belief, Bart Simpson is not proud of the fact that he is an underachiever. Even before he’s threatened with retention, the episode specifically shows him trying to succeed. But his plans get derailed when Homer ropes him into watching Gorilla the Conqueror (“the granddaddy of them all”), and when he finally manages to sit down and study, he doesn’t really have any idea what he’s doing. He knows he’s supposed get some kind of information out of a textbook, so he opens it up and just starts reading. But with no contextual understanding and no ability to locate and retain relevant information, he doesn’t get anywhere. Keeping all of this in mind, the events of the episode begin to take on a much less innocent cast.

When Bart falls asleep studying, Homer and Marge come in to fawn over how cute it is, and this is disgusting. They think it’s a good thing that he’s “trying so hard,” not realizing that the reason he has to try so hard is that he needs help (and, in Homer’s case, not realizing that he himself is a large part of the problem). The idea that “parents know what’s best for their children” is one of our major political talking points right now, even when it comes to patently insane behaviors along the lines of refusing vaccinations. The fact is, “parent” is not any kind of privileged moral status. Any idiot is capable of becoming a parent, and most parents, like most everybody else, have no idea what they’re doing.

A worse dynamic applies in the case of Mrs. Krabappel, the person whose job it is to help Bart with precisely the difficulties that he is encountering. When quizzing Bart on his book report, she asks him for the name of the pirate in Treasure Island, and Bart mentally runs though a list of famous pirate names before settling on the wrong one. The thing is, though, one of the names he thought of actually was correct, so the fact that he answered the question wrong was basically a coincidence; Krabappel is implicitly teaching Bart that education is a matter of accumulating random facts. Hence, for Bart, the fact that he’s failing is also essentially a coincidence, leading him naturally to assume that there isn’t really anything he can do about it other than “try” and hope to get lucky. Similarly, when Krabappel chews him out in detention and he isn’t listening, he again guesses at the response she wants, but this time he gets it right. There really isn’t any reason for Bart to listen to her, because she isn’t saying anything helpful, or anything that he hasn’t heard before.

Even when the situation becomes critical and the school psychiatrist is called in, there is still absolutely no discussion of anything that could be done to actually help Bart. He gets interrogated as though he were hiding something, as though there must be a “reason” why a kid wouldn’t be doing well in school. In fact, it’s the opposite: doing well in school is not default behavior; the question that ought to be asked is why none of the authority figures, the people who are supposed to be in charge of this situation, have ever done anything about it.

Incidentally, the rarely-seen Dr. J. Loren Pryor is a perfect microcosm of this problem. Every character on the show is fundamentally a stereotype, but each of them is twisted in a way that makes them particularly ill-suited to the actual requirements of their job. Moe is unfriendly, Skinner is inflexible, Lovejoy is uninspiring, Hibbert is unsympathetic, and of course Homer is the least safety- and technical-minded person imaginable. Pryor fits the same pattern: his job is to deal with children’s emotional problems, and he’s a completely flat and uninsightful thinker. In each of his few appearances, his characteristic behavior is to deal with a nuanced problem by papering over it with the thinnest possible solution – to the extent that he here recommends a course of action which he himself characterizes as “emotionally crippling.”

So what’s notable about this whole sequence of events is that, throughout it all, Bart receives zero institutional support. His teacher chews him out several times and finally calls in a psychiatrist to chew him out some more, but nobody offers him any help or tutoring or anything. The system is quite happy to punish him as harshly and frequently as possible, but it’s not going to bother making his success possible in the first place. And this isn’t just a random event – the fact that everything that’s happening here is entirely quotidian, that there is nothing unusual about Bart’s situation, that exactly this happens to many people, every day, means it all points to one of our greatest lies. Even aside from all of the very explicit problems with our current educational system, the basic structure of it is also unsound. And, of course, the structure of our educational system is merely a reflection of the overall structure of our society. We do things that look “civilized,” we button up our shirts and sit down at desks and fill out paperwork, but we don’t actually engage in the practice of civilization. We don’t help each other, we don’t make space for failure, and we don’t learn.

