An Analysis of Three Plays by David Mamet Through the Lens of Kirkian Conservatism

Home , American Buffalo (play), China Doll (play), David Mamet, Glengarry Glen Ross, November (play), Race (play)

PROTECT, PRESERVE, AND REFORM: AN ANALYSIS OF THREE PLAYS BY DAVID MAMET THROUGH THE LENS OF KIRKIAN CONSERVATISM

Jennifer Shadle

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

August 2018

Committee:

Angela Ahlgren, Advisor

Jonathan Chambers

Jennifer Shadle

Angela Ahlgren, Advisor

American playwright David Mamet announced his conservatism in 2004 through an article in The Village Voice. While many of his plays have inspired scholarship, especially regarding the use of unethical business practices in his work, analyses of the influence of his conservatism are rare. With a mixed methodology of character and literary analysis, through a lens of Kirkian conservatism, I examine the implications of conservative themes in character interactions in three of David Mamet’s plays. Specifically, I explore the mentor/student relationship in American Buffalo (1975), the spirit or potential of the individual in Glengarry

Glen Ross (1984), and natural law and justice in The Anarchist (2012). I found that a question at the heart of conservatism, what must be preserved, protected, and reformed so that society may progress, was also a vital component to Mamet’s work. It is my hope that my study will expand existing scholarship about the philosophies of playwrights, and that I might provide a voice to a previously unexplored group in theatre.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, to my advisor, Angela Ahlgren, I would like to convey my gratitude. Her wisdom and thoughtful questions were invaluable in crafting this study, and I can’t properly express my appreciation for all the ways she pushed me to think more intently about Mamet and Kirk. I’m also grateful for her willingness to act as my advisor, despite the hundreds of miles between Ohio and Arizona. I know the distance wasn’t easy to overcome, and I’ll likely never find the words to convey my gratitude for her efforts.

I’m also indebted to the other member of my committee, Jonathan Chambers, and the rest of the faculty at Bowling Green State University. Through classes, office hours, and even chance meetings in the break room, I was pushed to think critically and I feel that I am a better student for it. I have been blessed by all their intelligence, kindness, and wisdom.

I’d also like to thank my family and friends who supported me through this process. My parents’ patience and support was and is invaluable to me. I’m so blessed to be their daughter.

I’m also grateful to my brother and sister-in-law whose humor and wit never failed to make me smile during trying days. I must also thank Aaron, Jarod, Lydia, my dear friends in Ohio, and my peers at Bowling Green, with special thanks to Sejohn and Tessa. Their advice and friendship means more to me than they’ll ever know, and I’m so grateful for their presence in my life.

Finally, I’d like to thank my husband. His willingness to be my sounding board and research partner was irreplaceable. When I couldn’t just walk into a professor’s office and panic about my arguments, I had him. I’m so grateful for his support, and for letting me force him to watch and read a lot of David Mamet.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………. 1

CHAPTER I: MENTORS AND STUDENTS IN AMERICAN BUFFALO (1975) ………. 12

A Few Principles of Russell Kirk’s Conservatism…………………………………. 14

The Devil’s Manipulation of the Mentor…………………………………………… 18

The Student’s Loyalty to His Mentor………………………………………………. 26

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 33

CHAPTER II: THE SPIRIT OF INDIVIDUALS IN GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS (1984) .. 35

Russell Kirk and Glengarry Glen Ross…………………………………………….. 37

The Implications of Mitch and Murray’s Contest………………………………….. 40

The Manipulation of James Lingk…………………………………………………. 42

Moss and Leven’s Sacrifice of Their Morality with the Robbery…………………. 46

George Aaronow’s Inner Debate…………………………………………………… 50

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 56

CHAPTER III: NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE IN THE ANARCHIST (2012) ……….. 59

Natural Law and Justice……………………………………………………………. 62

Cathy and State of Nature vs. Natural Law………………………………………… 67

Ann and Justice…………………………………………………………………….. 74

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 83

CONCLUSIONS …………………………………...……………………………………..... 85

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………… 90

INTRODUCTION

In 2008, after writing November, David Mamet boldly announced his departure from the

Left via a piece published in the Village Voice, titled: “Why I’m No Longer a Brain-Dead

Liberal” (“Why I’m No Longer”). Mamet’s choice to publicize his change in political philosophy in such a manner is not out of character for him as he has never shied away from controversy and tends to embrace the unexpected. He continues to adamantly embrace Aristotelian theatrical standards (even as they have fallen out of favor), while also never missing an opportunity to use foul language on stage. His rhythmic, aggressive dialogue paired with his seemingly absent plots have firmly cemented his position as an important playwright and contributor to the American theatre. Mamet’s writing style has prompted many scholarly articles and books over the years, but his conversion to conservatism is the primary inspiration for this study.

While Thomas Sowell, John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman have been cited as contributors to Mamet’s change of political mind, I chose a different conservative theorist to provide the lens for this study: Russell Kirk. Several external and internal factors informed this choice, the first of which is Kirk’s importance to conservatism in general. Such as it was understood in the middle part of the 20th century, Kirk’s books, articles, and lectures serve as a guidebook of sorts for understanding and practicing the philosophy, particularly his seminal work, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (1953). Kirk inspired William Buckley, Jr. to create The National Review, and many conservative theorists today still directly acknowledge and interpret Kirk in their work. Even though he passed away in 1994, Kirk’s influence has not wavered, as evidenced by the frequent republishing of his work.

Additionally, unlike most conservative thinkers and writers today, such as Ben Shapiro or

Jonah Goldberg, Kirk’s work focuses on the interconnectedness of ideas to culture. He did not 2

exclusively write about one field; instead, Kirk tried to relate conservative politics to artistic pursuits, theology, and science, to name a few. Thus, as important as Shapiro’s political podcasts and university lectures or Goldberg’s work with The National Review, are to young conservatives today, their work is not easily applied to the arts. Kirk, on the other hand, was deeply invested in cultural conservatism.

Perhaps more important than Kirk’s position as a key thinker in conservatism and his interest in culture, I contend that a central theme in Kirk’s work also appears in Mamet’s: the spirit of the individual. Repeatedly, Kirk emphasizes the potential of the individual to cause momentous change in the commonwealth. As Bradley J. Birzer notes in his examination of

Russell Kirk, the spirit of the individual both concerned and motivated Kirk. Under the implications of Judeo-Christian traditions, if an individual found order in their soul and understood the fundamental principles of natural law, their reform or reorientation in society would likely be beneficial. However, Kirk also acknowledges that many of his fellow citizens were uninterested in such matters, and their ideas could prompt change that, in Kirk’s mind, had the potential of harming society (Birzer 108-109). Likewise, an individual’s power to reform and reorient society is a theme that appears frequently in Mamet’s work. As such, it is a theme I explore further through the lens of Kirkian conservatism.

Generally, Mamet is not known for writing plays with happy endings or featuring heroic characters. Rather, he often writes static characters— such as Richard Roma in Glengarry Glen

Ross (1984) or Teach in American Buffalo (1975)— who seem to learn nothing and demonstrate every intention of continuing as they are. Not surprising given Mamet’s admiration for writers like Pinter and Beckett, the playwright’s endings tend to feature a bittersweet, empty, or sorrowful tone which prompt the audience to look inward to find a resolution to what they just 3

witnessed. With this study, I demonstrate that the resolution Mamet may be prompting his audience to find aligns with Russell Kirk’s brand of conservatism. Mamet’s characters in

American Buffalo, Glengarry Glen Ross, and The Anarchist (2012) are all given an opportunity to consider whether to protect, preserve, or reform to better their situations. Even if Mamet did not construct his characters to make ethical decisions, I argue that the opportunity exists for the audience so that they may consider what the best course of action may be for them.

When analyzing the three plays selected for this thesis, I primarily focus my efforts on the characters. Since Mamet avoids stage directions and predominantly advances his plots through dialogue, placing his characters at the center of this study was the most prudent choice.

Thus, I examine their dialogue, actions, and how their respective arcs interacted with other characters as well as with the text itself. This resulted in an analysis of Mamet’s characters, as they appear on the pages of the plays, informed by Kirk’s conservative philosophy.

The critical and scholarly response to the plays selected for this study is varied, though there are a few common threads. American Buffalo and Glengarry Glen Ross were well-received by critics and audiences when they premiered, while The Anarchist closed quickly in comparison. Regardless of reception, all three plays prompted discussions about Mamet’s idiosyncratic style of dialogue and the success, or lack thereof, of the actors in conveying the cadence. Additionally, critics examined the ways in which the plays commented on society, particularly economically, and the possible inspiration for Mamet’s choices. In general, the response to American Buffalo has involved analyses of the familial, hierarchal relationships between the three characters, Mamet’s use of language, foul or otherwise, and the implications of

Veblen capitalism, or capitalism that solely concerned itself with profits. Similarly, Glengarry

Glen Ross has also prompted discussions about Veblen’s ideas and Mamet’s dialogue. However, 4

many scholars have also responded to the degradation of the salesmen and the consequences of their lack of moral compasses. In contrast, critical and scholarly responses to The Anarchist have varied greatly from the other two plays. While they frequently analyze Mamet’s distinct writing style and actors’ performances of his dialogue, they mostly focus on politics in the play, and the radical left-wing group that may have inspired them. Additionally, any examination of the play is usually made in tandem with other, more recent plays, including Race (2009) or China Doll

(2015).

From American Buffalo, the father/son or mentor/student relationship between Don and

Bobby, and how it is influenced by Veblen capitalism, is easily the most popular topic for scholarship. Mamet discussed the relationship in interviews after the premiere, and several prominent Mamet scholars in turn offer their perspectives on Donny’s bond with Bobby. In

Understanding David Mamet (2011), Brenda Murphy examines the relationship in contrast to the brutal Veblen capitalism present in the play, offering their renewed association as a hopeful ending for the tragic play. The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet (2004) offers a similar study, though Matthew Roudané focuses on how the betrayals among the characters mirror the

Veblen capitalism Mamet is attempting to condemn. On the other hand, several scholars devote their attention to the business ethics and use of currency in the play. Jon Dietrick’s “‘Real

Classical Money’: Naturalism and Mamet’s American Buffalo” and William Little’s “Taking It

Back: Crises of Currency in David Mamet’s American Buffalo” both examine the ways in which

Mamet, through Don and Teach, emphasizes tenets of Veblen capitalism and explores the power of money.

The premiere of American Buffalo was received well by critics and audiences, even if the language and aggressive direction was off-putting to some at first. In fact, many reviews of 5

subsequent productions mention how the premiere elevated the stock of the Goodman Theater and secured Mamet’s position as an important American playwright (Christianson “David

Mamet”). There have been countless revivals of American Buffalo, many of which have garnered positive reviews. For example, in 2015, Deaf West and Cal State put on a production that featured American Sign Language (Gray “Don’t Miss”), that was critically well-regarded.

Likewise, a revival of the play found a receptive audience in London in 2015 with John

Goodman, Damian Lewis, and Tom Sturridge (Hitchings “John Goodman”).

The mentor/student relationship between Donny and Bobby is a popular topic in scholarship about Mamet and American Buffalo, but there are ideas yet to be unpacked.

Generally, the relationship between Mamet’s characters is analyzed with a Marxist perspective, with attention dedicated to the corrupt business ethics Mamet’s characters demonstrate. Instead, I examine the relationship through a philosophically conservative lens to illuminate what the relationship could offer for Mamet’s audience. Mamet’s dialogue reveals ideas about morality and what is worth protecting and preserving. Using a Kirkian lens, I highlight these ideas in the first chapter.

Frequent contributors to Mamet scholarship, Benedict Nightingale and Brenda Murphy examine the manipulative and unethical tactics the salesmen use in Glengarry Glen Ross. While capitalism is more of an underlying philosophical theme in American Buffalo, Murphy and

Nightingale view it as a driving force for the action in Glengarry Glen Ross. Similar ideas are explored in Mehdi Sepehrmanesh and Ehsan Dehghani’s “The Dehumanizing American Dream in Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross” and Jonathan S. Cullick’s “‘Always Be Closing’: Competition and Discourse of Closure in David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross”, which both analyze the characters’ drive and motivations to win the contest. 6

When it premiered, Glengarry Glen Ross garnered overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics. Frank Rich, on writing a response to the Broadway opening for The New York

Times, called the play Mamet’s masterpiece (Rich “A Mamet Play”). Since the premiere, many professional theaters have revived the play. Even when the productions themselves were not received well, critics praised the source material. For example, in 2012, Daniel Sullivan directed a revival starring Al Pacino and Bobby Cannevale which did not resonate with audiences and critics, but in the New York Times, Ben Brantley still maintained that “‘Glengarry’ was built for speed. Much of the beauty of this play comes from its revved-up rhythms… there’s poetry in their obscene talk” (Brantley “Fugue for Worn Out Tinhorns”). The most recent revival produced in London in November 2017 also garnered positive reviews and praise for Mamet’s writing

(Brantley “Here Honor is Profane,” Billington “Christian Slater is Top Dog”).

Questionable business ethics drive the bulk of the action of Glengarry Glen Ross and consequently, inspire most of the scholarship about the play as well. The ethics of Mamet’s salesmen feature heavily in my analysis, but I extend the implications beyond American capitalism. Rather, I explore the decisions of the salesmen and how their destructive behavior prevents them from being rewarded. In constructing his characters, Mamet provides opportunity for their creative and constructive qualities to benefit those around them as well as their personal lives, a theme I explore in the second chapter. However, in choosing different paths for each of the salesmen, Mamet provided an opportunity for his audience. With a Kirkian lens, I explore the implications of the potential for the salesmen of Glengarry Glen Ross to create change and what is revealed by the consequences of their actions.

As stated above, there is little scholarship available about The Anarchist. James Michael

Alderiso wrote about the politics and poetic language of the play, as well as that of three others, 7

in his master’s thesis. Alderiso examines the conversations between Cathy and Ann to illuminate details about their respective philosophies and how those philosophies influence their decisions throughout the play. For the Yale Review, Barry Goldensohn wrote a piece about the philosophy and execution of the law in Race (2009) and The Anarchist.

Unlike the other two plays in this study, The Anarchist did not receive a positive response from critics when it premiered. New York Times critic Ben Brantley condemned Mamet for sacrificing plot for the sake of arguing about philosophy. He also took issue with the dialogue itself, believing that because Ann and Cathy both use words to misdirect, it is difficult to follow their arguments, let alone the motivation woven into them (Brantley “War of Wills”). Just three years later, the play was revived and unfortunately, did not resonate any better with audiences and critics. Jordan Riefe wrote about the Los Angeles premiere, and mentioned the difficult, philosophical dialogue. Though he contended that the play reflected Mamet’s intelligence, the characters required the audience’s strictest attention to follow the text, let alone the subtext

(Riefe “‘The Anarchist’”).

There is plenty of opportunity for analysis and interpretation in The Anarchist, given the debate between Cathy and Ann, the lasting impact of organizations like The Weather

Underground, and even the complications associated with the American justice system. I chose to focus my study of it on the philosophical implications of a few of the core beliefs held by

Mamet’s two female characters. The ways in which Cathy and Ann discuss natural law and justice reveals some of their motivations for their actions and drives the plot of the play. With the work of Kirk, I explore the possible moral implications and consequences of the philosophies held by Mamet’s characters.

Though Kirk and Birzer’s study are my primary sources, I also reference works by 8

Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Sowell, and Jonah Goldberg in this study to provide context for a few political, economic, and historical ideas. Because Kirk was so invested in philosophy, he did not always explicate the context for his claims. For example, his work assumes a thorough understanding of economic systems that many do not possess, as such, I used the work of

Hobbes, Sowell, and Goldberg to provide much needed context.

In terms of Mamet’s work, several contributors to the Cambridge Companion to David

Mamet (2004), whose works analyze the political and theoretical themes in Mamet’s plays inform my analysis. Christopher Bigsby’s “David Mamet,” Matthew Roudané’s “Betrayal and

Friendship: David Mamet’s American Buffalo,” Benedict Nightingale’s “Glengarry Glen Ross,” and David and Janice Sauer’s “Misreading Mamet: Scholarship and Reviews” all incorporate the political and philosophical themes in Mamet’s work, and offer thoughts on their execution and implications. Each writer, as well as the authors of the books mentioned below, emphasize

Mamet’s research tendencies and illuminate the ways in which his avid reading has influenced his work.

Though Mamet’s personal thoughts about his work do not heavily inform this study, his insight helps to link the philosophical and historical elements in my analysis. A collection of interviews, Leslie Kane’s David Mamet: In Conversation (2004), has several pieces that benefit this study. There is an interview with Mamet about American Buffalo, as well as one about

Glengarry Glen Ross. Both pieces offer illuminate some of the philosophical themes at the foundation of Mamet’s plays. Additionally, Kane includes an interview with David Savran that sheds light on Mamet’s writing process and the way he views politics and theatre. Taken together, these three interviews help connect the political and philosophical elements of this analysis to the creative and theatrical works under examination. 9

An examination of David Mamet’s larger career informs my study in providing dramaturgical evidence for my claims. As such, another important source is Brenda Murphy’s

Understanding David Mamet (2011), which doubles as a biography and as a literary analysis of some of his work. Essentially, Murphy’s book is a survey of Mamet’s biography and work; it is meant to provide a brief glimpse into Mamet and his career. Murphy’s effort places Mamet’s work in historical and sociological context, as well as in context with Mamet’s other creative endeavors. Understanding David Mamet acts as dramaturgical evidence and support for the political and philosophical claims I make, and illuminates biographical facts about Mamet, which have influenced his writing.

