The Most Fluid Dimension in the Film - Essay Example

?Introduction “The Breakfast Club” was a 1984 movie about five kids who spend all Saturday in detention. Although they went into detention as five individuals who were different from one another, and from different stratas in the high school scene, the kids all bonded and became a group by the end of the film. How this occurred may be explained by Schutz’ theory of group dimensions, and by the theory of groupthink. Also, the leader of the kids, without a doubt, was Bender, who was also the most dominant member of the group as well as being the antagonist. How and why he was the leader is another dimension that will be explored. Analysis A group theory was put forth by Schutz (1958). He looked at three dimensions of groups. The first dimension is the in-out dimension, or inclusion, and this is where the people in the group are either in the group or out of the group. The second dimension is the up-down dimension, or control, and this looks at the members of the group according to how dominant, or submissive, they are to one another. The third dimension is the close-far dimension, or affection, and this how tight the link is between the individual members (Schutz, 1958). This is the basis for examining the film, by examining how the relationships between the members of the group fit the above definitions, and how the relationships were fluid, in that the dynamics constantly changed and the how the group was defined, according to these three dimensions, changed along with it. The first dimension is the in-out dimension, and this states that some people are members of a group, while others are not. In the beginning, there was not a group, per se, but a bunch of individuals who were thrown together on a Saturday, most against their will. However, that said, there was a bonding between the two popular kids, Andrew and Claire. They were the only two who knew one another, so, if there was the possibility of having a group that consisted of only two members, then Andrew and Claire were part of a group and everybody else was not. The film implied that the two ran in the same circle in school, as, at one point, Andrew asked Claire if she were going to a certain party. So, then, in the beginning, the “in” kids were Andrew and Claire, and the “out” kids were everybody else. This gradually changed. The first indication that maybe the kids were becoming a group was when Bender took the screw out of the door that was to remain open, and the principle came in to ask who did it. The entire group stated that they did not know who did it. This was the beginning of the formation of the group, because it was the beginning of group cohesiveness, and the beginning of the “us versus them” mentality that permeated throughout the film. This was a kind of theme in the film – that the kids, no matter how different they were from one another, still formed a cohesive whole when it came to authority, and would still cover for one another, no matter how they felt about the individual members of the group. The second major time that the kids became a group, in that all were a part of the group, and there was nobody outside the group, was when they went out into the hall to go to Bender’s locker. This was obviously something that could have gotten all of them into trouble, and Andy, at least, was not in a position to serve another Saturday detention, due to the fact that he had a meet on the following Saturday, so, at least for Andy, going out into the hall was a major risk. Presumably the other kids, with the exception of Allison, who wanted to be there, and Bender, who had a series of other Saturday detentions lined up anyhow, also were taking a huge risk of getting another Saturday detention. Yet the kids all risked this by going out into the hall with Bender, despite the fact that none of them were needed for the task. That they all chose to do this shows that the kids were members of a group, because it shows that they were going to stick together. The going out into the hall with Bender marked a turning point in the movie, where the kids became a group, not just a collection of individuals who do not like one another. They all smoked pot as a group; they danced as a group; they sat around and shared their inner-most feelings as a group; they all became vulnerable as a group. Whereas before, there were two “cool kids” and three “misfits,” which means that there were two kids inside the group, and three outside the group, this changed and all became a member of the group. Even Bender, who was shown early in the movie to be chiefly an antagonist of everybody else, and never quite lost his edge, still was shown as part of the group, as he was a part of the sharing circle, and he danced with both Claire and the other two guys on the railing towards the end. Of course, Claire put reality into the situation, stating that, while they bonded during that Saturday, they were only a group for the purposes of that one day, because the social strata would not permit the kids to be a part of one another’s lives on the outside. Therefore, presumably, if one were to look at these same five kids on Monday, when they are all back in school, it would probably be Andrew and Claire on the inside once more, and the other three kids on the outside. The other dimension is the up-down dimension, which means that certain members of the group are dominant and certain members of the group are submissive. In this case, the obvious dominant member of the group, at least in the beginning, was Bender. He was the antagonist who enjoyed getting a rise out of everybody else. He was also kind of the leader of the group, in that it was his idea to go out into the hall to his locker, and it was his idea for the group to get high. All the other kids followed him, even though they did not necessarily like him. But he was charismatic in that way, in that he could get people to follow him and risk everything to do so. The other dominant individual was Andrew. He stood up to Bender when Bender was harassing everybody else, at least at first. However, Andrew later became submissive. He was shown as being against the pot being in the room and against getting high, yet he followed along with the group and got high with the group. Bender, however, was never shown as being submissive throughout the movie, so his role of dominance did not change, while Andrew’s did. This shows that Andrew is not really a leader, although he tried to portray himself as one early on, and Bender really was a leader. As far as being submissive, the only real submissive character was Brian. Brian was quiet, shy, and picked on, and this really did not change. He did not go from submissive to dominant during any part of the film. Allison, at first, was somebody that one would peg as a submissive, for she did not say a word for the first half of the film. However, Allison showed that she was an individual who was willing to call the others out on the false things that they would say. She was not willing to be put down by the others and stood on her own two feet. However, she was not necessarily dominant; she just was not submissive. Claire was the same. She was definitely not dominant, and, like Allison, she was also not submissive. She stood up to Bender, and also stood up to Allison when Allison got her to admit that she, Claire, was still a virgin. She told the other kids hard truths that nobody really wanted to hear. Still, she was not a leader, but was more of a follower, as when she followed Bender to the locker and followed Bender to get high. This is interesting, because the movie implied that Claire was a leader in school, as she was one of the popular kids. But Claire was not a leader in this group of kids. The third dimension, the close-far