Skip to main content

The End of HOMELAND: Part II

Forget wishy-washy Carrie Mathison, the CIA sisterhood is more ...

Yesterday we discussed how HOMELAND ended. Today I want to comment on the philosophical implications of it.

I hereby repeat my SPOILER ALERT. Although the spoilers will be less blatant in this discussion than they were in yesterday's, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO DANCE AROUND THE ENDING.

The writers characteristically make the stakes very high, so that we can be routing for Carrie even as we recoil at the awfulness of some of the things she has to do. For a moment, we may even suspect that she has killed Saul. (She hasn't, but she lies both to his sister and in effect to us about this.)

The Evil of Two Lessers

The implicit ethical point is that if one is trying to prevent something as awful as a nuclear exchange, anything less awful than that is permitted.

But of course this raises the issue of whether such consequentialist thinking is what got the world into such a state. Carrie and Saul had a good deal to do, in the  world of the series, with shaping the relations of the United States and several mostly-Islamic nations in the years leading up to this final conundrum.

In the world of the series, those two have always been, in good conscience, opting for the lesser of two evils, doing awful things to prevent more awful things. Has any of it made for a less awful world?

That last message from Carrie to Saul suggests continued nuclear showdowns are in the offing. So nothing about this dynamic makes for a better world, one in which the threat of nuclear exchanges would cease to be a fact of life.

 Another Point Entirely

One positive take-away from the ending: Carrie is no longer surrounded by bureaucracy. Her situation seems now to be that of a trophy wife/notorious author. Her messages to Saul, so far as we know, will be freelance writing so to speak, not those of a spy, or a writer, on a deadline. She is more her own agent (excuse the pun) than she has ever been before.

It isn't clear whether Saul will even be able to write her back. Is he to be the passive recipient of her messages when they come, or is there to be a two way correspondence where she will be on the receiving end of some purse exchanges in Moscow ladies rooms?

It hardly matters. The whole series was  a testament to the US pop cultural trope of the outstanding individual versus the institution which cannot properly contain her/him. Think of Hawkeye Pierce in the US military, committed to being both a healer and a wise ass. Carrie was a bit like that -- not a wiseass, but an uncontained nonconformist within an institution that demands conformity.

It is fitting that the final episode both kept her in the spy game and freed her from the constraints of that institution. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more