Perhaps above all other aspects of his work, Mamet is most praised and studied for his use of language. His word choices are purposeful and executed with care; understanding his methods for dialogue is vital for analyzing any other aspect of his work. Mamet’s plays are notoriously bare in terms of stage directions; plot and character development occur through words. To aid my analysis of language, I draw on Anne Dean’s David Mamet: Language as

Dramatic Action (1990), which examines Mamet’s dialogue and how it differs from that of other playwrights. According to Dean, Mamet’s dialogue does not convey action or an idea; rather, it is that action or idea. Dean analyzes multiple of Mamet’s plays and discusses how his strategy with language impacts the way the story is told. Her careful analysis of Mamet’s language informs my own analysis of his philosophical and political ideas.

In 2011, David Mamet published a book about politics, which informs my study to a limited extent. The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (2011) is an entertaining combination of Mamet’s well researched arguments and his rants on ideas with which he disagrees. I do not use the book as prominent evidence for my argument, though 10

Mamet includes quite a bit of information about his personal beliefs, childhood, religious experiences, etc. His autobiographical details illuminate aspects of his writing style and commonly used constructs that may be otherwise misunderstood or missed entirely. As a result, I incorporate Mamet’s book as a means of highlighting easily missed moments in his dialogue or examining purposefully vague qualities in the plays.

My analysis of the plays occurs in chronological order, starting with American Buffalo.

As noted above, the most important relationship in the play is the mentor/student bond between

Donny and Bobby. I explore a conservative interpretation of their bond. Generally, mentors are expected to impart knowledge and wisdom to their student. Kirk stressed that the largest motivator for the conservative ideology was the question as to what to preserve, protect, or reform. Donny’s most important struggle throughout the play is when and how he should challenge Bobby to consider this question. The first chapter is an exploration of the primary foundation for the conservative ideology through the relationship between Donny and Bobby in

American Buffalo.

The second chapter focuses on individual potential for change and reform, the importance of salutary reform, and the necessity of maintaining a moral code. Mamet’s corrupt salesmen are thrown into an “at all costs” scenario in which, if they are unable to meet certain requirements, they will lose their livelihoods. Each of the salesmen is given an opportunity to save their job in an ethical manner, though most do not pursue this route. Generally, the unethical choices of the salesmen are analyzed as an indictment of American capitalism. Instead, I offer another interpretation of Mamet’s perhaps most famous work. I argue that Glengarry Glen Ross is a demonstration of the need for certain conservative principles and that the play acts as a cautionary tale for when such principles are ignored. 11

Finally, the third chapter examines Cathy and Ann’s beliefs regarding natural law and original justice in The Anarchist. Mamet’s two women in The Anarchist are firm in their interpretations of these two concepts, but neither character is accurate in their understanding of them. I believe this was purposeful, as Mamet constructed Cathy and Ann to intentionally leave the audience with more questions than answers by the time the curtain falls. Produced several years after he announced his conservatism, the play may serve as a vehicle for Mamet’s newfound ideology. His characters offer two inadvisable dogmas, but Mamet purposefully forces his audience to find the third solution. Through the lens of Kirk’s ideas, I offer conservatism as a potential option for said solution as Kirk positions the philosophy as a compromise between radicalism and authoritarianism.

In this study, I explore a few ideas at the foundation of conservative philosophy in the work of three plays by David Mamet. In the last decade or two, Mamet’s position as a public figure, has changed since he announced his conservatism. Moreover, the perception and even understanding of conservatism has changed as well, partially due to partisan politics. However, I maintain that the root of the ideology, as Kirk would say, is to discover what must be preserved, protected, and reformed. The implications of this discovery are important as, in my opinion, change occurs internally before it is seen externally. As such, my analysis attempts to shed light on the conservatism inherent in both Mamet’s earlier and current work. 12

CHAPTER I: MENTORS AND STUDENTS IN AMERICAN BUFFALO (1975)

Set in a pawn shop owned by the one of the characters, American Buffalo follows three men in pursuit of their distorted perceptions of the American Dream. The play is a contemporary interpretation of a classical tragedy that explores the power of words and how easily one falls prey to one’s darker convictions. Mamet also meticulously details how people can be corrupted into betraying both their own ideals and even partners and friends. Now considered a classic of

American theatre, American Buffalo is simultaneously an example of using language as character, a commentary on seedy business practices, and a cautionary tale about carefully reviewing and executing one’s values and principles.

The play’s production history is vast, and many of its professional productions received positive reviews. Both the Broadway premiere and the 1983 revival garnered four Tony Award nominations each, as well as receiving several Drama Desk Award nominations. Additionally,

Mamet received the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award for Best American Play in 1977.

For the New York Times, Frank Rich reviewed the play both on and off Broadway, noting:

“Working with the tiniest imaginable vocabulary— words like nothing, great, and no, as well as those of four letters— Mr. Mamet [...] has created a deceptively small-scale tragedy that is packed with the power to explode the largest of American myths” (Rich “Theater”). Though perhaps not as often revived or anthologized as Glengarry Glen Ross (1984), American Buffalo is still one of Mamet’s most popular plays. It was recently revived on the West End in London in

2015.

Part of the reason for the longevity of the play lies, at least in part, in the hierarchal, familial relationships Mamet constructs between the three characters. These dynamic, shifting 13

relationships have generated a great deal of scholarly interest. A significant amount of the scholarship about the play is either wholly devoted to the idea, as in Matthew Roudané’s piece for The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet and Lyn Sattazahn’s “Claiming Identity: The

Effect of the American Myth on Human Relationships in David Mamet’s American Buffalo,

Glengarry Glen Ross, and Speed-the-Plow”; or, at least mentions the relationships in their analysis, as Brenda Murphy and Anne Dean do in Understanding David Mamet (2011) and

David Mamet: Language as Dramatic Action (1992) respectively.

In this regard, my analysis is no different. I, too, am invested in the hierarchy among

Donny, Teach, and Bobby, and how that hierarchy influences their character arcs. It is worth noting that this hierarchy is occasionally manifested in production through the casting of Bobby as a black man, thus possibly reinforcing racial hierarchies. However, as stated previously, my analysis is focused on the characters as they appear on the pages of the play. In any case, I think the mentor/student relationship between Donny and Bobby bears the most dramatic weight in that it is the catalyst for much of the play’s action. This relationship is not new to drama. In fact, it dates to the ancient Greeks. Given Mamet’s affinity for Aristotelian theatrical standards, it is therefore unsurprising that he would feature such a relationship in his work. In such relationships, the mentor is tasked with passing on information, stories, and instructions to their student, so that the student may be better prepared for their own ventures. However, this leaves the mentor with the question of what precisely to pass on: what is worth preserving, protecting, or reforming? For example, Teach manipulates Donny due to his own jealousy about their relationship, and Donny’s betrayal of Bobby prompts Mamet’s play’s violent climax. Moreover, the mentor/student relationship Mamet provides to the audience acts as a cautionary tale or a lesson in trust and loyalty. 14

This same question is also at the heart of conservatism, particularly the conservatism of

Russell Kirk. Considering the nature of this thesis, it is appropriate to use Kirk’s seminal book,

The Conservative Mind, to begin analysis of Mamet’s work. While not his first play, American

Buffalo (1975) launched Mamet’s career and the same can be said of The Conservative Mind and

Kirk. As Mamet guides Donny to the realization of what is worth protecting and preserving, I intend to illuminate aspects of the play with a Kirkian interpretation of the same idea.

First, I provide some of Kirk’s thoughts about the key aspects of conservative philosophy’s foundation. Primarily, I explore his ideas regarding orders, classes, and, as stated above, the need to analyze what must be protected, preserved, or reformed. I then delve into the play and discuss the implications of Donny and Bobby’s relationship as constructed by Mamet.

Particularly, I focus on how Donny is manipulated into betraying Bobby as well as the reveal of

Bobby’s unfailing loyalty to Donny.

A Few Principles of Russell Kirk’s Conservatism

In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk discusses what he believes to be the six tenets that form the philosophical foundation of modern conservatism. These tenets are not meant to be comprehensive, but they do provide a broad understanding of the ideology, which Kirk detailed in response to his concerns about government overreach implemented by the New Deal as well as what he considered to be his geopolitical foe in Soviet Communism. First, Kirk asserts that conservatives maintain “a belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law which rules society as well as conscience” (8). He then claims that conservatives have an “affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems” as well as a conviction for the 15

necessity of orders and classes in society (8). The other three canons declare a connection between freedom and property, a distrust of those who desire to “reconstruct society upon abstract designs”, or those proposing to reconstruct society upon nontraditional or perhaps even untested ideologies, and the recognition that hasty innovation may not benefit society (9).

As stated above, one of Kirk’s canons of conservatism involves his thoughts regarding orders and classes, a view through which conservatives tend to look at the structure and hierarchy of society. Kirk’s exact description of this canon of conservative thought is as follows:

Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion

of a ‘classless society’ [sic]. With reason, conservatives often have been called

‘the party of order’ [sic]. If natural distinctions are effaced among men, oligarchs

fill the vacuum. Ultimate equality in the judgment of God, and equality before

courts of law, are recognized by conservatives; but equality of condition, they

think, means equality in servitude and boredom. (8-9)

In other words, conservatives believe that government imposed financial equality would have disastrous effects on civilized society. Kirk implies that equality of outcome would lessen motivation for citizens to discover, invent, and/or create due to the lack of tangible rewards, thus potentially leading to boredom. Furthermore, if equal distribution of wealth were to take place, the execution of equality of condition or outcome would be problematic. As prominent historian

David Farber explains in The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism (2010), methods necessary to equally divide the wealth of the citizens would likely involve political coercion and possible violence (3). Kirk would believe that the only equality to emerge from such methods would be that of servitude, as the government would be solely responsible for the division of wealth, rather than individuals (i.e., the free market), and thus individuals would be subjugated to 16

the government.

The free market is believed by many conservatives, including noted economist Thomas

Sowell, to be the most efficient and equitable method for wealth to be spread and divided in society. In conservative thought, the free market operates simply: the wealth of the individual is spread to other individuals through trade. The wealth in question is not “descended from heaven,” i.e., is not considered to be pre-existent or limited, but is rather created by individual expenditure of effort and individual willingness to undertake risk. If the government were to view wealth as manna falling from heaven, spreading evenly over the ground, thus eliminating choice, risk, and opportunity, conservatives believe that the members of such a society would then become wholly reliant on their government, thus removing their individual agency (Sowell

10-12).

In Russell Kirk: American Conservative (2015), Bradley J. Birzer examines Kirk’s description of this tenet of modern conservatism. Birzer points out that for all the times Kirk uses the word “order,” he almost never defines it. Unlike the order sought by stereotypical right-wing dictators of the twentieth century, Kirk’s order was “the order of divine providence as traditionally understood and explained in orthodox Judaism and Christianity” (414-415). Kirk thinks of “order” in the same way as Theodor Haecker, the great German classical scholar—as the final spiritual nature of the universe (1). In other words, any person, in his or her particular and fallen way, must attempt to match the order of the divine with the order of the mundane in his or her own place and time (Birzer 415). Kirk was uninterested in tribal or group hierarchies and focused his attention on individual potential instead. This is to say that if government- imposed equality were implemented, Kirk feared that individuals would lose their motivation to harness their personal potential. 17

Birzer also connects Kirk’s concept of “order” with that of Eric Voegelin. Voegelin argues that order can only be achieved when one recognizes justice and consequently discovers one’s part in existence. To recognize justice, one must be open to both reason and revelation

(qtd. in Birzer 198-199). For Voegelin, the Greeks provided the West with the order of the mind, while the Hebrews provided the order of the soul. In the ancient world, one attempted to participate “in being” (Voegelin 1). In other words, humans can hope to discover their part in existence and recognize justice through Logos, or the divine reason implicit in the universe.

Furthermore, Kirk’s explication on the foundation of conservatism also explores the root of the word: conserve. Though it might seem a tautology, it is important to stress that for Kirk, conservatism must conserve. Birzer explains, “Ideologues always look forward to something ideal, whereas conservatives reform the best of what has been presented to them through the generations” (111). Much of culture is sustained through generations passing on their wisdom and ideas to the next. Kirk, and many other conservatives, believe it to be the duty of the next generation to carefully consider the ideas and then decide how to best use them. In his introduction to The Conservative Mind, Kirk notes, “the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity” (8). He elaborates further when discussing the reasoning behind the American Revolution, claiming that its catalyst lay in the colonists’ refusal to accept, or protect, the laws given to them by the British (75-78). Kirk believes that human beings were constantly meant to question ideas handed down to them.

Should they be kept as they were, or should a reformation of sorts take place? The Americans revolted for equality of opportunity and prevent further tyranny.

At first glance, Kirk, Birzer, Voegelin, and Haecker’s descriptions of the foundational aspects of conservative philosophy seem to be far from any sort of conservatism found in 18

American Buffalo. However, as stated in the Introduction to this study, Kirk’s (and others’) philosophical ideas can help inform interpretations of concepts without perhaps acting as an authority. In other words, while Mamet does not construct his characters to debate the implications of conservative philosophy, Kirk’s ideas regarding the conservation of tradition may still illuminate previously unpacked aspects of Mamet’s mentor/student relationship. Kirk maintained throughout his writings that the question of what to preserve, protect, or reform was at the heart of conservatism, and it is also at the heart of a mentor/student relationship. The mentor must decide what information, guidance, or instruction should be passed on to their student, and the student must decide how to use what has been given to them.

The Devil’s Manipulation of the Mentor

American Buffalo is quick to establish the mentor/student relationship between Donny and Bobby. Bobby is not only Donny’s gopher, but someone for whom Donny can teach and provide guidance for navigating their kind of business of pawning goods. Before the play begins,

Donny has sold a buffalo nickel, or a rare nickel featuring a buffalo design struck by the United

States Mint in the early 1900’s, for $90 to a coin collector. However, Donny believes that the customer swindled him and questioned his knowledge and competence in his field. As Donny’s plans to reaffirm his pride and retrieve his coin are established, Teach manipulates him into betraying Bobby, thereby sacrificing the most meaningful relationship in the play. As the mentor,

Donny should protect Bobby and his decision not to, and the consequences of this decision, prompt Donny to reexamine what must be preserved, protected, or reformed in his own life.

Determined to get revenge on the coin collector, Donny tasks Bobby with seeking this coin collector out and gathering information about him so that they can steal the man’s collection 19

in revenge for his slight on Donny. Unfortunately, Bobby loses the collector’s trail and apologizes to Donny in the beginning of the play. Donny, however, chooses to view the situation as a teachable moment:

DON: Just one thing, Bob. Action counts. Action talks and bullshit walks.

BOB: I only went around to see he’s coming out the back.

DON: No, don’t go fuck yourself around with these excuses.

BOB: I’m sorry.

DON: Don’t tell me that you’re sorry. I’m not mad at you. (Mamet 4)

As annoyed as Donny is, he tries to hide this from Bobby, instead choosing to impart what he believes to be sound advice and wisdom. Donny does not explicate ideas like “action talks and bullshit walks” to merely broaden Bobby’s horizons. Rather, Donny is trying to prepare Bobby for the sort of business that Donny and his colleagues practice. Donny does not want Bobby to remain his gopher forever and is giving Bobby the tools he needs to be successful after he moves on from Donny’s shop. In other words, he wants Bobby to preserve this information for future use.

In direct contrast, Donny’s relationship with the character of Teach, his colleague, is one rife with complicated power dynamics, conflicting worldviews, and ideological arguments. They are colleagues, to some extent, possibly friends, and seem to run in similar circles. They play cards together some evenings, and it appears that they are friends. Additionally, the play provides several instances of past times in which Donny and Teach were together for one reason or another, and they have a level of familiarity with one another that neither character has with

Bobby. As soon as Teach makes his entrance, Donny is already acting as his sounding board as

Teach rants and raves about his earlier experience with their acquaintances, Grace and Ruthie. 20

This complicated, multi-faceted relationship Mamet constructs between Donny and

Teach leads to the play’s central conflict. In interviews, Mamet even referred to Teach as the

Devil who comes to tempt the protagonist (Roudané 66). Unlike Bobby, Teach does not accept everything Donny says as fact or sound advice. Teach challenges Donny constantly, and forcefully tries to change his mind several times. This argumentative side of their friendship is particularly apparent when Donny questions Teach’s position as his colleague, involvement in the con, or reasoning behind his actions. For example, when Donny decides to include another colleague, Fletcher, in their plans, Teach is instantly defensive.

TEACH: Now you’re kidding me.

DON: No.

TEACH: No? Then why do you say this?

DON: With Fletch.

TEACH: Yes.

DON: I want some depth.

TEACH: You want some depth on the team.

DON: Yes, I do.

TEACH: So you bring in Fletch.

DON: Yes.

TEACH: Because I don’t play your games with you. (Mamet 50-51)

Their relationship is built on arguments and layered speeches. Or, as Teach says, “games”, all of which are designed to both keep the relationship intact but also to give one of them the higher position in their power dynamic. In this passage, Teach’s manipulation tactics are failing to sway

Donny, so Mamet’s antagonist assumes a defensive position. 21

This desire exacerbates the already frequent tendency for Donny and Teach to clash both ideologically and philosophically. Donny takes initiative to pursue his own opportunities, while

Teach chooses to take opportunities from others for himself. He does not accept Donny’s worldview, and relentlessly challenges him until one of them yields. Usually, this challenge appears in the form of arguments about Bobby. Over the course of the play, Donny’s hold on his principles and beliefs wavers and Teach convinces him to abandon his loyalty to Bobby as well as his grasp on his moral position.

TEACH: All I’m saying, there’s the least chance something might fuck up, you’d

get the law down, you would take the shot, and couldn’t find the coins whatever.

