I am a huge fan of the movie, Citizen Kane, and incredibly excited that I can tie it into my rants on media ethics. This cinematic masterpiece created in the 1940’s dissects the destructive forces of unchecked power, individualism, and egocentrism and looking at our current landscape remains relevant today. As a practicing Dusselite/ Dusselarian, I view the film not merely as a portrait of one man’s rise and fall but as a cautionary tale about the perils of coloniality, domination and excess.

Charles Foster Kane is driven by a relentless hunger for control and self-aggrandizement, who represents the antithesis of Dussel’s ethics of liberation. Where Kane exploits relationships and resources for his gain, Dussel’s vision demands a commitment to the underserved, a focus on relationality, and the centering of the oppressed in our moral frameworks. From this lens, the film becomes not just a critique of its titular character, but a call for radical solidarity and the dismantling of systems that prioritize individual power over communal well-being. That was definitely a mouthful, but since it is my blog, enjoy.

Kane, I believe, is a tragic hero, and his rise and fall as a media mogul mirrors the principles and pitfalls of contractarianism. Thomas Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature, where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, resonates with Kane’s unrelenting quest for power in a world without explicit moral contracts governing his behavior. Kane, unchecked by societal expectations or reciprocal obligations, embodies the chaos of unregulated freedom—a life driven by ego rather than mutual benefit that we can see today in oligarchs like Musk, Murdoch and Malone. 

Kane’s acquisition of his newspaper empire, much like the ‘Three M’s’ above, could be seen as entering implicit contracts with his readership. Kane, like Elon Musk,  seemingly offers a mutually beneficial agreement offering readers the chance to gain truth and justice through his publication, while he gains influence. Yet, as his ambition grows, Kane prioritizes personal agendas over public trust, breaking the implicit social contract. This mirrors the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the evolution of Twitter to X, where like Elon, Kane pivots to maximize personal gain, eroding the collective benefits of cooperation and trust and changing the feel of his enterprise..

A key moment of moral breakdown occurs when Kane’s manipulation of the media distorts public perception for his personal political ambitions, doesn’t this sound like the present? Here, contractarianism falters; the implicit agreement that media should serve societal truth is violated. This is akin to Hobbes’ idea that the collapse of shared agreements leads to chaos and distrust, in the movie this is shown by Kane’s ultimate isolation and today’s public’s disillusionment with the media altogether. I am definitely going to scream if podcasts continue to lead the masses.

Interestingly, Kane’s life also illustrates the flexibility of contractarianism, allowing for changing moral contracts as society evolves the same as we see today. Kane fights adapting to the shifting norms by using his power to bend contracts to his will, canceling fairness. Much the way our politicians do, Kane forms his campaign promises to reflect social contracts designed to garner public support, but his failure to fulfill them highlights the dangers of one-sided agreements in a contractarian system. Today we blame Trump, Manchin or some other bogeyman while I find it a product of greed through capitalism. 

Much like the theories of my hero Enrique Dussel, we can find similarities to connect to our previous discussions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s utilitarianism. Diametrically opposed to Kane’s character, Ginsburg prioritized long-term societal benefits over immediate personal gain, fostering equity through fair contracts in many of her rulings and giving voice to those without. Kane’s story underscores the importance of reciprocal obligations for sustaining trust, possibly a lesson CNN’s John Malone should heed in today’s sordid landscape. 

This movie serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of violating ethical relationships and disregarding the interconnectedness of humanity. Charles Foster Kane’s unchecked ambition and self-centered worldview embody the oppressive systems of domination that Enrique Dussel critiques, where the Other is exploited or ignored. Kane’s failure to engage in ethical, reciprocal relationships leads to alienation and destruction, reflecting the chaos that arises when systems prioritize ego and power over solidarity and mutual responsibility. As a reminder, Dussel’s ethics of liberation call for a commitment to relationality and justice, emphasizing that true harmony emerges when individuals and systems honor the dignity and well-being of all, particularly the marginalized.