Raylan Learns to Restrain Himself
NATHAN VERBAAN AND ADAM BARKMAN
“But I was justified” is one of the last lines US Marshal Raylan utters at the end of the first episode of TV’s Justified. However, his actions are continually questioned by many characters, including Boyd Crowder, Art Mullen, Arlo Givens, Tim Gutterson, and Rachel Brooks. Each of these characters looks past some of Raylan’s actions because he gets the job done, but they have also criticized Raylan about those same actions.
There comes a point when each of these characters accuses Raylan of lacking self-restraint. Though they may not know it, they make this charge primarily from Aristotle’s perspective of what someone lacking self-restraint looks like. As time goes on these accusations do begin to affect Raylan, and he starts to become a more self-restrained person, but it is a long and painful road before he finally gets there.
This is the mindset that the characters of Justified have when confronting Raylan concerning his actions and decisions. They challenge him and accuse him from this basis. Some are more subtle, others more direct, but in either case this is the starting point of their confrontation with Raylan.
Art Mullen
Chief Deputy US Marshal Art Mullen is always getting on Raylan’s case—not only for Raylan’s actions in Miami, but his actions in Harlan as well. Art continually lectures Raylan about what he can and cannot do, to which Raylan seldom listens.
He voices his frustrations almost every episode to Raylan, who mostly ignores him. Eventually Art has had enough and lets Raylan know how he is feeling about Raylan’s actions and attitudes. In “Debts and Accounts” Art lays into Raylan telling him:
I’m stuck with a man who’s a lousy marshal, but a good lawman. You are who you are, nothing I say has ever made any difference, no punishment that I can dream up will ever change you. Kinda makes me sad, believe it or not, because I thought at one point that maybe someday you and I could look back on all this and laugh, but shit, I don’t think you’re going to live that long. You just go on and do what you do and I’ll just keep cleaning up after you, and sooner or later this problem’s gonna solve itself.
Art is talking to Raylan about his lack of self-restraint. A person with some form of self-restraint would abide by their calculations. Their calculations would take into account the opinions of others, especially the orders of their boss, but Raylan does neither. Art is saying that Raylan does not abide by his calculation as he does not listen to others. He does not value their opinions or their input. Art also makes the point that this will eventually kill Raylan, which it might. In later seasons Raylan’s life does indeed come crashing down on him because of his prior decisions, not to mention the many near-death experiences along the way.
Art does disagree with Aristotle in that he does not believe Raylan is in any way curable. He reveals this belief in the episode “Truth and Consequences” while reprimanding Rachel because she put herself into a dangerous situation. Rachel complains that Raylan puts himself into worse situations all of the time and he does not get reprimanded. Art responds, “Oh he’s a lost cause; we still have hope for you.” Art does not think that Raylan will ever gain self-restraint. He believes Raylan will continually be how he is and never change, whereas Aristotle says that the person lacking self-restraint is curable, if they feel remorse and Raylan, as we shall, does show some remorse.
Arlo Givens
Arlo Givens, Raylan’s father, is not impressed with his son. Not because he lacks control, but because he became marshal and did not follow in his footsteps. He believes that he and Raylan have quite a lot in common. After all, although their ends may be different, their means are similar. He makes no secret that he does not care for his son, at one point choosing Boyd over Raylan and shooting him because of it, or so he thinks he did.
In a confrontation between Bo Crowder and Arlo Givens, the two are talking about the current state of their sons and how far removed they are. Each one thinks the other’s son is worse off. Neither of them denies that their sons are loose cannons, but Bo claims that he does have Boyd under control whereas Arlo does not have any control over Raylan. Arlo doesn’t deny this (“Veterans”).
Arlo first confronts Raylan on his lack of self-restraint when he sees Raylan for the first time in the episode “The Lord of War and Thunder.” Arlo has heard about the shooting in Miami and thinks himself a more controlled man than Raylan. He begins to compare the two of them, albeit against Raylan’s wishes. He culminates in saying, “In all the shit I’ve pulled I’ve never shot anyone—not a one.” Arlo is pointing out that he has more control over his actions than Raylan does. He’s showing Raylan that Raylan isn’t using his knowledge and reason wisely. Arlo uses himself as an example to show how things can get done without firing a shot. He’s accusing Raylan of not using the knowledge within him before acting, not thinking of another way to go about a situation.
