Skip to content

Self Help II: Super, thanks for asking

The last post talked about how people want to know who they are, but either there is no who to know or at least nobody is ever going to figure it out just by thinking about it, so the only way people can figure out who they are is by getting their hands dirty and interacting with the world. This action changes the world and reflects the self back to the person doing, so the person can use the world as a kind of mirror. But that story isn’t finished (not that we’re going to finish it here, but we can at least knock out another chapter).

The first thing that’s missing is that the post understated the role of choice. Any of those actions on the world need to be preceded by a decision. Of course, right? Nobody is just going out and acting in the world without making any kinds of decisions, choices, about what they’re going to do. Before anything happens, you have to want it to happen and choose to exert the effort to make it happen. That’s the difference between people and competent robots and why it’s wrong to take credit for happy accidents.

The second thing that’s missing is that this is all pretty straightforward, but it’s still so damned hard to actually realize. A clever kid could understand it, but whenever anyone actually manages it, they’re pretty much declared a saint, a mystic, a prophet, or similar. So there’s a big gap between saying/understanding and doing. Maybe it’s easier to bridge the gap if you know its dimensions. Here’s hoping.

Superheroes are world-class neurotics, and they provide a common vocabulary, so they’re as good a place to start as any. (Rule: only superheroes in Hollywood movies – there are maybe a dozen people who’ve read every Superman, and I ain’t one of ‘em.). Quick question: which is the real identity: Bruce Wayne or Batman, Clark Kent or Superman, Peter Parker or Spiderman.

Superheroes are complex because of their secret identities, so let’s start the game on easy and use a villain: Lex Luthor. He provides an excellent reference value to calibrate the scales because he’s totally at ease in his own skin – 100% Lex all the time, no doubt, no regret. At the beginning of the last Superman movie, he was wearing a toupee to bilk a dying dowager out of her fortune in a long con, but the toupee wasn’t disguising him. The dowager’s family is seething about the ploy and the brazenness of it, yet he struts away from her deathbed. He’s a megalomaniacal villain, but he probably prints exactly that on his business cards. His twitter handle is probably something like Lexth3villain.

Before ... After = Same Guy

Before … After = Same Guy

There’s just one scene in the movie where you can catch a sliver of a gap between his internal and external worlds. Suffering from delusions of grandeur, Lois wants to get to the bottom of some electromagnetic weirdness and trespasses onto Lex’s inherited yacht with her useless, asthmatic, excuse-for-a-sequel son in tow. She’s snooping around below decks, and is startled by Lex sauntering out of the bathroom in a bathrobe, toothbrush still hanging out of his mouth. When he sees her, there’s a split second of constituting Lex the villain. He misses a beat, but only one, while he’s going from the Guy treating his bacne to Lex the super-villain extraordinaire (In other words, he has to constitute his Symbolic self.) That’s the space of the gap, but the rest is zen villainy. (NB: just because you’re comfortable in your own skin doesn’t mean you’re a good person – another blind spot of the last post that this one won’t cover either, but hey, it’s a blog. We got time.)

Now for Superman, who’s pretty easy. When Superman goes back home to the farm, he’s not Clark Kent, the impossibly awkward, but kind and conscientious loser with a fetish for the gym. He’s an adopted son and he relates to his adoptive parents totally differently to how he interacts with his colleagues at the newspaper. Clark Kent is a costume, an affected identity, but so is Superman. How can you tell? Simple. He can’t be Superman all the time. Lois clearly digs him as Superman (in fact, she ignores Clark), and he doesn’t need the reporter job, but he keeps going back to it. And it works the other way too. He’s not Clark or the son on the farm all the time either. He’s always bouncing between identities; he’s never really comfortable in his own skin, even though he has three different skins to choose from – and he puts a lot of effort into maintaining all three.

The face of all superheroes (and not just them). Žižek says it’s Kant’s fault.

