The lack of understanding (Kitchen Stories)

 

Objective Review:

The following three scenes and dialogue to me provide the most important elements of the film:

1.      When a fellow observer wakes up Folke in the middle of the night. Specifically Green saying, “Shit Folke, what the hell are we doing? We sit up there on our pedestals and think we understand everything. How can we think we can understand anything about people- simply by observing them.”

2.      Between Folke and Isak, Isak asking, “How can we understand each other without communicating?”

3.      Isak defending his peep hole by asking, “Is it any better than you observing me” to Folke.

To me, these elements speak to the importance of the human interaction, and how the characters in the film treat each other based on their unique perspectives and goals.

Reaction:

Beyond failing the Bechdel test, and my concerns about non- ethical human subject research, the movie left me with mixed emotions. I had a hard time following characters; particularly, keeping track of who was who, and what was going on for most of the film. I was constantly asking myself, “is that the same guy that…” and “why is that…” The goal to create a sterile environment, for what I would label as market research, feels a bit absurd watching the opening commercial about HFI showing women peeling potatoes with respiration tubes and backpacks. I’m still not sure I understand why the study is occurring where it is and why the select population of rural, Norweigan bachelors.  There is obviously financial investment and significant time and effort committed to obtaining the data, but I had to rewatch the beginning of the film a second time just to try and make sense of the research project goal. Overall, I think I appreciated the goal of the film, which was to demonstrate the need for human interaction, and the cascading effect we all have on each other.

Interpretation:

One element that struck me towards the end of the film is that Home Research Institute (HFI)’s research study of single men within the kitchen was a very positivist study, yet what it attempts to use is a very qualitative method. The goal of the research study is to find an optimal kitchen arrangement, or as the character Malberg states it to “rationalize the kitchen” (Hamer, 2003). The goal is to understand a person’s movements; however, the study forbids conversation between the researcher and the participant.

In thinking about power, the study grants unlimited access to the researcher to enter the participant’s house and observe the person from a towering chair. We can assume the HFI is a powerful organization, since it clearly has an international presence and the significant branding we see on the researcher’s campers and Dr. Ljungberg’s plane. Speaking of Dr. Ljungberg, the small amount of information we are provided on him, he appears wealthy and the leader of the study, yet strangely absent throughout the film and study.  The participants are compensated by being given a toy horse, and in my opinion provide a message that their person story is unimportant given the communication restrictions. Small acts throughout the film indicate HFI has very little compassion or respect for the participants in the study. Take for instance, that the participants seem to have no tangible benefit from the research; furthermore, at no point is it explained why rural, single men are the population of the study, beyond that they already know the information about housewives. It appears the target product is, to quote Lemke (2001), a “re-coding of social mechanisms of exploitation and domination on the basis of a new topography of the social domain” (p. 203). They want to corner perhaps an untapped market. However, the study is incorrectly assuming that all individuals will use a kitchen for the same purpose, and that one can create a socially controlled observation environment. Ironically, a pivotal scene in the film is that irrational actions by the characters initiates the social connection between Isak and Folke, changing their dynamic as well as impacting the community and research study. Pyyhtinen and Tamminen hit the mark, in their critique of Foucault that “life resists power” (Pyyhtinen & Tamminen, 2011, p. 145).

Considering Pyyhtinen and Tamminen’s (2011) notion of non-human influence of human, the observational notes and the observational chair were an interesting link between Folke and Isak. Both are inanimate objects yet have social meaning of assumptions and authority. Folke’s role gave him authority to write a narrative about Isak based solely on his assumptions created through Folke’s experience and interpretation of the actions he witnesses; however, the visible notetaking from high above in the observation chair felt like invasive and cold. Isak’s quote, “How can we understand each other without communicating?” (Hamer, 2003) shattered the power dynamic between the two individuals, effectively breaking down a barrier preventing understanding and context of Isak’s actions. Some of the more endearing scenes in the film were of Isak sitting in the chair himself or writing observational notes about himself in Folke’s notebook. In the end, common ground and communication are the basis of a new friendship that leads to Folke challenging the power of HFI.

Lastly, in regards to Foucault’s concept of knowledge, the gathering of information by HFI is held tightly by the researchers and appears to simply be a tool to wield power over consumers. The study itself aims to learn patterns across individuals, but wholly without context. The expectation of the company is that their knowledge about housewives in the kitchen will be a foundation for this study, and they also are constrained by the bias of each researcher in their assessment of their participant. A major point in the film is how Isak takes power by withholding the knowledge he has to offer by not using his own kitchen. Isak’s reaction is one of retribution, similar to a situation where a supervisor might withhold information as a mechanism of control over an employee, where then that same employee withholds knowledge in kind in refusal of that power. (Yanzhao & Hong-Ming, 2022).

References

Hamer, B. (Director). (2003). Salmer fra kjøkkenet (Kitchen Stories) [Motion Picture].

Lemke, T. (n.d.). 'The birth of biopolitics': Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Scoiety, 30(2), 190-207. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085140120042271

Pyyhtinen, O., & Tamminen, S. (2011). We have never been only human: Foucault and Latour on the question of the anthropos. Anthropological Theory, 11(2), 135-152. doi:10.1177/1463499611407398

Yanzhao , T., & Hong-Ming, Z. (2022). An analysis of the trickle-down effect of supervisor knowledge hiding on subordinate knowledge hiding based on displaced aggression theory. Frontiers in psychology, 13(1002277), 1-15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.100