This harkens to an Aristotelian point of view: that “those lacking self-restraint must be said to be in a state similar to [someone who is] mad, asleep, or drunk.” The idea is that these people will primarily act without thinking, doing things rashly and without forethought. Arlo believes he knows what he’s doing and remains in control because he thinks before he acts, whereas Raylan just acts, usually not taking much time to think. Arlo’s telling Raylan that it’s necessary to think before acting, and if he had done so in Miami, Raylan would be in a very different situation than he is right now.
Tim Gutterson and Rachel Brooks
U.S. Deputy Marshals Tim Gutterson and Rachel Brooks are always on Raylan’s case to get his act together. While they are primarily concerned with their own jobs and cases, they do cross paths frequently with Raylan. Although these two rarely challenge Raylan explicitly, their demeanor towards him speaks when they do not.
There are many points throughout the series where both Tim and Rachel will roll their eyes, or turn away from Raylan, visibly showing their detestation of his actions. This detestation eventually leads Rachel to take a stand. It’s more of a passing remark than a direct accusation but her point still holds true. When discussing a case with Raylan in “Long in the Tooth,” Rachel remarks that Raylan is “a tall, good-looking white man with a shitload of swagger that can get away with just about anything”—her point being that Raylan could do what he wants, in this case wearing a cowboy hat, and get away with it. Although the cowboy hat is not a major infraction, the point she brings forth is that because of who Raylan is, he can do things that most people would not be allowed to, and these things have few or no consequences for him.
There are occasions where Raylan does have to face consequences, such as giving up his gun and badge, getting suspended, and being forced to take time off. Without fail, Tim, Rachel, or both will be there to make their points. Tim and Rachel’s presence primarily reminds the audience that what Raylan does is not strictly permissible, no matter what his results. A “lack of self-restraint is not only to be avoided but is also blameworthy,” as Aristotle puts it. Raylan is at fault for what he does, and is culpable for his actions. Tim and Rachel try to remind him of this at every possible chance they get—normally when Raylan is being punished, but it happens on other occasions as well.
Unfortunately Tim and Rachel do tend to let Raylan get away with his actions. They let things slide that they would not let others get away with. They repeatedly help him on cases from which he is suspended. Rachel even admits that she “can deal with” his aloofness. It’s annoying, but she can “let it slide” because Raylan “gets the job done” and is “easy on the eyes.” They let him do things, or get out of doing things, simply because he’s good at what he does.
Aristotle would probably hold Tim and Rachel equally culpable to Raylan because they are allowing him to continue in his ways. By allowing him to remain lacking in self-restraint, it is as if they are lacking in self-restraint themselves, and thus, are morally blameworthy as well.
Boyd Crowder
We might think that Boyd’s not the most likely candidate to criticize Raylan for his lack of self-restraint. After all, in the first episode Boyd kills a man and blows up a church. As we would expect, it’s during Boyd’s brief conversion to Christianity in prison that his criticism of Raylan’s lifestyle begins to appear. While in prison Boyd gives not so subtle hints that Raylan’s lifestyle is not a very controlled or righteous one. Boyd asks Raylan to “think about his immortal soul,” considering he’s a violent man and has “left a trail of dead” behind him (“The Collection”).
While going through his brief conversion experience, Boyd’s accusations and concerns for Raylan are primarily spiritual. He’s more concerned with Raylan’s past actions than his future ones. Boyd’s first big accusation to Raylan comes when Raylan is wondering if one of the Crowder boys ordered a hit against Ava Crowder. Amidst Raylan’s frequent interruptions, Boyd begins to dig into Raylan’s relationship with Ava and his past. He discusses how hard it must have been for Raylan to see his mother getting beaten by his father, and how that could have been the motivation for Raylan getting his badge. In “Blind Spot” his accusation is that he thinks that what Raylan “might be unaware of, is just how powerful such a motivation can be. Powerful enough to cloud your vision and cloud your judgement.” Taking note of what Boyd is doing, Raylan tries to push Boyd past this to get the information he came for regarding the shooting that took place the night before.
Boyd accuses Raylan of acting out of passion rather than reason. He believes Raylan is so bent on finding out who took the shot at Ava that he did not even stop to think. His will to protect Ava, which could be stemming from his past, is blinding him from the truth. This point is very similar to that of Arlo, in that Both Boyd and Arlo say that Raylan is forgoing reason. This is very big sign of a lack of self-restraint for Aristotle.
