Movies as “Equipment for Living”:

The Sociocultural Tradition in Mean Girls

“Everything I learned, I learned from the movies.” This quote by timeless actress

Audrey Hepburn validates the ability of film writers and producers to blend “life lessons”

or other valuable information into their scripts. Film is not the first aspect of the arts to

take this path, but it is by far the most far-reaching. Movies are written, produced and

distributed worldwide to audiences of every possible background. Rather than just

provide a source of entertainment, movies take real life situations, and offer viewers a

plausible, or sometimes not so plausible response to those scenarios. They are presented

with characters who appear to be just like them, participating in everyday, normal

activities. Viewers then subconsciously examine their own lives, and internally determine

how valid the “lesson” might be.

As someone who held a permanent seat at the "cool kids" table during high

school, I am interested in how individuals, particularly teenagers, define themselves in

groups and use these self-definitions to help and sometimes hurt others. Who draws the

lines in the sand? Who decides the status quo? As a former popular kid and occasional

mean girl, I'm interested to find out how my experience shaped my life to this point and

how my actions may have affected the lives of others. The 2004 blockbuster Mean Girls

(Mark Waters) provides equipment for living for not only high school students, but also

adults who need to understand the importance of tolerance and openness with individuals

different from themselves.

To better understand my decision, a brief overview of the film is necessary. Cady,

a previously homeschooled 16 year-old, starts her junior year of high school. Her

zoologist parents raised her in Africa. She is met by a world different from anything she

has ever experienced. She has trouble processing the normal day-to-day actions that some

of her fellow students and even teachers seem to take. In hopes to better socialize her,

two misfits Janice and Damian take her under their wings. They give her the 411 on

where to sit, whom to talk to, and most importantly, whom to avoid. In doing this, she is

introduced to Regina George, the leader of a clique they’ve not-so-affectionately named

“The Plastics.” Cady undertakes the task of bringing down Regina George. The movie is

largely spent with Cady becoming more and more like her nemesis and less like her

original self. There is the usual climax where everyone finds out the truth, anarchy ensues

and Cady is left ostracized by everyone, even her real friends. Ultimately she picks

herself up, regroups and begins her slow climb back to normalcy. The film ends with

what the viewer can only assume is a common understanding by all the characters: we’re

all different in one way or another, and instead of using those differences as ammunition,

we should celebrate them, respect them and possibly use them to bring us closer.

I will admit to being part of the “in crowd” during high school. We essentially

were our own destructive, misguided unit just like “The Plastics” in the movie. We

thought we had it all: looks, love, smarts, material possessions, etc. I was voted best

personality. My friends received best smile, most athletic and cutest couple. We ranked at

the top of the high school hierarchy, and our attitudes showed it. Even though I spent my

high school years in a Christian school, an environment one would think would be safe

from judgment, ridicule and hostile teenage drama, it had all the makings of a good old-

fashioned high school melodrama worthy of primetime television.

Methodology

Kenneth Burke (1973) first coined the idea of “equipment for living” (p. 304). His

idea was that literature offers readers situations similar to real life that in turn cause them

to think differently about their own lives. Scholars have applied this idea to storytelling

media such as film. I have taken the movie Mean Girls and applied several theories

within the sociocultural tradition that seem more than fitting. Sociocultural theories aim

to provide insight on how individuals identify themselves within the confines of a group,

and how those identifications shape the way the person acts in that group. This paper will

use several aspects of symbolic interactionism, face-negotiation theory, structuration

theory and groupthink theory to analyze the flow of communication in the film.

Symbolic Interactionism -self as a social object-society, self and mind-I/Me phenomenon

Face-Negotiation Theory -facework-locus, face valence and temporality-power distance

Structuration Theory -rules and norms

Groupthink Theory -illusion of invulnerability, rationalizing, morality, stereotype, direct pressure, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity

Data

Theory Scene/Element from Film

Symbolic Interactionism

-Self as Social Object: Cady gets “social map” from Janice

-Society, Self and Mind: Cady not allowed to sit at certain tables, takes on role of a Plastic,

-I/Me Phenomenon: Gretchen Wieners cracks under the pressure

begins to think of herself in terms of her newfound popularity

Face-Negotiation Theory

Locus: Students’ comments regarding who Regina George is

Face valence: the creation of the Burn BookTemporality: Regina turns in Burn Book and blames it on Cady

Power distance: Review of Regina’s control over the other Plastics

Structuration

Theory

Rules: The Plastics give Cady a list of do’s and don’ts

Norms: Lunch table privileges, approved boyfriends or crushes

Groupthink Theory Illusion of Vulnerability, Rationalizing and Morality: Cady, Janice and Damian’s plan to ruin The Plastics

