Stereotypes and generalizations can be ignorant and hurtful, however sometimes they can be useful to describe a common aspect of a populace from a sociological or psychological point of view. Take today's topic. Yes, many women love superheroes or will otherwise be able to relate to the points I will describe, just as there are many men who won't find much commonality and couldn't care less. Whatever. I am a man, I love superheroes, my boys love superheroes, and I'm sure many male readers will be able to identify with me. Let's break down this phenomenon.
First, what makes a superhero super? There is usually something special or different about him. Sometimes it takes the form of powers above and beyond that of normal human ability. For example, super strength or speed, being able to fly or create fire, being able to breathe under water, etc. These powers can be innate, like being born on an alien planet and delivered to earth (Superman), they can be introduced via a scientific experiment gone awry (Dr. Manhattan), they can can be based on genetic mutation (X-Men), or other causes. Rarely, albeit validly, the superhero is fully human, but has made himself into a superhero via physical or mental development and invention (Batman - my personal favorite).
What makes a superhero a hero? This can be just as interesting as - or more interesting than - the super abilities themselves. Personally characters like Superman are boring to me because they choose to be heroes out of some unspoken righteousness. More often there is a single, poignant, defining moment in the character's life that has molded his purpose. Peter Parker's uncle was killed by a criminal that he had the opportunity to stop but didn't, and the resultant guilt was a catalyst driving him to become the hero Spider-Man. Batman's parents were similarly killed when he was a child, and he later vowed to rid Gotham of crime and be the city's protector. Without some powerful, internal conviction, these characters would not have a reason to dedicate themselves to heroic deeds. The deeds themselves are often perilous and involve life-and-death scenarios where the hero puts the needs of others before his own personal safety.
So how does this relate to the male psyche? Why do we feel "pumped" after we leave a superhero (or most any action) movie, and for a short while daydream of being that character? Is it simply a matter of feeling strong, powerful, youthful or virile? Is that why we work out at the gym, or even why we sometimes take up a martial art or boxing? Is it all testosterone-induced ego? A little, perhaps, but I think that's short-sighted of the underlying desire.
The real reason lies behind why we put in extra hours on the job, why many of us are so focused and driven to attain perfection in a particular task or trade, and why we get frustrated when we don't feel respected by our family or friends. It's the reason several wars have been fought, but also why important advances in science and medicine have been achieved. It is, quite simply, that a man needs to feel like he has made an impact on his environment, that he can make a difference - that his life has purpose. Nothing is as depressing to a man than the thought that he does not have a purpose to exist - to not matter, to be undervalued, that the world is just going to keep on spinning and no one will remember or care whether he has ever set foot upon it.
Superheroes have a cause - a purpose for their existence and a role in society that is looked up to. They are usually admired and appreciated, but even if they are terrifying, they are still respected. They represent potency and meaning, strength and resilience. They achieve and complete, act with bravery, conviction and (usually) compassion. These are the traits that define a man's man, a "super" man. I think I will recant my previous comment on Superman and his boring righteousness. No, he is what we can only dream to become.
And our obsession with super-villains? Our attraction to the dark and unbound? Well, that can be a topic all by itself...
Regarding if each (or all) of our lives have purpose--how did we even begin to ask a question like that? From where does that quest(ion) come?
ReplyDeleteIs that a rhetorical question? ;)
ReplyDeleteMore Socratic--to get people into dialogue, and thereby draw out the truth.
ReplyDeleteBy all means, please share your opinion!
ReplyDeleteYou did such a great job of investigating a vital theme of superheroes--superheroes being a subject of which I am very much a novice. As I think you propose, these characters and situations you illustrate above are archetypal of an element inside each of us--an element that no level of empiricism or naturalism can ever decipher. But what do you think?
ReplyDeleteIf I was a follower of a theistic religion, than I would probably suggest such questions we ask ourselves come from an intrinsic nature instilled within us by the Divine. But I am not such a follower, so I do not know. Still, the state of unknowing does not prove or disprove the existence of the Divine, or explain its purpose.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "the state of unknowing"? Can you expand on that last statement?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that humans don't have all the answers to such tough questions (like our purpose or what happens when we die) does not prove the existence of Divine Being(s). Some questions simply don't have answers, or we don't like the answers, or the answers are not within our reach any time soon. Many people are uncomfortable with the "not knowing", so they turn to religion as a security blanket that "well, Somebody knows." I'm *not* trying to offend here. Just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! No offense taken by me. Let's strip that security blanket off people! It can be brain-numbing. Delusion, ignorance, and complacency never provide anything except for a false and fleeting sense of serenity. Instead, let's take the pill that reveals 'the matrix'!
