Are Superheroes Fascist By Modern Standards?

[Cicada 5]

I found this interview with Eric Kripke, the showrunner for The Boys, where he made this argument.

THR: I was thinking about that as I watched the show's Nazism themes boil to a head this season. Does any of The Boys come out of personal experience? And speaking of Supermen, where does Homelander lie on the spectrum of white nationalism?

Kripke: A few things: The myth of superheroes themselves — though often created by young Jewish writers in the '30s and '40s — doesn’t really apply as cleanly today, because there’s these undeniable fascist underpinnings to it. They’re there to protect white, patriotic America. That’s what they were designed to do, that’s what they do. They’re protecting the status quo. When the status quo is problematic, suddenly they become adversarial — not your hero. And I think it was written by a lot of people who at that time were trying their level best to fit in and vanish within white, American society.

But we just don’t live in that time anymore. So the myth of the superhero taken straight, that’s where it starts to become fascist. Because they’re protecting a world that doesn’t and shouldn’t exist. Superheroes are inherently MAGA. In terms of Stormfront, there was nothing specifically personal behind it. It was just, I hate Nazis. I hate alt-right white nationalism. I hate racism in all of its forms. [/QUOTE[

"We’re Living in the Dumbest Dystopia": 'The Boys' Boss on His Superhero Hit | Hollywood Reporter

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Maybe too all encompassing but to some degree can see it. They're often on the side of government and law and in those cases can see how that easily leads to those leanings. Not gonna say always without thinking about it more but close enough. When not aligned in that way may be easier not to be? Think the genre varies enough not all will be

 

[Hawki]

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Well, I think it's putting too much weight on superheroes, who primarily exist for entertainment, but the thesis above seems spurious. As in:

A few things: The myth of superheroes themselves — though often created by young Jewish writers in the '30s and '40s — doesn’t really apply as cleanly today, because there’s these undeniable fascist underpinnings to it.

For starters, this is a veiled allusion to Superman, but while he may be the de facto superhero, the concept existed well before him. And Superman isn't fascist. Supes could go fascist if he wanted to (see Injustice), but he doesn't. I mean, "fascism" has been thrown around so much that it's lost all meaning, but I don't know what train of thought could get us to think this.

They’re there to protect white, patriotic America. That’s what they were designed to do, that’s what they do. They’re protecting the status quo. When the status quo is problematic, suddenly they become adversarial — not your hero.

We're getting really broad here.

Characters like Supes and Captain America certainly have elements of patriotism to them - Supes would go on about "truth, justice, and the American way," Captain America is, well, Captain America. But the idea that superheroes are there to preserve the status quo? Well, the X-Men are one key anti-status quo thing there. Spider-Man's main concern is finding time to do his homework alongside fighting crime. I mean, superheroes usually operate under the premise that the status quo is bad, so they do what they can to alleviate it. It's why Bruce Wayne dresses up as a flying rodent every night, because the status quo in Gotham is terrible.

If the argument is that superheroes should overturn the status quo, then that's an argument that he can make, but generally, every time comics have done that, it's been bad. Again, see Supes. But a thing about superheroes is that they often operate under the premise that status quo is king. Bruce Wayne will never clear up Gotham. The X-Men will never live in a world where mutants and humans share flowers together. To do so removes the raison d'etre for their existence.

But we just don’t live in that time anymore. So the myth of the superhero taken straight, that’s where it starts to become fascist. Because they’re protecting a world that doesn’t and shouldn’t exist. Superheroes are inherently MAGA.

There's not much to say here, but the last line does kind of convey the idea that superheroes are a uniquely American phenomenon, which of course isn't the case. The originator? Sure, arguably. But not unique.

Anyway, I think it's pretty silly. Like I said, superheroes are mainly escapist fantasy, and when they're not, they're allagory at best. Something I've commented a lot on various Arrowverse shows is that whenever they try to explore politics, they're terrible at it. Not that you can't have political alagory in superhero material, but you're shooting yourself in the foot right out of the gate. It's why I've often said that the X-Men are a poor metaphor for minorities, because in-universe, humanity has every reason to be wary of mutants.

