The Sociology of Parasite: Reading post-Marxist social theories in Bong Joon Ho's masterpiece

At this point, Bong Joon Ho’s masterpiece Parasite (2019) has probably been analysed to death. There are videos on the internet talking about how the movie fits into his style of filmography, how it works on its own, how it blends genres and how it presents social critique in new and unique ways.

The latter point has definitely gained more attention than others. Even if you haven’t seen Parasite, you probably know that it’s about the conflict between social classes. The story illustrates the war between social classes, and shows how the system has been rigged so that one would always come out on top.

If you want a thorough analysis, especially one that contextualises it in Bong’s fascinating filmography, we recommend Just Write’s video on the films of Bong Joon Ho:

The key takeaway from that video is that Bong’s filmography presents different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints about class and society, especially pertaining to how individuals may deal with a system that is rigged against them. Snowpiercer (2014) is about escaping the system, Okja (2017) is about accepting and working with the system and The Host (2006) is tacitly about defeating the system through class consciousness. Even further back in his filmography – Memories of Murder (2003), Mother (2009) etc., Bong is more interested in showing the lives of those who are marginalised in the society, and less trying to present a solution.

In fact, he reminds us a lot of Spike Lee whose filmography seems to revolve around social themes, but doesn’t necessarily present singular voices. If Lee is a social activist, then Bong is a sociologist. While Lee’s voice feels loud and timely, Bong sounds more academic. He revels in presenting a variety of social theories that he seems to have learned back when he was a sociology student at Yonsei University. And since we are also obsessed with social science in films, we think we know what Bong is trying to say.

Snowpiercer (2014)

(Image credit: Wordpress.com)

Okja (2017)

(Image credit: Christian Science Monitor)

The Host (2006)

(Image credit: Vox)

Memories of Murder (2003)

(Image credit: No Film School)

Now, most people will quickly link Bong’s filmography to Marxism, and while that is true, Bong’s approach is notably more nuanced. For example, while Snowpiercer explicitly renders class conflict, it ends up subverting this point by showing that a revolution simply perpetuates the system. On the surface, it seems like a really cynical view, but Bong’s deeper message seems to be that to see outside the purview of the system would give us the greatest chance of escaping it. For a more detailed explanation, watch the video by Nerdwriter:

So, what is Snowpiercer about? In literal terms, it is about a post-apocalyptic world where the entire population has been fitted into a single train. Since this train is divided into sections representing different social classes, we have quite an obvious representation of Marx’s theory of class struggle. The poor rise up against the rich. But the subversion at the end tells us that this pattern of a group of people rising up against the top, will only perpetuate the system.

Now, we can talk endlessly about Snowpiercer, but we only bring it up to illustrate that Parasite is not the first of his film that has an incredibly nuanced take on Marxism and social stratification. To compare, while Snowpiercer looks at the evolution of a social system – presenting a society at the threshold of change – Parasite is a study of how the capitalist society functions.

And again, not the first time Bong has done this. Okja is an excellent critique of a capitalist society. But that movie is concerned less with social classes and more with capitalism as an ideology. Parasite sets out to examine and deconstructs how social class manifests and perpetuates. Of all Bong’s films, it is the most sociological because it aims to explain how society functions.

Part I: Do Classes Exist?

While we think Bong is criticising the rigid portrayal of class in Marx’s work, it doesn’t mean he’s denying the existence of class. For Bong, class does exist, but it exists in a form of spectrum. There are references to poor people having a certain smell – something that the poor character does not notice and cannot remove. The differences between the two families cannot be better emphasised. Bong uses cinematic language to distinguish the Park, Kim and Moon family from each other. The geography of the scenes emphasises this: with the rich family living up on the top and poor family living down below.

However, from the very beginning, the lines dividing the classes are constantly breached. In this society, a poor kid can infiltrate a rich person’s house and a poor family can hide underground and steal food from the rich. But this is where the film does something interesting. Think about movies about scammers, those who cheat their ways to becoming rich, how do these characters celebrate their success? They usually count money, perhaps have one of those scenes where they have expensive parties or splurge on fabulous items.

Parasite doesn’t do that. The culmination of the family’s successful scam is presented as them just chilling in the Park’s house.

(Image credit: International Business Times)

This writing choice is probably more deliberate than what we realise. It emphasises the idea that in a capitalist system, the underprivileged don’t necessarily want to be rich. They just want to be part of that rich world. Note the fact that when Ki Woo (the son) speaks about the possibility of marrying into the rich family, the rest of the family takes it as a given that they will soon have to work for the son’s wife.

In this ontology of class, the rich occupy the comfortable part and the poor are excluded. And when we look at it this way, the dichotomy of rich and poor – which Marx calls Bourgeois and Proletarians – is thoroughly deconstructed. While Marx draws a line based on ownership of production, material factors, incomes, Bong’s portrayal of class focuses instead on who’s included and excluded from the system. And since infiltration can happen, the line between the classes is blurred.

Part II: The System

We use the word system here, because it’s unclear what Bong is pointing to. He certainly makes very little reference to questions of income and material wealth. The only time we get a sense of the Kim’s family income was when they’re getting paid sweatshop salary by a pizza company. And we don’t really get any indication of the Park’s income or the Moon’s debt.

Instead Bong redirects our attention to the social and cultural expression of inequality. This means the places they live in, very strongly delineated in the film’s visual geography. The emphasis on smell can be seen as a metaphorical expression of certain social characteristics of the poor. While “rich” and “poor” are used as identities, other terms like “college kids” are also used – education is also an indication of one’s place in the society.

