According to Warshow, narrative and the ritual approach in the gangster film serve to relieve tension caused by contradictions in American society.  The approach Warshow uses is incomplete, however.  He makes an unfounded assumption, relies too heavily on structuralism and fails to mention Freud specifically although he does obliquely refer to his ideas.
     In order to understand contradictions, narrative and the ritual approach in relation to “The Gangster as Tragic Hero,” one must first comprehend these terms and how they pertain to the article.  Contradiction involves a conflict or opposition between two ideas.  More interestingly, these “two incongruous impulses are productively interdependent and interactive” (Wood 180-181).  This means one cannot have a concept without experiencing the opposite of that concept.  The strength of a longing therefore relies on the intensity of its diametrical experience.  Warshow mentions several contradictions in “The Gangster as Tragic Hero."  First, he asserts the necessity of the “cheerful view of life” in American society, while allowing that most people are not so happy all the time (Warshow 127).  The government forces individuals to act enthusiastic in order to preserve the political veneer of American politics.  Indeed, “at a time when the normal condition of the citizen is a state of anxiety, euphoria spreads over our culture like the broad smile of an idiot” (Warshow 128).  In other words, American citizens experience a contradiction in how society expects them to act (happy) versus how they really feel (anxious).  Another contradiction mentioned in “The Gangster as Tragic Hero” is that of our conception of the gangster and his actions.  Warshow states “[the gangster] is what we want to be and what we are afraid we may become” (Warshow 131).  He is the ultimate success, as he does what he wants with no concern for others.  People detest failure and desire success, or as Warshow says, “failure is a kind of death and success is evil and dangerous” because it is “unlawful” (Warshow 133).  Individuals are afraid of achievement for it represents the demise of society.  Therefore, both failure and success lead to punishment, hence the basic human conflict addressed in the gangster film is the discord between society and the individual.
     Narrative, another important aspect of “The Ganster as Tragic Hero,” resolves contradictions.  It is a rubric of standardization that orders the world, how we make sense of it, and how we fit into it.  Its main function is to symbolically reconcile irreconcilable tensions and create a world view.  In “The Gangster as Tragic Hero,” Warshow uses narrative to mitigate the aforementioned conflict between the individual and society.  He argues that when films represent conflicts, the conflicts are “likely to be disguised or attenuated” (Warshow 129).  The disputes are therefore resolved symbolically (through the medium of a film) and so the film is an example of the use of narrative.   Warshow argues that one way in which the gangster film resolves conflicts is through discord between the plot of the gangster film and its “tacked-on ending”.  This is a symbolic representation of the conflict between society and the individual.  The individual can succeed only so long before society, in the form of the obviously un-intended ending, intervenes and restores order.  Indeed, Warshow believes “the effect of the gangster film is to embody this dilemma in the person of the gangster and resolve it by his death” (Warshow 133).  The use of narrative in the gangster film is essential to the movie’s success.
     Narrative belongs to a more general theory of communication known as the ritual view.  This approach sees communication as a “social glue”.  Both narrative and the ritual view strive to acclimate the individual to their role in society.  Carey says the ritual view is “directed. . . towards the maintenance of society in time and the representation of shared beliefs” (Carey 18).  In other words, communication works to hold people together within a community.   Warshow argues that mass culture, gangster films for example, “seek[] to express by whatever means available. . . that sense of desperation and inevitable failure which optimism itself helps to create” (Warshow 128-129).  Gangster films use the ritual view to enable people to accept and deal with civilization.  The narrativist aspect of the ritual view reconciles people with the sacrifices they must make to live in society.  One may also see the ritual approach in Warshow’s assertion that “we gain the double satisfaction of participating vicariously in the gangster’s sadism and then seeing it turned against the gangster himself” (Warshow 131-132).  By allowing people to participate in both this destruction and restoration of society, the gangster film reconciles them to their duty to live and function in a community.