If you see the least chance, you cannot afford to take that chance! Don? I want to

go in there and gut this motherfucker. Don? Where is the shame in this? You take

care of him, fine. (Now this is loyalty.) But Bobby’s got his own best interests,

too. And you cannot afford (and simply as a business proposition) you cannot

afford to take the chance. (Mamet 35)

Though Bobby has not demonstrated a lack of loyalty to Donny, Teach emphasizes the character’s youth and inexperience in hopes of gaining an opportunity for himself. Teach latches onto Donny’s role in the mentor/student relationship, implying that Donny is a good man who deserves a beneficial ending to his con. Teach then points out his own enthusiasm and how it will surely benefit Donny, while Bobby cannot be a guaranteed successful contributor to the plan (or so Teach claims). Teach’s maneuvering centers on manipulating the mentor/student relationship between Donny and Bobby, and on harming Donny’s ability to pass on lessons for Bobby to conserve.

Donny not only instructs Bobby on the ins and outs of his business, but he also impresses 22

basic life lessons on Bobby as well, such as the importance of breakfast. Their mentor/student relationship could even be seen as a surrogate father/surrogate son bond. Donny exhibits a great deal of care for Bobby’s wellbeing, not only in business, but even in the realm of physical health, such as when Donny stresses the need for vitamins. However, the most significant part of their bond, for the purposes of this study, lies in the duties required of Donny in his position as mentor. Donny cannot simply pass his knowledge onto Bobby; he must also help him understand the information.

Matthew Roudané, in a piece about relationships in the play, writes, “American Buffalo is about what happens when the protagonist— Don — loses sight of [his friendship with Bob] and the ability to honor a set of behavioral codes that will help Bob learn how to grow into a decent man” (64). This quotation offers two theoretical links with Kirk’s conservative philosophy. First, according to Kirk, a behavioral code, or self-governing sense of morality, is vitally important for human beings.

A truly humane man is a person who knows we were not born yesterday. He has

received a training of mind and character that chastens and ennobles and

emancipates. He is a man genuinely free; but free only because he obeys the

ancient laws, the norms, which govern human nature. He is competent to be a

leader, whether in his own little circle or on a national scale [...] He knows what

things a man is forbidden to do. (qtd. in Birzer 139)

According to Kirk, a self-governing sense of morality not only guides humankind closer to a transcendent being but should also extend to those around them. The second piece of Roudané’s quote— “that will help Bob learn how to grow into a decent man”— also offers an opportunity for interpretation with a Kirkian lens. As stated above, Kirk’s conservatism emphasized a need to 23

evaluate whether a particular aspect of culture is worth protecting, preserving, or reforming. How can a mentor impart guidance without doing so? In other words, any guidance Donny imparts to

Bobby must be ideas Donny believes will be useful. Donny would not knowingly teach Bobby an unbeneficial lesson.

Teach exploits this relationship to advance his own agenda and finds short-term success.

In writing Teach, Mamet constructs a character with a willingness to take others’ opportunities from them for the sake of personal gain. This idea is not found in Kirk’s conservative philosophy, as he championed the potential for the individual to create their own opportunities to advance their condition and/or make change — an idea that will be explored in the second chapter of this study. However, I mention this now to emphasize two points. One, Mamet’s devil character’s attempts to cause trouble has philosophical implications. Two, Teach’s coercion not only causes physical and/or emotional harm to himself and the other characters in the play, but also nearly destroy the most important relationship in American Buffalo (1975).

One such example of Teach broadening his manipulation is his convincing Donny that

Fletcher, an unseen colleague of theirs, cheats at cards. After Donny is convinced of Fletcher’s dishonesty, he no longer trusts any of his colleagues or friends, except for Teach. This permanently changes the hierarchy, with Teach holding power over Donny that he did not have at the beginning of the play. Brenda Murphy comments on this plot development:

In act 2, after convincing Don that Fletcher has been cheating at poker, Teach puts

Bobby’s arrival with a buffalo nickel, which he says he found, together with the

failure of Fletcher to show up on time for the job and implies to Don that they

have been double-crossed, that Fletcher and Bobby have already done the

burglary. (Murphy 92) 24

It is not enough for Mamet’s character of Teach, here serving as a stand-in for the Devil, to convince Donny to cut Fletcher and Bobby out of the plan. Mamet uses Teach to raise the stakes so that Donny must question the loyalty of his student and protégé. It is no longer is a question of whether Bobby is prepared to join his cons, but rather whether he can be trusted to do so.

Roudané examines the effects of Teach’s manipulation further, commenting that Donny is not wrong in his doubt regarding using Bobby in the con. Bobby is, after all, young, inexperienced, and a recovering drug addict. However, Mamet constructs Teach to be particularly skilled in manipulating Donny’s worst qualities and brings Donny’s greed and pride to the surface (Roudané 64). Donny’s vices, or hubris as Roudané claims, blind him to the fact that he is being manipulated and prevent him from considering the consequences of his decision to switch Teach for Bobby in his plan.

Donny’s blindness is never more apparent than it is when Teach interrogates Bobby about his sudden arrival with a buffalo coin. Bobby is not as smart as the other two characters, which Mamet emphasizes by writing stammers and grammatical mistakes into his dialogue. The student is incapable of keeping up with the Devil; and in the moment Bobby needs Donny the most, Donny is unable to see his honesty and desperation.

BOB: I don’t know it, Donny. Grace and Ruthie...

Teach grabs a nearby object and hits BOB viciously on the side of the head.

TEACH: Grace and Ruthie up your ass, you shithead; you don’t fuck with us, I’ll

kick your fucking head in. [...] Imaginary people in the hospital. That don’t mean

shit to me, you fruit.

BOB: Donny...

DONNY: You brought it on yourself. (Mamet 94) 25

Donny allows Teach, the Devil, to viciously beat his student, utterly convinced that Bobby is the one misleading him. His greed for momentary gain, as Teach did essentially promise a more lucrative result should he join Donny in the con instead of Bobby or Fletcher, causes him to betray Bobby.

When a phone call to the hospital reveals that Bobby was telling the truth about Fletcher,

Donny realizes the full implication of his actions. Donny has not only betrayed his friendship with Bobby, but he has also abandoned his position as mentor and the duties that come with it.

He lashes out at Teach, saying, “you come in here, you stick this poison in me” (101). However, despite Donny’s mistake, he learns a lesson- perhaps even the one he had been trying to impress on Bobby since the beginning. As other scholars have noted, this recognition of Donny’s is an

Aristotelian standard and one that I believe is reflected in Kirk’s writings. The mentor, or protagonist, realizes their mistakes and must reform their life to make amends. As Mamet himself put it,

Don undergoes recognition in the reversal— realizing that all this comes out of

his vanity, that because he abdicated a moral position or one moment in favor of

some momentary gain, he has let anarchy into his life and has come close to

killing the thing he loves. And he realizes at the end of the play that he has made a

huge mistake, that rather than his young ward needing lessons in being an

excellent man, it is he himself who needs those lessons. (qtd. in Murphy 93)

Mamet ends the play with an oddly hopeful tone, however. While Bobby is gravely injured,

Teach is nursing his losses, and Donny is questioning his choices, the three reconnect somehow.

Donny tends to Bobby, and Mamet implies that Donny will change after the curtain falls, as evidenced by Donny’s apology to Bobby. He knows what must be reformed and more 26

importantly, what must be protected. He will not be so easily manipulated again, and he will do his best to deserve the unfailing loyalty his student has for him, thus allowing his student to continue to receive, and conserve, Donny’s teachings. Bobby’s loyalty to Donny provides emotional weight in Mamet’s play as well as an opportunity to examine the position of the student in the mentor/student relationship.

The Student’s Loyalty to His Mentor Employed as Donny’s gopher, Bobby can be considered Donny’s student. In carrying out various tasks for Donny, Bobby learns the intricacies of the business and how to best conduct himself within their circle of friends and colleagues. Throughout the play, Bobby demonstrates an understanding of some of the lessons Donny has taught him, and he tries to execute those lessons to impress his mentor. Mamet constructs Bobby to be primarily concerned with protecting his relationship with Donny, and all Bobby’s decisions and actions are influenced by this desire. Kirk believed society advanced through the passing on of traditions and wisdom to the next generation, and Bobby can be considered as a symbol of the next generation.

Regarding biographical information, the audience is given the least about Bobby. His age is unknown, as is how he came to know Donny. The audience is made aware that he is a recovering drug addict and he works as a gopher for Donny. However, in Bobby’s dialogue and the way he is treated by other characters, Mamet provides the audience with an almost child-like figure, especially in comparison to the construction of the others in the play. Bobby stumbles over his words frequently, cannot always grasp concepts quickly, and nearly every action of his is made in the hopes of pleasing his boss and mentor.

Bobby’s first two lines of dialogue are apologies to Donny. He has lost the location of the mark and apologizes for his mistake. Despite the surface bluster of gruffness by Donny, there is a 27

tenderness under the conversation. Bobby is genuinely distressed that he has disappointed

Donny, and Donny chastises and corrects Bobby in a paternal manner. While providing an important piece of foreshadowing, this conversation also illuminates the familial relationship between Donny and Bobby.

DON: He [Fletcher] didn’t steal it, Bob. […]

BOB: She was mad at him…

DON: Well, that very well may be, Bob, but the fact remains that it was business.

That’s what business is.

BOB: What?

DON: People taking care of themselves. Huh?

BOB: No.

DON: Cause there’s business and there’s friendship, Bobby… there are many

things, and when you walk around you hear a lot of things, and what you got to

do is keep clear who your friends are, and who treated you like what. (7)

The above excerpt serves two functions. First, it establishes Don’s hypocrisy, emphasized later in the play as a result of Teach’s manipulation. Second, it shows that Donny, and likely Teach and their other acquaintances, have confused Bobby to the extent that he cannot separate friendship and business. Anne Dean emphasizes that friendship has become synonymous with business utility, an idea that Bobby struggles to fully comprehend (93). In any case, Bobby feels compelled to seek out a solution for the claimed injustice committed against Donny by the mark.

Since Donny is planning his own revenge, it can be assumed that he has done so before and has thus provided an example that Bobby is following. In Kirkian terms, Bobby is here protecting and preserving his mentor’s livelihood. 28

When Bobby returns to the shop after picking up breakfast and coffee for the three of them, he asks Donny for some of his cut of the con up front. This is the first indication of his plan to redeem Donny’s loss but, Bobby is unable to execute said plan on his own— at least, not in his tight timeframe. Donny and Bobby debate the amount of money until Donny acquiesces and then throws a wrench into Bobby’s plans:

BOB: And what about the thing?

DON: Forget about it.

BOB: You tell me you want me to do it.

DON: I don’t know that I want you to do it. At this point. You know what I

mean? […]

BOB: Forget it for me.

DON: Yes. (42-43)

Donny’s decision to cut Bobby out of the con causes Bobby to pursue his plan more vigorously, for several reasons. The first and most important of these is an attempt to salvage his relationship with Donny. Donny is Bobby’s father figure and mentor, and when Bobby feels he has let Donny down, he must impress Donny to make up for his. Bobby brings him food, and later a buffalo nickel, as gifts from one seeking solace, guidance, and acceptance from their mentor (Roudané

64-65).

Bobby’s desire to improve his relationship with Donny is most apparent during Act II, when he sells his buffalo nickel and informs Donny and Teach about Fletcher’s injuries.

Between these two visits, Bobby realizes that he has been cut out of the job and needs to act quickly to regain Donny’s trust. This propels him to seek Donny and Teach out immediately when he learns of Fletcher’s ill-fated mugging. Unfortunately, Bobby’s struggle to articulate his 29

information to Donny and Teach sends Teach into a vicious rage, during which he severely beats

Bobby. However, Bobby’s news proves to be true when Ruthie calls and informs Donny that

Fletcher is in fact in the hospital, recovering from being mugged. Teach refuses to admit that

Bobby may actually be trustworthy, and interrogates the injured young man about the buffalo nickel:

TEACH: What did you pay for it?

BOB: Fifty dollars.

TEACH: You buy a coin for fifty dollars, you come back here. Why? […] Why

would you do a thing like that?

BOB: I don’t know.

TEACH: Why would you go do a thing like that?

BOB: For Donny. (99)

Bobby, though injured and scared, admits that there are no lengths he would not go to for his mentor. While Teach continues to lash out against Donny and Bobby, Donny realizes that

Bobby’s primary, and perhaps sole, concern is his relationship with Donny and maintaining that familial connection, and his resolve against his young ward crumbles.

Bobby’s actions in the play are also driven by his desire to improve his condition, but it is to a lesser extent than his need to maintain his relationship with Donny. Donny and Teach’s constant battle for dominance is perhaps the most obvious demonstration of Mamet’s hierarchal relationships in the play, but Bobby’s dissatisfaction with his current station is also an important example. While it is unknown how long Bobby has been under Donny’s employ, it can be assumed that he has been given some instruction as how to run the business, Donny’s methods for procuring items for sale and, of course, the inner workings of breaking and entering into 30

someone’s home. Therefore, Bobby possesses a few tools for advancing his condition on his own beyond simply completing Donny’s list of chores.

Before, I briefly discussed Bobby’s position as Donny’s ward and student as part of his motivation for his plan to obtain a buffalo nickel. The other reason Bobby does not give up on his plan after being cut out of the con is the result of his misunderstanding of the connection between friendship and business utility. Because these two concepts are synonymous with one another in his mind, Bobby believes that correcting his error will not only improve his relationship with Donny, but it will also improve his condition. Bobby does not steal the money he requires for his plan, nor does he seek it from other colleagues or other jobs. Instead, Bobby makes his request for funds from Donny. When he first makes this request, Bobby is asking about money that, to his knowledge, would be his soon enough.

However, once Bobby realizes that he will not be receiving a cut from the job, he does not withdraw his request. This could be because as he has been taught, friendship and business cannot be separated. Moreover, due to his limited intelligence, he may not understand that using

Donny’s money to fund his plan may not be in his best interest. Even so, perhaps to a lesser extent, Bobby’s desire to improve his condition may also be a motivating factor. When he first arrives at the pawn shop, he is there to sell the buffalo nickel he bought from a coin store, with the money he received from Donny. While he wants to replace Donny’s loss, it is important to consider the avenues through which Bobby attempts to do so. In the end, Teach is the one to purchase the coin, though Donny contributes to the sale. Bobby does not simply give the coin to

Donny as a gift, as perhaps one might expect given his dedication to their relationship. Instead, he uses Donny’s wealth, as well as that of Teach, to buy the replacement coin and sells the buffalo nickel to him. In doing so, Bobby can, hopefully, impress his mentor and generate wealth 31

for himself.

In “The Problem of Tradition,” Kirk explicates the need for society to maintain, defend, and adapt in order to progress. He posits that this largely occurs through relationships, such as that between Donny and Bobby:

The eternal contract, the sense of continuity among men, has been made known to

succeeding generations from the dawn of civilization, by the agency of tradition.

Tradition is the process of handing on beliefs, not so much through formal

schooling, or through books, as through the life of the family. (40)

The action of Mamet’s play does not unfold in a formal education setting. Furthermore, his construction of his characters implies that most of their knowledge has been gleaned from their practical experiences, rather than from a classroom. Roudané, Murphy, and many other scholars have referred to the dynamic between Mamet’s characters as familial in nature. As Bobby’s surrogate father figure, Donny is responsible for passing on the traditions he knows. Those traditions may not be familiar to the audience, given the thieving nature of Mamet’s characters, but they are both necessary and important in the world of the play.

As stated above, in acting as Bobby’s mentor, Donny is tasked with imparting wisdom and guidance onto the younger man. Both characters would then be responsible for questioning whether the information should be protected, preserved, or reformed, Donny before relaying the knowledge, and Bobby upon receiving it. With Bobby, Mamet offers the audience a character dedicated to his role as the student in the relationship. Regardless of the mistakes Bobby makes and Donny’s doubt of him, Bobby is the most persevering character in the play. He does not accept his situation and adopts a tunnel-like determination to change his circumstances. Mamet’s student character’s primary objective is to keep his position as Donny’s student and preserve 32

order, and his subsequent actions reflect this goal. Even when betrayed and beaten for a crime he did not commit, Bobby’s loyalty to Donny does not waver.

That said, while it is certainly his primary focus, Bobby is not solely concerned with his relationship with Donny. He is also motivated to make decisions that will help him advance in his career and generate personal profit. Unlike Donny and Teach, Bobby’s efforts are not made to create profit at the expense of someone else. Even though Bobby does obtain his funds through Donny and Teach, his character’s devotion to Donny implies that he was not trying to swindle or mislead Donny to accomplish his goals. Instead, Bobby tries to follow in the examples set by the people with whom he works. Thus, intentions aside, Mamet’s construction of Bobby lends itself to an examination through a Kirkian lens more easily than Donny or Teach.

I have placed quite a bit of emphasis on Donny’s responsibility as mentor to pass on guidance to Bobby, but Bobby’s role in the relationship is equally vital. Even though his plans do not come to fruition the way he hoped, Bobby still demonstrates his understanding of some of the lessons Donny has taught him. Dean observes:

Forced into an impossible position through his own incompetence, he [Bobby]

resorts to desperate measures. Bobby believes that he has ruined Don’s plans and

so tries to reestablish the love he believes may have been lost. He purchases a

buffalo nickel (with money incidentally borrowed from Don) and offers it as a

token of friendship [...] It is significant that the only way that Bobby feels he can

atone for his sin is through indulgence in a little ‘business’ [sic] of his own. (94)

Dean originally wrote to emphasize the degenerate qualities of Mamet’s characters, but her point also applies in light of the current discussion. Mamet presents Bobby as a character with an almost singular focus, which, in the play, happens to be Donny. Donny teaches Bobby the 33

various rules and intricate workings of their world, so it seems logical that Bobby would try to apply those lessons as a means of reestablishing Donny’s trust. Mamet’s ward character is unaware that his mentor has betrayed him, and his unfailing loyalty prompts him to do whatever it takes to maintain the relationship. In the case of American Buffalo, “whatever it takes” involves illegal activity, which, incidentally, is what this ward character understands.

