?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
24 November 2003 @ 02:57 pm
And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder. (Professor Nifra's lesson plan?)  
So tonight, I'm teaching my class. And what am I talking about? Naturally, pop culture as it relates to the theories of violence, the sacred, and the dynamics of society and culture. I thought posting the basic gist of what I'm going to talk about here might be interesting.



A lot of what I'm talking about here is going to be contingent on some of Rene Girard's theories, so let me give you a quick summary here of what he articulates in Violence and the Sacred (a book I recommend for anyone interested in this kind of thing). Girard's premise is that there is violence inherent in human society, and that unless that violence is somehow channeled, then all out chaos will break out. Sacrifices are a way of channeling this violence, traditionally using myth as a roadmap, and ritual as a tool. Now, when I say 'sacrifice' I don't necessarily mean someone tied down to an altar getting their heart cut out ala the Aztecs or anything -- there are lots of different kinds of sacrifice. In fact, there's a continuum that starts with renunciation and goes all the way to death. Exile, asceticism, mutilation, maiming...these are all different kinds of sacrifice. There are social forms of sacrifice (think about the violence inherent in school-kid cliques), and political ones as well (think about scapegoating -- racial profiling in particular).

Now, before when I mentioned myth and ritual, when you bring these theories into the modern era and a secular culture such as ours, then you have to look a little harder for the myth involved. What I propose is that the myth we're looking for can be found in pop culture -- like in the Star Wars series (and thank you George Lucas and Joseph Campbell for that one, it's a sterling example because it's based on the traditional 12 steps of the hero's journey) and the mythos of superheroes, like Superman or Batman. (I've chosen them because a) you know, that's where my interest lies *pets pretty Clark and psychotic Batman* and b) they're iconically what people think of when they think 'superhero'.) I'm going to focus more on the latter example than the former, because, well...many more intelligent people than I have gone on and on about Star Wars and how it fills basic societal needs with its mythology.

I think we can all agree that the idea of an actual, physical sacrifice seems weird and strange to us. Society today would pretty much prosecute anyone who tried to *actually* commit a sacrifice (of the human variety, at any rate) -- so our sacrifices tend to be more metaphorical. *OR* enacted *for* us in our entertainment, as a means of alleviating that pressing need for violence. So what about superhero stories makes me feel like they're the best example of this?

1) Superheroes themselves fit all the necessary qualifications set for those who *perform* sacrifices and
2) The people they fight fit similar qualifications for sacrificeability.

Let's start with the superheroes. As Hubert and Mauss observe in their book Sacrifice (catchy, witty title, no?), those who perform sacrifices must be consecrated, and they must act as a vessel for the divine. Now, consecration just means that they must be set aside -- seperate from the people for whom they perform these sacrifices. The most recurring theme in any and *all* superhero stories is that of isolation. Clark Kent is the last son of Krypton, the an alien on a foreign planet, who must keep his identity a secret. And the very fact of his powers, as well, set him aside -- consecrate him. Bruce Wayne, as well, is isolated -- by his wealth, by his parent's death, by his intelligence, by his drive for vengeance.

Now, to fit the model perfectly, then, superheroes must act as a vessel for the divine, and somehow manage to be *of* their congregation (for lack of a better word) even though they are, in fact, consecrated. How does this translate? Their double lives. As Superman and Batman, both of them are *more* than men -- they're god-figures almost. They swoop down out of nowhere, avert evil, and then disappear again into the sky. So that's the divine -- in Superman's case it's sheer physical ability and the strength of his morality, and in Batman's it's preternatural intelligence and ingenuity. But as Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent, they're members *of* the congregation, though they do remain separate from it. The separation between the personas is what makes the analogy work so well, I think.

So, what about the criminals Batman and Superman put away? How do they fit *any* kind of qualifications for sacrificeability? I'll start by outlining those qualifications:

1. The sacrifice must be a member of the group that mirrors the group (s/he must be the same in some respects as the group performing the sacrifice).
2. The sacrifice must be a member of the group who is, in some way marginalized (vulnerable).
3. The sacrifice must be a member of the group who is also very *different* from the group (must be able to stand in for the unnamable *other*).

Criminals such as the ones that Superman and Batman deal with on a regular basis fit directly into this role. They *do* mirror the societies from which they come -- tomes of criminology work would back me up on that in a real-life situation, but as a quick illustration of what I mean here, just consider the differences between the criminals of Gotham and the criminals of Metropolis. Lex Luthor, while clearly a morally corrupt megalomaniac in the comics (notice the qualification there? *laughs*), is hardly as frightening, or terrible in my opinion, as The Joker or Two-Face. The inherent darkness of Gotham has definitely colored them. Surely, though, any criminal is a reflection of his society -- just not the parts of society that people are comfortable with.

By definition, criminals are a marginalized class (and I hesitate to use the word class, but it's for want of a better term -- I don't mean to imply anything socio-economic by it). They're definitely vulnerable to any kind of sacrifice, as they have no real rights once they've been proved guilty of a crime and are on the run, or hiding from the police (which is often the case with comic book criminals). Okay, that's not 100 percent true, criminals do have rights, but many, many fewer than law-abiding citizens do. And also, less credibility and influence, and that's what really makes them marginalized, and what makes them vulnerable enough to be a sacrifice, of a sort.

As I said before, I think criminals *are* a reflection of society, but I also think they have that hint of *other*ness that's necessary for complete sacrificeability. Most particularly in comic books they do, often -- think Kryptofreaks on SV and meta-humans in comics canon.