Boyd continues to talk to Raylan in similar ways for both the duration of his conversion and after he gives up his faith. In one argument between Boyd and Raylan, Boyd turns what Raylan says back against him. Boyd asks Raylan, “What do you tell yourself at night when you lay your head down, that allows you to wake up in the morning pretending that you are not the bad guy?” What is interesting is that Raylan is silent, completely contrary to his usual personality. He offers no response to Boyd (“Ghosts”).
In essence, Boyd has just said that Raylan is no different from him, and Boyd does not deny that he lacks self-restraint. This brings to the forefront something that Raylan has denied and ignored for the entire series up until this point—that he does indeed lack self-restraint. Although he has been challenged in this respect, he has never been completely called out. So when Boyd does call him out, he has no response, because he knows it’s true. Boyd forces Raylan into a corner in which his only response is to admit that he lacks self-restraint, thus, Raylan does not respond. Boyd reveals that Raylan—importantly—recognizes that he lacks self-restraint, and has only avoided admitting such until now.
Aristotle points out that the “lack of self-restraint does not escape the notice of those lacking self-restraint.” Boyd reveals that Raylan does know that he lacks self-restraint, and has pushed Raylan to the point where he must admit that he does know this.
Raylan Givens
Main characters in the series are constantly challenging Raylan from an Aristotelian perspective. They do so for good reason; he fits the description quite well. While there are many aspects of a person lacking self-restraint, not all are necessary. In addition to those brought up by the characters, Raylan fits three more qualities of a person lacking self-restraint as discussed by Aristotle.
Firstly, the person must act on account of passion. This is evident when Raylan sleeps with Ava, even though she is in the witness protection program and he is specifically told by Art not to get involved with her. Raylan is acting on account of passion and not thinking clearly about what this means for him, her, and the witness protection program. His actions end up destroying the case he has against Boyd Crowder, and Boyd ends up walking free.
Secondly, Raylan is a person who sees a pleasure coming towards him, and does not try to stand against it. This is most evident when Raylan sees his remarried ex-wife, Winona, take off her wedding ring, and he proceeds to make love to her. As soon as her wedding ring came off he saw this pleasure coming, but he did not stand against it even though he knew what he was doing was wrong. He acted out passion even though he knew he was cheating on his current girlfriend and committing adultery with his ex-wife (“Fathers and Sons”).
Lastly, Raylan feels regret. There are many situations where Raylan regrets his actions in the line of duty. After Rachel has shot Flex, a drug runner associated with her brother-in-law, Raylan assures Rachel that she did what had to be done. He also asks if she is having second thoughts; she says no, but Raylan says she will (“For Blood or Money”). He’s speaking from personal experience, showing that he does feel regret for doing the things he does in the line of duty.
The most evident sign of regret takes place outside of his work, when Raylan calls Winona after their first encounter to talk in “The Moonshine War.” Before long they make love once again, and Raylan’s immediate reaction is regret. Winona even comments on how Raylan is regretting what they just did.
All of this regret in Raylan’s life means only one thing for Aristotle: Raylan is curable. Contrary to what Art and other characters may think, Raylan is not permanently set in his ways.
Is Raylan Justified?
Aristotle makes a point of discussing the just nature of an individual lacking self-restraint. He says that a person who lacks self-restraint is not an unjust person, but they will commit injustices. Most, if not all of the requirements for an individual to be viewed as lacking self-restraint by Aristotle result in an injustice. Granted, where lacking self-restraint in regards to money may not directly be an injustice, but it can easily lead to an injustice. Raylan clearly thinks he is justified in his actions, especially if he kills someone because they pulled first. Aristotle would say such actions are on account of passion, and thus show a lack of self-restraint.
Raylan normally forces the people he wishes to kill to pull first. In doing so Raylan claims he is justified. In other words, Raylan knows that what he is doing is unjust, he cannot kill a man for the reasons that he has, even though he believes it may be right thing to do. In order to satisfy his own conscience he forces the others to pull first, in his eyes, doing so justifies his actions.
Unselfrestrained by Habit, or by Nature?
Aristotle makes a distinction between habit and nature. If a person lacks self-restraint by habit, they are all the more curable; if by nature, it’s more difficult to change.