The student is tasked with deciding what to do with the information, guidance, and/or wisdom they are given by their mentor. They may guard the information, protecting it until the time comes to use what they were taught. Or, the student might preserve it and implement their mentor’s instructions as delivered. The student may also reform their mentor’s suggestions and adapt the lesson to suit their personal beliefs or situation. As Kirk asserted, society cannot progress without one generation passing on traditions to the next, and Bobby’s position as

Donny’s student offers him as an example of the next generation.

Conclusion As is the case with many scholars, I gravitated toward the familial, hierarchal relationships constructed by David Mamet in American Buffalo. While the various characters’ descent into betrayal and, as Murphy so aptly noted, degeneration offers plenty of opportunity for interpretation, I focus instead on the intricacies of Donny and Bobby’s relationship. The mentor/student relationship is at the center of countless works of drama and literature, though

Mamet offers a unique example with Donny and Bobby. Mamet’s classical tragic structure paired with his characters’ criminal behavior and questionable morals certainly contributed to the longevity of the play.

Mamet places several examples of Donny explicitly teaching Bobby throughout the play, as well as moments during which Bobby tries to implement the lessons he has been taught. 34

Ethical qualities of the lessons aside, the relationship Mamet constructs between Donny and

Bobby can be viewed through a Kirkian lens. Donny relays guidance that Bobby should preserve, or understand on a superficial level, such as the importance of breakfast or the benefits of taking vitamins. However, Donny also offers wisdom about how to navigate friendship when conducting business that Bobby must consider carefully. In the microcosm of the play, the mentor passes on traditions to the student so that society may progress and adapt.

According to Kirk, the most significant contribution to the advancement of society involves the numerous ways traditions are passed onto the next generation. With each generation, traditions are evaluated and then maintained, preserved, reformed, etc. as necessary.

The traditions Bobby learns from Donny may involve several moral quandaries, but they are necessary for surviving in the world of American Buffalo. While Bobby does his best to execute what he has learned from Donny, Teach manipulates Donny into forgetting the lessons entirely.

As the play closes, Donny realizes that it is he who should listen to his own advice and keep business separate from what he treasures most: his mentorship with Bobby.

CHAPER II: THE SPIRIT OF INDIVIDUALS IN GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS (1984)

Glengarry Glen Ross is one of David Mamet’s most popular plays, and widely considered to be one of his best, if not his masterpiece. The play is set in a real estate office and focuses on the struggles, decisions, and questionable ethics of its salesmen. The owners of the business, Mitch and Murray, have implemented a contest in hopes of boosting sales. The first prize is a Cadillac, the second prize is a set of steak knives, and anyone who cannot meet the commission goals lose their job. Stakes are high for the salesmen, and Mamet paints a vivid picture of these aggressive men as they fight for their livelihoods. Aptly put by Benedict

Nightingale in “Glengarry Glen Ross,” coworkers are no longer in healthy competition with one another but instead, are at war (91). Desperate times incite desperate measures, and when the office is robbed, the audience is left wondering about the identity of the culprit (or culprits) as well as the results of the contest.

The production history is vast, and features several important, professional productions. It has been performed on Broadway several times, with the majority being successful, even if the latest iteration received mixed reviews. Mamet won several awards for the play when it first debuted, including the Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the New York Drama Critic’s Circle award for Best American Play. It was also nominated for several Tony awards for its premiere and later for its revivals, and won Best Revival of a Play, with Joe Mantegna and Liev Schreiber also winning Tony awards for their performances as Richard Roma. Many reviews of the play, especially and including those from its premiere, commented that the play “gave social edge to an American drama then so preoccupied with private matters that it barely acknowledged the existence of a world beyond the back porch” (Nightingale 91). 36

The catalyst for the play’s action, the contest implemented by Mitch and Murray, places the salesmen in an at-all-costs scenario. They must sell undeveloped land, or they will lose their livelihoods. This makes the true stakes of the contest much higher than a car or a set of knives.

This forces the employees to decide to what lengths they will go to secure their jobs. Will they choose to be ethical in their sales pitches, or will they compromise their virtue for the sake of their salaries? This question not only drives the action of the play and serves as the primary motivation for the salesmen, but also offers an opportunity to consider Kirkian ideas.

Kirk embraced individuality and the potential for an individual to cause momentous change. At-all-costs situations were in direct opposition to what he championed throughout his life. Forcing human beings to measure their worth in numbers, as well as against the worth of one another, rather than determine worth through philosophy and introspection would, in Kirk’s view, lead to perversion and corruption (Birzer 195). Situations in which it would be easy for one to compromise virtue and ethics to advance their condition, win a war, solve a problem, and so forth were worrying to Kirk. In fact, in his mind, a large reason for adopting conservative philosophy was to avoid such situations (Birzer 195-196). However, perhaps the most important reason for the existence of conservatism was the need to protect what was Good, or that which fulfills its purpose, from perversion.

Providing something known and then perverting or subverting it is both a skill and a trademark of Mamet’s. A real estate office, capitalism, and a struggling job market are familiar concepts, especially to American and Western audiences. The real estate office, capitalism, and struggling job market that contribute to the world of Glengarry Glen Ross (1984) are fueled by the ruthlessness of the men who inhabit it and thus become perversions of themselves. Many scholars consider the play to be an indictment of capitalism and American business practices, 37

and perhaps it is but, I think there is another perspective unexplored in Mamet’s play. I intend to demonstrate that, through a lens of Kirkian conservatism, the unethical choices made by most of the salesmen, and the internal struggle of one, in Glengarry Glen Ross imply Mamet’s emphasis on the necessity of a moral code, respect for natural law, and consideration of all possible consequences before implementing a change.

Briefly mentioned earlier, Nightingale’s piece in the Cambridge Companion to David

Mamet is referenced often throughout this chapter. His article places Mamet’s play in historical context and explores the socioeconomic implications of it. Moreover, Nightingale’s work in theatre history, criticism, and drama is evident in his analysis of Mamet’s salesmen.

Nightingale’s experience in theatre influences his argument as he discusses Mamet’s contributions to American theatre, and how Glengarry Glen Ross specifically changed Broadway with its indictments of the American economic system.

To begin, I establish Kirk’s applicable assertions about conservatism, which will inform the rest of the analysis. Following, I explore the contest implemented by Mitch and Murray, and examine how this contest sets up the opportunity for each of the characters to choose whether to proceed ethically and honorably or compromise their virtue. Next, I analyze the choices the salesmen make, beginning with Roma’s manipulation of Lingk. I continue with the robbery and the fates of its instigators, and I end this analysis with an examination of Aaronow’s character arc and the important ways his decisions differ from those of his coworkers. I then highlight the implications of Kirkian conservatism in the choices made by Mamet’s characters.

Russell Kirk and Glengarry Glen Ross

While many scholars have used Kirk’s writings as an example of political conservatism, 38

Kirk concerned himself with partisan politics as infrequently as possible. Instead, he was far more interested in literature, culture, social science and how they influenced and interacted with economics, biology, and other concepts. In his mind, concerning oneself with only one field, particularly politics, was to be, to paraphrase George Gissing, “quarter educated” (qtd. in Birzer

8-9). Glengarry Glen Ross prompts a similar response regarding the play’s thematic scope. To consider the drama merely an indictment of capitalism is to ignore the plethora of other themes, motifs, and symbolism at work.

Distinguishing him from other conservative writers, Kirk preferred to emphasize the ways in which ideas connected, believing those connections to be vital when expanding or improving one’s knowledge in general or in a specific field. He wanted to bring all things back to wholeness while never neglecting the beauty of the particular, even though, in many ways, this idea was against the societal and economic trends of the previous century and a half, such as centralized government and a deemphasis on individualism coinciding with the rise of collectivism (Birzer 8). Paraphrasing Irving Babbitt, Kirk wrote, “The true conservative knows that the economic problem blends into the political problem, and the political problem into the ethical problem, and the ethical problem into the religious problem” (“A Program,” 5). Kirk’s comprehensive views of conservatism and the ways in which ideas and thoughts can fuel and influence one another will support an analysis of the similarly interconnected themes and conflicts in Mamet’s play.

As noted in Chapter 1, in the introduction to The Conservative Mind, Kirk outlines six canons of conservatism. These principles were not meant to be fixed or immutable but were instead designed to serve as a guidebook or a jumping off point for those interested in conservative ideas. Two of these canons feature heavily in my analysis of Glengarry Glen Ross 39

and are shown below as Kirk wrote them in The Conservative Mind:

Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a

devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress […] Belief in a

transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as

conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. (8-9)

The first tenet can be simplified easily: changes made quickly and without careful consideration may result in harmful consequences. Kirkian conservatives tend to favor cautious methods when considering new legislation or when making a decision with far-reaching effects.

The discussion of Kirk’s belief in the wholeness of ideas is featured in the second part of the above quotation. Kirk emphasized that political problems are fundamentally moral problems, specifically derived both from human-made law and law from a transcendent being. Or, in the case of Glengarry Glen Ross, the question of how to respond to a troubling workplace situation is not only an economic problem, but also an internal struggle in the characters’ morality.

Because Kirk believed that moral problems could not be solved with rationality, or a dependence on human-made law, alone, he concluded that something else must exist to help humans find solutions to their problems. His answer was natural law. An ancient philosophical concept first documented by Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, natural law asserts that certain rights are inherent to human beings. These rights were endowed by God, or a transcendent being, and cannot be removed from a person. Natural law can be understood through human reason, and it exists independently of other law. In other words, the legality or illegality of an action does not necessarily guarantee that said action is innately just or unjust. Human beings, and the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross must decide for themselves, through reason and a reliance on natural law, whether to compromise their virtue or pursue other methods with which to solve their moral 40

dilemma.

The Implications of Mitch and Murray’s Contest

Mamet loosely based Glengarry Glen Ross on his experiences working two jobs as young man in Chicago. He sold carpet over the telephone through cold-calls and later spent time in a boiler room, selling “worthless land” to people in Arizona and Florida (Murphy 73). These biographical facts lead many scholars to embrace the realistic elements of the play perhaps a bit too vehemently. The play is a dramatization of his experiences, and while there is plenty to examine from this perspective, I am more interested in what is likely the most dramatic difference between the fictional real estate office of Glengarry Glen Ross and the real estate offices situated across the country: the implications of Mitch and Murray’s sales contest.

The contest implemented by Mitch & Murray is not a common scenario in American business, nor is it intended to be interpreted as such. A sales contest in which the top earner wins a prize is certainly common and so, Mamet’s exaggeration of this familiar incentive results in two important outcomes. First, the audience is presented with a recognizable situation in the struggling real estate office’s attempt to boost sales, and therefore can somewhat realistically relate to the characters. Second, Mamet’s contest provides the characters with a choice as to how they will try to save their jobs and possibly win a set of steak knives or a car.

It is worth emphasizing the lack of a presence of Mitch or Murray throughout the play.

Their names are mentioned in both acts, and the salesmen blame the two for the position in which they have been put, but neither owner of the real estate office have any dialogue. Despite the multiple references to their bosses, it is not Mitch or Murray who cast a foreboding shadow over the employees at the real estate office. Instead, Roma, Levene, Moss, and Aaronow work 41

under the constant threat of the consequences of the contest, rather than Mitch or Murray elaborating the possible ramifications of their employees’ past job performances.

Though Mitch and Murray are the catalysts for the dramatic action of Glengarry Glen

Ross, the plot focuses on the subsequent actions of salesmen. Similarly, Kirk was not invested in examining the causes of a situation, but instead focused on the potential for individuals to have profound effects to change or influence said situation. Mamet offers such a scenario in the play.

There is nothing to be done about the existence of the contest and the salesmen make no attempts to force their employer to eliminate the sales promotion. Rather, the thrust of the play’s conflict lies in the choices made by the four salesmen. Of course, all plays begin in a similar vein, but, as expected with Mamet’s work, it is not his characters who will learn a lesson from their choices; rather, it will be his audience.

Roma, Levene, Moss, and Aaronow are in the midst of facing a difficult situation when the play begins. From the unseen start of the contest to the first line of dialogue and beyond, they have a choice to make. Any of the salesmen could resort to underhanded methods to sell more land, homes, apartments, etc. and increase their chances of winning the Cadillac. However, they also have the option to choose a more ethical path by selling honestly and, as Kirk would suggest, avoid compromising their virtue. As I demonstrate below, most of the salesmen choose the first option, and while it provides some success for them, it is not long-lasting. As Kirk asserts in his various writings and Mamet in his theatrical endeavors, compromising or dismissing one’s sense of morality will not yield favorable results, or at the very least, these results will not continue into the long run. The consequences of sacrificing morality for the sake of financial gain are detailed in the character arcs of Glengarry Glen Ross.

The Manipulation of James Lingk

The first act is comprised of three scenes, each an example of a sales pitch. The effectiveness of these pitches provides the audience with insight into the personalities and skill of the four salesmen. At the beginning of the play, Roma is essentially just one sale away from winning the Cadillac. Moss is on track to win the steak of knives, with Levene and Aaronow in third and fourth place respectively. Act I’s scenes explain exactly why the rankings are as they are, and Roma’s brilliant and manipulative pitch to an unsuspecting restaurant patron and subsequent attempts to maintain the contract the patron signs emphasize his aptitude for sales and his utter lack of concern about ethics.

Roma’s status as the office’s top salesmen is made apparent. He opens with a description of a train car, a consistent metaphor for salesmen, claiming “all train compartments smell vaguely of shit. It gets so you don’t mind it. That’s the worst thing I can confess” (47). Roma lowers himself for the benefit of his potential sale, and then mentions various questionable behaviors to see which one will resonate with Lingk, a hapless man who just happens to be in the adjacent booth. A master of reading people, Roma senses Lingk’s discomfort with his own sexual urges and his lack of independence. Both ideas are then interwoven with the rest of the pitch as Roma asserts himself as an independent, confident man with a great sex life, thus inspiring the unsuspecting man.

Perhaps the most impressive part of Roma’s pitch lies in the way he manipulates Lingk into considering that financial security is not as valuable as he likely thought. After establishing himself as someone Lingk would want to emulate, Roma begins to describe the correct way to navigate through life. He preaches the idea of living in the moment and making important decisions based on what will yield the most benefit today. Roma emphasizes that security cannot 43

be achieved through monetary gain because that will lead to greed. Instead, he tells Lingk to do what will make him happy and in the one-in-a-million chance he needs a reserve, he will likely have it, and the truest reserve he could ever hope to have is the strength to act each day without fear. Roma presses further and lays out his final idea, which leads into his ‘real’ sales pitch:

ROMA: Stocks, bonds, objects of art, real estate. Now: what are they? (Pause) An

opportunity. To what? To make money? Perhaps. To lose money? Perhaps. To

‘indulge’ and to ‘learn’ about ourselves? Perhaps. So fucking what? What isn’t?

They’re an opportunity. […] ‘There’re these properties I’d like for you to see’

[sic]. What does that mean? What you want it to mean. (49-50, emphasis in

original)

Mamet’s entire monologue builds to this moment. He has Roma lower himself to Lingk’s level, establish camaraderie based on sexual urges, give Lingk someone to emulate, and provide the unsuspecting man with a new outlook with which to view life. Finally, Mamet’s most persuasive salesman can deliver his real pitch: purchasing a piece of real estate will change Lingk into the man he has always wanted to be. Lingk can be Roma: confident, independent, and satisfied.

However, Roma’s manipulation of Lingk does not end with the first act. In the interval between the acts, it appears that Roma has visited Lingk’s home and persuaded the man and his wife to sign a contract for a piece of the Florida land. Reasonably, Roma is panicked when he realizes the office has been robbed and it is possible his contract was stolen. Williamson assures

Roma that his contract was filed, and Roma instantly rounds on the office manager, proclaiming that he won the contest and regardless of the robbery, he is owed his prize. Unfortunately for

Roma, the office robbery is not the only dramatic action taken during the interval between acts.

Lingk’s wife changed her mind about the contract and sent her husband to cancel their check. 44

What follows is another example of Mamet’s subtle writing of Roma’s aptitude for manipulating his clients. After Lingk admits that the power to make decisions about the deal has been taken from him, Roma instantly adopts the façade of being Lingk’s friend. Even though

Lingk’s wife specifically told him not to talk to Roma, Roma manages to convince Lingk to get a drink with him to discuss Lingk’s problems.

ROMA: Forget the deal, Jimmy. Forget the deal… you know me. The deal’s

dead. […] I want to tell you something. Your life is your own. You have a

contract with your wife. You have certain things you do jointly, you have a bond

there… and there are other things. Those things are yours. You needn’t feel

ashamed, you needn’t feel that you’re being untrue… or that she would abandon

you if she knew. This is your life. […] Now I want to talk to you because you’re

obviously upset and that concerns me. (93, emphasis in original)

Roma avoids outright attacking Lingk’s wife and instead, emphasizes the root of what appears to be Lingk’s primary problem. As he discovered in the restaurant in Act I, Roma knows that Lingk wants to feel in control of his own life. Thus, acting as Lingk’s trusted confidant and good buddy, Roma plants a seed which he will likely cultivate at the bar: the land can act as a symbol for Lingk’s independence. His wife does not have to have any part in it. If Roma can urge Lingk out of the office and into a bar stool, he could likely make his case successfully.

However, Roma’s incessant manipulation and outright lies catch up to him when office manager, Williamson, also tries to manipulate and lie to Lingk. Mamet cannot allow Roma to finish the play without acknowledging his choice to abandon his moral code. The detective investigating the robbery is persistent in trying to interview Roma, thus prompting Williamson to emerge and run interference between the frustrated detective and his equally frustrated coworker. 45

Finally, clear-headed enough to pay attention to his surroundings, Lingk asks about the police presence in the office, learns about the robbery, and naturally grows alarmed. Roma and

Williamson attempt to reassure him and in doing so, Mamet’s overly confident office manager makes a mistake. He informs Lingk that his check was cashed, causing Lingk to panic and flee the office. As Lingk leaves, he turns to Roma and apologizes for letting him down. This is one of the most telling of Roma’s manipulation. As Nightingale aptly notes, even when Roma’s manipulation and lies are presented to him, Lingk cannot quite accept that he was “cajoled into the habit of saying yes” (100).