Therefore, the capitalist system differentiates people in ways that often go beyond their material wealth. This is why the movie is not about wealth redistribution. The capitalism in Parasites does not function to create distinct classes but to create a spectrum of differentiation that necessitates the exclusion of others.

What this means is that along this spectrum of classes in society, there are groups that perceive themselves to be on a certain stratum, and are conscious of those above and below them. The Kim family knows that they are not rich. This is illustrated in the pivotal scene where the inebriated family discusses the contrast between them and the Park. In one scene, Ms. Kim says that if she was rich, she could’ve been as nice as Ms. Park. And later she stays true to that by being very mean to the Moon family. But here’s the most interesting point: she also says that she’s not poor. Mrs. Kim is exhibiting a sort of dual identity: she is poor, compared to the Park, but rich compared to the Moons.

And therefore, the system as it is portrayed looks more like an elaborate game. A constant competition for people caught along the spectrum to become comparatively rich.

Part 3: Some actual Sociology

Pierre Bourdieu, a post-Marxist, French sociologist conceived a capitalist society as a game. The people in the game have access to various forms of capitals: material wealth, social/ cultural status (education etc.) and social networks. Like Bong, he looks at classical Marxism and thinks: that’s way too simple, things just aren’t that way in reality. In reality, people compete with different tools and resources to gain a spot in the system – to not be excluded.

Look at the Kim family, they clearly have no material wealth. So they utilise a slew of other resources to gain a sport in the bright, sunshine filled part of the system. First, Ki-woo benefits from social network: his friendship with Min Hyuk, a rich college friend who sets him up with a job at the Park’s family. Both he and Ki-Jung – the sister –adeptly perform cultural acts that allow them to impersonate sophisticated people. Everything from the use of English names, to Ki-Jung googling art therapy to the fact that they know how to design a card that includes convincing signifiers of exclusivity indicate that they can be as good as or even better than the materially wealthy Park at appearing to be sophisticated.

(Image credit: IndieWire)

And yet the game can be lost. The Kim family fell into misfortune in the second half of the film. Here, their lack of material wealth drags them down into the sewer… quite literally. Bong flirts a bit with classical Marxism here: this is where notions of class distinction and struggle becomes more concrete. The similarity between the Kims and the Moons is emphasised when it is revealed that the husbands of both families have had to close down their businesses. The shot of Kim Ki-taek – the father – reacting to this revelation indicates a sense of empathy that emerges. This small set-up might have paid off with Ki-taek’s final decision to kill Park Dong-ik, the Park’s father, rather than the Moon’s father. This is of course further reinforced by the fact that Dong-ik himself frequently reminds Ki-taek not to cross the line.

(Image credit: The Academy on Twitter)

Is the line the class distinction? Does the smell refer directly to Dong-ik’s existence? Can we attribute Ki-taek’s final kill in the film to a sudden awakening of class consciousness? These are left to our own interpretations.

Part 4: The Subjectivity of Class

In our opinion, we would answer no to the above questions. First, both the smell and the line have been invented by Dong-ik himself (it is also supported by the innocent son). The film makes it very clear that both of these things exist from the perspective of the Park family. The Kims could not figure out where the smell came from. When it is suggested that they do different rounds of laundry to differentiate their smells, the mother protests by saying it would be too much work. She has neither the time nor the resources to remove the stain of being poor. And later on it is revealed by the Parks themselves, engaging in what they thought was a private conversation, that the smell comes from the subway. This point is followed by a comment from the mother of the Park that it has been ages since she has taken the subway. Since Bong always uses vertical geography to show the spectrum of class, this line can be read as an emphasis on the distance between the rich and the poor. In other words, it is the Kims seemingly unchangeable position in the social order that gives them that smell.

(Image credit: Fandango)

But this position is only perceivable from the perspective of the rich. It is not noticeable to the Kims or the Moons. Smells in itself are arbitrary. It would only symbolise poverty as a result of cultural capital shared by a group of perceivers. Hence, class is perceived and thus subjective. Consider the moment when the Moons gain the upper-hand against the Kims. They mention how the Kims do not appreciate the work of the great architect who built that very house. Once again, this is a cultural capital that, to the Moons, elevates them from the Kims. Later on, Ki-Woo points out how natural and effortless everyone who attended the Park’s impromptu party is and looks. He then asks the Park’s daughter whether or not he “fits in” in this picturesque panorama. For Ki-woo, to be rich is to be able to act rich, which in other words merely meant being perceived as rich.

(Image credit: GQ)

Conclusion: The Parasites

Parasite portrays being rich as a perpetual performance, a maintenance of a certain façade. However, this façade often fails to hide the material inequality that lies beneath the surface. While the Kims put on a great performance, they cannot escape the downward pull of their lacking wealth. For Bong, capitalism is a game where one works to move up a spectrum of class, using various forms of capitals. And yet it is a game that fundamentally favours the materially wealthy.

(Image credit: Sky News)

(Image credit: Vulture)

The game, as varied as it is, seems to have been rigged from the start. In a fair game, all the capital and resources should be up for grabs. But here, it does not matter how much social or cultural capital one gains. The disparity of material wealth disadvantages those lower on the spectrum. One of the key points Bourdieu makes is that a fair game can emerge if education and social institutions can provide enough opportunities for the materially deficient so that they would have equal opportunities. Bong suggests that in certain capitalistic societies, the game cannot be fair because wealth disparity is too great to be levelled by social and cultural capital. One group is drawing too much of the resources for the game to ever be fair. This group corrupted the game, like parasites that corrupt the function of a human body. They pull resources and draw lines, create classes where class does not exist, turn those below them against each other, and render class conflicts eternal and unsolvable. In that sense, Parasite might be referring to the people above rather than below.