If Superman-Clark-Farm boy is shuffling through all three identities, how do you tell who he is? Watch what he does. He bounces. That ambivalence is what defines him. He’s not wiling to go all-in on any one life: settle down on the farm, find a nice farm girl, and watch the world burn from afar; stay Clark and try to trick Lois into liking him warts and all and as far from Superman as he can possibly get (won’t work either, ’cause the warts are an act); be Superman, own it, wow Lois come what may, even at the risk that she loves the costume more than whatever might really be under it.

Superman has godlike powers, but he can’t decide what reality to create. Camus once said something about the free man being condemned to freedom, and this is what he meant. By choosing one thing, you’re simultaneously foreclosing on countless other things, and you have to live with that. The pressure to choose wisely is one reason why it’s so hard to choose at all. (Everything is a test. Remember?)

Batman is a little harder because he’s not physiologically a superhero (i.e. with Superman, you might just say ‘alien genes – whatever’). There’s the same problem here of bouncing back and forth, but Bruce Wayne is no less an act than Clark Kent. In the first Tim Burton Batman, there’s a great date sequence where Bruce has Vicky Vale over for dinner. They start out having dinner at a table so long they can’t even hear each other, and Bruce says he’s not even sure if he’d ever even been in that room before. So they go and continue their dinner in Alfred’s servant’s kitchen, where Alfred tells stories about Bruce as a kid, Vicky is enthralled, but Bruce is distant. Whatever. Maybe he was just thinking about Vicky’s boobs or the new rims on the Batmobile. Later, though, after Bruce and Vicky have given each other a thorough physical, Vicky wakes up and sees Bruce-man hanging upside down on some contraption in the corner, hands crossed over his chest vampire-style, and snoring gently. He can’t sleep in a bed; he has to be upside down like a bat. This is weird in itself, but it’s even weirder when you remember that Bruce is terrified of bats. He doesn’t just use them as his mascot and build his secret headquarters in their cave, he needs to affect their sleeping habits in order to get any sleep himself. Multiple but simultaneous personalities.

 Then there’s the death wish. He gets shot in the movie. Not just as Batman, which you can hardly avoid, but as Bruce Wayne – twice. Once is in front of city hall where the Joker’s just assassinated a politician after a speech and his henchmen are making full use of their 2nd amendment rights on reporters and bystanders. Bruce doesn’t duck, doesn’t run, nothing. He’s apparently wearing body armour, but not on his head, and isn’t ducking kinda natural, like jolting when startled? The second time he’s at Vicky Vale’s apartment, Joker and henchmen stop by looking for trouble, and instead of not confronting his arch rival without all his Batman kit, Bruce just walks into the room in a suit. ‘sup!’. He gets shot, which he was expecting, as indicated by the tray he had surreptitiously shoved up his shirt. The reason he’s so attracted to Joker and danger simultaneously is the same as with the bats. Joker scared him as a kid, when he killed Bruce’s parents and almost killed him. Bruceman is terrified of bats, so he lives with them and imitates them; he’s afraid of Joker, so he provokes the object of his fear into terrifying him. DIY exposure therapy, I guess.

Okay, so Superman was defined by his ambivalence, Batman is defined by his fear. Superman couldn’t commit, Batman is totally committed to one thing, but it’s absolutely obsessive. It’s not about overcoming the fear, it’s about revelling in it. It’s a high, an addiction. Why? If the fear defines him, what’s left if you take it away? Whereas Superman was three things at once and couldn’t commit, Batman is totally committed and no longer sees the possibility of choosing otherwise. He has to throw himself into the terror to keep his connection to it.

What if only the weak need weapons? The abyss just follows you.

The same thing happens to some cancer patients who start with shaky identities. The world tells you cancer is a humongous problem, a life altering event, and the word is enough. No particular pathology and prognosis can qualify the connotative howitzer of ‘cancer’. Try posting on facebook that you have totally treatable cancer and it’s been diagnosed early and is under control. You will witness a thermonuclear explosion of sympathy. And it’s something you can’t screw with; faking it for a day off work won’t be forgiven as it might be for a cold. Anyway, some people who get the diagnosis define themselves as cancer patients, then as ‘cancer survivors’ once they hear the word ‘remission’, and then when those magic five years are up (1826 days, not 1820 or 1917), the title of ‘survivor’ is revoked, and they’re lost. The same thing happens with slight variation to pregnant women, recovering addicts of all sorts, etc. What’s left if you take that one life-changing and defining thing away? Phobia is Batman’s cancer, and he’d rather fellate Penguin than get treatment.

