The Rhetorical Drugs of Breaking Bad

Breaking Bad, scene from episode 507 "Say My Name"

I am splitting this clip from last week’s episode of Breaking Bad at 3:30. My discussion of this scene, and vaguely the series, will cover the dialogue between Walt White and his competitor/potential distribution partner Declan from a Sophist perspective as well as an analysis of Walt’s alias ‘Heisenberg’ as logos.

According to Gorgias, “The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies” (Encomium 46). Ironically, my subject of choice is the dialogue between two men who deal with methamphetamine, the infamous cook Heisenberg/Walt and the distributor Declan. Drugs modify the body in some way, particularly when it is inflicted with some sort of problem. There are a variety of reasons one would use meth, but those are not my concern. In this dialogue, Declan is comparable to an inflicted body, Walt to the drug. Declan’s infliction is exploited by Walt: distribution of a lower quality product than can be made; Walt can modify Declan’s business: supply of the highest quality product on the market. Obviously, Declan’s reason to use Walt solves a problem.

But is Walt selflessly selling himself?

Of course, Walt is not concerned with Declan’s problem. The cook has his own issues to solve. Walt realizes that he needs Declan to continue cooking, to further his empire... and he also realizes that Declan needs Walt for the same reason. Perhaps it is better to say Walt is not concerned with Delcan’s problem insofar as he can use it to his advantage.

Poulakos explains, “the rhetor is asking the audience to discover at least one reason why the conclusion suggested should not be the case. Should they fail, they ought to adopt what he says; should they succeed, they have grounds on which to reject what he advocates” (46). Walt’s speech follows this to a T. He begins blatantly by stating he needs distribution. He is rejected immediately but proceeds to focus on Declan’s needs, suiting the conclusion for his own problem to fit the distributor. Walt asserts the faults in Declan’s product, playing with to dynaton. He pushes actuality onto Declan, then tells “[him] what [he] could be, brings out in [him] futuristic versions of [himself], and sets before [him] both goals and the direction which lead to those goals” (Poulakos 43). This occurs when Walt states, “you already ate my product at every turn, but now you have the opportunity to sell it yourself” (“Talked”). Returning to the drug/speech analogy, Walt as the rhetor is the drug and Declan as the audience is the body... Walt identifies the infliction, the problematic actuality within Declan’s business and his product... then suggests a solution, the exclusive opportunity to sell the ultimate product in the near future.

Moving on to the second portion of the above video, Walt uses ‘Heisenberg’ as the final driving force in his and Declan’s dialogue. Walt associated himself with the name Heisenberg since the first season of the show, and its meaning has come a long way from ridiculous to respect, or even fear, since then. But what is ‘Heisenberg’ if not logos? Gorgias states, “logos arises from external things impinging upon us, that is, from perceptible things . . . logos is not evocative of the external, but the external becomes the revealer of logos” (On the 46). According to Gorgias, ‘Heisenberg’ is not something external, but rather, an evoker of external things. For example, for meth consumers, the DEA, the Mexican cartel, or other meth distributors in the world of Breaking Bad, the blue stuff would evoke ‘Heisenberg’. To each, ‘Heisenberg’ is inapprehensible because it is something both same and different to each along the same lines of dualism in The Dissoi Logoi. I would go so far as argue that ‘Heisenberg’ isn’t even a person, but instead, the collection of externals and actions that have come to be associated with the alias. ‘Heisenberg’ does not exist but is evocative of existents.

In conclusion, Walt White is successful, in this particular circumstance, because of his grasp of a sophistic rhetoric... one which understands the situational power to exploit possibility against actuality and logos. However, this is just a four minute sample from a longer episode from an even longer series, and Walt/Heisenberg is far from the perfect rhetor. Even in this episode, Walt falters under others’ logical speech and even his own irrationality. 

Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. The Rhetorical Tradition, 2nd Ed. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 44-6.

---. On the Nonexistent or on Nature. The Older Sophists. Ed. Rosamond Kent Sprague. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. 42-49.

Poulakos, John. “Toward a Sophistic Definition of Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 16.1 (1983): 35-48.

“Talked About Scenes Episode 507 Breaking Bad: Say My Name.” Breaking Bad. AMC. Web. 3 September 2012.