The common idea is that everything we do in society has the basic justification of avoiding Hobbes’ “state of nature,” where the only thing that can be accounted for is survival. But as things actually are, this only pertains to a charmed few. Most people are still solely engaged in the struggle for survival, it’s just that it’s a different type of survival. The fact that you won’t get eaten by a wild animal doesn’t mean you won’t get eaten. We strut around like we’ve created an infallible safeguard for human dignity, but all we’ve actually done is to create alternate sets of claws for people to be impaled on. People like Bart are merely being thrown to different wolves.

More than that, far from everyone’s perception of Bart as a “problem child,” Bart himself is the only one who even cares. Nothing actually requires him to succeed. Saying that people like Bart are the people who “fall through the cracks” of society implies that society was trying to help them in the first place, when in fact they are merely the “surplus population,” people who can be taken or left as is convenient. Bart was preemptively placed in the cracks, and it’s entirely of his own volition that he is attempting to climb out. Even as Bart defines himself primarily based on his resistance to authority, he does not want to be a failure. There would be no story to this episode at all were it not for the basic human dignity inherent to his lonely struggle for a passing grade. See the sincerity in his eyes? See the conviction? See the fear?

alive

And so, Bart has to take it upon himself to get the help he needs, and with all authorities being entirely useless, he can only turn to the other kids – which almost ends up being worse than nothing. He tries to get help from “good kids” Sherri and Terri, and they stab him in the front out of pure malice. He calls up his actual friend Milhouse for backup, and that just ends up screwing him over even worse. The fact that Bart is failing while Milhouse is apparently passing is yet another mere coincidence (Bart does worse than Milhouse despite copying his answers exactly).

(Incidentally, it’s notable that the world of adults in this episode is flat and monolithic, while the world of children is varied and dynamic. More broadly, it’s notable just how much stuff is crammed into this episode. This post is however many goddamn words long and I’m still glossing it. You can say that about almost any Simpsons episode, but it’s still impressive.)

Ultimately, then, Bart has to resort to bargaining with something that is within his abilities. The one thing Bart is genuinely skilled at is evading the rules, and this becomes his ticket to success – or so it would appear. He has something that he can offer Martin in exchange for what he needs. But careful consideration of the ensuing montage reveals otherwise. The things that Bart teaches Martin are substantive and apropos (the “inverse proximity to authority figures” line is particularity great – Martin translates Bart’s advice accurately and Bart understands and verifies the translation). Martin ends up successfully applying his new abilities and adventuring away from the forecastle of the Pequod.

In contrast, everything that Martin teaches Bart is entirely superficial. He cleans up his study area and gives him a plant and shows him how to use a highlighter, but they never get around to the one thing that Bart actually needs to learn, which is how to study. The bit with the highlighter is particularly pointed: Martin closely monitors Bart’s progress before concluding, “pretty soon you’ll be ready to try it with a real book.” Bart learns that he’s supposed to be highlighting key passages in his reading, but he never learns the thing that actually matters, which is how to identify those passages in the first place. Worse, Bart doesn’t even realize that he’s missing something here; he thinks the problem is that he’s just not good enough. In the last studying scene, we see Bart doing the exact same thing he was doing in the first one: reading straight through a chapter and trying to cram all the information into his head, indiscriminately (and, worse, without understanding it; he tries to memorize the phrase “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” but he doesn’t know what it means).

And this isn’t Martin’s fault. Unlike almost everyone else in the episode, he is good-natured enough to make an earnest attempt to help Bart succeed. The problem is that Martin is actually in the same position as Bart: he happens to be good at school, so he thinks that this is just who he is, and he doesn’t realize that there are actual skills involved. Hence, he is only able to teach Bart the surface-level stuff that is under his conscious control. Even if Martin hadn’t ended up betraying Bart, he still wouldn’t have been able to provide any real help.