Roma’s skill in manipulation is likely responsible for most of his success as a salesman and in the contest, but his unethical methods finally caught up to him when it counted the most.

While Roma is not fighting for his livelihood in the same manner the other salesmen are, he is working hard to secure his place as the office’s top earner. While his stakes may not be as high as that of the other characters, the loss of the Cadillac is Roma’s worst case scenario. In the “at- all-costs” scenario of Glengarry Glen Ross, Roma takes no issue in manipulating a man to the point of causing a rift in his marriage and confusing his definition of friendship. His loss of the

Cadillac is the direct result of Roma’s unethical decisions, though Williamson’s lie contributes as well. On one hand, Roma escapes legal trouble and his job is secure at the end of the play, which cannot be said for the other characters. On the other hand, and perhaps most importantly, Roma has not learned his lesson when the play concludes either. After his manipulation is exposed and he loses the sale and the Cadillac, Roma does not examine his choices or his mistakes. Instead, he demands help from his office manager and returns to the restaurant to manipulate another, probably single, man. However, Mamet’s tone is not triumphant, but is instead rueful. Roma’s continuous choice to abandon his morality will impede his ability to find success. 46

Moss and Levene’s Sacrifice of Their Morality with the Robbery

As a drastic response to the “at-all-costs” scenario the salesmen are facing, the robbery drives the action of the play in Act II and reveals much about the morality of the salesmen. The planning and execution of the act involves most of the play’s characters, except for Roma and

Williamson, and it adds a sense of urgency to an already fast-paced drama. Moreover, the robbery is an excellent example of Kirk’s concerns with the ramifications of compromising virtue for monetary gain. This is especially true when considering Mamet’s interest in exploring how far he can push his characters before they snap.

The robbery is first introduced as an idea by Dave Moss in the second scene in Act 1,

Scene 2. Moss is not as good a salesman as Roma, a fact of which Moss is painfully aware.

Instead of selling honestly or manipulating weak-willed men in bars, Moss decides to focus on the office itself as a means of securing his job and perhaps even the Cadillac car. It is possible that Moss realizes he cannot out-sell Roma and so, decides to pursue other options.

Alternatively, he simply wants to acquire the most money in the least amount of time. I am inclined to believe the first to be the case, especially considering Moss’ second place position in the contest. He already has put forth his best effort and has not been rewarded as he desires. Now that Roma is close to securing the first-place prize, Moss decides to change his plan. Rather than trying to out sell Roma, either honestly or dishonestly, Moss responds to the ‘at all costs’ scenario by planning to rob the office and sell the leads.

By manipulating Aaronow into performing the robbery, Moss reveals his utter lack of morality. Moss is not only willing to compromise his own virtue to keep his livelihood but also that of his coworkers. As noted by Nightingale, Moss begins his sales pitch by playing on the 47

sense of justice retained only by Aaronow, as well as Aaronow’s sense of unhappiness and unease with his job (98). Mitch and Murray created too much pressure and their competition which favors the already successful salesmen is “not right.” Aaronow agrees and adds that the contest is not fair to their customers either; an opinion Moss claims to share, even if the audience knows he is lying through his teeth. Like Roma, Moss tries to manipulate Aaronow into sacrificing his morality by forcing him into the habit of saying yes.

Moss’s efforts appear successful as Aaronow quickly agrees to Moss’s various complaints about their situation. After inciting Aaronow’s indignation, Moss begins to talk about a rival real estate agent, Jerry Graff, who Moss claims is clean, self-employed, and doing very well. Nightingale surmises that the first is certainly false, and the third questionable, but Moss’s aggressive selling style manages to convince Aaronow anyway (98-99). Moss mentions Graff to plant the seed of his idea and in a feat of clever wordplay, further captivates Aaronow shortly thereafter.

MOSS: You don’t ax your sales force.

AARONOW: No.

MOSS: You…

AARONOW: You…

MOSS: You build it!

AARONOW: That’s what I…

MOSS: You fucking build it! Men come…

AARONOW: Men come work for you…

MOSS: … you’re absolutely right. (36, emphasis in original)

A talented manipulator, Moss leads Aaronow into saying precisely what he wants him to say, 48

thus further establishing their false camaraderie. Moreover, Moss manages to switch his dominant position in the conversation when he agrees with Aaronow. Suddenly, Aaronow is no longer simply agreeing with Moss’s complaints. He is now contributing to the conversation, or so it appears.

Now that they are two good buddies complaining about their evil boss, Moss can begin ensnaring Aaronow into his plan, guiding Aaronow to reject his own moral code too. Moss suggests that someone should hurt Mitch and Murray by robbing the office. They could then sell the leads to Jerry Graff, make some quick money, and get revenge on their bosses for putting them in such a difficult situation. Aaronow is hesitant and confused, and unaware that he is nearly compromised in Moss’s illegal plan. Moss lies, assuring Aaronow that he has not spoken with Graff (even though he has) and that they are merely discussing the robbery as “an idea.”

However, Moss quickly switches these lies with new ones, giving Aaronow a detailed picture of what to expect: the money he would earn, the possibility of a new job, etc. Realizing Moss wants to avoid carrying out the most dangerous part of his plan, Aaronow understands that Moss wants him to rob the office, panics, and refuses.

MOSS: Well, to the law, you’re an accessory. Before the fact.

AARONOW: I didn’t ask to be.

MOSS: Then tough luck, George, because you are. […] In or out. You tell me,

you’re out you take the consequences. […]

AARONOW: And why is that?

MOSS: Because you listened. (45-46)

Mamet demonstrates Moss’ lack of concern for his own morality several times throughout the scene, but his final words to Aaronow are the most explicit example Moss ensures his own safety 49

by dooming Aaronow, regardless of what Aaronow decides. Aaronow can decide not to rob the office (which he does), but he still faces a plausible threat of legal charges should he turn Moss in.

Because Aaronow says no, Moss turns to Levene between the two acts, who, as of the play’s first scene, already demonstrated a lack of concern vis-a-vis the morality of how he maintains his livelihood. Moss and Levene carry out the plan to rob the office and make a point to take computers, phones, and cause other damage to make the robbery appear as though it was performed by someone unaffiliated with the business. Unfortunately for Moss, Levene is not as skilled a salesman as Moss or Roma. He does not possess the same ability to intuitively read the people to whom he is selling, nor does he think before he speaks, which results in Levene naming Moss as his partner after he unintentionally confesses to the crime.

Moss and Levene’s goals were simple. Levene wanted to keep his job and hopefully, win a prize. Moss, on the other hand, was more focused on earning as much money as possible. Their plan to accomplish their goals, however, was anything but simple. Levene robs the office and tries to make it appear like a common burglary by removing some computers and phones in addition to the leads. Moss then sold the leads to Jerry Graff, and he and Levene split their earnings, though it is assumed that Moss took a larger cut. Unfortunately, the police detective is not convinced by Levene’s attempts to thwart suspicion, which is not helped by Levene’s inability to know when to keep silent. As a result, their plan is eventually revealed.

However, the blunders these characters make while robbing the office are not the mistakes most important to communicating Mamet’s point. Not once in the play does Levene demonstrate a desire to honestly accomplish his goals: of keeping his job and possibly winning a

Cadillac. His underhanded efforts open the drama, as he tries to bribe and manipulate 50

Williamson into giving him better leads. Levene leaps for the opportunity to assist Roma in lying to his client, even though he would not receive any of the possible reward. Moreover, his desperation and greed get the best of him and he decides to act on the stolen leads, instead of selling them all to Graff. Mamet ensures that Levene receives the natural consequences for his questionable actions. Levene abandons his virtue and is awarded with termination from his job and possible jail time. Mamet does not allow Moss’ rejection of his morality to go unpunished either, as he, too, loses his job and faces legal charges. Instead of embracing their potential as individuals to reform their situation, Moss and Levene sacrifice ethics and are held accountable for their actions.

George Aaronow’s Inner Debate

George Aaronow is not written or constructed like the other salesmen in Glengarry Glen

Ross (1984). He is the least successful in terms of sales and his dialogue features stammers, evasions, and inarticulacies. The reward and punishment system at work in the office does not motivate Aaronow but rather, significantly troubles him. This study is focused on how the absence of the salesmen’s moral code negatively affects them and those around them. As

Nightingale notes about Aaronow:

Throughout the whole play he’s saying, “I don’t understand what’s going on.”

“I’m no good,” “I can’t fit in here” or, his closing lines, “Oh, God, I hate this

job.” It’s a kind of monody throughout the play. Aaronow has some degree of

conscience, of awareness; he’s troubled. Corruption troubles him. The question

he’s troubled by is whether his inability to succeed in the society in which he’s

placed is a defect- that is, is he manly or sharp enough?- [sic] or if it’s in effect a

positive attribute, which is to say his conscience prohibits him. (96) 51

Aaronow struggles with this dichotomy throughout the play. It is worth noting that Aaronow, as a salesman at Mitch and Murray, is never shown explicitly refusing to sell the worthless land.

Moreover, he is interested when Moss and Levene tempt him to sell stolen leads to a rival real estate agent. He is not completely immune to the temptation of more money. However, when

Moss complains about Mitch and Murray, Aaronow defends them by pointing out that they have overheads to pay. During Aaronow’s discussion with Moss, he agrees with Moss’ irritation with the contest, but also laments the unfairness of their situation to their customers. When the robbery occurs, Aaronow worries if the office has insurance. Perhaps most importantly, despite the awful treatment he received during his interrogation with the police detective, Aaronow does not name Moss as a potential suspect. Aaronow, unlike the rest of the salesmen, possesses a sense of loyalty and a persistent need to adhere to his moral compass.

Many scholars have pointed out that Aaronow is the only character in the play working at the real estate office who is not a liar. As stated above, he does not turn Moss in because to do so would have required going back on his word. Even though he was treated poorly, with what he calls “gestapo” tactics and despite Moss’ exploitation of him and his gullible nature, Aaronow maintains his promise to his coworker. This is in direct contrast to Levene, who names Moss as his accomplice within seconds of Williamson’s interrogation. Furthermore, Aaronow finds himself in a tricky situation in Act I.

MOSS: Well, to the law, you’re an accessory. Before the act.

AARONOW: Why? Why, because you only told me about it?

MOSS: That’s right.

AARONOW: Why are you doing this to me, Dave. Why are you talking this way

to me? I don’t understand. Why are you doing this at all...? [...] 52

MOSS: You went for it.

AARONOW: In the abstract...

MOSS: So I’m making it concrete. (45-46, emphasis in original)

Moss’ aggressive sales pitch and clever wordplay incriminates Aaronow to the point that it appears obvious to the audience that Aaronow is going to rob the office. And yet, he does not.

His moral code will not allow him to do such a thing. Moreover, Aaronow uses the word Moss carefully avoids in their discussion: robbery. The other three salesmen seem incapable of such candor, to say nothing of possessing the other moral qualities Aaronow displays, albeit, as

Nightingale notes, uncomfortably (96).

Aaronow’s struggle with his conscience and its effect on his professional life is an outward representation of the play’s questions about morality for the audience, and it mirrors

Kirk and Mamet’s musings about the pursuit of virtue. As the only character with moral convictions, Aaronow’s arc forces the audience to consider him differently. “What should he do?

What do his actions signify? How should we regard them?” (Murphy 80). Aaronow’s choices are not made easily. Panicked as he is about his job, Aaronow is never shown delivering a sales pitch to a customer. His actions are not driven by his desire to a win car but are rather rooted in an internal debate of right and wrong, and how this debate shapes him as a man.

Masculinity is one of the first qualities the other three salesmen challenge when delivering a pitch, like Roma to Lingk, or berating someone, like Levene to Williamson.

AARONOW: You’re, you’re saying so you have to go in there tonight and...

MOSS: You. [...]

AARONOW: Me?

MOSS: You have to go in. (Pause) You have to get the leads. (Pause) 53

AARONOW: I do? [...]

MOSS: It’s not something for nothing, George. I took you in on this, you have to

go. That’s your thing. (42-43, emphasis in original)

Aaronow’s poor job performance and overall weak and gullible nature have resulted in a mental crisis, as emphasized by Moss’ manipulative pitch in which he attacks Aaronow’s masculinity directly. Aaronow has to agree to the terms; his honor as a man is at stake. It is an effective choice, and it highlights Aaronow’s internal debate for the audience. Of course, he would like to assert his status as a man by robbing the office, but he also wants to do the right thing.

In addition to acting as an outward example of internal struggle for Mamet’s audience,

Aaronow embodies the constant desire to improve oneself, as well as one’s surroundings, on which Russell Kirk elaborated throughout his career. The circumstances of the play force

Aaronow to make tough decisions multiple times. He must decide which course of action will help him most and at what cost. Aaronow can be considered an exemplar of what Kirk would dub a “‘true’ reformer”. A “‘true’ reformer” as defined by Kirk is:

A person can understand his or her place- that is, attain a semblance of justice-

with an examination of the natural law. The real reformer discerns between

change that is necessary and change that is gratuitous and obnoxious. The true

reformer examines the past not as an evil, but as a tradition that carries with it

both bad and good. Through prudence, that person discerns what should be

preserved, what should be protected, and what should be reformed. (qtd in Birzer

109)

What Kirk is discussing is exactly the situation Aaronow finds himself placed in. The contest has deeper ramifications in Aaronow’s mind than in those of the other salesmen, and their responses 54

to it carry the potential for even more dramatic consequences. Aaronow’s view is not restricted to his life because he, like Kirk, has some semblance of knowledge that his natural rights are not unique: everyone possesses them. Of course, it is unlikely Aaronow has fundamentally philosophical understandings about his choices. However, it is all but certain that Mamet does when creating these characters.

Aaronow is the only character who does not compromise his virtue for the duration of the play. Unlike Roma, he does not lie or manipulate any of his customers or coworkers. He does not rob the office or try to coerce distressed customers into changing their minds about cancelling contracts. Aaronow never verbally assaults the other characters, nor does he use others’ insecurities against them. Unlike his coworkers, Aaronow does receive a reward at the play’s end for his virtuous behavior. Not only does Aaronow not end the play wondering if he will go to jail or face legal charges, but his job might be secure—and he is even in the running for winning the steak knives.

To reiterate one of Kirk’s ideas, a significant portion of the conservative mindset involves a person’s duty to discern what should be preserved, what should be protected, and what should be reformed or changed. Aaronow considers these options throughout the play and even though he may think himself lesser for it, tries to decide wisely. During his discussion with Moss at the restaurant, though Aaronow stammers and evades through most of it, he does offer a few of his own opinions. For example;

MOSS: Ninety percent our sale, we’re paying to the office for the leads.

AARONOW: The leads, the overhead, the telephones, there’s lots of things...

MOSS: What do you need? A telephone, some broad to say, “Good morning”,

nothing, nothing... 55

AARONOW: No, it’s not that simple, Dave. (34)

Even though he disagrees with the contest, Aaronow understands why Mitch and Murray made the change. Moreover, Aaronow’s compassion for their customers has Kirkian implications, as does his defense of Mitch and Murray. Aaronow recognizes that Mitch and Murray had to make changes to their office to remain in business, and while the salesmen may find the innovation hasty, Aaronow understands that Mitch and Murray were only trying to benefit the office.

Aaronow is not opposed to the job of selling real estate. It is a job that must exist and is not an inherently corrupt position, despite the behavior of the other three salesmen. However,

Aaronow, unlike Moss, Roma, Levene, and Williamson, seems to understand that he is providing a service, first and foremost. The contest is impacting his ability to perform said service, and he suffers mentally as a result. On one hand, Aaronow objects to the change Mitch and Murray made because it is hurting their relationship with their customers exacerbating already troubling tendencies of the other salesmen. On the other hand, Aaronow also sympathizes with his employers. They must take risks to improve their profits, keep the lights on, and maintain the salaries of their employees. Aaronow’s constant debate about the implications of Mitch and

Murray’s contest, weighing relative goods and needs in deciding what should be changed or preserved, is the exact sort of thinking in which Kirk desires people to engage in.

Furthermore, Aaronow realizes that the skill and creativity of the other salesmen is something to be both preserved and reformed. It is true that Roma, Moss, and Levene each possess the ability to think on their feet and use their creativity to convince their customers to sign contracts. Roma’s imaginary story to manipulate Lingk is an extraordinarily creative feat, even if it is also incredibly dishonest. Mamet’s salesmen can spin narratives into existence in an instant, and their varying talents in mental and verbal agility are remarkable at points in the play. 56

Aaronow demonstrates his obvious jealousy of the skills which Moss and Roma, and, to a lesser extent, Levene possess and implement with ease. Yet, Aaronow also recognizes that his coworkers are not concerned with the potential for destruction they possess in addition to their creativity. Their creativity should be nurtured and preserved but their destructive tendencies must be reformed. Kirk celebrated individuals who sought to embrace their own potential but feared those who instead chose to cultivate violence or cruelty. However, Mamet does not imply that his salesmen will seek their own potential, as reflected by Aaronow’s final lines in the play: “Oh,

God, I hate this job.”

Conclusion

Mamet has written many plays about business practices and the myth of the American

Dream. Seemingly endlessly fascinated by the possibilities for corruption, many of his works examine the ways in which employees, employers, and customers can be affected by dishonest business agreements. Glengarry Glen Ross is perhaps the best example of these themes, with

Mamet himself saying the play is about how one person succeeds at the cost, or failure, of another (qtd in Kane 46-47). If there is no reward for behaving ethically, then ethics will disappear. Why play fair when it is unlikely that anyone else will?

