Superheroes fight for everything to stay the same, it is their villains that try to change the world.
^[Image]
A YouTube essay^[Marvel‘s Defender of the Status Quo, Pop Culture Detective, 2023] pointed me towards a great essay by David Graeber on the political connotations of superhero stories, based on a review of Christopher Nolans „The Dark Knight Rises“^[Super Position, David Graeber, 2012].
Graeber recognizes that superheroes, even though they had the power to significantly change society in a positive way, seldomly use their powers for anything else then for stopping the villains in their actions. The villains on the other hand, were full of ideas and ambition to change the world according to their vision.^[„These “heroes” are purely reactionary, in the literal sense. They have no projects of their own, at least not in their role as heroes: as Clark Kent, Superman may be constantly trying, and failing, to get into Lois Lane’s pants, but as Superman, he is purely reactive. In fact, superheroes seem almost utterly lacking in imagination: like Bruce Wayne, who with all the money in the world can’t seem to think of anything to do with it other than to indulge in the occasional act of charity; it never seems to occur to Superman that he could easily carve free magic cities out of mountains. Almost never do superheroes make, create, or build anything. The villains, in contrast, are endlessly creative. They are full of plans and projects and ideas.“
ibid.]
Superficially, this conservative stance of the superhero could be explained with the historic context of superhero comic books in the 1950‘s: Targeting adolescents, these stories had to provide both revolutionary appeal (by flirting with the chaos the villains create) and disciplinary order (by proving that the villains were wrong in pursuing their chaotic dreams).^[„One might begin here by considering that the core audience for superhero comics is adolescent or pre-adolescent white boys. That is: boys who are at a point in their lives where they are likely to be both maximally imaginative and at least a little bit rebellious, but who are being groomed to eventually take on positions of authority and power in the world, to be fathers, sheriffs, small business owners, middle management. What do they learn from these endless repeated dramas? Well, first off, that imagination and rebellion lead to violence. Second, that, like imagination and rebellion, violence is a lot of fun; thirdly, that violence must ultimately be directed back against any overflow imagination and rebellion lest everything go askew. These things must be contained!“
ibid]
Digging deeper into the political underpinnings of superhero ideology, Graeber provides a conclusion that seems quite important to me, well beyond superhero movies and comics. While the left-progressive political camp nowadays (sobered by the terrors of the 20th century) largely beliefs that the shape of society could be changed in non-violent ways, the right wing is convinced that the law of the strongest actually is the only existing way to constitute society at all.^[„For the Right, on the other hand—and this has been true since the rise of fascism in the ‘20s—the very idea that there is something special about revolutionary violence, anything that makes it different from mere criminal violence, is so much self-righteous twaddle. Violence is violence. But that doesn’t mean a rampaging mob can’t be “the people,” because violence is the real source of law and political order anyway. Any successful deployment of violence is, in its own way, a form of constituent power.“
ibid]
Now the superhero can be understood as a symbol for a model of politics that sees survival-by-the-fittest (basically fascist) violence as the only form and outcome of any attempt to change society. The superhero earns his status as „the good guy“ because he is the only one who has got the power to stop attempts at changing society.^[„What does all this have to do with costumed superheroes? Well, everything. Because this is exactly the space that superheroes, and super-villains, also inhabit. An inherently fascist space, inhabited only by gangsters, would-be dictators, police, and thugs, with endlessly blurring lines between them. (…) Insofar as there is a potential for constituent power then, it can only come from purveyors of violence. (…) Superheroes resist this logic. They do not wish to conquer the world (…) They remain defenders of a legal and political system which itself seems to have come out of nowhere, and which, however faulty or degraded, must be defended, because the only alternative is so much worse. They aren’t fascists. They are just ordinary, decent, super-powerful people who inhabit a world in which fascism is the only political possibility.
ibid]
There are obvious links between the superhero archetype and actors in the technology space - most notably illustrated by Ironman, being both Superhero and Tech Entrepreneur in one person. Superheroes can be understood as a blueprint for a reactionary role model that may suggest a superficial progressiveness^[„This is why, insofar as superheroes are allowed to be imaginative in any way, their imagination can only be extended to the design of their clothes, their cars, maybe their homes, their various accessories.“
ibid] but actually uses all its power to reinforce a belief system that is deeply cynic towards mankind and its possibilities.
🌊
Last updated: 2023-08-15
%%posted: 2023-08-15%%