In other words, Martin, someone who really is smart and good at schoolwork, also has no idea what he’s doing. This is set up rather subtly by his introductory book report. By obediently following the dictates of his social role, Martin is able to recite what Hemingway had to say about life, but it’s not until Bart takes him outside of that context that he is able to understand the practice of what he was preaching. Hilariously, Bart is the one who holds up his end of the deal here: he really does teach Martin how to be less of a square. Furthermore, it works, and it’s basically the only thing that anyone in this episode accomplishes successfully. Bart is very close to being the only person in his social sphere who is actually competent at what he does.

theologian

So with nothing on Earth to rely on, Bart’s last hope is otherworldly assistance. Lisa’s observation here is actually inaccurate: prayer may be “the last refuge of the scoundrel,” but Bart hasn’t been scoundreling. He’s been trying, and nothing has worked. His resort to prayer is a genuine last resort. As such, the miracle that saves Bart is portrayed as a literal miracle. This is unusual. Fiction normally tries to avoid this sort of thing, because it strains credulity. When you have to rely on a deus ex machina, you want it to be as understated as possible – you don’t accompany it with the literal Hallelujah Chorus. Here, though, this is the point: Bart’s situation requires a miracle. The show means us to understand that, from any kind of realistic perspective, someone like Bart is deeply fucked. That’s what makes the ending more than just a cynical TV joke; indeed, it’s not really a joke at all. There are a great many living humans for whom the equivalent of a lucky D- constitutes literal redemption.

But even then, it isn’t the miracle that saves Bart. He’s more than ready to waste the day playing in the snow – and this is actually entirely justified. Everyone else really does have a great time. The fact that Bart can’t join in because he has to memorize a bunch of dumb history facts for basically no reason really is bullshit. I mean, he’s ten. The psychosis of a society that requires a ten-year-old to hole himself up doing paperwork like a listless accountant cannot be overemphasized.

Anyway, the point is that, as events unfold, god has nothing to do with Bart’s salvation. It is Lisa and not god who causes Bart to put in his final effort, and she does it for no reason. She didn’t make a deal like Martin, and there’s nothing in this episode giving her a positive motivation to want to help Bart. In fact, she has reason to resent him, as she knows that he faked an illness to get out of his responsibilities. She acts out of pure principles, and not even particularly well-developed ones (this is actually-an-eight-year-old Lisa, not Magical Buddha Lisa); she simply has a general sense of what the right thing to do is. And this is able to accomplish what the weight of society and the power of god herself could not: it gets Bart to hit the books.

This points to the fundamental problem with appealing to god or any other source of external authority in order to get people to behave in a certain way. Any god that happens to exist can say or do whatever it wants, but it’s still up to each individual human to choose whether or not to obey. Lisa convinces Bart of what the right thing to do is, which is something that can only be done on the human level.

old_red

And yet, even in the circumscribed world of happy-ending fiction, this is still not enough – nothing is enough. Bart does the right thing and tries his hardest (he actually barricades himself in the basement in an attempt to avoid distractions, which doesn’t work. He just ends up imagining something more interesting than what he’s trying to read), and he fails. And this is where the claws really come out: Bart applies his full effort and is still unable to accomplish a basic, everyday task.

The episode moves through the last test scene so efficiently, even including jokes (“it’s a high F?”), that it’s almost difficult to notice how harrowing it really is. The uncomfortableness of Bart’s breakdown is the synthesis of everything that’s so deeply wrong about the events of this episode: the fact that Bart was constantly harassed by his ostensible caretakers and never helped, the fact that he tried everything and was screwed over at every turn, the fact that his future hinges on a number written in red marker on a piece of paper, the fact that he just plain lacks the ability to do what he’s trying to do and he doesn’t even have the most basic understanding of why that is, and the fact that all of this is happening to a fucking ten-year-old. And it’s the last, undeniable bit of evidence that Bart really does care, that his apparent nihilism is something that society has forced on him against his will, that he does not want to be a loser.

