A Pedagogical Exploration of Horror as a Teaching Tool for Ethics Using the Case of Saw IV

Abstract

AbstractOur case study of Saw IV examines the possibility of using horror as a genre, a vehicle for teaching ethics, and its use in street-level bureaucrat (SLB) decision-making. Specifically, this film highlights the inherent violence of the police state, which illuminates the limits of ethical decision-making in constrained contexts. We propose using horror as a film genre to teach students about the complexity of personal, interpersonal, and professional ethics, bureaucratic discretion, and the impact of these decisions in real-world situations. We provide a brief analysis of the film through the lens of ethical dilemmas in a violent police state and the impact of this violence on governance. We conclude with recommendations for using Saw IV and horror more broadly as pedagogical tools in public administration and political science education.Keywords: Horror filmspedagogydemocratic theorybureaucratic ethics Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Maynard-Moody and Musheno define agency roughly as the ability to integrate an understanding of law and procedure with “cultural and moral preferences.”2 Here, we see Rigg aiding and abetting Jigsaw’s game by allowing the continuation of terror to proceed in the community; not saying that Rigg (played by a black actor) is a white supremacist. Instead, we believe Hoffman, who is explicitly corrupt, might be more explicitly a white supremacist and may be motivated to continue the games of Jigsaw to facilitate his nefarious ends in the community.3 Jigsaw’s backstory as a civil engineer and toymaker is explained in earlier films in the series. Jigsaw (real name John Kramer) was married to a woman (Jill) who ran a drug-user recovery clinic. As a married couple, they tried very hard to have a child, and John’s (Jigsaw) flashback scenes provide insight into his care towards his wife and their community. Jigsaw is also revealed to be suffering from cancer and an inoperable tumor. These complications lead to marital strife, eventually leading to divorce. While married, his wife is assaulted by one of the clinic users, leading to a miscarriage of their carefully planned son. In his view, testing a victim’s will to live (and survive tests of physical torture) became his credo due to the course treatment of his wife and child and the powerlessness he felt from his cancer diagnosis.