Ads


The Erotic Theology of Mad Men

July is the month when fans of the award-winning series Mad Men, which follows the lives of 1960s Madison Avenue executives, eagerly await a new serving of high drama and retro-chic fashion. But since the fifth season has been postponed to next year, Maddicts will have to content themselves with revisiting already-released episodes. One of these, the episode “Maidenform” from season two, is especially worth a second look, for it is a curious window into the truth of Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

Not that that was anyone’s goal. Mark Greif is too harsh, but he has a point when he accuses the show of essentially “congratulat[ing] the present.” The series’ explorations—often through graphic scenes—of sexism, racism, “homophobia,” etc., often seem designed to confirm some viewers in their self-satisfaction.

Still, Mad Men’s carefully crafted plots, well-developed characters, and sharp cinematography somehow manage to rise above propaganda. The program reaches the realm of true art, insofar as the television medium can, and true art has a curious knack of transcending its authors’ intentions.

The interweaving storylines of “Maidenform,” for instance, dramatize one of the cornerstones of Catholic sexual ethics, namely, that the recreative and procreative dimensions of sexual activity should never be divorced. Usually, this principle is invoked during discussions on artificial contraception, but as a fundamental truth concerning our embodied natures, its relevance is far wider. Pleasure that is self-enclosed, that is not subsumed into a higher nobility (and here I take the raising of children with one’s spouse to be a noble thing), ends up being unsatisfying.

In the episode, Mrs. Betty Draper bumps into Arthur, a younger man whose advances she has previously rebuffed. Although Betty is faithful to her husband, she enjoys the would-be paramour’s attention. But as the two of them are flirting, Betty’s children run to her side. Both Betty and Arthur become visibly uneasy and soon part.

Why? Because they’ve been thinking of sex, but not the honorable kind that is open to the natural and noble end of offspring and is thereby sanctioned by Church and state alike. Betty’s children are a visible reminder of the procreative purpose of sexuality, and that reminder shames the pleasure-fixated pair. Without the ultimately self-transcending intention of legitimate descendants to dignify it, their jockeying for bodily bliss is selfish and base, and they know it.

Don Draper, the tortured protagonist of the series, is also concerned about honor in his own signature, train-wreck way. Hoping to escape from reality, he seeks out the adulterous company of Bobbie Barrett, but when Bobbie mentions that she must visit her son, who is an astonishing eighteen years old, Don registers a note of discomfort. That note continues to sound when, during their next liaison, Bobbie says she must leave to attend her daughter’s play. The last thing Don has had on his mind is his mistress’ maternity, and the reminder momentarily dampens his ardor for the affair. But the coup de grace comes when Bobbie later tells Don that he has an outstanding reputation as a lover, and that she sought him out for that very reason. To her shock, Don refuses to make love to her and leaves.

Two things have turned him off. The first is that others know about his flings. His reaction is not one of fear that such rumors will reach his wife, but oddly, a revulsion to the explicitly sordid. Don experiences outrage at the publicizing of his lust because deep down he recognizes something shameful in it. Despite it all, he wants to be something more than a vacuous playboy.

Second, Don needs silence in order to project his delusions of honor onto his actions, or at least not to think about them. “Stop talking,” he repeatedly orders her; her chatter is “spoiling the mood.” Bobbie’s prattle unveils the possibility that he is no better than she, a possibility he cannot abide.

The character of Bobbie Barrett also highlights an interesting paradox, one alluded to in St. Augustine’s Confessions when he speaks of God “besprinkling all [his] illicit pleasures with certain elements of bitterness, to draw [him] on to seek for pleasures in which no bitterness should be.”

Bobbie’s relishing of venereal delights, loosed from its moorings, has turned into a sadomasochistic fetish. Her life epitomizes the emptiness of pleasure when not subordinated to a higher aim. As every happily-married couple knows, in choosing honor over pleasure, one obtains not only honor but pleasure as well; but in choosing pleasure over honor, one ultimately gains neither. In Bobbie’s case, to experience pleasure, she now needs pain.

The hollowness of pursuing sexual pleasure inordinately is also revealed from the opposite perspective: that is, not from progeny but from progenitors. When the cocky Pete Campbell seduces a model and is brought to her apartment, the erotic tension is suddenly broken by the appearance of her mother. Pete is nonplussed, but his date laughs it off. “What? You didn’t think I had a mother?” she giggles, and adds soothingly, “It’s okay.” But it’s not, and the audience is repulsed as the two proceed, separated from the mother by only thin accordion doors. With a sinister smile Campbell later shows that he is pleased with his tryst; we are not.

The final scene of the episode shows Don shaving in the morning. As his young daughter Sally watches him adoringly, she says, “I’m not going to talk. I don’t want you to cut yourself.” Sally’s remark about not talking, which reminds him of what he had told Bobbie, cuts him more than any blade, filling him with self-disgust. Just as he was unable to finish making love to Bobbie, he is now unable to continue shaving in front of Sally. He asks his daughter to leave and sits alone, desolate.

Commenting on “Maidenform,” Mad Men’s Janie Bryant concluded: “There’s so many meanings in this episode, there’s so many layers. And it’s like the more times you see it… the onion starts to be peeled.” What a surprise to find near the center of that onion a fairly decent theology of eros.

Michael P. Foley, an associate professor of Patristics at Baylor University, is author of Wedding Rites (Eerdmans) and Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday? (Palgrave Macmillan).

