Michael Scott, Reluctant Capitalist

Marxist Theory and "The Office"

I happened to read Marx’s essays “Wage Labor and Capital” and “Capital” moments after watching the latest episode of my favorite TV show, “The Office.” It occurred to me that many of the aspects of capitalist ideology that Marx examines, especially the development of the wage worker’s identity through, around, and in spite of, his work, are exemplified by the show. If you have little experience with “The Office,” I recommend taking twenty minutes to watch this episode from Season 1, titled “Health Care”, which deals with many of the Marxist ideas I will address here: http://www.livevideo.com/video/4C1349D7BB054F61BBEAD14974C1F5B4/theofficeus103.aspx

To provide a little background, “The Office” is a scripted comedy presented in a documentary format. It is ostensibly a compilation of footage of the employees of Dunder Mifflin, a paper supply company. The only footage of the characters’ lives that we the audience are able to view is that which takes place during their nine to five workday and within the confines of the physical office. Any scenes outside of the office usually depict interactions between coworkers only—rarely are there any characters that do not hold a position at Dunder Mifflin.

This storytelling perspective lays bare what Marx means when he says that life for the wage worker begins where his wage-earning activity ceases (660). At first, it may seem strange that we know very little of the characters’ families, living situations, and other aspects of their lives that are generally conceived as integral to personal identity. The show positions us as a silent coworker—we know the characters in the same, snapshot-like manner that we know our actual coworkers in everyday life. However, through the Marxist lens, we are seeing in a very literal way the majority of their life experiences. The fact of the matter is that these people, like us, spend the majority of their lives behind a desk in an office, engaging in relationships that they often consider inconsequential in their “actual” lives, the real life that begins after the workday ends, according to the capitalist myth of individualism.

Much of the humor of the show hinges on the inherently awkward and stiff interactions between the coworkers, on the discomfort of daily interactions and the power of the unsaid. Even the relationship between Jim and Pam, the great romance of the show, begins as a festival of sexual frustration and unclear relationship boundaries. This relates to Marx’s ideas regarding the disintegration of interpersonal relationships in the capitalist system.

The comic device of the awkwardness of everyday relationships reaches its zenith in the character of Michael Scott, the regional manager. As I read Marx, I began to note that Michael’s painful ineptitude seems to stem from his inability to find his place within a distinctly capitalist workplace. He is uncomfortable in his leadership role and defines himself as a “friend first and a boss second” while continually blending the public with the private. Michael’s actions are often offensive, but they can be seen as his attempts to humanize his interactions with those that work beneath him. The show often implies that Michael has no friends outside of Dunder Mifflin, and he often refers to the office as a family. Unlike the audience and the other characters on the show, Michael does not characterize the hours of nine to five as different from a personal, outside, individual life. He is unable to accept the commodification of the individual, the idea that, especially in the workplace, the “definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things” (667). Rather than treat his coworkers as slaves, he is trying to make the office for them what it is to him: the rewarding center of his life. Within the capitalist system, this endeavor is fundamentally absurd.

The other office workers, like Marx’s wage workers, are incredibly detached from their actual work; when Jim tries to describe for the documentarian what he does on a daily basis, he trails off, saying, “I’m boring myself right now.” One character does nothing at the company, and spends his time carefully concealing this fact. As the factories Marx saw during his lifetime, it is a passionless and soulless workplace. It is made clear that no one in the office feels fulfilled by his job, but they are all terrified of being fired; the job is their sole means of survival. Hence the biting irony when Michael remarks, “The office is where dreams come true!”

As we discussed in class, many of Marx’s ideas lose their strength as the capitalist system becomes increasingly more complex. Michael is not a true “boss” in Marx’s conception of capitalism in that he, too, is a wage worker. Strict hierarchies exist within Dunder Mifflin, but there is no great capitalist at the helm. Although Dunder Mifflin seems to be a perfectly capitalist company, in that they begin and end the commodity exchange process with money, they do not control the means of production. They buy paper from manufacturers and sell it to corporate clients. The entire company functions as a wage worker. Like the working class in Marxist theory, the employees of Dunder Mifflin “possess nothing but their capacity to labor” to serve their suppliers and clients (663). Indeed, employees’ only response to criticism that warehouse chain stores like Office Depot are more efficient is that Dunder Mifflin provides better customer service. This feeble claim exemplifies what Marx means when he says that the worker “not only replaces what he consumes but gives to the accumulated labor a greater value than it previously possessed” (663). The fact that we laugh at Dunder Mifflin’s attempts to justify higher prices reveals the extent to which the individual has been commodified in the capitalist system: Why on earth would we want to pay more for customer service?

The series is pervaded by a hopeful sorrow that seems to define the role of the individual in the capitalist system. This doomed hope is perhaps best personified by the character of Jim. He begins the show hating his job, and not caring if he gets laid off or not. However, as his romance with Pam progresses, he holds himself more and more accountable for his own success or failure; his apathy falls away and is replaced with a genuine desire to succeed in a career at Dunder Mifflin. Now that he has proposed to Pam and has bought a house for them, his job is far more central to his life. It is now the means by which their family will survive in the future, and Jim has abandoned the hope of progressing on to something about which he is more passionate. “The Office” demonstrates how the capitalist system forces participants to conform to its model not through force, but through coercion: in the end, they are convinced that they are actually passionately invested in the system. They see themselves not as slaves in an exploitative system but as active agents responsible for their own survival.

I find that the most interesting thing about this process is how happy I am for all of the characters. I am happy that Jim is taking responsibility in his career; I am thrilled when Michael’s genuine regard for people shines through his idiocy; I rejoice in the little and ultimately useless ways the characters cope with the absurdity of the system. I am happy when the system, in some perverse, nonsensical way, seems to work out for people. It’s this strange winking sign of life peeking out from behind the dull acceptance that attracts me to “The Office.” And when I feel mediocre, useless, dehumanized, and helpless, it reminds me that I am not alone.