Superheroes as Fascist and Undemocratic

It's been a staple of discussion since forever that superheroes have a fascist streak. I've always sort of shrugged and accepted it--I don't think it actually has to be a huge deal, as bad as it sounds (I think a lot of genre, stories, and aspects of pop culture can be framed in analytical terms that sound really bad but are of necessity generic and reductive--romantic comedies being anti-feminist, fantasy stories tending to be racist, elitist and pro-monarchy, etc).

But this guy has a really good essay on superheroes that re-examines the underlying question, which is something we maybe ought to do: Part One | Part Two. I definitely think there are some crucial points in there, regardless of whether you agree with all of it. The stuff about Watchmen in Part Two is particularly good.

EDITED TO ADD: I should point out, if you're avoiding clicking, that the guy actually argues that superheroes are inherently ANTI-fascist and pro-democracy.

But what's incorrect about that statement? Doesn't it counter the "adolescent" thing pretty thoroughly? I know we get a lot of shrieking fanboys who can't countenance the idea that their hobby might be childish and overreact in response, but that doesn't invalidate his argument as far as I can see.

Now, you can argue that superheroes are a genre meant to appeal to adolescents due to their superficial trappings, and I wouldn't disagree. It's possible that this writer wouldn't either. But that's a separate issue from whether the superhero, at base, represents an "adolescent power fantasy". I think he's correct when he says it represents a pretty universal symbol of justice that can be as juvenile or mature as you want. The fact that it's usually framed in adolescent (or juvenile) narratives is a whole other thing.

Even that, though, isn't necessarily fascist--more like authoritarian. And sad to say, you can't necessarily argue that someone with that much power would never use it for good ends; there have been good and wise and just kings and emperors over the years. I do kind of wish the article had gone more into this distinction, because yes, the fascism point obviously crumbles when you think about it--fascism is explicitly about elevating a certain race or nation above others, which is something even Iron Man never intentionally does. (If you read the other articles that guy links to, he's got some stuff to say about the gap between Captain America's principles and his actions, especially in Civil War, which is on topic. Really, just read through the whole blog, it's really quite good.)

You can argue Iron Man and others take the lead in securing America's place as the dominant power, but even there there's the undertone of "we're only taking charge because someone has to, and it might as well be someone who has a strong sense of justice." While there's a whole Pandora's Box of issues raised by that statement, you can argue that it's at the root of the whole concept of democracy...and, like he says, at the root of the superhero concept as well. "Reluctant power".

This is also why people who scream bloody murder about everything the democratically elected federal government does, as if it was indistinguishable from a totalitarian regime, are idiots, but let's not derail here.

I'm absolutely sensitive, and sympathetic, to the argument about protracted adolescence and juvenile culture. I even think you can make a strong case for the dangers inherent in fantasy storytelling or escapism, to individuals and to the culture as a whole. But at the same time, I've always found it a bit depressing how limited the forms of true "escapism" can be for adults when it comes to entertainment. It was always acceptable for an adult male to want to be James Bond, but to want to be Superman makes you an arrested adolescent. There's something a bit twisted there, and I'm not sure I can put my finger what it is.

To me, the crucial thing isn't the outright fantasy, it's the level of sophistication, narratively, emotionally and morally. We do accept outright absurdism as "adult" entertainment, or high-flying SF narratives. But we balk from a lot of different kinds of fantasy.

Superheroes are actually interesting because they're probably the purest example of something really childish and simplistic which, in certain hands, became legitimately sophisticated and intelligent and cutting edge and, yes, adult. The problem is that a lot of comics writers really haven't developed much adult sophistication, partly because they obviously feel a bit ashamed of their chosen genre and don't feel prepared to stretch in a truly adult direction, so they layer on the grim 'n ' grittiness to make up for it. I think one of the hallmarks of the Grant Morrisons and Alan Moores of the world is that, fundamentally, they're not ashamed to be writing superhero comics, and can look at it from a detached perspective as an interesting challenge, whereas a lot of superhero writers are writing from a place of defensiveness. Which...is a bit of a mark of adolescence.

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

--C. S. Lewis (not a guy I agree with all that often, but when he's right he's right.)