That’s the second reason it’s hard to choose: sometimes the choice involves foreclosing on the one thing you are (not the many you could be), and having to reinvent yourself from scratch. Thanks for the invite, but I’ll stay in tonight, where it’s safe and comfortable.

Spiderman is even harder because Peter Parker actually struck paydirt with Spiderman. It’s what he always wanted. It was a massive upgrade. But again, he hides that identity (compare this with Johnny in the Fantastic Four movies, who brags about it). Great power comes with great responsibility, right? He just wants to protect the ones he loves, right? Good enough to put on the tombstone, but it’s not what’s eating Peter. Imagine it from his perspective. He had been fantasizing about being something like Spiderman for a while before he became just that. Yes, this includes sexual fantasy, and yes, that’s a certain fact because he’s the right age: on the downslope of puberty and dying to use all that new physiological equipment. (If you doubt that, consider that the most blatant sign of his potency is to, uh, squirt sticky web juice all over town – in unlimited frequency and supply.) Every teenage boy fantasizes about being a superhero with some form of supreme potency, and when some of these teenagers turn 30, they might buy guns; at 50 it’ll be a Harley.

Dr. Freud has a pill for that.

So if Peter the math Olympiad runner-up has become his own fantasy, how devastating would it be to have Mary-Jane discover that he is his own fantasy? The high-minded way to interpret this is that he’s afraid she’ll just love the powers and not the Peter, so he has to get her to love Peter independently of the powers. Yeah. Maybe. (you could apply the same logic to Clark/Superman and Lois if Clark weren’t a way bigger doofus than farmboy) The other possibility is that it would kill the fantasy. If he’s really Spiderman and she knows about Peter, he has to deal with that reality, and kids and mortgages and fights about the dishes might ensue, which cannot happen to fantasy-Spiderman. In order for Spiderman to be worth fantasizing about, part of him has to remain the geeky Peter looking up to Spiderman as a superior self (which is why you can’t be equally committed to your Harley and your wife). They can’t remain in the same head if Spiderman is to be special, super-human senses or not: “Oh yeah, Saturday mornings I’m Spiderman, afternoons I clean the apartment and watch my kids while the wife has mom’s day out.”

So the third reason it’s hard to choose? The ideal Self you’ve been carrying around in your wallet like an optimism-condom for the last 5 years will have to face reality, and nobody can stay ideal in reality. Reality has an irresistible talent for making things real.

Superman is committed to multiple possibilities, which prevents him from committing to anything else or even one possibility. Analogue Guy you know: is 3 credits away from 3 different degrees; has never had a single relationship longer than 3 months but quite a few of them; gets increasingly bitter with age. Result: no progress, just more frustration as each birthday reveals another wanna-be to be a never-was.

Batman is absolutely committed to his pathology, and he’ll nix anything that gets in its way. Analogue Guy you know: most noticeable changes are bounces from one addiction to the next, even if it’s just vidya games; pushes away any help; relationships are short and stormy; sabotages any apparent improvements; obsessed with some claimed but apparently manageable ‘sickness’. Result: there’s a word for people devoted to their own pathologies, and it’s not flattering.

Spiderman is absolutely committed to an ideal image of himself, and he protects it anxiously from reality. Analogue Guy you know: obsessed with cleanliness/orderliness/a certain style and will reject people and possibilities that detract from it; is willing to take ‘roids that’ll eat his balls if they’ll help his biceps; dating is more like shopping for an accessory; grooms, tans, and considers plastic surgery while still oddly young; might be ‘successful’, but will sell everyone’s mother for a better-sounding title. Result: the Situation, Goldman-Sachs, Lance Armstrong, late-imperial dreams of the good ol’ days returning.