dimension, was the most fluid dimension in the film. At first, the only two individuals who were close, or seemed close, were Andrew and Claire. These dynamics changed as the kids got to know one another. Claire got close to Bender, while Andrew got close to Allison. The kids bonded over their mutual insecurities, as they discovered that they were all alike under the skin. In the end, the kids got close to one another, whereas before, nobody was close to anybody else, except Andrew and Claire. The next theory that will be examined will be that of group think. This is when there are members of a cohesive group, and they are so involved with one another that they strive for unanimity and do not think for themselves. Groupthink is marked for a lessening of reason, moral judgment, reality testing and mental efficiency, and groupthink results from in-group pressures (Janis, 1982). Groupthink is seen when there is a high level of group cohesion, and the two situations where it is most likely to occur is when there are structural faults, marked by insulation of the group, a lack of norms, and group homogenization; and provocative situations, which is marked by stress, both external and internal (Janis, 1982). In this case, there was definite group think. As indicated above, when the kids went to the locker with Bender, this was an example of the kids not thinking too clearly. If the principle would have caught them, they all would have gotten at least one more detention, especially because pot was involved, and the principle could probably smell the pot if he got close enough to the kids. Therefore, the move was stupid on their part, yet they all went along with it and took the risk. This was an example of group think. Group think was also present when the kids smoked the pot. Once again, they were all taking risks, and, in this case, it was large risk indeed, because getting caught with drugs on school grounds was probably a ground for expulsion from the school and criminal charges being brought against the kids. The principle was already shown as a man who was not messing around, so to speak, when he had his early confrontation with John Bender. It is surprising that Andrew was willing to go along with this, considering all he has to lose, including his position on the wrestling team and his scholarship to college. That all the kids were willing to risk everything to smoke marijuana, when the principle is lurking about and could catch them at any minute, shows group think. It shows that the kids cared more about in-group pressures than thinking rationally. In this case, the groupthink probably occurred because of they were in a provocative situation that was marked by stress. They had external stress, in that they were all in Saturday detention with a principle who was attempting to keep everybody in line. The kids also had internal stress, in that each of them had insecurities that had to do with fitting in, even the popular princess Claire. Claire stated that she did not really like being a part of the group she was in, and did not like going along with everything that her group says, and this is where her insecurities stemmed from. Andrew’s insecurities stemmed from his father’s pushing him. Brian’s insecurities stemmed from having to always excel. Bender’s insecurities stemmed from abuse at home and the fact that he really did want to fit in, despite his protestations to the contrary. Allison’s insecurities, like Andrew, stemmed from the way her parents treated her. Therefore, each of them had deep-seated insecurities, and this made them more susceptible to groupthink. The final theory that will be examined will the leadership theory. One type of leader is the servant leader, who puts aside his or her own self-interest in favor of the interests of those being led. These leaders are altruistic; are able to provide emotional healing to those who fail; are wise, in that they have a good grasp on any given situation that faces the group and knows how to handle these situations; have an excellent ability to persuade others; and understand how their organization impacts society, and are able to use their organization for positive societal means (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010, p. 5-7). Democratic leadership is another style of leader. A democratic leader facilitates conversations, and the staff is encouraged to share ideas and bring forth individual views and debate these ideas. Consensus building is a hallmark of this leadership, as solutions often come through consensus. All member's talents are brought forth and encouraged. The team that is most advantageous to this type of leadership is a team that is composed of bright, talented, professional and motivated team members (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). A third type of leadership is the autocratic leadership. This type of leader issues decisions and the workforce is supposed to obey them, no discussion allowed. Employees' opinions are disregarded, and the employees are basically told to “put up or shut up” - follow the directions or risk sanction. While there are many disadvantages to this type of leadership, mainly that employees feel diminished and powerless, this type of leadership is appropriate in some situations. One such situation is where a quick decision must be made (Miller, 2010). In this case, Bender was shown as really the only leader of the group. It was Bender’s idea to go out into the hall; the other kids followed. It was Bender’s idea to smoke pot; the other kids followed. Bender was the one who put the music on, and the other kids danced to the music. That said, it was difficult to tell what kind of leader Bender is, although it is safe to say that his style is neither that of the servant leader nor the democratic leader. He was simply too abrasive, and did not show any altruistic tendencies. He was most like an authoritative leader, in that he stated to the kids that they were going to do something, and no dissent was allowed. However, he really did not seem to be that, either. His way, at least with the pot, was that he was going to smoke it, and if anybody wanted to come along, they could. The film didn’t show it, but that was probably how Bender got the other kids to go out into the hall as well. Therefore, Bender did not really fit any leadership mold, per se. He was almost like an “accidental” leader, in that he did not set out to lead the kids, this was just how it ended up, due to his dominant nature. Conclusion Although the major premise of “The Breakfast Club” was that everybody is alike under the skin, no matter what social position an individual may occupy in the outside world, this film was also an excellent study in group behavior. The kids engaged in activities that they normally would not, like smoking pot in school, and this is because of peer pressure and groupthink. The kids also exemplified the three group dimensions put forth by Schultz. The only theories that do not really fit the film are the leadership theories, as Bender did not really embody any one of these theories, yet he was shown to the be the undisputed leader of the group. Sources Used Barbuto, J. & Gifford, G. (2010). Examining gender differences of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Education 2(9): 4-16. Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. CHIP Documents. Paper 11. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1010&context=chip_docs Janis, I. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos. New York: Cengage Learning. Miller, P. (2010). Leading and Managing People, 4th Ed. Lismore, NSW: Souther Cross University Press. Schutz, W. 1958. FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Group Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Read More