As a scholar of moral development, the more animating questions guiding my work involve origins. In this case, does The Penguin‘s “story” of how we generally treat others have a discernible beginning? If so, what are its most significant inputs and how might they interact to produce a result irreducible to the sum of its parts?
This, and related questions color my viewing experiences, especially concerning superhero and dystopian media where my scholarship most closely intersects. So it makes sense that my full appreciation of Lauren LeFranc’s The Penguin came during this exchange – a flashback from Oswald Cobb’s (a.k.a. Oz’s/Penguin’s) childhood – at the start of the final episode (S1E8, “A Great or Little Thing”). Although it can be argued that a truer understanding of Penguin is revealed in the previous episode (S1E7, “Top Hat”), episode eight best illuminates the character because it cements how he would be construed among those who had a significant bearing on his future development.
Rex: Mostly, guys that come to me say they’re lookin’ to make money. Now, that’s fine. But greed don’t buy loyalty. I want loyalty, I bring in guys who are lookin’ for a father. Guys like that got a void to fill. They’ll do anything for me. Now, Oswald…he don’t need a father. He’s got you.
Frances: hmm.
Rex: He’s devoted to you. You can use that. Foster what he’s got, embrace it, raise it. Maybe he’d be great. Or maybe not. I don’t know. [Chuckles]. You have to bet on him to see.
Just before this exchange, Oz’s mother Frances Cobb (Deirdre O’Connell), reveals to Rex Calabrese (Louis Cancelmi) that Oz is responsible for the death of his two brothers, and she is understandably and visibly distraught at what this might mean for their (lack of) relationship moving forward. By contrast, Rex, a crime boss who eventually becomes an inspiration for Oz’s criminal aspirations and methodology, views this as an opportunity.
If the ends are centered around building and maintaining a criminal empire insulated from accountability and responsibility to those not considered to be worth it, then what is the best way to use others as a means to those ends? This is one of the fundamental questions The Penguin asks us to interrogate. More broadly, the series asks us to interrogate a version of this question for our own lives across all domains (e.g., recreation, work, home, etc.). Are there areas where we might be prioritizing certain ends in such a way that – directly or indirectly – we treat others as means to achieve those ends?
Means-Ends Relations: The Penguin‘s Broad Story
Despite there being no such thing as a perfect analogy, how this means-ends theme is explored in The Penguin can be partly analyzed via scholarship exploring related capacities in the development of children’s social and moral judgments. Particularly, means-ends relations has implications for thinking about research bearing on our moral understanding and treatment of others. In Moral Development and Reality, psychology professor John C. Gibbs argues that within developmental psychology there is a convincing convergence between broad developmental transitions along the cognitive (e.g., concerning inanimate objects and relations), cognitive-social (e.g., concerning persons and nonmoral social relations) and cognitive-moral (e.g., concerning understanding persons as moral agents) dimensions of our world.
Although ages can vary for many reasons (e.g., individual differences, the specific task or domain being assessed, etc.), the general story tends to unfold a certain way. From early to middle and late childhood, cognitive advances are made in the areas of mental coordination (e.g., considering others’ perspectives), decentration (e.g., considering multiple properties of an object or features of an event), and construction (e.g., forming, elaborating on, and sometimes altering conceptual understandings based on new information, relational experiences, etc.). As these advances enable children to relate to their physical world in more sophisticated, multifaceted, and accurate ways (cognitive), they similarly – although not perfectly or always predictably – influence their understanding of others as distinct psychological entities embedded in social relationships (cognitive-social) and worthy of human dignity and respect (cognitive-moral).
Similarly, scholars Kristin Lagattuta and Hannah Kramer highlight how children’s understanding of others as moral agents can inform and be informed by their understanding of others as psychological entities with their own desires, intentions, emotions, and beliefs. Lastly, scholars Cecilia Wainryb and Beverly Brehl describe many of children’s developmental transitions in the cognitive-social and cognitive-moral realms as reflecting a transition from a copy view of other minds (i.e., younger children believing others’ psychological make-up matches their own) to an interpretive view of other minds (e.g., older children believing others’ psychological make-up varies from their own).
