West Wing 1
Initial thoughts on West Wing, and what it can teach us about being much less personal.
Watching West Wing now and I texted my friend about it yesterday, sending a picture I took of the screen on S3E6 where the President says “Green Bay lost”. The Packers had lost in the playoffs the day before, on Jan 21. Those types of real life + tv caption matches never get old.
A friend said he’s a huge fan of West Wing. His top three tv shows are Mad Med, West Wing, and unsure about the third, but if he can’t come up with a third then maybe he should have a top two. I’m agreeing, where Mad Men is definitely the best, sitting alone in the top tier of TV shows for me, and West Wing is very very good. I had seen the Newsroom before, and I knew about Sorkin’s style. There was a New Yorker article a few weeks ago about another writer who didn’t have a specific style, but Sorkin got the mention Brings up the question, as a creator, do you want to have a specific well known style? Or should you be really good at story telling that you don’t? That question is for a different day, as I don’t have a style right now. For this, I want to talk about West Wing and the feeling of how everyone works together.
I’ll start by saying that the common theme in shows like this, people are working for themselves. Mad Men has some of these at least, like Peter trying to beat out the other sales person. He does in the end. We’re told in the US to be ourselves, and have the movie game of trying to win. Always winning and beating others on the individual levels. Suits is the show that very much has people like this. There’s the small group of Specter, Ross, and Paulsen, who do seem to be on the same team, but then characters like Litt are fighting against them, mostly. Sometimes they come together, along with Pearson at the head, when they have a common goal for the firm, but we’re told that looking out for yourself is usually the way to go.
But for West Wing, at a more clear level, there are no individuals fighting each other to get ahead in their own grouping. Everyone has their place and wants to do well in their place to help the group. Their disagreements are very word oriented. They say things and then agree with the decision that the ones above make. Sometimes it’s Leo, sometimes it’s the President. There’s no personal annoyance when their idea isn’t the one chosen. Definitely a difference between the national level where people in charge are striving for betterment of all, vs in a law firm where they try to make money and win against a direct opponent. But Suits is the type of show that most people watch, where we’re told to like conflict and fighting with specific winners and losers.
I like viewing this in terms of if this was one person, the President, making the decisions and the other characters were all made up in his mind. He has to make a decision, so he imagines people who have styles and tries to think of what they and their personalities would say. Someone on communications, a press secretary who’d have to talk to the outside world, etc. One example in episode S3EX was about the possible Mad Cow disease, and having to make a decision about whether or not to tell people and freak them out or wait the couple days. To make the best decision, having thoughts from many different people is really helpful rather than sticking with the first one. And you can do that with live humans if people are aligned to the same goal and don’t take decisions against them as personal insults.
AI is like this, I’ll bet. Having personal AI or two that are told the situation, come up with possible answers, and then you can work with them to make a decision. Or you have a Chief of Staff model that has four sub models, and the Chief of Staff AI comes back with the best decision, or sometimes you can have smaller ones too.
Our culture puts so much of an emphasis on the individual. Learn to be yourself, do what’s best for yourself. You you you. I agree with this being much better than the culture of forcing everyone into what older people want. “Being yourself” is a much better way to live than having to only be the type of person that people before wanted you to be. The US culture over time says family with kids etc. What I propose is moving past the being yourself mindset, one that promotes individualism, being better than others, winners and losers, into one where we realize that we’re all groups of the same type of object, a conscious animal, and really, we all should be working towards the same goal.
This takes effort on both ends to make a change. Winners, who we define as those who have more money in the end, need to realize how much luck came into that. All the causes that got them there were not of their own doing. People below need to realize that as well, and not think of themselves as worse people than the ones who had “success” in our money world. I don’t see how society can change fully, considering how long money’s been around and how this case of winners and losers has been.
Individually, however, we can have this mindset and in practicing, greatly reduces suffering. Dukkha, in the sanskrit shows this on the buddhist path. Non-dual thought of how we’re not individuals. From where I am on the buddhist path, I see so many cases where thinking you’re an individual in all different times causes dukkha. Big one being when people are watching me perform some action. Golf swing with spectators is huge, but also walking with people watching, suddenly I’m worried about my walking form. Changing the mindset to think less individually, and more about how me and the people watching me are one system very much helps that feeling dampen.
What I’m seeing from West Wing is a clear showing of how to act and what to bring in a work environment for success. Group that isn’t too big that can offer their ideas where there’s a decision order, and everyone knows not to think of the decisions as being for or against a specific person. What you want isn’t chosen? It needs to be clear it isn’t because they didn’t like you. You need to know this, and needs to be trusted that the people above who are making the choices also aren’t doing that because they do or don’t like you. You’re not “yourself” in the setting of the West Wing.
The persona of “Deputy Chief of Staff” is Josh. He’s a human, but in the context of the show in the mental concept of “West Wing”, Josh exists and has certain roles. He give ideas to ones above in a group, and those may or may not be chosen by the “Chief of Staff” or “President”. The Deputy Chief of Staff however needs to know that those aren’t picked because the others don’t like him, the person, Josh. Change settings to a different place, and Josh the human can take on a different persona with a different role.
Me, writing here, has a different role than when watching the show even. I’m writing out the thoughts coming to my head from somewhere and trying to make them understandable to people reading, who have a reading persona. I can tell myself now that I’m a writer, and act in a way I think a professional writer should act like. There’s a “Self” still, but that “Self” is malleable to what I want. I have now inherent self. I have a certain “Self” when watching West Wing as well, one that works to notice the plot, but also sees how characters react and come up with the concept of their characters.
The Sorkin distinct writing style is very catchy with quick lines every time. But seeing how characters interact and don’t work for conflict and beating out others individually is a great takeaway. More takeaways to come.