So those are 3 possible reasons why it’s so hard for people to choose to change and follow it through. Before the choice even came up, they had already chosen something else. Either some pathology, which they wear like Gorbachev’s birthmark right on their foreheads, or a self-image that other people could only ruin, or maybe just the ability to keep all their options open and stand at the buffet without having to fill a plate.

They always look great until somebody actually touches them.

PS: Here’s some more topical wisdom via @FrugalStoic: https://twitter.com/FrugalStoic/status/294310043694821377

Categories: Arcana, Long Form, Movie Reviews, Philosophy, Pop Culture, Psychoanalysis.

But wait, there's more! Follow @PoMoDotCom or subscribe to our feed.

Comment Feed

14 Responses

  1. What does it say about someone when they choose the bust of a long-dead philosopher for an avatar/internet identity? In seriousness, Epictetus has some good advice along these lines. Be one person in all situations, and don’t choose a character above your capabilities (or without considering reality). Otherwise, you might miss out on being the best person you can possibly be.

  2. Sorry to be off-topic. Is this where TLP/PO people are coming to submit stuff while Pastabagel is AWOL and only Alone has posting privileges on PO?

  3. Howdy, Or. Yeah, sorta. It started as a way to carry the PO torch a little further, and there’s probably gonna be a lot of TLPish/POey content, but it doesn’t have to be restricted to that. A noticeable difference is that there isn’t a single gatekeeper (i.e. Pastabagel), so there should be more continuity. You’ll also notice that our categories so far include stuff like fiction and current events, and we got nothing against long form posts, as opposed to the 250 word deal pastabagel imposed. We also seem to have some people stopping by I don’t recall seeing at PO.

    If you got somethin’ to contribute, type it up and send it to editors@postmodernize.com . I can’t promise anything, being just one part of the whole, but we’re pretty eclectic and tolerant.

  4. It means that everything seems like a good idea at the time, but that moment need not be permanent.

  5. The Batman isn’t afraid of the Joker, Batman is an Apollo figure, he’s the ideal of that stoic heroism. The Joker is the more Dionysian reveler of madness. Neither of them are afraid, which is why the element of implanting fear into criminals proves his character literally is the Night. A void to differentiate the scum and the innocent, those who run have something to hide.

    Whatever the case, I wouldn’t say that Batman in the movies or in the comics is having an adrenaline pump-off contest with his comrades and foes for the thrill of it, it’s just the the fatalistic nature of ‘Bruceman’; his parent dies at the age of ten, afterwards vows that no one should ever have to go through with the pain of losing a parent the way he did, ends up having an adrenaline pump-off contest with all sorts of weirdos, so is that part his fault or the inherent Hellish nature of Gotham?

  6. In Batman Begins, the writers have his character (as Batman, not BW) deliver the line, “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.”

    In the eyes of others, indeed. However, what you do is very much a function of what you are inside – by their fruits you shall know them. But what you are inside is mostly a compendium of your adjustments to all the erstwhile glances of others in your life, so we wind up in this oddly recursive formation of identity.

    Are we to find worth within, or without? And must the search be mutually exclusive? I suspect that much of our suffering comes through falsely dichotomizing the locus of ‘self’-worth.

  7. The Apollonian vs. Dionysian terms are kind of ideal-typical forms of character that someone on the outside developed to categorize experience. I was trying to lay out what’s going on on the inside. Both can be valid depending on the goal, they’re just different projects.

  8. what you do is very much a function of what you are inside

    In the beginning was the deed. The point of the last post was that, even if there is some internal essence, some content to the words ‘who you are inside’, you have no access to it other than through your actions.
    By their fruits you shall know them…agreed, but the focus should be on the fruits, not on ‘them’.

    As for how & where to find worth, whether inside or outside, my hunch is that the standards have to be internal (the most important gaze is your own, and most of those you attribute to others are your own projections on to them anyway) but the activity has to be directed towards others.

    I’d love to hear your thoughts more extensively. Feel free to submit something. And while I’m working the audience, let me say that we were hoping to attract a clever crowd, and this is much better than I’d expected after being live for only about a for a month. It’s hackneyed, but give yourselves a round of applause.

