Community Without Community: Deadwood, Mad Men, and the Loss of Cohesion in American Culture
To be American is to be lonely, or at least it feels so recently. I’m not the first to notice this, many authors have written articles questioning why America is experiencing what the Department of Health and Human Services has called an “epidemic of loneliness.” Some point to modern technologies' ability to isolate us from human interactions while others argue that Covid 19 and the lockdown are to blame for our nation's poor social connections. While both technology and the pandemic certainly contribute to the problem, the loneliness I and many others experience feels uniquely American. This shouldn't be surprising, the American Dream is a story about individual, not collective success, but this hasn’t always been the case. America mythologizes its often shameful past with stories of triumph through united efforts, for instance, while we learn about the important individuals of the Revolutionary War, the Washingtons and Franklins, the narrative we are taught is one of the states uniting to overthrow a tyrant. Over time, the collective elements of our culture have been de-stressed in favor of a focus on the individual though why this occurred is debated. While I doubt that there is any single answer, an answer to why this development occurred can be found by studying two examples of a uniquely American art form, prestige television.
What follows will be a discussion on the shows Deadwood and Mad Men, both of which are in many ways about America just as much as they are about any character. In Deadwood, we watch as American society is born and in Mad Men, we see it at its height. By comparing these two works of art and how they present America at these crucial points we can track how our culture developed over time, what was gained from this process, and what was lost.
At first glance, Deadwood appears to be a traditional Western in the same vein as Tombstone. A former lawman Seth Bullock decides to settle down and make it rich in the boom-town of Deadwood. Deadwood is the sort of lawless town that looms large in the classic Western with its status as an illegally occupied territory at the start of the series lending it a more violent character. Upon entering the town, Bullock is introduced to a wide variety of characters, including the gruff but good-hearted Doc. Cochran, the soon-widowed Alma Garret, the wild west legend turned gambler “Wild Bill” Hickok and the town’s resident crime boss Al Swearengen who at first views Bullock as a rival. The rogue’s gallery of characters and the frontier environment of Deadwood perfectly support the plot of a traditional Western we all know, in which a reluctant lawman dusts off his badge to bring order to a lawless town.
And yet that isn’t what happens. Rather than following how an outsider fixes a town, we as the audience watch as individuals like Bullock and Swearengen put aside their differences and come together to build a community. Their intentions are not pure-hearted and the process is not without conflict, sometimes violent, but throughout the series, we watch as these individuals go from lone frontiersmen battling one another to members of a town supporting each other. There are gunfights and murders within the narrative but equally important are the burgeoning acts of mutual aid like the town’s response to a smallpox outbreak or the creation of an elementary school. If Deadwood is about anything, it is the process through which individuals banding together to protect their interests form a community.
Like Deadwood, Mad Men at first hides its depth. The show introduces itself as a character study of one man climbing to the top of the advertising world of the 60s. Over time, as more of the characters and their complexities are introduced, the show changes from something that at first glance resembles The Fountainhead to a reflection on the personal cost of conforming your identity to what society expects. Spoiler alert for a show that ended 8 years ago, the character we are introduced to as the protagonist, Don Draper, turns out to be just that, a character. In truth Don, real name Dick Whitman, is living a false life, having stolen the identity of his military commander to leave both the Korean War and his troubled home life. Under this false identity, Don molds himself into the archetypal American individualist but he also begins to unravel as the cost of living such a hollow life and the societal pressures it brings begins to become too much to bear.
The immense wealth of the characters of Mad Men when compared to those in Deadwood highlights why building such a society is worthwhile. Materially, the characters of Mad Men live more comfortable lives in every way than those in Deadwood; no one in Mad Men is wondering where their next meal will come from. Furthermore, the world of New York in the 60s is considerably safer than that of the Black Hills in the 1870s. While there are a few deaths and even a non-lethal stabbing (played comedically), the challenges the characters of Mad Men face are related to work or their personal lives and are never as dangerous as the challenges faced in Deadwood. The characters of Deadwood value safety and comfort because they are without it, and by banding together they build a society that is shown in Mad Men providing those two conditions, at least materially, nearly a hundred years later.
