I’m the Dude Playing the Dude Disguised as Another Dude!

No doubt many people will recognize this line from the movie Tropic Thunder. For those who don’t, a search of the quote will turn up the clip. I couldn’t help thinking of the scene as I read Leff’s dramaturgical account of economic transactions. It highlights a central, recurring issue I see in our readings. In the context of Leff's book, I’ll frame it thus: Does the conman own his role, or is it the other way around?

On page 181 of his book, Leff writes that he has tried to examine “the actuality of transactions between human beings, the ways in which people are stripped, strip themselves, and strip others of the knowledge and freedom that would bring them to an end state predictable under particular economic models.” I would have liked to examine Leff’s use of the word “freedom” more closely in class, because I found the reading ambivalent at best about the possibility of “non-defective” freedom.

Nevertheless, Eben has made our freedom one of his objectives in this course. Notwithstanding that this transaction possesses the structural elements of a god-con, I will assume the class is more Buddhism than Scientology. I find this assumption merited to the extent that we benefit substantively from our investment (or are at least fairly duped). Accordingly, I would like to consider what substantive freedom might look like. Is it the ability to pick your clients and your battles? To buy your tulips in the morning instead of the afternoon? To draw a generous paycheck from people you openly and enthusiastically pile abuses on?

At minimum, the outcomes above reflect a strong bargaining position, and a strong bargaining position can accomplish plenty of good things. But I can’t say with confidence that the conman owns his role any more than his mark. Moreover, as the title of this reflection is intended to imply, I don’t presume that there is an off-camera. The obvious subtext of the scene is that the method actor Kirk Lazarus may know he’s the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude, but the method actor Robert Downey, Jr. is playing him. The suggestion is two-fold: every actor is also a role played by an actor who is subsumed within that role.

I suppose I can summarize my underlying concerns and relate them to contract law in the following manner: if the parties in a transaction are completely determined by the roles they impose on each other so that they are subsumed within those roles, then a doctrine of unfairness based on the outcome of transactions seems appropriate, if not uplifting, because the intent and capacity of a party is always already only a function of his role. However, if it’s presumed that an actor can step out of his role, thereby owning it, then it seems to follow that doctrines of unconscionability should focus on the constraints encountered by a party that would prevent him from doing so. In this case, an unfair outcome would be indicative of, but not dispositive of an unfair bargaining process.

I'd be interested to hear other thoughts, if these issues resonate with anyone else.

-- BrookSutton - 13 Mar 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->