“Succession” has made its comeback for its fourth and final season, giving fans of the show a last chance to see the privileged Roy siblings trying hard to win over their media tycoon father by any means necessary. I’ve watched every episode, but at some point, I started questioning the allure of a series focused on a group of spoiled, deceitful brothers and sisters.
Drawing inspiration from the life of Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and themes from Shakespeare’s “King Lear,” “Succession” centers on an aging father who must decide which of his four children will succeed him as the leader of his empire. It’s easy to assume that the series’ charm lies in its satirical takes on right-wing media and the ultra-rich. However, I believe the show appeals to viewers who criticize the main characters while secretly resonating with their pursuit of power and indulgence.
In his book “Bobos in Paradise,” New York Times columnist David Brooks explores this idea, coining “bobo” to describe the blend of “bohemian” and “bourgeois.” In modern America, many upper-middle-class professionals aspire to be seen as virtuous artists while still seeking the financial success needed to move up the social ladder. To compensate for any guilt from their pursuit of wealth, they often showcase their virtue through their consumer choices, like buying eco-friendly cars or fair trade coffee.
Art also plays a part in representing status. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s book “Distinction” argues that wealth and art appreciation often go together, as affluent individuals can afford activities without practical purposes. In contrast, the working class must focus on essentials due to limited time and resources, leading them to avoid art forms that prioritize style over practicality.
Like other critically acclaimed premium cable shows, “Succession” targets middle-class and upper-middle-class audiences who can afford streaming subscriptions. HBO sets itself apart from TV networks and other streaming platforms by incorporating elements like nudity, violence, and profanity that are typically not allowed on network TV, alongside showcasing high production quality. “Succession” exudes gritty realism through its raw dialogue and behavior while displaying artistic elements like unique camera angles and vivid colors, reminding viewers of its fictional nature.
As I discuss in my book “Political Pathologies from The Sopranos to Succession,” this blend of reality and fiction positions prestige TV like “Succession” as both a reflection of the world and a stylized narrative. This approach allows viewers to feel connected to the show while distancing themselves from the characters’ extreme behaviors. Much like how upper-middle-class professionals might mask their materialism with virtue signaling, the show uses irony to acknowledge its mechanisms while catering to viewers’ hidden desires.
The series’ affluent audience might fantasize about venting at colleagues or indulging in opulent luxuries, but societal norms prevent them from doing so, leading them to experience these vicariously through media. “Succession” delivers contrasting messages: one advocating for freedom of action and expression, and the other rejecting selfish behaviors that disrupt social harmony.
Janet Malcolm, a late writer for the New Yorker, explored these contradictions in American culture. In her book “The Journalist and the Murderer,” she wrote, “Society mediates between the extremes of intolerably strict morality and dangerously anarchic permissiveness … Hypocrisy is the grease that keeps society functioning in an agreeable way, by allowing for human fallibility and reconciling the seemingly irreconcilable human needs for order and pleasure.” Humor and irony play pivotal roles in bridging the divide between societal order and personal gratification. Comedy empowers individuals to transgress boundaries while being shielded by humor’s façade.
In “Succession,” characters such as Tom often state something only to backtrack immediately. Throughout the series, he consistently menaces his junior colleague, Greg, before retracting and claiming he was joking—only to reiterate the threat. These contradictions are reflected in both the show’s characters and the broader liberal community over the past few decades of American politics.
An example is former U.S. president Bill Clinton’s “third way” political strategy, which involved advocating for Republican policies like welfare reform and financial deregulation as a Democratic leader. This approach aimed to balance conservative and liberal ideologies simultaneously. The Democratic Party evolved to represent upper-middle-class elites while maintaining a progressive image, whereas the Republican Party masked its focus on policies favoring the wealthy by ostensibly supporting the neglected white working class.
In both scenarios, cable news and fictional media have obscured class conflict under the guise of culture wars. In “Succession,” Waystar RoyCo, owned by Logan Roy, frequently incites culture war tensions. Logan claims to have influence over the president and the power to determine the country’s next leader, demonstrating that his power is derived more from media sway than financial assets.
Given the portrayal of media as a dominant political force in the show, I sometimes ponder what “Succession” conveys about its own standing as a popular TV program. Is the show asserting significant social influence, or does it employ humor and self-awareness to evade accountability?