Most of the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross act in order to provide their own answers to this question. Roma is the slickest of the salesmen and appears capable of talking himself out of nearly every situation. He uses his verbal agility to manipulate and cajole Lingk, without once considering the consequences of doing so. Roma attacks Lingk’s masculinity, his shame about his sexual urges, his marriage, and his self-esteem to secure a contract and win the Cadillac. In fact, he is so skilled in persuasion that Lingk apologizes to him when cancelling the contract, even though Roma is the one who betrayed Lingk and not the other way around. Roma uses 57

countless underhanded methods in pursuit of his goals to win the contest, and does not recognize the error of his ways by the end of the play. Fair play may never happen for Richard Roma.

Moss and Levene frequently demonstrate a lack of concern for their coworkers and their customers. They use hurtful words to describe their leads, and they attempt to manipulate their coworkers into helping them cheat and break the law. Levene attempts to cajole and then bribe

Williamson into giving him better leads to improve his chances of advancing in the contest rankings. Moss corners Aaronow and tries to persuade him to rob the office and steal the leads, so Moss can then sell them to a rival agent. Both are unsuccessful in their efforts, and even less successful when they work together. Neither are concerned about working ethically, and it certainly comes back to bite them in the end in the form of job termination, legal charges, and possible jail time.

The only salesman concerned with fair play, Aaronow ends being caught between two sides of his existential internal struggle. He is not like Roma, Moss, and Levene, and cannot shirk his moral code to better manipulate customers and receive a higher commission. He does not disparage his situation in the same vein the others do, and manages to see reasoning behind decisions, even if he does not agree with them. Aaronow spends the play debating about whether his morality is a positive or negative quality about himself, as well as how it influences his job performance. He realizes that the creativity and drive the other salesmen possess could be used in other, perhaps more positive ways, but at the same time, Aaronow cannot quite express this idea nor can he leave his position at the office.

Despite its corrupt real estate office and manipulative characters, Glengarry Glen Gross is not only a pessimistic, scathing indictment of American business practices, as many scholars claim. Rather, I think that Mamet’s play can also be considered as an examination of the 58

constructiveness and destructiveness of the salesmen, and how their unethical choices catch up with them in the end. Roma, Levene, and Moss try to achieve success at the expense of others, and they are unsuccessful as a result. While he does not receive a “happy” ending exactly,

Aaronow’s refusal to abandon his morality leaves him in a better place than that of his coworkers. Mamet leaves Aaronow in a comparatively positive state to emphasize the importance of maintaining a moral code, respecting natural law, and taking the time to analyze whether a change will provide salutary reform. Mamet’s work, including Glengarry Glen Ross, is about the spirit of the individual, and the same can be said for the writings of Kirk. In the last chapter, I expand on the idea of an individual’s potential to create change in examining the philosophies of the characters in The Anarchist.

CHAPTER III: NATURAL LAW AND JUSTICE IN THE ANARCHIST (2012)

One of Mamet’s most recent contributions to American theatre, The Anarchist is essentially one extended conversation between two characters. Cathy, a woman imprisoned for life for her actions against the authority of the state, pleads with Ann, a state official responsible for Cathy’s rehabilitation, to be released on parole. The two women debate and discuss the potential for human beings to significantly change their philosophical, political, and religious views, as well as the lasting ramifications of one person’s past actions. Ann plans to retire from her position, and Cathy hopes Ann’s impending exit will provide the freedom Cathy desperately wants. Unfortunately for both women, their situations are not that simple, and the ending result does not wholly satisfy either.

In many respects, The Anarchist is like many of Mamet’s other plays in that it features a small cast of characters, most, if not all, of whom are closely guarding a secret or a part of their agenda from one another. The action of the play takes place in one room and over the course of one day, which is unsurprising given Mamet’s affinity for Aristotelian theatrical standards.

Additionally, Mamet provides exposition to his audience in the form of snippets of dialogue throughout the play, so it is not until at least halfway through that the audience starts to piece together the philosophy and crimes that put Cathy behind bars. The dialogue is as fast-faced and aggressive as in any Mamet play, though The Anarchist does have significantly fewer expletives.

Despite its complexity and difference from Mamet’s previous work, or perhaps because of it, the play performed poorly the two times it was produced on Broadway. Critics found the show difficult to follow and believed Mamet’s direction to be lacking. The set was too minimal and the dialogue’s frequent references to philosophy and religion were confusing at best and 60

alienating at worst (Riefe “‘The Anarchist’”). Ben Brantley, in his review for the New York

Times, said, “Theatergoers must really furrow their brows here just to follow the basic arguments, never mind the layers of motivation woven into them” (“War of Wills”). However, it is my opinion that The Anarchist has far more in common with American Buffalo and Glengarry

Glen Ross than perhaps one would initially assume, even if Mamet’s interest in philosophy is more apparent now than it was then.

In their contribution to The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet, David and Janice

Sauer reflect on critical responses to Mamet’s work. While they published their piece long before

Mamet wrote The Anarchist, their comments are worth discussion. Their thoughts may provide some clarity for Mamet’s overall writing and directing style, especially in a play as layered and complex as The Anarchist. As they analyzed the frequency of misreadings of Mamet, I would like to engage in a new reading, influenced by their approach to Mamet’s writing style.

While Mamet’s direction of his own plays is not the focus of this study, his style and choices made when directing reflect those made when writing. The Sauer’s’ refer to Mamet’s approach as theatrical as opposed to thematic, a distinction, they argue, frequently missed by critics. Instead, critics commented that in making less out of more, Mamet managed to turn his own work against itself, thus hurting his plays significantly (Brantley “War of Wills”). However, the Sauer’s’ aptly argue against this critique:

The “less” Mamet makes out of the script is the minimalist production in terms of

set, lighting, and acting. But since Mamet has operated this way from the outset, it

seems possible that the “more” critics think should be there is their invention.

There are no stage directions in the published texts to give the illusion of reality

which reviewers seem to expect. (223) 61

The importance of this distinction extends beyond Mamet’s directing and to his writing. Critics and audience members who expect Mamet to be a realist and/or approach his work thematically tend to view the playwright as a misogynist, believe his dialogue is crafted to sound realistic, and find an emptiness plaguing the center of his plays (Sauer and Sauer 225). However, the Sauer’s’ challenge this interpretation, saying instead that Mamet problematizes gender issues, uses language to construct his characters, and creates voids in his work to be an implication for community. Mamet’s scripts rarely call for more than a table, a chair or two, and perhaps a filing cabinet or a telephone. His theatrical approach pushes the audience to fill in the literal and figurative gaps themselves, rather than assume that he will provide them with all the answers.

The Anarchist is no different in these regards. The stage directions are minimal, exposition is delivered slowly, and an overall feeling of emptiness permeates the play. Critics responded harshly, even though the play bears a startling resemblance to the much more positively-reviewed American Buffalo and Glengarry Glen Ross. There are more set pieces and props required in American Buffalo, but few affect the plot significantly beyond the coins. All three plays push the audience, and the actors, to use their imaginations to fill in the gaps Mamet purposefully created. Mamet views drama as another version of the stories told around a campfire. Everyone has a different interpretation of familiar legends, and the fun lies in listening to a new perspective (Mamet, “The Purpose of Drama”).

The Anarchist is easily the most obviously philosophical play in this analysis, considering the debates about philosophy Cathy and Ann have throughout the play, and as such, is perhaps the most revealing in terms of Mamet’s own philosophical inclinations. Ann and Cathy debate the responsibilities of the State, as well as those of its citizens when faced with perceived injustices. Neither character finishes the play in the position of hero or villain, as both advocate 62

for inherently flawed dogma. Their opposite points of view offer opportunities for Mamet to imply a third perspective or a possible compromise between Cathy and Ann which bears, in my opinion, unmistakable Kirkian overtones. It is the duty of citizens to protect, but also reform, the

State when necessary. The Anarchist posits the question of when and how such reform should occur. Neither the anarchist nor the authoritarian can provide a viable philosophy, so Mamet leaves a vacuum for his own, which I demonstrate could be a form of Kirkian conservatism.

Natural Law and Justice

The Anarchist raises questions about human ethics. The idea of natural rights, or rights inherently possessed by all humankind, is not a new one to this study, and is intrinsically linked to natural law. According to Kirk, natural rights could only exist if rooted in the long tradition of natural law; in other words, natural rights flow from natural law. Bradley Birzer extrapolates further, claiming Kirk argued that both “sprang from a common understanding of human nature as a fixed thing, neither wholly good nor wholly corrupt” (254). While human beings could never achieve perfection, they could still try to pursue it. Adherence to natural law and natural rights would assist them in the journey (Birzer 254-255). The two are intertwined and when paired with their philosophical sister, justice, are fundamental in understanding the conservatism for which Kirk advocated and is present in Mamet’s work.

As noted in Chapter 2, this conception of natural law is far from a new concept, but rather dates back to the ancient Greeks. However, in Kirk’s opinion, the greatest and most poetic treatise on the idea came from Cicero, even though it should be mentioned that the senator was influenced by Plato, Aristotle, and his fellow Stoics (Birzer 254). On the Republic (~54-51 B.C.) was a practical piece of writing in that it was meant to applied to daily life, largely dedicated to 63

Cicero’s nostalgia for the Rome of the past. However, the treatise also examines the proper application of natural law.

But if it is the duty of a just and good man to obey the laws, I would ask which

are they to be? Or shall he obey all indiscriminately? But virtue does not admit of

uncertainty, nor nature endure inconstancy. […] But it is said, although there are

various laws, still good men, by natural inclination, pursue what is just in itself,

and not what is assumed to be so. (Cicero 130)

Cicero’s point, which will be analyzed further, is that law implemented by humans is not indisputable and should not be followed blindly. Citizens of a commonwealth should pursue what is just and good which, according to thinkers like Cicero and Kirk, is their natural inclination anyway. Coincidentally, the natural inclination to behave in a good and just manner will lead one to behave in accordance with natural law. On the Republic (~54-51 B.C.) postulated that human beings’ virtuous souls would guide them to follow natural law, if their commonwealth was formed with the same goal in mind (Cicero 129-131).

Many writers and thinkers have developed the idea of natural law, and some have presented secularized perspectives of the concept. Kirk was wholly opposed to the secular version of natural law but more importantly for this study, the presence of God is discussed often between Cathy and Ann. The discussion regarding religion in The Anarchist is largely focused on the validity of Cathy’s belief. For example, Ann suspects that Cathy is claiming to have found

God as a means of securing her parole and as such, their conversations about God tend to focus more on Cathy’s honesty rather than whether God truly exists. Justice, on the other hand, plays a much larger role in the play. It not only heavily influenced Cathy’s decisions as a young woman, but it also, through the court system, will decide her fate. 64

Throughout his career, Kirk frequently noted that, in his mind, the three desires a proper society could have in a fallen world were freedom, order, and justice. He championed a view of justice held by Plato and other classical thinkers, believing justice meant to “give each his own” or “give each his due” (Birzer 256-257). This view of justice is a transcendent, ideal perspective of the concept, meaning the giver of said due is a supreme being or, in Kirk’s mind, God.

However, he also acknowledged that a transcendent view of justice could only be dimly understood or glimpsed in this fallen world.

To put the matter very succinctly, the doctrine of suum cuique affirms that every

man, minding his own business, should receive the rewards which are appropriate

to his work and duties. It takes for granted a society of diversity, with various

classes and interests. It implies both responsibility toward others and personal

freedom. It has been a strong protection for private property, on a small scale or

great. (Kirk, “The Meaning of Justice”, 184-185)

Habits and beliefs, usually acquired through familial ties and/or through communities, help establish just qualities which, in turn, lead to what Kirk discusses in the above excerpt. Simply put, relationships with “just” people provide an example which others can follow.

Justice can also be understood by its opposite, injustice. Humans are naturally inclined to understand when a situation has not gone their way, perhaps unfairly or through no fault of their own. Justice versus injustice is an idea frequently brought up in The Anarchist. In Kirk’s opinion, and in the opinion of other conservatives like Birzer and Shapiro, the best republics seek to promote the best standards of justice for their people. The state does so because, according to

Birzer, “of a preexisting moral order that transcends time and place and that attempts, through law, to restrain humans from their worst inclinations” (258). It was Kirk’s fear that if a republic 65

or commonwealth did not try to provide a moral understanding of what is eternally true, the law would be unable to restrain the possible sinful urges of the people, and so humans would turn on one another. When justice is established and upheld, it becomes possible for people to live together in peace (Kirk, “Promises and Perils of ‘Christian Politics’”, 23).

The transcendent quality of the type of justice Kirk was writing on can be considered another building block of conservatism. Conservatives seek to understand what must be preserved, protected, and reformed for the benefit of society. In this case, transcendent justice has not only been present possibly for as long as before written records but has clearly shaped the formation of countless republics and commonwealths throughout history. While the name (or names) of the god(s) guiding their laws is not universal, republics from the ancient Greeks to the founding of the United States formed their laws and constitutions to reflect what they believed to be just qualities of their god(s). Kirk and many others believed justice to be worthy of preservation and protection, and I believe that same idea is found in the debates between Cathy and Ann.

Written approximately a year before The Anarchist was published, Mamet explicated on justice and natural law in The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture

(2011). In this, Mamet asks questions Cathy and Ann ask one another throughout the play, and he examines the inherent consequences of justice, something Cathy and Ann both try desperately to avoid. Mamet writes,

Justice means choice. Justice, thus, essentially must cause pain to one of two

litigants; to the assaulted who sees the assailant go free or to the family of the

convicted, etc. If the choice did not require adjudication, that is, if it were

resolvable through goodwill and compromise, why would it tax the time and 66

energy of the courts? (Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge”, 148)

Mamet’s acute awareness of the intrinsic struggle implicit in the judicial system extends beyond acknowledging the possible pain either or both sides may feel once the decision is made. He also recognizes, as Cathy and Ann recognize, that the system is inherently flawed due to the imperfections and selfish desires of humankind.

Mamet’s devotion to Judaism emerges as he continues to explicate on justice and natural law. Like Kirk, Mamet believes natural law is derived from a transcendent being or, in this case,

God, and it is the duty of human beings to try to execute Divine Will to the best of their ability.

However, Mamet also acknowledges the impossibility of this hope. He quotes Deuteronomy, saying, “‘Justice, Justice shall you pursue.’ The human capacity for justice, thus, is imperfect; for the Torah does not say justice shall you do, but ‘shall you pursue’” (“The Secret Knowledge,”

148). Western law is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and Mamet’s ample knowledge of the Torah and the fundamental principles of Judaism in general inform the entirety of the plot of

The Anarchist.

Additionally, Thomas Hobbes’ work regarding natural law is important to note. A state of nature, or “natural condition of mankind,” is a situation in which there is no government, civilization, laws, or any sort of legal system in place to restrain human nature. Hobbes believed it to be a “war of all against all” in which people would try to destroy one another in pursuit of power, material belongings, etc. In a state of nature, the natural right of the people is to do whatever believed to be necessary to preserve one’s own life. As such, life would become

“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 86-87). The natural condition of humankind eliminates private property as everyone has the right to whatever they please, regardless of the interests of others. The idea of a state of nature, though not explicitly named as such, is discussed 67

throughout the conversations between Cathy and Ann in the play.

Besides providing some necessary background information for the discussion to follow, this introduction also serves to highlight the possible absence in Mamet’s play. The playwright’s construction of the two characters purposefully places them on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. Neither character behaves truthfully, and Mamet’s dialogue for both characters contains misdirections. Without a clear protagonist, the audience is left to find the lesson themselves. I posit that it is possible that the solution to the philosophical questions in The

Anarchist lies in a conservative understanding of natural law and justice. When the play ends, neither Cathy nor Ann’s views are offered as the solution to the problems discussed, but Mamet implies an opportunity for a third perspective to be formed instead.

Cathy and State of Nature vs. Natural Law

In Cathy, Mamet provides his audience with an intelligent, well-spoken, and well- educated philosopher whose desire for a state of nature led her to commit a heinous crime.

Slowly, Mamet’s characters reveal details about the crime Cathy committed for which she is in prison. On the behalf of The Movement, Cathy and Althea looted what they believed to be an empty house but encountered two police officers. Under Althea’s apparent instruction, Cathy shot and killed the two men. The whereabouts of Althea, Cathy’s partner, are unknown to Ann, and the audience, but Cathy was caught and incarcerated for her crimes. Now many years removed from the event, parole officer Ann seeks information about Althea and proof that Cathy feels remorse for her crimes. With a close examination of the text, I highlight that not only does

Cathy feel no remorse for her actions but also that the philosophy behind the beliefs Mamet constructed for Cathy, past and present are in direct opposition to the kind of conservatism Kirk 68

practiced.

The Movement is never given another name in the play, though it is modeled off other radical left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground, a faction of Students for a

Democratic Society whose goal was to overthrow U.S. imperialism. Cathy herself implies a connection to two political prisoners associated with the Weather Underground: Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson, both of whom have since been released from prison. However, scholars have noted that Mamet’s Cathy has a story more similar to Judith Clark, who is still in prison for her refusal to participate in her trial. Clark and Boudin were escape drivers in the infamous 1981

Brink robbery in which police officers were killed. Unlike Mamet’s anarchist, Boudin and Clark were unarmed but, like Cathy, both were Jewish (Goldensohn “The Law Plays”).

Frequently, Cathy and Ann discuss the promotional materials produced by The

Movement, and the meaning and purpose of them. One such piece of propaganda was a poster containing the phrase, “the growth of consciousness, causing that pain, which may only be expunged through violence” (13). When Ann questions Cathy about the pamphlet, Mamet’s dialogue for Cathy adopts a cautionary tone. She does not admit to owning a copy, though she does claim ownership of the text of a speech inside it. In the first of many efforts to reveal

Cathy’s past beliefs and her current opinions, Ann questions Cathy’s words from the speech.