Stereotype, Direct Pressure, Self-Censorship and Illusion of Unanimity: The tactics and language used within The Plastics

Analysis

The concept of self as a social object, an idea introduced by Kuhn (Littlejohn &

Foss, 2011, p. 99) applies throughout the film. According to Kuhn humans makes sense

of, and deal with objects through social interaction. In the beginning scenes of the film,

the main character, Cady, is unsure of her surroundings. She doesn’t know where to go,

what to do, who to sit with, etc. She meets Janice and Damian who give her a “social

map” of the school. The object in question is the lunchroom. According to Janice and Ian,

where you sit determines who you are in the hierarchy. Cady uses the map to gain a better

understanding of the students in the school. Since the self also engages in conversation or

analysis internally, Cady narrates a majority of the movie, giving the viewer insight to her

personal mental journey. We hear her working out the different kinks as they come along.

She uses the process of naming to make sense of the new objects she encounters on a

daily basis.

Keeping with the theory of symbolic interactionism, it is important to consider the

three main components of the theory: society, self and mind (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p.

191). In terms of society, consider Mead’s focus on gestures and the meanings adapted

from those gestures. In the movie, Cady walks into the lunchroom on her first day of

school. As she moves from table to table, she receives the same nonverbal gesture

combination, eye rolling and a dismissive hand from every table she considers using.

This gesture lets her know that the three empty seats at that table are not meant for her or

anyone unlike the current occupants of the table. This is an example of what Mead called

a significant symbol. It is a gesture with a “shared meaning that indicates the future

course of a social act” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 192). Cady is now aware that when

she sees this gesture, she is to keep moving. Lewis Coser commented on this reaction

saying, “human communicative processes involve the constant self-conscious adjustment

of actors to the conduct of others, a repeated fitting together of lines of action through

definitions and redefinitions, interpretations and reinterpretations” (Coser, 1977, p. 334-

35).

The self can certainly be socially constructed. By not sitting at certain tables,

other students silently confirmed that the Plastics were somehow in authority. They in

turn took note of that perception and began to embody that persona. This is what Mead

called role taking. Part of this role taking involves acknowledgement of the I/Me

phenomenon. Steven Littlejohn and Karen Foss describe the me as any “socially

acceptable and adaptable behavior” while the I is any “creative, unpredictable impulses”

(2011, p. 193). Another Plastic, Gretchen experiences an I/Me transformation at the

halfway point of the film. Gretchen is the ultimate follower. It would appear that she aims

to please her fearless, heartless leader, Regina. However as the storyline progresses, and

Regina begins to like Cady more and more, Gretchen’s “I” feels left out. Her I begins to

subconsciously seep through in her daily actions. She openly and proudly begins to defy

and question Regina’s “authority” in the group. Although it isn’t clear to the viewer, the

coming out of Gretchen’s I is a result of the work Cady was doing behind the scenes. By

the end of the film, Gretchen’s battle between who she wanted to be, the I, and who

Regina would allow her to be seemed to have reached a compromise. She found a new

Queen B. to serve, but she was also set free of the Me persona that being a Plastic

required her to portray.

This role reversal helps conclude Mead’s theory with the mind. Mead described

the mind as “a process rather than a thing” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 193). This is

because humans constantly examine themselves and their surroundings and act

accordingly. They review the situation, consider the available responses (sometimes the

I/Me phenomenon is present in this step) and determine how to respond. The mind

therefore causes the self to react to whatever object has been presented by society. This

cycle continues daily, whether via physical, social or abstract objects.

Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory also played a significant role in the

film. Toomey suggests that face is “one’s self-image in the presence of others. It involves

feelings of honor, status, connection, loyalty and other similar values” (Littlejohn & Foss,

2011, p. 203). Face then, is how a person would like to be seen, and how others view him

or her. In his 1967 book, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Erving

Goffman coined the term facework to describe the “communication behaviors people use

to build and protect their own face and to protect, build, or threaten the face of another

person.” The variations of face-negotiation, locus of facework, face valence and

temporality are all seen at various points throughout Mean Girls.

First, the locus, or the direction of the facework is shown in the beginning when

students are seen giving their opinions and thoughts regarding Regina George. In this

situation, the direction is to the face of someone else, Regina. Students ramble on about

inane rumors they have heard. Regina is said to be flawless, evil, reigning Spring Fling

queen, an overseas car model, breast enhancement recipient and several other

meaningless descriptors. Regina does not necessarily desire to be seen this way, but this

is an accurate presentation of how she is viewed by her peers. Next, face valence

determines whether a person’s behavior is either positive or negative. Since it is a movie

about being mean to other people, there is more negative than positive valence in the

script. Negative valence involves the direct attack on someone else’s face or image.