 

[Gordon_4]

I found this interview with Eric Kripke, the showrunner for The Boys, where he made this argument.

Oh Christ, this load of old bullshit again. This dickhead does realise the Seven are supervillains with insanely good PR, right?

 

[Dalisclock]

Oh Christ, this load of old bullshit again. This dickhead does realise the Seven are supervillains with insanely good PR, right?

And corporate legal protection, which is as good as a get out of jail free card when combined with the aforementioned insanely good PR.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh Christ, this load of old bullshit again. This dickhead does realise the Seven are supervillains with insanely good PR, right?

Yeah they are a shit comparison to regular superheroes. Idt it means some might not have some undertones if one considers them but the material from the Boys is not comparable

 

[Neuromancer]

Wow, it's like Watchmen never existed and subverting superheroic idealist bullshit is something new!

That being said, by and large superhero comics are too childish and simple to even have that much of a subtext. Giving it such subtext is being generous to the writing, even.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I mean, sort of.

Fascism isn't generally about preserving the status quo. Fascism is about rejuvenating a society that is seen as broken and decadent and restoring that society to its original purpose. The idea of a world in which the good guys always win easily and the status quo is always right isn't a fascist fantasy, it's a conservative fantasy. It becomes a fascist fantasy when conservatives become disillusioned with the fact that reality doesn't work that way and turn into fascists.

When you look at those old superhero comics of the 50s and 60s, superheroes are typically just cops with laser eyes. They're there to preserve the status quo, but there aren't really any major threats to the status quo beyond generic criminals who want to steal money.

I mean, there are superhero stories which explicitly or implictly have fascist overtones, and you could easily argue they've become more common as superhero stories now feel the need to serve as political commentary. But I wouldn't describe superheroes in general as politically fascist. Conservative, sure, authoritarian, sure, chauvanistic, sure. Fascist.. hmm..

But I can't escape the fact that something about the idea of superheroes makes me deeply uncomfortable.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, they generally aren't a million miles away from having fascist elements at the best of times, and a writer can walk up and maybe cross the line without noticing it. Better fighting subversive elements of society (who often are inherently bad), don't have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, often are inherently better people (or rich). Tread with care there.

Though, that applies to all sorts of genres, superheroes tend to have more than their fair share of problems that way, but they're not alone.

 

[Hawki]

Come to think of it, aren't most superheroes just vigilantes?

If I dress up in spandex and beat up criminals at night, does that make me a fascist or a vigilante? You could say both, granted.

 

[stroopwafel]

Well no, because the world they inhabit is also completely fictional. There is no nuance in 'good vs evil' so these stories are by definition very simplistic. Which makes sense ofcourse, their demographic is mostly children and teenagers. They are escapist fantasy not intended for thorough analysis. You'd really need to subvert the superhero tropes for interesting storytelling which, you know, espescially many DC comics have done. Even the Joker movie to a degree. As a mood piece it communicated it's social themes through strong visual storytelling alone. It gave subtext to Batman's most iconic villain as a sort of critique on the system. I would love a Batman movie with a similar kind of ambiguity.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh Christ, this load of old bullshit again. This dickhead does realise the Seven are supervillains with insanely good PR, right?

Of course he does, he's the showrunner. That's the point: how much differentiates The Seven from publicly-recognizable superheroes like Superman etc?

They both cause massive collateral damage, and they're both protected by insanely good PR. They both aren't truly answerable to any authority. In both cases, the public just have to trust in their good nature.

And this has all been explored in DC and Marvel comics themselves: Civil War, Daredevil, Punisher, Lex Luthor, Red Son, etc etc.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It gave subtext to Batman's most iconic villain as a sort of critique on the system

So the system is the problem, but the only way it's effectively(?) addressed is a rich guy who beats up criminals. Can't imagine why anyone would think that's a bit fashy.