ANN: You ‘did not believe in private property’?

CATHY: Oh, my.

ANN: Isn’t that what you said? That all pertaining to ‘the Individual’. […] Even

life.

CATHY: …the young are easily corrupted.

ANN: … had no personal meaning. […] That, possessions- like insights- were the 69

property of all. As all was the property of all, and, so, could be taken by any. […]

Meaning you could take it. It was in the speech.

CATHY: Yes. I said that. (16, emphasis in original)

Mamet’s construction of Cathy emphasizes an intelligence, and in her efforts to secure her parole, she purposefully does not admit to believing the things she said. When asked, Cathy simply says that “people change” or that she “doesn’t remember.” However, given her willingness to allow her speech to appear in a published and widely read pamphlet, as well as her decision to kill on behalf of The Movement, it can be assumed that Cathy believed what Ann quoted. Later in this section, I also seek to demonstrate that her belief has remained unchanged, and that she is simply seeking her own release.

In her youth, Cathy, as part of The Movement, essentially advocated for what Hobbes would call a state of nature. While Hobbes believed that the laws of nature (the most prominent being that every human should try to establish peace) would eventually squash the state of nature and lead to government through mutual contracts, Cathy and The Movement desired the aggressive competition and violence (Hobbes, 87-88). They believed recruiting young people was the best way to advance their principles:

CATHY: Because, in truth, he [who] freed them. That he freed them from those

things to which they should perhaps be bound is, you’re correct, a different

question. The young are uncertain. They’re easily frightened. He set them free.

(Pause) Youth is foolish. Youth can and must be controlled. (17-18)

Cathy may have been one such young person coerced by Guillaume, the leader of The

Movement, and the radical ideas of a state of nature. Guillaume, Cathy, Althea, and others believed that they could lead the people and awaken them to the power they already possessed. 70

However, as Cathy admitted above, the people would still be controlled by an intellectual elite:

The Movement.

Near the end of the play, Mamet writes Cathy’s dialogue differently. She is less careful of which tense, past or present, she uses and her frustration with Ann starts to loosen her tongue.

Cathy tells her that the young woman who will take Ann’s position will endorse her parole because “she’s young, because she’s new, because she’s stupid” (56). The new employee will read Cathy’s book, be moved by it, and will release Cathy from incarceration. When Ann is not convinced, and goes so far as to threaten to burn Cathy’s book, Cathy tries a different approach:

CATHY: Ideas more vicious and violent than mine are entertained every day, in

the minds of the most peaceful people on Earth. Doctrines more seditious are

taught in the schools. They feared me.

ANN: As they should.

CATHY: That’s right. […] People are seduced by the forbidden. The Weak? Are

not ‘terrified’ by this or that act of transgression- they’re thrilled by it. (57,

emphasis in original)

This excerpt is perhaps the most telling of Cathy’s lack of remorse for her actions and her maintained belief in anarchy. She admits her guilt in shooting the police officer just a few lines later, but her philosophical and political leanings are more apparent here. Cathy acknowledges the fear she instilled in others, and even implies that her radical, left-wing ideas have stayed with her in the years she has spent in prison. Those she recruited were “weak” and she discovered how to “seduce” them to her cause. Furthermore, Mamet’s use of italics implies that Cathy not only acknowledges the fear but is excited by it.

Moreover, it appears that Mamet constructed Cathy’s beliefs to be at least partially 71

formed in opposition to natural law and natural rights. Cathy is aware of the concepts, as she and

Ann debate the power and validity of the State. The most telling evidence of Cathy’s refusal to accept natural law is also, coincidentally, the subtle signal to the audience that Cathy has not changed her ways: her acceptance of Jesus Christ and conversion to Christianity. During their conversation, Cathy mentions a cross that apparently hangs about Ann’s neck every time they meet. In her quest to be released, Cathy likely decided to align her religious philosophy with

Ann, hoping it would convince the soon-to-be retiree. It is stated in the play that Cathy studied the Bible and made notes in the margins, and her motivations for requesting the book are vague at first. However, a close examination of the text in which she reveals this information highlights the deviousness behind her request and simultaneously provides evidence for Cathy’s refusal to accept natural law.

I have mentioned the book Cathy wrote while in prison a few times, which essentially acts as an attempt to move Ann emotionally so that she will grant Cathy’s parole. Cathy implies that it is her hope to one day publish the manuscript, which would likely sway public opinion about her, but its immediate purpose is focused on swaying Ann’s opinion, as evidenced by

Cathy’s choice to have Ann be the first person to read it. Cathy and Ann discuss the manuscript multiple times and focus on Cathy’s sections on religion frequently. During one of their early discussions, Mamet plants a subtle seed of Cathy’s dishonesty as well as her maintained desire for a state of nature.

CATHY: But the meaninglessness- let me be more precise- it was facing the

meaninglessness which led me to faith.

ANN: It led you to faith.

CATHY: Because, do you see, they’re the same two choices. 72

ANN: The same two as?

CATHY: The bureaucrat and her make-work files. To rebel. Or to submit. And

each is unacceptable.

ANN: Is there a third choice?

CATHY: Thank you. And that is the essence of the book.

ANN: That the third choice is Faith.

CATHY: What else could it be? And to believe… in the possibility of another

choice, is to long for God. And to discover it is Faith. (13, emphasis in original)

Cathy’s deception is subtle and easy to miss. She offers Faith as evidence that she has reformed and yet, her description of Faith is inherently flawed. In both the Jewish and Christian traditions,

Faith is focused on trust and submission to God’s will. So, when she says that submission is not an option she is willing to consider, she is either ignoring a fundamental principle of Christianity or she does not understand or accept it in the first place. Mamet’s devout Jewish upbringing and his various essays on the doctrine are evidence of his knowledge about Faith, so it is unlikely that the mistake was his own. Moreover, Mamet is a playwright known for his careful and layered word choices. Cathy’s slip is intentional and furthermore, it is a slip that she herself should have caught. Besides her extensive studies of the Bible and other theological works, Cathy was raised

Jewish and spent quite a bit of time with rabbis (Mamet 9, 28). Even more so than Ann, Cathy should know the intricate workings of Faith. Obedience, trust, and submission are part of the deal— one must let go of their own desires and submit to God’s will to truly have Faith.

Additionally, Cathy’s comments about submission continue throughout the play. They do not, however, extend to her but instead to Ann. In the excerpt above, Cathy emphasizes her distaste for submission and yet, she pushes Ann to submit to God. She tells Ann that all people 73

suffer, but the only recourse for suffering, in the manner through which Cathy claims Ann suffers, is to submit to their Savior (Mamet 28). Later, Cathy accuses Ann of being frightened to leave her position because she “lacks love”:

ANN: Has my work here given me Love?

CATHY: It’s given you structure. Which is to say, repression…

ANN: Sexual repression?

CATHY: Of a deeper desire.

ANN: For?

CATHY: Submission. […] To God. (36, emphasis in original)

Besides Cathy’s upbringing in the Jewish tradition, and her theological studies, her suggestion that Ann’s work has suppressed her desire to submit to God further establishes her knowledge of

Faith and how it is meant to work. Cathy understands that per Jewish and Christian doctrine, submission will allow one to be reborn.

However, submission is not something Cathy is willing to undergo herself. Instead, she desires for others to submit to her plans and philosophy. With The Movement, Cathy recruited others with her speeches, convincing her listeners and readers to submit to the influence and direction of an intellectual elite. With her book and persuasive words, she attempts to convince

Ann to submit to her “acceptance” of Christianity so that she may be released, but Cathy has not truly returned to Judaism or converted to Christianity.

With Cathy, Mamet wrote an intelligent, persuasive woman who learned how to manipulate others during her time with The Movement. Mamet hides Cathy’s deception purposefully so that anything less than a careful reading or watching of the play will leave the audience in the dark as to which of the women they are meant to consider as their hero. 74

However, the play suggests a need for a structure, as evidenced by Cathy’s hypocrisy, radical ideas, and violent tendencies, which could possibly be Kirkian conservatism. Cathy and The

Movement wanted to overthrow the State and put themselves in charge. They could awaken the power possessed by the People and guide them as members of the intellectual elite. Despite her claims to the contrary, Cathy did not convert or find God during her time in prison. She could not possibly be willing to submit to anyone, let alone to a higher power over whom she has no control or influence.

Cathy is a cautionary tale. Mamet obviously delights in writing a character with a love of philosophy and gives her beautiful, dense lines of dialogue. However, he also cannot let her win.

Despite his love for aggressive, competitive situations, Mamet is no advocate for a state of nature. He, like Kirk, understands the importance of acknowledging natural law and natural rights in society. Through his writing of Cathy, Mamet offers a character with ideas contrary to his own. In her discussion with Ann, the dangerous flaws in Cathy’s ideas are exposed.

However, the same can be said of Ann’s philosophy.

Ann and Justice

Ann is a representative of the State, tasked with the responsibility of assessing Cathy and deciding whether she is fit for parole. She is nearing retirement, and it is likely that she has been the primary person evaluating Cathy for some time. The two characters speak with familiarity, and Cathy knows several details about Ann’s personal life that she would not likely reveal to someone she had only spoken with once or twice. Cathy is not a stranger to Ann, who must put her feelings aside about Cathy and her crimes to try to make an impartial decision. Essentially, since her recommendation holds quite a bit of weight with the Board, Ann is nearly 75

singlehandedly responsible for delivering justice.

However, the picture of this justice is opaque. Cathy and Ann have differing opinions regarding how justice for Cathy’s crimes should look, and I believe Mamet has a different opinion than either of his characters. Cathy believes she has served her time and deserves to be released, regardless of whether she is remorseful or has learned from her mistakes. Ann seems to favor a more authoritarian understanding of justice, a claim I intend to explore further in the following paragraphs. However, Ann’s rigid, uncompromising view of justice and of her position as a representative of the State blind her from other perspectives, including the one I think

Mamet would argue is the most beneficial. A conservative understanding of justice, that is to say a Kirkian understanding of justice, could offer a possibly more sympathetic perspective. While the ending of the play would not change in terms of plot beats, the interpretation does significantly when one assumes that Mamet is advocating for a different dogma than either of his characters.

A sizeable portion of Ann’s dialogue is devoted to her attempts to force Cathy to state her beliefs, both at the initial time of her incarceration and now. When she quotes some of the speech

Cathy wrote, Ann wants to Cathy to admit that she believed those ideas at the time of writing the text. Cathy is elusive with her answers, so Ann is forced to change her tactics (Mamet 16-17).

Ann needs Cathy to answer her frankly and admit, for example, that she used to believe that nothing was the property of the individual. Cathy avoids admitting this for the same reason that

Ann needs her to: every admittance of a past belief or action that links Cathy to The Movement affects her chances for parole. Cathy believes that keeping things opaque will help her case, while Ann seeks clarity to make her decision simpler.

Ann’s quest for tangible proof leads her to threaten Cathy at the end of the play but 76

before she threatens Cathy outright, she takes a slightly subtler approach. Approximately halfway through the play, Ann starts inquiring for Althea’s whereabouts.

ANN: Where is Althea?

CATHY: I don’t know.

ANN: I don’t believe you.

CATHY: What if you’re wrong?

ANN: Then you must stay in prison.

CATHY: […] How is this different from an inquisition?

ANN: Or whom would you have judge? And on what basis? That people may kill,

as they are moved or inspired, and then claim they’ve had a “Vision”. Of

repentance? […] Or simply claim the “biddability of childhood”.

CATHY: I would like to go free.

ANN: Then tell me where you partner is. (33)

While Ann is not specifically threatening Cathy in the above excerpt, she is explicitly outlining her position. Ann will not be moved by Cathy’s philosophical musings or her claims to have found religion and finds contempt in the idea that emotion could serve as the reason or excuse for one’s actions. Instead, Ann desires a statement of fact to act as an indication of Cathy’s apparently changed heart. Ann later refers to Althea’s whereabouts as a sign that Cathy has changed; it would perhaps be more accurate to call it evidence.

Cathy still evades Ann’s questions, believing that she is going to be released and answering Ann is not important anymore. The audience is informed that Cathy’s cell has changed, and she thinks the switch occurred because Ann is going to grant her parole. Finally exhausted with Cathy’s non-answers, Ann corrects Cathy and threatens her officially: 77

ANN: But I’ve changed your cell. For ‘out-processing’.

CATHY: Isn’t it true?

ANN: No. (Pause) I’ve moved your cell. And have removed: your book. Your

manuscript, and all of your drafts and notes. I want the location of your

accomplice. And unless you give it to me, I’m going to burn the lot. (55-56)

Through their conversations, the play informs the audience that Cathy has served 35 years of an indeterminate sentence, so she is at least in her fifties or sixties, if not older, at the start of the play. Regardless of whether Cathy maintains her radical beliefs, she implies that it is impossible she would take more human lives if released from prison. She assures Ann that she is no longer a threat to society; at least, in the physical sense. While Cathy’s ideas still hold the potential power to inspire others to commit radical crimes, Ann is more concerned with another matter entirely.

Ann is a representative of the State and as such, concerns herself with a more authoritarian type of justice. Persuading, or forcing, Cathy to inform Ann of Althea’s whereabouts would have two positive outcomes for the State. Ann could claim that Cathy had been rehabilitated by the State, as evidenced by her decision to help them collect another criminal, and Althea’s capture would put the State in a positive light in society. Even after 35 years, the State remained diligent in bringing criminals and terrorists to justice.

Cathy is positioned as something of a villain by the end of the play, but this does not mean that Ann is meant to be considered a hero in contrast. Ann is hypocritical during her discussion with Cathy, which partially contributes to Cathy’s failure to convince Ann to release her. Furthermore, Ann’s misunderstanding about her position, her duty, and from where her responsibility is derived is another signal that Mamet does not consider Ann a hero. Her misunderstanding of her position and her hypocrisy prevent her from assuming the position of 78

hero in the play.

It is rare in The Anarchist that Ann goes more than a page or two without demanding a truthful response from Cathy, even though Ann is hiding her true goals from Cathy for almost the entirety of the play. The most telling moment of Ann’s hypocrisy occurs on the last page of the play. Cathy refuses to reveal Althea’s whereabouts, but Ann manages to persuade Cathy into admitting her own lack of remorse regarding the deaths of the two officers. The moment the words are out of Cathy’s mouth, Ann walks over to a table and presses an intercom button.

ANN: Did you hear that? Have it transcribed. I’ll come out now to see Mrs.

Anderson.

(She hangs up)

CATHY: You have just sentenced me to a life in prison.

ANN: Yes?

CATHY: For speaking my mind.

ANN: Is that what I did?

CATHY: Do you believe in mercy? What have you done in your long ‘service’ to

the State that was a human act.

ANN: I’ve done this. (58)

The above excerpt reveals that from the beginning Ann has been trying to record Cathy admitting her lack of remorse for her past and, possibly, reveal information about her accomplice(s). Perhaps her decision to keep Cathy incarcerated is the correct choice, but her methods are both questionable and problematic. Ann demands truth when she is, in fact, just as duplicitously manipulative as Cathy. I believe that Mamet intended for his audience to struggle with this. Cathy and her radical ideas may be too dangerous for the outside world, but Ann’s 79

methods of keeping her locked up are far from heroic.

A few times during the play, Ann and Cathy talk about from where the power of the State and Ann’s position originates. Cathy states that she believes it comes from the end of a gun, and

Ann agrees with her, saying; “it is an awesome power I have. Yes: it ‘comes from the end of a gun’. As did yours. When you killed those officers. And I assure you, I know I, no less than you, will be held to account” (44). Ann is incorrect on both counts in that Cathy’s power truly came from her philosophy which was executed by the end of a gun. On the other hand, Ann’s power and the power of the State originates in natural law and not in violence, even though conservatives maintain a healthy skepticism regarding the amount of power wielded by the State and instead emphasize the importance of individual agency. Natural law and natural rights are mentioned in the play, and Mamet’s careful use of language and deliberate word choices imply his familiarity with the concepts.

Kirk believed that true justice was achieved through adherence to natural law- an idea he intended to explore further in a work he was never able to finish but did discuss at some length in

The Conservative Mind.

Real harmony with the natural law is attained through adapting society to the

model which eternal nature, physical and spiritual, sets before us- not by

demanding radical alteration upon fantastic claims of social primitivism. […]

Political reform and impartial justice conducted upon these principles embody the

humility and prudence which men must cultivate if they are to conform to a

transcendent moral order. (64)

Kirk emphasized the fallenness of humans and the impossibility of achieving perfection. In other words, Kirk did not believe that it was possible to achieve the harmony discussed in the excerpt 80

above. However, to Kirk, it is not accomplishing the harmony which matters; what matters is human beings’ willingness and need to make the attempt towards it. To Kirk, natural law was crafted by the hand of a transcendent being (God, in Kirk’s mind) and is, therefore, irrefutable and eternal.

Part of the reason Ann and the State do not uphold the same standards for justice Kirk believed were necessary is explained in The Conservative Mind. Kirk acknowledges the difficulties in the process of administrating justice and in doing so, also explicates on one of the central issues of The Anarchist:

For the administration of justice (though justice itself has an origin higher than

human contrivance) is a beneficial artificiality, the product of social convention.

In social compacts, the chief purpose is to facilitate this administration of justice.

To obtain it, ‘natural’ man gave up long ago the anarchic freedom which is

inconsistent with justice. […] But a surrender in trust, one notes; although a man

cannot enjoy civil and uncivil rights simultaneously, when he gives up anarchy,

he receives in its place a guarantee of justice. (53, emphasis in original)

Essentially, Kirk believed that in assembling a commonwealth, human beings naturally surrendered their anarchic tendencies in favor of a social compact. The social compact accepts the responsibility of administrating justice and keeping peace among those under its jurisdiction.