But Bart is saved in the end, and what saves him is not society or friendship or innate ability or divine intervention or moral principles. It’s pity. His burned-out, apathetic teacher, a natural enemy, someone who has never helped him and towards whom he has never been anything less than a headache, takes pity on him, and gives him a passing grade for no other reason. It’s important to realize that Krabappel’s justification for the extra point is total bullshit. Her line saying “it’s only fair” is a particularly incisive bit of dialogue, because the entire point of this scene is precisely that it’s not fair. Nobody else got the chance to blurt out random facts for extra points, and indeed, from a structural perspective, there’s not really any reason why Bart’s knowledge of extraneous material that isn’t on the test is at all meritorious. The deciding factor is basic, in-the-moment human emotion, and it isn’t even one of the good emotions. It’s something that motivates Krabappel to break the rules and pass someone who doesn’t deserve it.

So the real happy ending here is not that success is still possible under even the most dire of circumstances; indeed, the episode establishes thoroughly that this is not the case. Rather, it is that even without success, even as one’s bones are being crushed by the unfeeling gears of the machine, there is still such a thing as human decency. We value mercy, not despite but because it is the absence of justice.

just_barely

F+

Here’s a modern horror story:

“The teacher takes the girl’s paper and rips it in half. ‘Go to the calm-down chair and sit,’ she orders the girl, her voice rising sharply.

‘There’s nothing that infuriates me more than when you don’t do what’s on your paper,’ she says, as the girl retreats.

. . .

After sending the girl out of the circle and having another child demonstrate how to solve the problem, Ms. Dial again chastises her, saying, ‘You’re confusing everybody.’ She then proclaims herself ‘very upset and very disappointed.'”

Let’s briefly set aside the hilarious irony of an irate adult sending a child to the “calm-down chair,” because this is actually important. It’s not about being “mean,” or the teacher “losing control,” or whether the kids are being “terrorized” or need to “toughen up.” It’s about ideology.

That’s why this person is an idiot:

“Some parents had another view. Clayton Harding, whose son, currently in fourth grade, had Ms. Dial as a soccer coach, said: ‘Was that one teacher over the line for 60 seconds? Yeah. Do I want that teacher removed? Not at all. Not because of that. Now if you tell me that happens every single day, that’s a different thing. But no one is telling me that, and everyone is telling me about all the amazing things that she does all the other days.'”

One of the more dangerous things about the internet is that it creates the illusion that “data” just pops up out of nowhere instead of having specific contingent physical sources (also “data” is a conceptual category and not actually a type of physical thing, but that’s another story). In this case, obviously, the assistant teacher would not have been recording this incident unless they already knew that something was up, i.e. this type of thing had in fact been happening on a regular basis.

More than that, though, the fact that this is how the teacher behaves when she has a “lapse in judgment” means that the rest of the time she’s biting her tongue. What we’re seeing here is what she actually believes: that “underperforming” children deserve to be ostracized and humiliated. And the fact that the school supports her means that’s also what the school believes.

Per standard procedure, the New York Times spends the entire article wringing its hands over a bunch of nonsense, then buries the lede right at the end:

Dr. McDonald, the N.Y.U. professor, who also sits on the board of the Great Oaks Charter School on the Lower East Side, said that the behavior in the video violated an important principle of schooling.

“Because the child’s learning was still a little fragile — as learning always is initially — she made an error,” he said in his email. “Good classrooms (and schools) are places where error is regarded as a necessary byproduct of learning, and an opportunity for growth. But not here. Making an error here is a social offense. It confuses others — as if deliberately.”

Whether this is in fact a “principle of schooling” is precisely the issue. As I’m sure you’re aware, what is euphemistically referred to as “education reform” is in fact a major ideological conflict over this exact point. But even this guy doesn’t have it quite right – he’s still framing things as though a child giving an unexpected response is an “error” that needs to be “corrected,” as though “errors” are “byproducts” of growth rather than the substance of growth themselves.

Naturally, since we’re talking ideology here, this confusion is not limited to schooling. Labelling something as an “error” is a pretty obvious value judgment. What we’re actually talking about is what it means for something to be “correct” in general; what, in a practical sense, is the right thing. In the past, we had the idea that “might makes right,” that those who happened to be victorious were by that fact necessarily of superior ability or favored by god or whatever. Despite the phrase now being shorthand for barbarism, this philosophy has one major advantage: the winning party has to actually win. They have to do something to deserve it. Today, we’re enlightened enough that we don’t have to worry about reality anymore. We now live in world where “right makes right,” where what’s right is right by virtue of it being accepted as such and for no other reason, where filling in the bubble labelled “B” on a standardized test is correct if and only if the grading rubric specifies “B” as the correct answer.