  9. Ah, good show. I feel that you are right to draw out the point that the real mover and shaker of personal deeds is our own self-regard for the felt inadequacy/worthiness/whatever that WE PERCEIVE as being conveyed by the gaze of another. As you say, this truly is our only access to ourselves. This is why it is so dangerous when we act simultaneously as the star and scriptwriter of our very own box-office biopic; doing so allows us to sidestep the feelings we have about the feedback of others, and instead simply other-ize said feedback and file it away as irrelevant character/plot development so that we may go about our merry lives unaffected.

    At root, this process begins (ends? continues? chickens and eggs here) with an internal sentiment projected onto the internally-received feedback from an external reality (which is itself affected by our internal world externalizations), which will then be assimilated internally (projected significance and all) and thus become part of the internal future causative basis for our external acts, which will be then subject to future scrutiny from external sources that we will perceive in light of our internal prejudices, which are themselves a function of all of this rinsed, lathered, and repeated ad nauseam.
    Now, if that seems obtuse, it should be.

    Though a minor bone to pick – why bother focussing solely on the fruit? Isn’t there something sort of magical in being unable to tease out much separation between agent and application of agency? As I said, it’s a recursive nightmare from one angle. From another it’s a laughably absurd and amusing way of going about things, one which we are (mostly)* powerless to alter. Might as well dive in then, eh?

    *hedging here – I can’t actually think of a way that we could change this, which is why I am more liable to see this process in light of the latter. That being said, I don’t want to negate the potential… ideas?

  10. why bother focussing solely on the fruit? Isn’t there something sort of magical in being unable to tease out much separation between agent and application of agency?

    So isn’t it whimsical to be the existential cat in Schroedinger’s box, oscillating to and fro between your identity as you define it and its patent manifestations outside you so fast that you never get stuck in either? Yeah, it might be whimsical in the sense of fun and frivolous, but there might be more to it than frivolity.

    The world is simply too awful for me to sit back and revel in my meta-postie detachment for long without suffering pangs of conscience. It need not be all toil – a beer after a hard day’s work is good for sanity – but the work isn’t going anywhere. The world is going to suck until somebody does something about it, so you’re left with the choice of giggling under your umbrella or fighting the rain. There’s room for doubt about whether the Guy giggling is really amused or denying his own discomfort, but the Guy fighting the rain knows what he’s doing, even if it’s probably pointless. Buzzkill, I know.

  11. I guess my point was not that it’s all rainbows and sunshine and puppies, but rather that there’s an appreciable mystery (in the way the Catholics might use the word) to the whole thing, making it worthy of a certain respect as a gestalt. There was some reference to this in my first reply – we put a significant amount of effort into assigning a locus to the process of identity formation, which might be futile because if not regarded lightly and as a whole, we’re liable to get into some too-serious postmodernized partial-objectifying (which has the ancillary of allowing us never to leave our couches… woe to those that would use it this way).

    Your third paragraph is likewise the crux question in my own life, as I suspect it ends up being for most folks at some point or other.

    Conscience knows no real assuagement other than that of action in the directions it indicates – and it’s not going anywhere, anytime soon (and let’s be honest, the drugs only help for a little while – take it from me).

    Which is why it seems the most apropos response is to dive in as conscience directs. All this analysis of identity is well and good, so long as it does not purport to substitute for living the process. And I suspect that you and I are of a mind that the process mostly consists of responding, in so much as we can, to whatever raindrops come our way. After all, no fruit without a little rain.

    And ditto on the beer.

  12. And FWIW, there absolutely is room to giggle while getting drenched. Because if you don’t stop to laugh at life, the universe, and everything now and again, you’re liable to become an intolerable pain to all those around you, no matter how noble your efforts to keep others dry.

  13. the most apropos response is to dive in as conscience directs. All this analysis of identity is well and good, so long as it does not purport to substitute for living the process.

    Amen.

Got insight?

Continuing the Discussion

  1. [...] That’s important and hard to overstate. You can also read that line poetically, in the sense of Spiderman, in which case it’s on to something, or you can take it literally, in which case you’re lying [...]