Inception Is Advocating Social Engineering

The last movie I paid to see was the Dark Night. Not because I'm a fan of the Batman series but because I love different and well presented perspectives. So when a respected acquaintance suggested that Inception fit the criteria I jumped at the opportunity. I was not disappointed.

The movie plot is as straight as Charlie Rangel and is as difficult to follow as a classic Gaddafi UNGA rant. Yet unlike Gaddafi’s dearth of coherency, Inception is complex because it is presenting an intricate and multilayered argument: social engineering under normal circumstances is immoral and dangerous but it justifiable when attempting to rectify global ills.

The plot introduces the audience to the method of social engineering,“inception” -planting an idea- and how difficult this process may be to apply to an acute mind. As the human condition is to reject outside manipulation or at least mistrust them (in the plot this natural mistrust takes the form of dream projections). For a business savvy individual like Fischer -the heir to the monopolistic energy empire- these self defense mechanisms are especially potent. So the idea must be subtly planted so that the inception is perceived to be indigenous to the target.

This is the premise for the entire plot. Otherwise why didn’t Saito just approach Fischer and explain to him that an energy monopoly was bad for the global community? Because Fischer would have perceived Saito’s humanitarian argument as a ploy to destroy his father’s legacy.

The notion that a foreign idea must become indigenous, in order for one to act on that idea, is actually quite prevalent. Indeed, most people act on their own perceived potential, i.e. they grow-up and internalize the perceptions of those around them. For example, let us say your parents are writers. From the day you are born those around you are predisposed to projecting the belief that you will also be a writer. You internalize those foreign beliefs and the “foreign idea” -the inception occurs. You are convinced that you are a natural writer and pursue a career in writing. If however you did not believe that you have a penchant for writing then you most probably would reject the false idea of becoming a writer. In other words in order for the foreign idea to motivate your desire to write, you must feel that the idea is yours and true, and not a external attempt to shape who you are. Thus if your parents pressured you to become a writer, and you did not feel it was truly your calling, you would reject their pressure as a foreign manipulation. This rejection probably takes the form of projections, such as my parents are trying to force me to be something I am not. Or, just because others in my family are talented in a certain way doesn’t mean I am… For more on this specific point please see post “The http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-1-will.html.

Inception also anticipates the objections to planting potential ideas. This objection takes the form of Mal, who represents the dangers inherent to planting ideas and subtle manipulation. Going back to our example, Mal is like an individual who grows up and enters therapy after they fail to fulfill the internalized potential to be a writer. Potential that their misguided parents and others planted in them. They experience the limbo of Mal, not knowing whether they are legitimately pursuing their potential or whether their goals and aspirations are figments of their own delusional imagination, and will never be achieved. Little do they know their confusion and feelings of being delusional were planted in them by a misguided external force. Yet because they are so sure that it is their own potential, failure of achieving that potential feels like failure to achieve their purpose in life. Mal responds by jumping out of a window…

Yet despite the terrible effect of planting ideas (for example it is a necessary for parents to do so please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/curse-of-unfulfilled-potential-2.html) it is incumbent on society, in certain extreme instances, to "commit inception".

Saito takes the form of the wise decision maker who uses his spectacular wealth, such as buying the airline that Fischer flies, for the good of humanity. This includes drugging the heir of a monopoly and engineering him so that he too acts in a way that benefits society.
Who is the judge when such social engineering is condoned? Ah but that is the question. The mind behind Inceptions madness, offers an easily digestible scenario: a greedy capitalist would never accept that a certain act is necessary for humanities good. Instead the only way to influence him is to plant the idea in him that his deceased father wanted it. Capitalism's failures and the “greed” of multi-nationals is front page news, and it is easy to target the capitalist for engineering. But would the audience be so forgiving if we were dealing with socially engineering global atheism?

Which leads me to my last question, what if Cobb and company had failed to plant the idea? Would Saito have gone farther to “influence” the greedy capitalist?