Monday, July 10, 2006

I hate Superman

It’s not that I didn’t enjoy the Christopher Reeves movies. I did. And it isn’t that I have issues with X-ray vision, or super strength, or solid steel flesh. Like anyone else, I'm no stranger to omnipotence fantasies. In fact, what I really hate isn’t Superman at all. What I really hate is that I don’t hate Superman. I hate that the gimmick works on me.

Superman, after all, is a disempowering myth, and, unfortunately, it works. As with most feel-good movies, the Superman series doesn’t make me happier to be alive. It makes me sad that the real world isn’t more like the movies. It makes me wish I had superpowers. Moreover, it makes me tolerate the dullness of reality by encouraging a regression into make-believe and pseudo happiness. Like Clark Kent, I’ve dealt with abusive bosses, inconsiderate women, and bully male coworkers. But unlike Clark Kent, I can’t put a cape on and have all my problems go away. What I can do, though, is go to the movies. I can indulge in fantasy. I can watch someone else put on a cape and make his and the rest of the world's problems disappear. In the movie world, at least, we know we're safe.

Yeah, I understand that Superman, once he dons his cape and tights, fights evil and injustice non-stop. He doesn’t run away. True. But he doesn’t exactly fight the system, either. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the movie or the comic book or the tv shows, Superman never takes a political stance—he preserves the status quo. Goody, well-assimilated immigrant that he is, he protects Metropolis from the enemy aliens who haven’t bought into the American way of life the way he has. In short, Superman is nothing more than a status fantasy. By day, he’s a mild mannered mistreated and incompetent reporter, but none of that matters, because Clark Kent isn’t real (just as “normal” Harry Potter or Scott Parker isn’t real); it’s all an act. Superman, after all, is the true identity. In other words, the workaday world with its mores and values doesn’t matter; it isn’t real. What’s real is the mythic fantasy. And this, no doubt, is what Americans want to believe—that their private, juvenile, fantasy-embodying, escapist selves are real and the guy who goes to work 40 to 60 hrs. a week with 10 to 20 hour commutes tagged on is the fake. The real me isn’t the “me” that exists in the here and now; it’s the inflated me that I know someday I’ll become—the “me” that is promised by the system and “the American Way”, that will have everything he wants, that will live entirely in a world of fantasy, abstraction, and cybernetics.

So let’s face it, Superman doesn’t fight for the little guy—for people; he fights for the powers that be—for Metropolis (a city, like all cities, dependent on imported goods that it hopes to control the supply of by whatever means possible). When he strays from this goal, as he did in Superman Four when he tries to eliminate nuclear weapons, his audience goes cold. What Superman fanatics really want is a guy who preserves all the hype and adolescent power fantasies of the American way—a myth that makes America look like what it says it is rather than what it ACTUALLY is. In a sense, Superman is America—the most boring, meekest, modest and pure-intentioned (in the out-of-ignorance aspect) person on the playing field: an ordinary mild-mannered reporter on one level, an everyday joe, but an invincible hero when sacrificed to a higher power—to the American way. Rephrased: because you in yourself are weak, empty, boring, and timid, you need to identify yourself with something greater—a higher power—such as your religion, America, the Party, the race, God, the movies, or the myth of Superman.




The chief enemy of morality--and art--is fantasy.
Iris Murdoch

14 comments:

Lisa said...

You're right. Depressing.

shane said...

Not so depressing, really. Don't you think real life--when you're really feeling connected to it--is much much better than fantasy?

I like the picture, btw.

PaulEdward Snyder said...

Shane,
You may already know, but I have just discovered, that PBA is back. It has returned with our posts intact. I’ll continue to store my monthly posts at pauledeardsnyder.blogspot.com, but am beginning to transfer my newest posts to PBA. This newest article “I Hate Superman” you just posted deserves a wider audience. I’m looking forward to reading it on PBA.

