Sorry to Bother You is a film with familiar social commentary expressed in increasingly strange and unfamiliar ways. It has something to say about capitalism, conformity, personal desire, and self-perception, while using multiple principles of social psychology to ground its lofty subject matter. Going above and beyond the expectations of a typical comedy/drama, it effectively puts the audience in the mindset of its protagonist, Cassius Green, a poor, down on his luck underachiever who joins a telemarketing company in the hopes that he will make enough money to live the life he’s imagined. By using different aspects of human nature to trace the trajectory of the character, his journey becomes believable, and despite the sometimes fantastical nature of the film, at its core, it is a very human story about the individual and the crucial choices involved in choosing one’s place in society.
One of the most effective principles of social psychology in the film is cognitive dissonance, where the main character, Cassius Green, faces the conflicting outcome of his choices and must decide to change his actions or bear the psychological discomfort. The scene in question comes after he is promoted from a low-level telemarketing job to being a “power caller,” which is an elite set of telemarketers who sell weapons and slave labor, for a much higher salary. This is revealed to him on a leisurely stroll through his new upscale office, where he briefly expresses his personal views against the job before quickly adopting the new position. Now obviously Cassius Green is against the idea of slave labor, so initially he experiences some conflicting emotions when presented with the reality of his new job. But social psychology can help to explain his reasons for staying. Cognitive dissonance studies like the 1959 Festinger and Carlsmith study show us that personal attitudes will change to align with cognitively inconsistent behaviors, which is demonstrated in the film when Cassius attempts to explain and justify his choice to multiple side characters, like his friends attempting to start a union against the company paying him (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). He also ignores factual information that escalates his inconsistent view of the world, like the television segments that present the horrible conditions of the labor he is selling, demonstrating both belief perseverance and his efforts to avoid the psychological discomfort caused by his choices. Lastly, the abnormal behavior required to be a power caller, such as his constant use of “white voice,” demonstrates his justification of effort, where Cassius attempts to attribute his psychologically uncomfortable actions as dedication to the job, rather than reasons to abandon it. His need to not only stay consistent with his past choices, but also justify his current behavior outweighs his personal feelings against the job, and as a result he reacts to his friend’s outside pressure to quit by doubling down on his behavior, ultimately choosing his individualism over the group.
This also ties into principles of conformity, because as we know, strong outside pressure to conform (in this case to the needs of the union) can lead to more individualist behaviors, shown in the film by his negative comments towards the union and eventually his choice to cross their picket line and continue working as a power caller. Yet this does not last forever. When Cassius faces similar pressure to conform, this time to the needs of his employer (by becoming a half-horse half-human hybrid), he once again reacts by becoming more individualistic, speaking out publicly against the company and attempting to expose their wrongdoings. The power of conformity is constant throughout the film, with various instances of conformity continuously shaping Cassius’s choices and behavior. Before he becomes a power caller Cassius conforms to the union, to a group people like himself. The “phones down” scene in which the union workers go on strike demonstrates many crucial aspects of conformity. A large, homogenous group of telemarketers give a unanimous and public demonstration of their shared values, and although Cassius is hesitant to go along with them, because of his secret desire to become a power caller, he quickly conforms after seeing other members of the union join in the strike, much like the subjects in the 1951 Solomon Asch conformity study went against their own views to conform to the views of the group (Asch, 1951). His normative need to fit in is satisfied, but after the situation changes and he gets the promotion, his competing desire to stand out takes over. This, coupled with the aforementioned pressure from the union to continue to strike (and therefore conform), drives him to abandon their values and leave them for the individualistic life of a power caller. It is here where Cassius stops voluntarily conforming to the needs of others, and instead simply complies, secretly disagreeing with the morals of his job but continuing to work because he was specifically asked to and lacks the internal motivation to object, though this could also be seen as obedience, with the company as an authority exacting its influence over Cassius.
Perhaps the most consistent psychological principle exhibited in this film is the theory of self-discrepancy. This theory states that there are three perceptions of the self that we struggle between, with less discrepancy between the three leading to higher self-esteem: the “actual” self, or what we view ourselves to realistically be, the “ideal” self, what we want to be, and the “ought self,” what we ought to be, meaning our duties and responsibilities (Higgins, E. T., 1987). Cassius grapples with each of these throughout the film, with different scenes demonstrating these fluctuating perceptions. His actual self is what the film begins with, an interview where Cassius attempts to lie about his achievements and is hit with the reality that he is an underachiever and has a job to match. Later on he comes across the golden elevator to the power caller floor, where he begins to visualize his ideal self: a power caller with money, influence, and significant achievements. In this moment he believes his ought self, one which can pay his bills and support his family, and ideal self are one, yet his actual self falls short. Prompted by the drop in self-esteem caused by this discrepancy, he tries harder in his work, learning techniques like the “white voice” to help him realize his ideal self. The idea of the “white voice” also ties into self-discrepancy theory, particularly the description by the old man who teaches Cassius. He describes it as “not really a white voice. It’s what they wish they sounded like, what they think they’re supposed to sound like.” In this way, the “white voice” is Cassius using the ideal self as a marketing tool, getting customers to believe in an idealized version of themselves, one granted by the product he is offering. This also ties into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and different advertising techniques, but that is beside the point. It is simply an interesting note that Cassius uses the ideal self of others as a tool to achieve his own ideal self. When he does finally achieve it, and becomes an almighty power caller, his self-esteem doesn’t equalize, as the theory suggests. Instead, upon realizing his ideal self, his ought self shifts, and he finds that the values he once coveted are no longer the ones he finds most important. Money and power, all pale in comparison with the duty he begins to feel towards his peers in the union, the people he abandoned in search of his ideal self. As his ought self shifts and his actual and ideal self become aligned, he experiences the psychological discomfort mentioned previously, which slowly shifts his ideal self towards his ought self, aligning them against his actual life as a power caller. Only at the end of the film is this reconciled, when he lets go of life as a power caller, chooses to support his peers, and his actual, ideal, and ought self becomes one, leading to the film’s happy ending. That is, until he starts to turn into a horse.
It is truly the characterization of Cassius Green that makes Sorry to Bother You such an engaging experience. If it were not for the competing drives within him and the external forces manipulating him in one direction or another, the film would likely not resonate so deeply with so many. It depicts a society many fear to live in, one where personal gain exists within a zero-sum world, and your own achievements come at the expense of your peers. The psychological principles that help guide the narrative are grounded and contribute to the film’s realism, while fantastical elements keep it unpredictable and perpetually entertaining. The subject matter may be familiar (the flaws of capitalism are already thoroughly documented) but the film’s unique approach to the manifestation of these ideas within a psychologically sound environment results in a story that is not only engaging and entertaining, but also authentic to the human experience.
Bibliography
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319