Instead of anarchy or a state of nature, natural law, in addition to law implemented by humans, reigns and should maintain order. However, as Kirk frequently emphasized in his work, human beings are fallen and incapable of achieving more than a dim glimpse at harmony with natural law on Earth.

Moreover, Mamet’s beliefs about the role of the State in administrating justice are stated 81

outright in The Secret Knowledge. Even though he leaves his solution opaque in The Anarchist, it is important to explain Mamet’s understanding of the State’s responsibility in administering justice.

That justice could only be achieved through law, and that the application of law

meant the necessity of, at the very least, disappointment to at least one and more

probably both of the parties involved in the dispute. That, thus, the utmost

expression of care was not the ability to express sympathy, but the ability to

control sympathy and execute justice. […] and that laws and judges who chopped

and changed according to their sympathetic nature, which is to say, according to

their ‘feelings’ were, thus, immoral. (151)

As Mamet emphasized earlier, Western law was formed in the shadow of the Torah and of God’s

Word. Therefore, Mamet believes that administrating justice should be a relatively simple task, assuming the laws in place are Good and in accordance with natural law. If a judge and jury can control their sympathetic urges and then can apply the law as written, justice will be served. Of course, controlling one’s emotional responses and avoiding the urge to provide excuses for the accused is difficult and where the bulk of the problems in the judicial system lie, according to

Mamet (“The Secret Knowledge”, 171).

In the case of The Anarchist, Mamet wrote two characters, both of whom allow their sympathetic tendencies to cloud their judgment. Cathy’s eagerness to renounce her past, wealth, education, everything she used to know when she joined The Movement may have caused her to act rashly. Even if her points about the corrupt nature of the State have merit, her inciting violence and committing murder violated natural law. Because Cathy views herself as above the law and intellectually superior to those around her, she does not accept that it is within the rights 82

of the State to keep her incarcerated. Regardless if she is a threat to society or not, the time Cathy has already served may not be enough for justice to be served. On the other hand, Ann has lost her understanding of the nature of her job. It is not her duty to make decisions based on what will improve the reputation of the State but rather, she should follow the law to the best of her ability.

Cathy and The Movement took issue with the social compact of their society and sought to change it. Whether they were right to attempt reform is irrelevant because of the illegal and cruel methods they used to achieve their goals. Perhaps Cathy has valid complaints against the

State, but her willingness to take human lives to make her point cannot be excused. Mamet cannot let her successfully persuade Ann to establish her parole because even after 35 years,

Cathy is not remorseful of her actions. She blames the situation in which she and Althea were surprised that the house was occupied and finds fault with the officer for not shooting her before she could shoot him (Mamet 57). Cathy violated natural law and the natural rights of the two officers, so Mamet ensures that she fails to achieve her goal.

On the other hand, Ann violates the social compact as well. She lies and manipulates

Cathy, believing that to be required of her position. In her effort to serve the State, Ann commits several of the sins for which she condemns Cathy. Her authoritarian view does not allow her to administer true justice, because she is blinded by her devotion to the State. Ann believes that keeping Cathy incarcerated, or bringing Althea in front of a judge, will put the State in a positive light and perhaps be just as a side effect. As a result, Mamet sends Ann off to retirement after completing a rather unremarkable career, as well as revealing her abuse of her power to the audience.

Had Mamet used Ann to try to uphold the social compact and implement true justice, the ending of the play may not appear as cold as it does. Cathy’s lack of remorse would likely result 83

in her remaining in prison, but the decision-making process would change significantly. Ann’s primary concern would be for the natural rights of the officers and Cathy, rather than keeping careful records and putting feathers in the caps of those who work for the State. Cathy’s cell would not have been changed to lure her into a false sense of hope, nor would Ann have threatened to burn Cathy’s things (thereby violating Cathy’s natural right to property). Mamet offers an anarchist and an authoritarian as two incorrect approaches to a problem. Violence and blind obedience will not lead to a satisfying result, but perhaps a soul seeking virtue can find a way to reform the State.

Conclusion

Cathy and Ann argue about religion several times throughout the play, but the true subject on which they disagree is natural law and justice. Cathy argues that because she has served 35 years of an indeterminate sentence, justice was served, and she should be released.

Regardless of whether she has been rehabilitated, she is no longer a threat to society, and thus keeping her incarcerated is wrong. Ann, on the other hand, finds Cathy’s blatant refusal to acknowledge the State troubling, as she is blinded by her devotion to the same institution.

Justice, in Ann’s mind, does not even involve Cathy specifically but is rather concerned with making decisions that will cast the State in a positive light for the public. Her actions are more focused on making the State stronger, rather than serving justice for the victims of Cathy’s crimes, even if Ann does claim otherwise.

At the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned the negative response critics had upon watching productions of The Anarchist. The dense, philosophical language contributed to some critics’ dislike for the play, but I think the ending may have influenced their opinions as well, as 84

evidenced by Brantley’s stated desire for a cigarette after “an hour of circumlocution and obfuscation” (Brantley “War of Wills”). Neither Cathy nor Ann have changed by the time the curtain falls and the situation has not changed much either. Cathy maintains her radical beliefs and will remain in prison, at least, until the next representative of the State comes in to talk to her. Ann retires, still believing that her duty was to strengthen the State, rather than do her best to implement justice. It is a dark, empty ending for the play but, I believe that was Mamet’s goal all along. The stage lights turn off as the house lights come on, and the audience is left to wonder which character they were supposed to identify as the hero. When and if they realize neither character fits the role, perhaps it will prompt them to consider other solutions to the problem of the play.

Mamet does not use his plays to teach his audience a lesson, as he emphasized in his

Master Class (Mamet “The Purpose of Drama”). Instead, he uses drama to entertain and perhaps inspire emotions of pity and fear, as Aristotle discussed in his Ethics (1853). It is also not uncommon for his characters to finish his play without learning a lesson. Teach and Roma are the same men at the beginning of their dramas as they are at the end, and the same can be said for

Cathy and Ann. However, even though Mamet does not write his characters to learn a lesson, perhaps he posits questions for his audience to consider so that they may learn the lesson instead.

In the case of The Anarchist, how would audiences avoid becoming like Cathy or Ann? For

Mamet, the answer is simple to understand yet difficult to execute: do not let sympathy cloud judgment and obey the natural inclination to pursue good. As Kirk emphasized and as seen in the play, it is a struggle to obey and uphold natural law.

CONCLUSIONS

When I started researching Mamet as a potential subject for my thesis, I noticed a distinct lack of scholarship about his conservatism. There were a few newspaper articles mentioning his announcement of his shift in political party in the Village Voice, but the mentions were brief and some even dismissive. Admittedly, my search was not exhaustive but after several days, I could not find any analysis about his conservatism and how it may have influenced his work. As a result, I thought it was time that someone put forth an analysis about Mamet’s conservative perspective and what it might reveal about some of his plays.

One of the most prominent themes at the center of conservative philosophy involves the question of what to preserve, protect, or reform so that society may progress. I examined three of

David Mamet’s plays while considering this question, as well as others, specifically analyzing the ways Mamet’s characters interact with one another. Specifically, I examined the characters as they appeared on the page, rather than focusing on how certain productions interpreted the characters. Generally, Mamet avoids stage directions and uses his dialogue as a means of advancing the plots of his plays. My character analysis, informed by a theoretical framework provided most prominently by Russell Kirk, highlighted the possible influences of conservative philosophy on Mamet.

I focused my research on three themes, the first of which was most prominent in

American Buffalo. Though the mentor/student relationship is not inherently a conservative concept, the duties of the mentor are evident in the foundation of conservative philosophy.

Questioning what should be kept, dismissed, or changed is perhaps the heart of conservatism, as well as a significant contributor to Donny’s character arc. Mamet’s answer to the question as 86

what is worth protecting appeared to be the student himself. After all, if there is no student, there is no one the mentor can pass on traditions, wisdom, or guidance. Without Bobby, Donny would be devastated and without subsequent students, society would cease to grow.

Kirk lectured frequently on the importance of community, believing that families and communities were more responsible for providing a helping hand than the federal government.

As such, Kirk emphasized the importance of inspiring individuals within the community to cultivate traditions, question what they had been told, and discover their own potential to benefit society. The mentor/student relationship is a significant contributor to this process. Teach,

Donny, and Bobby are a community, albeit an unconventional and perhaps unethical one, and must use one another as such. As mentor and leader of their community, it is Donny’s duty to protect Bobby as well as provide guidance and wisdom.

The second theme I focused on from Kirk’s conservatism involved the spirit of the individual to create change or reform. Though Glengarry Glen Ross can be considered as an indictment of troubling American business practices in the 1980’s first and foremost, I was more intrigued by the ways Mamet’s characters approach their situations. While many of them forsake their moral compass for the possibility of monetary gain, Mamet constructs one of his characters to remain firm. As Kirk emphasized the need for conservatives to evaluate a given situation and act appropriately, Mamet places his real estate salesmen in an “at-all-costs” scenario and demands the same. Mamet’s other salesmen waste their potential and are punished for their actions, while Aaronow is somewhat rewarded for his morality.

While Kirk championed the need for a free market and for individuals to seize opportunities to advance their condition, he also stressed the importance of seeking virtue and maintaining a firm grasp on one’s moral code. Kirk affirmed that monetary gain at the sacrifice 87

of morality not only hurt the community but also society. Kirk’s adamant belief in God also meant that he believed that even if one avoided punishment for such actions on Earth, they would have to answer for their decisions one day. Moss and Levene are punished for their sacrifice of their respective moral codes, as is Roma to a lesser extent. Aaronow, on the other hand, finishes the play with his morality and his job intact.

Finally, the third theme concerns the conservative notions of natural law and justice. Both concepts are significant in Cathy and Ann’s debate in The Anarchist. Mamet offers his audience an anarchist’s and an authoritarian view on the two concepts, though he does not present either character as heroic nor their respective perspective as correct. Instead, Mamet, like Kirk, pushes his audience to find an answer for themselves. How can someone live their life in accordance with natural law? What does true justice look like? Neither question has an easy answer, though, for Kirk, the journey to discover the answer was equally important, if not more so.

Neither Cathy nor Ann demonstrate an understanding about justice. If Cathy is no longer a threat to society, does that mean she should be released? If she will not commit another crime, would releasing her be just? Ann’s references to the families of the dead police officers imply that she is concerned about seeing justice done for their benefit, but her choices do not support this implication. Ann’s choices reflect a desire to please the State, rather than a desire to make the most just decision. The Anarchist does not offer a just decision but instead, Mamet provides an opportunity for the audience to consider what a just decision would look like in Cathy and

Ann’s situation.

Though I focused on just three of Mamet’s plays, I believe there are opportunities to expand what I have begun in this study. A future project might include analysis of one of

Mamet’s adaptations, such as his philosophical version of the Faust myth, or a project might 88

examine the implications of conservative philosophy in Mamet’s plays about romantic relationships, such as Sexual Perversity in Chicago (1974) or Boston Marriage (1999).

Moreover, a further study may consider Mamet’s less traditional plays, like his work in children’s theatre with plays including The Revenge of the Space Pandas or Binky Rudich and the Two-Speed Clock (1978) or his one acts such as The Old Neighborhood (1997).

By ways of concluding, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on two quotes, one from Mamet and one from Kirk, that remained in the back of my mind throughout this process.

In American Buffalo, Teach tells Donny, “I’m not here to smother you in theory” (50). The line in and of itself is humorous, considering the implied lack of formal education among Mamet’s characters in the play and Teach’s attempts to avoid revealing his lack of preparedness for the con. I also found some ironic humor in the line, given the amount of theory informing my analysis. It is every scholar’s hope that they were clear in conveying their thoughts and I am no different.

The second quote is Russell Kirk’s first sentence in the densely philosophical The

Conservative Mind: “‘The Stupid Party’: this is John Stuart Mill’s description of conservatives”

[sic](1). Kirk continues, addressing concerns that I feel are equally applicable today. There are people referring to themselves as conservatives perhaps as an excuse for their troubling beliefs and behavior, such as those who claim the political party as a reason for their racism and sexism, but those beliefs and behavior should not be considered as examples of conservative philosophy.

Assumptions can be detrimental to conversation, on all sides of the political spectrum, and part of the reason for writing The Conservative Mind was to educate and inform. Kirk wanted to unite a new amalgam of old ideas to offer clarity and guidance for the supposed “stupid party”.

My goals were not as grand as Kirk’s, nor was my scope as broad. I chose to analyze the 89

work of one person, Mamet, in his preferred field. Many scholars and critics still consider Mamet to be one of the most prolific living American playwrights, and his work has prompted countless books and articles from scholars. However, my research revealed a lack of scholarship connecting his work to his political beliefs. Then inspired, I decided to contribute a project that could hopefully offer a unique perspective on Mamet’s work. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, and

Mamet; so, I did, and this was it.

REFERENCES

Bigsby, Christopher. “David Mamet”. The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet, edited by

Christopher Bigsby, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 1-39.

Billington, Michael. “‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ Review – Christian Slater Is Top Dog among Cut-

Throat Conmen.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Nov. 2017,

www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/nov/09/glengarry-glen-ross-review-christian-slater-is-

top-dog-among-cut-throat-conmen.

Birzer, Bradley J. Russell Kirk: American Conservative. University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Brantley, Ben. “Fugue for Wrung-Out Tinhorns.” The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2012, www.

nytimes.com/2012/12/10/theater/reviews/glengarry-glen-ross-by-david-mamet-with-al-

pacino.html.

Brantley, Ben. “Here, Honor Is Profane and Words Do Hurt.” The New York Times, 2 May 2005,

www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/theater/reviews/here-honor-is-profane-and-words-do-

hurt.html.

Brantley, Ben. “War of Wills, Vocabularies and Virtues David Mamet’s ‘Anarchist’ at the

Golden Theater.” The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2012.

Carney, John. “The American Cause and the American Economy”. Breitbart, 29 December

2017, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/29/american-cause-american-

economy/

Christiansen, Richard. “David Mamet's American Buffalo Premieres.” Chicago Tribune, 15 Sept.

2008, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/chi-chicagodays-

americanbuffalo-story-story.html. 91

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the Republic, On the Laws. Translated by David Fott, Cornell

University Press, 2014.

Dean, Anne. David Mamet: Language as Dramatic Action. Associated UP, Inc., 1990.

Farber, David R. The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism: A Short History.

Princeton UP, 2010.

Fortier, Mark. Theory/Theatre: An Introduction. Routledge, 2016.

Goldensohn, Barry. “The Law Plays of David Mamet: ‘Race’ and ‘The Anarchist.’” The Yale

Review, vol. 102, no. 4, Oct. 2014, pp. 117–128.

Gray, Margaret. “Don't Miss a Word of This 'American Buffalo'.” Los Angeles Times, 25 Feb.

2015, www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-deaf-west-cal-state-american-

buffalo-20150224-story.html.

Haecker, Theodor. Virgil, Father of the West. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1934.

Hitchings, Henry. “‘American Buffalo’ Review: John Goodman, Damian Lewis and Tom

Sturridge.” Evening Standard, 12 June 2015, www.standard.co.uk/go/london/theatre/

american-buffalo-review-john-goodman-damian-lewis-and-tom-sturridge-dial-up-

emotional-tension-in-10209265.html.

Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan”. Great Books of the Western World, edited by Nelle Fuller,

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp. 39-279.

Kane, Leslie. David Mamet in Conversation. University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Kirk, Russell. A Program for Conservatives. Regnery, 1954.

Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Constitution. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1990.

Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. Gateway Editions, 2016. 92

Kirk, Russell. “The Meaning of Justice”. Speech given at the Heritage Foundation, Washington,

D.C., March 4, 1993. At http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-meaning-of-justice.

Kirk, Russell. “The Problem of Tradition”. American Heritage: A Reader, edited by the Hillsdale

College History Faculty, Hillsdale College Press, 2011, pp. 797-810.

Kirk, Russell. “Promises and Perils of ‘Christian Politics’”. Intercollegiate Review 18. (Fall-

Winter 1982).

Mamet, David. American Buffalo. Grove Press, 1994.

Mamet, David. The Anarchist. Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 2012.

Mamet, David. Glengarry Glen Ross. Grove Press, 1983.

Mamet, David. The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. Sentinel, 2011.

Mamet, David. “The Purpose of Drama.” Masterclass, Masterclass. 8 May 2017.

Mamet, David. “Why I’m No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal.” The Village Voice. 11 March 2008.

Murphy, Brenda. Understanding David Mamet. University of South Carolina Press, 2011.

Nightingale, Benedict. “Glengarry Glen Ross”. The Cambridge Companion to David Mamet,

edited by Christopher Bigsby, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 89-102.

Rich, Frank. “THEATER: A MAMET PLAY, GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS.” The New York

Times, 26 Mar. 1984, www.nytimes.com/1984/03/26/theater/theater-a-mamet-play-

glengarry-glen-ross.html.

Riefe, Jordan. “'The Anarchist': Theater Review.” The Hollywood Reporter, 1 May 2015,

www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/david-mamets-anarchist-theater-review-792763.

Roudané, Matthew. “Betrayal and Friendship: David Mamet’s American Buffalo”. The

Cambridge Companion to David Mamet, edited by Christopher Bigsby, Cambridge

University Press, 2004, pp. 57-73. 93

Sattazahn, Lyn. Claiming Identity: The Effect of the American Myth on Human Relationships in

David Mamet's "American Buffalo", "Glengarry Glenn Ross", and "Speed-the-Plow",

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Ann Arbor, 1999. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.

com/docview/304551020?accountid=26417.

Sauer, David and Janice A. Sauer. “Misreading Mamet: Scholarship and Reviews”. The

Cambridge Companion to David Mamet, edited by Christopher Bigsby, Cambridge

University Press, 2004, pp. 220-237.

Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. Basic Books, 2012.

Voegelin, Eric. Israel and Revelation (Order and History, Volume One). Louisiana State Univ.

Press, 1998.