Regina George is the queen of this behavior. She and her followers have created a “Burn

Book” over time. This book contains photographs and rude comments about most of the

eleventh grade girls. She flips through the book, recounting the stories for Cady and

laughing with the other Plastics. In this case, she is defacing or bringing shame to another

individual, hence the negative valence. Finally, temporality speaks to the intent of the

facework. Is it meant to maintain a present face or reestablish face that may have already

been compromised? Once Regina sees that Cady is beginning to replace her as the Queen

B., Regina goes on a teenage rampage. In order to make sure that everyone thinks that

Cady is no more than her protégé and after school project gone wrong, and restore her

place at the top of the pyramid, Regina hands the Burn Book over to the principal. She

implies that Cady is responsible for it because she is the only girl not pictured.

It is also important to consider the element of power distance (Hofstede, 1991).

Though most scholars would use this term for more cultural and serious issues, it is still

very prevalent in the film. Power distance refers to the gap between the person exerting

the power and those who are affected by it. In most cases, those being ruled over are

unaware of the problem or very accepting of the ruling, viewing it as normal. When

viewers first meet the Plastics, they appear to be blindly, but completely led by Regina.

Cady finds it strange, but Gretchen and Karen appear to be unaffected. In fact, when

Cady first attempts to rise against Regina, Gretchen and Karen are reluctant and confused

because they view Regina as an ally, not an enemy. The behaviors resulting in high

power distance relationships are the aftermath of distorted self-construal, or how a person

perceives themselves to be independent or interdependent. Gretchen and Karen prove to

be more interdependent than independent because once “order” was restored, they both

join new cliques and adopt new roles versus becoming their own unique selves. They

both feel more comfortable under the guidance of others. Regina, on the other hand,

exhibits a little of both traits. She was able to leave her stigma as Queen B. behind and

join the lacrosse team with new friends, but still have a stronger sense of self through the

change.

Antony Giddens’ structuration theory also comes into play in Mean Girls. The

basis of this theory is that “when we communicate with one another, we create structures

– patterns of rules and norms – that range from large social and cultural institutions to

smaller individual relationships” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 275). This phenomenon is

seen in the film through the way Regina governs the Plastics. Somewhere along the line,

Regina established a set of rules and norms for the group that managed to stick around.

Breaking these norms is punishable by revoking your table privileges. Upon granting the

new girl, Cady, to sit with them, the girls quickly give her the 411 on what is allowed and

what is forbidden. From only wearing jeans or track pants on Friday, only wearing a

ponytail once a week, not wearing a tank top two days in a row, to the famous “And on

Wednesdays, we wear pink,” (Waters, 2004) rule, things get structured pretty quickly.

Although Cady is confused and intrigued by these regulations, she finds a way to adapt

her lifestyle to match the requests of her new friends. After all, anything less, according

to Regina is “social suicide.”

Also, elements of Irving Janis’ groupthink hypothesis are everywhere in this

storyline. From The Plastics to Cady’s true group of friends, everyone comes together to

form a cohesive bond and go after one common goal. Janice and Damian convince Cady

that Regina must be stopped. They provide her with countless examples that expose

Regina for the evil she truly is. Cady finds out for herself on numerous occasions that

Regina is not the sweet person she appears to be. This collective hatred for one individual

fuels all three of them to take any measure necessary to bring Regina down. They follow

through with several of the steps that Janis suggests occur in groupthink. The illusion of

invulnerability takes over once they realize that they can manipulate the other Plastics

against Regina. At one point, Cady begins to feel tired and even guilty of the charade, but

Janice and Damian convince her that it’s for the greater good of everyone that she

continue. They even remind her of Regina’s attempt to keep Cady from obtaining her

crushes affections. Just that quick Cady is sucked back into their group plan. This is an

example of rationalizing their plan and stressing the morality of the issue.

The second set of the groupthink elements are seen in The Plastics. Regina is

viewed by all as the leader of the clique. Since the clique has a severe mean streak,

Regina is appropriately given the stereotype of the evil leader. By the movie’s end,

viewers see that Regina, just like everyone else wanted to feel special. She wanted to be

noticed. That does not automatically make her evil, but the course of action she chose to

gain popularity does. Secondly, there is direct pressure from within the group to remain

in agreement with the leader’s point of view or the assumed group view. As Gretchen and

Karen give Cady the Do’s and Don’ts it is apparent that they may not necessarily agree

with the rules, but they encourage Cady to follow them. They tell her that even if she

thinks she likes a certain boy, she probably does not and must discuss it with the group

first. This silencing of opinion collides with the self-censorship component. As Cady

begins to wear Gretchen down, the viewer can see her inner battle playing out on her face

and in her words. However, because of the rules in place, she is not allowed to speak her

mind. Things are the way they are for a reason. Finally, the result is the illusion of

unanimity among the group. From the outside, other students see The Plastics as a

cohesive unit, whose only concern is what Prada bag or which Gucci lip-gloss to use that

day. As long as they are making fun of the Cool Asians together, they appear to all be

evil. No one is aware that on the inside, Gretchen finds them to be intriguing and fashion-

forward. Thanks to Cady’s I, and constant questioning of the norms, the group is actually

experiencing a great level of dissention and possible dispersion.

Discussion

In my own experience, defining myself in relation to others has always been

interesting. After going through high school as a popular kid and entering college along

with 20,000 other individuals, my self-concept changed drastically. Meade’s symbolic

interactionism comes into play here. My former list of descriptors included words like

popular, friendly, athletic and funny. By the time I graduated from college, I used more

“adult” words such as educated, insightful, well-rounded, leader, driven, etc. Since the

concept of self is socially created, as my environment changed over the course of four

years, so did my opinion of myself.

I recall watching Mean Girls for the first time with my real-life Plastics thinking,

“Wow, is that what we do?” Looking back, I remember us selecting “our” table at the

beginning of senior year. It was right next to the best lunch line, allowing us to skip in

and out as we pleased. Once we claimed that table, no one would sit there unless we

offered them to do so. It was known that it was our table. Our unspoken gesture of

choosing a table and leaving our things on it day after day created the course of action for

essentially everyone in the cafeteria. Thinking about it now, I didn’t personally have any

issue with other people sitting at our table. I simply went with the flow of what our

society of friends indicated was correct.

In the present day, this film has shaped the way I treat other people. I was with

my most recent employer for four years. I was a part of a team that launched a new store.

The other employees and I were all hired at the same time and went through training

together. We formed bonds with each other, and even called ourselves “The Originals” in

future conversations. With the retail environment comes massive turnover. It is difficult

to be the new person on the job. When someone walks into a break room and sees the

camaraderie between coworkers, the initial feeling is to want to be included. But, like

high school, it is never that simple. Knowing that some of my original coworkers were

not as open to newcomers, I always made it a point to reach out to the new additions.

Now, instead of being a Plastic, I took on the role of Janice or Damian. I would give them

rules and norms of the store, and tell them about which employees to watch for or which

manager to impress. Even if I never formed the same bond with the new employee as I

did with the originals, they knew that they are welcomed into our retail family.

Conclusion

The socio-cultural tradition speaks volumes to the ideas of self and the self within

a group. Many of these theories could be helpful in initiating talks about tolerance and

openness among teenagers. Part of the issue, however, would be the lack of self-

development. The average 16 year-old does not have a very firm grasp on who they are.

This leads them to seek solace within social groups or allow their identity to be

determined by those who view them as different from the norm. Like the scene in moves

when the presumed ugly, nerdy girl takes off her glasses; she and everyone else had no

idea she could be so pretty and awesome until she decided to define herself, for herself.

Acceptance of other cultures and ideas is important at an early age, and can be

helpful in later years. Being around a plethora of cultures and social scenes in the last ten

years has strengthened my appreciation for those different from myself. Also, knowledge

is power. People fear what they do not know or understand. It is also important that

teenagers are acutely aware of the facts: not everyone is a trophy-winning athlete with

wealthy parents who give them everything they want. There are some in betweens. If

teens were educated about things different from their own lives or the lives of their

immediate circle, they’d be less likely to attempt “socializing” those who are not like

them. They may not agree with the traits, characteristics or lifestyle, but they can learn to

respect it for what it is. They can learn that perhaps that quirky girl who was raised in

Africa isn’t so weird after all. She’s smart, funny and even a bit insightful.

Works Cited

Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form. (p. 304). Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought. (pp. 334-335). Long Grove, IL:

Waveland.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City,

NY: Doubleday.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-

Hill.

Littlejohn S. W. & Foss K. A. (2011). Theories of human communication. Long Grove,

IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Waters, Mark (2004). Mean Girls. United States: Paramount Pictures.