Raylan lacks self-restraint habitually, not naturally. The distinction is that there are some situations in which we expects Raylan to act in an unselfrestrained manner, and he does not. If it was natural that he lacked self-restraint than he would always act as we would expect him to. An example of this is when Raylan is sitting in the limo with Nick Augustine and doesn’t kill him. Rather, he asks Nick to turn himself in, granted he does so in a threatening manner, but he does not kill Nick. This is one example of the many that occur throughout the series. As time goes by Raylan is becoming more and more self-restrained. He is doing things, or rather, not doing things that he would do if he lacked self-restraint to the same extent that he did at the start of the series. This change and growth is possible only because he lacks self-restraint by habit rather than by nature.
Nick Augustine also comments on how Raylan is not lacking self-restraint by nature. In the same scene mentioned before he says that Raylan needs him to pull first so Raylan can have a reason to kill him. Raylan does reply that he already has a reason, namely, Nick has threatened his family. Nick responds to Raylan saying “I take one look at you and I know that you’re not the kind of guy that just executes me, it’s not who you are” (“Ghosts”). He is saying that although Raylan does lack self-restraint, it’s not a defining characteristic of him, it’s not part of his nature. Rather it is only by habit that Raylan acts the way he does.
From an Aristotelian perspective Raylan does indeed lack self-restraint, but he is not unjust or wicked, nor does he lack self-restraint by nature. Rather he commits injustices by habit. He thinks about the things he has done and it haunts him. The title of Season Four’s “Ghosts” reflects this. Raylan is haunted by his past and the decisions he has made. The longer he continues in his unselfrestrained ways, the longer the list of decisions that haunt him will grow.
Aristotelian Self-Restraint
Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 B.C.E., gave a philosophical theory of self-restraint. He believes that a self-restrained person is someone who sticks with the results of their own calculation—a person who follows reason. Someone lacking self-restraint gives up their reason in order to fulfil their desires. This is not to say that people are giving up reason whenever they eat or make love, but that sometimes these appetites need to be kept in check.
Aristotle compares someone lacking self-restraint to someone who is asleep, drunk, or mad. The individual has knowledge, but doesn’t fully use the knowledge they have. The person knows what they should do, but they disregard or temporarily forget what that knowledge requires them to do. It may not be intentional, in fact it usually isn’t, but in the moment of excitement a person loses contact with the relevant knowledge.
An individual lacking self-restraint will see a pleasure coming before him, and will not try to avoid it. Simply giving in to a pleasure without even trying to leave it be and move on shows a lack of self-restraint. Once again, this does not mean a person enjoying a pleasure is necessarily lacking self-restraint—rather, it’s the indulgence of this pleasure when they can see that they should not be indulging in it.
The most important aspect of a person lacking self-restraint is that the individual knows that they lack self-restraint. Thus they feel regret, and while they may commit injustices, they are not unjust. As long as the individual feels regret, it shows that they are curable. Lacking self-restraint is not necessarily permanent but it requires practice and work to develop self-restraint.
For Aristotle, the fact that someone lacking self-restraint is curable helps us to understand why the person is not to be considered unjust even though they may commit injustices. If they are curable, then they are not making a permanent choice. They have not chosen to be unjust; they are merely acting on account of passion and forgetting knowledge and reason in the moment. When the person does not feel any regret, they are choosing to act against knowledge and reason, rather than forgetting it. It is the aspect of choice that determines the justified nature of the individual.
Aristotle would agree that acting in self defense by gunning someone down would be justified, but Raylan’s method of forcing such a situation is not justified. It’s a perversion of justice, because Raylan is bending justice to his own will, even though he is doing so in pursuit of what he believes to be right. Aristotle thinks that a person who is lacking self-restraint may not be wicked, when the motivation for his choice is decent. Raylan is not acting for pure selfish gain—he does what he does because he believes it is the right thing to do. As a result of that, he is not wicked, but only half wicked as Aristotle describes it.
Raylan-Restraint
Raylan Givens exhibits many of the aspects of the Aristotelian viewpoint of someone who lacks self-restraint. Many of the characters in the series have picked up on this and have challenged him. From giving in to passions to giving up reason he is the complete package.
However, Raylan is curable. When he feels regret, it shows that he cannot fully justify his actions, although he may try. The realization that he can’t justify all of his actions is coming to Raylan. When that realization does fully develop, he can change his ways and become a self-restrained man. This can already be seen as aspects of self-restraint are starting to develop in his life. He feels regret more often, chooses not to get involved with women he certainly could, and feels that he needs to settle down in order to raise his child. Other characters have had a huge impact on his life in the short amount of time they have known him, but that time was well spent. As Raylan continues in his career and social life, if others continue to challenge him, it may not be long before his self-restraint develops even further.