Glass Onion: A Materialist Mystery
Peeling back the layers of Disruption™ dogma and ‘innovation’ ideology
Watching Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, I realized something about the notion of Disruption. In the movie, Disruption is treated as a good thing by the “shitheads”; also, they’re repeatedly referred to as “The Disruptors” and Cassandra “Andi” Brand finds her smoking napkin, a (arguably the) central plot point, in a real-life book called The Innovator’s Dilemma, which coined the theory of how “disruptive innovation” causes businesses to fail. So clearly, the notion of Disruption (and, more generally, disruption), particularly in a class-conscious context, is important to this movie’s theme(s).
Furthermore, in the first scene where Disruption is brought up, Helen (masquerading as her sister, Andi) takes Bron and his sycophantic friends to task. Bron, in a scene filled with signs marking it as thematically significant, waxes eloquent about how being “Disruptors” is why he and the rest of the “shitheads” have come together. Strongly implied in his pontification is that Disruption — trailblazing, trendsetting, pioneering, entrepreneurship — is glorious and good. It’s a very common occurrence, really — particularly in the United States: the concept of the “end of history” (immortalized by Francis Fukuyama’s book of the same name, which also ossified the concept into Fukuyama’s particular liberal-capitalist understanding) combines with the fervent U.S. nationalism (specifically, the “national pride” component) that glorifies ‘captains of industry’ and pioneers and innovators, Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla and all the various “firsts” in U.S. history. The outcome: we lose sight of material reality. Specifically, the material reality under capitalism.
That’s what Helen refuses to leave buried beneath Bron’s sermon. His gospel of wealth ignores the reality of wealth: the other “shitheads” hang out with Bron so that they can gain from his riches and fame, which he only has because he (with their help) cheated Andi out of her half. The material reality is that all the Disrupting The Disruptors have done, for years now, has been built on Bron’s wealth (and Andi’s work). Whether the movie’s creators realized it or not, Helen sort of rephrases Marx and Engels here, who pointed out over 170 years ago in the Communist Manifesto that the rich don’t Disrupt things because, as Bron’s implication would have us believe, there’s something innately glorious and good about Disruption — nor because they believe that there is, though they might (or, at least, might claim to):
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. … Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.”
The rich, in order to win out over each other, must change the world around them in order to find new ways to profit off of it. Money is power, and so the most moneyed is the most powerful and influential; everybody wants to be able to unilaterally shape the world, and no one wants to have to compromise — democracy and self-determination are just such a drag, y’know? Instead of having to listen to and seriously consider Andi’s concerns about the hydrogen energy source, Bron should just be able to do what he wants — and by increasing his own wealth, he achieves just that. And all that aside, even the rich fear an economic crisis or a hostile takeover or a fancy legal maneuver that could strip them of their financial security almost as completely as layoffs strip workers of the same — that’s exactly what happened to Andi, after all. What might’ve been if she had had more wealth — enough to buy off the sycophantic friends herself?
Similar to the likes of Peg — who, to preserve “[her] resume”, wants to “deny, half-apologize, and then go silent” about (among other ‘politically incorrect’ things) profiting off of child labor — and Whiskey — who promotes “men’s rights” and “mandom stuff” to “build [her] brand”, and expresses worry only over the possibility that it could hinder her political ambitions — capitalism coerces and convinces the rich “shitheads”, too; that potent mixture of fear, desire, and need also pushes them to claw and compete their way up the ladder — the proportions are just different. And so are the methods: the rich, among other tactics, use Disruption far more than the poor can — or do.
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.”
Thus, Disruption — trailblazing, trendsetting, pioneering, entrepreneurship — is presented (by the rich) as glorious and good; and that ideology (spread by “influencers” and the like), plus — to extend and complete Marx’s epigram above — further (often unspoken) appeals to other dogmas, causes this perception of Disruption to pervade society. Those “other dogmas” include (amongst other things): U.S. nationalism, a masculinity that feels emasculated by the ignis fatuus restrictions of the “end of history” myth, and even outright teleological and divine-providence notions like Manifest Destiny. These three in particular make up the central theme of the TV show Hell on Wheels; despite depicting many of the assorted real-life horrors and abuses (labor exploitation, imperialism, xenophobia, etc.) in its historical fiction of the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad, the show begins and ends with the claim — clearly marked as its main message — that it was all for the best because (supposedly) the glory and affluence of the present-day (White, stable, and middle-class) United States wouldn’t have been possible without that past. Teleology and Manifest Destiny, national glory and a macho conquest of nature, are thus the reasons why the Disruption of the Transcontinental Railroad was glorious and good. These and other appeals — textbook elements of amusing ourselves to death, cultural hegemony, manufactured consent — encourage us not to think too hard about the concept and practice of Disruption.
Because when we take a more materialist and socio-historically conscious approach, we notice what Helen and Marx and Engels have all seen: The Disruptors have goals — goals whose cause, motive, nature, and continued existence are rooted in the lived reality of these rich “shitheads”; and the goals can be patriarchal and macho, racist or nationalist, benevolent tyranny through profit-mongering and monopolization, something else, or some combination thereof. But ultimately and always, the Disruptions are intended to be means to those ends. And in a social system where money is power, only the Disruptor class have the power to Disrupt — especially: to Disrupt the lives of others without risking a negative Disruption in their own (“too big to fail”, anyone?)
“All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
What are the conditions of your life? When the Disruptor class comes along and Disrupts something, how does it change those conditions? What do they say to explain or justify the Disruption, and what do they not mention? Does your relationship to them merit them asking your permission before they change your life? Should you have a relationship to them that does?
And perhaps most importantly: is the “end of history” myth correct? Is society done changing? Is Disruption — owned, glorified, and exploited by the shithead class — the only kind (or the only good kind) of disruption, of social change? Or can we go ‘disrupt’ some Glass Onions?