I specify that the safety and comfort provided in Mad Men only apply to the material reality of the characters because the increased wealth doesn’t seem to make them any happier. The employees of Sterling-Cooper may not face life-or-death challenges as the residents of Deadwood do, but their inner turmoil is just as intense, if not more so. An equal number of characters commit suicide in the two shows, so clearly the increased wealth is not directly increasing happiness. The culture that is metaphorically born in Deadwood succeeds in providing the safety and comfort that its founders were without, so why does it fail at looking after the immaterial lives of its participants?
A significant theme of Deadwood is the way the community serves to temper and strip away the worst aspects of the individual. Take for example Al Swearengen, introduced to the audience as a ruthless crime boss willing to murder any man, woman, or child that gets in his way and who by the end of the series is a respected pillar of the community. This change isn’t caused by Al realizing the errors of his ways, instead, it is the natural result of Al changing himself to ally with the other residents of the town against outside threats. His motives are not pure, but they do not need to be; Al’s character arc demonstrates that even the most selfish individual, by pursuing their interests, can be shaped by societal pressures into someone able to co-exist with others in the community.
Deadwood also demonstrates that some behaviors do not need to be tempered by the community but instead channeled in appropriate directions. If Seth Bullock feels anything, it is anger. His reaction to any injustice or insult is to stomp through town, on the verge of tears, until he finds the perpetrator and beat them before dragging them to the jailhouse. It is easy to imagine how someone with such a short temper could be a danger to themselves and those around them, in fact, Bullock’s anger often serves as an obstacle for him. In many shows, Bullock would learn the errors of his ways, but in Deadwood, his arc is about learning to direct his anger outward. Whereas Swearengen is changed by societal pressure, Bullock is provided an outlet, which protects the community both from outside threats and Bullock himself. The villains of Deadwood, on the other hand, are all individuals whose anti-social traits can not be sanded away by the community, who instead seek domination over it. In Deadwood these characters are often bested, but Mad Men illustrates that these fanatical individualists may have lost the battle but won the war.
Everyone in Mad Men is an individualist. At all levels of the office hierarchy, every actor is focused on themselves over any common goal. The corporate culture presented in Mad Men is very similar to the town of Deadwood, with disparate individuals forced to work together to overcome outside threats but their result could not be more different. Whereas the individualists in Deadwood become less violent, more social, and overall better suited to the communal environment no such change occurs in Mad Men. When the pitch is done and the account is scored any collective effort stops and everyone goes back to looking out for themselves. With conditions so similar, why is a local community able to temper the violent characters of Deadwood but not the selfish hedonists of Mad Men?
The answer is tied to the very benefits of building a community discussed above, specifically increased wealth. The characters in Mad Men make more money than those in Deadwood, but as the wealth increases so too does its unequal distribution. Characters in Deadwood run the gamut from ridiculously wealthy to homeless but the frontier environment limits how severe this disparity can be. Wealth confers some benefits, the arch-capitalist George Hearst can hire scores of hired guns to enforce his will, but he walks the same mud-covered streets and eats the same food as everyone else. In Mad Men those with wealth can isolate themselves, to create a world separate from those without wealth. An example of the isolating nature of this wealth can be seen in Don Draper’s first house. In Deadwood, when Bullock can afford to build a house he does so in the center of the town literally and symbolically surrounded by the community he is part of whereas in Mad Men Don’s house is in the suburbs, far away from the corporate world of Manhattan where most of the show is set.
