Des pratiques d'humiliation - Commentary on The Ethics of Kingmaking

Commentary on:

The Ethics of Kingmaking (Alexis Morin-Martel and Gabriel Monette) - 2026

The article[1] opens on Jim, Pam, and Dwight.

As such, this article is a case of scientific research respectfully piggybacking on a masterpiece, though assuming the cultural reference is evident to the reader, since the crux of the show, i.e. Pam & Jim’s love for each other, is only given to the reader as a hint on page 5 of the 16-page long article, under section “3. Partiality in board games”.

The Office was a TV show developed in the United Kingdom by a group of British artists who joined forces with British industry. In its origins, the triad Jim-Pam-Dwight was called Tim-Dawn-Gareth. From inception, the triad Tim-Dawn-Gareth radiated with British humour, starting with character and plot writing. For instance, reading the description of the character Gareth as published on the website of the BBC, is enough to trigger laughter and curiosity, that is, the drive of a comedy:

“Before becoming office manager, Gareth was very proud to be 'Team Leader'. His self-importance knew no bounds and was only inflated further by his active service in the Territorial Army. He also has an incredibly unsophisticated approach to wooing women. Gareth is extremely possessive of his stapler and desk space. His considerable naivety allows others, in particular Tim, to make him the butt of endless put-downs and practical jokes. His devotion to duty was repaid with a promotion when boss David Brent was made redundant. He acclimatised to his new position of authority very easily.”

British humour ranked among the most exquisite forms of art coming out of a national culture, as humour could be understood by an English speaker upon the turn of the first quarter of the first century of the third millennium in Common Era.

In its infancy, the masterpiece reached quantifiable and demonstrable, therefore undeniable, popular success. However, the TV show did not reach the rank of undisputable worldwide cultural success until British humour and British industry hit the heart of American artists and the industry tagging along artists with the flair and the dedication of the American industry.

The American cultural industry had been able to blend artistic genius, such as the genius coming out of the writing room of a show and the genius incarnated by the puppets at which the camera shot to record the 14 episodes of The Office UK (2001-2003) and 201 episodes of The Office USA (2005-2013). Some of the artists who came up with the jokes and the scenarios also incarnated the puppets facing the cameras, such as B. J. Novak and Mindy Kaling. The majority of the folks incarnating the puppets at which the cameras were shot, whose faces the world would end up remembering, for generations to come, or so everyone hoped, that is, a dream seemingly possible thanks to the flair and dedication of the industry (production & distribution), did not come from the writing room, such as John Krasinski[2], Jenna Fischer and Rainn Wilson.

“It is much, much, much easier to make people cry than to make them laugh.”

Ainsi parlait my theater teacher when I was in Lycée. She said it so many times, it’s like engrained in my head, my heart, and my soul. Therefore, by writing that this article made me cry, more than once, I hope not to offend anyone, authors, reviewers, and publishers alike, as I am simply reporting on my feelings, which arose from the impression I got going through the article, from its abstract to its last sentence, given my past experience and current circumstances.

The sentences are well crafted. The references are thorough. For all this, I am forever indebted towards those who made it possible for me to access these writings, for free, as well as a bibliography, partially freely accessible, and have the opportunity to share my rambling thoughts firsthand with both authors.

Since the article anchors kingmaking in the dystopian yet funny world of The Office, Made in USA, one cannot enter the reasoning without bringing to the table the baggage of mistreatments running free in the workplace.

Gareth-Dwight is the epitome of what is wrong with contemporary workplaces. While we seem to be waking up and getting rid of some David-Michael figures of incompetent leadership, the kick-down, kiss-uppers (as coined by Professor Henry Mintzberg) run freely and continue to get the promotion and the good ears of senior management, board members, and the flock of folks whose job is to ensure and enforce sound governance practices in organizations, including workplaces, but who will invariably drink the Kool-Aid of all the Gareth-Dwight and David-Michael of this world, who, in real life, are not funny, but who, in real life, call upon sportsmanship to justify bullying.

“If deterrence remains strictly game-related, free from animosity toward players as individuals, it doesn’t seem particularly objectionable.” (p. 8)

“Imagine that Sophie is a sore winner. She is notoriously good at board games—much better at it than at making friends—and is on her way to win yet again. Suppose that another player decides to kingmake in the name of the common good: everyone but Sophie would prefer avoiding another humiliating victory parade. Is kingmaking justified in this case? Well, yes and no. There is a sense in which what Sophie’s attitude really calls for is having a good, honest (and potentially uncomfortable) talk with her. It might even warrant not inviting her to the next game if she cannot help herself, but kingmaking doesn’t initially seem like the best way to handle the situation” (p. 13)

Now, imagine that everyone playing with Sophie is a bunch of incompetent Dwights and decadent Michaels. Now, imagine that Sophie isn’t a sore winner, on the contrary, she’s always concerned not to insult anyone in her process of playing the game. She doesn’t play dirty. She doesn’t parade like a turkey. Sophie is simply way more talented than the flock of Dwights and Michaels who desperately want to play with her only to be the one who will bring her down, only to fail, yet again, despite their concerted efforts from p.8, when they shot at her all together their riches, authorities, network, and the entirety of their assets, yet Sophie, without Pam’s contentious winks, without Jim’s loving gaze and reliable allegiance, simply ended up winning a game with sore losers.

You can be certain that sportsmanship and kingmaking in the name of common good will be waved as ultimate arguments by the Gareths-Dwights of this world, every time one of the man-made rules they consider sacred has been infringed upon by an Alice in Wonderland, a Jim in Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, or a Sophie dancing her “humiliating victory parade”.

***

To go further, as in "one step left, two steps right", same comment, but as poetry.

Sarah Catherine Megas, pour l'audace.