ReplyDeleteSincere truth-seekers are not looking for One Truth that can *end* all their questions, but rather looking for the source of Truth that can open up a world of questions, with each being more exciting than the last. While some might illustrate people of faith as being closed-minded, it is in actuality the naturalists who are the most closed-minded: to resign themselves and dismiss whatever is outside the realm of empirical observation as 'unknowable' and therefore not worthy of inquiry.
Oh, so on that note, I apologize: I should end with a question, so as to toss the ball back to David or whomever will catch it. I'll make it (them) epistemological: How much of what we 'know' is due to direct experience? And what are other ways of 'knowing' something other than that? How, then--going back to the original theme of the blog--does that shape who we are, what our *purpose* is, or how we interpret ourselves and others?
ReplyDeleteStill, the mere pervasiveness of the question throughout human history (regarding the purpose to life) seems to supply at least an unignorable clue that this is a legitimate concern. If there weren't any meaning or purpose, how or why would we have ever 'caught on'--and latched on--to this idea?
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's be clear that I never intended for this posting to drive at the oft-questioned metaphysical "purpose of life" in general. I said that a man's life has to have purpose. There's a difference there I think.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I do not agree that several people latching on to an idea is proof that the idea has substance or meaning - and especially not truth. Up until quite recently, actually, it was scientific fact that the world was flat, and everyone knew it to be so. They were all wrong. Also, billions of people divided on whether the toilet paper roll should spin with the new sheet facing forward or backward does not make it an important question.
About your first point above, I see. I apologize that I went down the garden path with that one. I suppose the difference between “life’s purpose” and “having purpose in life” lies in who one believes is the author of that purpose. If one believes that only the self is the author, then the idea of having purpose in one's life might seem fairly straightforward (or perhaps even more nebulous: when does one know that the 'purpose' has been reached or accomplished?) If someone else is the author, then it gets messy in another way, that is, if one holds that the self can choose against that purpose.
ReplyDeleteI do have to respond to your second thought, though, and I might have to continue down the garden path to do so. I never said “proof,” only “clue.” Proof in the empirical sense is outside the realms of metaphysics or ontology or theology. There is no proving that there is/are purpose(s) in life, or even that this idea is important. But as Kierkegaard explains, doubt is a necessary part of faith.
I believe that you are very right in being skeptical of 'the masses.' We should always be wary of any tradition or sociological pattern. However, one can go too far sometimes. Sometime we can write off what the masses think just for the sake of our own pride, just because we believe we know better, even to condescend by saying that “they need something” psychologically whereas “I do not.” (Mind you, this is a word of caution to all. I’m not saying this about you.)
But one is not always able to gain truth empirically, and that is where the examples break down. The first--the shape of the earth--is objective and provable truth. The second example--the proper use of toilet paper (and the question of whether the issue is important)--is subjective and improvable. It is completely outside the realm of absolutes, or Truth (as is whether beer or wine is better, or the Red Sox or the Yankees more preferable.)
The question of purpose is something altogether different. It might be objective or it might be subjective (depending on one’s worldview), but in either case it is not classically provable. While I have faith that there is a definite purpose to my life, I cannot prove it to you. It does not work that way. You are right: it doesn't prove anything if billions of people have found the questions of life’s purpose or having purpose in life to be important. It is only a clue. (Why a clue? Because we are people, too, with everything that goes along with it.) But I think YOU know if these questions are important, and that is where you have to start. There is your proof that these issues have “substance and meaning”-the little voice found inside yourself.
Don't worry, from now on, I'll try to keep my responses more succinct and to your point! ;)
No worries. Say what you want to say in as many words as you want to use. This is an open blog (although I had to enable comment moderation because it got spammed once). I appreciate your thoughtful words, and will meditate on them.
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, however, I must respond to two questions you present. My answers would be beer and Red Sox, respectively. ;)
The reason I Love heroes is because they choose to take a challenge. In otherwords they take the hard way instead of the easy. It is easy to steal, rape, kill. It is hard to earn a living, it is hard to find love, it is hard to survive with difficult people. So here is some food for thought is religion a search of security or is it turning to the hard road (narrow road) of a higher calling, to live like heroes. Many people will say not believing is taking the hard road. Think about it is it easy to believe in something not seen but only felt. Much of the hate towards religion is because the religion advertised is a farce there is something much farther than that, so much better. Religion does not even fit what this thing is. Easy or hard make a choice yes we all have one
ReplyDelete