     The main conflict Warshow deals with in “The Gangster as Tragic Hero” is that of the individual versus society.  This is manifested in different ways, such as the false enthusiasm enforced on the American public and the dual role of the gangster as hero and villain.  Narrative reconciles people with these sacrifices and compromises they must make to live in society.  It works by representing the conflict symbolically.  Narrative is a part of the ritual view of communication, the main goal of which is to make individuals cohesive within a society.  This view and the narrative specialization both work to resolve conflict in a gangster film.
     Warshow’s analysis of the gangster film is thought-provoking, but could have been taken a step or two further.  Warshow makes a questionable assumption, he uses a structuralistic approach, and he also fails to mention Freud, even though he refers to his ideas indirectly numerous times.  The first assumption Warshow makes is that there really is a contradiction between the happiness of an individual in public and in private.  Although I agree with this assumption, Warshow does not prove that all or even most people are unhappy.  He has no evidence for this claim, saying for example “the citizen may even be compelled to make a public display of his cheerfulness on important occasions” (Warshow 127-128) without giving a single piece of evidence.  Since I concur with Warshow’s assumption, I can supplement his claim by mentioning this sort of forced enthusiasm occurred frequently behind the iron curtain before the end of the cold war.  One can find proof of this by reading various accounts from escapees and former inhabitants of the area.
     The second problem with Warshow’s analysis of the gangster film is his insistence on using a structuralist point of view.  Structuralism is a snapshot method of analysis which answers only how paradoxes occur without any reference to culture or history.  One calls the paradoxes involved binaries, one of the most common being society and the individual.  Although Warshow does explain nicely how the gangster film and its tacked-on ending represent a solution to the society versus individual conflict, he never mentions the historical context of the film or of the conflict.  Therefore, one can never be sure by reading this article alone, if the appeal of the gangster film is really due to its ability to glue society together, or due to some historical or cultural past.
     Finally, the most glaring omission in the article is the mention of Freudian ideas.  Freud proposed that humans have innate fears of nature, fate, and other people.  He believed individuals formed societies to combat against nature, even though humans are by nature anti-social.  Freud also said people have an id, ego and superego.  The id is one’s unconscious desires of murder, cannibalism and sex while the superego is the individual's conceptualizations of society’s expectations.  The ego is one’s attempt to compromise between these two opposing forces.  These three aspects can be correlated with the individual’s unhappiness in society seen through his delight in sadism (id), the forced enthusiasm of the individual and the tacked-on ending as attempts to obey society’s rules (superego), and the use of narrative and the ritual view of communication to resolve these conflicts (ego).  Warshow remarks “the gangster speaks for us, expressing that part of the American psyche which rejects the qualities and demands of modern life, which rejects ‘Americanism’ itself” (Warshow 130).  This statement is a perfect description of Freud’s id.  Along these lines, Warshow also notes that success is “the unlimited possibility of aggression” (Warshow 132).  The gangster’s success fulfills the three aggressive desires of the id.  The gangster murders many people, cannibalizes when taking over another gangster’s role or position, and always has women following him around.  So, Warshow concludes along Freudian lines, “one is punished for success” (Warshow 133) as seen in the tacked-on ending of the gangster film.
     Freud posits two ways to deal with the conflict between the id, or individual, and the superego, or society.  First, one should strengthen the ego.  This is an internal strengthening, and so is difficult if not impossible for most people without the use of narrative and other aspects of the ritual view.  The second way to resolve this conflict is to practice neurotic acts, such as watching a film in which one can both vicariously participate in the destruction of society with the gangster (relieve the id) and be part of the punishment (assuage the superego).  It does not matter, then, that the ending is obviously tacked-on, both Warshow and Freud would argue, because the ending allows for a resolution of conflict.
     Warshow believes the use of narrative and the ritual view of communication to resolve societal conflicts is important in the gangster film.  Conflict is a set of interdependent yet opposing ideas, such as that of the individual versus society.  Narrative is a theory though which symbolic activities reconcile irreconcilable tensions.  Narrative is also a part of the ritual approach to communications, which sees all communication as an attempt to glue society together.  Warshow’s argument is weakened by his assumption that people are truly unhappy, his insistence on the use of structuralism and his failure to mention Freudian ideas in his article.