Regarding the article, you might be interested in reading “The Myth of Sisyphus” written by Kierkegaard two centuries ago (well, almost two centuries---more like just over a century ago). Its point is remarkably similar to yours---that the meaning of life is an absurdity. There is no meaning to life apart from the meaning we impose upon it. If we become the automatons, as our life style demands us to be, we (our self) will die. This is one of the reasons I am an evolutionist. For me the meaning of life is in the struggle. Whereas so many people seem to see God as what they cannot control, I see Him (whether or not there is a God) as what can never be controlled and as an adversary giving meaning to my life (my struggle to survive which is manifested in my determination to dominate) through an eternal wrestling match, if you will. It is sort of similar to a child wrestling with his father. He cannot win, but there is meaning in his determined struggle to overcome this overwhelming force which means him no harm other than an opportunity to vent this drive to assert himself.

There is an affectionate interrelationship formed by close physical contact and by the exertion inherent in instinctual actuation.
The world becomes a playpen. The fantasy of finally overcoming this indomitable force gives meaning to life. The fantasy will, of course, never be realized, but who really cares. The meaning is in the struggle. This is instinct at its very best. It drives us forward.

We are, unfortunately, educating our children away from primal instincts and towards a life of rules: scientific, cultural, religious, doctrinaire, etc, the things that do actually give meaning to our lives (Art: music, dance, poetry, prayer, meditation, painting, etc, our primal instincts) are rapidly becoming obsolete. The sadness, the hopelessness, even the rage, may largely be contributed to the feeling of loss we feel of these, our primary motivators; the things that make life most enjoyable.

Lisa said...

I definitely think that real life is better, when you're connected to it, but I unfortunately identified with that cubicle-dweller... spending more time in a job I don't care about than I do anywhere else and insisting to myself that this isn't the real me... insisting to myself that there's this super-me, while life continues to prove me otherwise.

Thanks (about the picture). I like it, too. It's my current fantasy about-the-author book jacket shot. That picture was actually taken two summers ago - my first summer in back New York - during hurricane season. A storm was brewing, as you might be able to see from the waves.

shane said...

Hi Paul,
Thanks for the heads up on PBA. I'll definately check it out.
You've got some unique and interesting ideas for sure, though I'm not sure I completely understand all of them. By saying you're an evolutionist, do you mean merely that you believe evolution occurs or do you mean something more?
"The Myth of Sisyphus"? Are you sure you don't mean the book by Camus? A lot of my views are influenced by existential thought. What you said about God being an adversary giving meaning to your life really struck me. On one level, I really like it, but on another level I worry that it mirrors the same urge to conquest that has gotten our species into so much trouble. I know you've championed instinct and symbiotic behavior in other posts, so I doubt that's what you mean. But I'm not sure where you make a distinction.
Anyway, you've got me thinking. Thanks for the post.

shane said...

Yeah, Lisa. I understand. I'm not immune to that kind of thinking, either.
And yeah, again: the picture would make a great about-the-author-book jacket. But it's all about the work not the author, right? Huh? You think?

PaulEdward Snyder said...

I’m not a Darwinist, Shane. That term in today’s interpretation of it seems to suggest using evolution to perfect humanity. Hitler pretty much proved that this is a dangerous direction, the immediate question being “Who determines perfection?” The most appropriate answer appears to be “As much as possible, let’s leave the direction of evolution in the hands of God (or of chance if you are not a theist).

I am more interested in how evolution explains us. It seems logical to me that there must be a drive to survive, a sort of impetus to the action/reaction responses of instinctive behavior. I am concerned that the instincts that make us who we are and which are expressed through artistic endeavor are more and more being subjected to contempt through our obsession with the rational part of our nature. I also believe that religion is our attempt to express the irrational (intuitive, instinctual, artistic) urges struggling within us in an attempt to alert us to possible threats, keeping us alert, on our toes, and enriching our lives, making us passionate and fully aware of just how stimulating life can be.

Yes, I was referring to Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus.” Much of my views of life are existential, though my suggestion that we are determined by inherited instincts probably deviates from the basic assumption of existentialism that existence precedes essence. I like to think, however, that I am merely challenging transcendental thought and that the existence of life at its very beginning precedes essence. I also believe that the decisions we make, though I think we (the self) are figments of our own imagination (a byproduct of the balancing of our instinctual responses), play a large part in determining our essence.

