Superheroes and Civil Disobedience
Warning: this post contains spoilers for several superhero films.
I’ve long been a fan of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle. In short, it argues that you have the right to do anything except that which causes harm to others. As is often the case, life is more nuanced than this simple mantra, which leads me to wonder: how do we treat those who cause harm for the sake of the greater good? Further, to what extent do we allow harm to occur for the anticipated result of peace? We currently stand at a unique moment where the politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are at times more believable than the daily headlines about the state of the union. Superhero films hold up a unique mirror to society that often reflect our greatest fears about the roles and limitations of government authority.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I have long been fascinated with the way we can learn about politics through the media we consume. By their very nature, superhero films address questions about our collective social, political, and moral reasoning. I’ll venture away from the MCU for a moment to talk about my personal favorite superhero series, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy. Throughout the series many, including Gotham’s own police force, view Batman as a vigilante. Despite combating gang activity, Batman often curtails the efforts of law enforcement and despite not having any formal authority to do so. Though his actions are often viewed as heroic, Nolan’s adaption offers a more complicated view on the unchecked power of Bruce Wayne. If individuals are so easily able to take the law into their own hands as Batman does, what does this say about the stability of government? In theory, rebels could adopt the spirit of his vigilantism to remove those in power. This may seem extreme, but it is exactly what happens in the third film. By overthrowing the local government and trapping the police force underground, Bane gives Gotham back to the people (in a speech that was eerily similar to Donald Trump’s inaugural address). Ultimately, those impacted by income inequality and mass incarceration take over Gotham and thrive in anarchy.
This larger question of “do superheroes have the right to outstrip government?” plays its way through the plots of various franchises. In both Incredibles movies for example, heroes are forced out of their crime-fighting roles due to dwindling public support. As of the second installment, they have yet to reclaim their formal positions of power.
The mere existence of superheroes challenges political theory. Social contract theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have argued that we are able to exist as a society (as opposed to as individuals) because we consent to respect the authority of government. There’s a very fine line between civil disobedience and vigilantism when it comes to these heroes. Rarely are they granted a formal authority to pursue and punish criminals and often have to cause harm to do so.
Another theme across the superhero genre is portraying law enforcement, the military, and political actors as opposition instead of allies. Often, in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of government, the heroes must subdue these forces on their path to defeating the “bad guys.” Consequently, the governments are forced to shift their stance to one of support. This change rarely comes from a place of benevolence—almost always by defeat. In a way, the superhero becomes an added tier of unchecked authority since they are too powerful to be defeated by conventional military practice. The governments only cooperate once they realize that it is too costly to stand in their way.
Interestingly enough, some films have featured superheroes as national agents, as is the case with Captain American and the Black Panther. However, despite their missions originally being aligned to a strict, nationalist philosophy, the protagonists eventually defy their initial missions to serve what they feel is the “greater good.” Note the early anti-globalism themes in Black Panther that are present until Killmonger comes to Wakanda.
Interestingly enough, many superhero universes also contain underlying narratives that promote a wariness of authority. In The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2, the government tries to siege and militarize superheroes. Their efforts ultimately result in a reversal of fortune, such as when military officer Emil Blonsky becomes the uncontrollable “Abomination” that can only be defeated by the Hulk. The struggle between the two results in further damage, death, and destruction and demonstrates how the science behind the Hulk can be used for evil if it falls into the wrong hands. Similarly, the defense department tries to steal Tony Stark’s Iron Man suit to mass produce for the armed forces. When the technology is hacked by Ivan Vanko, Tony and James Rhodes (his friend in the Air Force), must improvise to undo the military’s misguided arms race. At the end of the film, both men are presented with the Medal of Honor, showing the government succumbing to Iron Man as a legitimate power.
Often the lines between “right” and “wrong” aren’t so clearly defined, especially when you consider the many different values that can encompass one’s sense of morality. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle may be a simplified view on morality, but it certainly reveals a truth about how superheroes can never escape their humanity. As is beautifully portrayed by Nolan in The Dark Knight, Batman’s madness for “justice” only grows stronger with the Joker’s madness for chaos. Thus, there is indeed a very fine line between the vigilantism of superheroes and that of the villains they pursue.
Interested in our posts on the politics of superhero films? Stay tuned! We’re currently working on a follow up post about the philosophy of Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War.