Wikipedia, for example. How do you know that the information on Wikipedia is accurate? Well, if it weren’t, someone would have corrected it.

There’s a broad misconception that people only know things that they have been explicitly taught. This is most dramatically demonstrated in the area of language. Children learn their first language (or two) without ever being explicitly taught anything about it. It’s actually not at all clear how it would even be possible to “teach” language to someone who can’t talk; it would be very much like teaching the proverbial blind person to see colors. Yet, as children age, we cling to the idea that they must be educated out of their “errors,” that a language is a big stone tablet of rules against which one checks each utterance for “correctness.” In the saddest case, one reaches adulthood with a disorganized basket stuffed full of “rules” that they then go about waving in the face of anyone who says anything “incorrectly.”

The truth is not that verification implies correctness, but that learning implies error. Language correction is self-contradictory: the fact that you have to tell someone that they said something wrong means that there wasn’t actually anything wrong with it. If there had been, the error would have occurred organically: they would have been misunderstood. It’s clear that this is how we actually learn things about language: we fail to express ourselves, and then we try again.

(Of course, this only applies to people who are paying attention. We’re all familiar with the type of person who talks so much and so inattentively that they end up creating their own unique mishmash of noises and gesticulations, such that they are able to utter on endlessly without ever intersecting reality.)

The point is that things we are explicitly taught account for probably about 1% of our actual knowledge base. What actually happens is that we have experiences and then we try to create a framework under which those experiences make sense. As such, it’s theoretically possible to accelerate the process, to create a sort of hyper-pedagogy in which the student is constantly barraged with miniaturized interactions designed to create a specific understanding. And by “theoretically” I mean video games.

The basic framework for modern video games is the challenge/failure/retry loop. The historical-material basis for this was arcade games. Arcade games were required to eat quarters, which meant each play session had to 1) provide a dopamine jolt, 2) terminate itself (eat the quarter), and 3) provide an incentive for initiating another session (inserting another quarter). The most popular solution to this equation was something called “extra lives.” Your quarter bought you a certain number of lives (usually 3, a psychologically significant number), and then the game started trying to kill you.

The critical moment comes when you fail a challenge and then have the opportunity to try it again. If the game is at all decently designed, you’ll have some idea of what happened and what you want to try to do next time. So in your typical action game like Metal Slug or whatever, the right thing to do is to hit the enemies with your attacks and the wrong thing to do is to get hit by the enemies’ attacks. So you’ll be thinking about how to position yourself and when to attack and so forth, and you’ll want to try again in order to test these ideas out. By hitting you with this sort of scenario over and over again, the game locks you into whatever its idea of a good time is. Materially speaking, in order for the game to be as short and dopamine-intense as possible, the failure loop happens as often as possible. In other words, games are very educational.

And what’s being taught is the thing that every one of these interactions has in common. You’re presented with a given situation with given rules, and there’s a “correct” set of actions to take that will result in the outcome that has been defined by the game as “success.” Executing this set of actions is the right thing to do. Anything else is the wrong thing to do. In certain extreme cases, progressing in a game will require you to do something that is obviously wrong in terms of narrative, such as aiding an enemy or falling into a trap. In such cases, the game implicitly frames doing the wrong thing as the right thing to do.

So the original problem is obviously that games have mostly been about dumb things like avoiding projectiles and jumping on turtles. And this is still largely the case; increased substance in games has been well outstripped by increased flash and pretentiousness. More fundamentally, though, the material situation has changed. Since games have stopped needing to eat quarters, the “failure” part of the loop has atrophied. Now that we pay for games once and play them until “finished,” failure becomes a mere impediment that may as well be done away with. Instead, games now give the player some actions to perform, reward them for doing so, and that’s it.

