Hungry for Knowledge: Philosophizing in the Wilderness with Yellowjackets
The Showtime series Yellowjackets is an epistemological investigation of the unknown. What happens when our knowledge of the world reaches its bounds, and we no longer have ample experience to discern proper action? Survival in the world requires that we know “what the world is like” and can predict occurrences and outcomes in the world with some degree of accuracy. Yellowjackets examines how our beliefs about the world inform what we “know” about the world and the tension that arises when beliefs and evidence come into conflict.
In Book V of Plato’s Republic, he outlines a theory of knowledge in which he proposes three distinct states of “knowing.” Knowledge (episteme) is related to “what is,” ignorance (agnosia) is related to “what is not,” and opinion (doxa) contains both what is and what is not. Although it is possible for an opinion to be true, it is equally likely for it to be false, and Plato does not consider even true opinion to be an example of knowledge. In as much as it might be a steppingstone toward knowledge, it is not a very reliable one and it is not desirable that we should depend on opinion alone. In this sense, Yellowjackets’ Episode One nod to Plato is a thematic signpost for the entire series. Like any budding teenage philosopher, the show’s Misty Quigley (portrayed with a sharp-eyed glint and a joyful knife in the back by actresses Samantha Hanratty and Christina Ricci) knows that the best comeback to mean-spiriting teasing is some good old-fashioned philosophical name-dropping. “That’s just your opinion,” she tells her high-school tormenters, “and Plato says opinion is the wilderness between knowledge and ignorance.” Indeed, one of the primary concerns of the show is precisely this exploration of ignorance, knowledge, and of course, the wilderness.
In a separate Platonic dialogue, the Theaetetus, Plato proposes the following tentative definition of knowledge: knowledge is “justified true belief” (referred to by later philosophers as the JTB Theory of Knowledge). This just means that when I say, “I know” something is true, I both believe that it is true and I have reasons or evidence for my belief (i.e., justification). Opinion, for Plato, is akin to belief without good evidence. Even if opinion turns out to be true, Plato considers it far removed from knowledge. Knowledge is backed by a certain type of justification or evidence, whereas opinion is not. So, we might believe something, and that something might even end up being true, but if we do not have good justification for our belief, it is not knowledge. (1)
The key to making a knowledge claim, then, is justification. What counts as sufficient justification? The answer to this question leads philosophers into tricky territory (one in which there is little uniformity), but one thing seems clear: in most cases, justification is largely dependent on induction and induction (by definition) is dependent on past observation and experience. This means that knowledge of the world is based on observation of the world. The reason I say, “I know the sun will rise tomorrow,” is probably not because I understand how gravity interacts with the intricate mechanics and rotation of the earth within our solar system, rather it is because every day that I’ve been alive the sun has risen and every testimonial through recorded history also relates the rising of the sun. Much of what we call knowledge seems to work this way. The philosopher David Hume famously pointed out the problem with this picture of knowledge, which is known as the “problem of induction.” The problem of induction points to our dependence on observed past events to predict unobserved future events. The reason it is considered a “problem” is because we are making an inherent assumption that nature and time, are uniform and that the future will always resemble the past. But what evidence do we have that this is true? The only evidence we have is that it has always been true in the past but now we have begged the question by assuming the very thing we are trying to prove.
This is the philosophical atmosphere underpinning Yellowjackets. What happens when people find themselves in a world of unpredictability? Much of Season One is devoted to reversals: reversals of knowledge, reversals of social order, reversals of religion. The old order of civilization slowly falls away to make room for a new “state of nature.” For instance, the social pecking order of the girls is reversed, as Jackie, the former queen bee finds she has little to contribute to the survival of the group and is slowly ostracized. The “religion of civilization,” represented by Laura Lee’s commitment to Christianity, literally explodes and vanishes, making room for a new religion. The Yellowjackets girls find themselves in an epistemological wilderness and are asked to build a new body of knowledge, one that will allow them to survive and navigate this new world. She who finds a way to accurately predict events and further the group’s chances of survival will earn the right to be coronated as the new queen in this post-crash wilderness world. Once the past falls away, the only way forward is to forge new ways of being and surviving in the world. New ways of knowing the world seem to offer the only chance of survival. But this involves an inherent paradox, because how can we possess knowledge of that which we don’t know?
The philosopher William James (1842–1910) provides a way to approach the concept of acquiring knowledge in the face of the unknown. He proposes that we should view “the truth” as that which helps us successfully navigate the world while accommodating what we are able to verify regarding “how the world works.” To put it simply, if we have no way of being certain of a concept or belief, we can confirm its truth by applying it and seeing if it works. Beliefs are true if they allow us to make accurate predictions about the world. Knowledge is simply what works in practice. This theory of knowledge proposed by William James is known as “pragmaticism.” Beliefs become knowledge if they allow us to make accurate predictions about the world. Knowledge is simply what works in practice. This means that when we find ourselves in foreign and unpredictable situations, we need to perform an action in that environment and see what happens. In this sense “the truth” is not something decided upon once and for all, but rather it is contingent on other factors. It is “action and experience dependent.”