So there's my argument for how they fit into the prescribed roles for sacrifices and sacrificeability -- but okay, so what does that do for us? In comic books they enact behaviours that we *need* to have enacted somewhere, though we don't want to admit it. By reading their stories, or watching their movies/television episodes as the case may be, some of that tension -- the need for violence -- seeps away. It's a kind of sacrifice by proxy that's performed for us through their vigilantism.
 
 
Current Mood: relaxedrelaxed
Current Music: Johnny Cash - I Hung My Head
 
 
 
r1cepudding on November 24th, 2003 08:03 pm (UTC)
If we weren't already all OT4'd and shit, I'd so be asking you to marry me right now.

*bouncebouncebounce*
pure FORESHADOWING: seth rawksnifra_idril on November 24th, 2003 10:57 pm (UTC)
You know, it's a nice day for a white wedding.*G*

...I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself.
CJ Andrecjandre on November 24th, 2003 08:41 pm (UTC)
Very interesting and very cool. I think the analysis works very well. I expecially like the way the villains mirror their society. Very cool!
pure FORESHADOWING: clark profilenifra_idril on November 24th, 2003 11:01 pm (UTC)
Thank so much!
-_-: sadechoskeleton on November 24th, 2003 09:29 pm (UTC)
This is really quite a fascinating concept. If you have any more thoughts on it, I'd really like to hear them. Especially since I plan on picking up those books you've mentioned.

The most recurring theme in any and *all* superhero stories is that of isolation.

Now, this is the part that really interests me. In my Comparative Religion course, we were discussing how sanctification can only be achieved by separation, that a person has to put themselves outside of everyday life before they can be considered holy. The dual identities of superheroes would actually accentuate this aspect by saying that these people can function within the bounds of ordinary society but choose not to. And I think that would be the difference between a consecrated outcast and a pariah.

*pauses* I've got more on this, but I need to walk first so I can figure it out. I promise I won't spam your LJ with it anymore, though... Any inanities I come up with will end up in my journal if anywhere.
pure FORESHADOWING: Devil Girlnifra_idril on November 24th, 2003 11:10 pm (UTC)
Please *do* spam my LJ! Becca, I'm having so much fun discussing these issues with you, I hardly call this spam! *G*

The dual identities of superheroes would actually accentuate this aspect by saying that these people can function within the bounds of ordinary society but choose not to. And I think that would be the difference between a consecrated outcast and a pariah.

That's a really intriguing insight into the situation, and it makes me think...the sanctification idea in general makes me think, because superheroes, by definition have to project an air of infallibility to the public or they're waved away as crazed vigilantes. And, in the end, they're just...people with lots of powers, who are very isolated.

It would be so easy for them to begin to *believe* in their own infallibility, *especially* given their isolation. How easy it would be for them to give up their humanity and step into the divinity they must wear for people to believe in them...what brings them back from that?

Their nemeses. Or, at least in Clark's case, I guess, because Lex is always *always* going to remind Clark of his mess ups. His stupid, human mistakes (or, okay, Kryptonian)-- the existence of Lex keeps Clark from slipping into the person he's fabricated. Maybe. I don't know.

*laughs* I'm going to have to keep thinking that one over.
-_-: contemplateechoskeleton on November 25th, 2003 12:49 am (UTC)
It would be so easy for them to begin to *believe* in their own infallibility, *especially* given their isolation. How easy it would be for them to give up their humanity and step into the divinity they must wear for people to believe in them...what brings them back from that?

This makes me think of the whole 'Last Temptation of Christ' and Freud simultaneously. Fighting for the greater good versus fulfilling base desires, the conflict between the ego and the super-ego. It really is an age-old struggle, and we really do need these kind of heroes. Civilization is based on the premise that we can overcome base desires, that our philosophical reasoning and compassion will triumph over the lizard brain. That's why we need sacrifices, I guess, to show us that this kind of sacrifice is possible.

Their nemeses. Or, at least in Clark's case, I guess, because Lex is always *always* going to remind Clark of his mess ups. His stupid, human mistakes (or, okay, Kryptonian)-- the existence of Lex keeps Clark from slipping into the person he's fabricated.

I think that's it exactly. Clark's a harder case, because his gifts are inborn. It would be so easy to let the baser instincts prevail, and use his powers for self-gratification (and I have to think that would be a pretty major temptation for him). There needs to be a compelling, and deeply personal reason that he doesn't get lost in his own desires, and instead chooses to sacrifice for the Greater Good. Watching someone he cared about go to pieces, and knowing that he could have stopped it would do just that.

Plus Lex would function as an example of the dangers of hubris. Lex would remind Clark what sort of horrible things he might do if he let himself go. Watching the horrors that result from someone getting drunk of his own power would be, well, sobering for Clark.

I'm glad that you're enjoying this, too. You've really got me thinking, and I really do have to get those books. *hugs*


Fujoshi Robo: lexkylandra on November 25th, 2003 11:20 pm (UTC)
YES. Yes, yes, yes, thank you.

For a long time I've held the belief that comic books, with their endless, ageless, constantly rewritten and updated characters, are a very good equivalent in our society to mythology. They especially remind me of Greek deities and heroes: beautiful, powerful and above humans, yet still capable of all sorts of "human" fallibilities or attitudes.

This is very interesting, because I'm not familiar with the works on sacrifice you're referring to, and I hadn't thought of it from that angle before. Fascinating stuff, and I may have to add those books to my reading list. ;)