But “bringing back” failure isn’t a solution. “Failure” on its own isn’t any more significant than “success.” In fact, there’s currently a countertrend in the form of “ultra-hard” games which jam the failure loop into overdrive, and this isn’t any better. Failing the same meaningless challenge 100 times is exactly as pointless as successfully executing the same meaningless task 100 times, in exactly the same way.

What we ought to be looking for are forms of success and failure that are interesting, that cause you to reassess your situation in some way, to question your assumptions, and to gain new insights. Which is what art is supposed to do. It’s deeply sad that people are so zealous in insisting that games “count” as art, yet so blasé about actually getting them to do the things that art is good for.

Of course, not all games are derived from the arcade model. Sim games, for example, tend to lack explicit goals and thereby make room for interesting failures. SimCity allows you to explicitly sic disasters on yourself just to see what happens. Dwarf Fortress is mostly known for players’ stories of the hilarious catastrophes they’ve suffered. And of course there are pure story games, as well as games that are entirely focused on providing aesthetic experiences. But the failure loop is still at the core of how video games are generally conceived, and these exceptions are often ones that prove the rule. For example, story games often have “correct” choices that you need to make in order to get the “true” ending.

On the other hand, I’d be remiss not not mention that, throughout the history of games, players have often ignored what games are supposed to be about and created their own goals and rules of interaction. The most popular example is speedrunning, which usually involves subverting the normal progression of a game and playing it in a way it wasn’t designed for. This provides heartening evidence that structure isn’t everything, that people can find their own truths even in the midst of the labyrinth. Still, the motivation for finding these alternate paths in the first place is often the poverty of the intended experience. The fact that people can make do with garbage is hardly a justification to keep producing more. On the contrary, this sort of player creativity provides us with new vistas to set out for.

(Games that explicitly support speedrunning have entirely missed the mark in this regard: the point is not to incorporate speedrunning as a new task in the same type of game, the point is that there are different types of games to be designed.)

If connecting all of this to the current state of society seems hyperbolic, that’s probably because it is. Video games are barely doing anything right now. We’re lucky that they’re still in their infancy; the problem is that they’re enfants terribles, and they’re going to grow up. And this may in fact happen sooner rather than later.

Going back to our unfortunate charter school students: what are they actually learning? For a few minutes each day, they are presented with some facts or rules or something that they are instructed to internalize. But every second they’re at school, they are being taught a deeper lesson: that the goal of life is to respond to challenges by producing the right answers. What we’re looking at here is the mentality for which “failure is not an option.” This phrase is, first of all, a category error, because failure isn’t something you choose, but more importantly, it represents an extremely dangerous way to think. It assumes that everything’s been figured out, that our society’s assumed goals are not only correct, but worth any sacrifice.

In education, it’s unavoidable that students will say or do things that a lesson planner could never have anticipated. This is a good thing. They’re children, and they’re human. When it comes to games, inconveniences like these can be abstracted away. The player can be given no actions to perform but the “correct” one, and no tools except those needed to do so. One can then be assured that they will do the right thing. Imagining such a system applied to actual humans is obviously horrendous. And yet, those who think that the purpose of education is to train children to answer correctly are advancing precisely this dystopia – the same dystopia enjoyed by millions as their primary form of entertainment. And so it is that, by an astonishing coincidence, the rise of video games has coincided exactly with the rise of neoliberalism.

When Shakespeare said that “all the world’s a stage,” what he was actually saying was obviously “I’ve got plays on the brain 24/7.” All the world’s an anything if you’re obsessed enough with whatever that thing is. We can just as easily conceive of the world as a game: one in which we are constantly presented with tiny tasks governed by rules of interaction. Every time we act, the world reacts; we get feedback; we learn something. But our actions also create the context in which further interactions happen: we’re designers as well as players. Every second of every day, we are creating ideology, and knowing this gives us a small amount of control over the process. If all the world’s a game, it’s badly designed. But we, as the players, still have a choice. We can choose to go for the high score and unlock all the achievements, or we can choose to play a different game of our own design.