If this isolation was simply a personal choice Don made it would not be an issue, but it represents a larger structural issue. Despite not having the wealth to isolate themselves as the top of the hierarchy does, poorer characters like Peggy are not blind, they can see the lives those in charge of them live and dedicate their lives to their work in hopes of one day reaching those heights, often at the expense of their relationships as is the case for Peggy. The isolating nature of wealth doesn’t just provide comfort for the wealthy in Mad Men, it also provides safety from consequences. Because the characters in Deadwood, regardless of their wealth, are forced to interact with each other so frequently they can be held to account for their actions. If you live in Deadwood and think Bullock acted too violently in his capacity as sheriff you can walk to his house to confront him which many characters do. In Mad Men, there is no such accountability; Don just walks away from a contract with the world's largest advertising firm, and because of his wealth, there is nothing they can do. The wealth of America in the 60s certainly provides comfort, but it and its unequal distribution create a lack of accountability allowing and encouraging an individual mindset rather than a communal one.
It is important to note that this trade-off in favor of individualism over community has actual costs. No one is content in Mad Men, the rich spend their money on ever more destructive behaviors, the poor sacrifice their happiness in hopes of climbing the corporate ladder, and those that can’t compete are left behind. This individualism, without communal accountability to hold it in check, is set loose to drive the characters of Mad Men so hard that they do not notice when one of their co-workers needs help. In Deadwood, when the town reverend begins suffering seizures many are quick to notice, and much dramatic tension is drawn from their repeated and ineffectual attempts to aid him. Contrast this to the fate of Ginsburg in Mad Men whose instability, while hinted at to the audience, goes unnoticed by his coworkers until he harms himself. Just as shocking as the reveal of what Ginsburg has done is the offices' response in which he is carted away in a straight jacket never to be seen again. The wealth at stake caused the characters of Mad Men to overlook their struggling co-worker, but it also insulates them, and by extension the audience, from the consequences.
If wealth protects anyone in Deadwood from consequence as it does in Mad Men it would be the series antagonist George Hearst. When first introduced Hearst claims to be a believer in the free market, that shared economic interests will overcome prejudice and raise all ships, but in truth, Hearst is a tyrant. He feels mocked by the town, un-accepted by its residents, so he uses his wealth to dominate it and to crush any local competition until he is the only gold interest in the area. Naturally, the townspeople unite against such a threat, the community sands away their less social traits, and led by Bullock and Swearengen they present a unified front against him.
Then they lose. The town is unable to stand against the forces of capital and is only able to eke out a compromise by literally sacrificing one of their own to Hearst to appease him enough to leave. Shared material interests may have been enough to draw these disparate figures together and to strip them of their most violent and least social traits, but to secure their interests this community is forced to bend the knee capital. Mad Men shows the knock-on effects of this decision a hundred years later. The Hearsts of the 60s, such as Conrad Hilton, go unchallenged by anyone at Sterling-Cooper, instead, they are constantly appeased for their business. The deal made to save Deadwood secures capital's position as being un-challengable, but in my view, it is the root cause of all the other problems we’ve discussed so far. Because those at the top of the economy can not be held to account this becomes a admirable trait in American society emulated from the top down. This, combined with a widening divide between the haves and the have-nots allows those that rise to the top serving these major figures of capital to also insulate themselves from accountability. Those without this wealth see how those they work for don’t have to follow the same rules as them, and so they strive to enter that sphere of wealth that provides independence.
Metaphorically the deal made with Hearst in Deadwood does save the town’s life but damns its soul. The residents of that mining town live full lives, make plenty of money, and alongside their descendants build America into the giant it is in Mad Men, but all of this comes at a cost. By acquiescing to capital, embodied in Hearst, the town builds a society where a select few are beholden to no one, instilling a drive to reach that height in all members. When increased income allows more to do so it also creates a sharp divide which only reinforces the desire to gain economic independence in those without out. This is what strips the community of its ability to temper its members and is why while materially more comfortable in almost every way, the world of Mad Men, and our own, feels so lonely when compared to the past. These two works of art, when put in conversation, highlight how the importance of community was sacrificed in American culture in favor of independence and the personal drive for economic independence. If we wish to create a society that feels less overwhelmingly lonely this is the issue that must be addressed. Certainly changing our society's values in such a drastic way will require herculean work but at least in the meantime, we have some pretty good shows to watch.