Out of all the characters in Yellowjackets, Lottie (played with creepy, soft-spoken sincerity by Courtney Eaton) appears to have the greatest continuity between her experience of the world pre-crash and post-crash. We come to find that, as a child, she experienced premonitions of the future events and furthermore, these premonitions transpired. Part of the cleverness of the show’s writing, is that we are never certain if Lottie’s premonitions indicate true foreknowledge or if they can be explained by coincidence coupled with psychological inclination toward belief. What we do know, however, is that Lottie experiences her premonitions as real. This belief in her own ability helps her navigate the post-crash wilderness and begins to serve as a beacon for others. Lottie’s belief provides a basis for her internal knowledge of the world, and she seems able to apply this knowledge to do things like hunt for game and avoid dangers. Belief applied productively in the world with positive results is confirmation of knowledge, at least until a better explanation becomes available. This is pragmatism in action.
Lottie seems to be participating in a non-physical reality of some kind. She has visions which are psychological and spiritual in nature. In Varieties of Religious Experience William James writes specifically about experiences of “spiritual enlightenment.” He observes that these hyper-intense and uniquely subjective experiences are completely authoritative for those experiencing them, though they need not provide any authority for an observer or onlooker. He argues that these spiritual encounters are experienced as special states of knowledge for the person concerned and are often life-transforming. Sometimes these authentic first-person experiences become legitimized and codified externally by non-experiencers and this “special knowledge” is then passed from one person to the next. (2)
The literal meaning of the word “supernatural” is “beyond nature.” Something that appears to occur beyond the ordinary course of events is said to be, “supernatural.” Yellowjackets investigates what it means for someone to have these kinds of experiences. What is going on in the consciousness of someone who experiences a “supernatural” event? One reason why it is so difficult to say whether or not a “truth” is objectively real is because the observer can never observe the “thing in itself” outside of the subjective act of observation. If I have a thought, I don’t experience the idea in its pure form, but only within the subjectivity of my own consciousness. In this sense, both a “supernatural experience” and a “natural experience” are perceived within the confines of my own consciousness and are likely to feel similar. I can’t exit my own brain and jump into the brain of another to confirm my impressions. The study of what happens to my consciousness when I perceive thoughts, sensations, ideas, etc. is called “phenomenology.” So, the “phenomenology of religion,” investigates what it feels like when an individual encounters religious concepts, rituals, people, etc. Similarly, the “phenomenology of the supernatural” explores what it feels like from the inside to encounter something that appears to be beyond the physical norms of nature. In both cases, I can only know what my own experience is, without appeal to an outside judge. After all, even if this outside judge existed, she could only speak to me via my subjective experience of being spoken to and so on.
So, when Lottie begins having visions of imminent dangers, and furthermore, when these dangers actually come to pass, her fellow survivors are apt to believe in the veracity of Lottie’s visions until proven otherwise. Her visions assume the status of actionable knowledge. When lacking definitive knowledge, it is understandable that one might accept the system that allows for the most successful navigation of the world, at least until a better explanation or navigational system comes along. When Taissa (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown whose confident performance suggests that, in most circumstances, her character is the born leader of the group) organizes an expedition that ends in disaster, her knowledge fails the pragmatist’s test. When Laura Lee (played with convincing evangelic fervor by new-comer Jane Widdop) blows up in an airplane, her knowledge REALLY fails the pragmatist’s test. It’s not that anyone can now be certain that Lottie alone possesses the truth, but they do know that in the current circumstances her truth claims seem to be yielding productive and actionable results. Until the Yellowjackets girls are afforded more knowledge, the productive truth wins. Lottie’s system might go the way of Ptolemy, but until then, her claims stand.
Yellowjackets is taking care to remain agnostic on the question of whether anything supernatural is actually occurring within the universe of the show, but one thing is clear: the concept of truth is more permeable than we might suppose. Inasmuch as knowledge is gauged by how convincingly it solves practical problems in the world, she who survives and flourishes in the wilderness is philosopher queen (and probably even antler queen, too).
(1) Like most of Plato’s dialogues there is no single argument being defended in the Theaetetus, but rather various arguments are forwarded and ultimately none are accepted completely. The Theaetetus is one of several dialogues preoccupied with epistemological discourse and in almost all cases, Plato is more interested in examining the strengths and weaknesses of multiple theories as opposed to maintaining allegiance to one. For this reason, most claims to “Plato’s theory of knowledge” are incomplete, at best.
(2) In his Gifford Lectures, delivered in 1901–1902, William James makes a larger assertion that all religions are born via the direct transcendent experience of a single individual who is so transformed that others are inclined to believe in the veracity of her experience. The ideas in these lectures were later incorporated into, James’ opus, The Varieties of Religious Experience, a work which is equal parts psychology, philosophy, and religious studies.