 

[BrawlMan]

No. And while we're on the subject of the show, I've heard nothing but good things, but I still have next to no interest. It doesn't help that I really don't like deconstructions that much. Especially when it just boils down to nihilism and everything is pointless. Or the argument is "I'm not like those other comic book heroes". There are comics that have done this before, but most are not good and only a few are successful for it.

 

[stroopwafel]

So the system is the problem, but the only way it's effectively(?) addressed is a rich guy who beats up criminals. Can't imagine why anyone would think that's a bit fashy.

Yep, that's why I said I would love to see a Batman film with a similar kind of ambiguity. I don't think it has anything to do with fascism. That word gets thrown around so much it's practically meaningless now. A person can be neglected by the system but that doesn't mean their crimes, or the crimes they want to commit, are any less heinous. The two aren't mutually exclusive. That person still has to be stopped and usually that can't be accomplished over tea with some bonbons. But it would be cool to have a Batman movie that really struggles with this issue. Also even in the current Batman mythos the Wayne foundation does a tremendous amount to invest in social welfare.

 

[happyninja42]

No, the concept of superheroes in general isn't fascist, but depending on the quality of the writing, and the type of hero made, they can certainly lean that way. But writers often make a point to show how certain heroes are NOT what people think they stand for, by doing the story arc where they die/retire/get lost in a time dimension in a child's globe, whatever. And then someone else fills in the shoes. And that character is very often portrayed as doing the things that people accuse the original hero of doing, or that they should do. And they show "yeah no, see this is BAD. You don't want your Batman/Captain America like this." People ***** about the change, claiming it's tarnishing the OG heroes reputation, and invariably, the OG comes back, and reclaims their mantle, and all is well again, at least in the image of the hero and their goal.

I do agree that often the seed for a hero concept, might not fit as well when it's, you know, 100 freaking years later. But I mean yeah? Welcome to the world. Characters written back in the victorian era didn't gel well with modern sensibilities back in the 20th century either, much less the 21st. That's just how the world works. So you have to rebuild them to some degree, to reflect the changing world. Or, just stop using them, and make new ones. But that never really happens, because they are guaranteed money, so they just make Elseworld takes on them, while keeping one version the default line.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

On topic.
One of Superman's stories I think it's What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way? is about him essentially being confronted by a group who imply his methods are bad because he won't kill. He has a line and his position is to let the justice systems etc deal with criminals it's not his job to be the judge. So he's not really a fascist in that respect

Oh Christ, this load of old bullshit again. This dickhead does realise the Seven are supervillains with insanely good PR, right?

Some of them are.

Maeve is arguably just ground down to ambivalence and just trying to distract herself from how she feels she's not making a difference.

Black Noir may be going the comic way or may be not but he's not a supervillain per say he'd be an Anti Hero.

The Deep is just an Asshole with libido issues.

Same with Lamplighter but with anger issues.

Starlight is pretty close to being a hero outright.

Homelander is closet to being a supervillain just because he doesn't care and just sees having power as a go to do what he likes.

A Train has some kind of ego issues but he's not an outright supervillain kind of person but he's no hero either.

 

[Gordon_4]

On topic.
One of Superman's stories I think it's What's So Funny About Truth, Justice & the American Way? is about him essentially being confronted by a group who imply his methods are bad because he won't kill. He has a line and his position is to let the justice systems etc deal with criminals it's not his job to be the judge. So he's not really a fascist in that respect

He also proved his point by playing on Manchester Black and the Elite's level for all of ten minutes. It was appropriately terrifying.

 

[Shadyside]

Well Batman is basically a hardass military cop in a couple of incarnations.

 

[happyninja42]

Well Batman is basically a hardass military cop in a couple of incarnations.

Yeah see that's the thing, the classic characters that we use as templates whenever this discussion come up, are themselves, not really any one thing. They alter from era to era, and writer to writer. Whether it's an "elseworld" take on the character, or just some really opinionated writer who was given a lot of liberty to take the character in crazy ways, that has to be course corrected by the subsequent writer in a retcon.

So it's really a futile discussion, as none of them are ever one thing. Comic book characters are a lens we often use to focus on certain aspects of our culture.