RESOURCES

Mark Greif, You’ll Love the Way It Makes You Feel

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

7.28.2011 | 3:05am
Don Roberto says:
Great review, Professor Foley. I'm no big fan of this series, but I have seen several episodes, including this one. Draper's sinfulness hurts him and his family profoundly. He feels the loss, but is blind, having no morale compass, to the signs that should point him toward the Way. Smart, strong, wealthy—all for naught.

7.28.2011 | 3:23am
Where the series really shines is in its treatment of the interplay between ideas and culture. Something I’d never really grasped until watching this series is the central role advertising executives play in shaping American culture. But as I thought about it more, it makes sense. In an extremely religious culture, religious figures play a leading role in shaping it.
7.28.2011 | 10:45am
"...true art has a curious knack of transcending the artist's intentions."

In The Apology Socrates attempts to prove the Oracle wrong by finding someone wiser than himself, looking among the artisans, the politicians and the poets. He is most surprised by the foolishness of the poets, because upon speaking to them it is clear that they do not know, and yet there were great and sublime truths within their plays.

When art is more than propoganda it can't help but say something true about the human condition, oftentimes unintentionally. And this would seem to be a defense of partaking of popular culture. We want to be party to the the re-emergence of irrepressible truth. But at what cost?

Mad Men, The Sopranos and a few others may qualify as really good, sometimes great art, but in the end it's like buying Playboy for the articles.

Just as "true art has a cuirous knack of transcending the artist's intentions", it also has a cuirous knack of transcending the viewers conscious perceptions.

We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that we can watch these shows with marsian detachment. Sure we might look down from on high at the dysfunction which results from sin, but at another very powerful level we're watching a show in which attractive, sympathetic characters are doing what we all desire to do.
7.28.2011 | 11:19am
Randy says:
There's a lot of television drama, and stand-up comedy, that I just can't watch anymore. It's too depressing. It's like watching somebody shoot up heroin. I don't want to see how these destructive stories end, and I especially don't want to see it if the end of the story, the crash and burn, is not part of the story. Without that, it just becomes a lie.
7.28.2011 | 11:52am
Bwaahaa!...well said Joe! Guilty pleasures like sordid TV shows or violent movies should remain guilty. Lets not try to absolve ourselves by calling them an exercise in discernment.
7.28.2011 | 1:22pm
TBH says:
A pox on puritanism! How could one not find the bawdy, sordid, violent, overtly sexual and hilarious story of Ehud not to be equisite art? Nothing reminds me more of the Sopranos (MadMen, et al.) than this wonderful book of Judges. And, the fact that the Spirit of God himself inspired such forms of imagination, and indeed took these expressions up into His realm, should give us pause about what is "in and out", what is "high and low", what is "edifying" and mere entertainment.
7.28.2011 | 2:05pm
@TBH
You tread dangerous waters my friend. Equating trash and art is one thing, but trying to drag the holy down into the mundane...?

I'm sure plenty of prudes thought Shakespeare was the premier purveyor of trash in his time. But once the Bible is looked at as mere entertainment, or even great art, it looses all significance.
7.28.2011 | 2:26pm
TBH says:
Dangerous? It all depends on what side of the spectrum you (allegedly) are attempting to defend. The more the Scriptures are plummed the more we realize that there is no place we can, Jonah-like, hide (including, in the trash, the low, the mundane, or, conversly, in the crystalline, the high, and the refined). These shows may not be your proverbial cup-of-tea, but that doesn't mean the Spirit isn't allowed there...

As to the Bible losing signficance if looked at as great art--I simply disagree.
7.28.2011 | 2:36pm
andrew says:
watching these sorts of shows is akin to "eating food sacrificed to idols" -- perfectly fine for some but not for others. as for me, if a show speaks truth, even theological truth, even without intending to do so, i'll take it as an opportunity to grow in wisdom and understanding.

thanks for the article.
7.28.2011 | 3:05pm
It's not a sin to watch TV. But lets not flatter ourselves that we are doing a good thing when we are really just indulging our passions.

Art can be criticized and dispensed with, no matter how great it is. The Bible, if it really is the word of God, requires a different approach.
7.28.2011 | 5:06pm
Betty Blue says:
@Randy, I'm with you. After hearing over the past few years about how good a show Mad Men was supposed to be, my husband and I watched the pilot; with that, we'd seen enough.
8.5.2011 | 7:19pm
BThree says:
I adored this episode, but did anyone think that the scene between Betty and Don regarding her bikini was a little too on-the-nose? Mad Men's biggest narratorial sin - as much as it has one - is its tendency to over-sells its motifs and metaphors. I think a subtler touch when illustrating that Draper likes his mistresses to be whores and his wife to be a Madonna would have better served an episode that was, in all other regards, a thought-provoking depiction of women's roles, men's conceptions of these roles, and the evolution of both.

In short, Weiner is over-selling his merchandise.
8.10.2011 | 8:37am
There's a lot of television drama, and stand-up comedy, that I just can't watch anymore. It's too depressing. It's like watching somebody shoot up heroin. I don't want to see how these destructive stories end, and I especially don't want to see it if the end of the story, the crash and burn, is not part of the story. Without that, it just becomes a lie. Bwaahaa!...well said Joe! Guilty pleasures like sordid TV shows or violent movies should remain guilty. Lets not try to absolve ourselves by calling them an exercise in discernment.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact