“The world was my oyster, but I used the wrong fork.”            Oscar Wilde

Wilde’s quote is employed often by anxious, class-conscious souls who take the aphorism earnestly to stress the importance of knowing and adhering to etiquette.¹ Wilde was anything but earnest, however, indulging in ambivalence both on and off the stage.² The quote is most probably a pithy observation, in hindsight, referring to his ultimate misfortune of paying the price for transgressing Victorian society rather than the table manners of the haut monde.³

Nevertheless, social class distinctions are supremely important to many individuals determined to deem themselves superior to others, and to those others who are beset with class insecurities when they are confronted with class aggressions.  Undoubtedly, for many scaling the ladder of status, the fear of falling is greater than the desire to climb.  Hence, in America, many folks describe only three social classes: the rich, the very, very large middle-class, and the very poor, as if it was not obvious the description of that stratification is far from accurate.⁴ For those so inclined to be insecure in their social position, or for those whose sense of self-worth demands class contempt toward others, every small class indicator can be observed and catalogued to provide a rubric of judgment.

Still, some Americans have apparently internalized class perceptions to such a degree they do not consciously recognize the signs when they encounter them.⁵ They believe we live in a classless society so are puzzled why they didn’t get that job or didn’t receive a promotion or are shunned at the cocktail party. After all, it is not as if the U.S. is like Europe or Asia, where in some nations class-consciousness is seeded into every child that sprouts in a rooted position in a specific section of the garden. America was supposed to have moved away from obvious old-word class aggression—and it did.  American class became subtler.

How class can be indicated and communicated in a culture convinced it is not divided by social class is significant.  In ancient days, of course, when information and travel was limited, perceptions of social class were confined to the immediate proximity of one’s life, and those perceptions were easier to maintain by those interested in doing so.  Today travel is much more common, and we are awash in information. We are so inundated with information, in fact, that narratives and messages move in and out of our consciousness quickly and continuously while we struggle to remember all the stimulation we experience in one day.  Psychologists explain this phenomenon by cognitive load theory.⁶ The theory suggests people can absorb only so much information before learning, and therefore memory is hampered.  After a day consuming media, from any technology, and going about one’s business, there is very little retained in a person’s memory except the things that made the greatest impression.  So, a woman goes to a movie, and she remembers the parts of the movie that she strongly likes or dislikes.  Eventually the movie fades from her memory but impressions remain—images, quotes, the actors, a relationship.  Those images are populated by symbols that indicate social class.

Umberto Eco observes in A Theory of Semiotics, “all aspects of culture can be studied as the contents of a semiotic activity,^7” which would include the memory of a film.  In his novel, Foucault’s Pendulum, Eco writes, “I believe that what we become depends on what our fathers teach us at odd moments, when they aren't trying to teach us. We are formed by little scraps of wisdom.⁸”

Those little scraps of information can be communicated in a subliminal way.  Consider the 1997 film, Titanic.⁹ Social class is a major theme of the film—although hardly subliminal.  The audience knows Jack and Rose love each other but are on opposite sides of the class divide.  Everything about the upper and lower parts of the deck suggest the separation, as well as the communities within them. The formal dinner requiring Jack to be dressed is contrasted with the rowdy party of the lower class, requiring Rose to drink and dance.  These main points, the romance and the setting are generally remembered. However, certain details about the costumes may not be remembered as easily, or the manners, the language, or power relationships between the minor characters.  Ironically, films like Titanic or The Great Gatsby may not be the best films to study social class because the narrative messages are so obvious. The heroes and villains are clearly demarcated. If an audience has a predisposition to love the rich or hate them, its perspective will be skewed by its biases. A biased audience may resist persuasion. In fact, studies have shown biases may be hardened if a person reacts negatively to an obvious persuasive message.¹⁰ A useful film to study for this purpose would have a narrative that resembles the magician’s art of misdirection.

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men¹¹ is an iconic courtroom drama set solely in a jury room.  The twelve men in the title are the sequestered jurors who have heard testimony from the prosecution and defense and must determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence. A unanimous guilty verdict means death for the young man charged with murdering his father.  Much has been written about the narrative structure of the film and what it says about justice.¹² It is considered one of the best courtroom dramas of all time.¹³ It has not been analyzed to any degree in terms of social class in such a setting in New York in the mid-fifties.

The narrative of 12 Angry Men is what Barthes would identify as mythology.¹⁴ Our preconceptions about American justice are wrapped into the suspenseful plot and visually reinforced in the symbol of the courtroom. However, all the film’s characters are a jury, supposedly, of the defendant’s peers.  Rather than feature a judge, a symbol of power and privilege in the courtroom, who is seen only briefly at the beginning, the film focuses on average white Americans, from many walks of life, determining if they will condemn a man to die. Not so obviously, the film serves as a vehicle for middle-class values, a way to reinforce the status quo by appealing to an audience’s desire to see justice done.  The jurors represent the bourgeoisie, a symbol of democracy in their number, but a potentially monolithic symbol of death should they find unanimity. My research question is: how is social class portrayed and why is it significant in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men?

Social Class Aggression

Many class studies, particularly those using a Marxist lens, focus primarily on race and gender.¹⁵ These studies are undoubtedly useful and integral to understanding power abuses in the United States. Obviously, economic inequality and the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and working class preoccupy Marxists. Social class indicators, or symbols— defined as behaviors, beliefs, gestures, manners, habits, style, dress, possessions, education, occupation wealth and taste, designed to identify specific qualities within a designated (dilapidated to gated) community— would be characteristic of economic, race and gender differences.  Social class symbols transcend those differences, however, primarily by the fact that anyone can imitate them.  In any given community, the symbols may indicate different things or have subtle variations, and may change over time, but so long as aggressor and victim agree on the symbol’s meaning and relevance to their lives, the violence can occur, if participants are willing to play “the game,” as it was described by Jean Renoir.¹⁶

Use of the word, “violence,” may be problematic, because social class aggression, usually only involving words or attitudes, hardly rise to the level of outright oppression of one class over another.  Nevertheless, a snub, an unkind word or an attitude exhibited in the service of social class aggression could be defined as the equivalent of a weapon used in the class war struggle.  Also, because of the nature of class aggression, such attacks may occur within the same class, or even within families who are coping with class insecurities brought about by class aggression.  Picture the neighborhood snob, for example, who feels the need to express superiority over others of the same race, gender, or economic status. This pretentious man does not just decide what he prefers and leaves it at that; he must also denigrate others for their tastes.  He has no other way to differentiate himself from his peers other than an arbitrary declaration of superior taste at the expense of his friend’s preferences.  The pretention, clearly, masks an insecurity that he is actually not the equal of his peers in other ways. Foucault said “power is everywhere.”¹⁷ Social class aggression is merely one form of the power dynamic that exists between all people, from global snubs to the backyard barbecue.  Indeed, it can move from the bottom up.  If someone exhibiting a higher class is invited to the barbecue, she may be the target of pointed barbs from her envious hostess.

As a power tactic it has been quite effective and lucrative to promote class insecurity.  Scores of businesses and websites offering manners tutorials for job applicants or aspiring social climbers tout the advantage of knowing the proper way to behave, assuming apparently, that everyone knows the secrets the insecure applicant doesn’t know.¹⁸After all, there are no tutorials for how employers should behave should they interview an upper-class job applicant.  On a related note, many “authorities” claim to know what is tasteful and what is vulgar, when in reality, the message is really only a marketing ploy.¹⁹

Make no mistake, as ludicrous as the emphasis on such behavior may seem, many people take the slights and social gaffes very seriously.  After all, one could be on top of the world and then use the wrong fork.  A lifetime of simmering bitterness can ensue if one is not accepted into Harvard because one did not display the proper etiquette at a soiree hosted by an alumnus.

12 Angry Men

 

Social class symbols change over time.  What was once considered a faux pas might not be considered so today.  The fifties’ manners and dress were more formal.  The country continued to place highest authority in WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) values. “Old Money was superior to New Money, because those born into their wealth had been groomed to have perfect manners. The sons of the American aristocracy were sent off to Wall Street, the Foreign Service, and the Senate.”²⁰ To some, those considered “new money” today could very easily have a reality television show and live on a gaudy estate with gold toilets and be considered “classy.”

In many ways 12 Angry Men provides a perfect setting for observing class representation. Class is easily focused upon in such a manner because of the single space— an influence of its theatrical origins.  The film was originally a 1954 teleplay, written by Reginald Rose, who subsequently adapted it into a play, and then into the film.  It has since been produced by many others over the years with numerous variations, including one with a multicultural jury²¹ and others with a multi-racial or all-female cast.  There is no evidence Rose intended the play to be anything more than a simple representation of his time. He occasionally makes overt comments about racism through his characters, but narratively there is nothing obviously alluding to social class that makes the issue a primary theme.  The film is quite representative of the psychologically-driven genres that were pervasive in the fifties, featuring a climax of tragic self-realizations and pathos. A Streetcar Named Desire or Suddenly, Last Summer, both of which were written by Tennessee Williams, set a psychological contextual standard in fifties films, which were also many times about sexual repression.²² The 1957 version of 12 Angry Men has no sexual tension, nor even women.  There exist only the various motivations that brought these men to this place at this time.  The jury selection process implies a randomness to the men’s fortunes; however, as the story progresses it becomes clear each actor is bringing a specific action to the setting.

Burke’s Dramatistic Pentad²³ is useful for describing the symbolic action in the film to observe representations of social class.  In this particular context it is somewhat literal in terms of dramatism.  Dramatistic theory assumes language is a characteristic of action rather than merely definition. So employing Burke’s agency/setting ratio is particularly descriptive in analyzing the relationship of the jury room and the language, gestures and characterizations of the actors.  Not employing the obvious—the actor— might be surprising, but is nonetheless problematic because of the nature of what the actor, the “agent,” represents.

There are several levels to the Burkean agent’s identity as represented by the actor.  The character is first created by the author, who provides a description of each juror’s personality.  The author also creates language in the plot that further defines the character.  The director of the film and the costume designer add their interpretations to the character.  The actor chosen for the part then creates an interpretation of his character that is both individual to the character and in conformity to the play as a whole.  These aspects will be discussed in greater detail below, but each will be integral to subsequent agency within the setting.  Every detail will be a symbolic action that moves the plot to its denouement.  It is important to point out here, however, that each contribution to the agent, while identifying character, is also making specific selections, which implies deflection.  Every person contributing to the character has a terministic screen that shapes a choice.  Part of the screen may be conscious or unconscious in terms of social class. Nevertheless, recalling Barthes, the final mythology of the film represents the collective agreement about the context of class, which, in turn, perpetuates middle-class values that existed in American society at that time.

The setting of 12 Angry Men is at once expansive and claustrophobic.  Life or death is the ultimate destination of the action, proceeding from twelve separate sources.  Yet the setting is a single room just large enough to provide space for the twelve men crowded by a large table.  As such it is a single room near the courtroom, an isolated space for the sequestered men.  Yet the men view the massive buildings of New York City through the several windows.  As they deliberate they frequently look upon the city.  They are ordinary men tasked with an extraordinary decision and the setting provides a visual symbol of that dichotomy.  They are individuals, yet they are society.  The archetypal symbol of justice hangs invisibly in the balance, and is overtly apparent throughout the story, represented by the steady movement of weight from one side of the scale to the other.  Ideals of fairness and balance, truth and personal responsibility are implicit in the symbol of the jury room where American justice plays out.  Not insignificantly, the symbol of American justice represents an additional aspect of equality.  No man is above the law.  All are equal—defendants and juries—until a decision is made to determine guilt. This setting gathers representatives of many walks of life and social classes, who must convene to pass judgment.  This particular judgmental act is the highest role that can be assigned to an individual. It is the power of God. In Christian terms judgment is to be expected once more after we die—to be measured by the supreme deity who will determine our eternal fate.  So in all these ways, the jury room, although inauspicious, carries the metaphysical weight of the ages in its small square space.

It is not comfortable—far from it.  It is a New York Summer.  The heat is unbearable and the single fan appears to be broken.  It is the afternoon and the lights are not turned on so it is vaguely unilluminated.  The film is black and white so the grey scale is decidedly toward a darker contrast.  As the jurors grapple with their consciences, their bodies are grappling with the heat from both nature’s temperature and the tempers of their colleagues.  The setting is insufferable, intolerable, a symbol of the struggle for life; here in these conditions, in this place, death is contemplated.  Making matters worse for eleven of the twelve men, one man holds out to argue for the defendant’s consideration as the others wish only to exit the room as quickly as possible.  In this extreme situation, the ideals of American justice are weighed against the comfort of the jurors.  Such a stark contrast of motivations reveals an all too human tendency to shirk responsibility after being given god-like power.  Eleven of these men do not appreciate the gravity of being executioners, considering only their superficial immediate needs and prejudices.

In this version of 12 Angry Men there are no women and all the men are white. Both absences are significant. The fact that no women are present in this version of the film would seem to indicate a fifties cultural assumption that women would not have a substantive place if not primary role in the enactment of justice. Of course, the blind symbol of justice, Themis, the Roman goddess of justice and law, would have been pervasive in that decade. Nevertheless, women were not even allowed on New York state juries until 1937, and in Mississippi, not until 1968.²⁴ Consequently, the idea that women should even be allowed to serve on juries was not necessarily a given position at that time. The fact that women are absent from the setting gives us a narrative depiction of a patriarchy at odds with itself, a focus on a masculine power struggle. This film reflects a specific dynamic inherent in any group of men— that of hierarchy.  The hierarchy shifts, as the power shifts, as the film progresses.  Therefore, from a masculine perspective, social class structure would dictate to an extent the credibility of a character’s position and how he wields his power in the process of persuasion.  A working class character might be blustery and loud or even a bully, or an upper class person could be effete and superficial, but ultimately, the upper class person would hold some leverage over the working class, which is evident in 12 Angry Men.  This phenomenon is more visible in an all male cast. Interestingly, some traits misogynistic men attributed to women in that era—fickleness, superficiality, a lack of intelligence—are some characterizations given to the men in the film.

However, the film has been redone, even in other cultures, and parodied quite often.  Performances by casts of women, of different races, and non-gendered representations have been produced in most circumstances with altered dialogue to represent a character’s change.²⁵ If even only one character in the original was a woman, the dynamic would change dramatically.  The behavior of the men in the fifties would be more restrained or even polite in the presence of a woman, as was generally the manner of the time.  Furthermore, it is very possible the language and gestures toward the woman might be more condescending by some of the male characters, considering it was rare to have women on juries in those days. As will be explained below, the actors would bring that awareness to the production.

While no minorities are present on the jury, a young, presumably Hispanic man is the defendant being judged by the twelve “angry” white men. He is shown only once and briefly at the beginning of the film as the jurors exit the courtroom.  The man’s race is not explicitly stated but one of the jurors repeatedly uses racist epithets to describe him and to justify his vote for the man’s conviction.  The defendant is not “white,” however, so it is clear the author intended to make a statement about racism, resulting in the racist juror’s shaming in the jury room.  By not showing the young man again, yet reminding us constantly of his presence intellectually, and in the sometimes cavalier way some jurors imagine his fate, the film encourages the audience to objectify the experience of a potentially fatal judgment.

It is also important to note that the whiteness of the jury infers a normality of such.  “The experiences and communication patterns of whites are taken as the norm from which Others are marked.²⁶” Nakayama and Krizek describe the “invisibility” of a concept of whiteness among groups of white people.  Although these men understand that racism is unacceptable, they do not recognize the privileged position in which they exist in to actually be able to judge another.  In terms of social class, the audience is encouraged to regard the defendant as someone who is “out there,” but not immediately present in one’s experience, an “other” upon whom we are imposing judgment.  Indeed, we the audience, are the 12 Angry Men with our individual foibles, faults, prejudices, imperfections, pettiness, and yet noble aspirations.  We are in this setting, as well as the actors, living through the character’s arguments, observing justice at work.  We are also, by experiencing the simple presence of an all white cast, encouraged to accept its normality.

The scene upon which agency is played out is more complex than is intimated by a small room with twelve chairs.  It is a mythic setting and yet it is quite ordinary, absent of women and minorities. In essence it is macroscopic, representing all the aforementioned symbols, and microscopic, in terms of how the dynamics play out in minute detail between individual characters.

Turning to Burke’s agency, it is important to note in this circumstance that agency, or action, is not distinctly separated from the agent.  Agency, specifically representing social class, will be described below; but as mentioned previously, the complexity of each character must be observed to understand the specific actions the characters perform in the interest of plot.  I have included an addendum which illustrates the author’s character descriptions.  However, the addition of other influences further refines the individual characters.

I do not believe the actual actors playing the roles are important to their agency; but certainly the choices they make as actors are extremely important to the characters.  Therefore, it is not necessary to compare the protagonist, Henry Fonda, with the last remaining antagonist, Lee J. Cobb, in terms of their relative charisma.  Both are fine actors and do exceptional work in the film.  Although a casting director and director will determine who plays whom, and that can be largely based on charisma, a good actor will transcend that part of the process and create a character based on his research and method.  Therefore, in terms of the Burkean agent, that aspect is irrelevant.  The actor’s agency, his creation of the character and subsequent action in the film is foundational to his contribution to the depiction of the courtroom drama, and also to his depiction of character class.

“The Method,” an acting style prevalent in the fifties and most famously practiced by actors such as Marlon Brando and James Dean, is being employed by most actors in 12 Angry Men, although not necessarily by all the actors.  However, in working to create a cohesive environment, the actors adjust their performances accordingly.  That psychologically-based acting style was pervasive at that time in film, and would have influenced the other actors not officially trained in the process.  Furthermore, 12 Angry Men is written in a style that requires The Method.  Mentioned earlier, Tennessee Williams, was also connected to The Actors Studio’s playwriting program, the premiere Method school at that time.²⁷

The actors, as professionals, received their training in various ways. Four actors received their training directly from Method teachers or had worked with the founders of The Method in The Group Theatre. Five began their careers directly from college or following their service in the military after WWII.  One was an immigrant and two had already had long careers in the Hollywood studio system.  The latter included Henry Fonda who had been a leading man for several years before joining the military himself during the war.²⁸

The Method was the descendent, through Lee Strasberg, of the Stanislavsky school of acting, famous for using psychological methods to create a more realistic character.  The three primary teachers were Strasberg, Sanford Meisner and Stella Adler, who had worked together in The Group Theatre circa 1931, “with its self-defined mission to reconnect theater to the world of ideas and actions, staged plays that confronted social and moral issues.^29”

Of particular importance to this study is the Method’s emphasis on creating more realistic characters for performances. Before Stanislavsky, actors would stand on a stage reciting lines in stylistic poses, evidently not making an attempt to embody the character they were portraying; but rather, they assumed the audience would understand superficially the type of character the actor was representing.  For example, if the character was “a king,” the actor would wear a crown and robe and “act like a king,” or a pauper would “act like a pauper.” Actors before the Method “acted,” never seeming to dig that deeply into a character’s life.  The audience may have loved Clark Gable as Rhett Butler, but Gable never stopped being Gable, the Hollywood star. The Method acting style drew from the actor’s memory of life, from observations of others, and physical exercises intended to make the actor’s body conform to the psychological decisions prompted by the character.  Strasberg would even have the actors create an entire backstory for their characters that culminated at the point the character entered the stage.³⁰ Consequently, the actors would have imagined a character’s psychology and gestures in great detail in preparing for the performance. That being said, as a Burkean agent, the actor’s agency would have been fine-tuned in the character that operates within the scene.

So, the actor would have remembered and observed real life social class indicators, would have incorporated those memories and observations into the character, which would then be seen by an audience, who would return to real life after the performance with their impressions of social class either confirmed or challenged.  However, at no time would class indicators necessarily need to be verbalized or even be understood overtly, as many people have internalized social class expectations. The actor or director could suggest a given character might be “more believable” if certain gestures or attitudes were adopted by the actor. “Believable” is a term of the Method.  If actors are going to be “believable” as something, they had to be realistic.  Acting realistically is subject to the person’s social class experience in life, which could be based on real life or on previous films. In any event, social class indicators could be reinforced unconsciously in the life to film to life dynamic inherent in art.  Furthermore, the costumer, with the director’s final approval, would also have a significant contribution to a character’s portrayal of social class.  Actors have often said they feel a role more viscerally once they don the character’s proverbial “skin.”³¹

Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital and its physical manifestation of habitus are of importance to the determination of what precisely constitutes the observance of social class in a given situation. Bourdieu defines three kinds of cultural capital: embodied (which includes how one speaks), institutionalized and objectified.  Cultural capital is a form of capital that can be socially inherited (to the manor born) or obtained in a learning situation, such as life experience or school.  In essence, embodied cultural capital is acquired by social observation—that is, how one observes the members of one’s own class, or a class one is hoping to emulate by their ways of doing and ways of thinking.³² Included in these observations are ways of “acting” within a social situation—the gestures, the language, skills, dispositions, and the proper attire.  These characteristics are defined by Bordieu as “habitus,” which is obtained by mimesis.³³ This phenomenon can also be partially understood in terms of Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which evolved from his social learning theory.³⁴ We essentially learn to behave by observing and imitating others.  So, to reiterate, when the actors of 12 Angry Men display an agency— when they act— they are simultaneously reflecting social class and, in turn, recreating it for the audience.  Consequently, bourgeois values, as defined by Barthes, are communicated to the audience and are subsequently mythologized in society, which influences actors who are observing society.

One can see from the above description how in contemporary times, the loop of communication of social class makes it more difficult to determine specific sources for social class behavior. As mentioned above, before mass media, indications of social class hierarchy could be explained by proximity to actual environments defined by a class structure.  Now, the ubiquitous availability of media has muddied the source of perceptions of social class, but nevertheless reinforce the respective values.  Hence Americans may deny the existence of social class in the United States, yet may exhibit indicators of a social class in their style or judgment.³⁵

What follows is a breakdown of the twelve jurors in terms of what is actually represented on screen.  In the addendum is a character description provided by the writer, Reginald Rose.  There are more indications of character written into the script, however, lines may have been changed by the director or actors.  In fact, acting gestures are most certainly created by the latter.  It is interesting to see Rose’s judgment in his character descriptions compared to what is actually presented on screen.  It was important to Rose that the characters are described by juror positions only, indicating a desire on the writer’s part to emphasize the character’s role on the jury rather than their individual personalities, although those personalities become quite evident when observed.  This writing choice encourages the audience to think of the characters as “everyman” representatives of the audience.  Also, the description of the manners evident in the film are purely fifties-style observations.  They would not necessarily indicate social class descriptions of the 21^st century.  For example, each character wears a suit jacket or sport coat to the proceedings.  That sort of formality was to be expected in the fifties, but is not necessarily indicative of social class expectations today.

Descriptions of social class indicators have been taken from various sources, including advice for speaking, dressing, manners,³⁶ facial cues,³⁷ and posture.³⁸ Another source actually shows actors how to play status.³⁹

The Characters

The Foreman is a good example of the temporal change in style expectation.  We learn later in the film that he’s a coach at a local school.  He is quick to remove his jacket in the sweltering jury room.  He is wearing an athletic polo shirt and a tie.  That combination would have been considered much too casual and probably borderline inappropriate for a formal occasion.  However, he’s been given the role of foreman.  Rose describes him as “A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.”  In the film the foreman tries to be formal but his costume and demeanor betray his inexperience.  The actor does not give the impression the character is impressed with his authority as much as he is frustrated the other characters do not fully respect his authority.  This is due to the impression he gives as a young, lower middle-class man in the presence of men with greater experience and higher status.  Ultimately he is even-tempered and accommodating until his frustration to control the proceedings become unsuccessful.

Rose describes Juror 1 as a meek, hesitant man, and indeed, that is how the character is portrayed in the film.  It is revealed that he is a banker.  His suit is unassuming and functional.  His character is quick to change his mind several times depending on how he sees the arguments progress.  This is an indication of a man who has little power and wishes to adopt the power of the other men whom he perceives as gaining ground.  He is decidedly middle-class, not wishing to offend anyone, yet anxious to be in the majority.  His position in the bank would certainly be one of subservience to the upper management of the bank, who would keep him employed because he could be trusted to do what they demanded.  He is easily bullied and persuaded, positioning him at the bottom of the male hierarchy.

Juror 2’s nature is strikingly at odds with Juror 3.  Juror 3 is a powerful bully.  He will ultimately be the last holdout of the jury wanting the defendant to die.  He is extremely opinionated and stubborn and is frequently disrespectful to any juror who opposes him.  It is revealed near the end of the film that he is projecting his personal problems with his son onto the defendant.  However, his brutish manner, disrespect, unwillingness to consider reason and his tendency to be loud and angry would indicate a lower-class man who has no control and disregards the decorum of a situation.  He stalks the room in constant anger.  He is a businessman of some sort and wears a middle-class suit. He rather resembles a self-made man who started his own business and feels justified screaming at others and calling them names, particularly his employees, because of the simple fact that he pays them.  The bully behavior gives him supreme power at first, and that power gives him the opportunity to live in his own world unchallenged, but that world is destroyed in the end by the reveal of his psychological circumstances.

The richest man in the room is Juror 4.  As the heat prompts every juror eventually to remove his jacket, he waits until the last to do so.  His suit is obviously bespoke and the formality of the circumstance compels him to remain fully attired.  He is extremely rational and respects the authority of the case which has been given them.  He is never flustered, moves infrequently and uses little space with his posture.  He observes the other jurors with cool calculation and sometimes disdain.  Juror 3, the businessman, appreciates Juror 4’s support and defers to the man’s authority; in fact, he apologizes to him for his outbursts.  However, the man of means is clearly disgusted by Juror 3’s abrasive manner. The rich man is revealed to be a stock broker, a man who keeps a cool head under such pressure.  At one point a juror asks him if he ever sweats and Juror 4 says, “never.” Through much of the film Juror 4 has an ambiguous power because of his obvious wealth and restrained behavior but his general reticence. As it is revealed, however, that a witness could not have seen what she claimed to see, he breaks a sweat, and removes his coat, indicating his confidence in the case has become unsettled and his power in the male hierarchy is diminished.

A young man, Juror 5, is profoundly insecure about his place in the hierarchy of status, very cautious about speaking up and unsure of what his role should be on the jury.  He says he grew up in a very tough neighborhood, much like the defendant’s, and he demonstrates that he knows how a switchblade works. A man who rose from poverty, he now wears a decent suit and has learned to behave in middle-class society, reflecting the presumed inevitability of upward mobility of post-war white American society.  His background explains why he wants to fit in with the others but he is ashamed of his origin.

Rose describes Juror 6 as honest but dull-witted but the character in the film is best described as minimally educated.  He is a laborer, a house painter, who wants to do the right thing but depends on others to make the arguments so he can decide which one he appreciates.  He wears a white short-sleeved shirt under his jacket indicating a working-class style.  His manner is respectful and proud but he knows his place in the hierarchy.  He is near the bottom in terms of status, but he bears himself well.

Juror 7 is also loud and brash, unwilling to be performing the duty to which he has been assigned.  He wants everyone to agree to plead guilty so he can watch a baseball game.  His lack of appreciation for the gravity of the situation, his loud sport jacket and accompanying fashion— including a short-sleeved shirt and loud fedora he rarely removes— indicate a lower-class status.   His body posture is wide, taking up a lot of space when he sits and moves. He is revealed to be a salesman, probably not a successful one, and has the superficial behavior of a man who says what he needs to say to get what he wants.  He is easily distracted and cares only for himself.  He cares little about the facts and only changes his vote when he sees it is more expedient to do so.  He is clearly tolerated though not respected by the others.

Henry Fonda plays Juror 8 and it is significant that Fonda be singled out by name because his primary force comes from the fact that he is Henry Fonda.  His charisma far overpowers the others, which is important since he was the only man at first wanting to seek the truth.  His apparel is quite stylish, a tailored white suit appropriate for the season, that hangs off his thin frame.  He takes up little space with his posture, always speaks in an even, likeable voice and treats the others with respect.  He is an architect, the only professional character who apparently is the only American with wisdom to do the right thing.  He is the only man who perseveres and ultimately prevails doing the right thing.  He is quietly judgmental, or perhaps discriminating with the other’s behavior.  A telling scene occurs in the restroom while he’s washing his hands.   Juror 6 enters and discusses the situation with Fonda and Fonda asks him what he thinks.  The man responds by saying he is a working man and leaves the bigger questions to the folks in charge who have better ideas. Fonda expresses a look of disappointment as he exits.  Fonda appears to represent the ideal American, a character similar to the architect in Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead played by Gary Cooper in the film—who was in turn inspired by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright.  Each circumstance represents the American professional as the ideal individual, always uncompromising, who will always prevail because of their high standards.  In terms of class, there is no step higher in the American bourgeoisie.  By the end of the film, Fonda wins it all in terms of justice and class.

Interestingly, Juror 9 is an old man with very little power who nevertheless speaks up about doing the right thing.  He appears to represent an older generation that remembers what it meant to have values and was determined to uphold them.  As with any older generation that criticizes the new ones he offers a point of view criticizing the superficiality of the younger people, clearly represented by some of the other jurors.  Expectedly, his suit is of an older style, also light-colored for the summer.  He tends to be soft-spoken but firm in his support for Fonda.  As is true with many older people he is outside of the hierarchy and the other men respect it.  The bully, on the other hand, attacks him personally, resulting in admonishments from the others.

Juror 10 is a bigot.  He expresses racist views.  He owns a garage and is clearly lower- middle-class if not lower-class.  The constant hatred he expresses repulses the other jurors.  They all shun him physically at one point.  He might have had a place in the middle of the hierarchy in the beginning of the film, due to his blustery attitude, but he is clearly dropped to the very bottom by the end of the film.  The message is obvious.  The bigot is not acceptable in polite society.

The only recent immigrant is Juror 11.  He is a watchmaker from Europe.  Rose describes him as “ashamed, humble, almost subservient to the others.”  In the film, however, the actor plays him as proud and respectful to the others, a man of older, formal manners.  He wears suspenders under his jacket, an indication of the older European style.  He is a craftsman, so is also somewhat outside of the American class hierarchy.  He would eventually find his place after being an American.  His manners, ideas and newly-discovered patriotism indicate he would eventually become middle-class.

The advertising man is Juror 12.  This superficial, slickly attired man has little interest in the proceedings.  He wears a tailored black suit and exhibits a sophisticated, New York manner but he thinks of nothing but business.  In fact, he is so preoccupied with his profession he expresses most of his thoughts through the lens of advertising.  “Let’s run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it.”  He represents the new post-war urban American, consumed with achieving success and ready to embrace any new trend that comes along, regardless of its value.  The irony is that in his style and manner he would undoubtedly be considered representing a higher class in 21^st century terms, yet in the film he is disrespected, considered too superficial to be of value.  He is, however, oblivious.  Although Fonda wins in the film, advertising man should properly be described as the winner of America’s future.

To be clear, using these social class indicators to judge others is the negative behavior. The abuse of power, through social class aggression will always be the weapon of choice for those who are insecure about their own position.  Not playing “the game,” indeed, calling it out, is truly the best defense of self-worth anyone can maintain against such an invasive tactic.

In terms of Agency and Setting, the actors through their characters, present a slice of fifties class consciousness, which would ordinarily go unnoticed by an audience who views the film as a courtroom drama.  It is useful to study an older film, as well, because identical class insecurities from the fifties do not exist today, thereby avoiding the biases of contemporary scholars.

Endnotes

1. The Royal Butler, “The World Was My Oyster but I Used the Wrong Fork, #Manners,#Wit” The Royal Butler, Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@TheRoyalButler/the-world-was-my-oyster-but-i-used-the-wrong-fork-oscar-wilde-manners-wit-867d195655cd.

2. Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest, (London: Leonard Smithers and Co., 1898).

3. Nicholas Frankel, Oscar Wilde: The Unrepentant Years, (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2017).

4. Emmie Martin, “70% of Americans Consider Themselves Middle-Class. Only 50% Are.” CNBC, (June 30, 2017). Retrieved from: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/30/70-percent-of-americans-consider-themselves-middle-class-but-only-50-percent-are.html

5. Richard Reeves, “Classless America, Still?” Brookings Institute (August 27, 2014). Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/08/27/classless-america-still/.

6. Sweller, “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.” Cognitive Science. 12(2) (1998). 257-285.

7. Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1976), pp 3-31.

8. Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum. Weaver, William (trans.). (London: Secker & Warburg, 1989).

9. Jon Landau and James Cameron, Prod., James Cameron, Dir. Titanic, (Los Angeles: Paramount Pictures, 1997.)

10. Zachary Tormala and Richard Petty, “Resistance to Persuasion and Attitude Certainty: The Moderating Role of Elaboration”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Volume: 30 issue: 11, (Nov. 1, 2004), pp. 1446-1457.

11. Reginald Rose and Sidney Lumet, (Dir.) 12 Angry Men, (Los Angeles: Orion-Nova Productions, 1957).

12. Variety Staff, “12 Angry Men” Variety (1957). Retrieved from: https://variety.com/1956/film/reviews/12-angry-men-1200418382/

13. American Film Institute, “AFI’s 10 Top 10 Courtroom Drama (2008). Retrieved from: http://www.afi.com/10top10/category.aspx?cat=9

14. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Trans. Annette Lavers. (London: Paladin, 1972) ISBN0-374-52150-6.

15. Jean Ait Belkhir, "Marxism Without Apologies: Integrating Race, Gender, Class; A Working Class Approach." Race, Gender & Class8, no. 2 (2001): 142-71.

16. Claude Renoir, Prod., Jean Renoir, Dir., Writer, The Rules of the Game, (Nouvelle Edition Francaise, 1939).

17. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, Trans. Alan Sheridan (Great Britain: Vintage Books, 1975).

18. Dawn Rosenberg McKay, “A Concise Guide to the Job Interview,” The Balance Careers (November 4, 2018). Retrieved from: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-job-interview-525764.

19. Jenny Barchfield, “At Hermes, Exquisite Clothes for Men of Taste,” Associated Press, (January 22, 2011), Retrieved from: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700103038/At-Hermes-exquisite-clothes-for-men-of-taste.html.

20. Franklin Foer, “The Last WASP President,” The Atlantic, (December 2, 2018), Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/george-hw-bush-last-wasp-president/577156.

21. Reginald Rose, 12 Citizens, Trans. Xu Ang (China, 2015).

22. Paul Taylor, “Tennessee Williams: A Tormented Playwright Who Unzipped His Heart.” The Independent(2011). Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/tennessee-williams-a-tormented-playwright-who-unzipped-his-heart-2251954.html.

23. Kenneth Burke, Language as Symbolic Action (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966).

24. Holly J. McCammon, The U.S. Women's Jury Movements and Strategic Adaptation: A More Just Verdict, (New York City: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

25. Rose, 2015.

26. Thomas Nakayama and Robert Krizek, “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech,81(1995).

27. Lee Strasberg, A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. Ed. Evangeline Morphos (New York: Plume, 1988). ISBN 978-0-452-26198-3.

28. Henry Fonda, Fonda: My Life, (Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 1982). ISBN 0-453-00402-4.

29. Strassberg, (1988).

30. Ibid.

31. Bronwyn Cosgrave, The Complete History of Costume & Fashion : From Ancient Egypt to the Present Day(New York: Checkmark Books, 2000). ISBN0-8160-4574-7.

32. Pierre Bourdieu "The Forms of Capital" Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education(1986) pp. 46–58.

33. Lizardo, O. "The cognitive origins of Bourdieu's Habitus", Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 34, no. 4, (2004) pp. 375-448.

34. Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social Cognitive Theory. (1986) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

35. Nancy Isenberg White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America(2016) New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-312967-7

36. Diana Pemberton-Sikes, “Top Indicators of Your Social Class.” Fashion for Real Women. Retrieved from: https://fashionforrealwomen.com/blog/top-indicators-of-your-social-class/.

37. Thora Bjornsdottir and Nicholas Rule, “The Visibility of Social Class from Visual Cues,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4) (May, 2017),530-546.

38. William Cane, “Posture as a Class Marker,” Manhattan Makeovers, Retrieved from: http://manhattanmakeovers.com/posture-as-class-marker.

39. Stephen Langenberger, “Status: Signs of Body Language, for Improv., Theater and Stage,” Pantomime Popkultur, Retrieved from: https://www.pantomime-popkultur.de/2016/04/status-signs-of-body-language-for-improv-theater-and-stage/.

Addendum

Rose's original character descriptions

 

FOREMAN:
A small, petty man who is impressed with the authority he has and handles himself quite formally. Not overly bright, but dogged.

JUROR NO. 2:
A meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own. Easily swayed and usually adoptsthe opinion of the last person to whom he has spoken.

JUROR NO. 3:
A very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. He is a humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others.

JUROR NO. 4:
Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior of the others.

JUROR NO. 5:
A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously, but who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor.

JUROR NO. 6:
An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully. A man who finds it difficult to create positive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others whichappeal to him most.

JUROR NO. 7:
A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward.

JUROR NO. 8:
A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is.

JUROR NO. 9:
A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years.

JUROR NO.10:

An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.

JUROR NO. 11:

A refugee from Europe who has come to this country in 1941. A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people around him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has sufferedthrough so much injustice.

Juror NO. 12:

 A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages graphs, and polls and has no real understanding of people. He is superficial.