What follows is a brief discussion of coordination, decentration, and construction in the context of The Penguin. For Gibbs, these transitions represent a move from a superficial orientation to the physical and social world to a non-superficial orientation. How might this conceptualization inform our understanding of The Penguin?
Young Oz’s Mental Coordination
Treating a young Oz as something more akin to an inanimate object than an animate one precludes a (serious) consideration of his perspective on matters relevant to his social and moral development. What if, for instance, there were times when he felt real remorse and guilt over what happened? If, hypothetically, the people he admired engaged Oz in a way where they discussed these feelings and did everything in their power to help him appreciate the perspectives of those affected by his actions, could this have made a difference?
Although it is reasonable to interpret a young Oz’s actions as typical of sociopathy, his portrayal in the series leaves this an open question. One thing that fascinates scholars of human development is open questions – especially in situations where there are extreme deviations or distortions in a child’s upbringing. It is also possible that different decisions made by those integral to Oz’s development could have affected his interactions with those closest to him within his criminal enterprise, like his right-hand man and mentee, Victor Augilar (Rhenzy Feliz).
What is also striking about “A Great or Little Thing” is that by the end of the episode, it is clear that Oz adopts the same cold others-as-means calculation toward Victor – who, to Rex’s point in the opening quote – was also in need of a (new) father – as his mother and Rex adopted toward him.
Penguin’s Distorted Rationale
Another distortion in a young Oz’s social and moral development bearing on his subsequent actions as The Penguin relates to the tendency to “miss the forest for the trees” concerning the morally relevant treatment of persons. As Penguin gets closer to achieving his goals of sitting atop the Gotham organized crime hierarchy, he hurts more people. Despite his rationale and best efforts to “have it both ways” in the sense of committing acts of immense harm and injustice to others – while simultaneously believing he can protect others he supposedly cares about from similar harms and injustices – forms of despair, pain, and trauma increase alongside his power.
By The Penguin‘s finalé, we see the toll of this myopic worldview and his justifications for his actions unintentionally harming those within it. Notable examples are Victor, his girlfriend Eva Karlo (Carmen Ejogo), and Frances.
How Does Oz/Penguin Understand Others?
If opportunities to consider others’ perspectives and the myriad features of social events are lacking in The Penguin, it is unlikely that a young Oz, through his social interactions, will reconsider and reevaluate information and various features of those events. Since reconsidering and reevaluating are important for constructing an understanding of others and how they should be treated, one must wonder if the Oz-to-Penguin path was essentially paved the moment his mother and Rex decided to treat him as a means to an end.
Undoubtedly, the nature of the conversations one would expect a young Oz to have with Rex and his mother would be devoid or distortions of the kind scholars like Holly Recchia and Cecilia Wainryb believe are important for children’s developing understandings of others as ends and not means. For instance, Oz would not be encouraged to (1) explore relationships between others’ psychological features and their status as moral agents, (2) consider implications of their actions for those affected and oneself, and (3) participate in shared constructions around morally-relevant matters across a wide array of relationships (e.g., with teachers, peers, siblings, parents, and others).
By broadly situating Oz’s transition from a young aspiring criminal to a ruthless crime boss within a developmental context, The Penguin invites scholarship on human development to help partially explain the show’s popularity. It also invites us to consider the role of means-ends relations in the morally-relevant actions committed in the show, and how this relationship may inform some of the decisions we may make in our own lives. In doing so, this tale of a crime boss may include a story for all of us.
Contents
Works Cited
Gibbs, John C. Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Fourth Edition. Cambridge University Press. 2019.
Lagattuta, Kristin, and Kramer, Hannah J. Theory of Mind and Moral Cognition: Developmental Changes in Integrating Mental States and Moral Judgments. In Handbook of Moral Development, 3rd Edition, edited by Melanie Killen and Judith G. Smetana. Routledge. 2023.
Recchia, Holly, and Wainryb, Cecilia. The Role of Conversations in Moral Development. In Handbook of Moral Development, 3rd Edition, edited by Melanie Killen and Judith G. Smetana. Routledge. 2023.
Wainryb, Cecilia, and Brehl, Beverly A. “I Thought She Knew That Would Hurt My Feelings: Developing Psychological Knowledge and Moral Thinking”. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 2006.