There are two kinds of struggle, I believe: hostile and benevolent. We struggle to survive and we struggle to hone our survival skills. The actual struggle against that which would kill us focuses our instincts and stimulates in us a kind of rage that blinds us to everything other than our immediate goal---to win. Benevolent struggle is an opportunity to share our survival skills with another and to learn more effective and efficient ways to respond to adversity; children playing is a good example of this. Then there is the master/student relationship. This is the struggle to which I was referring. In this situation the student not only learns to hone his instinctual behavior, he learns to curb his rage because he cannot win; he can only exert himself to his utmost in an impossible situation (a child wrestling with his father is a good example of this).

And yes, you are right when you say this is the very behavior that has gotten us into so much trouble. That is one reason why we must not lose sight of who and what we are in our attempts to rationalize the world. Unaware of our drive to survive morphed into our determination to dominate, we rationalize our behavior as justified even what is simply our repressed emotional self asserting itself in a way that harms others and often even ourselves. Aware of our irrational emotional (instinctive) self, we can express it more positively through dance, painting, poetry, religion and/or some other art form. It becomes productive rather than destructive and it adds fullness to our lives and enriches our rational nature.

Lisa said...

Hm. Along those lines: if the work wouldn't exist without the author, and the author has a cute book jacket, then...

Aw, hell, my argument fell apart. I just wanted to say something pithy, but I don't have anything.

I'm really sad about my dad tonight. Am going to go medicate with sushi. Thank you for your comments on my blog. :0)

Oh, and Sara has been hugged for you.

HH said...

Shane,

Eloquently stated my decent fellow. The "superman" equating with the "ubermensch" myth is ridiculous. The naivetee of fantasy, is just that, naive. PWS is wrong that "rule" governed behavior is wrong. It is simply "weaker."

The rules that govern our natural world are no more, or less, real than the rules governing our socialized constructs. It is the ethos of our non-productive pathology which needs attention. Some of our "socialized evolution" is simply counterproductive in the long-term but beneficial in the short-term.

But, none of this makes the experience any less beautiful or artful. Our existential crises are, in the end, the very outcome of the push-pull of the needs of "other" versus the "self," in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

BTW... we are in the new house. It is wonderful to me! I can't wait to have you over. We are putting in a yard iver the next month. New trees... new flowers... new shrubs... newness... How sweet.

Best Wishes and much love,
Trav

shane said...

Hey Paul,
I'm an evolutionist, too, though I think the idea is often misinterpreted and often made into a metaphor for things not remotely similar to the merely physical processes it describes(social darwinism is one abuse).
I also think, ala Sartre, that freedom (not God or ONLY chance) plays a role in our development (and I'll leave it to Sartre to define what I mean by freedom). At any rate, you're right on when you talk about the will to survive being confused with the will to dominate. Domination--exhausting the resources you depend upon for sustenance--is a horrible survival strategy that might just lead us the way of the dinosaurs.

Checked out your blog the other day. Saw a poem I liked but didn't see any new essays to comment on. Hope to see more soon.

shane said...

Hey Trav,
Good points. I didn't understand this, though:

But, none of this makes the experience any less beautiful or artful. Our existential crises are, in the end, the very outcome of the push-pull of the needs of "other" versus the "self," in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

I need some context.

Glad to hear you're in the house again. Can't wait to see it.

PaulEdward Snyder said...

Hi Shane,
Having read your reply to my last comment, I realized I had not published my poem on PBA. I have now done so.
I have also posted a new blog on the Spiritual section of my website. I call it "Belief."
I check your blogs regularly and am eagerly awaiting the follow up to "I Hate Superman."
By the way, I just discovered if I type in pauledward on the browser URL it takes me to my blogs at PBA.

Anonymous said...

You have sum up exactly how I feel about not only the myth of superman but of America, herself. I believe with everything that is going on with the world today, it is time for us to wake up and leave the fantasy behind.

shane said...

Here here, anonymous. The thing that really scares me is that it might be too late already.